The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

You know how important it is? Well, how's about you nominate Hillary again in 2020, against Trump. I dare you. I double dare you. You know damn good and well what'll happen. No balls. You'll elect someone that makes sense, now that the 2016 election slapped some of that sense into your skills.

In 2016, they chose (not democratically nominated, as shown by Wikileaks), to nominate Hillary, because how could they lose? Now, in 2020, they'll dig deep and put full effort into winning, and NOT nominate Hillary, because they're taking things seriously. Good, we've already changed the Democrat party a little bit, now if only we can make them less authoritarian. Maybe that'll come with the candidate, with any luck we'll nominate one the PEOPLE want instead.

@thetrophysystem


can you please realize this is what's going on?

EDIT : upon further reflection : I realize you won't on your own.
...sighhhh

I'll explain the scene :

so it LOOKS like the two are having a conversation but each have their own set of preoccupations and as a result they exchange nothing.

The animators are quite ingenious about the selected topics for both sides because neither are "right" or "wrong" neither's topic is "more important" relatively they each have their own importance.

I've been quite clear on why hillary isn't the topic and why she can't be but simply put : She is your fascination. your obsession. you probably continue droning on about her while you're thinking of more things you didn't get to say yet in this forum. you probably talk about her in your sleep.

but I'm quite persuaded we've covered the subject extensively and there's no more use for bringing her up given the current conjuncture but..... me mentioning that is enough to get you going again.... hence the above rick & morty excerpt.

Oh yeah, because I've never seen Rick and Morty, not that it isn't the most relevant political evidence ever...

Besides, it is NOT Trump supporter tactics, when used by a non-Trump supporter. Can you not understand some people are pissed at both parties? Telling us we're terrible people for not loving your party, is a Trump-tactic, so I guess liberals are Trump supporters now. Or, you're just both terrible authoritarian parties.

I can legit understand being pissed at both. that's not what this is. keep telling yourself that or whatever but I'm persuaded deep down you already know that's not what this is.

What It Is, Certifiably: I hate most politicians anyway, but it got super terribad this last election, politicians started taking photo ops pouring beers and doing it terribly at that, instead of doing political shtuff, and I just hate the nonsense and want a reset of political party nonsense, because the extremes of both parties are stapling crummy policies to their "agendas", but apparently that's too much to ask of their most die-hard supporters who can't recognize their own side's hypocrisy. Like when their politician poured the awful pint.

@thetrophysystem I... don't get what you're on about.
we complain about trump then get a retort from you so we assume... nevermind.


could you elaborate?

because it's not metaphors or any other linguistic concept anymore. not if it makes the statement buried so deep you don't know what it's author is thinking.

SO

what is it you're thinking? what exactly is your statement?

no more beer analogies ...or terrible misogynistic memes for that matter

I'm pretty sure, last statement summarizes. Keep asking though, because I have to answer repetitively 12 times a day, and the one time I don't, you'll go "interpreting vague/lack of answer as you're racist". That's how it always is. I've said I'm not a racist, I can't be bothered to say it again. Try pulling important quotes from what I've said:

So misogynistic...

see this is what I mean.

everything throphysystem MUST go on tangents. even when it's about explaining yourself.

"let's pile on new garbage so the old garbage isn't as noticeable YARRR!"

who's calling who a racist and when? and if that was what the first post was about then why didn't it include the word "racist".

also how did we get from healthcare supporters being thrown in jail to Hillary/beer to racism again? I feel like I played no part and even in trying to hinder the grasshopper madness I've only made it worse.

How is referencing old garbage, piling on new garbage to make the old garbage less noticeable?

if it's out of nowhere and doesn't answer/ignores the points being made on what you JUST said and as a result isn't a-propos .... it definitely is.

Casual note:

Opposing gay marriage is not a political stance. It's a cultural belief reinforced by several hundred years of Christian-based ideology within the States (or others such as Orthodox Judaism or conservative Islam).

Reframing it as a political stance so you can better defend government intervention against it, instead of actually defending the rights of gay people, is a slight indicator that people might be biased against gay people on the subject.

