The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I'm not sure you know what a one-liner is

Assault in bathrooms, and indeed sexual assault, is definitely a thing that happens.

But that has very, very, very little to do with transgender people. Nevermind assuming what candidates I can or can't support, or have or haven't supported. I have been open, from the start of my involvement in this thread, about not being American.

So you should perhaps stop making these silly claims about me whilst complaining about how I'm making silly claims about you *

* and I'm sorry, but shifting an argument from transgender bathroom rights to the notion of sexual assault in public restrooms is indeed conflating the two issues. You drew the link there between the right to use the bathroom of your gender, and rape. You did that. That's transphobic.

http://time.com/4314896/transgender-bathroom-bill-male-predators-argument/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/debunking-bathroom-myths_b_8670438.html

https://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533

https://mediamatters.org/research/2...-guide-debunked-bathroom-predator-myth/210200

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...eats_transgender_rights_in_new_hampshire.html

And no, I'm not going to dig up a conservative source, because every single conservative I've ever met has literally denied trans peoples the rights to their existence. And more than a few liberals, too. But conservative outlets are hardly sympathic to the factual, scientific existence of such. So, sorry, but I'm not going down that hole. Do your own research, if I offend you so much

Being American or not, has been fully established (and I accept it), as irrelevant as this effects a global scale.

Drawing that conclusion is NOT transphobic, ESPECIALLY IN THE SENSE THAT I DID IT. Hetero, homo, trans, cis, all are capable of sexual assault, onto their own gender and the gender of others. That concept ALONE defeats the threshold of being -ist, because it's an "everyone equally a threat" situation. EVERYONE is EQUALLY a threat. Christians, muslims, atheists, trans, cis, male, female, all can break very insane laws. The bias of blaming any one group for it, is stupid, and the bias of blaming a group for concerns of it is victim-blaming.

Statistically, there is an argument for segregated bathrooms, of gender as well as race. We all know that's dog **** because it doesn't stop offenders. What does stop offenders, is single-occupancy stalls, due to proximity and lack of space and access, and unisex handwashing commons, due to public traffic in and out.

Your support of trans rights does not offend me. Calling me a transphobe, well, I've run out of dark material to use at this point. I'm so livid at being called that, that it's come full circle. Uhm, diahreaa dog puke? I don't know what to say that's dark enough. So whatever. If I come up with something, I'll probably say it. Because I don't appreciate being called transphobic.

You know, a pretty regular friend of mine, "Agent" (Jessica) from the Renegade X development team, is trans. Doesn't bother me, don't see why it would, they're a class act at what they do with their life, I wish them the success they deserve with their life, which is a lot more than they have now with car troubles and the daily rut with college. I'd've voted Hillary if I legitimately felt it would have helped, but you know how Trump's breaking some promises of individual liberty? I bet by now, we'd have Hillary supporting the women's cause for protecting them from sexual assault by strictly enforced bathroom segregation. I doubt she'd ever shed a **** for her common man, she hasn't before so her track record is pretty poor. The most likely candidate that would have protected trans rights, is Johnson, mind you it wouldn't be enforced by law, it'd be enforced by lack of law, so the "protest/boycott" crowd we have right now would have to pressure businesses to be rational. Iirc, that's how Europe became so welcoming, so I don't see what the problem would be.

In that regard, anyone that supports Trump or Hillary, in the US or globally, is a transphobe and/or complacent to transphobia. Peace.

one day or other you're gonna have to admit to yourself it's been long since anyone other than you in this thread cared about Hillary. I'm talking 50-80 pages back.

she's not the president. she could be dead for all I care. you've averted your perceived catastrophe since she's not president so why OH why do you keep droning on endlessly bout her?

Yes, being peaceful is indeed "wild" in a world used to violence. You are advocating to take things from people without their permission, to take their time, effort, and labour. When a King taxes his peasants, he is stealing from them. When a socialist taxes people, he is stealing from them. Do not mince words. When i see that 1+1 =2 , I don't say "oh this only applies when i live on mars".

Anarchy is the absence of oppressive and coercive force. It is not the absence of structure or morality, rather the opposite. Whether you realise it or not, you sound like a fundamentalist christian - "Without Goverment, where will our morality come from? The world will plunge into chaos at the hands of these wayward anarchists!".

And yet every day you open your eyes without seeing. Every day you consume things from anarchistic commercial businesses that supply you with goods and services in voluntary exchange. Tell me, when was the last time socialism produced a single loaf of bread for the poor?

Let me put it in terms you can understand. Government is a mega corporation with a private army. It is an organised body that has a monopoly on the use of force. Voters are insignificant shareholders, some by bondage. Look at the balance sheet of any country on earth and you will see anywhere up to 50% of GDP being stolen and spent by this mega corporation. Not only that, 85% of people on earth live under corrupt mega corporations.

