Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Politics version 7.0 more politics.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-12-2017, 01:00 PM   #5126
TiltedDonkey
veteran
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,977
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
In order for me to go into specifics I will need everyone to put their ear muffs on and ask Chez to close his eyes.
But could you try? I'm trying to understand your position but it's very difficult without specifics. Just try to be as PC as possible while saying it, and I'm sure the worst thing that could happen is your post will get deleted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
I don't think Trump is enjoying this as much as he thought he would.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
I suspect he will not run again in 2020.
I disagree. I think he loves campaigning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
I think it's funny how hard the left has worked to bad mouth him so he loses the reelection and it's not gonna be him running. Unfortunately this spells doom for the Democrats.
Why does it spell doom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
I don't think Trump needs to be removed, I think he needs to be more supported.
If you don't like him, why do you want him more supported?
TiltedDonkey is offline  
Old 05-12-2017, 01:01 PM   #5127
FlyWf
It's the other way
 
FlyWf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: [ ] REGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE
Posts: 58,099
Re: President Trump

The distinction that can be drawn is that Victor is correct and you're wrong
FlyWf is offline  
Old 05-12-2017, 01:01 PM   #5128
TiltedDonkey
veteran
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,977
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
Protection for investors? Obama re-wrote bankruptcy laws to **** over investors.
Hi bahbahmickey, what do you mean here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
Liberals have been supporting the Fed artificially creating a low interest rate environment which punishes savers/investors.
Do you think the fed should have not lowered interest rates? If so, why not?
TiltedDonkey is offline  
Old 05-12-2017, 01:21 PM   #5129
TheMadcap
adept
 
TheMadcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 790
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post
Ah okay, that's fair. Do you think you could provide a more fair characterization of your side? (I'm assuming from the wording of your post that you consider yourself to be on the opposite side compared to Victor, but if not true that's fine.)
I'm mostly liberal. (I'm not just saying that to piss off Fly. Though it is an added bonus) For example, I want universal healthcare and I agree that the GOP is trying to use dishonest tactics to try to steal elections.

But where I have a problem is when a person starts saying half the country is evil. Or that only the left wants equality, justice or human rights.

Once that happens, there is no chance of having a productive conversation.

<removed as about a poster>

Last edited by chezlaw; 05-13-2017 at 02:18 PM.
TheMadcap is offline  
Old 05-12-2017, 01:29 PM   #5130
TiltedDonkey
veteran
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,977
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadcap View Post
I'm mostly liberal. (I'm not just saying that to piss off Fly. Though it is an added bonus) For example, I want universal healthcare and I agree that the GOP is trying to use dishonest tactics to try to steal elections.

But where I have a problem is when a person starts saying half the country is evil. Or that only the left wants equality, justice or human rights.

Once that happens, there is no chance of having a productive conversation.
Oh okay, fair enough. So you are saying you support the left's platform just not necessarily their tactics?
TiltedDonkey is offline  
Old 05-12-2017, 03:25 PM   #5131
Victor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,789
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadcap View Post
Victor has chosen a side. He clearly believes that his side is more correct than the other side but, instead of arguing honestly, in that post he deliberately mischaracterized the opposing side to make them look bad.

It's an intellectually lazy thing a lot of people do to feel self righteous. (People on both sides of the aisle do it obviously)

It's polarizing and is a major reason why political discussion is impossible so much of the time.
please point out which parts of my post were a mischaracterization.

lets run it down:

-do the republicans support health care for all at a reasonable price?

-did the republicans not just remove protections from the Dodd-Frank bill? did the republicans not just remove a provision which required financial planners to put the interests of their clients above their own (I mean, that is virtually word for word)?

-did the republicans not just remove regulations for dumping into rivers? and for monitoring harmful emissions from certain factories?

