The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

It's not that Alex Jones is insane, it's that there's money to be made in spreading batshit crazy bullshit.

as he's already proven he stands to gain enormous favours and wealth by it.

Yeah true, I am probably oversimplifying that part.

Well I appreciate attempt at putting words into my mouth, but the demographics involved are also important. What was the breakdown of sufferers of HIV? Of LGBTQ individuals? Of other minorities that might suffer on a plan relating to their place of work compared to a more socialist scheme which requires universal buy-in (which is one of the critiques of the ACA, correct?).

It's important to understand the context as much as it is to understand the limitations of the Harvard source you mentioned in passing.

People who promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are bad people. In before you complain about the source because you can't trust it literally quoting the man.

There is no "strawmanning" involved. A strawman would be me intentionally misinterpreting your position. If I misinterpreted you by accident (possible), it is not a strawman. As it turns out, you're actually defending Alex Jones. So there isn't even an accidental misinterpretation going on.

You're hiding behind two very interesting shifting of the goalposts in your reply, so I must've hit a nerve for you to go all-out on this:

1. "There's good and bad in everyone". Sure there is, well in general terms, to an extent, maybe. Doesn't mean there's not bad in Alex Jones. Doesn't mean my criticism of him and his supporters isn't accurate. I'm on no team.

2. "This is the guy who voted for Obama and had nothing but bad things to say about Bush". Doesn't make him not a bigot, doesn't make him not an anti-Semite. A lot of the Republican arguments, and "liberal" arguments even, have been about how not all Trump voters are bad. You yourself are saying this.​

Therefore, logically, not all Obama voters are good. You said it yourself - there's good and bad all over the shop. Him voting for Obama really means very little in the grand scheme of things when you have him on the record saying Jews control the world.
​

So, further to this, you make the mistake of assuming I'm somehow pro-Democrat. Nah, I'm just anti-Republican. Republicans are directly anti-LGBTQ and have only proven that in recent days and weeks (most recently with the proposition to affect LGBTQ rights). Democrats can be, and definitely have their flaws, but under Hillary were not committed to rolling back the protections Obama's administration put in place for the T in the LGBTQ. So yes, I'm against the party I consider the worse option for several of my American friends.

You then assume in an amazing four-in-a-row mistake that I label all Republicans as "bad people". I'm guessing you got this from my inference that you're a Trump supporter because you like Alex Jones. Which is flawed for more than one reason. Not all Trump supporters are Republicans. Not all Republicans are Trump supporters. Not all Trump supporters like Alex Jones, and not all supporters of Alex Jones like Trump. But this isn't the first time you've come down on the side of the current administration in this thread. So in the Venn diagram, you would be at the intersection of at least two aforementioned circles.

This is how I've hit a nerve. You've attempted to rewrite my entire post as targeting everyone who is Republican. Not at all. I simply asked you were you stood, and you went absolutely overboard trying to put me down and patronise me. Fantastic work proving my point, I think

As for your comment about telling me to get an education, I did. I know where capital cities of the world are, which is more than I can say for the American education system that the hilariously unprepared DeVos has been put in charge of. There are some stereotypes about Americans, and a lot of them are unfair. But a lot of Americans lack basic geographical information about the world outside of the USA, and that's a verifiable statement. So fix your own country (you seem to have all the answers) before telling me what I should study.

And maybe, just maybe, realise that blustering about my own lack of education doesn't actually disprove the points I made about libertarianism. You attacked me as a person, instead of my arguments, which for someone so fond of complaining about me "strawmanning" you is a direct, Google-able example of an ad hominem.

" What was the breakdown of sufferers of HIV? Of LGBTQ individuals? Of other minorities that might suffer on a plan relating to their place of work compared to a more socialist scheme which requires universal buy-in (which is one of the critiques of the ACA, correct?)."

So again, your saying "you are correct but lets move that goal post hehe." Well, I don't have an answer for you. You talking about something highly variable and trying to make a logical conclusion based on misguide evidence. How would you account for the 100,000 or so that dont know they have HIV? I agree a single payer system (medicare) seems better for them (HIV) but I have no proof of this. However, I can reason that there might not be that big of difference in their mortality between the insured and uninsured, and that is because of medicare. Meaning more of them are insured when they pass away. So it would be a flawed study either way you look at it.

Harvard study has no new context and is based off an old 1993 study using the same methodologies Dr. Richard Kronick criticizes. I see no reason for Obama to use that study over Dr. Kronick's study except that the results a give a better headline to him.

Edit: it's hard to type on here with a phone. Apologies for the horrendous grammer, quotes, and spelling. It's a bitch.

No, I was simply replying to your point about "context" around a source you pre-emptively listed in case someone used it against you . . . with that same point about context. There is no intent to move the goalposts, I've always been very open about the LGBTQ issue (in this thread, in general) and I've repeatedly used that demographic as a talking point (case in point I literally raised HIV, which doesn't just affect LGTBQ folks of course, but there is a history and correlation there).

It's very easy to use statistics to claim "on the whole" X, Y or Z. But the USA is a massive mega-country where states effectively function as countries in their own right, and there are an awful of of minorities (both by race and by other things like gender) that are discriminated against that prevent the standard job-level protections help them survive. Which makes ACA more important to them.

The study is pretty sound proof. It's based off our public healthcare hospital system so you have an extremely wide net. I'm sure lgtbq communities are well represented. If not though, their demographic has the same health issues as the population in general. HIV after rereading the study is probably not well represented. Not because of flaws on methodology but because of existing issues within the community. So you may be right with this small demographic but we don't know for sure.

@Gorbles

I don't really know where to start untangling that mess of a reply. You seem to think I'm trying to attack you like some hostile bogey and that you've caught me in some grand logical contradiction. All I will say to you is that you have severely misunderstood what was conveyed on both counts. I have merely been trying to help you find your own way, to ask and answer your own questions as an individual.

For example I did not denigrate your education, only suggest that you perhaps educate yourself out of your own volition for your own benefit. Maybe you will come to a different conclusion than me, but atleast you will have made it from an informed position and be better for it.

I'm not particularly interested in playing fake gotcha. If you wish to continue this in good faith, feel free to read what has been written again.

Anyway, more importantly did anyone see Trump's speech? Holy **** the Dems are screwed and probably wishing right now that they never went for Perez. Totally underestimated Trump. Funny moment when he was talking about working with Trudeau on support for women in business, Elizabeth Warren turned around to the woman next to her and said "what?".

Nah, you don't get to feign innocence and claim good faith when you wrote this:

Suggesting I take a basic university class implies I'm not at that level of understanding, and you didn't actually respond to any points raised - you simply questioned my inherent understanding.

That's an attack, yo. That's not in good faith.

Especially when you talk about "politicised narratives" when that's all any of us have. We're all informed by political bias. You, me, colin, cwarner, Corgiarmy, you name it. That's not good faith. At best, that's you being naive over challenging your own inherent biases

As for your grand logical contradiction, I appreciate it's easier to try and paint me as not making sense, but it's really very simple:

1. You replied to someone in defense of Alex Jones, proven anti-Semite and host of InfoWars.

2. I called you on that expressing my disbelief, and asking once again (because you've made drama out of it in the past) about your support of Trump because you seem to align with every single point I always see in a Trump voter.

3. You took offense at something I said, and went on a long rant about how I'm demonising all Republicans and how you weren't defending Alex Jones.

4. While admitting you were defending Alex Jones.​

Logical contradiction, clear as day.

Maybe apply some of your vaunted advice to yourself, because what I'm seeing here, the anger, the attempted retractions, the rapid change in written mood . . . it's very consistent with a layman's intepretation of cognitive dissonance (I say layman's because I'm not pretending to be an expert). This is me, trying to help you. Not meant as patronisation, simply laying out very clearly the path of discussion in case you misunderstood something when you went on your "strawmanning" rant.

thoughts out-loud on the vid as it plays :
5 minutes of clapping srsly (scratch that the entire thing is clapping my ears)
I love how that "drain the swap" claim got a good round of laughter. Some of them in the assembly must be thinking "wow! really? why aren't I in jail then? this guy's really knows how to do a good 'ol fashioned inside joke I like that.".
massive booing at 37:06 when he goes at obama
okay the assembly thinks the name "VOICE" "Victims Of Immigrants Crime Engagement" is hilarious ... personally as a developer I've seen worse acronyms.

concluding thoughts : on the way to get there we disagree but if he actually globally drives health costs down I'll praise him.

To be fair to elobea and trophy, trying to defend trump is incredibly difficult. The potus is a walking talking logical fallacy.

I do want to warn democrats though, a liberal tea party will sound just as petty as the conservatives one and attempting to impeach trump may help his popularity (it would create a feeling that he truely is an outsider). The best bet for dems is to give trump enough slack to hang himself and dominate the midterm and next presidential election using his errors as ammo.

isn't that like a warning flag?

defending liberty is easy. defending equality is easy.

defending racism is inherently hard. defending nazism is hard.

Wise words - particularly over here in the UK, everyone loves an underdog.

this one will make both sides of the isle laugh

less funny

No, Trump is very far away from Nazism on the political spectrum. Besides that he lacks the political sophistication and the cruelty of the 1930s and 1940s German party.

Edit: sorry @tatsujb thought you were calling him a nazi, misunderstood what you meant. I have heard he is a nazi though which is just wrong.

look man. you're gonna have to land back in reality.

I never made any kind of a link between Trump and nazism. I never said that.

The only claim I made nazism was hard to defend. similarly as Trump was hard to defend. As an example. You do understand the concept of examples, right?

you're making this harder on yourself than it has to be.

So... So you're not going to comment on my claim it being hard to defend trump is a red flag? You're just gona let that slide and pretend that didn't happen? is that the deal here?

Lol pushy much . While there's a huge difference between Nazis and Trump (in almost every conceivable way possible ) I agree that is a red flag. So I wasn't going to engage that comment.

I'm not going to defend someone just because they're American or just because they're Republican. If you make a misrepresentation I might say something, but I have no strong urge to support this president