|
Title: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 20, 2017, 05:22:47 pm Quote You are never going to make me believe that the educational system in the United States is functional when so many of you voted for Donald Trump. I think it's quite aggressive to assert that the only reason anyone would vote for Trump is because they're stupid. Education and the 2016 election really have nothing to do with each other. These are ideological differences, not educational disparities. I think the reason many people voted for Trump (or more accurately, the reason many people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton) was because Hillary Clinton completely failed to excite the Democratic base. Further, Trump supporters were heavily demonized, which made them afraid to speak in support of Trump, that led to severe overconfidence in Hillary's ability to win (the press essentially described her victory as inevitable, as if it was literally impossible for Trump to win), and so people just didn't bother voting. Trump, on the other hand, although he was always a prolific liar, was able to project a message to his base about change and jobs and whatnot, and that excited his base. Meanwhile, his complaints of HIllary Clinton were about actual problems, while Clinton's campaign just focused on name-calling. And since voting is anonymous, the name-calling and attempt to silence Trump supporters not only didn't help Clinton, it made Trump supporters want to support Trump even more. Even then, Donald Trumps performance was not any better than John McCain or Mitt Romney. Clinton just performed much worse than Barack Obama. Sorry if that came off as a bit rambly. But the 2016 election was not a simple case of "Americans are stupid so they voted for Trump". It's a lot more complicated than that. Title: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 20, 2017, 05:45:24 pm Sorry if that came off as a bit rambly. But the 2016 election was not a simple case of "Americans are stupid so they voted for Trump". It's a lot more complicated than that. Stupid or ignorant. You don't necessarily need to be stupid to be ignorant, you can just have a bad educational system. And I think some of the brightest people in the world are Americans, but they mostly live in California, or in the northeastern states. There is a huge difference between the level of ignorance in Kentucky and California. Probably more than between western and eastern Europe. But hey! I am surprised how tolerant you are in California and in the northeastern states. If eastern Europe had hijacked western Europe, I think there would have been war. And it is not just the election of Trump by the way. It is also the election of all those republican governors and senators that support Donald Trump. Title: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 20, 2017, 06:15:13 pm Trump, on the other hand, although he was always a prolific liar, was able to project a message to his base about change and jobs and whatnot, and that excited his base. Meanwhile, his complaints of HIllary Clinton were about actual problems, while Clinton's campaign just focused on name-calling. So you're saying that Crooked Hillary (who should be locked up!) was the one who was name-calling? Note, saying that a person is manifestly unfit to be president based on facts you can enumerate at length, is quite different from name-calling. And we're seeing just how that's working out, aren't we? Title: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 20, 2017, 07:59:36 pm Quote So you're saying that Crooked Hillary (who should be locked up!) was the one who was name-calling? "Crooked Hillary" was centered around a legitimate scandal. A really minor one that was hyper-inflated, but a legitimate scandal. That's very different from calling your opponent racist or "deplorable". The only scandal of Trump's I can think of that was publicized was Trump University, and that was toward the end.Of course, none of this was the right way to campaign to begin with. If Hillary had actually run an issue-centered campaign (like Bernie Sanders was going to) and told her supporters to stop demonizing Trump supporters, she would have won easily because Trump never had anything substantial in that department. Instead she chose to play the same game Trump was playing, and she lost that game. Quote And we're seeing just how that's working out, aren't we? He did save us from TPP, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Honestly, overall, I haven't noticed anything Trump has done. I suspect these four years will barely even be a footnote in American history.Title: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 20, 2017, 09:11:32 pm He did save us from TPP, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Honestly, overall, I haven't noticed anything Trump has done. I suspect these four years will barely even be a footnote in American history. After these 4 years, your country is probably going to be more in an alliance with all the dictators in the world, than with the more civilized democratic countries like Germany, France, Australia and Canada. In fact, I don't understand why we still are members of NATO. We could just as well be in an military alliance with Putin or China. Better that all the most civilized democratic countries in the world create their own military alliance without USA. We don't want to be in a military alliance with a country that has a stupid narcissistic demagogue as their president. And maybe you Americans are going to forget about Trump, but the rest of the world is not. We are not going to trust what your people are going vote for in the future. Things always have consequences. The only scandal of Trump's I can think of that was publicized was Trump University, and that was toward the end. What about grabbing pussies? What about saying that he is sexually attracted to his own daughter? What about not showing his tax returns? What about abuse of people working for him? What about lying all the time? What about claiming that Obama was born in Kenya? What about all his stupid tweets? In fact, almost all of his stupid tweets are scandalous. Everything about the guy is scandalous. Title: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 21, 2017, 08:19:31 am Quote What about grabbing pussies? No, that wasn't a real scandal. All that did was show that Trump was a stupid jock, or maybe a stupid pretend jock. Quote What about saying that he is sexually attracted to his own daughter? Yeah, that was hilarious. Still not a real scandal. Having weird incest fantasies isn't a crime. Quote What about not showing his tax returns? Suspicious, maybe, but it was easy for Trump to hand-wave away as unimportant. Honestly, I don't see why such a big deal was made of them. I'm sure Trump pays $0 in tax just like all the other rich elite. But if he's doing it legally, that's still not a scandal, just a sign of a broken tax system (which every American knows we have). Trump even admitted on his own that he was able to get massive tax breaks, though I don't think he ever stated exactly to what extent. He used it to suggest that he would fix the tax system. I doubt he will, but that's what he ran with, and that sure was more important to his supporters than exactly how much or how little tax he was personally paying. Quote What about abuse of people working for him? I don't remember that being exploited by Hillary's campaign, but even if it was, it's so indirect that it would have been ridiculously easy to brush off. "I never wanted them to be treated that way and the people responsible don't work for me anymore." Boom, done. Quote What about lying all the time? Hillary may have been more truthful than Trump, but she wasn't exactly a saint in this department either. At best, Trump supporters who heard that Trump was lying all the time thought, "What else is new? Another politician lying. You do the same, Hillary!" At worst, they thought, "Yeah, right! You are a proven liar yourself! Of course you would call Trump the liar!" This is not a matter of intelligence. It's just a matter of integrity. It isn't very compelling to anyone to say "I only lie 30% of the time while my opponent lies 70% of the time!" Intuitively, all that sounds like is, "Both of us are liars." So Hillary tried to sweep her own lies under the rug and pretend that only Trump was guilty of lying, and Trump turned that back on her. Quote What about claiming that Obama was born in Kenya? Yeah, that was stupid. Not a scandal, though. Quote In fact, almost all of his stupid tweets are scandalous. Perhaps you have a different definition of "scandal" from me. I'd say this definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary is most relevant: "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety". In other words, when someone is caught out doing something immoral. Speech is never immoral. Tweets are speech. Therefore, tweets are never immoral. Therefore, a scandal cannot be solely because of a tweet or a collection of tweets. What you can say is that Trump's tweets, and many other things you list here as "scandals", are embarrassments. That's very different. Embarrassments cause people to laugh at Trump. They do not cause Trump voters to reconsider voting for him. But again, this was always the wrong way to campaign. It was wrong when Trump did it, and it was wrong when Hillary did it. What Hillary should have done is followed in Bernie's footsteps and led an issue-based campaign. She should have pressed Trump on his policies, not on embarrassing things he did or ad hominems against his supporters. And she should have presented an exciting future for the United States based on policy, so that people would want to vote for her. Even I, a disgruntled Bernie supporter, would have gladly voted for her if she had done this approach. In fact, I waited for either one of the two candidates to do this. Neither of them did so. Every debate, they just continued to attack each other and say the other candidate was horrible, racist, a liar, or would give America AIDS. So I didn't vote for Hillary, and I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Gary Johnson, one of the third-party candidates who was actually running an issue-based campaign, with multiple points I was in support of, even if it was a guaranteed failure. That is the type of experience that caused Trump to narrowly win. It's not because Americans are idiots, and it's not because Americans are ignorant. Title: Trump Post by: Krulle on June 21, 2017, 10:34:46 am Quote What about grabbing pussies? No, that wasn't a real scandal. All that did was show that Trump was a stupid jock, or maybe a stupid pretend jock. That is an issue, as it proves that this specific candidate is not interesting in being morally integer. Quote What about saying that he is sexually attracted to his own daughter? Yeah, that was hilarious. Still not a real scandal. Having weird incest fantasies isn't a crime. This is not a matter of intelligence. It's just a matter of integrity. It isn't very compelling to anyone to say "I only lie 30% of the time while my opponent lies 70% of the time!" Intuitively, all that sounds like is, "Both of us are liars." That is the type of experience that caused Trump to narrowly win. It's not because Americans are idiots, and it's not because Americans are ignorant. [...]But again, this was always the wrong way to campaign. It was wrong when Trump did it, and it was wrong when Hillary did it. What Hillary should have done is followed in Bernie's footsteps and led an issue-based campaign. She should have pressed Trump on his policies, not on embarrassing things he did or ad hominems against his supporters. And she should have presented an exciting future for the United States based on policy, so that people would want to vote for her. Even I, a disgruntled Bernie supporter, would have gladly voted for her if she had done this approach. In fact, I waited for either one of the two candidates to do this. Neither of them did so. Every debate, they just continued to attack each other and say the other candidate was horrible, racist, a liar, or would give America AIDS. So I didn't vote for Hillary, and I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Gary Johnson, one of the third-party candidates who was actually running an issue-based campaign, with multiple points I was in support of, even if it was a guaranteed failure. And I thank you for not wasting your vote by not voting, but by having given hope to third parties and voting for a third party cadidate. They are so underrepresented in the US democracy, I find that stunning. having only two parties in the representatives chambers makes it very difficult to take differentiated approachs, and democratic plurality and discussion culture lacks. Also, much just gets decided based on party dogma. Or on things like "You wanted that, so we abolish it. Just because." Title: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 21, 2017, 11:29:36 am And it wasn't even incest. He specifically said if she wasn't his daughter, he'd go for a try. That's a compliment to the hard work his daughter has spent on her body. If you want to compliment your daughter on the way she looks, I doubt that is a good way to do it. Most daughters would probably find it creepy. Title: Trump Post by: Krulle on June 21, 2017, 12:12:38 pm I found it creepy, but that's the way this yellow press star talks and thinks.
Title: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 21, 2017, 12:37:15 pm That is the type of experience that caused Trump to narrowly win. It's not because Americans are idiots, and it's not because Americans are ignorant. I get that Hillary wasn't necessarily the post appealing candidate. But lets compare it to food. I am starving, and there is only two types of consumables available: a type of food that I don't like, and a toxic substance that I might die from. I think I will eat the food that I don't like, rather than the toxic substance I might die from. But that's not what you Americans did. You went for the toxic substance, thinking that it might somehow "magically" cure you. Title: Trump Post by: Scalare on June 21, 2017, 12:43:54 pm When the fattest kid we know (the USA) says he's starving, there's something wrong with him. Also, if you simply refer to Hillary as 'I don't like her' you are seriously misinformed. Shall I post the 100 people who died or disappeared mysteriously?
Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 21, 2017, 02:27:30 pm When the fattest kid we know (the USA) says he's starving, there's something wrong with him. Also, if you simply refer to Hillary as 'I don't like her' you are seriously misinformed. Shall I post the 100 people who died or disappeared mysteriously? A hundred? This sounds rather like a setup to a Gish Gallop. Pick two. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 21, 2017, 02:34:13 pm Quote They [third parties] are so underrepresented in the US democracy, I find that stunning. It's pretty much an inevitability of the U.S. system and has always been the case. As long as there is only one victor, there will be a favorite and a second favorite. Other parties are still important, but their role is to keep the two major parties in check by making it possible for the voter base to collectively jump ship (which has happened a few times). Quote But lets compare it to food. I am starving, and there is only two types of consumables available: a type of food that I don't like, and a toxic substance that I might die from. I think I will eat the food that I don't like, rather than the toxic substance I might die from. But that's not what you Americans did. You went for the toxic substance, thinking that it might somehow "magically" cure you. The trouble is that while you are insinuating here that it was obvious that Hillary would just be a nuisance and Trump would end the world, the only people who thought that in my experience were hardcore progressives. Heck, a lot of people were concerned about Hillary's attitude with Russia and worried that it would lead to WW3. You can't just take one group's concerns and treat it like an objective truth while you handwave away another group's concerns. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 21, 2017, 02:39:56 pm The trouble is that while you are insinuating here that it was obvious that Hillary would just be a nuisance and Trump would end the world, the only people who thought that in my experience were hardcore progressives. Really? I would also like to know the average opinion about this for people with a PhD or an IQ of 130 or more. I must admit that I now have much more respect for the black people in the United States, than for the white people. Because the black people seemed to be able to see what kind of a person Donald Trump is. Personally, I feel like the people that can't see what an idiot Trump is, must lack some kind of a sense. Like they are color blind or something. I just needed to see Trump on TV for 5 seconds to know that he is a complete idiot that never should have been president. I am also very angry that poor people don't seem to be able to understand that this is their main problem: (https://image.ibb.co/ndSXv5/wealthdistribution.png) And that the ONLY solution to this problem is a more progressive tax system. Donald Trump has made your tax system less progressive, which means that this inequality is going to increase faster. If you are poor, and vote for a less progressive tax system, then you are the very definition of ignorant and/or stupid. But of course, lots of the poor people in the United States are brainwashed to believe that they somehow deserve to be poor, while the overly rich somehow deserve to have much more wealth. Or they don't even know the difference between a progressive and a flat tax, and just think that all taxes are bad. And you claim to have a functional educational system? Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 21, 2017, 05:20:05 pm Quote Really? I would also like to know the average opinion about this for people with a PhD or an IQ of 130 or more. I don't see why. IQ is hardly relevant. Quote I must admit that I now have much more respect for the black people in the United States, than for the white people. Because the black people seemed to be able to see what kind of a person Donald Trump is. Personally, I feel like the people that can't see what an idiot Trump is, must lack some kind of a sense. Like they are color blind or something. I just needed to see Trump on TV for 5 seconds to know that he is a complete idiot that never should have been president. All I can really say is that this is a bigoted worldview. On multiple counts. Quote I am also very angry that poor people don't seem to be able to understand that this is their main problem: <snip> And that the ONLY solution to this problem is a more progressive tax system. Again, a bigoted worldview. It's quite possible that there's a better solution. Or, alternatively, it's quite possible that some people don't see a problem with a small percentage of the population controlling 80% of the wealth. The line I usually hear is something like this: "Let's bring people up, not drag people down". Now, you can say that this is overly simplistic thinking, and you can argue against it. I would argue, for example, that there is a limited amount of resources and a lack of incentive for the rich to invest those resources into projects that help the poor, so the rich need to pay much more than the middle-class. But to just assume that they are incapable of "understanding" your argument, and that that is the only possible reason they could have to reject it, is bigoted. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 21, 2017, 07:25:04 pm Zanthius, you're not really helping your case there.
Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 21, 2017, 07:31:21 pm Again, a bigoted worldview. It's quite possible that there's a better solution. It is a possibility that there is a better solution, but since you are not presenting such a solution, but rather focusing on calling my worldview bigoted, you seem to be arguing much in the same way as what you accused Hillary Clinton of. She accused Trump supporters of being a basket of deplorables, while you are accusing me of having a bigoted worldview. Do you think Trump supporters learned anything from being called a basket of deplorables? Do you think I learned anything from you telling me that I have a bigoted worldview? If you had told me exactly why a more progressive tax system isn't necessary to decrease the wealth inequality, or if you had presented me with a better solution, then maybe I would have learned something.... Or, alternatively, it's quite possible that some people don't see a problem with a small percentage of the population controlling 80% of the wealth. If I am working 10 hours a day, and can't make enough money to pay my rent, then I think it should be quite obvious to me that my problem is that I don't earn enough money per hour, or that I am paying too much rent. The problem is probably not that there are too many Mexicans. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 21, 2017, 07:57:45 pm I think it was the part where you said,
"I must admit that I now have much more respect for the black people in the United States, than for the white people. Because the black people seemed to be able to see what kind of a person Donald Trump is." Over-generalization is bad, mmmkay? Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 21, 2017, 08:08:43 pm I think it was the part where you said, "I must admit that I now have much more respect for the black people in the United States, than for the white people. Because the black people seemed to be able to see what kind of a person Donald Trump is." Over-generalization is bad, mmmkay? You are probably right, because if I turn the argument around in my brain, and say that I have much more respect for white people than for black people for some reason, it sounds very racist. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 21, 2017, 08:13:48 pm Quote but since you are not presenting such a solution I'm not arguing with you on this point. I support progressive taxation. I'm just explaining what sort of arguments people who disagree with you would use. My argument isn't that you're wrong; it's that people who disagree with you don't do so because they're stupid or ignorant, but rather because they have different values or perspectives than you do. Essentially, I am advocating the principle of charity. When I say you are presenting a bigoted worldview, I mean that it is bigoted to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, rather than to consider their views on equal terms with your own. I wasn't even referring to the blatant racism, but yes, that too is bigoted; just an unimportant side-issue and therefore not what I was addressing. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 21, 2017, 08:25:48 pm I'm not arguing with you on this point. I support progressive taxation. I'm just explaining what sort of arguments people who disagree with you would use. My argument isn't that you're wrong; it's that people who disagree with you don't do so because they're stupid or ignorant, but rather because they have different values or perspectives than you do. Essentially, I am advocating the principle of charity. Okay, but I am not saying that people that disagree with me on every issue is stupid/ignorant, just on some issues. I don't necessarily think that rich people that are against more progressive taxes are stupid and/or ignorant. I would rather call them a bit egoistical, since they seem to care more about increasing their own wealth, than about the prosperity of all people and society in general. When I say you are presenting a bigoted worldview, I mean that it is bigoted to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, rather than to consider their views on equal terms with your own. Do you think that every opinion is equally valid? But then we can't necessarily say that racism is bad either, just that the "racists" have a different opinion that isn't necessarily better or worse than our own. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Scalare on June 21, 2017, 09:27:48 pm (click to show/hide) Whoops, it appears my list only goes to 47 people. Then it appears everything is alright :) Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 21, 2017, 09:37:23 pm Whoops, it appears my list only goes to 47 people. Then it appears everything is alright :) Ok, but why should I believe that, and not this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp)). You can find conspiracy theories claiming almost anything on the Internet today, and they haven't been convicted of any of these murders, right? Well, innocent until proven guilty. I don't see any reason to start believing in random conspiracy theories, unless I am presented with hard evidence. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Scalare on June 21, 2017, 09:48:23 pm All the signs point to it, and you should know that the american justice system is bought.
I guess afterwards you can always say 'wir haben es nicht gewusst', even in this century. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 22, 2017, 12:33:26 am I asked for two for a reason. Kenneth Starr of all people, no friend of the Clintons, concluded that they didn't have anything to do with Vince Foster's death. If your list is populated with nothing better than that…
let me glance down the list and pick some out randomly. > 9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas This doesn't point to them at all. There would be hundreds of people who would want to do such a person in, and that's assuming it really was murder. > 13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor. This doesn't sound like the kind of person they would want to kill, even if they were totally 100% evil - he was useful and on their team. Screw it. Either pick two to present in depth or… Well. The argument wasn't so much over whether they're actually mass-murderers, but whether they're seen that way. So yes, it appears that someone has managed to paint them that way, to people who have low evidentiary standards. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 22, 2017, 07:23:46 am Do you think that every opinion is equally valid? By default, yes. Both "invalid" and "unsound" have very specific meanings, and they need to be proven before they can be soundly asserted. Quote But then we can't necessarily say that racism is bad either, just that the "racists" have a different opinion that isn't necessarily better or worse than our own. Yes, that is true. It's subjective. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 22, 2017, 09:12:03 am By default, yes. Both "invalid" and "unsound" have very specific meanings, and they need to be proven before they can be soundly asserted. Ok. Let me ask you. Do you think 0.7% of the world population would be able to control 45.6% of the world's wealth, if the poor people were more informed (better educated)? If I was alone in a room with 100 people, and I had 45.6% of the wealth in the room, don't you think the 99 other people in the room (many of them starving) would start to complain, and force me to give them some of my wealth? And how would I (being only 1 individual) be able to prevent them? Especially if the room was a democracy, where they could vote on if I should give away some of my wealth or not, and I would need to accept the vote. By the way, we are Bayesians here, so saying that something needs to be "proven" is a bit misleading. We rather talk about degrees of probability in Bayesian statistics. Here a page I have made to explain Bayes' theorem (http://www.archania.org/bayes_theorem_explained.html (http://www.archania.org/bayes_theorem_explained.html)) Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 22, 2017, 02:17:06 pm Well, SOME of us are Bayesian.
Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 22, 2017, 03:12:32 pm Quote Ok. Let me ask you. Do you think 0.7% of the world population would be able to control 45.6% of the world's wealth, if the poor people were more informed (better educated)? Yes. I don't see why that would make it impossible. Quote If I was alone in a room with 100 people, and I had 45.6% of the wealth in the room, don't you think the 99 other people in the room (many of them starving) would start to complain, and force me to give them some of my wealth? And how would I (being only 1 individual) be able to prevent them? Especially if the room was a democracy, where they could vote on if I should give away some of my wealth or not, and I would need to accept the vote. What context are you talking about here? First of all, I don't think most normal people concern themselves with how much money everyone in a room has. If you have $20 and someone has $200, you don't go demanding that the person with $200 give handouts to everyone so that the amount of money everyone has is equal. Secondly, and more importantly, people treat situations involving small groups they are a part of very differently from situations involving the entire population of the United States. If a situation where someone having $200 matters does come up, it's not going to play out the same way as some rich person you don't even know the name of having millions of dollars while you only have a few thousand and can't pay the bills. Quote By the way, we are Bayesians here, so saying that something needs to be "proven" is a bit misleading. We rather talk about degrees of probability in Bayesian statistics. That's pedantic. "Proven" in this sense means that sufficient evidence is provided to support the claim. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 22, 2017, 04:00:47 pm First of all, I don't think most normal people concern themselves with how much money everyone in a room has. If you have $20 and someone has $200, you don't go demanding that the person with $200 give handouts to everyone so that the amount of money everyone has is equal. Sure, but I am not talking about a difference between $20 and $200, but rather the difference between $20 and $20 000 000. A little inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing. It might even make lazy people work a bit harder. But when 0.7% of the world population controls almost half of the world's wealth, it isn't necessarily beneficial anymore. Secondly, and more importantly, people treat situations involving small groups they are a part of very differently from situations involving the entire population of the United States. If a situation where someone having $200 matters does come up, it's not going to play out the same way as some rich person you don't even know the name of having millions of dollars while you only have a few thousand and can't pay the bills. Maybe because it becomes more abstract when there are more people, and we don’t know most them. And it doesn’t help if the government is feeding us propaganda telling us that wealth “trickles down” when you have less taxes for the rich, even though there is little empirical evidence for this (http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_15_4.pdf (http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_15_4.pdf) , https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens) , http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html)). But there are two ways which increasing the progressiveness of the tax system can make it economically easier for poor people:
So, my question is. If a more progressive tax system can make it economically easier for poor people, why didn't all the poor people vote for Bernie Sanders? Maybe because they are ignorant due to a dysfunctional educational system? Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 22, 2017, 08:12:20 pm Zanthius, can you cool it with the negative generalizations about entire populations?
Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 22, 2017, 09:10:14 pm Zanthius, can you cool it with the negative generalizations about entire populations? Yeah, you know, maybe I shouldn't complain about Donald Trump at all, since I am not even living in the United States. But you know, your country has by far the biggest army in the world, and your country has used to push a global agenda for democracy and human rights. With a lot of power comes a lot of responsibility. I feel like that responsibility is lacking with Donald Trump, and yeah... I am a bit angry at you Americans for electing him... But maybe you should just delete this entire thread.. I realize that nothing good comes from this dialog. I also know that most people dislike it when people from other countries talk badly about the people from your country. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 22, 2017, 11:38:25 pm Quote why didn't all the poor people vote for Bernie Sanders? That's a ridiculous question. Bernie Sanders wasn't on the ballot. And he wasn't on the ballot because registered Democrats didn't believe he could win. The only two choices were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Please educate yourself about how U.S. politics work before making proclamations that an election happened a certain way because Americans are stupid and/or ignorant. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 22, 2017, 11:48:12 pm Quote why didn't all the poor people vote for Bernie Sanders? That's a ridiculous question. Bernie Sanders wasn't on the ballot. And he wasn't on the ballot because registered Democrats didn't believe he could win. The only two choices were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Please educate yourself about how U.S. politics work before making proclamations that an election happened a certain way because Americans are stupid and/or ignorant. I am a bit confused about this. Can anybody vote to decide who is going to be the democrat candidate, or do you need to be a member of the democratic party? Similarly, can anybody vote to decide who is going to be the republican candidate, or do you need to be a members of the republican party? If I don't need to be a member of the democratic or republican parties, can I vote in both cases? I don't quite understand why you need to limit it to 1 candidate for the democrats and 1 candidate for the republicans in the final election. Why can't people just vote both for their favorite candidate and their favorite party in the final election? Isn't it better to have more options? Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 23, 2017, 02:58:43 am I am a bit confused about this. Can anybody vote to decide who is going to be the democrat candidate, or do you need to be a member of the democratic party? It depends on the state. Some states let you vote in the primaries regardless of who you are, and some only let you vote for the candidate of a party you're registered as. Bernie did quite well in states that have open primaries (like Michigan, my state), while Hillary slammed him in states that have closed primaries (like New York). Quote Similarly, can anybody vote to decide who is going to be the republican candidate, or do you need to be a members of the republican party? Same as above. Quote If I don't need to be a member of the democratic or republican parties, can I vote in both cases? Yes. Quote I don't quite understand why you need to limit it to 1 candidate for the democrats and 1 candidate for the republicans in the final election. Why can't people just vote both for their favorite candidate and their favorite party in the final election? Isn't it better to have more options? From the parties' standpoint, no, of course not. If you offer two candidates and the other major party offers just one, you're splitting your votes in half, pretty much guaranteeing a win for the other party. That's what the primaries are there for; people vote for a candidate, hopefully the strongest candidate, to represent the party in the actual election, where all supporters of the party then unite under the chosen nominee to get them elected. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 23, 2017, 04:21:28 am From the parties' standpoint, no, of course not. If you offer two candidates and the other major party offers just one, you're splitting your votes in half, pretty much guaranteeing a win for the other party. That's what the primaries are there for; people vote for a candidate, hopefully the strongest candidate, to represent the party in the actual election, where all supporters of the party then unite under the chosen nominee to get them elected. Not necessarily. Say for example that 19% of the population chose Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, while 21% chose Bernie Sanders and the democratic party, the democratic party would get 40% in total then, and all of Hillary's votes would automatically go to Bernie Sanders. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 23, 2017, 04:43:16 am That's not how American elections work. Political parties are not voted for; politicians are. Whoever gets the most electoral votes becomes the President. Parties can't manipulate the election in the way you describe.
Title: Re: Trump Post by: Krulle on June 23, 2017, 08:44:34 am From the parties' standpoint, no, of course not. If you offer two candidates and the other major party offers just one, you're splitting your votes in half, pretty much guaranteeing a win for the other party. That's what the primaries are there for; people vote for a candidate, hopefully the strongest candidate, to represent the party in the actual election, where all supporters of the party then unite under the chosen nominee to get them elected. Not necessarily. Say for example that 19% of the population chose Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, while 21% chose Bernie Sanders and the democratic party, the democratic party would get 40% in total then, and all of Hillary's votes would automatically go to Bernie Sanders. OTOH, the whole electoral college system has been implemented to prevent populists, by having electors sent, which need to inform themselves about the health of the candidate, and his/her ability to take the office and work for the greater good of the population of the USoA. And to vote differently in the case of being convinced that the candidate they've been sent to vote for if they find the candidate unsuitable. This stems from times when the travel times (and the news spreading times) between the states and Washington easily surpassed 2 weeks, hence known scandals of a candidate may nor have reached some states on the day of voting. (Or even the death of a candidate.) Nowadays though, they are very limited in who they can vote for, and are bound by the state election rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29 There are movements to end this problematic system, by bypassing the constitutional system of electoral college, by amending the state election laws (which may be much easier): http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ Basically, they want the state's electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote, independent of who won in that state. Such a system has it's own disadvantages... Especially if you bypass the federal constitution by implementing laws around it... But then, the constitution says nothing about how the state has to instruct the electoral college members they send. This will still take ages to get implemented, but the election of 45th and before, the 43rd president's election, pushed this movement quite a lot. See also commentary here: http://www.themainewire.com/2016/12/npv-movement-expands-effort-undermine-electoral-college/ Mr. Trump is president. And will likely remain so for the next 7 1/2 years to come. Any new administration in the US has always chenged so much, that there was a lot of collateral damage. Mr. Tump is no different. But inertia of institutions has slowed him down considerably already, and the learning curve of his team is steep. He has found out, that unlike business he can not lock himself up with his team and decide in a backroom how to spend the money and what to achieve. There are far more implications he has to consider, which in business is usually handled afterwards but in politics has to be considered beforehand. He's not doing that bad, but not doing great either. The truth is somewhere in the middle. [Edit] A question: What is Trump's opinion on making Puerto Rico a new state? The people there have the USoA-passports, and denying them a vote in the US elections by not making Puerto Rico a US-state may be against the consitution and classifying them as second class nationals. I wonder if someone already filed a complaint with the federal constitutional court... (I know the republicans are generally against, as Puerto Rico would likely vote democrats, but then Trump once ran in the primaries for the democrats. Also a new state is a very visible symbol of "making the US great again", by visible and officially expanding the United States. And he would be in the history books as the president who brought the Puerto Ricans into the USoA.) Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 23, 2017, 01:01:32 pm OTOH, the whole electoral college system has been implemented to prevent populists, by having electors sent, which need to inform themselves about the health of the candidate, and his/her ability to take the office and work for the greater good of the population of the USoA. And to vote differently in the case of being convinced that the candidate they've been sent to vote for if they find the candidate unsuitable. What it actually does, is create more room for corruption, since it is easier to lobby the electoral college, than to lobby the entire American population. It is in general very dangerous to elect people that are going to represent you in other elections, since it creates room for corruption. In general, the more steps there are between a governing body and the population, the more likely it is that it is going to be highly corrupted. (https://image.ibb.co/d9w33Q/hierarchy.png) Title: Re: Trump Post by: Krulle on June 23, 2017, 02:41:50 pm Hence the electoral college members are by constitution bound to the result of the election of their state, and their conscience.