-did the republicans not push for voting regulations that target their political rivals to make it harder for them to vote? do the republicans support the electoral college which by definition creates a situation where all votes are not equal?

those are facts. I am not even getting into the even slightly abstract things like putting a guy in charge of the epa that recently wanted to end it. or putting a guy in charge of hud who doesnt believe in that either.
Victor is online now  
Old 05-12-2017, 03:31 PM   #5132
Victor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,789
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
I think the folks on the left have a different morality level than on the right. I accept people whom are different than myself ,but I do not like having their values jammed down myself or my families throat. The PC culture is doing just that. For this reason I don't think I can go into specifics for fear of offending somebody.

I suppose I prefer Pence over Trump.
dude, the side that tries to jam "values" down throats is the right. I mean, that is the whole point of conservatism. and you, yourself have advocated for it many times with your calls to return to christian roots and morality.

my side doesnt do that. my side wants ppl to be treated equally and to be afforded their civil and human rights.
Victor is online now  
Old 05-13-2017, 04:16 AM   #5133
Lord_Crispen
old hand
 
Lord_Crispen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: unknown
Posts: 1,205
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post
Do you think you could try to go into specifics? I realize you feel handcuffed by the rules here, and I understand that.
The problem isn't necessarily being handcuffed by the rules here. The problem is that if he says what he really wants to say, he'll have to admit a bunch of stuff he doesn't want to admit to everyone. He'll say what he really believes in the company of like minded people that agree with him, and unfortunately, there are a great deal many more of them than the naive left can even imagine.


If he doesn't explicitly say what his beliefs are, he can continue pretending we all don't know what he really thinks, and if he never explicitly states it, he can always deny it. Part of why he doesn't get much in the way of honest discourse from anyone here is that he's already revealed himself. I'll give him credit though, he doesn't try as hard as some of the others to hide it, and I respect that at least, contrary to what this post may sound like.
Lord_Crispen is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 09:41 AM   #5134
TheMadcap
adept
 
TheMadcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 790
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
please point out which parts of my post were a mischaracterization.

lets run it down:

-do the republicans support health care for all at a reasonable price?

-did the republicans not just remove protections from the Dodd-Frank bill? did the republicans not just remove a provision which required financial planners to put the interests of their clients above their own (I mean, that is virtually word for word)?

-did the republicans not just remove regulations for dumping into rivers? and for monitoring harmful emissions from certain factories?

-did the republicans not push for voting regulations that target their political rivals to make it harder for them to vote? do the republicans support the electoral college which by definition creates a situation where all votes are not equal?

those are facts. I am not even getting into the even slightly abstract things like putting a guy in charge of the epa that recently wanted to end it. or putting a guy in charge of hud who doesnt believe in that either.
It's your characterizations of their motivations that I have the biggest problem with. You are suggesting that their side takes a different stance on these issues based on a moral failing.

It's a good strategy if your intention is to rally the troops I guess but it's not so good if you actually want to try to convince people that we need health care for all or that FAs should have fiduciary responsibilities.

<removed as about a poster>

Last edited by chezlaw; 05-13-2017 at 02:10 PM.
TheMadcap is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 01:32 PM   #5135
Abbaddabba
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,770
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadcap View Post
It's your characterizations of their motivations that I have the biggest problem with. You are suggesting that their side takes a different stance on these issues based on a moral failing.

It's a good strategy if your intention is to rally the troops I guess but it's not so good if you actually want to try to convince people that we need health care for all or that FAs should have fiduciary responsibilities.

<removed quoted bit about a poster>
It depends on which position you're taking. If you're arguing about the nuances of which procedures should be covered / are considered essential,and how you dole out those benefits to make sure people aren't exploiting it, you can't tell for sure what their motivations are.

If instead we're talking about whether we should have any minimal level of care at all offered you'd find that the people arguing against it almost certainly are doing so because they value certain peoples lives significantly less than others. That's where policy turns into morality.

Last edited by chezlaw; 05-13-2017 at 02:11 PM.
Abbaddabba is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 02:16 PM   #5136
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 42,164
Re: President Trump

The conversation on the impact of how the political debate is fine but don't let it become about taking shots at posters. If there's active engagement on the content from both parties then it might be fine but keep it in bounds please.

