Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - Official Forums

General Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kadian on November 09, 2016, 07:24:53 AM

Title: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Kadian on November 09, 2016, 07:24:53 AM
As it stands now, Trump has 266 votes and can get up to 40 more. He is winning, by a landslide, he basically just needs to get one more state to win.

What I want to hear now are opinions about this. Or if you are American, even better, you could share some insights for outsiders like me: What is the appeal to vote for Trump? I just don't understand it, and I would like to hear others if they anticipated Trump to win.

Of course, I shall start with my own opinion, in order to start the discussion:
As some of you know, I'm not from the USA. I look as an outsider at this mess of an election, and for the last few months I was firm in my believe that nobody with a sound mind would vote Trump instead of Clinton.
'Why' is easily explained. Trump isn't as intelligent as Clinton, he tells lies whenever he opens his mouth, he insulted at least half the population of the USA, and obviously, he has no experience with politics. If someone thinks that leading an enterprise or a company is basically the same thing - no, it's not.
I'll be honest here. I'm looking as an European at this mess at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. I thought that Bernie Sanders - yes, that 'socialist jew' as some would call him - would have been the best option for the USA. He would have actually helped the poor people and would have taken the money from the rich people, and he could have changed the USA for the better in the long run. But he lost to Clinton, so that was out of the question. I don't like Hillary, but she was the lesser of two evils, in my opinion.

Anyways, opinions, go! Also, if, by some miracle, Clinton wins, we can talk about this too, and speak about how close Trump actually was.

disclaimer: I'm using the numbers from http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president (http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president) ; other networks have different numbers, but overall it's the same everywhere, Trump is winning.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Rivet on November 09, 2016, 07:44:34 AM
Looks like the orange guy has 276, so we have our winner.

If you'll excuse me I'm going to go have a drink or three.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Shopkeeper on November 09, 2016, 07:47:29 AM
NBC just confirmed Clinton called Trump to concede... Make America Great Again Baby!
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Profugo Barbatus on November 09, 2016, 08:16:49 AM
As a Canadian who's been watching this election with great interest... I have to admit I am having quite the laugh at the expense of all my friends in the states who didn't bother to vote because "Nobody would actually elect Trump".

There's enough salt water here to fill up a tanker.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Caconym on November 09, 2016, 08:53:35 AM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/12XMGIWtrHBl5e/giphy.gif)


Anyone want to start a betting pool for when trump starts World War 3?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Ferodaktyl on November 09, 2016, 09:54:27 AM
another non-murican here :P
Trump is a lot of the things i dont like, but boy, do i hate Hillary .... she represents EVERYTHING i hate in a politician : pro-corporate, pro-globalization, hidden agendas, corruption, need i continue ... so i'd rather have a populist clown with delusions of grandeur than a machiavelic malevolent witch at the helm of USA.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Quin91 on November 09, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
Aussie here. Me, I'll vote for anyone who'll throw a wrench in the works. So I would of voted for Trump.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Kadian on November 09, 2016, 12:12:13 PM
Trump is a lot of the things i dont like, but boy, do i hate Hillary .... she represents EVERYTHING i hate in a politician : pro-corporate, pro-globalization, hidden agendas, corruption, need i continue ... so i'd rather have a populist clown with delusions of grandeur than a machiavelic malevolent witch at the helm of USA.

It's entirely different when you consider that said populist is someone who hates most foreigners and sits on one of the largest Pile of Nuclear Weapons and commands the best army in the world. At least with Clinton you were sure that she wouldn't consider war as a valid option.
Also, do you really think Trump is NOT pro-corporate? he is the owner of quite huge enterprises, everything that's good for corporations are also good for him. And what'S wrong with globalization? That's the future, and it would be good to embrace it while there is still time.
As to hidden agendas...I agree. Corruption...yaaah, Pretty sure Trump, with his background, could end up being corrupted too. 'nuff said there.

Aussie here. Me, I'll vote for anyone who'll throw a wrench in the works. So I would of voted for Trump.
Anarchist there? The last time someone threw a 'wrench' into the german democracy we ended up with Hitler. And not too long ago a revolution in turkey tried to throw a 'wrench' as well, and look how they ended up. Death Penalty, Censorship, it is on its way to become an autocracy.
Of course, nobody says that something similar will happen with Trump. But there will be damage to the democratic system thanks to this whole mess.

If you'll excuse me I'm going to go have a drink or three.
I recommend a whole bottle of your best mecian Tequila. You won't have one in a loooong time from now on.

---
On a completely different note: Do you think someone should add a Trump-hat to the game? As remnant of one of americas darkest days (Or brightest one, depending on the person asked), a faded, reddish cap with the message "Ma** Am**i* g**a* ag*i*!", and the survivor would be puzzled about the message. "What does 'Me Am Igaagi!' mean..."
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 09, 2016, 01:43:11 PM
Trump is the least worst case scenario.

So I'm okay with this.  Please remember that the media shitsorm machine isn't always omnipotent.  It's easy to hate somebody you only ever hear bad bad nasty propaganda about
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: StopSignal on November 09, 2016, 03:39:10 PM
I know it was a hard choice between two really bad politicians, but at least one had an actual training and career as one? I really can't think of anything good that could come out of this. It's a thing of principles for me at least, his campaign was solely based on bad pr and with a racist undertone, and I don't think that should ever be a good way to get people to vote you, unless you want the hate of all the other countries in the world. It will just make the already built up tension of racism in the us grow and get stronger. I'm not from there, but I do know people that live there, and quite a few are latinos. I just hope all this tension building up doesn't explode on them. It's scary.
He might not have laws against immigrants that travelled legally and that have everything right, as I read, but the way the campaign went down and how it was seen has racism all over it. And that's horrible.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Rhodri on November 09, 2016, 05:57:02 PM
Trump won the election.

Feels good man.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: dragoduval on November 09, 2016, 07:53:19 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/12XMGIWtrHBl5e/giphy.gif)


Anyone want to start a betting pool for when trump starts World War 3?

6 months max, we will have world twitter war 5. Maybe even 6 in the same week.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 09, 2016, 08:04:18 PM
Lol its nice to see people react to trump the way i reacted to obama
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 09, 2016, 08:52:11 PM
I know it was a hard choice between two really bad politicians, but at least one had an actual training and career as one? I really can't think of anything good that could come out of this. It's a thing of principles for me at least, his campaign was solely based on bad pr and with a racist undertone, and I don't think that should ever be a good way to get people to vote you, unless you want the hate of all the other countries in the world. It will just make the already built up tension of racism in the us grow and get stronger. I'm not from there, but I do know people that live there, and quite a few are latinos. I just hope all this tension building up doesn't explode on them. It's scary.
He might not have laws against immigrants that travelled legally and that have everything right, as I read, but the way the campaign went down and how it was seen has racism all over it. And that's horrible.
Racism is an overused term.  I could argue for the exact same things you think Trump is and never mention race once.

for instance; we need to track immigration and document them.  For reasons of tax, for reasons of population, for reasons of census, crisis prevention and mitigation, and even welfare expenditure and infrastructure planning.

Letting people come in to the country without knowing about them and their past, without collecting taxes from their work or enforcing labor laws, letting them be unexpected and unpredictable expenditures is bad; detrimental.


Whatever trump sounded like, the reality is that some of the ideas he has are not bad.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: TheFlame52 on November 09, 2016, 10:18:01 PM
Nobody look at me, I voted for Richard Duncan.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: StopSignal on November 09, 2016, 10:28:39 PM
Oh I know, and I really don't want to start a debate here, but I'll try to clear up. I do know his laws are against illegal inmigration, it's just that saying that discrimination against people of different races wasn't a part of the campaign at all would be, in my opinion, not saying the truth.
I seriously hope that he does good stuff, I seriously do, but I fear that it will be quite a hard time for latinos up there. The wall, is, I guess, something reasonable, even if debatable, but the statement of making mexico pay for it is insulting at the least, condemning a whole country of being a problem at worst. It's seriously insulting for all the people I know, and I'm not even from Mexico. Maybe you see it that way, maybe you don't, and that's ok, but the fact is that it still makes a huge division on what everyone thinks of your country.

Now I'll try to not reply anymore, as I really don't want to think about it. But I seriously hope best of luck for all of us! Hope you made a good decision, I really do.

EDIT: I had wrote normal instead of illegal inmigration.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: RipRoarinBoogerPenis on November 10, 2016, 03:06:16 AM
Voted Trump, gotta fight that globalization fam
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Pthalocy on November 10, 2016, 07:24:36 AM
The whole electoral system needs a wrecking ball. Sadly, putting a wrecking ball in charge after an election doesn't actually break the system immediately. I was pro Bernie, but I'm a Canadian. No vote for me. I would likely have voted for Hillary, as Trump is outright verbally hostile to a number of minority groups, some of which I am a part of. But I do not like Hillary. If anything her competence makes her more able to use the government systems more effectively to actually do something, and I don't really like what she's proposed. She's really just a guarantee that we'll see more of the same flavours of corruption America's political shitshow has been offering for decades.


If we're doing the straightup comparison of current US politics and 1930's Germany, there's some big key differences. While my understanding of it is fuzzy, I know the German electoral system had a few fundamental differences that let it get abused and turned into what it did under the Nazi regime. US politics has no good way of breaking out of gridlock. If Obama wants universal healthcare and congress sits there sitting on their hands saying "naw", you get years of time wasted and a lot of tired people.

That same inability to get shit done is a mechanism that will also keep Trump from trying to declare war. I don't think the president can even declare war independently like that? That same gridlock of congress approval is what's also gonna keep Trump's powers as President from changing any time soon. It's tedious government, but it stops sudden dictators pretty damn well.

If america did go to war: who with? Compared to Germany, USA doesn't exactly have many neighbouring nations it can quietly walk into and occupy. Mexico? Places in South America? Canada? I mean I guess you could invade the place you export all your cheap labour to, but then it wouldn't be export? I guess you could invade Canada, but it'd cost a fuck of a lot less to just make us a deeper business partner. Anywhere the United States might consider going to war with is very likely to be a long distance engagement, along the lines of the same shit we've been seeing for years with fighting in various Middle Eastern countries. And while it was shitty, it was not even close to World War territory.

I guess America could throw rocks at Russia, but who the fuck wants to do that? How is that lucrative? It's fucking Russia. Shooting anything long-distance is just gonna scare everybody else, meaning little support from other nations. Anything shooting over Canada as a shortcut rather than from undersea subs is just gonna jeopardize friendly relations with us, and that's bad for business. It's doubly bad for business because sending troops, ships, planes, weapons, supplies overseas isn't cheap either.

Threatening with nukes? We've been there before, it was USA and Russia holding their fingers over the big red buttons and nobody wanted to do it. Nobody wants that. Nukes are a thing you say you'll use and you never fucking do. Talking about using nukes and getting the actual permissions to go ahead and do so is also worlds apart.


You're far more likely to see four years of tedious nonsense that goes nowhere like Obamacare did, some real dumb, bad, but reversible laws get shoved through and then petitioned to death by the common people. Or delayed, which is fine too, delays keep the internet free! My money's (hah) on another major depression, like a 100 year anniversary of the 1920's. My concerns are more for the riots that will follow, as voters stick to their 'allegiances' post election. My fear is for the people who take Trump's "lets get rid of all the illegal immigrants" and interpret it as a free pass to be violent toward these ethnic groups. I am far more concerned by the reaction to Trump than Trump himself right now. And I don't even live in your country.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Findulidas on November 10, 2016, 08:48:59 AM
Yeah, good luck with Trump americans. I remember last time you elected back bush and we had a global recession cos of his financial smarts, now you have a president who seems to think running a country is like running corporations. Not saying hillary would be a good president but trump has the diplomatic and economical skills on the level of berlusconi and hes making a fool of himself by a weekly basis. The only hope we have is that hes surrounded by people who actually knows anything and he listens to them.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 10, 2016, 02:21:40 PM
I cannot believe people think trump will round up dirty brownskins by gunpoint and deport or declare war on 'xyz'.

I can't.  The man will have a cadre of cabinet personell who ecist because they know their job, the generals didn't change suddenly, and he lacks the motives for anything if this sort of.

Holy hell like do people take the same rhetoric that him into power as his true intentions?  This is ludicrous on the same level as people claim Obama was trying to be king forlife

Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on November 10, 2016, 05:57:06 PM
I'd disagree with some. Clinton was plainly the worse choice. Lying about policy, getting richer while in office, giving out contracts to friends, rigging the primaries, buying off the media, not having much substance in debates besides attacks (which surprised me, honestly, as I expected Trump would be the clear loser there), funneling weapons to potential enemies, thinking war with Russia would be simple, having a clear plan laid out for the use of nuclear weapons that could realistically see them used, covering up rape, evading taxes, being investigated twice by the FBI, bringing forgien politicians and past presidents in to try to influence the election, getting the US involved in 6 different wars (which you never seem to hear about), to name a few things, make her seem like a poor candidate.

Trump is a bit of an idiot, but he's really our generation's George Wallace rather than the monster he's been made out to be. Wallace ran on a platform of racism and hate, but after being elected to governor, he spent more of his time building roads and working on economic issues than actually standing by his "opinions". In his own words, he just had to "out nigger" the competition in order to be elected.

At best, Trump will prove reasonably competent (which I doubt, given his economic policies, which should be his strong point, are pretty much just broken Reaganomics). At worst, he will use his position to get richer, which Clinton was already doing.

I would have much rather seen Sanders vs. Paul, since that would have been two real choices who actually believe in something. That said, I think Sanders would have been a poor choice for the US. He would have been great for Canada (much better than our current PM), but his way of "fixing" their country would have just wrecked it further. Half of their problems that he made part of his platform are just the long term effects of the kind of legislation he was talking about introducing. High education costs, for example, don't exist because of lack of federal monies - they exist because the generation before us GOT lots of funding, and the schools realized they could charge more.

In the end, you guys dodged a bus, only to get hit by a mini-van. Had Johnson been able to shift his compact out of neutral, it probably would have run you over, too.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: TheFlame52 on November 10, 2016, 05:59:41 PM
We could argue about this all day. What's done is done.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on November 10, 2016, 06:01:32 PM
It's a thread asking for opinions and debate. CDDA is usually surprisingly civil when it comes to this. What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 10, 2016, 06:11:15 PM
Its all talking.  And people are better off talking here than making war somewhere else.  Or going to the dreaded echo chambers.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: dragoduval on November 10, 2016, 06:41:11 PM
I cannot believe people think trump will round up dirty brownskins by gunpoint and deport or declare war on 'xyz'.

I can't.  The man will have a cadre of cabinet personell who ecist because they know their job, the generals didn't change suddenly, and he lacks the motives for anything if this sort of.

Holy hell like do people take the same rhetoric that him into power as his true intentions?  This is ludicrous on the same level as people claim Obama was trying to be king forlife

Only post i make here then back to gaming, but sicne when does Trump listen to anyone ? THey had to take is twitter away from him for fucking sake !!!

Bu yea, im sure he wont be that bad. He's just a russian marrionet, so its the other madman who will decide what happen in the states  :D. Not that i care, im canadian :D. Just hope i dont get splash too much by the hell that's coming :D.


And now porn gaming.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 10, 2016, 06:45:05 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Voqar on November 11, 2016, 03:36:43 AM
Ignorance triumphs.

Shake things up?  Hardly.  Trump has zero idea about politics, running a country, international anything except maybe wife importing, nada, nothing. I'd be surprised if he has enough attention span to count to 20 uninterrupted.

Some of his ideas are terrible, some are decent, but ultimately, since he is going to need a lot of help to do anything, and he's going to be influenced by and tainted by the absolute worst of the republican party (the dregs that actually supported him openly that he'll now reward).

So basically, IMO, we're going to have Bush III or worse - a puppet that inflicts the absolute idiocy of the republican party.  Again.  They'll run the country into the ground.  Again.  Probably start several wars.  Ruin the economy - maybe finish what Bush attempted and put is in a depression.  All you non-americans who think this is awesome - how'd you like the global recession Bush caused when he tanked our economy and it affected the entire world?  Want more of that (which a lot of the world never recovered from)?  The rich will get richer and everybody else will get screwed.  Again.  As it always is with republicans in charge.

Gotta hand it to the republican party though - they understand propaganda and how easy it is to manipulate the masses.  They get people to vote against their own best interests constantly.  It's too bad the democrats want to be nice guys and can't seem to grasp how to play ball.

I'm no fan of Hilary and think the democrats blew it by even having her involved but voting for a complete turd just to be different was no answer.  That's the kind of childish rebellion thing teenagers do to spite their parents.

Anyways, we'll see.  I'll try to be optimistic but again, people just never learn.  Every time recently we've had a republican president they've been a disaster, because the real ideals of the republican party have nothing to do with "we the people" - unless you're rich white people maybe.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: StopSignal on November 11, 2016, 04:10:19 AM
You seem to know a lot about the topic there, so I hope you are right, and not much bad happens.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: BeerBeer on November 11, 2016, 09:39:23 AM
I bet Canada is rubbing its hands together right about now. They get to cherry-pick some perfectly fine American immigrants. There were news reports that the website of Canadian immigration department got jammed due to all the extra traffic. I'm an outsider, but I'm just really disappointed to American people/system right now. It's not about Trump winning. It's about ending up with two pathetic candidates. One loudmouth buffoon, one unrelatable yes-woman. Of all the millions of people, it just had to boil down to those two. What a shame. A great democracy, they said. Leader of the free world, they said. Have you ever felt like you just don't want to talk to someone you've known for quite some time? Now replace that someone with an entire nation. But then again, who DOESN'T need a vacation right about now? There's a bunch to get over.

My advice: Disregard America, get beer.

._.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Mr.Bananza on November 11, 2016, 08:44:11 PM
I'm going to put my two cents in (for what it's worth) because of the fact that this forum in not an echo chamber and I seek constructive discourse.

Before I get started, I need to say that I voted for Hillary. Throughout this entire campaign I have been perplexed by the number of people who were supporting Donald. However, these last few days since the election have been extremely insightful for me. I've come to realize why so many people voted for Donald. Some of the reasons I've found included:

1) They wanted an end to corporate globalization
2) They care more about our national issues, than international ones
3) They are willing to pay the price of any social ramifications in order to have a president that isn't a politician
4) When faced with the lesser of two evils, they chose the one that aligned with their economic ideology

When I started to understand these points, I realized two things. One, how a moderate voter may be swayed to his side. And two, why so many people didn't vote. Trying to choose between social ideology and economic ideology is paralyzing. Someone on the fence may think, "I don't want a corrupt government, but he is so xenophobic... I don't know what to do."

For me the choice was easy simply because I value the social issues more (also Trump's tax plan has a lot more deficit spending than Hillary's, but that's a different can of worms). So to anyone on this forum that voted for Trump - I disagree with you, but I understand where you are coming from.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Alec White on November 11, 2016, 09:29:30 PM
I just hope Trump sends more troops to the middle east, so I can have fun watching helcam footage of US soldier shooting and being shot by the locals.

Today's easy access to cameras and internet has made war a very interesting reality-show.

Also, to all veterans of the US, thank for your service, and don't forget to film all your deployments and upload them to the internet please!
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 11, 2016, 09:59:57 PM
The 'best' (and by best I mean most 'real') footage Ive seen in recent years is the burning of that pilot from Jordan on camera.  Very, very surreal to see.  Macabre.  Very so.  never seen a person burning alive before that.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Alec White on November 11, 2016, 10:40:05 PM
The 'best' (and by best I mean most 'real') footage Ive seen in recent years is the burning of that pilot from Jordan on camera.  Very, very surreal to see.  Macabre.  Very so.  never seen a person burning alive before that.

There are lots of "documentaries" with very edited and entertaining videos, telling the story of a particular soldier/squad/platoon/war/theatre, some goes from G to R, with more or less of the soldier's thoughts and mission objective's.
Better than reading the books they may wrote, as generally soldier's don't write very well and some biographies can be very boring even if thou the soldier may have go back from hell's gate.

Then you have sites like this (http://syria.liveuamap.com/), in which they link the uploaded videos/pictures of the day to day.
I'm not into politics but I like and enjoy a soldier's memoirs as the ultimate action packed drama.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Pthalocy on November 13, 2016, 02:34:46 AM
I was drinking during my last post due to a rather ill-timed birthday party for a friend of mine. Yikes.