If they vote differently, they have to defend this in front of their own state, and may be charged with election fraud. No, the electoral college is pretty safe in this regard, as the votes of the electoral college members are public. Quote from: Wikipedia: Electoral College (US) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29) Although no elector is required by federal law to honor their pledge, there have been very few occasions when an elector voted contrary to a pledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector) and never once has it impacted the final outcome of a national election. Now I'm wikipedia-distracted again. gonna read that linked article about electors wo voted contrary to a pledge.... Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 23, 2017, 03:15:03 pm Yeah, you know, maybe I shouldn't complain about Donald Trump at all, since I am not even living in the United States. That's not true. You certainly can, because you have enough information and evidence about him. Don't criticize large swaths of populations, where you don't know enough about them to understand why they do the things they do. Like, look at the previous page. Anyone who believed Clinton was a mass murderer would probably vote for whoever was against her based solely on that. And Clinton called a quarter of the country or so 'Deplorable'. And she kept on being under investigation for one thing or another. It's not hard to come to the (in our opinion erroneous) conclusion that Trump's failings pale in comparison to hers. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 23, 2017, 04:25:23 pm And Clinton called a quarter of the country or so 'Deplorable'. I just think that is so trivial compared to what Trump says all the time, and especially what he said about grabbing pussies. Nevertheless, calling half of the country a basket of deplorables was extremely stupid of her (as a politician), and shows a very arrogant attitude. But to be honest, I might often say that I think most people are stupid or ignorant for one reason or another, but I would never ever say what Trump said about grabbing pussies. That doesn't just indicate that you dislike people, that also indicates that you are disrespectful of people. It is a big difference between disliking your neighbor, and being disrespectful of your neighbor, for example by making lots of noise in the middle of the night or by cutting down a tree in his garden. Where I live disrespectful behavior is frowned upon, while disliking other people is kinda acceptable as long as you are civil and respectful. It is also that he seems so incoherent when he speaks. He repeats himself all the time and contradicts himself all the time. Hillary Clinton seems moderately coherent when she speaks. She doesn't repeat herself all the time, and she doesn't contradict herself all the time. She seems like she has a moderately functional brain. You know, of all our politicians, I think only one said openly that he supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and he is in the most right-wing populist party. But even in that right-wing populist party (which I despise), all the other members supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 24, 2017, 12:27:52 am It seems a great deal less trivial when you have a suspicion that she might be calling YOU deplorable.
Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 24, 2017, 01:11:53 am It seems a great deal less trivial when you have a suspicion that she might be calling YOU deplorable. Well. I have a thick skin, and I am probably a bit deplorable. Actually, I think it is anyone's right to call me whatever they want. Grabbing my daughter's pussy without her permission. That is a completely different matter. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Krulle on June 24, 2017, 02:24:11 pm He never said he'd grab his own daughter by the pussy. He said, that because of his wealth and power, he can grab any woman by the pussy, and they'll like it (or pretend) becausehe has the power to kill her career forever.
In his biography, he tells a story of a former employee (female), whom he fired and made sure she never got work again. He pushed her around until her marriage broke, and whenever he can he's still kicking her. That's really bad behaviour for someone in any office! Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 24, 2017, 02:48:51 pm He never said he'd grab his own daughter by the pussy. He said, that because of his wealth and power, he can grab any woman by the pussy, and they'll like it (or pretend) becausehe has the power to kill her career forever. Yeah, but that is abuse of his position/wealth, and I seriously doubt all women like it (they might just be too scared to say something, because of his position/wealth) Imagine if you had a daughter that worked in his company, and he did something like that to her. In this country that would be considered sexual abuse, and serious enough to get you imprisoned. But I think Donald Trump would have been imprissoned a long time ago if he lived here. We have much stricter rules for how you treat your employees, and much stricter rules about transparency and taxation. And what about this. Here he mocks a reporter with disability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA) And also, his quotes on this page. It shows such a level of stupidity as I wouldn't even expect from the worst dictators in Africa: http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/people/donald-trump-quotes-57213 (http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/people/donald-trump-quotes-57213) And you know, in many of the African countries that have horrible dictators, most of the population don't have any education at all. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 24, 2017, 06:09:03 pm It seems a great deal less trivial when you have a suspicion that she might be calling YOU deplorable. Also, take this into consideration. When she referred to Trump supporters as a basket of deplorables, she might have been referring to these people:
I guess she erroneously though there weren't so many such people in the US. We know better now. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 25, 2017, 12:09:24 am Of COURSE she was referring to those people… but,
A - Not all true statements are safe to make, especially broadly made insults without lots of clarification. B - she initially said it was half of Trump's support, which would be around a sixth of the country. That was enough people that anyone on the fence between the two of them has to wonder whether she means THEM. And generally speaking, if you say a broad swath of your country is deplorable, it generally raises suspicions that you do not have the best interests of everyone in the country at heart I'd compare it to Romney's '47%' remark 4 years ago. C - as noted and even proven above, a lot of people believe that as bad as Trump was, she was even worse. Literally thought she ran a pedophilia ring out of a pizza parlor, on top of being a mass-murderer. That kind of worse. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 25, 2017, 01:06:32 am C - as noted and even proven above, a lot of people believe that as bad as Trump was, she was even worse. Literally thought she ran a pedophilia ring out of a pizza parlor, on top of being a mass-murderer. That kind of worse. Yeah, but also completely unrealistic. 99% of all pedophiles and mass murderers are also male. Funny that these conspiracy theories surround your first female candidate. We have recordings of Trump bragging about sexual abuse and mocking the disabled. Where is the hard evidence for the crimes committed by Hillary? The only evidence I know of, is that she used a private email server. Trump uses Twitter as his email server. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 25, 2017, 03:34:15 am First off, consider where these people are getting their news - Fox News. This is not an operation with the highest epistemic standards.