If you're unhappy at a post aimed at you then please report it rather than complaining about it here or responding.
chezlaw is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 02:36 PM   #5137
wil318466
banned
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 19,155
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
my side doesnt do that. my side wants ppl to be treated equally and to be afforded their civil and human rights.
Lol.

1) Who's rights are being infringed on or denied?

2) if a change is made, at what/who's cost?
wil318466 is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 03:02 PM   #5138
2OutsNoProb
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BK, NY
Posts: 15,997
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadcap View Post
I'm mostly liberal. (I'm not just saying that to piss off Fly. Though it is an added bonus) For example, I want universal healthcare and I agree that the GOP is trying to use dishonest tactics to try to steal elections.

But where I have a problem is when a person starts saying half the country is evil. Or that only the left wants equality, justice or human rights.

Once that happens, there is no chance of having a productive conversation.

<removed as about a poster>
For sake of accuracy, it's 63 million people, or what works out to 1/5th of the country, given that we have to subtract people under 18 or disenfranchised, and further account for the fact that nearly half of voting eligible people don't vote.
2OutsNoProb is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 03:06 PM   #5139
2OutsNoProb
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BK, NY
Posts: 15,997
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
Lol.

1) Who's rights are being infringed on or denied?

2) if a change is made, at what/who's cost?
There was an attempt made early last week at the signing of a broad, sweeping EO under the guise of "religious freedom" which basically would have been open-season on LGBTQ community members, in that anyone who wanted to discriminate could have done so and then hid behind "deeply held religious views". Now, this did not end up happening, as someone must have informed Trump and his Cabinet that this would be blatantly illegal (and blocked immediately by the ACLU anyway), and we got some worthless Johnson Amendment EO instead; however, it shows the type of thinking this administration is employing.

There are also wide scale GOP efforts to curtail voting rights, not to mention making access to abortion more and more difficult in red and purple states, and their hopes of eventually overturning Roe.
2OutsNoProb is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 03:16 PM   #5140
wil318466
banned
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 19,155
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb View Post
There was an attempt made early last week at the signing of a broad, sweeping EO under the guise of "religious freedom" which basically would have been open-season on LGBTQ community members, in that anyone who wanted to discriminate could have done so and then hid behind "deeply held religious views". Now, this did not end up happening, as someone must have informed Trump and his Cabinet that this would be blatantly illegal (and blocked immediately by the ACLU anyway), and we got some worthless Johnson Amendment EO instead; however, it shows the type of thinking this administration is employing.

There are also wide scale GOP efforts to curtail voting rights, not to mention making access to abortion more and more difficult in red and purple states, and their hopes of eventually overturning Roe.
What makes you think it would be "open season"? Do you think all corporations or even private businesses would immediately stop serving LGBT, or do you think that the free market will outweigh the very few businesses who choose not to serve them? There is a reason I mentioned cost. Forcing it upon those who don't believe in it is the cost. For you or me, we'd shrug our shoulders and make the damn cake. Would you make a racist cake? What if you were forced to, by law?

Voting laws are pretty scummy, I agree, but they seem to be beaten down in the courts pretty consistently.

Abortion access is pretty scummy too, but it's really hard to describe as denying people a right. It may be inconvenient but it's not anywhere near impossible. It is a matter of perception. I would agree in certain states they do make it a pain in the ass to get one.
wil318466 is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 04:02 PM   #5141
TheMadcap
adept
 
TheMadcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 790
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba View Post
It depends on which position you're taking. If you're arguing about the nuances of which procedures should be covered / are considered essential,and how you dole out those benefits to make sure people aren't exploiting it, you can't tell for sure what their motivations are.

If instead we're talking about whether we should have any minimal level of care at all offered you'd find that the people arguing against it almost certainly are doing so because they value certain peoples lives significantly less than others. That's where policy turns into morality.
Almost certainly because they value certain lives over others?

