ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Ilhan Omar , immigration issues , racism incidents , racism issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 20th July 2019, 08:20 AM   #321
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,611
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Leaving aside the "Look! A squirrel!" of your post, I've not heard of a terrorist citing Ocasio-Cortez as the inspiration for their actions, and googling turns up nothing. Can you provide a citation, please?
It is not a simple answer. It may take a while to put together Zigís response. He may have to get back to you on that later.

*tumbleweeds*
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 08:21 AM   #322
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,428
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ok stop.

Where?
Literally nowhere but inside Zigg's head and he damn well knows it.

Like every word that comes out of his mouth it exists nowhere but in the Twilight Zone of "whatever keeps the discussion away from me actually supporting or defending anything I've ever said."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 20th July 2019 at 08:24 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 09:36 AM   #323
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ok stop.

Where?
Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it? And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 09:41 AM   #324
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,428
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it? And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.
NO.

Start a thread about it. Don't "HEY LOOK A SQUIRREL!" in this one.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 09:43 AM   #325
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,125
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it? And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.
Ah, so white people can also be defined as terrorists and not mentally ill if they espouse a left-wing manifesto. Good to know.
However this incident looks far closer to mental illness than many - the choice of weapon was particularly ineffective, and suicide by cop would be one option.
Describing the ICE centres as concentration camps, like those used by the British in the Boer War, seems pretty accurate.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 09:44 AM   #326
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,788
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it?
No, I did not.

Quote:
And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.
Weak. It's too easy and general a term for you to blame AOC for it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 10:25 AM   #327
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,283
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
If you express hatred for the United States and you are an immigrant legal or not the response is acceptable. Go back to where you came from. If you were born and raised here and express hatred for the United States then find somewhere else to live.
And of course, as it always has been since war protestors were greeted with "love it or leave it," hatred for the US is defined here as disapproval of Trump. It is not, of course, disapproval of other administrations, since Trump prided himself on being an endless whiner when Obama was president.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 10:27 AM   #328
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,284
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I wish a reporter would challenge Trump when he states that Omar has expressed hatred for the US by asking him exactly what she said. And when the Orange Baboon lies, and you know he will, call him on it.
Originally Posted by timhau View Post
And then what?
Do it again. And every time he lies. He must be challenged on the spot when he just makes crap up.


Originally Posted by timhau View Post
There doesn't seem to be any Trump lies that his supporters aren't willing to either defend or ignore.
His hardcore base, yes. But there ARE people out there who voted for him reluctantly and who may just reach their "Trump lies" saturation point. We need them, especially in the swing states.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 10:31 AM   #329
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,872
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it? And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.
I'll certainly condemn his actions. But it's no wonder that he didn't show up in google searches - because he didn't cite Ocasio-Cortez as the impetus behind his actions.

And I certainly don't believe that Ocasio-Cortez correctly using the term "concentration camps"and having a clear, thought-out reason for doing so is remotely the same thing as lying in order to incite racial hatred. I don't think you do, either.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 10:35 AM   #330
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,872
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
His hardcore base, yes. But there ARE people out there who voted for him reluctantly and who may just reach their "Trump lies" saturation point. We need them, especially in the swing states.
This guy, for example:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It's all a bit "I never thought leopards would eat MY face!", and it's a testament to how wilfully blind people can be given that he seems to think that Trump saying something racist came completely out of the blue, but it's an example of a staunch supporter changing their stance based on Trump's actions.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 10:45 AM   #331
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,283
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
So first he supported them, then says he tried to stop them, now he wants to have it both ways. Classy.