If you don't like these inferences, maybe stop defending peoples' cultural beliefs that oppose gay marriage?

And trophy, going on a multi-paragraph rant about immigration when we were explicitly discussing gay marriage is a tiring attempt at a diversion.

Where on earth did I say opposing gay marriage because you hate gay people is valid? I explicitly said the opposite!

By your own admission, I think we need to circle back to the English put-down you used on yourself. It's not one I assume by default, but as you've admitted it there's obviously a breakdown in communiations somewhere!

Right, I forgot, we explicitly discuss what you want us to, and we shut up and listen when you speak. Yes master.

I defend the rights of the LGBT, friendly fire isn't.

I also, as a libertarian, do defend the other cultures. Particularly if they have a non-biased point, even if a stupid point. Biased points, can be informed that we don't take actions based on if someone's black, gay, ect. Unbiased points, can be informed whether they're premise is wrong, or how both sides can compromise.

You don't press legal action against "points" or "stance" unless it breaks a fundamental law like violence. School shooters are violent, they're breaking a law already. KKK members aren't just an edgy group, they're also frequently associated with crimes, making them akin to ISIS. Most people's problem with BLM, are clips and records of criminal association. Individuals are an absurd target to arrest based solely on "words" short of "violent threats", especially political stance. If we are to have a police reform, instead of generously shooting civilians that so much as inconvenience police officers, the we won't accomplish it by stretching more laws even farther.

In case of bathroom laws, nobody says "them using our bathroom risks our souls to eternal damnation", they say "unenforced bathroom flexibility can let anyone use the restroom of their prey". It's sometimes legitimately a safety concern, and an ignorant one because statistics show sexual predators can target victims in their own bathroom, in the opposite bathroom law be damned, in dark alleyways (Brock Turner's preference iirc), or at home by family or dates. Instead of screaming "racist" at the top of your lungs like the stereotypical portrayal of a Social Justice Warrior, try telling them that their perception of risk is entirely incorrect, that law already allows enforcement of bathrooms without impeding transgender use, and that if bathroom stall lack of privacy makes you uncomfortable then you should demand better stalls because I personally don't want another dude checking out my pubes either.

Immigration, happens to be another stance, that SJWs scream racist with the cartoony blood-vein on their forehead and neck, when sometimes it's an economical stance, albeit another ignorant one because the perception of job stealing, benefits consuming, and wage-competition, are all mostly incorrect, and are best dealt with outside of immigration (employment reform, fixes the jobs, wages, and benefits, and I love me some employment reform, way more than I think we should've changed the semi-lenient immigration policy, it's another expensive enforcement investment)

If more people were like I, then arguments would be constructive. Since they aren't, it's liberal-vs-conservative namecalling (and if you don't 100% fully agree with either one, then you fall inside the crosshairs of both), and crazy **** happens like the conservatives winning. Conservatives fancy themselves arseholes, everyone fancies conservatives as arseholes. Liberals fancy themselves transcendent of humanity, but everyone's starting to fancy them slightly bigger arseholes than Conservatives, and it's hurting their vote where they lost the 2016 elections, not just presidential but just about nationwide. Even if Hillary won, more stalemate congress, almost enough to pass legislation through super-majority to bypass a veto, wouldn't get us much further.

Tbh, pre-election 2016, I was hoping for a Johnson victory, but was posed to accept a Trump victory with democrat congress. I still think i'd rather the democrat congress stalemate we could have had.

@thetrophysystem

I recommend that every time someone makes an assumption about assaults in bathrooms, actually find some supporting evidence.

Legislation that primarily affects trans people will not alter the fact that assaults statistically occur in violation of bathroom rules in the first place (i.e. the straight man was assaulting the woman in her restroom). Additionally, you are overwhelmingly likely to be attacked by someone you know. You note this, and yet you claim it's "legitimately a safety concern". No it isn't . . . and what we've both said proves that. Whose safety is at risk? The people at risk from a theoretical rape in a public place, or the transgender populace that already has startlingly-high rape statistics for their demographic? Think on that, perhaps.

