US politics general thread

[NarrowBandFtw]

Imagine being so delusional about your own political identity that you think you're in the middle.

thanks for making my point

 

[The_Assimilator]

thanks for making my point

hey look you're being dishonest again, whodathunkit

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

hey look you're being dishonest again, whodathunkit

not nearly as dishonest as you are ill-informed ...

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Oh, positioning themselves as centrists is a prime tactic of the far right. And bear in mind that we're not talking about left vs right here, I was actually talking about white nationalists.

and "white nationalists" is an invention of the left, putting one's own country and people first makes you a nationalist, nothing wrong with that, some deluded lefties just had to try and make it a bad thing, realized it doesn't have legs and mixed some racist innuendo in there with the word "white", pffffft

just for fun, have a go at this quiz: https://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz
answer honestly / with gut instincts of course

EDIT: and another https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

 

[The_Assimilator]

and "white nationalists" is an invention of the left, putting one's own country and people first makes you a nationalist, nothing wrong with that, some deluded lefties just had to try and make it a bad thing, realized it doesn't have legs and mixed some racist innuendo in there with the word "white", pffffft

Aaand there it is.

just for fun, have a go at this quiz: https://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz
answer honestly / with gut instincts of course

EDIT: and another https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

All that quiz tells me is that I have ideas that could be considered libertarian. That doesn't make me a libertarian, nor does it make those ideas the provenance of libertarianism.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

nor does it make those ideas the provenance of libertarianism.

on the contrary, those ideas are the very definition of libertarianism, it's no accident that the topics happen to hit on the biggest points of contention between left and right over the years, like the ever popular abortion issue:
- right to choose = left
- right to live = right
- do wtf you want, just don't make me pay for it = libertarian

granted, these quizzes might be too simplistic and tailored for libertarianism, we can try and find some "are you a lefty" / "are you right wing" quizzes to compare

 

[crackersa]

The video perfectly exemplifies my response. Debating the alt-right and others of your ilk is an exercise in pointless surreality. Words become meaningless and the facade of civility is a mockery when the true agenda of the people you are debating is dishonestly represented.

And this is why you need better angels. The problem is not others, it’s YOU.

 

[cerebus]

And this is why you need better angels. The problem is not others, it’s YOU.

No, the problem is Nazis. If you don't resist certain people you're no better than they are

 

[konfab]

The U.S. economy sped up in the second quarter, expanding 4.1 percent, the Commerce Department said Friday. It's the first time in four years economic growth broke the 4 percent mark.

Strong consumer and government spending fueled the increase, as did a short-term jump in trade ahead of tariffs announced by the White House and U.S. trading partners. First-quarter growth was also revised to 2.2 percent, a slight increase from the previous estimate.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-growth-hits-4-1-percent-in-the-second-quarter/

Chalk this one up for the legacy of Obama.

 

[greg0205]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-growth-hits-4-1-percent-in-the-second-quarter/

Chalk this one up for the legacy of Obama.

In quarterly numbers, this makes it to fifth on Obama’s list of best quarters.

 

[greg0205]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-growth-hits-4-1-percent-in-the-second-quarter/

Chalk this one up for the legacy of Obama.

Aaaaand 45 just did.

“We are in the midst of the longest positive job growth streak in history.” - Donald J Trump, the White House south lawn, just now.

 

[crackersa]

No, the problem is Nazis. If you don't resist certain people you're no better than they are

In your mind, if you vote conservative, you are a nazi

 

[greg0205]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-growth-hits-4-1-percent-in-the-second-quarter/

Chalk this one up for the legacy of Obama.

45 adds that since his election, 3.7 million jobs have been created. He calls it “unthinkable”.

He’s been there 17 months. The true number is 3.216 million and in Obama’s last 17 months, 3.84 million jobs were created.

 

[cerebus]

In your mind, if you vote conservative, you are a nazi

Why on earth do you think that? My dad is conservative. All in saying is, there are some people for whom civil debate is not a possibility. And that does go on both sides. Some people just need to be resisted.

 

[konfab]

As much as this is an admirable initiative, I fear it's preaching to the converted and some of the problems of modern US politics are simply intractable. How can you have a civil debate with a white supremacist, or someone who engages in bad-faith debate tactics and gaslighting?

I would ask the same question. How can you have a civil debate with someone who thinks Communism is the best thing in the world, or someone who thinks all men are the problem.
? Bad faith tactics include calling people racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic when they are simply not any of those things. This happens regularly on this forum, and the media in the US has a tendency to do this to anyone who dares to be right of Obama.