Even his cultists must feel the slightest bit of betrayal when he said he disagreed with them, and tried to stop them chanting?
That's nothing new. Just as, when he denied having any influence on the exclusion of the ship named after McCain from ceremonies in Japan, he wrapped his denial in the remark that it was well intentioned. He is very good at disavowal and approval in the same breath.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 10:49 AM   #332
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,284
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
This guy, for example:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It's all a bit "I never thought leopards would eat MY face!", and it's a testament to how wilfully blind people can be given that he seems to think that Trump saying something racist came completely out of the blue, but it's an example of a staunch supporter changing their stance based on Trump's actions.
Interesting. I agree that it's a bit odd for him to claim it came out of the blue. I doubt he's unaware of the "very fine people on both sides" statement.
I find it heartening that he says many of his black conservative friends have jumped off the Trump train and are supporting Harris or Biden.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 10:59 AM   #333
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,777
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'll certainly condemn his actions. But it's no wonder that he didn't show up in google searches - because he didn't cite Ocasio-Cortez as the impetus behind his actions.

And I certainly don't believe that Ocasio-Cortez correctly using the term "concentration camps"and having a clear, thought-out reason for doing so is remotely the same thing as lying in order to incite racial hatred. I don't think you do, either.
But shouldn't you think he does? After years of excusing and defending pure insanity, is there really any doubt benefit left?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 11:02 AM   #334
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,284
This interview with Democrats who voted for Trump is interesting. Some regret their choice, some don't. I found the comments by those who still support him especially interesting.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...0_choices.html
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 12:22 PM   #335
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,611
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This interview with Democrats who voted for Trump is interesting. Some regret their choice, some don't. I found the comments by those who still support him especially interesting.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...0_choices.html
Interesting in the generally misinformed sense?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 12:51 PM   #336
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,731
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This interview with Democrats who voted for Trump is interesting. Some regret their choice, some don't. I found the comments by those who still support him especially interesting.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...0_choices.html
Poor deluded souls.

I guess they are populists at heart, voted for Obama for the Hope and Change and voted for Trump to Make America Great Again!
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 01:26 PM   #337
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,058
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm sure rural Americans having essentially no representation on the Federal level would be quite ok for you, but not for them. You do understand that this is what the Senate and EC were supposed to address, correct?
Besides the fact this is a straw man, what does it say about liberals' representation now?

If the Senate matched the voting public, conservatives would have no representation?

Then what representation do liberals have currently?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 20th July 2019 at 01:29 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 01:32 PM   #338
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,058
Originally Posted by timhau View Post
And then what? There doesn't seem to be any Trump lies that his supporters aren't willing to either defend or ignore.
Calling out Trump lies needs to be targeted and repeated.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 01:34 PM   #339
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,058
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

As you can see, I did nothing to lead people on, nor was I particularly happy with their chant. Just a very big and patriotic crowd. They love the USA!

https://twitter.com/i/status/1151738558501330945
As we can see, that's a blatant lie. Yet that matters not.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 01:42 PM   #340
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,058
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it? And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.
Oh for pity's sake! Really?

This was in WA, a single crazy among the protestors at the immigration detention facility went back after the protest and it's not clear yet but suicide by cop may have been the motive.

I heard about it. But a direct connection to AOC? Of course no one had a clue what you were talking about.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 02:35 PM   #341
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,284
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Interesting in the generally misinformed sense?
Of the six people interviewed, 4 were men (2 white, 2 A-American) and 2 were women (1 white, 1 A-American). Only the men voted for Trump, and the two white men regretted it. The two A-A men, Dixon and Wimbley, did not.

Quote:
JOSEPH DIXON, DEMOCRAT, VOTED FOR TRUMP: With Trump, I was really sold as soon as he came down that escalator and announced that he was going to run.
Why was he sold on Trump so early? I suspect it was because of the image he had of Trump being a successful businessman a la The Apprentice.

Quote:
DIXON: It was almost like a big middle finger to all -- to the establishment -- to all of politics and I just felt that we really needed that.
I know that many people felt that way but, to me, itís an utterly stupid and childish reason to vote for someone to be POTUS.

Wimbley doesnít think that racism is a problem in the US or that itís become worse since Trumpís election.

Quote:
WIMBLEY: It just amazes me. This is 2019. The race relations and the way that we perceive or the way we say things are happening in this country, I don't see it happening.
On the uptick in reported hate crimes:

Quote:
WIMBLEY: You can say that. I truly don't believe it because I don't see it. I can statistically say anything, but I don't see it.

