Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 43

On March 04 2017 03:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2017 01:13 uiCk wrote:   On March 04 2017 01:05 Baalim wrote:   On March 03 2017 23:48 K40Cheddar wrote: Damn a lot of radical leftists up in the house. Real shame a bunch of you had such a sheltered upbringing and lost your ability to think. I almost feel bad. Actually I would have guessed that they would be a big majority given the age and social bracket in lp.net. I have a random hypothesis that in a Gaussian IQ distribution the political affiliations would go from conservatives then to democrats and then it would go back to conservative prevalence It's definitely random (and made to suit your arrogance at thinking you smart) And lol at radical leftists. Please, there's no radical anything around here, this is a grouping of poker nerds, and doubt anyone here has done anything radical besides leaving the pipe dream of poker success for a real job. yes also yes I didnt use the word radical though, not even once, I've used the word regressive-left and that is to specifically talk about people who are pro hate-speech laws, pro segregation, safe spaces and saying sharia is ok.

Well in this instance, you quoted cheddar in agreement and expanded on his post; without stating the difference you implied radical liberals obv.

lol who cares, I just clarified it no need to justify why you assumed it in the first place.

On March 03 2017 16:27 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2017 14:00 Santafairy wrote: because i haven't caught any current events no shit And your "Trump firing proves..." theory is garbage since the Flynn firing was after Trump knew about connections,

as opposed to what? why would you fire someone before you knew the reason you were going to fire them for?

On March 03 2017 16:27 NMcNasty wrote: and the current Sessions non-firing disproves your point anyway.

so you believe you disproved a counterexample with an example

Think the main problem with discussions here are people jump on to conclusions too quickly as if the view on an issue would directly mean people have the same view towards another issue. Thats the main problem i have with labels like liberals and conservatives as if you cannot have a critical judgment towards each individual topic that falls in the two spectrums

Santafairy what he meant about Flynn is that Trump already knew all of the facts and bought the most time possible to delay firing his ass. He should've done it earlier. He did it at a time where any other actions would've meant terrible media influence by everyone towards him.

On March 03 2017 23:48 K40Cheddar wrote: Damn a lot of radical leftists up in the house. Real shame a bunch of you had such a sheltered upbringing and lost your ability to think. I almost feel bad.

"Some people disagree with me on different issues therefore they are radical leftists." Good thing you never lost the ability to think.

On March 04 2017 11:43 Spitfiree wrote: Think the main problem with discussions here are people jump on to conclusions too quickly as if the view on an issue would directly mean people have the same view towards another issue. Thats the main problem i have with labels like liberals and conservatives as if you cannot have a critical judgment towards each individual topic that falls in the two spectrums

http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm from "The art of being right"

I think what you refer to is no 3, to represent LP forum I'd prefer no 38 though:

“A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.” A.Schopenhauer

It's not that people jump to conclusions, they mostly want to win the cock fight too bad

Damn lebowski thats such a cool list :D

Someone should explain to Trump what the NSA does...

On March 04 2017 00:57 Baalim wrote: What are your thoughts on the WallStreetJournal hit piece about Piewdiepie?

My first time hearing about it was this thread, and the first time hearing about what actually happened was uick's response to you, and it just seems completely standard. No, I don't think Pewdiepie has explicitly racist motives, but it should it be completely obvious that you can't continuously make Nazi jokes and work for fucking Disney.

Yes but disagreeing with the mass migration from the middle east to Europe or wanting to have tighter control with migration from Mexicans to USA and deportation from illegal immigrants doesnt make you a racist, does it?

No, not automatically, but frequently the reasons for having those positions are in fact racist. For people who keep quiet and just vote you'll never really be able to tell legit security concerns from actual racism. For people almost daily perpetuating lies its a lot easier.

I think this is a very clear example of your bias, I support neither, but I can see many areas in which one would be better than the other, if you were honest with yourself you probably would notice there is something weird going on when you cant see a single one of those things.

Don't know what to tell you, Trump is extreme far right on just about every issue while HRC is just a center/right democrat. I'm sure I actually don't agree on Clinton on a good many issues, but issues in which Trump is better is zero. You're free to come up with another example of where Trump is better besides Russia support, which is laughable at the moment with everything going on.

but are you for or against the censorship of what the state deems as hateful speech?

Against, but its not worth having a discussion over. In the US, its like being worried about Sharia law being instituted.

On March 04 2017 04:48 Santafairy wrote: as opposed to what? why would you fire someone before you knew the reason you were going to fire them for?

Didn't even know wtf you were getting at till I figured you were just severely nitpicking my post. Obviously, "after" means "well after". White House knew weeks before firing about Russia connections, thought it could get away with not doing anything about it, Post story broke about Russia connections, Flynn is insta-fired, WH lies about the reasoning for the firing (general mistrust), then later admits they knew about connections.

That's your "counter-example" to the Sessions situation.

On March 04 2017 12:29 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2017 23:48 K40Cheddar wrote: Damn a lot of radical leftists up in the house. Real shame a bunch of you had such a sheltered upbringing and lost your ability to think. I almost feel bad. "Some people disagree with me on different issues therefore they are radical leftists." Good thing you never lost the ability to think.

And everyone asking critical questions about the migrant crisis or Islam are "extreme right" brownshirts / nazis / racists lol

It goes both ways man

On March 04 2017 23:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2017 12:29 lebowski wrote:   On March 03 2017 23:48 K40Cheddar wrote: Damn a lot of radical leftists up in the house. Real shame a bunch of you had such a sheltered upbringing and lost your ability to think. I almost feel bad. "Some people disagree with me on different issues therefore they are radical leftists." Good thing you never lost the ability to think. And everyone asking critical questions about the migrant crisis or Islam are "extreme right" brownshirts / nazis / racists lol It goes both ways man

when did that happen here though

On March 04 2017 11:43 Spitfiree wrote: Santafairy what he meant about Flynn is that Trump already knew all of the facts and bought the most time possible to delay firing his ass. He should've done it earlier. He did it at a time where any other actions would've meant terrible media influence by everyone towards him.

that's because he's on a planet where flynn is muh russian putin boogeyman and him being fired simply for the stated reason of lying is a conspiracy theory:

On March 04 2017 18:12 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2017 04:48 Santafairy wrote: as opposed to what? why would you fire someone before you knew the reason you were going to fire them for? Didn't even know wtf you were getting at till I figured you were just severely nitpicking my post. Obviously, "after" means "well after". White House knew weeks before firing about Russia connections, thought it could get away with not doing anything about it, Post story broke about Russia connections, Flynn is insta-fired, WH lies about the reasoning for the firing (general mistrust), then later admits they knew about connections.

On March 04 2017 18:12 NMcNasty wrote: That's your "counter-example" to the Sessions situation.

-"the playboy billionaire who was on TV for 15 seasons firing people is completely capable of firing someone, an argument which could be made in a vacuum but is proven by the fact that he happens to be on the record firing the NSA just now"
-"yeah but he DIDN'T fire someone else! he DIDN'T fire everyone!"

maybe... it's different? maybe... he will later?

On March 04 2017 17:40 NMcNasty wrote: Don't know what to tell you, Trump is extreme far right on just about every issue while HRC is just a center/right democrat. I'm sure I actually don't agree on Clinton on a good many issues, but issues in which Trump is better is zero. You're free to come up with another example of where Trump is better besides Russia support, which is laughable at the moment with everything going on.

Calling Trump "extreme far right" is outrageous hyperbole.

This isn't just the first Republican to do this, it's the first American presidential candidate ever.

There's plenty to criticize the guy about, but using huge exaggerations is just silly.

Why is that side of Donald Trump never shown to us in norwegian media.... I really hate how stupidly inbalanced they depicture him.

On March 05 2017 07:33 nolan wrote: This isn't just the first Republican to do this, it's the first American presidential candidate ever.

That's nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Trump opposes gay marriage. HRC supports gay marriage. I support gay marriage. Trump's VP pick Mike Pence, who has experience so we can actually look at voting record, has voted against LGBT issues every time.

On March 05 2017 16:16 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2017 07:33 nolan wrote: This isn't just the first Republican to do this, it's the first American presidential candidate ever. That's nothing more than a publicity stunt. Trump opposes gay marriage. HRC supports gay marriage. I support gay marriage. Trump's VP pick Mike Pence, who has experience so we can actually look at voting record, has voted against LGBT issues every time.

Publicity stunt that goes against your core voting base... riiiight, because if Trump says he is ok with gays its publicity stunt, if Hillary says it she means it lol ok.

From where do you get that Trump is against gay marriage? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-pr...ex-marriage-settled/story?id=43513067



Hillary opposed gay marriage through most of her career, then she switched when it wasnt the popular choice

On March 06 2017 03:57 Baalim wrote: From where do you get that Trump is against gay marriage? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-pr...ex-marriage-settled/story?id=43513067

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/

"It's settled" and "leave it to the states" is hardly support for gay marriage. Numerous times during the campaign both candidates were asked point blank about gay marriage, Clinton clearly came out in support of it, Trump gave non-answers.

Anyway I'm willing to concede this is one of the few issues Trump isn't *far right* on (like Pence), but clearly HRC's position is better.

yeah most i can say about trump is that he is a self absorbed jerk lol
i no longer follow what he's been doing lately

Whats sad is stuff like gay marriage is still something thats discussed publicly...