The US alone has a national debt of $20 trillion guaranteed on the backs of the unborn. People who have no rights, no representation, no voice. Who haven't benefited jack from all your ponzi scheme social programs, and yet they are bonded by force to pay back all the benefits you want to enjoy now while you're alive.

There are usually two kinds of responses to self evident non aggression morality.

1. They are intellectually honest about it and own up to it. I respect this. They have the moral conviction to recognise the grave seriousness of initiating violence on others, but they then give gut punching reasons why all other options are impossible despite best efforts and violence as a last resort is absolutely necessary. For example, I will steal someone's dog to save it from abuse from it's owner and then pay any legal punishment that follows gladly.
2. They try to obfuscate it with semantical word soup non-answers because if they were honest with themselves, they aren't arguing from morality, they're arguing from laziness. They covet what other people have worked for, and on an unconscious level they want it for themselves.

You are currently taking route number 2.

*I wonder when Sanders is going to buy that 4th holiday house to claim more deductions on his taxable income. I laughed so hard when it came out that Trump paid a higher percentage of his income in tax than Bernie "13%" Breadlines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/world/europe/erdogan-turkey-future-of-europe.html?_r=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-election-turkey-idUSKBN16N14S

Indeed, looks like there's a good chance for religious conflict on the horizon because of the irresponsible actions of social marxist progressives, and they will have no-one to blame but themselves for their immigration policies, censorship, and political correctness. It's funny they don't even realise that the boogeyman of nationalism is merely the fever to their disease. As stupid as US establishment democrats who are still scratching their heads wondering how Trump won. You reap what you sow.

The saddest thing of all is that the people who will suffer the most will be actual good culturally integrated, law abiding immigrants caught in the crossfire who wanted to make a better life for themselves and their family. Some stupid skinhead is eventually going to attack one of these people, and the progressives are going to use them as a political lever for more political power and censorship laws, clamp down harder into a totalitarian state and eventually cause that pressure lid to explode in their faces. All because they were too scared to have honest discussion about real issues for fear of being brigaded by progressives as a racist or punished under some inane hate speech law.

All because Europe lacked the balls to protect the good immigrants from being tarnished by the reputation of bad immigrants with their ridiculous bleeding hearts open borders and Shengen agreement. Most likely, Erdogan is going to send a few million immigrants into the EU when one of his political demands aren't met or if Germany refuses to buy him off, and that will kick the whole thing off.

I'm not sure you're qualified to be the arbiter on who is and isn't a "good immigrant".

1. Bad immigrants are those who have been caught 20 times pickpocketing in Madrid underground and happily shout at the police "Long live Spain, where I can steal without consecuences". See, you don't really need a Ph.D. to identify them.

2. The stupid "hate" excuse to censor others opinions is stupid. Hate is a feeling and I don't want mind police. I can hate whoever I want as long as I don't hurt them; and I've hated many people but never hurt them in an illegal way.
Some people use this "hate" excuse to discredit opinions such as being against gay marriage or the trans-only previlige to choose bathroom, but I haven't heard anyone say that he is agains gay marriage because gays are inhuman and deserve to die, they just don't want to extend marriage to same sex couples. If you want to fine people for hating I give you a few examples: "Most politicias are thieves." (Hate against a group of people implies that we should attack them)
, "Sexists are dumb"...

3. A funny video about CNN truthful news (not saying other networks are better)

People are using your non-constructive reason of "I hate this" to dismiss your opinions on opposing something you hate because you hate it. Because you're not being constructive?

Poor you. Truly, what a tragedy, to not be taken seriously because you can't construct a constructive argument as to why gay people don't deserve to be married

(this is why I laugh whenever America tries to trumpet about separation of Church and state. They're still hopelessly entwined and ingrained in modern culture)

Really? My english must be much worse than I thought if you understod that I was making a claim against gay marriage instead of a claim against "hate speech" censorship.

When you use support, or a lack of support, of gay marriage as a use case of not wanting hate speech to be censored, yes, that is the logical inference.

Unless there is another, valid opinion for opposing gay marriage that doesn't boil down to hatred of such?

You still don't want to understand that no matter what you do you will end up with a "Government" when you put a large group of people in one place. That's a natural reaction. The more natural thing is also for that "Government" to be pretty far away from a Democracy or a free country. You only get that when you put massive focus into producing rules at which it can be developed. Which is why your "let's just ignore the need for a functional Government" is only gonna yield you anarchy.


Also you ignored the important fact that enacting your "commercialize everything" concepts is stomping on the rights of the people who would like the Government to take care of certain things instead.
You're intending to steal my health-care system from me. My public schools. My public roads. All things that work pretty well.