WIMBLEY: I don't really even call that -- like, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Law Center -- to me, those are democratic institutions that will say and manipulate anything.

Racism is not a microaggression. Racism is something painful and hurtful. And when we take microaggressions and turn it into the country's against black people, we're literally slapping the people in the face that went through real racism.
I think Wimbley doesnít see what he doesnít want to see.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 02:36 PM   #342
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,284
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Oh for pity's sake! Really?

This was in WA, a single crazy among the protestors at the immigration detention facility went back after the protest and it's not clear yet but suicide by cop may have been the motive.

I heard about it. But a direct connection to AOC? Of course no one had a clue what you were talking about.
Desperation calls for desperate claims.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 02:56 PM   #343
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,788
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Besides the fact this is a straw man
And again with the misue of the term. What is it with you and calling arguments I'm making strawmen? You realise they have to be representations of YOUR arguments, not of their consequences, right?

Quote:
what does it say about liberals' representation now?
Well it says exactly what you think it says, really. What's the point of voting Republican in California, for instance? The fear was always that representative voting would drown out rural concerns because the larger, more city-bound states would overwhelm the smaller ones. Do you disagree with the contention that A) this is a real issue and B) that it's a problem?

Quote:
If the Senate matched the voting public, conservatives would have no representation?
That's not what I wrote. Please re-read the post you replied to.

I said "rural Americans", not "conservatives".
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 03:53 PM   #344
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And again with the misue of the term. What is it with you and calling arguments I'm making strawmen? You realise they have to be representations of YOUR arguments, not of their consequences, right?
You asserting the outcome as catastrophic and claiming the other person hopes for that outcome is maybe a clever adaptation on a straw man, maybe some other term is appropriate, but in any case, it's a terrible way to have a discussion.



Quote:
Well it says exactly what you think it says, really.
Dodge noted.


Quote:
What's the point of voting Republican in California, for instance? The fear was always that representative voting would drown out rural concerns because the larger, more city-bound states would overwhelm the smaller ones. Do you disagree with the contention that A) this is a real issue and B) that it's a problem?


The point of voting in a proportional representation model is to increase the proportion of representation of your interests.

Not sure why it feels like the unstated premise is "if my interests don't end up as the majority, the whole thing is unfair."

I mean it's been pointed out there's blatant disparity between votes cast and resulting representation, you dismiss it away and insist it's the rural vote being squashed?!
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 04:21 PM   #345
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,202
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it? And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.
Did he cite AOC has his "inspiration":.... err NO

Has anyone else referred to CBP facilities as "concentrations camps"? Yes - hundreds of people; politicians of all flavours, and media presenters, and reporters.

This is what really happened - under pressure, you made a rash and unevidenced claim that you could not back up, so now you are frantically clutching at straws to preztel-twist some unrelated facts in order to force fit them into looking like evidence. You failed; we aren't stupid - we see right through your transparent lies.

You don't need AOC's words in order to be outraged at the inhumane conditions under which adults and children are being imprisoned in CPD concentration camps - if you aren't outraged by what you see at these facilities, then you're a sociopath and your wiring is faulty. You only need to be a Trump supporter to believe that these abuses are just fine.
__________________
ďGive me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 20th July 2019 at 04:24 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 04:37 PM   #346
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,788
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
You asserting the outcome as catastrophic and claiming the other person hopes for that outcome is maybe a clever adaptation on a straw man, maybe some other term is appropriate, but in any case, it's a terrible way to have a discussion.
What are you talking about? It's a FACT that proportional representation would mean that the larger, city-based states would dominate politics at the expense of rural, less populous states. Ergo, rural considerations would be more likely to be ignored.

How the **** is that a strawman? You're not making any sense.

Quote:
Dodge noted.


I'm pretty sure Ginger thinks that liberals are getting under-represented under the current conditions as stated. It's not a dodge to confirm her perspective on the subject.

It really seems that you are reflexively disagreeing with me, no matter what I say.