> 99% of all pedophiles and mass murderers are also male. Nowhere near 99% of pedophiles are male. Among people who hire hitmen, this is also the case. ~~~~ ANYWAY - mod note - I think it would be best if we left this particular subtopic. I won't lock the topic as a whole so long we can keep it on Trump himself, and elected Republican officials or high-ranking non-elected party members/influencers (such as Fox), or his opponents (such as Hillary - she's not off limits), and keep it off of discussing- and especially not impugning - his citizen supporters. (EDITED TO CHANGE TO GREEN FOR LEGIBILITY) Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 25, 2017, 10:00:49 am First off, consider where these people are getting their news - Fox News. This is not an operation with the highest epistemic standards. Although I do think Fox news, Breibart news, and Infowars are a huge part of the problem, I also wonder why so many people are attracted to these news sources. I have a suspicion that if people were better educated (especially in regard to critical thinking skills, and source-checking), they wouldn't be so easily fooled by these news sources. Also, are there any compulsory topics high school, where students need to reflect on society? I don't quite understand the purpose of how history often is taught. Many history courses seem to be just about memorizing the names of kings and queens, and memorizing at which years they ruled. Just memorizing lots of "historical facts" doesn't necessarily serve any purpose. The purpose of learning history, must be to learn when&why we failed in the past, and when&why we succeeded in the past. Are there such history courses in your high school curriculum? Can you also explain to me how this can be the case: 7 Percent of American Adults Believe Chocolate Milk Comes From Brown Cows https://www.peta.org/blog/american-adults-think-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows/ (https://www.peta.org/blog/american-adults-think-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows/) Don't you learn the basics about food and nutrition in high school? And how can this be the case: 1 in 4 Americans Apparently Unaware the Earth Orbits the Sun http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/ (http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/) Don't you learn the basics about the solar system in high school? Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 25, 2017, 02:58:06 pm A) From that second article…
> Americans actually fared better than Europeans who took similar quizzes -- at least when it came to the sun and Earth question. Only 66 percent of European Union residents answered that one correctly. … seems like either this is a human problem, not an American problem, or there was something wrong with the survey. (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/) B) HEY. JUST BECAUSE I DID NOT USE RED TEXT AND ALL CAPS DID NOT MEAN I DID NOT MEAN IT. ANY MORE AND YOU CAN SPEND A FEW DAYS ON THE BAN LIST. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Zanthius on June 25, 2017, 03:44:20 pm B) HEY. JUST BECAUSE I DID NOT USE RED TEXT AND ALL CAPS DID NOT MEAN I DID NOT MEAN IT. ANY MORE AND YOU CAN SPEND A FEW DAYS ON THE BAN LIST. Fine with me... I am busy watching lectures about corruption by professor Philip Nichols at the University of Pennsylvania. https://www.coursera.org/learn/wharton-corruption (https://www.coursera.org/learn/wharton-corruption) And as I have said previously. Many of the brightest professors in the world are Americans. I am just a bit concerned about all those Americans that didn't go to Harvard, or one of your expensive highly ranked universities. I fear that USA is becoming a more intellectual elitist society, while the average citizen is left behind. Which is silly, since I believe almost all people can become intellectually bright, if we just start educating them correctly from an early age. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Julie.chan on June 26, 2017, 08:01:27 am Quote Also, are there any compulsory topics high school, where students need to reflect on society? That's a state thing. It's not a national thing. I can only speak for Michigan, but no, there isn't a legal mandate for a class to force students to write reflections about things they know little about. They get a lot of chances to do so if they want to, though. Quote Many history courses seem to be just about memorizing the names of kings and queens, and memorizing at which years they ruled. I never learned any such thing, much less was asked to memorize it. I mean, you might get asked questions about a certain king and you're going to need to know what his name is to answer questions about him, but that's very different. Quote The purpose of learning history, must be to learn when&why we failed in the past, and when&why we succeeded in the past. Are there such history courses in your high school curriculum? Yes. All of them, at least all of the ones I took. Plus extra coverage of some of that stuff in English classes. Quote Don't you learn the basics about food and nutrition in high school? Currently taught nutrition advice is not based in science; it's instead based on decades-old bureaucracy. But yes. We do learn the nonsense about how salt is bad for you, meat is bad for you, fat is bad for you, and that we should shove bread and pasta down our throats and drink more water than we actually want. Quote Don't you learn the basics about the solar system in high school? No, we learn that in elementary school. Often even earlier than that. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Krulle on June 26, 2017, 02:40:56 pm Trump's coat of arms being, in Europe, especially the UK, problematic copy of an existing coat of arms:
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-and-his-coat-of-arms.html (ipkitten is a blog about Intellecual Property (IP)) Actually, the coat of arms has no value in USoA rights, but in Europe coat of arms are important. The most telling sign is though the one change Trump has had done to the coat of arms. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Scalare on June 27, 2017, 09:53:33 am First off, consider where these people are getting their news - Fox News. This is not an operation with the highest epistemic standards. I can't read that blue text at all on that background.> 99% of all pedophiles and mass murderers are also male. Nowhere near 99% of pedophiles are male. Among people who hire hitmen, this is also the case. ~~~~ ANYWAY - mod note - I think it would be best if we left this particular subtopic. I won't lock the topic as a whole so long we can keep it on Trump himself, and elected Republican officials or high-ranking non-elected party members/influencers (such as Fox), or his opponents (such as Hillary - she's not off limits), and keep it off of discussing- and especially not impugning - his citizen supporters. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Krulle on June 27, 2017, 10:03:08 am I also had to press "quote" to be able to read it.
On this machine I can select the text and thus get a background that enables me to read the mod-voice. Title: Re: Trump Post by: Death 999 on June 27, 2017, 04:57:41 pm Noted.
|