More generally you can frame the problem as: how do you present evidence to someone who doesn't care about evidence

There are a couple of ways you do it.
1) You don't have to convince the other person that they are wrong in a debate. Just knowing how the other person reaches their opinion about something is pretty educational. Just the debate itself has value, regardless of how stupid the person's views are.

2) You can have a more convincing type of civil debate with anyone, regardless of how foul their views are if they are willing to accept the value of evidence. 3)Excluding someone because you think they are a white supremacist from a debate isn't going to convince anyone of anything other than their pre-conceived bias.

 

[cerebus]

I would ask the same question. How can you have a civil debate with someone who thinks Communism is the best thing in the world, or someone who thinks all men are the problem.
? Bad faith tactics include calling people racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic when they are simply not any of those things. This happens regularly on this forum, and the media in the US has a tendency to do this to anyone who dares to be right of Obama.

Yes you are welcome to frame the problem in that way.

More generally you can frame the problem as: how do you present evidence to someone who doesn't care about evidence

There are a couple of ways you do it.
1) You don't have to convince the other person that they are wrong in a debate. Just knowing how the other person reaches their opinion about something is pretty educational. Just the debate itself has value, regardless of how stupid the person's views are.

2) You can have a more convincing type of civil debate with anyone, regardless of how foul their views are if they are willing to accept the value of evidence. 3)Excluding someone because you think they are a white supremacist from a debate isn't going to convince anyone of anything other than their pre-conceived bias.

It has nothing to do with a willingness to accept evidence. The core of the problem is the deep ideological differences between groups, which are becoming irreconcilable. Pro immigration and anti immigration, socialist and free market capitalist, pro choice and pro life, authoritarian and libertarian. And the ability of those groups to accept a leadership that they and the majority of the country did not vote for and which is antithetical to their beliefs.

 

[rietrot]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-growth-hits-4-1-percent-in-the-second-quarter/

Chalk this one up for the legacy of Obama.

People should really listen to that Joe Rogan podcast with Peter Schiff on this topic. Before that, I generally though this is a market top and things will get interesting, but he managed to awaken the SHTF prepper inside me, (when I thought I'm past that part of my life) but now I'm ready to start stockpiling Bully beef and pilchards.

 

[The_Assimilator]

How can you have a civil debate with someone who thinks Communism is the best thing in the world, or someone who thinks all men are the problem.
?

If those people can explain to me why they believe the things they do, and provide good rational reasons for that, then I have no problem debating with them. If not, I have no time to waste on them. This is true regardless of what part of the political spectrum they hail from.

Bad faith tactics include calling people racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic when they are simply not any of those things. This happens regularly on this forum, and the media in the US has a tendency to do this to anyone who dares to be right of Obama.

While I don't disagree with you, there is a simple way to not be called any of those things, and that way is to not espouse the sort of views that could lead to you being called those things. And sadly it is human nature to label others who disagree with you in order to alienate them; I am just as guilty of this as anyone.

More generally you can frame the problem as: how do you present evidence to someone who doesn't care about evidence

You don't, because you'd be wasting your time.

There are a couple of ways you do it.

1) You don't have to convince the other person that they are wrong in a debate. Just knowing how the other person reaches their opinion about something is pretty educational. Just the debate itself has value, regardless of how stupid the person's views are.

2) You can have a more convincing type of civil debate with anyone, regardless of how foul their views are if they are willing to accept the value of evidence.

3)Excluding someone because you think they are a white supremacist from a debate isn't going to convince anyone of anything other than their pre-conceived bias.

The problem here is that we are talking about people who absolutely ignore the value of evidence, and hence are a waste of all our time. (1) Asking them how they reach an opinion = pointless because they cannot (and will not attempt to) explain it rationally, (2) they don't accept the value of evidence. (3) Excluding people is an extremely problematic tactic but in cases where you are dealing with someone who is anti-evidence, what other option do you have?

*edit* Why do I keep getting Cloudflare blocked when trying to post?

 

[RanzB]

Trumpites agreed with him then and will agree with him now. Because he's Trump's toady and EmPeRoR MaGa must be obeyed.

 

[crackersa]

Why on earth do you think that? My dad is conservative. All in saying is, there are some people for whom civil debate is not a possibility. And that does go on both sides. Some people just need to be resisted.

Apologies, I misunderstood your stance and who you are