We know that we don't have 60+million (fair enough 2outsnoprob) psychopaths walking around the US. Once we start talking about big enough numbers widespread ignorance becomes more plausible than that group being afflicted by some psychological derangement. It is rational to assume most people are at least capable of understanding the value of basic human rights.

From there it's just about winning the war of ideas through conversation but this kind of clutching for the moral high ground gets in the way of that.
TheMadcap is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 06:43 PM   #5142
2OutsNoProb
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BK, NY
Posts: 15,997
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
What makes you think it would be "open season"? Do you think all corporations or even private businesses would immediately stop serving LGBT, or do you think that the free market will outweigh the very few businesses who choose not to serve them? There is a reason I mentioned cost. Forcing it upon those who don't believe in it is the cost. For you or me, we'd shrug our shoulders and make the damn cake. Would you make a racist cake? What if you were forced to, by law?

Voting laws are pretty scummy, I agree, but they seem to be beaten down in the courts pretty consistently.

Abortion access is pretty scummy too, but it's really hard to describe as denying people a right. It may be inconvenient but it's not anywhere near impossible. It is a matter of perception. I would agree in certain states they do make it a pain in the ass to get one.
The language that was going to be contained in the EO before Trump came to his senses/sat down for his nightly 10-minute pow wow with Ivanka. And, no, I don't think "all" or even many businesses would do any such thing, but that's not the point; the fact that the option would be there, allowed by this administration, is the problem.

As far as the "racist" cake, if it didn't contain a threat or instructions on committing an illegal act, you'd have to make it.
2OutsNoProb is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 07:34 PM   #5143
wil318466
banned
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 19,155
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb View Post
The language that was going to be contained in the EO before Trump came to his senses/sat down for his nightly 10-minute pow wow with Ivanka. And, no, I don't think "all" or even many businesses would do any such thing, but that's not the point; the fact that the option would be there, allowed by this administration, is the problem.
And? At what point should something be forced on someone when their religious beliefs come into play? Should we force Catholic churches to perform gay weddings? There's a tradeoff somewhere. Where do you personally draw the line?

I'm all for letting gays get married. Always have been. What I'm concerned about is what we force others to do in accepting it. At what point are we being unreasonable? As you've said yourself, if that discrimination is allowed the vast majority of business would not discriminate. The same with employees. Businesses pay a price when they discriminate, and in many cases a very big price. If they are willing to do so, then should we still interfere?

If it was legal and IBM made it their policy to never hire another Asian person, they would pay an enormous price for that. The same with any other race. Do we have to intervene?

In this particular case we are talking about an example of a bakery not wanting to serve gay weddings. They would be in the tiny majority, and they would pay a huge price in terms of business. If they are willing to do so to keep with their beliefs, should we intervene, especially if the vast majority of businesses are willing to provide that service?

The religious morons have rights too. It just depends on where we all personally think that should be. Religion is protected under the Constitution so there must be extreme care when dealing with it in particular. I mean, they believe a dude lives in the sky, I think they are all nuts, but what I personally think doesn't mean anything, the Constitution FORCES me to consider their position. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I mean, dont doctors adhere to Jehovah witnesses not believing in blood transfusions even if their life is at stake?

Hell, I'd bet Trump is an atheist and couldn't give a rats ass about them wanting to shoot themselves in the foot. Politically it helps him though. Bush did the same thing and from what I've read he was fine with gays, even believed it was genetic. You sure wouldn't know that from his politics, as he sounded like he hated them.

Quote:
As far as the "racist" cake, if it didn't contain a threat or instructions on committing an illegal act, you'd have to make it.
This might have been a bad example. Racism and religious beliefs are two different things. I don't think you have a right to be racist but you do have a right to relgious freedom. Good point here

Last edited by wil318466; 05-13-2017 at 07:52 PM.
wil318466 is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 08:51 PM   #5144
Abbaddabba
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,770
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadcap View Post
Almost certainly because they value certain lives over others?