Random thought: What about the military? As sad as it is there is at least some need for that in a state. Should the military to be a private Organization? That sounds kinda absurd to me.
But keeping the military tax funded while no longer having all those good useful things (schools, roads, health-care) also sounds absurd. So you steal my money to fund your army, but you don't even take care of my education and health? Yeah no.

If a country can run an expensive army to fight against enemies from the outside one might wonder why they cannot run an expensive army of doctors to fight enemies from the inside as well.
All free of charge to the single person. Apart from those taxes obviously.

I don't think most companies I buy stuff from are "anarchistic". You're strawmanning yourself out of this it seems.

It sure paid for a lot of broad just today. All those people receiving social support money while they are searching for new work for example.
Also my food today was really cheap, as I ate at the University which provides cheap food for students at expense of the social state. I didn't have anything with bread however.

Yeah and that's why you need a complicated system to make it work. It starts with democracy and continues with the development of human rights.
Doing away with that "corporation" however does not work as long as you don't want to isolate yourself from the rest of the world. You cannot escape society.

If you want to call that fact of life "violent" then do so. I rather call "violent" things that actually cause harm. Like getting punched.

At the end the reason why can't understand your "taxes are just stealing money" is probably because that is not what I am seeing around me. I see a rich nation with a pretty successful government that provides very well for its citizens. Sure not everything is working perfectly, but for a company that tries to manage 80 million people while at the same time letting them have as much personal freedom as possible they're doing a damn well job. Especially when looking at the state other places are in.
So when I only get 65% of my wage and the rest goes into various taxes and social systems it seems pretty reasonable to go "yep that is the cost of living in this nice place. Fair trade. Very fair considering the many MANY things this nation has provided for me in the last 20+ years and continues to provide even now".

And no there is no "oppressed minority" that has to pay for this. If you dare to suggest that please provide specific evidence such a minority exists in Germany and how they're unfairly treated and unfairly pay for stuff others get.

Could you please not use the failure of a wannabe free market of the US as an example for failed socialistic anything? All it is an example of a free market gone wrong at the hand of the monopolies I kept warning you about when we were talking about this before. The prime example of what happens when people try to enact the things you advocate (and fail obviously).
No matter where you look in the US you see failed attempts of "less state more free market". Schools for example. Or universities. Or medical care. Or some other example I came back here to write down but forgot while writing the others xD

Sigh. You're so extremely deep into these "free market over everything" stuff it is hard to get through to you with logical arguments.

lol. Erdogan logic right out of your mouth. I dunno what to say. You really use argumentation provided by THOSE people? What is next? Gonna pull out arguments from Assad? Putin? Kim Jong Un? I am sure they all have some ridiculous things to offer you could pick from.

Erdogan is on his path to dictatorship and says and does whatever he wants. I'd recommend you think twice before you use his argumentation for your cause, it makes you look not very wise.

Funny. But Sanders demands fair taxes. Trump just demands his rich friends be treated nicely. Or well he enacts that now.

Also since when do we have current tax data on Trump? Isn't he the first President to simply not tell? or did I miss something?

I just wondered: Have you ever posted your opinion of Trumps work so far anywhere? We've had you defend all sorts of specific things, but always under some form of "yeah Trump isn't optimal, but you are criticizing him wrong" or something.

What DO you actually think of Trumps presidency so far? Good? Bad?

There are two reasons someone wants to defend hate speech. The liberal irrational leap, that they love them some hate speech and want to be able to be racist/sexist/islamaphobic/transphobic/antisemantic/ect. Then, there's the **** where someone supports "healthcare" and goes to jail because a stance on heathcare is "racist" (or linked to racism in the furthest leap a grasshopper like Gorbles or Tatsu can make).

I do not want anyone who has an unbiased stance, against immigration, to go to prison because the government generously abuses a law to imprison essentially anyone. A stance against immigration isn't racist, it can be an economic stance. The bathroom laws, can be a safety stance, albeit that's a stupid stance, but the people aren't always trying to be spiteful over it, some are women who are brainwashed into fearing sexual assault, and it's not fair to imprison them over their fear of sexual assault, instead of address it. That's victim-jailing, an advanced form of victim-blaming.

It's not opposition of gay marriage. That is something supported. It's in opposition to citizen prosecution for political stance. We already have laws where public businesses cannot discriminate, THAT's not free speech, that's a legal violation.

If someone's religious stance is openly anti-gay, then yes, they're an idiot because everyone does anti-christian ****, even christians, who the hell lives their life never having sex outside of marriage or have only 1 spouse their entire life? Like generously, 28% at most.

Can that be their stance anyway? As long as they're aware that their liberty of speech, lasts until it affects someone else, such as refusal of service (they serve divorcees anyway), a moltov (attempted murder, doesn't matter race/religion/ect), or other **** the Westboro has so many people willing to oppose them over.

She made the political climate inhospitable for everyone, both during the election, and afterwards now that she gave the presidency to Trump for 4+ years. As such, I-... no, EVERYONE is owed 4 years of saltiness, to accommodate their grief...

Hey, here's a joke in poor taste for ya. Did you know, wealth is apparently the only handicap when pouring a good pint, NOT gender? I already knew that, just wondering if you did. By the way, you can only guess who made this gem...

well... hold on know...


you say grasshopper like it's a thing we do .... but then you jump from liking healthcare to that being a jail-worthy felony!? and don't back your claim???

now I realize the reason you don't need to is because : that's nuts, trump tweets wish they were that crazy and far fetched.

what the hell kind of left/lib/dem DOESN'T support healthcare? (that's despite the dems no longer being in charge ..at all!)

and AGAIN luckily for ALL of us... we're not living in countries were we're thrown in jail over differentiating opinions. that's totalitarianism. THAT'S the thing the left/lib/dem are/were trying to prevent Trump from forming.

back to the topic at hand : the ridiculous claim : so aside from all those elements being separately far fetched .... they're also far fetched TOGETHER and I feel I have to call you out on that too because if I leave anything out you might feel like you've actually said something of mental sense in that short sentence... which you haven't... it was utter gibberish and a conglomerate of lies intricately woven together for the sole purpose of defeating being set straight out of sheer volume of untruths (not that I'm going to let that slow me down) :

It doesn't make quite a lot of sence for you to argue that "support of healthcare" be the issue reps are metaphorically being sent to jail over when the prime thing you had to scold the dems over for pages 1-80 of this thread was unwanted healthcare.

That aside another logical falacy in this is if reps want health care (and dems do too, that ain't up for debate) then you both want the same thing. and you do that's only the truth. majoritarily people want health care. and unanimously sensible/inteligent people want health care.

so that means you can't single out half of all people and say "those bastards jail people who support healthcare"

I know that's maybe not what you were trying to say but in trying to lie your way into claiming falsehoods that's what you ended up saying.

maybe you'll be more carefull now with your claims

This is so easy to refute that is boring.
You basically said 2 things:
- opposing gay marriage because you hate gay people is valid
- people who disagree with you do so because of their hate unless they prove otherwise

that's the most roundabout way I've ever heard of saying "I regret my vote but I'm so ashamed to admit it that I hid that regret deep down".

So here's what I understand from this : here on out everything that Trump does that makes things worse you'll have to dig into your memory dig up Hillary and paint her into something even more villainous to retain the "it was STILL worth it" effect... am I correct?

Do you realize that by Trump's 22nd year of office (by then called monarchy) with the third world war past (all theoretical, roll with me here) and now you'll have acid rain and radioactive soil ..... you'll have to dig up hillary in your memory and then.... well man .. things are gonna get creative!

She was actually a tentacle alien that ate children's eyes by the millions! ...I dunno... you do this better than me

Regret supporting Sanders? Regret voting for Johnson? You, I say this to EVERY LIBERAL WHO 3RD-PARTY BLAMES, need to GET THE **** over your candidate sabotaging their party's presidency. EVERY THIRD PARTY VOTER wants you to own up to your own loss, and quit spinning it as "blah blah now I bet they regret not surrendering their vote for whoever we want blah blah".

As we've established, if Liberal voters voted for who they DIRECTLY ALIGN with, well, they'd probably actually align closer to Vermin Supreme than Liberals or Conservatives, but they'd align closer to Libertarians as well.

Quit telling people what I think, or at least get it right. You really piss a bloke off when you make up ****. Tatsu's claims are as fake a news as the Daily Show.

Next time, nominate Warren or something, you piss-taker...

In case you forgot the score, Hitler didn't reign 22 years in office, because OF America. If we can take care of your problems, we can take care of ours. Because, you know, we have the guns. Trump can either accept his 4 year presidency, barring impeachment for a grievous offense, or we have the guns. You're probably all against that, until it actually came to a government overstep, and then when it threatens troops on your door and you don't have a gun, you're glad someone else does.

We will still blame Hillary, because escalations over Syria spell World War 3 as well. We had two paths to WW3, thanks to BOTH crummy parties, and we chose the right-hand path. We could have chose to walk the **** away, but we didn't elect "Johnson", and the left could have led differently, but we didn't nominate "Sanders".

@thetrophysystem "yes that post about hillary was supper important let's continue on that super important topic and not treat it like the side note it is this way nobody notices the shortcomings listed in my other responses."

this really is textbook trump-tactics (never-mind using his rhetoric "fake news" "daily show"??? I haven't seen a daily show post in this thread in like 40+ pages) . respond to this : https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-politics-thread-play-nicely.70907/page-139#post-1139806