Quote:
The point of voting in a proportional representation model is to increase the proportion of representation of your interests.

Not sure why it feels like the unstated premise is "if my interests don't end up as the majority, the whole thing is unfair."

I mean it's been pointed out there's blatant disparity between votes cast and resulting representation, you dismiss it away and insist it's the rural vote being squashed?!
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm stating a fact, and asking a question. Why did you respond if you weren't going to reply to what I actually posted?

This is getting surreal. If you focused in the points and facts rather than trying to score one for your imaginary team, you might be having a discussion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 04:39 PM   #347
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,872
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This is what really happened - under pressure, you made a rash and unevidenced claim that you could not back up, so now you are frantically clutching at straws to preztel-twist some unrelated facts in order to force fit them into looking like evidence. You failed; we aren't stupid - we see right through your transparent lies.
I'd say it's more likely that he was referring to Van Spronsen originally. If you google his name and hers together you get a bunch of right-wing websites making tenuous connections between them ([url=https://pluralist.com/willem-van-spronsen-antifa-manifesto-ocasio-cortez/]one example]). If these are the kinds of websites you read, or if you hang out in the kind of spaces that are occupied by people who read those kinds of websites, then it seems entirely reasonable to me that you may believe the same things.

It doesn't make the argument any less spurious, but I see no reason to assume that it wasn't an association that Ziggurat had before making that post. I think he knows that it's not the same thing as what I was talking about, and that Ocasio-Cortez's public statements aren't on the same level as Trump's public statements. I think he knows he's trying to draw a false equivalence. But I see no reason to assume that it's propaganda that he was unaware of until challenged. Seems much more likely to me that it's propaganda that he's previously swallowed.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 04:59 PM   #348
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
What are you talking about? It's a FACT that proportional representation would mean that the larger, city-based states would dominate politics at the expense of rural, less populous states. Ergo, rural considerations would be more likely to be ignored.
No, it is your speculative assertion.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 05:02 PM   #349
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,365
I'll skip being cute for several more posts and just ask:

What is the "correct" amount of rural representation in % of seats allocated?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 05:19 PM   #350
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,788
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
No, it is your speculative assertion.
Well, even if this was the case, it wouldn't be a strawman, would it?

However, how is it not a fact? Are you seriously contesting the claim that a group of people who are more numerous, and have policy X, in a proportional election, would outweigh a group of people who are less numerous, with policy Y? That's a logical implication! Where's the speculation, there?

Cities and rural areas do not have the same problems and issues. If you have states like NY and CA voting one way, and Wyoming and Alabama voting another, who will win? I'm not saying that the reverse is better. I'm saying that it's a real issue that worries people in the smaller states. How are we do deal with this issue, is the question. So far the answer from forum members have been "**** those yokels.", essentially.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 20th July 2019 at 05:21 PM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 05:46 PM   #351
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, even if this was the case, it wouldn't be a strawman, would it?
Oh dear god.

No, you stating another party wants your speculative outcome to occur is. Or at least its some form of shoehorning those words onto their argument.

Do not even try to play the game where you hop from left foot to right and back on technicalities.

Quote:
However, how is it not a fact? Are you seriously contesting the claim that a group of people who are more numerous, and have policy X, in a proportional election, would outweigh a group of people who are less numerous, with policy Y? That's a logical implication! Where's the speculation, there?
The speculation there is it hasn't been demonstrated.

I'll grant you that you have a plausible hypothesis.

But, I mean, look at what you just said. Uh, yeah, if you get outvoted, you might need to accept that maybe your interests aren't the most important? Maybe convince people why they should be?

Quote:
Cities and rural areas do not have the same problems and issues. If you have states like NY and CA voting one way, and Wyoming and Alabama voting another, who will win? I'm not saying that the reverse is better. I'm saying that it's a real issue that worries people in the smaller states.
Why would NY and CA vote "one way"? Do they vote "one way" now?

Turns out they send a mixture of urban and rural interests as their voting population sees fit.

Quote:
How are we do deal with this issue, is the question. So far the answer from forum members have been "**** those yokels.", essentially.
Oh, this is all about you working out your victimization routine.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 20th July 2019 at 05:51 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:04 PM   #352
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,058
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And again with the misue of the term. What is it with you and calling arguments I'm making strawmen? You realise they have to be representations of YOUR arguments, not of their consequences, right?
You said "rural Americans having essentially no representation on the Federal level".

You either think I'm arguing that should happen, or you are posting ridiculous hyperbole.

And rural vs conservative, so what? Neither changes the argument I made. We are underrepresented. They are over represented.


Quote:
Well it says exactly what you think it says, really. What's the point of voting Republican in California, for instance? The fear was always that representative voting would drown out rural concerns because the larger, more city-bound states would overwhelm the smaller ones. Do you disagree with the contention that A) this is a real issue and B) that it's a problem?
You think this is news to anyone? Think you have to explain the EC to us?


Gosh, if only I had known that, now it makes sense why the issues in 1776 should apply today.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:10 PM   #353
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,058
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, even if this was the case, it wouldn't be a strawman, would it?
It's a bloody straw man if you think I'm saying rural areas should have NO representation.

Not only did I not argue that, if representation were balanced, it would not result in NO representation.

Now that we've cleared that distraction up, you're free to move the discussion forward.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:17 PM   #354
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,788
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
No, you stating another party wants your speculative outcome to occur is.
And where have I done this? Wanting an outcome and being indifferent to it are not the same thing.

Quote:
The speculation there is it hasn't been demonstrated.
What hasn't been demonstrated? That larger interest groups get their policies done more than smaller groups in proportion? Seriously? You can't possibly call this speculation. You're basically telling me that 2<4 is speculation.

Quote:
But, I mean, look at what you just said. Uh, yeah, if you get outvoted, you might need to accept that maybe your interests aren't the most important? Maybe convince people why they should be?
And you don't see why that would be really, really difficult, in this specific case? What if someone said that the solution to gerrymandering was to just convince more people?

Quote:
Oh, this is all about you working out your victimization routine.
...my what? Your posts are getting more and more bizarre. What victimisation?

It's one thing to discuss the benefits and downsides of proportional voting or its alternatives. It's one other entirely to dismiss either the benefits or the downsides. It smacks of a pretermined conclusion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:21 PM   #355
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And where have I done this? Wanting an outcome and being indifferent to it are not the same thing.
Oh lord sorry, you stated they "would be quite ok" with it.

The rest I'll leave alone so you can address Skeptic's points.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:21 PM   #356
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,788
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You said "rural Americans having essentially no representation on the Federal level".

You either think I'm arguing that should happen, or you are posting ridiculous hyperbole.
Or I'm illustrating what WOULD likely happen.

Quote:
And rural vs conservative, so what? Neither changes the argument I made. We are underrepresented. They are over represented.
Ok, "So what", then?

Quote:
You think this is news to anyone? Think you have to explain the EC to us?
Well clearly you don't quite understand the arguments in favour of it. Which, by the way, does not require you to agree with the EC.

Quote:
It's a bloody straw man if you think I'm saying rural areas should have NO representation.
Again, I never said or implied this.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:22 PM   #357
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And where have I done this? Wanting an outcome and being indifferent to it are not the same thing.
Oh lord sorry, you stated they "would be quite ok" with it (zero representation of rural interests).

The rest I'll leave alone so you can address Skeptic's points.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:22 PM   #358
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,611
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
What is the "correct" amount of rural representation in % of seats allocated?
IMHO, approximately the rural % of the US population. Also, super off-topic.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:22 PM   #359
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,788
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Oh lord sorry, you stated they "would be quite ok" with it.
You seriously don't see the difference? It's quite fundamental.

But I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone who thinks 4>2 is a statement that should be demonstrated.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 06:22 PM   #360
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,428
Guys can we spin off the "Proportional / Direct representation" debate to another thread or at least tie it back into the topic?

Endless hijacks away from the topic aren't better when we do it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.