We know that we don't have 60+million (fair enough 2outsnoprob) psychopaths walking around the US. Once we start talking about big enough numbers widespread ignorance becomes more plausible than that group being afflicted by some psychological derangement. It is rational to assume most people are at least capable of understanding the value of basic human rights.

From there it's just about winning the war of ideas through conversation but this kind of clutching for the moral high ground gets in the way of that.
You really think it requires a psychological derangement to think that people aren't all created equal? There're a lot of different interpretation of complicated question, and people are obviously not inclined to volunteer their opinions on something so politically unpopular so we have no choice but to try and infer what we can from the policies that they throw their weight behind.

If someone did have grandiose delusions of race science, what do you think it would look like politically? They wouldn't be speaking their mind openly. But they probably would be passionately anti immigration and argue to reduce spending on the underclass who they see as being a waste of resources. Or better yet, lie to them, promise them the world, and then pass legislation completely contrary to their campaign promises.
Abbaddabba is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 10:27 PM   #5145
2OutsNoProb
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BK, NY
Posts: 15,997
Re: President Trump

Quote:
And? At what point should something be forced on someone when their religious beliefs come into play? Should we force Catholic churches to perform gay weddings? There's a tradeoff somewhere. Where do you personally draw the line?
No one is pushing for this, nor would it be possible to make happen. This is a boogeyman that exists nowhere but the conservative mind.

Quote:
I'm all for letting gays get married. Always have been. What I'm concerned about is what we force others to do in accepting it. At what point are we being unreasonable? As you've said yourself, if that discrimination is allowed the vast majority of business would not discriminate. The same with employees. Businesses pay a price when they discriminate, and in many cases a very big price. If they are willing to do so, then should we still interfere?
No one is forcing anyone to accept homosexuality or non-traditional marriage. What people are being asked to do is not discriminate in businesses open to the public, in accordance with federal law and basic business practice. The red-state baker needs to bake the cake, then presto - they go back to hating gays because Jesus told them they were bad all they want.

Quote:
If it was legal and IBM made it their policy to never hire another Asian person, they would pay an enormous price for that. The same with any other race. Do we have to intervene?
We have laws in this country for a reason. When it comes to an issue like this, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act are what's relevant. IBM can't do this. Nor is it reasonable to say that IBM should be able to do it, and we'll just let their business suffer if they do. That's not how it works.

Quote:
In this particular case we are talking about an example of a bakery not wanting to serve gay weddings. They would be in the tiny majority, and they would pay a huge price in terms of business. If they are willing to do so to keep with their beliefs, should we intervene, especially if the vast majority of businesses are willing to provide that service?
They often don't end up suffering. Look up Memories Pizza in Indiana, which attempted to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Mind you, these are people who likely brought home, like, $600 a week, who conservaslime Dana Loesch managed to raise $800,000+ for, as a REWARD for hating people over who they sleep with.

Quote:
The religious morons have rights too. It just depends on where we all personally think that should be. Religion is protected under the Constitution so there must be extreme care when dealing with it in particular. I mean, they believe a dude lives in the sky, I think they are all nuts, but what I personally think doesn't mean anything, the Constitution FORCES me to consider their position. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I mean, dont doctors adhere to Jehovah witnesses not believing in blood transfusions even if their life is at stake?
This is good.

Quote:
Hell, I'd bet Trump is an atheist and couldn't give a rats ass about them wanting to shoot themselves in the foot. Politically it helps him though. Bush did the same thing and from what I've read he was fine with gays, even believed it was genetic. You sure wouldn't know that from his politics, as he sounded like he hated them.
This is also good. I'm in agreement. Trump likely doesn't care one iota about religion and is likely an atheist/agnostic/"non-religious" etc, but could never have said so because it would have instantly ended his campaign.
2OutsNoProb is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 10:44 PM   #5146
wil318466
banned
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 19,155
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb View Post
No one is pushing for this, nor would it be possible to make happen. This is a boogeyman that exists nowhere but the conservative mind.
I think you dismissed this too much. Aren't some Churches in Europe forced to marry gays? It may have been a Protestant one but I do remember seeing something years ago, I'll look it up. My point is valid, though. Just a few years ago I'd have scoffed at the idea that American college students would have the power to protest conservative speakers and create safe spaces and riot at Berkeley. Literally would have laughed at the idea. Not anymore. It's not funny at all what's happening.