(http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-ass...ns-debunk-bathroom-predator/story?id=38604019)

(http://www.wcnc.com/news/politics/stats-show-assaults-dont-happen-in-bathrooms/126572739)

So, if we can prove that more than one transgender person has indeed assaulted someone in a public (or hell, private) bathroom, we still need to weigh up the actual statistics around how many cases that is vs. how many transgender people are suffering a worse quality of life due to these proposed bills.

These laws have no basis other than to hinder the rights to transgender peoples living normal lives. This is why they're often enacted by culturally-conversative individuals in areas that such beliefs have majority support. You, as a libertarian, should be against such restrictive lawmaking as a fundamental part of your beliefs.

This is a key point at your disagreement about this it seems. How honest are people who claim this is a security risk and how many actually just say that because it sounds better than "I don't like transgender people, so I don't want that".

As you said yourself there is quite good evidence that there is no real risk involved, so one must wonder: Is the person still claiming there is a risk really that stupid? Or does the person have ulterior motives (i.e. "I don't like those people and want them to stop being what they are")

How long should we allow people to use clearly stupid arguments to justify problematic behavior?

EDIT:
Thinking about it, this may be a good summary question in one way or the other for half the disagreements in this thread.

It's a legitimate concern, because it's the concern that a lot are having. It's a statistically weak concern, the "action taken" would not accomplish desired results, you're right on all fronts, EXCEPT the part where the claim was transphobic. It's not transphobic, it's a misplaced concern for safety. Calling a non-transphobe, transphobic, is a 100% way to lose their vote, possibly for life.

"We don't need them bigots to vote for us"

"OH GOD DAMN IT WHY DID TRUMP WIN GOD DAMN IT HOW COULD WE LOSE THE ELECTION!!1!"

I'm hella against bathroom bills, and in practice I believe the safety and privacy should be stall-based, not handwashing-area based, BECAUSE men deserve privacy in men's restrooms and EVERYONE deserves privacy regardless of restroom. Segregation IS stupid. If libertarians called everyone -ist though, I bet they'd not even have gotten the 4% of the vote.

I essentially made all your bathroom bill statistical arguments for you. You should be thanking me.

So what about people who are just using this "concern" to conceal another agenda?
How to tell them apart from actually concerned people?
They need to be dealt with differently:

People who are honestly concerned need to be shown there is no need to be concerned.
People who are actually transphobic need to be shown there is no need to be transphobic.

Actually, I argue they don't need to be dealt with differently for doing the same actions.

The concerns are erroneous. Whether they're genuine, or a facade, statistics doesn't support their call to action.

Violence and beyond, is already illegal REGARDLESS of agenda. At least, it is when enforced equally, but if a woman fights a "guy", then it's possible it won't be enforced right, which is another issue addressed by treating things equal, namely, "law enforcement reform". We need god damned cops to treat everyone with one standard. We NEED cops, but they need to treat the poor like they're rich, the men like they're women, and stop handing out lead enemas.

That's an answer, thanks.

I find that attempts to fix errors are most successful when they incorporate knowledge about why the error is happening, that is why I think the difference between these two groups of people matters.

Then again my attempts to talk sense into other people sometimes are not very successful, so what do I know

Indeed, valid argument

You really do have a tendancy to sidetrack yourself and others in discussions.

But yeah, nice cops and equality for everyone are good.

EDIT:

Random article I saw about health care stuff in the US:

<sarcasm> They've invented a model where you just pay a fixed price each month and can go to a doctor when you need to without worries. How revolutionary. </sarcasm>

I knew something was wrong with this sentence, without the sarcasm tags. Just the sentence, is the most illogical sentence in existence. Not in a world where Sanders lost.

EDIT: Came back and read the article, actually it's not as competitive as one'd always hope, but this is actually a logical model. It's a shame it's practitioner's choice and setup, not government's. Yes, the US could TOTALLY do this, but we'll all be damned if they do it in their current rut.

The fact practitioners ARE doing this, shows the people are moving on slowly and individually, without the government. The government and politics, are obviously out of touch. Really need to replace it, hard to convince the necessary channels.