I completely failed to mention what actually concerns me about Trump's (99% confirmed) presidency is Pence standing right behind him. Pence is just ....hoboy. I can't. Someone else can field the fact on that guy, I've since closed the sources I've dug through and it just makes me too damn mad to go digging for that again. Weirrrd dude.

Can confirm; Canadian Immigration website was down for a good five hours during the closing night of the vote.


Also, what the hell is up with the electoral college? It's like all votes are equal, but some are more equal than others. Up until this election I had never been vested enough in US politics to understand what that was or why it's around. Am I understanding correctly that it's an obsolete remnant of when America was a lot younger, and processing that volume of votes wasn't very feasible yet?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Noctifer on November 13, 2016, 03:03:49 AM
The electoral collage was introduced by the founding fathers as a fail-safe. They believed that the people would not be educated enough to vote directly but the electoral collage would so they would vote while keeping the commoners vote in mind.

Also, as for Trump winning, I am a 2nd generation Mexican-American by birth but 1st generation actually raised in the usa and Mexica is 45 minutes and a bridge away so I am supposed to be upset but I am glad Clinton lost. I don't care for Trump at all but he ain't Clinton.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Profugo Barbatus on November 13, 2016, 03:51:45 AM
If I was an American, I probably would have voted Trump. He has some policies I agree with (Tightening immigration, a less interventionist foreign policy) and some that I don't agree with (He's not got a very good record towards net neutrality and shutting down internal spying), but compared to the significant corruption of Clinton, I'm willing to take having a harder time keeping my internet activities secret to avoid having her in power.

Trumps not a perfect candidate, but he's definitely better than Clinton, and he's also a step in the right direction on some of the bigger issues.

On the side discussion here, I've seen some pretty crazy video coming out of Syria. Its a morbid curiosity of mine to watch combat like that. Makes me want to play Red Orchestra.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 13, 2016, 08:08:30 PM
Remember Trump is apparently an ass, but he hasnt made a single move against legal immigrants.  yet?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Findulidas on November 13, 2016, 08:18:26 PM
Remember Trump is apparently an ass, but he hasnt made a single move against legal immigrants.  yet?

Well

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37969112
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 13, 2016, 08:19:18 PM
Quote
US President-elect Donald Trump has said he will deport or jail up to three million illegal migrants initially.

Aye, you let me know when he does.



Trump has already backed down from the concrete wall too, which is good.  He cant sustain such an idea, nor would it work for long.  It was also too expensive.

Trump's already doing better than I hoped.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Ferodaktyl on November 13, 2016, 08:53:44 PM
how fucking expensive can a wall be ? :D
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 13, 2016, 09:02:58 PM
Its pretty expensive.  Ask China.

but, imagine how long until people tunnel under it or some such.  Are we going to watch every piece, every corner?  And we arent keeping out the real bad people; those can get in via other ways.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Shopkeeper on November 13, 2016, 09:20:44 PM
I completely failed to mention what actually concerns me about Trump's (99% confirmed) presidency is Pence standing right behind him. Pence is just ....hoboy. I can't. Someone else can field the fact on that guy, I've since closed the sources I've dug through and it just makes me too damn mad to go digging for that again. Weirrrd dude.

He's a good insurance policy. If somebody decides to actually assassinate Trump then we end up with a rightwing anti-everything-rainbow-left establishment Republican in control of the whitehouse, with a majority in house/senate, and the supreme court.

Contrary to what the media might make you think, Trump is a centrist dealmaker who jacked control of the presidency from the establishment. He could care less about what lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people do. Pence on the otherhand is the establishment with all it entails. Though all the /pol/ nicknames you probably heard are a bit of an exaggeration.

Can confirm; Canadian Immigration website was down for a good five hours during the closing night of the vote.

I find this particularly funny. My older brother is a nationalized Canadian and all these liberals I've seen posting have no idea HOW Canadian immigration works. The requirements are super stringent, even living with his native wife he had to keep up to date on residency and was in contact with an immigration officer several times a year. He has an MBA along with a Computer Science degree and it still took him six years to become an actual citizen.

Also, what the hell is up with the electoral college? It's like all votes are equal, but some are more equal than others. Up until this election I had never been vested enough in US politics to understand what that was or why it's around. Am I understanding correctly that it's an obsolete remnant of when America was a lot younger, and processing that volume of votes wasn't very feasible yet?

I used to think the exact same thing, but let an informed anon educate you my good leaf on the importance of the electoral college.

(http://i.imgur.com/Eg53XDc.jpg)

Remember Trump is apparently an ass, but he hasnt made a single move against legal immigrants.  yet?

Well

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37969112

Illegal Immigrants... Trump has no beef with legal immigration, the Republicans certainly don't either. We recognize that demographics are shifting and that will play a part in the future. Hell look at Rubio, he's the future golden boy for republican latino americans.

What we don't want is democrats leaving the floodgates open to illegal immigrants then granting mass amnesty just to create a surge of guaranteed voters in southwestern states. Because that's exactly why they're doing it and you have to be going through some serious mental gymnastics if you think that isn't playing a major part.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Pthalocy on November 14, 2016, 03:10:53 AM
Okay, huh. I think the rationale behind the electoral college has to be one of the most interesting things I've learned this month. Thank you for that.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Findulidas on November 14, 2016, 11:59:20 AM
how fucking expensive can a wall be ? :D

3000km long, also for it to actually work as a wall blocking immigration it obviously needs to be guarded pretty decently. Suffice to say its expensive.

Probably not as expensive as finding 3mil immigrants already in the country though.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 14, 2016, 01:58:23 PM
These 3mill are an offering to the PRgods

and patrolling said safety blanket costs upkeep.  3mill illegally residing drug dealers and jwalkers are literally the most documented IIs the country has.

how many IIs did Georgia have again?  in 2010 i think it was 16mill.  ;) not nearly as hard or expensive as you think.

since these are explicitly 'criminals'. we were essentially waiting on the police to do their daily jobs

:feelsgood:
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on November 14, 2016, 05:49:27 PM
The way I see it, (Texan here)

Hillary is a conniving intelligent manipulative polotician. If she gets in, WITH house majority no less, there is no end to how much damage she can do. We'd probably have lost our guns, or gone California retarded as a country, had no end in site of overly elaborate and unnecessary amounts of redistribution of wealth so well written in with other laws that it would be difficult to get rid of them in the future, if/when they were found to be a bigger drain than an asset to the country.

Trump is such a self delusional incompetent power hungry limelight craving nutjob, its unlikely he will be able to accomplish much with a democratic house. Though he is sure to cause a lot of damage, it will be in such a random and haphazard manor as to be minimally damaging in comparison. On top of that, I'd be willing to take lots on how long it takes before Trump gets himself impeached, whereas Hillary would be to conniving and sneaky to get caught.

That said, come voting day, I couldn't for the life of myself get myself to vote for either of them, so I voted Tea Party, even though the candidate's not much better than either of the main parties, and green party falls into the same bucket. I WAS going to vote Joe Exotic, but he wasn't even on the ballot.

My apologies if my rant is offensive to anyone. I'm scared, and not nearly near enough to my "escape plan's" completion for comfort.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Shopkeeper on November 14, 2016, 06:47:40 PM
You do know that Republicans won the house, right? By a suprisngly large majority actually. They also have a senate majority as well.

Just please stop eating up the media sensationalism. Trump isn't gonna deport all the Mexicans, build a Great Wall of Mexico, or do anything to get himself impeached. We're gonna see a crack down on illegals who've overstayed their welcome. The party's gonna rein in the Wall to be an increase in border security spending with large amounts of new fencing going up. And our president-elect actually wants to get things on track again.

Inspite of what all these George Soros' funded rioters want you to believe the world is not coming to an end. Keep calm and carry on everyone, we'll live through January 6, the Inauguration, and the 4 years that come after it.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Findulidas on November 14, 2016, 07:55:17 PM
unnecessary amounts of redistribution of wealth

Im gonna go on a rant about this but Im not sure if its aimed at you, but it sure is aimed at a large portion of the american voters.

I find it hilarious how pathologically afraid some americans are of taxation and anything that can be even related to socialism. So many seem to think that reducing taxes somehow increases the money across the board through bullshit economics like trickle down economy. That the free market wouldve somehow fixed the problem of the growing low class and the increasing diffrences between them and the richest (who trump is part of btw) if obama and the state hadnt intervened. That increasing taxes on that 1% which none of us are part of is such an extreme offense to the american dream and your possible future of being super rich that its an actual election issue. That somehow once again cutting taxes on corporations (like trump corp) is the sure way to go! Since corporations are so willing to spend the money they get from tax cuts on their employees and not on anything else like investments or a sweet bonus to the CEO or perhaps lobbying politicians for their cause (I like how lobbying is a thing when bribing a politician is corruption).

Moreover the cost of healthcare, increasing costs of public pensions, the underfunded infrastructure and public education these dont get paid by themselves or by cutting taxes. You know the things that are needed to run a society. Turns out that these are things the US is generally really bad at and they are things that are going to come around and bite you in the ass. Like the flint water crisis, the fact that a large part of the american population is actually woefully uneducated or that roads are only repaired the moment they collapse in some states. I remember when bush decided to go in and attack afghanistan and iraq while having huge support from the american population, meanwhile a poll showed that about 20% had no idea where either country where on the map despite it being run basically constantly on the news. You can tell me if the uneducated masses have influenced this election or not?

Its not really a call for communism but god damn it atleast consider increasing taxes for public funding for a second like the rest of the world does at points instead of just calling it "unnecessary amounts of redistribution of wealth".
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: SpadeDraco on November 14, 2016, 08:09:06 PM
Inspite of what all these George Soros' funded rioters want you to believe the world is not coming to an end. Keep calm and carry on everyone, we'll live through January 6, the Inauguration, and the 4 years that come after it.


I agree with you fully. Every four years I find that the freakout from the losing side of the election gets more and more tiring. America needs voter reform. Our attitudes on the presidential election could be charitably described as "mind-numbingly idiotic and childish".
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on November 14, 2016, 08:17:17 PM
Did you see this election?  I swear Ive seen more mature conduct from middle school student government candidates.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: SpadeDraco on November 14, 2016, 08:46:45 PM
Did you see this election?  I swear Ive seen more mature conduct from middle school student government candidates.

That's part of the issue though. It worked. America's idiotic and childish attitude on the election enabled two idiotic and childish people to compete over control of the nation.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on November 15, 2016, 12:29:36 AM
You do know that Republicans won the house, right? By a surprisingly large majority actually. They also have a senate majority as well.

Oh, snap. Where did I pick up that piece of misinformation? My apologies. It's painful to pay to much attention to these things, thus more misinformed, thus worse candidates, thus more painful to pay attention to politics.

Poor excuse for an excuse though. I am ashamed.

Quote
I find it hilarious how pathologically afraid some americans are of taxation and anything that can be even related to socialism. So many seem to think that reducing taxes somehow increases the money across the board through bullshit economics like trickle down economy.......

.....Its not really a call for communism but god damn it atleast consider increasing taxes for public funding for a second like the rest of the world does at points instead of just calling it "unnecessary amounts of redistribution of wealth".

Yeah, I don't care so much about reducing the 1% tax as the middle class tax, or rather not increasing it ten fold. The thing about socialism is that it works well when its angels governing man, but mostly when you dump that much on caring for the public, it gets spent extremely poorly, both because of corruption, and lack of competence. Smaller government tends to be better in my view. I think we probably have plenty of room in the budget (maybe a few tax hikes in good places [like 1 %]) but mostly just misspent.

I think (and honestly I'm just pulling this out of my ass, I've not looked at the figures before saying this) we need to mostly swing the taxes more towards the state, and local levels. We don't need AS big of a military as we currently have, and would do well, thinning the military of unnecessary costs, moving a lot of the money from those areas and towards supporting vets with various needs that aren't currently being being seen to properly.

There is a LARGE building in DC delegated to see to the redistribution of education funds. A whole 3-5? story office building filled with accountants moving money from tax payers 1,000ds of miles away to schools they have and never will see, or be anywhere near. Proximity tends to boost importance, and I don't see a reason for that money to go to DC only to go back minus those accountants paychecks expenses etc...

We have a lot of money being dropped into subsidies that don't really do anything for us, or actively hurt us. The farm subsidies and wind subsidies spring to mind.

again. I'm not saying that SOME tax increases should be turned down, but the kinds of raises Hillary would have raised? No, she's basically communism for America. Maybe I have too strong of an outlook there, but Garymandering says I'm in the ballpark.

As for trickle down economics, no, thats bullshit. I don't really believe in that, but the way our tax systems work over here, its always the middle class that pay higher taxes, the lower income bracket CAN'T pay more, and the 1% has too many friends in high places, offshore accounts ETC... to accually be bothered paying them right. Thus Higher taxes almost always means shoving the burden on the middle class who build startup businesses with a solid foundation, etc.

Look at california, New York Etc... its HARD to start a business in places like that, meanwhile places with lower taxes have businesses popping up everywhere. I'd love to see the 1% get higher taxes, unfortunately I just don't see it happening so I cringe when I hear raise the taxes.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Eric on November 20, 2016, 05:26:50 PM
If you didn't write in Jeb! then you wasted your vote to be completely honest.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on November 20, 2016, 07:07:10 PM
Couldn't bring myself to vote for either, almost wrote in Joe Exotic for shits a giggles.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Noctifer on November 20, 2016, 08:18:53 PM
I didn't even bother registering...
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Kadian on November 21, 2016, 03:23:07 PM
I threw my opinion already into the fray, so I'm not really here for that.

However, I found on the last page a few messages about the electorial college. And how that one Anon-person from wherever 'explains' why it is how it is.
This isn't actually quite true. There are 2 nice videos about the Electoral College I'm going to share here. The Videos are made by CPR Grey, and he has quite a few interesting Videos, especially a lot about Voting in different nations. As far as I'm concerned: The electoral college is broken, at least partially. I really urge people to actually watch both videos, even the 'how does it work' video, because it explains parts of the history, WHY it works like it does.

How the Electoral College Works (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw")
and
The Trouble with the Electoral College (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k)

edit:

Small addendum, there is a third video I forgot about, which actually deals with some...let's call it 'issues' from the second video which was called out by people. CPR Grey explains them in this one:

Re: The Trouble With The Electoral College – Cities, Metro Areas, Elections and The United States  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Shadow86 on November 21, 2016, 10:25:38 PM
Yeah, the electoral college is an antique designed with failsafes the ruling class can theoretically use to override the will of the democratic majority. And as the videos state, it doesn't really achieve its proposed goals either: you just end up having people whose vote is worth less than that of others, with all the exploits that entails.

I suppose the real debate is whether you want your government to draw its power from the people or just its constituent states. But as it is, the system lacks granularity, given winning/losing a state by a large margin has no impact outside the binary effect of earning/losing the state's electors. And then there's also the deal about non-state territories being excluded from the most significant of elections, the presidential ones.

So yeah, no real arguments in favour of the electoral college. The 4chan quote posted earlier puts a lot of weight on states themselves, but personally I think people are worth more. A state is an arbitrary political subdivision, and can't be inherently better than others (the production argument is BS from my point of view). Not in a federal context, and sometimes these pro-state arguments make the US sound more like a confederacy. Geographical size is meaningless if the population is scarce, and one would think democracy is all about the people, not the empty land around them.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: DeclanFrost on November 22, 2016, 09:35:17 AM
Of all the Goddamn places to find somewhere to voice my thoughts about the election without being attacked or echoed, it had to be a forum for a roguelike. What has this world come to? XD

Now I don't know much about US politics or about the laws and political stuff each candidate said they wanted pre-election. Still, I think I'm better-equipped than most to put my two cents in this topic.
I live down south in Tennessee. It's a republican state, or that's what most people say (and the votes have proven it). Everyone I've met voted for Trump for very superficial reasons. Namely, to preserve their right to own firearms (hunting is a fairly popular sport in this state), lessen taxes, and to "keep the Mexicans out", as a teacher I spoke to in private phrased it.
Being a fairly new immigrant, I'd expected people to know a lot more than I do about the political policies that either candidate may have been for - or against, for that matter.
Trump winning has me worried. I don't know the man, nor do I claim to, but election season's all about throwing mud all over other candidates' names, while boosting your own PR up. The public image Trump projected was that of a xenophobic, white American, which would be exactly what the US needs after the unsatisfactory leadership of an African-American. (By public image, I mean what the many people I know, talk to, and quiz on the subject, as well as people online, seem to see him as).
Trump's campaign was built on the nation's disappointment in the first black president in our history, and he focused that into a different race, one that had not been center stage in politics in recent memory.
Now, I don't disagree with his views on needing go curb illegal immigration, but the statements he made - about building a wall on the border and making the entire country of Mexico pay for it - disgust me.
He shifted his supporters' sights from "illegal immigrants" to Mexicans. Well-aware (or, at least, I'd hope so, since he certainly believed himself learned enough in US history to run for Presidency) that the US has always had racial tunnel vision. Labels are important. Labels will always exist. Labels serve as homing beacons to guide people's prejudices. And when you label the problem Mexican, you may have just tipped the scale in hundreds of thousands of people's minds toward a subtle dislike of that label - maybe just enough, in some people, for that dislike to turn into action.
I know it's a far cry from anything on Third Reich level genocidal inclinations, it's also nowhere near the shining beacon of equality that the US supposedly is.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Kadian on November 22, 2016, 11:44:00 AM
(or, at least, I'd hope so, since he certainly believed himself learned enough in US history to run for Presidency)

Don't count on him knowing stuff.. He didn't knew about the KKK/who their leader is, even when people basically plainly told him, he apparently doesn't exactly know how the Government he is supposed to run works, he doesn't know why he supported the Iraq War in the past, he doesn't know...actually, do I need to go on?

Someone who wants to be President should know stuff about that, simple as that. Even I seem to know more about the country than Trump, and I never set foot on american Soil in my life.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Shopkeeper on November 22, 2016, 04:45:50 PM
Of all the Goddamn places to find somewhere to voice my thoughts about the election without being attacked or echoed, it had to be a forum for a roguelike. What has this world come to? XD

Now I don't know much about US politics or about the laws and political stuff each candidate said they wanted pre-election. Still, I think I'm better-equipped than most to put my two cents in this topic.
I live down south in Tennessee. It's a republican state, or that's what most people say (and the votes have proven it). Everyone I've met voted for Trump for very superficial reasons. Namely, to preserve their right to own firearms (hunting is a fairly popular sport in this state), lessen taxes, and to "keep the Mexicans out", as a teacher I spoke to in private phrased it.
Being a fairly new immigrant, I'd expected people to know a lot more than I do about the political policies that either candidate may have been for - or against, for that matter.
Trump winning has me worried. I don't know the man, nor do I claim to, but election season's all about throwing mud all over other candidates' names, while boosting your own PR up. The public image Trump projected was that of a xenophobic, white American, which would be exactly what the US needs after the unsatisfactory leadership of an African-American. (By public image, I mean what the many people I know, talk to, and quiz on the subject, as well as people online, seem to see him as).
Trump's campaign was built on the nation's disappointment in the first black president in our history, and he focused that into a different race, one that had not been center stage in politics in recent memory.
Now, I don't disagree with his views on needing go curb illegal immigration, but the statements he made - about building a wall on the border and making the entire country of Mexico pay for it - disgust me.
He shifted his supporters' sights from "illegal immigrants" to Mexicans. Well-aware (or, at least, I'd hope so, since he certainly believed himself learned enough in US history to run for Presidency) that the US has always had racial tunnel vision. Labels are important. Labels will always exist. Labels serve as homing beacons to guide people's prejudices. And when you label the problem Mexican, you may have just tipped the scale in hundreds of thousands of people's minds toward a subtle dislike of that label - maybe just enough, in some people, for that dislike to turn into action.
I know it's a far cry from anything on Third Reich level genocidal inclinations, it's also nowhere near the shining beacon of equality that the US supposedly is.

This had nothing to do with the race of our current president and the concept behind things like 'whitelash' is horseshit. We've been stuck in the same shitty cycle of dealing with war and civil unrest in the middle east for the last 15 years, the possibility of terror attacks at home and abroad have almost become a fact of life. Then you add in the fact we're still trying to claw our way out of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and it'd made sense most people would feel shitty about both sides of the establishment since.

History will remember Bush as the president who pulled us into the former and ended his presidency on the latter. Obama ran on the promise of change but didn't bother to see through the obligations our former president put us up to, now we've got ISIS and a laundry list of other terror groups popping up around the world. Instead we destabilized both Libya and Syria, gave Iran the greenlight on a future nuclear weapon, and left Turkey to be purged of its democracy by a despot.

Then Hillary came along peddling more of the same establishment bullshit with a promise that things would totally be different with a woman at the helm because of diversity, while cheating the only other democratic primary candidate who could've won on the same populist wave Obama did out of it. While Trump rocked the boat by going from being a democrat to stealing the republican presidential ticket. His campaign was built on peoples honest to god disaffection with the establishment.

Myself and well over 3/4th's of the friends, family, and coworkers I asked about it voted for Obama in the past two elections because we thought he'd actually make a difference (and because Romney was a scumbag, but that's unrelated). He didn't. And though we all got screwed over by northern Virginia democrats we damn sure did our best campaigning for Trump, because Hillary would have been another four year rerun of the previous eight's failed policies.

I'm trying to stop this from becoming an unintelligible rant, but I honestly believe he's our best chance at stopping this establishment cycle. Because we had eight years from both sides previously that just served to cement us deeper into this mess in the first place. It's time to give something, someone new a hand at the reins.

Don't count on him knowing stuff.. He didn't knew about the KKK/who their leader is, even when people basically plainly told him, he apparently doesn't exactly know how the Government he is supposed to run works, he doesn't know why he supported the Iraq War in the past, he doesn't know...actually, do I need to go on?

Someone who wants to be President should know stuff about that, simple as that. Even I seem to know more about the country than Trump, and I never set foot on american Soil in my life.

Trump know's exactly who David Duke is, he denounced him years back when the guy was still leader of the KKK. He just played dumb, it wasn't the best idea in my opinion but deflecting the question and saving face with both groups until the media went after him for the next 'scandal' worked.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on November 23, 2016, 05:25:07 PM
With trump its almost impossible to tell where incompetency/stupidity ends and the playing dumb begins. He's not stupid.... I think. But hes REALLY good at giving that impression.

thanks for the posts @ DeclanFrost & Shopkeeper :) enjoyed reading.

@ kadian Yeah, I love CGP Grey's stuff. You seen his latest 2?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Kadian on November 23, 2016, 10:01:28 PM
@ kadian Yeah, I love CGP Grey's stuff. You seen his latest 2?

do you mean his little updates to the election, or the two about 'the rules of rulers' ? In any case, seen both, love his stuff.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on November 23, 2016, 10:08:09 PM
rules for rulers. Great stuff Would recommend to anyone that hasn't watched them.

Rules For Rulers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs)

The first vid. I imagine everyone here is capable of finding the followup from there. And the rest of his vids too.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on November 26, 2016, 08:52:04 PM
I'm late to the party, but I love this kind of stuff, and I LOVE LOVE LOVE that people can actually have a DISCUSSION here!

Warning: long post.  I like real discussion on this stuff - I won't be offended if this is too long for you.

1) Electoral college - 2 points:

- First, how the total popular vote turned out is like counting the number of runs in all the games of the world series - those weren't the rules at the time, so the teams didn't play as if they were.  In this election (and every other one), if the rules of the election were "popular vote" instead of "electoral college", the campaigning would have been night-and-day different, and the final results would have been, too, for LOTS of reasons.  How motivated to "run up the score" were the voters in which states?  That is, if California had a much higher than usual turnout and Texas had a lower than usual one, but the results were the expected percentages, sure, the popular vote looks odd, but reverse that, and it switches the popular vote... without changing the electoral college.

- Secondly, a concept that has a great current example in Hillary Clinton.  She is very popular in New York.  If she got 75% of the vote there, she could lose the ENTIRE REST OF THE COUNTRY by a noticeable margin and still win.  That's a bad system.

2) Canada and immigration - 3 points

-sound and thunder, with no follow through.  When Bush was elected and reelected, the same screams were made, and nothing came of it.  When Obama was elected and reelected, no such screams... just 7 of the highest years of expatriation in the history of this country.

- Fun watching people on the left encounter a NORMAL immigration system (that is, one that actually chooses who to let in)

- Why all Canada?  Why not Mexico?  RACISTS!!  (Sauce for the gander, man.  Live up to your own rules.)

3) Speaking of "racism" - a few points

- Every Republican in my lifetime has been called racist.  Even if it is true about Trump, you're only preaching to the choir at this point - you've cried wolf WAY WAY WAY too many times (something some Democrat commentators have commented on, too, actually).  The race card has been HORRIBLY abused.

- BOTH parties have racist fringe bits, but only one party gets called on it.  That gets REALLY REALLY old.  Go check out La Raza or the Black Panthers for only the most obvious of many such groups that are openly and viciously racist and constantly get a pass.  So yeah, more on "The race card has been HORRIBLY abused."

- The best way to make a group feel like a group is to attack them as a group - they will clump up to defend themselves.  That what's been happening to white people politically for at least a generation now... white people thinking of themselves as "white" before "American" would be the worst racial development in this country in decades.

- There are entirely non-racial reasons to want border enforcement.  Heck, I know several LEGAL immigrants (and children of legal immigrants) who are all for it!

- "Now, I don't disagree with his views on needing go curb illegal immigration, but the statements he made - about building a wall on the border and making the entire country of Mexico pay for it - disgust me."

Um, why?  The Mexican border is the primary place where the illegals come in, and the largest group of illegals, bar none, are Mexican nationals.  The COUNTRY of Mexico.  If that's where the problem is, focus on the problem.  Again, I work with and know first and second generation people of Mexican descent (as in FROM MEXICO, just here legally) who agree with that just fine.  SOME people are going to inject race into that (welcome to humanity), but that doesn't mean that the underlying logic is racist.

3) Trump VS Hillary (finally)

I have plenty of complaints against Donald Trump.  He would not have been my first choice.  That said, literally every complaint I have heard against Donald Trump (other than the many varieties of "he's a poopy head"), I have the EXACT same complaint AT LEAST as much about Hillary Clinton.  Yes, literally, as in "non-figuratively".

- Offensive?  Check!

- Liar?  Check!  SO MUCH CHECK FOR BOTH OF THEM!!!!

- etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc SO MUCH etc

- Yes, even the sexism one (and not just for Bill, though that would be quite sufficient, but for things she's actually said that are horrendously, amazingly sexist, the single worst example actually being in a prepared speech, not "off the cuff"), and that's not because I minimize what Trump has done, but because I've actually looked at what Clinton has done.

So, I find that slightly in Trump's favor as the lesser awfulness on all the personal stuff, but what I think REALLY got people going is the obvious way Clinton enriched herself with her previous office.  Let's reward that with higher office... are you kidding me?

Honestly, I'm not sure who else Trump COULD have beaten, especially among possible woman candidates.  Cllinton was the most ridiculous candidate in modern history, basically counting on sexism to get into office ("vote for me because I have the right plumbing" is sexism).

4) Taxation - "taking from the rich" - Forget actual tax rates, loop holes, all that.  Look at where the Treasury ACTUALLY gets the money - that is, after all the loopholes, dodges, BS, and lying, who ACTUALLY pays?

The wealthy.  They pay the overwhelming lion's share of the taxes, MUCH larger than the share of the nation's wealth that they own.  This is based on data STRAIGHT FROM THE GOVERNMENT, not any crazy fringe unhinged internet crazies.

Darn it, my sources on this have succumbed to link rot, but here's something I found in less than 5 minutes of looking.  Note that the chart is on rate ACTUALLY PAID on gross income, not effective rate on net income (after all the deductions, etc).

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-much-do-people-pay-taxes (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-much-do-people-pay-taxes)

5) socialism and "spreading the wealth" - great in theory, but in practice, it's almost always just a dictatorship with a better paint job, with the results of any other form of dictatorship (VERY BAD - see Venezuela for a current example).  Europe currently has a largely bureaucratic form of socialism, so that will be interesting to watch.  It appears to failing with a lower body count than other forms of socialism.

6) socialized medicine - sounds nice, go talk to people from countries with socialized medicine.  Example: Canada.  Wait times for things we get same day or next day are usually listed in weeks if not months (yes, again, literally).  People with money come HERE for anything serious.  They are pretty awesome for broken bones and other old-school, anti-cutting-edge stuff, though (and yes, I'm serious about that - that's an area our system handles particularly poorly).  I have some actual personal experience (and more family experience) with some of this.

Ignorance triumphs.

Shake things up?  Hardly.  Trump has zero idea about politics, running a country, international anything except maybe wife importing, nada, nothing. I'd be surprised if he has enough attention span to count to 20 uninterrupted.

Some of his ideas are terrible, some are decent, but ultimately, since he is going to need a lot of help to do anything, and he's going to be influenced by and tainted by the absolute worst of the republican party (the dregs that actually supported him openly that he'll now reward).

So basically, IMO, we're going to have Bush III or worse - a puppet that inflicts the absolute idiocy of the republican party.  Again.  They'll run the country into the ground.  Again.  Probably start several wars.  Ruin the economy - maybe finish what Bush attempted and put is in a depression.  All you non-americans who think this is awesome - how'd you like the global recession Bush caused when he tanked our economy and it affected the entire world?  Want more of that (which a lot of the world never recovered from)?  The rich will get richer and everybody else will get screwed.  Again.  As it always is with republicans in charge.

Gotta hand it to the republican party though - they understand propaganda and how easy it is to manipulate the masses.  They get people to vote against their own best interests constantly.  It's too bad the democrats want to be nice guys and can't seem to grasp how to play ball.

I'm no fan of Hilary and think the democrats blew it by even having her involved but voting for a complete turd just to be different was no answer.  That's the kind of childish rebellion thing teenagers do to spite their parents.

Anyways, we'll see.  I'll try to be optimistic but again, people just never learn.  Every time recently we've had a republican president they've been a disaster, because the real ideals of the republican party have nothing to do with "we the people" - unless you're rich white people maybe.

I could give a point-by-point refutation of almost every single thing there, but I'll just hit the highlights.

1) The rich got richer UNDER OBAMA for more than any recent President.

2) Black people have done worse UNDER OBAMA than any recent President (this one's not even close).

3) The recession Bush started with started before he was in office (official stats, not that you'd hear that from the media), and the primary cause of the massive economic recession that started at the end of his term was the housing crisis, which was a CLINTON favored policy that the Bush administration asked Congress to deal with more than once.

If we had a Republican President right now, the press would have called the Second Great Depression starting probably 4-6 years ago.  Dead serious.  Using the metrics in use at the time of the original Great Depression, our unemployment rate has been very comparable.  The actions taken by the Obama administration have HUGELY delayed the recovery, just as government action created the original Great Depression from a recession (settled economics - go check a textbook).

4) The principal stakeholders and supporters of the housing crisis mess were all Democrats (look who Fanny and Freddie gave money too - it's public knowledge - there's a great quote on "rolling the dice" from a prominent Democrat Fanny/Freddie supporter).

In short, dude, you drank a LOT of koolaid on all that, factually speaking, and that's without even getting into matters of opinion (OK, the primary cause of the Great Recession is at least somewhat opinion, but that is the most common opinion I can find from the professionals).

For instance, this part is opinion: "Gotta hand it to the republican party though - they understand propaganda and how easy it is to manipulate the masses.  They get people to vote against their own best interests constantly.  It's too bad the democrats want to be nice guys and can't seem to grasp how to play ball." but I'd say exactly all of that with the parties reversed.

Trump managed to win BECAUSE he was willing to do what Democrats have been doing for years, while Republicans largely play nice and get clobbered (Romney was the greatest recent example of that).  Also, on the topic of "voting against their interests", one of the few things I heard Trump say that I never heard him directly contradict AND wasn't just stupid was when he pointed out to the American black community that they've been voting Democrat for years and they have things SO SO SO terrible (as the Dems are always telling them) - what in the hell do they have to lose in trying voting for him instead?

None of that's not to say I think Trump is great - he COULD be great, he COULD be terrible, I expect him to be fairly mediocre with lots of entertaining and crazy quotes.

Ever see Let's Make a Deal?  We had one known quantity that was TERRIBLE, so America just chose what was behind Curtain Number Two.  What's back there?  Who knows!?!  We've started getting some actual bits of knowledge now, but we won't really know for sure until sometime after January 20.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on November 26, 2016, 09:05:16 PM
Wow. nice wall of text Deoxy. Good reading ^.^
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: DeclanFrost on November 26, 2016, 09:20:09 PM
Very good read. I think you know what you're talking about (no way to be sure, since I only understand the superficial things of US politics), and I love it when people can articulate their thoughts into essay-length texts backed by logic and knowledge of the topic. Extra good when they have an opposing viewpoint.

- "Now, I don't disagree with his views on needing go curb illegal immigration, but the statements he made - about building a wall on the border and making the entire country of Mexico pay for it - disgust me."

Um, why?  The Mexican border is the primary place where the illegals come in, and the largest group of illegals, bar none, are Mexican nationals.  The COUNTRY of Mexico.  If that's where the problem is, focus on the problem.  Again, I work with and know first and second generation people of Mexican descent (as in FROM MEXICO, just here legally) who agree with that just fine.  SOME people are going to inject race into that (welcome to humanity), but that doesn't mean that the underlying logic is racist.
It's not so much the wall as saying that Mexico will pay for it. Not saying he'll do it, or that he himself dislikes Mexico, but it's an insult to the whole country of Mexico and the Latin American population in general. People will associal illegal immigration with Mexicans, their actual status as residents be damned.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on November 26, 2016, 09:52:54 PM
4) Taxation - "taking from the rich" - Forget actual tax rates, loop holes, all that.  Look at where the Treasury ACTUALLY gets the money - that is, after all the loopholes, dodges, BS, and lying, who ACTUALLY pays?

The wealthy.  They pay the overwhelming lion's share of the taxes, MUCH larger than the share of the nation's wealth that they own.  This is based on data STRAIGHT FROM THE GOVERNMENT, not any crazy fringe unhinged internet crazies.

Darn it, my sources on this have succumbed to link rot, but here's something I found in less than 5 minutes of looking.  Note that the chart is on rate ACTUALLY PAID on gross income, not effective rate on net income (after all the deductions, etc).

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-much-do-people-pay-taxes (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-much-do-people-pay-taxes)

5) socialism and "spreading the wealth" - great in theory, but in practice, it's almost always just a dictatorship with a better paint job, with the results of any other form of dictatorship (VERY BAD - see Venezuela for a current example).  Europe currently has a largely bureaucratic form of socialism, so that will be interesting to watch.  It appears to failing with a lower body count than other forms of socialism.

Do the rich still have a thriving wage after taxes? As in, do they still retain a substantial chunk of disposable income + food money?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on November 26, 2016, 10:31:58 PM
4) Taxation - "taking from the rich" - Forget actual tax rates, loop holes, all that.  Look at where the Treasury ACTUALLY gets the money - that is, after all the loopholes, dodges, BS, and lying, who ACTUALLY pays?

The wealthy.  They pay the overwhelming lion's share of the taxes, MUCH larger than the share of the nation's wealth that they own.  This is based on data STRAIGHT FROM THE GOVERNMENT, not any crazy fringe unhinged internet crazies.

Darn it, my sources on this have succumbed to link rot, but here's something I found in less than 5 minutes of looking.  Note that the chart is on rate ACTUALLY PAID on gross income, not effective rate on net income (after all the deductions, etc).

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-much-do-people-pay-taxes (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-much-do-people-pay-taxes)

5) socialism and "spreading the wealth" - great in theory, but in practice, it's almost always just a dictatorship with a better paint job, with the results of any other form of dictatorship (VERY BAD - see Venezuela for a current example).  Europe currently has a largely bureaucratic form of socialism, so that will be interesting to watch.  It appears to failing with a lower body count than other forms of socialism.

Do the rich still have a thriving wage after taxes? As in, do they still retain a substantial chunk of disposable income + food money?

Um, YES?!?  Of course they do - and if you try to tax them enough to change that, they will stop producing (most of the rich* ARE rich from adding value to society... or they are the direct offspring of such, and they are either also adding or they are in the process of squandering the money - the US has a VERY dynamic "wealthy" class compared to the rest of humanity, both past and present).  Well, or they will bribe their way out of them (the usual method).

But even more importantly than that, go look up the Laffer Curve.  Every major tax cut in my lifetime has resulted in HIGHER revenue to the government, which tells me we're on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve, so taxes are already too high, from a government revenue standpoint, much  less from almost any other standpoint.  That is to say, we're at the point where raising taxes results in LOWER revenue to the government.

The only possible logical reason to raise them (generally - eliminating the dreaded "loopholes" is not the same thing) is social engineering of some sort, which has a long history of really large and generally very bad side effects (assuming all the bad things were unintended).

*Depending on your definition of "rich" of course.  If you only mean trust-fund types, youi're talking about so few people as to be irrelevant to almost any discussion of money on the government scale, even if you just plain confiscated their entire fortunes, which would obviously have seriously bad long-term sides effects.

OK, one more thing, to illustrate the issue, and I heard this story long enough ago that I will get the exact numbers wrong (I heard with actual percentages).

10 men are eating dinner.  They all get the same thing, with the richest man also getting desert.  The bill is $100.

5 men pay nothing.  2 men pay a dollar each.  1 man pays 3 dollars.  1 man pays 5 dollars.  The other man pays all the rest.  3 of the 5 men who paid nothing and one of the men who paid 1 dollar complain that the main who paid the rest wasn't paying his share.

That's not exactly right, but it's close.  The top 10% have something like 70% of the income and assets... and pay something on the order of 90% of the taxes.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on November 26, 2016, 10:53:26 PM
Very good read. I think you know what you're talking about (no way to be sure, since I only understand the superficial things of US politics), and I love it when people can articulate their thoughts into essay-length texts backed by logic and knowledge of the topic. Extra good when they have an opposing viewpoint.

- "Now, I don't disagree with his views on needing go curb illegal immigration, but the statements he made - about building a wall on the border and making the entire country of Mexico pay for it - disgust me."

Um, why?  The Mexican border is the primary place where the illegals come in, and the largest group of illegals, bar none, are Mexican nationals.  The COUNTRY of Mexico.  If that's where the problem is, focus on the problem.  Again, I work with and know first and second generation people of Mexican descent (as in FROM MEXICO, just here legally) who agree with that just fine.  SOME people are going to inject race into that (welcome to humanity), but that doesn't mean that the underlying logic is racist.
It's not so much the wall as saying that Mexico will pay for it. Not saying he'll do it, or that he himself dislikes Mexico, but it's an insult to the whole country of Mexico and the Latin American population in general. People will associal illegal immigration with Mexicans, their actual status as residents be damned.

Thanks so much, and I'm really glad to have people to discuss with.  SO many people are far too emotionally invested to have a rational discussion.  And yes, discussion with those who have at least some point of disagreement is almost always more productive than simply preaching to the choir (though that is certainly cathartic at times), as long as both parties are actually arguing in good faith (also rare these days, sadly).  I'm far more interesting in actually being right about what to do than "winning" such an argument, so if I have an error in my logic or my facts, I really want to know!

On the wall, OK, that I can understand, to a degree... but I would argue that that association has already to some extent happened, primarily because of what I posted earlier, "the largest group of illegals, bar none, are Mexican nationals".  It seems quite conceivable to me that such a wall might actually HELP more than hurt, though it would be hard to prove either way, really.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: DeclanFrost on November 26, 2016, 11:00:54 PM
It'd be so much better if I had more knowledge on the subject at hand. I can't argue with points beyond what I see people doing and saying in response to what the politicals do. I haven't been in the US that long (not long enough to seriously consider politics a factor that would adefect my quality of living) so I haven't a grip on the sociopolitical subtleties present in the election.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on November 27, 2016, 12:59:57 AM
I haven't a grip on the sociopolitical subtleties present in the election.

Don't worry, NO ONE has that - especially this time!  :-)

I will warn you that responding to the politicians is a great way to be involved, but a LOUSY way to actually have a clue and make your own decisions.  At least one major factor (if not the primary factor) in Trump's election was people sick to death of professional politicians lining their own pockets and lying to the people they claim to represent for their own political gain.

This is not to say that Trump didn't/doesn't/won't do that, mind you, but he was the biggest-finger-in-the-eye-of-the-establishment candidate available.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: DeclanFrost on November 27, 2016, 01:16:06 AM
I haven't a grip on the sociopolitical subtleties present in the election.

Don't worry, NO ONE has that - especially this time!  :-)

I will warn you that responding to the politicians is a great way to be involved, but a LOUSY way to actually have a clue and make your own decisions.  At least one major factor (if not the primary factor) in Trump's election was people sick to death of professional politicians lining their own pockets and lying to the people they claim to represent for their own political gain.

This is not to say that Trump didn't/doesn't/won't do that, mind you, but he was the biggest-finger-in-the-eye-of-the-establishment candidate available.
Seems like it.
And that last part seems like the reason most everyone I've met voted for him. If not to protect gun rights (Tennessee, folks!).
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Pthalocy on November 27, 2016, 09:44:56 PM
I still find it so baffling how afraid of raised taxes Americans are, but I understand this is because I'm grossly Canadian. I pay like 13 or 14% on purchases made up of a mix of tax types (mainly two, federal and provincial I think? Harper blew them both up and proposed the combined "harmony" tax for a while there and it fucking confused me). I know that sounds like a lot, but it's literally 13 or 14¢ per dollar. Cents. If I buy something online from the United States, I'm spending another 29¢ per dollar roughly just due to the conversion rate of our money. 14¢ ain't nothin compared to some shit I put up with.

What's the system like for America, sofar as where the tax money goes? I can understand a terror of raising taxes if all it winds up doing is going into Important People's pockets (this is why we got really fucking mad at the Liberal party several years ago. They paid for their own shit with our money when THEY FUCKING SHOULD NOT HAVE. Oversimplified, but still). And I can understand the terror of higher taxes if the only class that effectively is eligible to pay is the middle. Rich people loophole-ing out of taxes and the poor being unable to anyway - is that the main concern? I wish to know more and am having trouble expressing the vague concerns I am currently aware of!
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on November 28, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Response to Pthalocy (without quoting the whole thing, just to stop the giant wall-o-text I've been doing)

How much taxes people put up with is hard to explain, other than just plain habit/environment and what one is already used to.  Also, as I mentioned earlier, every major tax cut in my lifetime has resulted in HIGHER revenues to the government (we're on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve*), so if the point of taxes is to raise revenue for the government (the only legitimate reason to tax the citizens), then raising taxes is almost certainly counter-productive and thus, mega-stupid.

Also, no, we really, REALLY don't trust the government to spend the money well (the last 8 years being a particularly good example of that... with the previous 8 years before that being the next best example.  We're so screwed), and there are plenty or examples why, generally from every political angle, too.

* The Laffer Curve - I've referenced that a couple of times here, but I don't think I've explained it.  It's easy to look up, but the basic idea is that at 0% taxation, you get 0 revenue, and at 100% taxation, you ALSO get 0 revenue (as no one works... or at least, no one reports working), so somewhere in the middle, you start getting less revenue when you increase the rate.  To quote good old Wikipedia (quickest place to find info, and generally reliable enough on most topics but politics), "A hypothetical Laffer curve for any given economy can only be estimated and such estimates are controversial."
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Ferodaktyl on December 04, 2016, 06:16:22 PM
i just thought i'd add this : https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs   :)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Khellen on December 12, 2016, 09:24:58 PM
What's the system like for America, sofar as where the tax money goes?

Well from my personal perspective it appears to be going towards football stadiums and bailing banks out and its most certainly not being put towards roads, schools or libraries. Frankly the only government service that I think is properly funded and directed is our firefighters.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on December 12, 2016, 09:54:45 PM
I have heard some US libraries are throwing out most of their books without replacing them with new acquisitions or eBooks: historically significant books; antique first editions; books in general. Supposed to have started two presidents ago. Can anybody confirm this?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on December 13, 2016, 12:45:45 AM
Also everything from bullets to staples get tossed and rebought any time a government branch doesn't reach its spending quota. Because any branch that doesn't spend its quota this quarter gets their budget cut next quarter.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 20, 2017, 10:50:58 PM
Well, it's official.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 20, 2017, 11:06:12 PM
This begins 4 years of what will, in all likelihood, be more or less mediocrity in both the best and worst case, but which both sides will use in the future as examples of both the best and worst president ever.

Also, likely lots of riots perpetrated by adult children. But it's the US, so that's really more par for the course than anything.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: StopSignal on January 20, 2017, 11:46:32 PM
One can just hope everything goes alright. No way back now.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 21, 2017, 02:16:55 AM
This begins 4 years of what will, in all likelihood, be more or less mediocrity in both the best and worst case, but which both sides will use in the future as examples of both the best and worst president ever.

Also, likely lots of riots perpetrated by adult children. But it's the US, so that's really more par for the course than anything.

While I also expect mostly mediocrity, it will be mediocrity with a high concentration of memorable quotes (good, bad, and otherwise).

And yeah, on that second part... if they had a lick of sense, they would realize that the behaviour they are participating in is actively helpful to the cause they claim to be protesting.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Ferodaktyl on January 21, 2017, 03:17:23 AM
As Dennis Prager has so beautifully put it, if i have two doors and on one says "man eating lion" and on the other says "maybe man eating lion"  and i have to open one of them, which one would it be ? :D
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Findulidas on January 21, 2017, 06:23:51 AM
One can just hope everything goes alright. No way back now.

Atleast he most likely wouldnt be able to weasel his way out of things like the contra affairs due to popular approval and claiming ignorance.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 21, 2017, 01:53:56 PM
One can just hope everything goes alright. No way back now.

Atleast he most likely wouldnt be able to weasel his way out of things like the contra affairs due to popular approval and claiming ignorance.

Or claiming he learned about it on TV - that one has been used several times lately.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 22, 2017, 03:46:04 AM
One can just hope everything goes alright. No way back now.

Atleast he most likely wouldnt be able to weasel his way out of things like the contra affairs due to popular approval and claiming ignorance.

I disagree. Literally every president I'm aware of has at been able to weasel his way out of at least one fairly serious accusation. It's the not serious ones that seem to actually hold popular opinion.

Hell, he's been president for like a day and this is already evident. Few people talk about how he has given what amounts to official approval to the whole ridiculous anti-vax movement by instigating an investigation into it, but everyone makes a big deal out of how he's mean on Twitter. Only one of those things actually matters IMO.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 22, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
I am glad I am Irish, I mean jesus fucking christ all of his cabinet don't even believe in climate change and I will let you judge how fucked you are by his law pick jeff sessions.

He stated that drug offenders should be allowed to be given the death penalty,if you smoke weed you are the same as scum "Good people don't smoke marijuana" (there goes me) and had to actually VOW that he wouldn't put the death penalty on cannabis traffickers after trump picked him for cabinet
EDIT: he stated that he used to like the KKK until he found out alot of the group smoke marijuana apparently

So although trump himself is a successful retard your nation is not going to be fucked fully by him....I am pretty sure that your nation will be fucked by the byproducts of Reagan,the red scare instilling a pointless fear of socialism leading to illogical people garnering support simply by sucking jesus's dick and denying climate, and 911 instill such fear in the extreme right wing country they gave the rights to violate your right to privacy (fourth amendment) with the patriot act to which obama extended upon......Trump probably is the most left wing out of those in power.....May cthulhu save you
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 23, 2017, 07:42:29 AM
EDIT: he stated that he used to like the KKK until he found out alot of the group smoke marijuana apparently

OK, I'm going to just ignore a lot of that rant, but this one has gotten a lot of play and is wildly misleading.  He did, in fact, literally say that... as SARCASM, and not only is that obvious in the context it was said in, but the people who heard him say it all said so.  Many of the people attacking Sessions now that he is Trump's nominee for something are on record PRAISING him on stuff directly on this topic right up until the last few months - it's political BS, and you've fallen for it.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 23, 2017, 11:11:11 AM
Trump is many things. Most are scary to look at. Most are also more harmless than how they appear....though still not benign.

He's a bad joke, culminated by a long bitter relationship between the American people and government. I hope that he does as little as possible, but expect his egotistical nature will make him do something(s) relatively small and making mountains of them for all to see. The alternative being less palatable.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 23, 2017, 12:12:49 PM
EDIT: he stated that he used to like the KKK until he found out alot of the group smoke marijuana apparently

OK, I'm going to just ignore a lot of that rant, but this one has gotten a lot of play and is wildly misleading.  He did, in fact, literally say that... as SARCASM, and not only is that obvious in the context it was said in, but the people who heard him say it all said so.  Many of the people attacking Sessions now that he is Trump's nominee for something are on record PRAISING him on stuff directly on this topic right up until the last few months - it's political BS, and you've fallen for it.

I know but it is quite a odd joke considering his history....don't forget he survived the indoctrination of the sixties
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm
And he is just a cunt all around
https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/799630524268576768/photo/1
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/05/jeff-sessions-arlen-specter-judiciary-committee

And please feel free to comment on my rant as I love to be challenged on my opinion, unlike most I am able to entertain ideas and if sufficient evidence is provided I can put thought into my own opinion and possibly change it
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 23, 2017, 01:53:53 PM
Quote
I'm fluent in my beliefs
..... I get what your trying to say... I'm pretty sure anyways. But this phrase doesn't quite make any real sense. Especially backed up by:
Quote
as long as evidence is provided

evidence of your own fluent-ness?
Do you mean to say you are quite flexible in your beliefs? If so H¡!

or do you mean you are well versed in your own beliefs, as in you know your beliefs inside-and-out. In which case, as long as evidence is provided, makes no sense, as it is simply redundant and basically saying: if I know it I know it, otherwise I don't.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 23, 2017, 04:32:10 PM
I actually don't know what I was saying with that sentence perhaps I should put it this way I can entertain a concept without accepting it.

My beliefs are actually quite stagnant in that unless I am given testable evidence they remain as they are, in other words I am a critically thinking autistic skeptic 
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 23, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
EDIT: he stated that he used to like the KKK until he found out alot of the group smoke marijuana apparently

OK, I'm going to just ignore a lot of that rant, but this one has gotten a lot of play and is wildly misleading.  He did, in fact, literally say that... as SARCASM, and not only is that obvious in the context it was said in, but the people who heard him say it all said so.  Many of the people attacking Sessions now that he is Trump's nominee for something are on record PRAISING him on stuff directly on this topic right up until the last few months - it's political BS, and you've fallen for it.

I know but it is quite a odd joke considering his history....don't forget he survived the indoctrination of the sixties
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm
And he is just a cunt all around
https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/799630524268576768/photo/1
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/05/jeff-sessions-arlen-specter-judiciary-committee

And please feel free to comment on my rant as I love to be challenged on my opinion, unlike most I am able to entertain ideas and if sufficient evidence is provided I can put thought into my own opinion and possibly change it


Well, OK, then.

First, on Sessions:

Here's Corey Booker in February of 2016 (less than a year ago): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chkAASced_0

“I feel blessed and honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions.”

So, was Booker lying his a-- off then or now?  And why should we believe him either time?  Watch the whole thing, and listen to what they were saying about him THEN versus NOW.  What changed?  Politics, not facts.

How about Tom Perez, who was in the running for the head of the DNC recently?  He said this about Sessions last time Sessions was confirmed by Congress for assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in 2009:

"I had the privilege of serving as a first-line supervisor in the criminal section. I traveled the country. My first travel was to Mobile, Ala., where we were treated with great dignity by then-U.S. Attorney and now Sen. Jeff Sessions, the first trial that I participated in, and he was a wonderfully welcoming person, a wonderfully welcoming U.S. attorney, and I am very grateful for that work."

How about something more local?  Here's Alabama state Senator Quinton Ross, minority leader in the Alabama state Senate (which means he a Democrat):

“We’ve spoken about everything from Civil Rights to race relations and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people.”

Did I mention that Ross is black?  And a Democrat?

Sessions has been a US Senator from ALABAMA for 20 years - hello?  You know, Alabama, with more than 1/4 black people?  Surely they're all just idiots who the national people to tell them what a racist he is...

Here's some more bits for the pile:

"Sessions’s former chief counsel William Smith, who is African American, has said that people who call Sessions racially insensitive are “just lying. And they should stop the smear campaign.”
“The people making these allegations against Senator Sessions don’t know him,” Smith said in an interview. “In the last 30 years, they probably haven’t spent 10 hours with him. I spent 10 years working with him . . . as his top legal adviser. There are not statements that he made that are inappropriate.”

and this:

"his nomination has been endorsed by Gerald A. Reynolds, a former chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee’s highest-ranking Republican and Democrat, Reynolds, who is African American, said, “Sessions is a man of great character and integrity with a commitment to fairness and equal justice under the law."

both from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/more-than-1100-law-school-professors-nationwide-oppose-sessionss-nomination-as-attorney-general/2017/01/03/dbf55750-d1cc-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.d13b2a5ba601

And this:
Black pastors rally in Washington for AG nominee Jeff Sessions
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/09/black-pastors-rally-washington-ag-nominee-jeff-sessions/96367850/

But we all know that REAL black people know he's a racist, and all those people who LOOK like black people but support him anyway (especially those with lots of personal experience with him) aren't actually black because... um, because... um...  Yeah.

Moving on to other parts of the rant, by your invitation:

"a pointless fear of socialism" - Socialism has the highest body count of any political ideology (or non-political ideology, for that matter) in the history of mankind, and as an added bonus, it performed that "accomplishment" in the shortest time, as well.  Fear of socialism is incredibly well founded, and that's without touching on the ridiculous economic devastation it leaves in its wake (see Venezuela for only the most recent example among MANY).

"climate change"

Climate has been changing for eons - I know of literally no person who denies that climate changes.

Assuming you are meaning the claims of anthropomorphic climate change (man-made), there are many salient facts that suggest this is not true.

First, and most obvious, there is no model yet developed that, given data of to any point in time, accurately predicts anything 10 years after that time.  The models all fit history, but their predictive power is, thus far, completely zero.  Also, NONE of the models have room in them for the past 20 years of zero climate change (the so-called "pause").  To sum up, there is no proof yet presented that any of these models are actually useful for anything.

Second, and far easier to digest, is the long-running list of doomsday claims, going back many decades, huge numbers of which have come and gone with no fanfare and no disaster.  Go check out the claims at the first Earth Day, for a good laugh.

Third, the stated solution to the problems with "climate change" have been the same for decades... even when the problem has flip-flopped back and forth multiple times ("The world is going to burn/freeze, and the only solution is to GIVE US POWER AND MONEY!!!!").  Again, for the humor factor, go read some historical reporting on climate change... the polar bears dying?  Let's see, that first ran in the 30s, I think it was.  Same scam, running for generations, with no results (well, plenty of money for them, of course).

Fourth, and getting harder to follow (getting deeper into the science), you can check the actual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for the past 100-ish years, then check the temperature record for the past hundred years, and while yes, both have gone up, there is NO correlation to those things - the worst of each happen DECADES apart.

I could go on and on, but I'll skip to the end, because it's my favorite part.  Just for argument's sake, let's say that it's all true - AGW, we're heating the planet, blah blah blah.  Now, let's look at the history of the earth and compare the "doomsday" scenarios to the fossil record, and please explain to the class: WHY IS THAT BAD?  The fossil record is clear: higher temperatures and higher CO2 (and yes, there's evidence of periods with much higher levels of both than today - the dinosaurs were driving SUVs?!?) leads to the earth looking like the Garden of Eden, and cooler, lower CO2 results in ICE AGES.

Honestly, I would LIKE AGW to be true - the world would be a much better place for human beings to live in after another century or so of it.  Either way, it's not something we should be spending ridiculous buckets of money to prevent - if anything, we should be spending money on helping it along!

"and 911 instill such fear in the extreme right wing country they gave the rights to violate your right to privacy (fourth amendment) with the patriot act to which obama extended upon"

Sadly, on this you are completely correct.  :-(
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 23, 2017, 11:13:00 PM
Okay cool so sessions isn't a Racist he is just a conservative retard, so I will just respond your denial of "Anthropogenic" (not anthropomorphic) climate change (As if the distinction was necessary) with my knowledge of chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone the reactions that occur within our atmosphere are enough of an example as to how most of the effects of combustion are negative, still you will probably state that this is a natural buildup from deep water erosion of carbonates and circulation  .....But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions this obviously pays no part x). The last time carbon dioxide buildup was this high 400ppm was 10,000,000-15,000,000 years ago based upon shells in the deep sea sediments and was probably due to https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm.

Also I note you consider it similar to a scam but the solution is not to throw money at pointless actions it should be investment in Fusion/fission reactors and sciences to slow the effect with discoveries like catalytic converters and more effective fuels  RATHER THAN 600 BILLION ON YOUR FUCKING MILITARY FOR SPYING ON YOU AND DRONE STRIKES

But something makes me believe that you don't believe the scientific community

As for socialism is to communism you are correct as religious conservatism is to fascism (which your nation bears more attributes to).....I would like point you to my country(Rather than the usual examples of scandenavian), were wary of socialist ideas but adopted aspects to make sure the standards of living improve without as such I would be living without healthcare,extremely dept ridden after my education plus Ireland is a non democratic conservative shithole in terms of other aspects but at least the standards of living and education are high unlike the US
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 23, 2017, 11:31:06 PM
Rules for Rulers(CPP Grey) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs)

Death &Dynasties (followup for Rules for Rulers) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU&t=34s)

Not especially relevant but I thought I would leave these awesome links here.

I don't think trump actually knows what he's doing, but most political flip flopping can probably be put down to something like whats in the videos.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 24, 2017, 01:03:22 AM
Okay cool so sessions isn't a Racist he is just a conservative retard, so I will just respond your denial of "Anthropogenic" climate change (As if the distinction was necessary) with my knowledge of chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone the reactions that occur within our atmosphere are enough of an example as to how most of the effects of combustion are negative, still you will probably state that this is a natural buildup from deep water erosion of carbonates and circulation  .....But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions this obviously pays no part x). The last time carbon dioxide buildup was this high 400ppm was 10,000,000-15,000,000 years ago based upon shells in the deep sea sediments and was probably due to https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm.

Also I note you consider it similar to a scam but the solution is not to throw money at pointless actions it should be investment in Fusion/fission reactors and sciences to slow the effect with discoveries like catalytic converters and more effective fuels  RATHER THAN 600 BILLION ON YOUR FUCKING MILITARY FOR SPYING ON YOU AND DRONE STRIKES

But something makes me believe that you don't believe the scientific community

As for socialism is to communism you are correct as conservatism is to fascism (which your nation bears more attributes to).....I would like point you to my country(Rather than the usual examples of scandenavian), wary of socialist ideas but adopted aspects to make sure the standards of living improve without as such I would be living without healthcare,extremely dept ridden after my education plus Ireland is a non democratic conservative shithole in terms of other aspects but at least the standards of living and education are high unlike the US

You may certainly disagree with Sessions' positions on things - I never defended any of that, I was just pointing out that what's being said about him is pure dishonest smear rather than policy position disagreement.  There's even more than usual of that going on right now.

And certainly, I don't disagree that there are some elements of fascism in our current government system... and I hate all of that.  I would disagree rather vehemently that what is mainstream "conservative" in this country is fascist.  If anything, the best recent examples of fascism (such as the government's behaviour in the GM bailout, where the didn't even bother trying to give legal arguments for some of the illegal things they did) have been greatly protested by conservatives.

I also think that putting money into useful scientific development (such as your examples of fusion/fission) is a GREAT idea, and I agree that the surveillance being done on our civilian population is ridiculous (and clearly unConstitutional).

I read your links... and found nothing I didn't already know, and nothing that contradicts anything I wrote.  Perhaps you could be a little more specific in what you meant?  Among other things, I have no idea why you would bring up ozone in this particular part of the discussion.

You seem to have made several assumptions, both about me personally, and about the US in general, that lead me to believe you get all you information from the media, such as CNN and the BBC, which US conservatives largely find dishonest and biased against them to the point of outright lies (this was one of Trump's significant points of appeal, actually).  I've been to Ireland (and most of Europe... and places in Africa, and several countries in Asia), but I doubt that you've been to the US, and certainly not spent any time outside the major coastal cities if you have.  This seems to color what you think about me in ways that would be quite funny if it were more rare.

Among other things, it seems to affect what you think about relative standards of living.  As I said, I've been a lot of places in the world, and most of the "standard of living" claims that are made are just plain BS... and usually, you can make that case just by listening to the people making them, and they will say that we have a lower standard of living, then ALSO complain that we have ridiculously large houses and too many cars, use too much energy, and eat too much.  Also, we use WAY too much health care, which is why our costs are so high.  Somehow, the former claims and the latter claims being directly contradictory never gets brought up.

I've already filled up enough space on this board, so I'm not going to go into detail on the health care thing, but I'll summarize: from my research AND from experiencing healthcare in several nations, both personally and by family members, I would say that the amount and quality of actual CARE that Americans get is better than any I've heard of, especially before Obamacare (which slightly raised the percentage of people "insured" but raised costs so much that people are now getting less actual care).  Actual comparable stats ("apples to apples", as it were) on this are annoyingly hard to come by, though.

I must agree on your claims about the cost of higher education, though - that's a ridiculous travesty, made far worse by what the government has done on it.  There are literally more administrators than teachers in "higher education" in this country these days, for just one obvious problem (and no, that's not counting the janitors and other such staff).  I think that one will be largely improved soon, though (no matter which candidate won), simply due to people finally realizing what a scam much of it is and demanding actual value for their money - there are already significant signs pointing that direction.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 24, 2017, 01:41:44 AM
Easy because if you know how the ozone is negatively impacted on a small scale that is repeatable in a laboratory, then you can verify its effects on a large scale throughout the stratosphere as with most phenomenon unless you only have cognitive dissonance in the subject and I made no assumptions about you or the US (statistics can tell you how much of a shithole it is) simply jeff sessions as I don't want to read any more on the prick, I simply responded to your statements and got slightly irritated by your nations governance I have no issue with you (you appear quite nice, most I chat to online about this don't even entertain the thought of discussion of this subject and instead resort to fuck you's and that I am brainwashed) so if it appeared that way I apologize.

I actually have been to Vancouver in Canada, Louisiana, Chicago in Illinois and Boston throughout all of which I met alot of kind people but I saw the decay which looked like the worst ghettos and flats in Dublin without relief center's. In Louisiana a large deal of xenophobia along with the religious nutter's in a church talking about how much gays and transgenders needed to be put to death.....I really hated Louisiana

And I would prefer to be able to afford my healthcare rather than have the best in the globe (despite that statement being blatant bullshit as many say similar) as it is A NECESSITY OF LIVING like food or water of which your nation already places steps into making sure your lower class survive (not in terms of water, look at the Fracking states) so why not in other sectors ??? you realize that if my family lived in the US my sister would have died due my family to being unable to afford her Rivaroxaban which is  for a first world country

Edit: I meant religious or theocratic conservatism, there are many rational conservatives I know of that agree with a large dea; of my positions
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 24, 2017, 01:45:15 AM
Innovation is fueled by giving dedicated and inspired people the funding to do their research. Throwing money at things doesn't make science. Just solar roads. Useless, useless solar roads.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 24, 2017, 01:49:56 AM
 SOLAR FRICKIN ROAD WAYS !!!....I would have preferred a another fission reactor as that would be more efficient and clean but it is funny how people bandwagon on shit without thinking of the practical applications
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 24, 2017, 03:00:41 AM
Still not getting what ozone issues have to do with the claims of global warming - yes, it's an environmental concern, but not in any way that I'm seen (in those links or elsewhere) related to global warming.

As to your experience in the US, Chicago (and surrounding area) is the worst run-down, ghetto-heavy place in the US (there are US websites that document the area like some kind of foreign safari), but I'm sorry for the experience you had in Louisiana - those nutters do exist, but they are really quite rare.  I'm surprised you managed to find any.

Actually, Rivaroxaban is not approved for human use in the US (yet).  The bureaucracy of the FDA is definitely a problem.  Heck, we have a problem with bureaucracy, in general.  The US government could use a good pruning (whether Trump is a good choice for that or not, he was one of only a very few who were advocating for that).

But more generally, something that gets little attention in the press (because it undercuts the case for socialized medicine) is that, before Obamacare, people were already getting the care the absolutely needed, whether they could pay or not - I know, I was Medical Power of Attorney for a friend of mine who had a lot of medical problems and was unable to pay.  Hospitals aren't allowed to turn people away when they need care.  The only demographic groups that did without were those too proud to accept help and a certain slice of the "working poor" - people not making enough to afford proper insurance or save to pay for things themselves, but making too much to get free care, and really, that was a very small slice of the population.  Tweaks to get that under control would have been MUCH better than Obamacare.

IMO, the biggest problem in the US health care system (before Obamacare) was the drug market (as in pharmacy, not cocaine and such), but the biggest problem there has to do with who pays the R&D costs.  When a pill costs $1 to make but $10 million to develop, Canada and Europe demanding to only pay $2 a pill will drive companies out of business, as they will not recoup their R&D costs.  The US is carrying the cost of drug development for the whole planet, and yes, it sucks.

Now, that said, the big drug companies are certainly not without fault, so don't hear me saying that, but even if you could magically solve all the corruption and other such problems, the largest problem would still remain.

"statistics can tell you how much of a shithole it is"

I would be really curious as to which statistics you're talking about.  I've looked into many those kinds of things, and there are a few that stand out, but *most* of them are either complete BS (not "apples to apples" at all) or have to do with what things one values over another (which means some people will think it's great and some will think it's awful, and neither of them is really "wrong").
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 24, 2017, 03:39:59 AM
The Ozone shields from UV rays and absorbs photons (Skipped that part I take it) ?????? You just stated that you accepted this meaning you accept its affect on a large scale, meaning that you accept that it is deteriorating ....melting icecaps further, increase in natural disasters in the first world due to swift changes in ocean currents drought flooding and the like, congrats anthropogenic climate change is a fact the thinning of the ozone is directly related to climate change (primarily oceanic) and I appreciate the convo as it has gotten me to question a few things primarily on douche bag jeff sessions and US health care (WHICH IS STILL SHIT IN COMPARISON TO FRANCE,SWEDEN and GERMANy'S )

And these statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate Despite Having the 53rd highest crime rate but 3rd out of a first world country but then again my nation is 9th in a first world


Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on January 24, 2017, 03:52:16 AM
Why focus on gun violence instead of general violence and its causes? I understand the wish to ban effective weapons due to national security, but why focus on guns when you're trying to end suffering?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 24, 2017, 04:19:16 AM
I don't have a issue with firearm ownership (my uncle is a officer that owns a revolver and I own a crossbow and bow) but your in anarchy in terms of regulation (outside of the gun store) gun's make it easier to kill both yourself and others (look at cataclysm) leading to the militarization of the police force.
 
Plus there is no easy solution to the number of unregistered guns in your nation due to the fact that if they began mass seizure of unregistered guns then there would be such a black market that would worsen things....Good luck solving this one but I am happy in a nation where you have rigorous background checks and regulation.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 24, 2017, 02:16:40 PM
you can't fix crazy, but they can try to ban the more efficient means of killing. It doesn't work, because people already planning on committing murder, don't care much whether their gun is registered or not.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 24, 2017, 03:21:50 PM
Fuck it, sure people will always....Someone else take over as a non american looking in at the nation
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 24, 2017, 04:00:33 PM
And these statistics

Thank you for the list.  There's really nothing left for us to talk about - most of those complaints fall in the "have to do with what things one values over another" I mentioned earlier.

As an example (and, warning in advance, a little snarky), I value actual safety over the appearance and feeling of safety, so I generally stay away from areas that outlaw guns, as that's where the worst gun-massacres are committed.  Chicago, for instance, which has the strictest gun laws in the country AND the highest murder rate.  Also, Europe, which boasts the highest three school-shooting body-count events in history, despite having far stricter gun control than the US.  Gun control laws only disarms the law-abiding... isn't murder illegal as well?

I will agree with you on the incarceration problem, though - it's primarily a result of the disastrous "War of Drugs", which has been the primary reason for the militancy of the police (not guns), the corruption of same, and the massive piles of money put into criminal hands.  All that, and it hasn't prevented ANYTHING - every drug you might want is available in every major city in the US at every moment.  It would be pathetic if the cost in human life and misery weren't so large.

I will also point out that you are... misinformed about our gun laws.  Guns are the most regulated thing in US society that isn't just plain outlawed.  Those laws are unevenly enforced, but that's not an argument for more laws - many of the events that get screamed about and used as examples of why we need more gun laws were already illegal, so we don't need more laws to hamstring the citizen and be ignored by the criminal.

But really, this is pointless.  I'm going to leave it as an example, but we are going to disagree because we value things differently, so even if we agree on all the facts (perhaps even ESPECIALLY if we agree on all the facts), we will still disagree on what to do about it.

And, new reply... so, a few more points, then:

The murder rate in the US is actually a quite complicated issue, but the easiest point to make is that if you removed the "inner city" culture from the rest of the US, the murder rate would literally be halved.  Heck, just remove Chicago and the rate would fall by more than half a point.  At the risk of getting into icky political/racial things, over half the murder in our country are committed by a very specific group of people that make up about 11% of the population.

Also, Russia has a rate almost three times that of the US.  Your example of Switzerland having a lower murder rate and a higher firearm rate is harmful to your case, not helpful.  Putting it all in caps doesn't change that.

Your point about the mentally ill is certainly a good one... but the problem is actually quite difficult, and personally, I think impossible, to solve perfectly.  Any system strong enough to protect people from themselves is also strong enough to be abused against people who shouldn't be in the system.  I would agree that the US is currently too far on the "let people out" side, but that's partially in response to some years of too far on the "lock people up" side.  Honestly, I think there is no "just right" spot.

"I guess I am also slightly biased because if I had easy access to a firearm rather than it being legally required to be in a locked safe two years ago I would be dead....."

This does not surprise me - I find statements like this in the backstory of MANY people who advocate for gun control.  "I can't be trusted, so no one else should be either."  I don't mean this to be insulting at all, so please don't take it that way - that's just my experience on this topic.

As to the suicide issue, people kill themselves lots of different ways, and high-suicide rate does not correspond with high firearm availability.  As such, lumping that in with murder (and calling it "gun violence", which leaves out other forms of violence, but includes suicide... and also commonly includes "justifiable homicide", where the firearm was successfully used to SAVE the life of the intended victim) is deceptive if not outright dishonest, and it's tiresome dealing with it each time.

"the number of mass shootings in the US" is not actually all that large - there are advocacy groups who have vested interest in making it appear so.  Also, as an added confounder in the gun control debate, the number of people killed in "active shooter" situations is MUCH lower if the shooter is stopped by a private citizen with a gun that if they are stopped by the police, and the lowest estimate of "defensive gun use" that I can find (from a gun control advocacy group) is still in the hundreds of thousands PER YEAR - gun control, even when it works as intended, prevents the big headlines but prevents a LOT of people from defending themselves.  This is why I phrased it the way I did at the beginning, "actual safety over the appearance and feeling of safety".

But again, I don't expect any of this to change your mind - I would like it if we understood each better, though.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on January 24, 2017, 04:27:29 PM
I actually deleted most of my post because I didn't agree with a single word about gun control in the us I was stating and knew basically it wasn't true before you replied and don't even know why I was stating it (one of those think before you post moments) :p but yea I guns are a weird issue that I nothing about and yea can you remove the statement about me wanting to do the old self inflicted lead skull fucking (Don't care if you don't will probably delete profile though) still I wonder what your opinion of nations without widely distributed firearms is. It is a real messy situation that has no real easy solution but the fact it exists is sort of retarded
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 24, 2017, 05:20:42 PM
But again, I don't expect any of this to change your mind - I would like it if we understood each better, though.

^ Probably the most frustrating thing of having any political conversation with one's peers when you're under 30 and not some kind of socialist.

I know both sides generally don't tend to think logically as groups, but I find the left is usually a lot more militant and "IT'S LIKE THIS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I FEEL IT SHOULD BE" on an individual level than the right.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 24, 2017, 07:16:59 PM
^ most of the time the 'true' correct is somewhere nearish the middle though I think slightly more to the left side  for that reason. Feelings don't change how the world actually is.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 24, 2017, 08:47:33 PM
^ most of the time the 'true' correct is somewhere nearish the middle though I think slightly more to the left side  for that reason. Feelings don't change how the world actually is.

That people believe that, and use it as a shortcut on where to stand on issues, is HORRIBLY abused, in the US, primarily by the left.

Ridiculous example:

Person 1: "I would like to keep my money, since I own it."
Person 2: "You should be forced to give all the money you have ever touched or ever will touch to the charity of my choice."

Well, a nice, "somewhere in the middle" approach would involve Person 1 giving SOME of their money to the charity Person 2 chooses.  Barring facts not in evidence here, the CORRECT answer is that Person 1 is not forced to give ANY of their money away (ie, have it forcibly taken away, ie STOLEN).

Yes, that example is ridiculous and obvious, but that sort of "moving the middle to where I want it" activity happens all the time*.  We can't always manage to do the "correct" answer, for many reasons, but we should at least take the time to know what it is.

* Trump is REALLY good at this, actually, and it's both refreshing and disgusting to see that dishonest shoe on the other foot, for a change.  I would rather nobody did it, but that is apparently not one of the choices.  :-/

But again, I don't expect any of this to change your mind - I would like it if we understood each better, though.

^ Probably the most frustrating thing of having any political conversation with one's peers when you're under 30 and not some kind of socialist.

I know both sides generally don't tend to think logically as groups, but I find the left is usually a lot more militant and "IT'S LIKE THIS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I FEEL IT SHOULD BE" on an individual level than the right.

"SHUT UP!", they explained.

That's been the complaint from the right in this country for at least three decades, with nigh-daily examples.

It's very difficult to reason someone OUT of a position they weren't reasoned IN to.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 25, 2017, 11:02:27 AM
Barring facts not in evidence here, the CORRECT answer is that Person 1 is not forced to give ANY of their money away (ie, have it forcibly taken away, ie STOLEN).

Such a simple concept that isn't apparently well understood. I'm not sure why some people are so... I don't know. Jaded? for lack of a better term that they feel others will only do good things when forced to.

It's a pretty negative world outlook, but I guess it's easy to gain support for, and is simpler and edgier to embrace than a somewhat rational stance.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 25, 2017, 01:29:29 PM
I can not and refuse to live in a world that jaded. I have too much faith in the potential for humanity to base assumptions on 'never will do good' Plus its just unfounded. The statistics and all supporting evidence point to the world slowly becoming a better place. In a stuttering 2 steps forward one step back kind of way. Shifting paradigms move society as a whole towards better ideologies and social systems, while causing growing pains. Eventually we will hopefully reach the point of.... the greatest potential society humanity can actually practically be. erm... something like that.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 25, 2017, 04:21:26 PM
Barring facts not in evidence here, the CORRECT answer is that Person 1 is not forced to give ANY of their money away (ie, have it forcibly taken away, ie STOLEN).

Such a simple concept that isn't apparently well understood. I'm not sure why some people are so... I don't know. Jaded? for lack of a better term that they feel others will only do good things when forced to.

It's a pretty negative world outlook, but I guess it's easy to gain support for, and is simpler and edgier to embrace than a somewhat rational stance.

The point of that example was how people move the "reasonable middle" position in dishonest ways, not anything particular about giving... but on that topic, at the GROUP level (plenty of individual exceptions), those who advocate for the government to raise taxes and take over functions from charities give little to charity themselves, while those who advocate against that position DO give to charity themselves (generously).

Much like the gun control issue (or almost any other, really, though most aren't quite as obvious), people project onto others their own faults.

I find it far easier to pick out that behaviour in my ideological opponents than my allies or myself, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't present.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 25, 2017, 08:21:41 PM
>.< we are getting way to good at sounding like we all disagree with each other while actually agreeing. We need someone to get in here and disagree!
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Mrnocamera on January 25, 2017, 09:52:59 PM
JEB FOR PREZ
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on January 25, 2017, 10:26:58 PM
JEB FOR PREZ

Just as planned
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 26, 2017, 04:22:15 PM
And these statistics

Thank you for the list.  There's really nothing left for us to talk about - most of those complaints fall in the "have to do with what things one values over another" I mentioned earlier.

As an example (and, warning in advance, a little snarky), I value actual safety over the appearance and feeling of safety, so I generally stay away from areas that outlaw guns, as that's where the worst gun-massacres are committed.  Chicago, for instance, which has the strictest gun laws in the country AND the highest murder rate.  Also, Europe, which boasts the highest three school-shooting body-count events in history, despite having far stricter gun control than the US.  Gun control laws only disarms the law-abiding... isn't murder illegal as well?

I will agree with you on the incarceration problem, though - it's primarily a result of the disastrous "War of Drugs", which has been the primary reason for the militancy of the police (not guns), the corruption of same, and the massive piles of money put into criminal hands.  All that, and it hasn't prevented ANYTHING - every drug you might want is available in every major city in the US at every moment.  It would be pathetic if the cost in human life and misery weren't so large.

I will also point out that you are... misinformed about our gun laws.  Guns are the most regulated thing in US society that isn't just plain outlawed.  Those laws are unevenly enforced, but that's not an argument for more laws - many of the events that get screamed about and used as examples of why we need more gun laws were already illegal, so we don't need more laws to hamstring the citizen and be ignored by the criminal.


@ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state (cannot place links for reasons ???)

Bullshit statement about black Chicago citizens (not about urban crime but no shit most crime is urban) the actual highest murder rate is in CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS (California only increased regulation of gun ownership recently with it becoming a blue state in the nineties), as for your gun laws I point you to the district of Columbia which has 3.5% of guns per 100 people yet 75% of murders are by gunshot due to the ease of transportation between states.

You are correct in the fact that guns are extremely regulated....In certain states.....and only now.... the market has already been flooded meaning your nation is already fucked as over half of your murders are committed with firearm and yes you could argue that people will kill anyway but giving civilians the most efficient means of killing after ten days of a wait,poor background checking (Look at Louisiana's background checking) and storage laws is retarded (especially with the gun show loophole in existence) is not a solution to your societies high crime rate or corrupt government but if you believe it is  you are deluding yourself....Still no easy solution though because this wound is self inflicted like most of mine

Also the militancy is also due to the gun ownership by civilians as most nations in Europe have the exact same drug policy and very few officers in Europe carry guns at all points and our level of people shot by police each year is extremely low along with the fact that the beyond strict regulation and brilliant border control has made it so the number of people murdered by gunshot in england was less than three hundred out of its population of 50 million (even after a terrorist attack) last year

There's an astounding amount of statistical and scientific evidence saying gun control doesn't work.

Anyway, one quick gun statistic - the UK, since you mention it, is actually a very good example of how gun control does nothing. In 1997, in the wake of a school shooting (or something, it's unfortunately not overly relevant to the point), the UK more or less completely banned handgun ownership.

Previous to the ban, the violent crime rate had hovered around 11-13 homicides per million people since the start of the 1990s. Directly after the ban, homicide rates shot up, till they finally peaked at around 18.8 per million in 2003. Not so coincidentally, this was the year that the federal government hired around 20,000 more police officers. After 2003 (and greatly increasing the police forces), the homicide rate finally began to go back down, evening out to around 11 per million in 2010. So, what this means is that 15 years of gun control policies really made absolutely no difference in violent crimes as a best case scenario, and potentially made things worse as a worst case scenario.

Another interesting tidbit about the UK in particular is the number of crimes committed specifically with handguns. In 1997, the UK government claimed there were roughly 2600 crimes committed with pistols that year, and actually used it as a statistic to help ban them. Perhaps counter-intuitively to someone who hasn't done the research, this number was nearly doubled by 2011, with 5900 handgun specific crimes being committed.

California is another good example, though I want to point out here you are comparing the murder rate of a whole state to a city, and your argument is pretty non-sensical. The 1990s is two decades ago, not yesterday. The US has some social problems, not a gun problem. When you consider countries like Switzerland and Canada also have a ton of guns per capita, and people still aren't shooting eachother all over the place, it should be a little telling. Feel free to credit that to gun control as well, but I'd strongly suggest you actually look at the systems both countries have in place before trying to make that argument. You've already stated you don't know a ton about this issue, and you might find it enlightening.

Police militancy has nothing to do with firearm ownership. Once again, literally scads of studies indicate that it is due to a number of other factors, the drug policy and blatant rascism being two of them.

In terms of 1760-1850, I think a pretty good argument could be made that it was not actually that close to libertarian society. De-regulation is a big part of libertarianism, but there is more to it than just that, none of which applies to England in that time period. It's kinda like asking what you think of the USSR in the 1950s, since that's the closest thing to a communist society.

I don't see much point in further statistics for you, as you essentially just called anyone who disagrees with you a backwards caveman in your later post. I don't see the conversation going uphill from there. Some people surely embrace the right because they are idiots only interested in the worst opinions commonly associated with it, but I think most of us do it because the majority of "right wing" thinking can be backed up very easily with demonstrable facts, logical thinking, and evidence, whereas the policies of the left typically are not. They just "sound good". This applied to literally any major issue, with the only exception that comes to mind offhand being that the right generally has more anti-vaxers than the left in my experience.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Mrnocamera on January 26, 2017, 04:38:45 PM
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/171/350/817.jpg)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 26, 2017, 04:40:50 PM
It's not insignificant compared to previous numbers in England. And the surges wouldn't have existed without the gun control being enacted. Which was the point I was making.

Just ignoring a point doesn't make it invalid in a rational debate.

But, since you want to completely confuse it and bring the US up again - previous to the handgun ban, the UK had laws fairly similar to the US', and still didn't spend as much time shooting eachother as the Americans do, accordingly to the numbers and you yourself. So, I dunno, maybe guns were not the problem?


NoCam, we all know yer a durty COMOONIST. Don't try to hide behind the bushes.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 26, 2017, 04:55:05 PM
You might want to read the article you used.

"Mark Mastaglio, an expert on firearms who worked for the Forensic Science Service for 20 years, said there was no evidence that the ban on handguns after Dunblane had done anything to cut the criminal use of firearms. “It was very rare that there was ever leakage from the licensed gun owners to the criminal fraternity. Most guns used by criminal are either illegally imported or converted weapons. And that remains the case today,” said Mastaglio.

Crime statistics in the years after the ban was introduced appear to support the theory that it had little impact. Gun crime rose sharply, to peak at 24,094 offences in 2003/4. After that the number of crimes in which a firearm was involved fell consistently, to 4,779 offences in 2013. In the year ending September 2015 there was a small rise of 4% to 4,994 offences"

So there's a guy saying it didn't work, in your own source.

"Thompson said the legislation was only part of it: law enforcement agencies had to prove they would carry through on the tough penalties and there was also poor policing of gang areas, and poor ballistics records and analysis."

And there's a guy saying that hiring more police did.

Even with some fairly cherry-picked statistics and an obviously anti-gun slant (being the Guardian and all), it still doesn't really disagree with anything I've said. If anything, it repeatedly states that all the ban did was take property away from lawful, non-criminal owners.

Might also want to find another source for your claim it didn't help, as the one you just gave also says:

"Dave Thompson, chief constable of the West Midlands, and the lead on gun crime for the National Association of Chief Constables, said: “The legislation coincided very well with a culture.”
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 26, 2017, 05:21:44 PM
That... doesn't really disagree with what I'm saying either. It's just pointing out a different way to interpret the statistics, and draw fundamentally the same conclusions.

"Many gun control advocates prefer to look at only firearm homicides, not total murders. The United States has neither the highest firearm homicide rates for all countries or for developed countries. Among OECD countries, Mexico has the highest firearms homicide rate, with a rate about 3 times higher than the US rate.  Brazil’s and Russia’s are much higher, though Russia does not report firearm homicides so it is only a guess for that country.

By the way, despite Israel and Switzerland having very high gun possession rates, their firearm homicide rates are extremely low. In the data shown below, Switzerland had a firearms homicide rate of 0.77 per 100,000 people and Israel has a rate of just 0.09 per 100,000.

Note that there are many countries that clearly have higher gun homicide rates than the United States that don’t have data available. Indeed, while 192 countries report total homicides, only 116 countries report firearm homicides. The average homicide rate for the countries that don’t have firearm homicides is 11.1 per 100,000. The median homicide rate for those that are missing is 8.7 per 100,000. Among the countries with higher homicide rates is Russia with a homicide rate of 11.6. The bottom line is that the countries that are missing the data are among the worst homicide countries."

Reading the whole article, it makes a decent case that having more guns doesn't necessarily lower crime. Which I did mention in my first post as being fairly feasible, if hard to prove either way. Otherwise, it basically just agrees with what I said yet again.

Anyway, observance of the "who's online" indicates you were just reporting a thread to moderation. While it would be petty to assume it was this one (I mean, who reports a thread because they disagree with an opinion?), I think I'll refrain from posting here for a bit until that can be addressed.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 26, 2017, 05:35:06 PM
@ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state (cannot place links for reasons ???)

Bullshit statement about black Chicago citizens (not about urban crime but no shit most crime is urban) the actual highest murder rate is in CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS (California only increased regulation of gun ownership recently with it becoming a blue state in the nineties), as for your gun laws I point you to the district of Columbia which has 3.5% of guns per 100 people yet 75% of murders are by gunshot due to the ease of transportation between states.

According to the FBI, blacks commit over 50% of US murders.  Check the footnotes for the actual links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

This is not some kind of racist fringe, this is every law enforcement or otherwise crime-interested group in the nation (and some international, as well).  Personally, I suspect that, if we could eliminate immigrants from that only count "native born" blacks, it would be even worse (similar number of murders, lower percentage of the population) - it's not genetic, it's learned.

Crime does not correlate positively with gun ownership.  There are examples all over the map high/low crime high/low gun ownership.  The trend lines SUGGEST crime correlates negatively with gun ownership, but even that claim is tentative, with such wide variations as to suggest other factors are far more important.  Cultural homogeneity, for instance, correlates VERY well (negatively) with violent crime rates - that is to say, areas with a single, highly-dominant culture have lower violent crime rates than those with highly mixed cultures.

What is NOT tentative is pointing out that "mass shootings" happen in "gun free zones" - there has been one exception in the last, what 30 years?  School shootings are all that, of course, but as another example, the famous Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooter chose his target specifically because it was posted "gun free".

Also, as I pointed out, restricting gun ownership has other effects besides the positive - defensive gun use estimate vary widely, but even crazy-low end estimates outnumber total murders by a factor of 6-8, and the high end numbers are literally 50 times that high (so, 300-400 times as many as all murders, not just gun murders), with the "best estimate" reasonable-types putting the number on the order of 80-100 times the number of murder (800k-1.2M per year, vs murders of about 12k).  Here's an article that goes through all the numbers, high to low, with discussion and critique: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6938&context=jclc

"especially with the gun show loophole in existence"

This statement shows you to be either utterly ignorant of the actual laws or completely taken in by lies.  There is not and never has been a "gun show loophole".  It does not exist.

Anyone who sells over a certain number of guns per year is required to have an FFL (Federal Firearms License), and anyone who has an FFL is required to do the same paperwork (background checks, etc) on anyone they sell to, whether at their place of business or at a dreaded "gun show".

As I've said before, the problem is not the laws, it is that criminals IGNORE the laws.  Passing more laws will not make them suddenly start following them.

"WTF why can you not adopt European ideals"

Ah yes, the old "What is wrong with you that you don't agree with me?!?" argument - it's always SO effective.  First, assume the right answer, then assume anyone who disagrees is an idiot.  And the conversation had been going so well.

And goodness, by the time I actually read stuff and compose a response, there are six more responses!

"Yup it's not the only problem but it certainly doesn't fucking help, plus 5,000 is only 0.01% of the population killing with guns, plus its homocide rate 11.9 per million in 2012/13 so that means out of 602 last year about 2-5 would have been gun related ??? I mean wtf when has america ever had such statistics"

I don't CARE the method of murder (or other crime), I care about having fewer of them, total.  The obsession with "gun murders" is really disturbing... like somehow, it's OK if you get murdered some other way?

Yes, indeed, places with more access to guns may commit more of their murders with guns... but the question is, do they have more murders, total, no matter the method?  And that answer is a firm, "NO."  If anything, the evidence mildly suggests that places with more guns have LESS total violence, including murder.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 26, 2017, 07:07:38 PM
An unfortunate statistic that makes it difficult to do much to solve any of the resulting problems without being called a racist. Saw one story about a black cop that came from an area where those statistics hail from. Gets called all kinds of terrible things by friends/familly because he became an officer to try and fix the problem. Black lives matter movement is unfortunately only enhancing the problem with the social pressures it encourages, including various don't be a snitch and other such ideals that stonewall police in said communities. Most of it comes out as black on black violence too, so the movement only hurts its own people.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on January 26, 2017, 11:40:27 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Yup it did man and still does in some states

OK, yes, the ability to sell my own property does indeed exist.  Calling it something stupid and/or intentionally misleading is actively harmful to communication.

I explained it just fine before, and I stand by what I said.  Calling it the "gun show loophole" is dishonest, as it has NOTHING to do with gun shows!  The implication (and yes, for the people who coined the term, it was intentional) is that gun stores/sellers can avoid the background checks at gun shows.  No, legally, they can't.

If I own a piece of property, generally speaking (and with far too many exceptions), it's MINE, and I may do with it as I please.  I don't need the government's permission.

As I mentioned earlier, firearms are the most regulated thing in our society that's not just flat out illegal to possess for the vast majority of people.

So yes, the thing you are calling the "gun show loophole" does exist.  I'm going to start calling automobiles "aliens" - yes, aliens do exist!  It's like that.

"primarily due to poverty and environment"

Um, no.  The black subculture endured FAR greater persecution and poverty under "Jim Crow" and it's un-named equivalent in the northern states without descending into this.  Several other immigrant groups also endured similar without turning out like this.

This level of violence and destruction is new, and there are some obvious causes, but I don't think it will be helpful to get into them here.  The easiest summary would be "victim culture", where all the bad things are always someone said to be someone else's fault, but that does oversimplify a good bit.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on January 28, 2017, 03:13:27 AM
why a crossbow?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on January 28, 2017, 03:25:23 AM
To be fair, you can do a lot of cool stuff with crossbows.

Though I'm thinking it's likely cause he's from the UK or elsewhere in Europe.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Necrosia on January 28, 2017, 06:46:01 AM
Quote
This level of violence and destruction is new, and there are some obvious causes, but I don't think it will be helpful to get into them here.  The easiest summary would be "victim culture", where all the bad things are always someone said to be someone else's fault, but that does oversimplify a good bit.

Lack of personal responsibility is one of the things ruining this country - 'this' being the US. Victim culture is an offshoot of it. People are committing crimes and blaming it on other people or historical events, just as people are taking wrongs or conflicts between individuals and conflating them as society-wide victimization. If it doesn't stop, I can see it becoming something that leads to social collapse. People need to stop tossing the blame to other people and start accepting their own actions and the consequences thereof, and stop blaming everyone else in the world for the wrongdoings of one person.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on February 06, 2017, 08:30:58 AM
Has anybody seen an upswing in the number of deaths in the liberal/environmentalist/journalist communities?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Mrnocamera on February 09, 2017, 02:49:33 AM
I'm calling that Trump's presidency is really a front for the real mastermind - VERMIN SUPREME!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1772481590/progress.jpg)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 13, 2017, 08:12:13 PM
Nope, a lot of rioting on their side about the democratically(ish) elected president but probably very few suicides

There was nothing "democratically(ish)" about it.

Nobody counts the run totals to see who won the World Series - they count the individual game finals.  And if the total number of runs WAS the way to win, the teams would behave significantly differently.

The Presidential race is the same.  Hillary did NOT win the "popular vote" in any meaningful sense - if the popular vote mattered, the people voting would behave MUCH differently.  Voter turnout in non-"swing" states would be affected tremendously.

Hillary ran up the score in one of the 50 different contests (CA).  How an actual popular vote would have turned out is, at best, a slightly educated guess.

But on the suicides thing... I haven't checked, but I expect it will be like the screams about moving to Canada* - virtue signaling with ZERO follow through.

*Why always Canada?  Why not Mexico?  RACISTS!  Sauce for the gander, and all that...
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Litppunk on February 13, 2017, 08:37:41 PM
Ah. The Cartels. It was a big scare for a while when the cartels decided to go more public with their shenanigans special brand of horrible lack of ethics and intentionally getting lots of media attention for it (to scare more people into not leaving/ cowing to them. (at least thats my understanding please correct me if I am mistaken)

Anyways. The notion of "not very safe" has become something I think people assume of Mexico. Other potential misconceptions/ correct reasonings include;
polluted air (should be mostly Mexico city),
lesser economy (most Americans only ever see Mexican immigrants that are taking up manual labor jobs in America, over-reinforcing this idea), and then of coarse there is the actual fact of the lesser ratio of English speakers compared to Canada. And somone threatening to make the political stand of moving out of the country doesn't want to have to bother learning a new language in their protest-move/emigration.

Canada tends to be viewed as very friendly and the place maple syrup comes from.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 13, 2017, 11:58:12 PM
Ah. The Cartels. It was a big scare for a while when the cartels decided to go more public with their shenanigans special brand of horrible lack of ethics and intentionally getting lots of media attention for it (to scare more people into not leaving/ cowing to them. (at least thats my understanding please correct me if I am mistaken)

Anyways. The notion of "not very safe" has become something I think people assume of Mexico. Other potential misconceptions/ correct reasonings include;
polluted air (should be mostly Mexico city),
lesser economy (most Americans only ever see Mexican immigrants that are taking up manual labor jobs in America, over-reinforcing this idea), and then of coarse there is the actual fact of the lesser ratio of English speakers compared to Canada. And somone threatening to make the political stand of moving out of the country doesn't want to have to bother learning a new language in their protest-move/emigration.

Canada tends to be viewed as very friendly and the place maple syrup comes from.

Oh, I'm aware of all of that... but if any of that were used in defense of any motion by Trump* against Mexico for any reason.... well, let's just say that the words "racist" and "fascist" would get a lot of use (just as they do when he does ANYTHING... or nothing).

Hence my "sauce for the gander" comment.  Also known as "It's different when WE do it!"  Just pointing out the hypocrisy and dishonesty, that's all.

*Or anybody else, really - that I don't want to learn a knew language to keep living in the country of my birth clearly and permanently makes me a horrendous racist (which no amount of evidence to the contrary can disprove), but that they don't want to learn a knew language when they move to another country is just fine...  Yeah, it's like that.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 14, 2017, 04:26:13 PM
I have family in Canada - the healthcare is better in the US.  Yes really, and yes, based on actual things I've seen, and yes, based on experiences over many years and in multiple places.  If you want to get care soon enough to not die from stuff, you would prefer to live in the US.  Full stop.

Also, the violent crime rate in the US is HIGHLY concentrated in a few metropolitan areas - outside of those, the crime rate is actually very similar to Canada.

I really wish I could contest the voting stuff, but I can't - our voting system is TERRIBLE, and it remains that way primarily because one party benefits from it and can call the other racist any time they try to fix anything at all.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 15, 2017, 02:40:26 AM
Yes, medication is MUCH more expensive here... because the US pay the overwhelming lion's share of drug R&D costs.  It sucks, but if someone didn't do it, R&D would slow WAY down.  You're welcome.

"Bullshit and read the WIKI ON CANADA ???" followed by "preventative cases are normally dealt with in a matter of 1-3 month's which unfortunately includes MRI's and CT's for some reason" - I see no need to give any further response.  Well, OK, one more thing... check cancer survival rates (among other things).

"Btw what are you referring to about being labeled Racist, as I get that there are probably very few Racists left in your parliament but how has that any relevance to voting "

Every time somebody tries to introduce any kind of legislation requiring any kind of ID to vote (or any other method of combating voter fraud), one party SCREAMS that they must be vile, horrendous racists, wanting to intentionally deprive minorities of their voting rights.

Of course, no one is allowed to point out that thinking minorities are too stupid or lazy to get a photo ID (literally free in many  states for a non-driver's license photo ID, in part to refute that specific charge) is the real racism there.  :-/

So no, racism really has nothing to do with it, but ridiculous CLAIMS of racism have EVERYTHING to do with it.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 15, 2017, 03:53:51 PM
Well, my cancer survival data would appear to be out of date.  Thanks.

Your other points are irrelevant to mine - WHERE the discoveries are made does not change where the money comes from to pay for them.  When a pill costs $1 to make, then certainly, a country that has cost controls in place that only allow you to charge $1.10... well, that's still profitable, so you do it, but who pays the bill for the R&D?  The people who DON'T have government cost controls on the pills.  This is simple economics.

As to voter fraud... How big the problem actually is is hard to measure (even trying to MEASURE the problem gets you branded a racist!), but the here are some points that are not in contention, and I will use California, simply because it is the most obvious problem:

California issues driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
"Motor Votor" laws automatically register you to vote when you get a license...
...unless you check a box that says you aren't a citizen.
There is no other check of any kind.

So, in that situation, how hard is it to vote fraudulently?  JUST SHOW UP.

As I said, that's the simplest and most obvious, but there are plenty of other examples just below that.

And, despite constant statements from the press that there's no evidence of voter fraud, well...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/221825/atty-general-holder-wont-charge-woman-who-voted-daniel-greenfield
That woman admitted on national television that she voted for Obama 6 times, and was not charged.  There are other such examples.

Go watch some of the undercover videos from James O'Keefe - yes, people say his stuff is lies, but you don't have to take ANYONE's word for it, you can just watch the whole thing, unedited, every time, and he catches paid employees of one of the national parties talking about how they commit voter fraud, and that they have done so for years, and will continue to do so (among other fun videos).

So yeah, there's actually plenty of secondary evidence of voter fraud, but simple, common sense measures to prevent it (like showing ID to vote) are uniformly opposed by one party.  I think you can figure out why.

(But yes, politicians from both sides are still politicians, and 99% of politicians are crooked, so I'm sure there's at least SOME crap on the other side, too.)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 19, 2017, 01:48:27 AM
Edit:Huzaah for voter fraud -_-, still I think many liberal minded people would be in favor of ID requirements to vote as they already exist in my nation and germany (off the top of my head) just out of anti corruption if nothing else

Yeah, you'd think so... it's either dishonest corruption or* just plain racism on their part ("the soft bigotry of low expectations").

The list of things one can't do in society without an ID is crazy long, so if it was really the case that lack of ID was a problem, those same people should be championing either massive changes to all those other things or programs to get ID for people (programs which already exist, I might add).  In short, their actions strongly suggestion that it's purely political, and that the claims of racism are completely dishonest.

* Or, as some have said, "Embrace the healing power of 'and'."

I think I'm going to stay away form the environmental stuff.  It tends to cause crazy arguments, because people disagree about the basic, underlying facts, so agreement on other areas is impossible.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 20, 2017, 10:05:27 PM
not really much to argue about aside from that

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to be just overly rude, but you obviously haven't spent any time actually reading arguments about this stuff.  There are SO SO SO SO SO many points of argument, hence why I want to stay away.

I would recommend you watch a few of concordance's and potholes vids on that subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYT54q9gEQ (more of why the scientific community accepts it rather than the public themselves)

Btw: I find this slightly amusing, sort of like watching someone criticize the Jewish ape comment in the quran https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBIET-uEbXA

And this is another reason.  Simply stating that I want to stay away from it (note that I did NOT say one way or the other what I think about it) clearly shows that I am some kind of ignorant, uneducated 'denier' who needs education and/or condescending pity.  If anything, that's WORSE than crazy, conspiracy-theory insanity on the other end of the spectrum.

You want to know the REAL reasons why the public (and a much larger portion of the scientific community than you think, and yes, there are quite public sources for that, if you bother to look) doesn't believe in Global Warming?  There are two reasons, and neither of them have anything to do with the science:

1) Decades of crazy, end-of-the-world claims that never come true (the first Earth Day was, what, 1970?  For giggles, go read the claims that they made)
2) The people who make these claims (and even the more reasonable, lesser claims), with few exceptions, don't in any way act like they, themselves, actually believe them

Science-talk yourself blue in the face (and, if I wasn't so burned out about it, I could certainly enjoy the conversation, if you are more educated on the topic than you sound like), but none of that will make one bit of difference to the "public".  Address those two points, or they will continue to view the whole thing as a giant scam.

Sadly, the rightness or wrongness of the underlying science is actually irrelevant to whether there's a scam being run - it's quite possible that the global warming people are correct (the earth is getting warmer, and it's our fault) AND the public is correct (there's a giant scam to get our money).  The very best scams have as much truth in them as possible - those are also the ones that do the most damage to society.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 21, 2017, 08:54:01 PM
What was any of the science that I stated were incorrect ???, I mean I am beyond aware of the fact that scalling up can complicate things but on a atomic level a large deal of CO2 is produced by most popularly used forms of combustion of which ONE BARREL OF *petrolium* produces 51.89kg per barrel....How many barrels of oil or tones of coal are consumed a year by the US and China alone....I mean it goes without saying that humans are the lead contributer to CO2 emissions within the last 100,000 years of which on a atomic scale the trapping of IR rays through CO2 produces heat.....Meaning ???????

(congrats glabal warming is most likely very plausable given the scientific method and most people that want to do something about it by getting you to buy biofuel are scamming you)

(Btw someone stated once that plantlife would be able to absorb most of our issues https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/index.html_p=183.html)

I rather specifically didn't state that any of your "science" was incorrect, only woefully, ridiculously incomplete and oversimplified, and not really relevant to why the public doesn't believe in global warming.

And yes, global warming is certainly "plausible" - even on the extreme fringe "denier" side, exceedingly few claim that it is not "plausible".  The gulf between "plausible" and "reasonably proven" is where the vast, overwhelming majority of actual science takes place.

And these two statements are just plain hilarious:

- "I mean it goes without saying that humans are the lead contributer to CO2 emissions within the last 100,000 years" - the global carbon cycle is 750 gigatons per year, and human emissions are 29 gigatons per year (IPCC).  That is to say, human emissions at their height are less than 4% of the normal annual CO2 emissions in the world.  Human emissions for the last 100 years are far less than that, and human emissions for the last 100,000 years would something like 0.001% of emissions, at best.

- "scalling up can complicate things" - yes, and an atom bomb going off in your lap might have a mild affect on your health

Thank you for trying to lead me through your grossly, insultingly oversimplified case for the plausibility of global warming.  I've read quite a bit at the collegiate level, to the point that I'm tired and burned out on the whole thing, and you're giving me the kindergartner's summary with the attitude that I'm the ignorant one.  Crap like this is WHY I SAID TO STAY AWAY FROM THE TOPIC IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Coolthulhu on February 22, 2017, 09:09:29 AM
Trump thread, climate change denial, nuclear energy, "arguing on x y forum"

Only needs more anime and slurs and I'll feel at home
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 22, 2017, 04:00:34 PM
Why would you rather I get into a rant about the tranlucency of the suns rays through the CO2 (of which where do you get .0001% from) on a fucking game forum  that I have already wasted too much time on when I could simply link to wikipedia and scientific studies ??? or better yet have you go to WIKIPEDIA and the issue being if the sciencific method and geological studies which have a very good track record you admit to being more than plausable (of which the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report states that it "is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century) why might you be in such opposition towards a subject that you know has a baffling amount more testable evidence in support rather than oppisition to, you seem to have a certain cognitive disonance to the scientific ideals in this subject (although I can understand if you believed to me patronising as I am just used to dealing with those that aren't educated on the subject)

You DON'T KNOW what I think on the subject, because I haven't told you, other than that I am tired of it, and that I claim to know a lot more about it than your highly simplified claims (thus far) have suggested you do.  Again, further evidence of what I posted earlier - "Simply stating that I want to stay away from it (note that I did NOT say one way or the other what I think about it) clearly shows that I am some kind of ignorant, uneducated 'denier' who needs education and/or condescending pity.  If anything, that's WORSE than crazy, conspiracy-theory insanity on the other end of the spectrum."

Also, while wikipedia is a great first stop, please take to the time to go through the links in the footnotes - you'll find that things are not nearly as settled (EITHER WAY - note that again, I make no claim as to my personal belief on the matter) as the headlines claim.  There are legitimate points of contention, where we have insufficient data to make claims one way or the other, and great amounts of energy are expended trying to extrapolate far beyond what can be extrapolated, and then arguing over those results.

For just one HUGE instance, what is the state of human understanding of cloud formation in relation to temperatures and CO2 levels?  How much does this affect planetary albedo (a MUCH more important and influential thing than any direct effects of CO2)?

We.  Don't.  Know.

That factor alone could dwarf all other issues... or be so small as to be completely irrelevant.  We don't know.

And that's one factor among several like that.  The closest thing I'll say to my own personal beliefs on the subject is this: we don't know enough to make definitive claims EITHER WAY.  The things we do know are sufficiently varied from our actual temperature data that it is clear that the forces we do not know about or understand sufficiently are at least as large as the ones we do, and probably much larger.  SYSTEMIC claims are therefore highly suspect, at best - the first order effects of CO2 can be measured in the lab, but what beyond that?

Btw you may be curious as to why I know that humans contribute more thanb 0.01% of the globes increased co2 ppm.....Well 50.6miles² of forrest annually would be required to consume 4,643,734 metric tons of CO2 of which ONE coal powered power plant produces that annually.....there were 1446 coal power plants in the US in 2014 meaning that 6,714,839,364 that is 6.7 GIGATONES ANNUALLY BY THE US ALONE THROUGH COAL ONLY of which only 40% of our excess is absorbed into the ocean and land due to the constant output of the exact same natural processes of the oxegen cycle (biomass ect) and the CO2 byproduct  isn't even the lead contributer to this issue

I will politely assume you didn't read what I wrote, and post it again for you: "the global carbon cycle is 750 gigatons per year, and human emissions are 29 gigatons per year (IPCC).  That is to say, human emissions at their height are less than 4% of the normal annual CO2 emissions in the world.  Human emissions for the last 100 years are far less than that, and human emissions for the last 100,000 years would something like 0.001% of emissions, at best."

Your "OMG IT'S 6.7 GIGATONES!!!!!!!!one!!!" is already included in the math, quoting straight from IPCC.  These enormous human emissions are less than 4% of what the planet deals with in a normal, boring, nothing-out-of-the-ordinary year.  That does NOT mean it has no effect, or it simply makes the statement that humans are the "lead contributor" to CO2 production in the last 100,000 years completely untrue.  Human CO2 production before the 20th century was essentially 0 on that scale, so for 99,900 of the last 100,000 years, humans contributed essentially ZERO CO2, followed by a period of increasing CO2 output that reached the grand highpoint of.... nearly 4% on an annual basis.  Even assuming 4% for all 100 of the last 100 years, divide 4% by 1000 (as 100 is 1/1000th of the last 100,000 years) gives 0.004%.  That's not the "lead contributor".

You're not going to impress me with ALL CAPS on something - I'm going to do that math and be impressed (or not) by that.  And the math there is not impressive.

The earth cannot obsorb the extra industrialised production that we use annually which is why I say LETS GO NUCLEAR BITCHES (better for everyone aside for those who get the good old glow in the dark dumped outside their doorstep

Congratulations, you're more self-consistent than 99% of fad-following "AHHH SAVE THE PLANET!!!!" types, who want no fossil fuels, no nuclear, no hydro, wind power somewhere where it won't bother THEIR view, and still all the electricity (and gas for their cars) that they want.  And yes, I meant that congratulations seriously, not sarcastically.

Nuclear is great for numerous of reasons, only one of which is CO2 emissions.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on February 23, 2017, 12:16:45 AM
I will admit to not bothering to do more than skim all the above, but a few things I can maybe contribute:

1. Canada doesn't want the kind of people who keep saying they will move here. In fact, they don't really want anyone except the most qualified people as permanent residents or citizens. Seriously. We have an absurdly tough immigration system.

2. Canadian healthcare is, without an exception, trash.

There's more, but meh.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on February 23, 2017, 11:36:51 AM
Oh yeah both of those are true, still I was simply stating where I would go if forced to move to the west in general it is worse than Europe.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: ApatheticExcuse on February 23, 2017, 07:08:51 PM
That's pretty relative based on a person's outlook. I like lots about Europe, but I don't think I'd like to live there based on my limited visits.

Not much point in arguing on that one.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on February 23, 2017, 11:07:54 PM
Yup I even stated that I just prefer Canada out of aestethics above all else. Idk I cannot live without cheap relief for gastral pain and emotional instability so that's pretty much why I would find it unpleasant
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 27, 2017, 04:29:10 AM
Hey just quick question considering the unpleasant choices of president that existed in 2016,
Who would be in your opinion the top 2-3 US president's ?, I feel like this could spark a wrestling style of debate

The problem with "best" type questions is that people disagree on the underlying question - what makes a President good or bad?

Reagan was a great President, for instance, but he also had some significant flaws - where you put him on the list depends on how you value the things he did well compared to the things he did poorly.

There are also accidents of history, "luck" (both good and bad) that are difficult to judge at times.  Was Bill Clinton great on economic issues, or did he just get exceedingly lucky in terms of timing, benefiting (as any President in that particular moment would have) from the tremendous shift of wealth into the stock market via the 401k program Congress created relatively recently before he came to office, making the economy look amazing, and setting the stage for the inevitable crash that Bush then inherited (officially, that recession started under Clinton, not Bush)?  Hard to say.

And even beyond that, judging the actions of a President as "bad" become difficult when any other alternative would be impossible to judge, historically.  Lincoln is the go-to example here, of course (though there are others) - by all accounts, no one considered a state leaving the Union to be a problem, Constitutionally, before Lincoln (seriously - go read up on it), so from the legal perspective, the description of the American Civil War as "the Northern War of Aggression" is not incorrect, and certainly, he committed some other serious Constitutional crimes (stuff that makes any recent media Presidential claims seem downright good in comparison), and he did it, by his own admission, entirely to keep the US together (the famous line about freeing slaves or leaving them enslaved, or even partial of each, whichever would result in keeping the US together), not to end slavery (though it did end up doing that)... so really, in some ways, one could make a case that he was a terrible President, a tyrant guilty of many high crimes, possibly even treason, and that his ending of slavery in the US was just lucky... BUT can anyone seriously make a case that the 20th century would have been better with a split (and thus FAR less powerful) US?  Imagine how WWI and WWII would have been radically altered, just for starters.  What if the Germans had developed and deployed nuclear weapons?  What if they had done so well before anyone else?  How about the Cold War (if things even got that far)?  Does any of that justify what he did?

As such, I find it difficult to judge "best", or, to a certain extent, even "top" Presidents - there is only "How did this particular President deal with the unique challenges he faced?"

There is one exception to all of that - George Washington stands out as an amazing individual.  He was certainly a pivotal figure in the Revolutionary War (freedom from England), but even more importantly, he set some VERY VERY good precedents regarding US Presidential issues.  In particular, when he refused to run again (he would certainly have won - people at the time claimed the US had traded one King George for another, and it could have probably been true, had Washington not been such an amazing person, with no desire for personal power) after two terms, he informally limited Presidents to only two terms.  It wasn't until FDR (US President for most of WWII, until he died), who broke the informal rule, that the wisdom of Washington was formally added the Constitution.

After that, things get muddier.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 27, 2017, 07:52:10 PM
Reagan really ???, I suppose it is opinion based but someone like me point's out his many flaws first (anti drug,deregulation,industrial military complex etc) but similar could be said of theodore roosevelt and the policies he enacted that failed.

Mine would be Linkin or Thomas Jefferson (Symbol rather than President),Roosevelt (preventing communist revolt) and lyndon johnsons (horrible foreign policy though but good ideals and implementation of civil rights)

Even the people who hated Reagan at the time, even those who point out his flaws and disagree with him on policy, almost unanimously consider him a great President.

You complain about Reagan's faults, the guy who put down the USSR, but then list Roosevelt (I assume you mean FDR?) for "preventing communist revolt" when the USSR got a huge BOOST from FDR, and he enacted multiple VERY problematic policies that hurt the US for generations, not to mention some of his other faults.

I'd take Reagan over FDR every day of the week and twice on Sunday - his biggest single flaw was fanning the flames of the War on Drugs.  Sure that was bad (and still is), but nothing compared to lengthening the Great Depression by nearly a decade, handing the USSR a massive PR win that would help start the Cold War (you know, the ones Reagan ENDED), and bringing us the generational Ponzi scheme of Social Security (go look up the writings AT THE TIME of the people who started it - they knew it wouldn't work, and said as much, but hey, they'd all be gone by then, so...).  And I did specifically mention that Reagan had some "significant flaws" that would seriously alter where you put him on the list of Presidents depending on how important you think there are.

But stuff like that is why I said it gets muddier after Washington.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on February 28, 2017, 02:46:06 AM
Theodore Roosevelt jr !!!!  I phrased that really poorly.

Theodore seemed to garner support socialist movements were garnering a large population and the socialist party in particular had close to 250,000 supporters around new york in 1905-1919s (displaced the support during his election) he also did manage to create stability amoungst the chaos of monopoly in that era, try with womens sufferaget movement and ecological preservation (similar to the the toiseach of Ireland Albert Reynold's only replace womens sufferage with gay rights)

And erm yeah reagan has his positive attributes I agree his reduction of income tax,means of nuclear disarment and removal of USSR from Afganistan was admirable but I just think that the Iran-contra issue really put me off him as it basically justified future president's actions, my issues with his increased funding of the war on drugs and the god damn veto of the whistleblower protection bill didn't really paint me a good picture of him

Ah yes, Teddy Roosevelt - much better President than FDR, who generally gets lots of favorable press from academia (since they are bloody socialists, if not outright communists, as a group), which is why I was assuming you meant him.  Sorry.

But the thing I will say about Reagan is that his flaws really don't stack up much against his successes.  I mean, sure, he inflicted the War on Drugs on us, but at least he averted global thermonuclear war - that's not exactly the same kind of accomplishment as "made the trains run on time", you know?

Iran-Contra was almost entirely a political "gotcha", not a real issue.  Haven't heard the whistleblower complaint before - I'll try to look into it.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Arkenstone on February 28, 2017, 05:19:08 AM
MAGA, God-Emperor! Please bring sanity back to this benighted land!
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on March 10, 2017, 04:46:45 AM
I heard someone state that trump will fix this, after this election something tells me that it will be difficult to find a republican president that will appose this.....I mean for fuck sake alot of the republican candidates this year consisted of variations of authoritarian theocratic right wing.

According to the media, that's what makes up a lot of the Republican candidates EVERY election... and then, they go back later and say how reasonable that last guy was, when they want to make the next guy look bad.  Seriously, go see what they are saying about Romney and even BUSH these days, and go back and see what they were writing about them back when they mattered.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/63/07/16/630716317bb90363142d1cbfdc4d94f8.jpg)

"I can lie so fast, it almost registers on the OBAMA scale!  (And you didn't think a Republican could do that, did you?)"

Yes, Trump lies all the time... just like Obama and Clinton (both of them).  When people complain about Trump lying and then say we should support Clinton instead, I want to just laugh in their face for their ridiculous hypocrisy.

I don't like that he lies all the time, OK?  But saying that's a reason to support a different serial liar is just downright insulting.  How stupid do you think I am?  And if you actually BELIEVE that's a good reason, how bloody stupid are YOU?

On the actual topic... any of this was supposed to be surprising?  Really?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Lyca0n on March 10, 2017, 12:55:41 PM
Oh yes both obama and hillary lied alot (I actually played a game to see how much hillary could bullshit when dmc emails or donors were involved), I wasn't refering to hillary in my statements.......I was just stating that I don't see this changing with the submisive liberal dems and authoritarian anti terrorist right wing repubs that seem to be winning atm.

Oh and I hated that argument when people were saying "Look at how, fucking bad trump is now vote hillary" I would probably have vote for a independant that would represent my idea's just so that neither of those fuckwits get my vote and I don't aid them by removing my vote entirely
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Ferodaktyl on March 10, 2017, 01:42:40 PM
there's a Trump topic just under this one, would you mind using that one instead of hijacking this topic ?
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on March 10, 2017, 02:51:23 PM
Yeah, fair enough - I'll stay away from Trump here.

I was just stating that I don't see this changing with the submisive liberal dems and authoritarian anti terrorist right wing repubs that seem to be winning atm.

"submissive"?  Are you in the same reality I am?  "RESIST!"  This is the LEAST "submissive" opposition party in my lifetime!  Possibly in the history of this country!

Not to mention that they are far MORE authoritarian than the Republicans (who definitely have their moments, mind you).  They want to control of the freaking BATHROOMS, for goodness sake!  Can you give me ONE example of an area of life they don't want control over?  "Authoritarian" is probably the best single-word descriptor for the Democratic Party today.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on March 10, 2017, 04:14:02 PM
2sense
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on March 11, 2017, 03:39:02 AM
Erm....You realise texas is the state trying to pass that law....Red state....Very theocratic and conservative outside of the capital and even in portions within it
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SJR0035
http://uk.businessinsider.com/texas-bathroom-bill-what-is-sb6-2017-3?r=US&IR=T
alot of repubs have a history of pro miliary and authoritarianism but you also call the dems protest of trump historic .....

In direct response to the federal government pressuring the states over the issue.  You're calling DEFENDING against authoritarianism authoritarian.  That's... special.

they denied all court nominations by obama until trump got into office

Yes they did - that's called the "Biden Rule", after Joe Biden (Obama's VP), who did it first, back in 1992.

and while the dems refused to enter senate this year the repubs did the same thing over obamacare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States if not worse

Yes, and "shut downs" have been brought about dozens of times, by both parties.  That's what happens when the parties strongly disagree, and which party is primarily to blame varies by the situation.  BOTH parties have been in the wrong on that point many times.  That's not a good example of "authoritarian", especially since Obamacare itself is a GREAT example of authoritarianism, and it passed ENTIRELY along party lines (the Dems for, the Reps against).

Still we are arguing over something that doesn't really matter as this doesn't effect the fact that neither party will really argue against the spying upon citizens of the US and other foreign nations, if they do it will get minimal support due to how pro-authoritarian both sides are atm....

Sadly, on that, I can agree.  :-(
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on March 12, 2017, 10:23:01 PM
Erm....You realise texas is the state trying to pass that law....Red state....Very theocratic and conservative outside of the capital and even in portions within it
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SJR0035
http://uk.businessinsider.com/texas-bathroom-bill-what-is-sb6-2017-3?r=US&IR=T
alot of repubs have a history of pro miliary and authoritarianism but you also call the dems protest of trump historic .....

In direct response to the federal government pressuring the states over the issue.  You're calling DEFENDING against authoritarianism authoritarian.  That's... special.
Wait wut, how the fuck is me bitching about a republican backed bill against porn and prohibiting who can enter a bathroom pro authoritarian, I cannot even find a single bit of evidence to support these bills being created due to federal pressure.....

Then you haven't been paying anyattention to the US for the last couple of years - it's been used by one side of the political aisle to "rally the troops", so to speak, and by the other side to deride the obviously stupid and intolerant backwater hicks on the other.  Here, some links from one google search - took me longer to bloody cut-and-paste them than to find them:

Court blocks federal government’s ‘guidance’ on transgender bathrooms (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/22/court-blocks-federal-governments-guidance-on-transgender-bathrooms/?utm_term=.a098b3c2c5f5)

Trump revokes Obama guidelines on transgender bathrooms (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lgbt-idUSKBN161243)

Basically, the Obama administration decided to push mandating in any way it could, that anyone could use whichever bathroom they "identified" as at the moment.  Obviously, this is open to ridiculous abuses (and the examples have been exactly as expected).  In short, the bill you listed as Republicans being "authoritarian" was in direct response to and as a defense AGAINST authoritarian behaviour from the federal government.

(I checked several links, and I have no idea where you are getting that the bill in question has anything to do with porn.)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on March 13, 2017, 10:58:27 PM
1.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/03/08/a-tennessee-legislators-anti-porn-resolution-is-irresponsible-and-ignorant/
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/06/porn-resolution-passes-tennessee-senate/98830004/

2.You just linked to a seperate issue, that was a revoking of a bill passed by obama that was flawed (primarily because it doesn't request diagnosis of gender dysmorphia) whilst I was talking about a texan bill about be passed that actively discriminates against those that ARE transgender by forcing them into a bathroom of their original gender on birthcert (bit more authoritarian) so read it again bitch
www.businessinsider.com/texas-bathroom-bill-what-is-sb6-2017-3?r=US&IR=T SB6 texas
Modeled after this VERY AUTHORITARIAN BILL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Facilities_Privacy_%26_Security_Act, Imagine being asked for identification to use the fucking jacks....In communist america you need your papers to use toilets

3.Man no need for the insults as you obviously didn't read into my statement not the other way around, plus I see where your coming from but you cannot deny that a large deal of the republican (and quite a bit democratic) candidacy doesn't give a shit about civilian rights or living standards, both parties are flawed as fuck

1. OK, since you mentioned Texas, I didn't notice that first link was about a totally different thing in a totally different state (Tennessee).  Now, I have checked the link, and I would point out two things about it: A) it passed UNANIMOUSLY, meaning that all the Democrats voted for it, too, so that's a terrible example of one party being authoritarian compared to the other, B) it doesn't actually DO anything other than express an opinion, making it not actually authoritarian at all, and thus completely unrelated to what we're discussing.

2.  No, that's exactly the topic that YOU linked to originally (the transgender bathroom issue).  Read your own point again "bitch".

Yes, flawed or not, it is indeed in direct response to the authoritarian behaviour of the Obama administration.  Also, while you may certainly claim that it is flawed (and IMO, most laws are, so you'll get no knee-jerk disagreement from me), the bill itself does not mention transgender at all ("read it again bitch"), and, if you care about intentions, is specifically designed to protect women and children from sexual predators who conveniently "identify" as women just to go in and commit crimes (and yes, there are examples of that).

The issue here is that such a bill (even a "better" version of the bill) was not needed, was not even THOUGHT about until the authoritarian impulse to control this stuff was inflicted by the Obama administration - as I said, this is a DEFENSIVE action.  "How dare you be so violent to that person who violently attacked you!"

Response bills are often the worst kind (by either side), drafted in a hurry, without enough time spent thinking about secondary effects.  That doesn't make it OK, mind you, but it does make it more understandable (again, from both sides) - hopefully, they will slow down and draft something more reasonable and well-thought-out.

3.  Both parties are indeed horrendously flawed, and few politicians of any stripe "give a shit about civilian rights or living standards".  No disagreement from me there.

I end up having to take the side of one party, because the policy positions of the other reduce directly and easily to socialism, which has the highest body count of any ideology in the history of mankind (and did so in the least time, too), but as soon as that party is destroyed, I'll be out to get rid of the party I am currently defending.  To put it another way, one party is a shameless thief, but the other is a serial murderer.  They're both terrible, but one is way worse than the other - as soon as the murderer is sent off to jail, I'll work on getting the thief put away, too.  I hold no illusions about the supposed good of the party I end up having to support.  It feels like crap, but the choice isn't hard.

(Of course, the hard part is that both parties KNOW that large chunks of their own faithful feel this way about them, so they often work together to make sure neither of them is really fully defeated.  Sick, but hey, if you have no conscience, it's makes sense...  This is why some people refer to them both as the "Uniparty".)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on March 14, 2017, 01:07:44 AM
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00006I.pdf#navpanes=0
 XP primarily the update focuses on bathrooms rather than the child abuse support of the original, and yes pedophilic sexual predators exist that would pose as transgender however that is a minority of a minority, you would be better off preventing homosexuals or bisexuals like me from using the bathroom from statistic likelyhood.

Wow - that may well be the first time I've ever heard someone on "your side of the aisle" (as it were) admit what every bit of actual data tells us in regard to sexual predation.  Honestly, I think it is.  Thank you for that.  Really.

As to why one group and not another... well, honestly, society doesn't really much care about men (or boys, at least once they're old enough to be away from their mothers).  Society cares about women and "children", which is to say, girls of all ages and boys that are still in the "cute tiny child" stage.  The statistical threat from homosexuals against boys is simply not a priority.  Doesn't make it right, or anything, just the way it is.

And your right Authoritarian isn't a correct term for these bills however fascistic is,

"Fascistic" fits even less - in generic usage, that's basically a much more specific form of authoritarianism.  If "authoritarian" fits poorly, "fascistic" definitely doesn't fit.  Of course, at least on this side of the pond, it's primary usage is as a synonym for "poopy head that I don't like", so meh...

A better proposition is enable any with a diagnosis with gender dysmorphia to use the bathroom of their gender and have protection from this law/its abuse in court but guess what because of how half assed and one sided it is it primarily discrimiates against one group....Hey what do I know, bloody socialist Eurotrash

While I have reason to think that is also misguided*, if that was all the original push had been about, I doubt it would even have gotten any response, or very little, and almost certainly not enough to get bills like that getting any attention or traction.

* The primary way to deal with any form of dysmorphia is treatment, not everyone going along, and no, that's not some crazy right-wing crap, it's straight from the Mayo Clinic - you know, only one of the most highly respected and sought out medical institutions in the world, who've been dealing with this for decades before anyone else even paid attention to it.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on March 14, 2017, 06:43:52 AM
Well I was refering to bathrooms in particular man x) non hetro's don't have higher pedophilia rate http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts%5Fmolestation.html, so in short fuck you too buddy

I read the entire article, even though I was already familiar with the particular line of reasoning used, and it can be summed up right here: "Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals."

Basically, they simply define the problem away.  In clinical terms, they are certainly allowed to do as they like; yay for them.  In common parlance, a male who is sexually attracted to another male of any age is referred to as "homosexual" (or bisexual, of course).

In short, the evidence they lay out quite thoroughly confirms what they are claiming it denies: that is, sexual abuse of boys by men is disproportionately high.  In common parlance, the term used is "homosexual".

I can understand that this makes you angry.  Many facts in the world make me angry, but my anger does not change those facts.

Please note that I do not claim that homosexuals are "all" or "majority" or even "large minority" child sex predators.  Even the absolute worst numbers I can find (that have any basis in science at all - you can find anything you want if you don't care about that part) don't put the rate at more than triple the general population, which is to say, still quite small and not representative of the group as a whole.

However we want to phrase it transexuals exist and state based discrimination even if you do consider them mentally ill (to which I disagree severely) is appauling no matter the fucking case

I never denied that they exist, nor do I in any way support any form of "discrimination" against them.

Unfortunately, the facts of the world are that all policies are tradeoffs.  For an intentionally ridiculous example, we have made murder illegal and we punish murderers... this is "discrimination" against people who are genetically prone to violence!  However, in the interest of producing a society that does the least harm, we are willing to do some harm to those who wish to murder to save as many of the people who would be murdered as possible.

Yes, that example is ridiculous, but it illustrates that not all people can get what they want... but really, not all people can even get what is FAIR and RIGHT.  Policies must be balanced (as best as possible) to produce the FEWEST bad outcomes, and, in a society as large as ours, in no case is that number zero.

The number of people who are transsexual in any significant way (such as would matter for bathroom purposes) is WELL under 1% of the population.  It is quite possible (and indeed likely) that policies that produce the fewest bad outcomes for human beings of ALL kinds (as they are all equally valuable before the law) will leave such tiny groups with a disproportionate number of bad outcomes... but answer me this: how many non-trans people should have a bad outcome for each trans person who gets to avoid a bad outcome?  If all people are equal under the law (none are "more equal" than others), that answer must be no more than ONE (and the same the other way, of course!).

As with so many other points, certain minority groups are "more equal" and get more attention these days, which makes some people feel good about themselves... but only because they ignore the "normal" (or "majority" or whatever term you prefer) people they trample in the process.  Trampling three people to save one from being trampled is not justice, no matter which groups any of those four people belong to.

Note that I, in every case above, put EQUAL value on people of all kinds.  I don't really have to go "out of my way" to do that, because that's how I actually feel about stuff.

As such, insults based on claiming I am [whatever]-ist will not affect me in the slightest, other than to tell me you have no real argument, and calling me "too republican" is not far removed from that, really... in fact, the worst part of that insult is simply to associate me much with EITHER party, as my view of them both is quite poor; I ignore them entirely when it comes to determining morality, then look and see if either of them has anything like a moral position on the issues after the fact (and I'm usually disappointed with both of them).
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on March 25, 2017, 04:34:23 PM
Nice analogy, comparing those that have a increased likelyhood to commit murder to those that have genetic predisposition towards a sexuality THIS IS WHY I SAID YOU WERE GETTING TOO REPUBLICAN

Just perhaps, you might have noticed that I did say that it was "intentionally ridiculous".  I'm taking the most extreme and ridiculous thing I can think of to make the point that people are restricted on things that they want or are even genetically compelled to do.  Society is a balancing act.

If I'm filling the role of "TOO REPUBLICAN" here, you are definitely fitting the role of "TOO DEMOCRAT" (meaning the party).  EVERYTHING must be taken as offensive, because any disagreement is clearly in bad faith... I can't have possibly done my absolute best to find the best data available and then looked at it honestly, because my conclusion is one that you don't like.

I accept that I may be wrong on things, which is why I put a lot of effort into actually CHECKING to see if I am right or wrong (and changing my position on things when I AM wrong, which happens less as time goes by with that attitude, but only "less" not "never").

Really because not all child molestation is done out of attraction and not only that but there are more heterosexual male pedophiles about 1:4 gay to hetero if you consider all male molestation gay from what I have read....this does increase the likelyhood amoungst homosexuals (not by much however) but it just wouldn't be practical to introduce a law with prejudice against close to 5% of the population (I have reformed my opinion a bit but not by much you still phrased it like a dick)

I didn't suggest or support any law on the subject.  It was incidental to our discussion about other things here.

As to phrasing... I've given up on phrasing.  Someone will take offense however I phrase it, often because they don't like the content but don't have the data or knowledge to challenge the content, so "phrasing" can be substituted.  That said, I don't AIM to be a "dick", so if that offense is genuine, then I apologize.

I am sorry but IN WHAT FUCKING WAY is this bill practical or even minimalizing those affected, barely any of the standard population would even know if a transgender was enabled to take a piss ?????, transgenders would be 0.001% of the population but the number of those with pedophilic attraction one would imagine would be in the 3-1% of that (Of which 35-50% of which attempt suicide so......oh and ftm tgs would be forced into female bathrooms which I can imagine going well x))

I never said this particular bill was practical or even good.  In fact, I pointed out that bills in REACTION to something are often fairly poor in actual execution.

The point is that, as you mentioned, for years, a true transgender person could use whichever bathroom they wanted, and nobody would know the difference... no intrusion from the federal government was NEEDED!

Now, a rapist or other sexual abuser can throw on a wig, claim they identify as a woman (at least for the moment), and go into the women's bathroom.  THAT kind of crap is what this is in response to.

Much of society is a (fairly difficult) balancing act, trying to produce the fewest bad outcomes.  A giant shove in any particular direction tends to throw MANY things badly out of balance for a significant period of time, producing many MORE bad outcomes than the claimed problem ever did.  Only the most extreme situations warrant such behaviour, and honestly, I can't think of the last time such action was warranted by the government when the government itself was not part of the problem.

Most recent example: the Civil Rights movement.  The actions of some state governments were indeed terrible, and action on the part of the federal government to correct it were indeed justified... but even then, they went WAY WAY too far, taking on phenomenal powers over private individuals that we still suffer from today.  THAT is the sort of bad side effects we get when taking such strong and immediate actions, even for a justified cause.

This bathroom thing?  It doesn't get anywhere CLOSE - it was entirely political grandstanding and virtue signaling, and the actual real-world results were irrelevant to the people doing it.  The right and proper response of sane state governments is to tell them to go away.

Sadly, but realistically, that response will not well-designed and carefully thought through... it will, by the very nature of it, be rushed and almost certainly done poorly.  I hate that - bad bills need to be replaced by good bills, preferably before being enacted, but honestly, it usually comes later in cases like this (from either side), meaning that sometimes, bad bills get left in place for significant periods of time (again, both sides do this in "reaction" situations).

That doesn't mean I think the bad bills are a good idea, but I do place the blame for them primarily in those who unreasonably created the situation being reacted to.

For another fairly extreme example, if someone breaks into my home in the night and I shoot and kill them, well, I don't like that, and if they were just at the wrong house and drunk, then it's even more of a tragedy... but that doesn't mean that I am to blame, or even I did anything morally wrong - my response was justified, even if imperfect.

Where that particular analogy fails is that, in the case of the person breaking into my house, they bear the primary consequences, with me only bearing secondary ones (like feeling some level of guilt, even if it was fully justified).  In the case of laws/regulations and counter-laws/regulations, the people inflicting both sets (initial and response) are seldom the ones who bear the consequences of the laws/regulations in question, so they tend to not take nearly enough care (again, on either side of the aisle, and as either instigator or response).

As such, I place the primary blame for such situations, even the primary blame for the lousy bills in response (and they often are), on the party that instigated the mess.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Adragis029 on May 15, 2017, 09:41:07 AM
Then WHY EVEN BRING UP THAT RETARDED COMPARISON and yes society is a balancing act but I believed that we had gotten beyond prejudice based on sexuality a long time ago, I understand the analogy but it has very little significance to the discussion we were having as my argumentation was that they should be treated like any other women with verification that they are female so I would imagine that you were in the wrong in that circumstance IN THE DEFENDING OF A RETARDED TRANSPHOBIC LAW, that will probably never be reformed as long as corporate backed theocons remain in power

For someone claiming the moral progressive high ground, you certainly use the word 'retarded' a lot.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Kevin Granade on May 15, 2017, 05:32:42 PM
Pejorative such as "retard" and "fag", are not allowed on this forum, stop using them.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on May 15, 2017, 06:49:21 PM
Let us be of the returning to the Trumpster and discussing his behaviors.

Trump has done, for instancing, the thing where he has stayed far, far away from the topic of bathrooms, locker rooms, and homosexuality.
      Hey, remember that Pence is the posterboy for conservative Christianity?  Why it was just 6 months ago I was told that some homosexuals I internet-know were more afraid of him than Trump, and that my not supporting HC was not supporting them.

I, of course, told them it was the nonsenses to equate supporting 'not HC' to actively disavowing the homosexuals and others of the ever-broadening LGBT community.


But, I have yet to see Tman make any major move to oust many of the groups that conservatives are commonly stereotyped to hate or dislike or *shivers* "fear'.


My expectations of Trump's performance have been ... altered by his repeated displayed sub-optimal ability to discretely move his pieces around the board, however I firmly believe that I and America have made the better choice in the last election cycle.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on May 15, 2017, 07:23:58 PM
Oh and if I was such a offended snowflake I wouldn't even entertain the idea of argumentation (like my current GF) but it's simply the fact that you were spouting bullshit that is propagated by theo conservatives across the globe that made me not want to argue about this (such as the bullshit issue you had with body dismorhia treatment you brought up)

The "simple fact" of the matter is that, unless you are on a different topic, the "bullshit" I was spouting was supported by the link you claimed disproved it, and when I pointed that out, you seemed to realize it.  Maybe go back and read that part again?

Quote
Just perhaps, you might have noticed that I did say that it was "intentionally ridiculous".  I'm taking the most extreme and ridiculous thing I can think of to make the point that people are restricted on things that they want or are even genetically compelled to do.  Society is a balancing act.

Then WHY EVEN BRING UP THAT RETARDED COMPARISON and yes society is a balancing act but I believed that we had gotten beyond prejudice based on sexuality a long time ago, I understand the analogy but it has very little significance to the discussion we were having as my argumentation was that they should be treated like any other women with verification that they are female so I would imagine that you were in the wrong in that circumstance IN THE DEFENDING OF A RETARDED TRANSPHOBIC LAW, that will probably never be reformed as long as corporate backed theocons remain in power

Ever heard the story supposedly about Churchill asking a woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds?  She eventually, citing all the good she could do with the money, says she would.  When he then asks her is she would sleep with him for five pounds, she takes offense, and says, "What kind of woman do you think I am?!?"  His response: "We've already established that, we're just arguing over price."

When something is not absolute, the way to prove something is not absolute is to give an exception to the supposed rule.  "Because I want it" or "because I need it for my own personal happiness" or NOT sufficient reasons for everything, and I can point that out by pointing out a condition where we ALL agree that those reasons are insufficient: "I need to murder you for my own personal happiness" is NOT a sufficient reason!  In fact, it's so ridiculous that you have taken offense at it... but it does make the point.  That was the ONLY point - no other comparison was intended, nor do I think (especially with the given disclaimer about "intentionally ridiculous") it was even implied.

Also, I have repeatedly and explicitly NOT defended that particular law.  In fact, I have said repeatedly that it's probably a bad law, and I've given reasons for why I would expect that due to the circumstances, even without reading it.  All I have defended is the need for *A* law that deals with the situation.

The repeated personal attacks on me make the point, I think.  I have argued logically and soundly, and you have responded with invective and ad hominem.  You have lost the argument, if indeed you can be said to have participated at all in any meaningful sense.

As I stated earlier in the thread: "I can't have possibly done my absolute best to find the best data available and then looked at it honestly, because my conclusion is one that you don't like."  So, therefore, clearly, I am _____-ist.  You can't really say WHY, logically, but it MUST be so.  BECAUSE SHUT UP, YOU ____IST!

But, I have yet to see Tman make any major move to oust many of the groups that conservatives are commonly stereotyped to hate or dislike or *shivers* "fear'.

In part, that's because, on the whole, those stereotypes are largely lies, perpetuated for political reasons.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread: "It is quite possible (and indeed likely) that policies that produce the fewest bad outcomes for human beings of ALL kinds (as they are all equally valuable before the law) will leave such tiny groups with a disproportionate number of bad outcomes... but answer me this: how many non-trans people should have a bad outcome for each trans person who gets to avoid a bad outcome?  If all people are equal under the law (none are "more equal" than others), that answer must be no more than ONE (and the same the other way, of course!)."

In modern politics NOT discriminating in favor the "correct" groups is called prejudice.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: Noctifer on May 16, 2017, 12:22:03 AM
So I come here to see what kind of discussion is going on her since it seems to be constantly updated just to find out its a bunch of fedora tipping...
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on May 17, 2017, 04:03:26 AM
So I come here to see what kind of discussion is going on her since it seems to be constantly updated just to find out its a bunch of fedora tipping...

Well, it did sit idle for several weeks, but congrats on the most gratuitous insult of the thread.  That's actually quite an accomplishment for this thread, too...

There were actually several pages of mostly decent discussion before the more recent descent into poo-flinging and outright lies.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: pisskop on May 17, 2017, 04:07:12 AM
Oh hey, here I go saying trump was still somewhat better than the alternative and here he goes shitting into my hand.

Well, its not much more than a drop in the bucket, but still ... I feel like he's hamfisting it on purpose.
Title: Re: El Presidente Trump?
Post by: deoxy on May 17, 2017, 04:38:54 AM
Oh hey, here I go saying trump was still somewhat better than the alternative and here he goes shitting into my hand.

Well, its not much more than a drop in the bucket, but still ... I feel like he's hamfisting it on purpose.

I think he does some really dumb things, just like all human beings.

And I think he's learning a difficult job as he goes, so he makes honest mistakes.

But I also think he does do some "hamfisted" things on purpose, just to keep the hyperventilators hyperventilating - as long as they look like psychotic crazy people (see recent breathless story about "OMG he gets TWO scoops of ice cream!!!!!!!one!!!!eleven!!!!!" for example), he can pretty much do whatever he wants.

So far, it seems like a brilliant strategy.  I hope he continues to (at least mostly, and definitely more than the last three or four Presidents, which isn't saying much) use his powers for good.  Heck, just actually WANTING to do good things for the US is an improvement over the previous one.