Quote:
No one is forcing anyone to accept homosexuality or non-traditional marriage. What people are being asked to do is not discriminate in businesses open to the public, in accordance with federal law and basic business practice. The red-state baker needs to bake the cake, then presto - they go back to hating gays because Jesus told them they were bad all they want.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm asking more philosophically. Religion and religious people have freedoms too. I don't know where to draw this line.

Quote:
We have laws in this country for a reason. When it comes to an issue like this, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act are what's relevant. IBM can't do this. Nor is it reasonable to say that IBM should be able to do it, and we'll just let their business suffer if they do. That's not how it works.
I think it's absolutely reasonable, but it might not be smart. That's why I think the free market should take care of it. At what point can the government dictate what is considered discrimination? When does the government start telling businesses how many of what type of people they need to hire instead of letting them do it themselves? I've been to many bars and clubs that were obviously discriminatory in their hiring practices. Hell, when the Borgata opened in Atlantic City they had a weight requirement.

Quote:
They often don't end up suffering. Look up Memories Pizza in Indiana, which attempted to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Mind you, these are people who likely brought home, like, $600 a week, who conservaslime Dana Loesch managed to raise $800,000+ for, as a REWARD for hating people over who they sleep with.
This is a single instance, and was more of a way for one side to "make a point".

My entire premise is at what point is the pro-gay side over reaching specifically in terms of religious belief?
wil318466 is offline  
Old 05-13-2017, 10:57 PM   #5147
wil318466
banned
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 19,155
Re: President Trump

Woops

Last edited by wil318466; 05-13-2017 at 11:12 PM.
wil318466 is offline  
Old 05-14-2017, 10:51 AM   #5148
13ball
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
13ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: No Quarter is a Sandy Hook Truther
Posts: 12,925
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
I think it's absolutely reasonable
Anti-gay bigotry is reasonable to wil.
13ball is offline  
Old 05-14-2017, 12:18 PM   #5149
wil318466
banned
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 19,155
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball View Post
Anti-gay bigotry is reasonable to wil.
Absolutely 100% it's reasonable. Without a doubt, beyond question, there is no debate it's reasonable.

Lol at you for thinking everyone in America has to accept what YOU believe.

I'm an atheist and pro gay. In no way, shape, or form do I think my beliefs should be imposed on other people in their private lives, as I don't ever want their beliefs imposed on me in my private life. THATS HOW THIS ALL WORKS.

For you to even say such a thing is beyond laughable.
wil318466 is offline  
Old 05-14-2017, 01:05 PM   #5150
TheMadcap
adept
 
TheMadcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 790
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba View Post
You really think it requires a psychological derangement to think that people aren't all created equal? There're a lot of different interpretation of complicated question, and people are obviously not inclined to volunteer their opinions on something so politically unpopular so we have no choice but to try and infer what we can from the policies that they throw their weight behind.

If someone did have grandiose delusions of race science, what do you think it would look like politically? They wouldn't be speaking their mind openly. But they probably would be passionately anti immigration and argue to reduce spending on the underclass who they see as being a waste of resources. Or better yet, lie to them, promise them the world, and then pass legislation completely contrary to their campaign promises.
If you can convince a person that a certain policy leads to needless suffering then it would take a psychologically deranged person to not care at all about that. All else being equal the vast majority of people would vote for less suffering.

This isn't to say that there aren't a bunch of irrational things that can get in the way of people changing their minds about something. (fear, ego, tribalism etc)

I also think that you are maybe arguing against something other than what I was objecting to. To suggest that there is an evil tail wagging the whole dog is different than suggesting all republicans are scumbags.
TheMadcap is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive