|
Post by Prrevil on May 4, 2017 15:32:47 GMT
Hillary should stop whining about why she lost the election. Bad loser imho. That's the way of the world at the moment. Instead of accepting a loss, everyone wants to protest, and kick up a fuss. Doing that really undermines any argument you might have. What you need to do is sit down, discuss and find out why so many people voted in a certain manner. Maybe they know something you didn't, or maybe your candidate was just awful. It could be a multitude of things, at any rate, either option was truly shit and I don't envy your country at all. People voted as they voted because they are more aware how corrupted and rotten system is. Same thing going on in France with Marine Le Pen. We are experiencing a big change in how our world works and trust me things can get even more bizarre at the future.
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on May 4, 2017 17:06:37 GMT
That's the way of the world at the moment. Instead of accepting a loss, everyone wants to protest, and kick up a fuss. Doing that really undermines any argument you might have. What you need to do is sit down, discuss and find out why so many people voted in a certain manner. Maybe they know something you didn't, or maybe your candidate was just awful. It could be a multitude of things, at any rate, either option was truly shit and I don't envy your country at all. People voted as they voted because they are more aware how corrupted and rotten system is. Same thing going on in France with Marine Le Pen. We are experiencing a big change in how our world works and trust me things can get even more bizarre at the future. I had hoped that with the freedom of information on the Internet then facts would be more widely spread and the best candidates would rise to the top. Unfortunately I don't think that's been the case and misinformation has been spread just as easily.
|
|
|
Post by Prrevil on May 4, 2017 17:15:19 GMT
People voted as they voted because they are more aware how corrupted and rotten system is. Same thing going on in France with Marine Le Pen. We are experiencing a big change in how our world works and trust me things can get even more bizarre at the future. I had hoped that with the freedom of information on the Internet then facts would be more widely spread and the best candidates would rise to the top. Unfortunately I don't think that's been the case and misinformation has been spread just as easily. Bernie Sanders was best candidate too sad that democrats played him out from the game.
|
|
drknut
Member
Posts: 387
Registered on: August 2016
Steam: Knut
Social Club: DrKnut
|
Post by drknut on May 4, 2017 17:43:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on May 4, 2017 17:50:17 GMT
Well it's been over 100 days and I got to say it haven't been the best. I was behind trump during the election and I still want him to succeed, but he doesn't seem to be doing much of what he has said on the campaign trail. IK presidents always oversell themselves but trump isent just not following through on his promises, but he's doing the opisite. I never agreed with most of the policies of trump as I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and trump is very authoritarian, but I liked the idea of trump, a political outsider. Someone who wasent a corrupt career polition. Or someone that got the job because they were related to a famous politician.(i.e. The entire bush family, clintons). At the end of the day, I believe it was a YouTuber names James allsup that said a quote that resonates with me. Follow ideas and not leader. Leaders will always let you down, so don't put your faith in them.
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on May 4, 2017 18:54:02 GMT
Well it's been over 100 days and I got to say it haven't been the best. I was behind trump during the election and I still want him to succeed, but he doesn't seem to be doing much of what he has said on the campaign trail. IK presidents always oversell themselves but trump isent just not following through on his promises, but he's doing the opisite. I never agreed with most of the policies of trump as I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and trump is very authoritarian, but I liked the idea of trump, a political outsider. Someone who wasent a corrupt career polition. Or someone that got the job because they were related to a famous politician.(i.e. The entire bush family, clintons). At the end of the day, I believe it was a YouTuber names James allsup that said a quote that resonates with me. Follow ideas and not leader. Leaders will always let you down, so don't put your faith in them. I think you've been rather foolish then. Trump has always been a liar, to think he would stick by his statements is one thing, but those statements were rather republican, why would you vote for that regardless? I know Clinton was a shitty option, but at least you knew what she was going to do. I suppose the point being, if you have nothing, why vote for the same? Any change will at worst be no different to what you had before. So I can see why some people voted for Trump, but it was still wrong. Democrat voters should be angry that Bernie wasn't chosen.
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on May 4, 2017 22:18:25 GMT
Well it's been over 100 days and I got to say it haven't been the best. I was behind trump during the election and I still want him to succeed, but he doesn't seem to be doing much of what he has said on the campaign trail. IK presidents always oversell themselves but trump isent just not following through on his promises, but he's doing the opisite. I never agreed with most of the policies of trump as I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and trump is very authoritarian, but I liked the idea of trump, a political outsider. Someone who wasent a corrupt career polition. Or someone that got the job because they were related to a famous politician.(i.e. The entire bush family, clintons). At the end of the day, I believe it was a YouTuber names James allsup that said a quote that resonates with me. Follow ideas and not leader. Leaders will always let you down, so don't put your faith in them. I think you've been rather foolish then. Trump has always been a liar, to think he would stick by his statements is one thing, but those statements were rather republican, why would you vote for that regardless? I know Clinton was a shitty option, but at least you knew what she was going to do. I suppose the point being, if you have nothing, why vote for the same? Any change will at worst be no different to what you had before. So I can see why some people voted for Trump, but it was still wrong. Democrat voters should be angry that Bernie wasn't chosen. I dont agree with pretty much anything clinton says. Thats why I would never support her. Reason I never liked trump and only supported him was because he was a bit better than clinton. Trump has been a democrat his whole life and the decisions he is making right now are not very republican. He is keeping the status quo. While I dont like that, clinton would have throttled it in the same direction as its already going, which I dont like more. So in conclusion, Trump sucks, clinton sucks, and I wish the liberterian party put foward a more competent candidate(pretty much anyone who isent johnson)
|
|
|
Post by endersai on May 4, 2017 22:34:52 GMT
The more I think about it, the more I feel Trump is basically American politics brought to life. Deeply unequal, deeply flawed; built on a myth that fewer and fewer on the outside believe, and largely incompetent where it matters (see also: lack of sensible gun laws, massive income inequality, systemic racism). *Best gun laws Also not systematically racist. No, objectively America has the worst gun laws in the whole developed world. Objectively. As a general rule, if you look at good policy, then look at American policy, you will see the American example being the counterpoint. "This is how you do it well, and this (points to American policy) is how you do it poorly".
Health care. Education. Welfare. Taxation. The list goes on.
And on.
But on guns, this Onion piece basically fails to be satirical because it's just sadly true: www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
It's indefensible, and more to the point, it's based basically on a really aggressively stupid interpretation of the Second Amendment, which basically decided that in the event an economic imperative coincided with a rival - in this case France's - desire to play out the imperial power struggle in the new world colonies for a second time, no law would stop the people being formed into militias to preserve the independence so dearly paid for by French coffers. Hence "a well regulated militia" - it's almost as if not having a standing army made fighting a severely distracted Britain slightly more difficult...
Sorry, what I meant to say was, in the event that liberty's siren song was heard and the stiffy of freedom stirred in the trousers of the special and exceptional and unique and god-blessed Americans, they would be able to form a militia to repel the English in the name of democracy and freedom again.
Tying this into the systemic racism piece;
we're hearing now of a young black teen named Jordan Edwards being fatally shot by a rifle-wielding police officer in Texas. Bodycam footage reveals no reasonable grounds for suspicion in the acts performed by the deceased prior to the shooting.
Edwards was a strong athlete and a 3.5GPA student. His colleagues and teachers described him as a model student.
These factors would be - sorry, were - sufficient for a judge to massively under-punish campus rapist Brock Turner, because he was white. In a black kid they're not enough to preserve his life.
This is just one of literally millions of stories of people of colour being denied the same inherent access to rights, services and equality in a country who still, inexplicably and without a shred of irony thinks of itself as the land of the free (which can be proven to be false), and the home of the brave (again, false).
Yeah, so basically having someone who can barely string a sentence together in recognisable, let alone proper English; who is ignorant of history, law, economics, and etiquette; and who has a history of actively racist attitudes and policies, be elected to lead the nation is essentially the most meta moment in American political history to date. As Joseph de Maistre said, "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite".
|
|
|
Post by endersai on May 4, 2017 22:37:50 GMT
I think you've been rather foolish then. Trump has always been a liar, to think he would stick by his statements is one thing, but those statements were rather republican, why would you vote for that regardless? I know Clinton was a shitty option, but at least you knew what she was going to do. I suppose the point being, if you have nothing, why vote for the same? Any change will at worst be no different to what you had before. So I can see why some people voted for Trump, but it was still wrong. Democrat voters should be angry that Bernie wasn't chosen. I dont agree with pretty much anything clinton says. Thats why I would never support her. Reason I never liked trump and only supported him was because he was a bit better than clinton. Trump has been a democrat his whole life and the decisions he is making right now are not very republican. He is keeping the status quo. While I dont like that, clinton would have throttled it in the same direction as its already going, which I dont like more. So in conclusion, Trump sucks, clinton sucks, and I wish the liberterian party put foward a more competent candidate(pretty much anyone who isent johnson)
Libertarianism is such a bankrupt faux-ideology though. Institutionalised selfishness driven by people who don't know the answer to "what the social contract?"
"Stuff everyone so long as me and mine have what we need." It's such a sad way to think of things, in terms of personal gain. Society is a creation that bonds and protects people by having the rotating vulnerable looked after.
|
|
|
Post by piguy3141 on May 5, 2017 2:16:23 GMT
No, objectively America has the worst gun laws in the whole developed world. Objectively. As a general rule, if you look at good policy, then look at American policy, you will see the American example being the counterpoint. "This is how you do it well, and this (points to American policy) is how you do it poorly".
Health care. Education. Welfare. Taxation. The list goes on.
And on.
But on guns, this Onion piece basically fails to be satirical because it's just sadly true: www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
It's indefensible, and more to the point, it's based basically on a really aggressively stupid interpretation of the Second Amendment, which basically decided that in the event an economic imperative coincided with a rival - in this case France's - desire to play out the imperial power struggle in the new world colonies for a second time, no law would stop the people being formed into militias to preserve the independence so dearly paid for by French coffers. Hence "a well regulated militia" - it's almost as if not having a standing army made fighting a severely distracted Britain slightly more difficult...
Sorry, what I meant to say was, in the event that liberty's siren song was heard and the stiffy of freedom stirred in the trousers of the special and exceptional and unique and god-blessed Americans, they would be able to form a militia to repel the English in the name of democracy and freedom again.
Tying this into the systemic racism piece;
we're hearing now of a young black teen named Jordan Edwards being fatally shot by a rifle-wielding police officer in Texas. Bodycam footage reveals no reasonable grounds for suspicion in the acts performed by the deceased prior to the shooting.
Edwards was a strong athlete and a 3.5GPA student. His colleagues and teachers described him as a model student.
These factors would be - sorry, were - sufficient for a judge to massively under-punish campus rapist Brock Turner, because he was white. In a black kid they're not enough to preserve his life.
This is just one of literally millions of stories of people of colour being denied the same inherent access to rights, services and equality in a country who still, inexplicably and without a shred of irony thinks of itself as the land of the free (which can be proven to be false), and the home of the brave (again, false).
Yeah, so basically having someone who can barely string a sentence together in recognisable, let alone proper English; who is ignorant of history, law, economics, and etiquette; and who has a history of actively racist attitudes and policies, be elected to lead the nation is essentially the most meta moment in American political history to date. As Joseph de Maistre said, "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite".
Another thing to note is that guns aren't strictly a liability like you think. Did you know that according to a paper published at Northwestern University by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, nearly 500, 000 violent crimes are prevented each year by firearms in the USA? That includes over 150, 000 cases of sexual assault. Not only does arming a potential victim aid them in fending of a personal assault, but arming home owners discourages property crimes as well. I'm not sure if you've heard of the Kennesaw, Georgia case study, but in 1982 their municipal government mandated homeowners own at least one firearm. The following year burglary rates in the city dropped down by just under 90%. Think what you will about that law, but the results do say something for gun ownership by the public. And a final thing, To say Donald Trump, the man who turned a million into three billion over a lifetime, Is ignorant of economics is laughable. Clearly he knows how to play the game, otherwise he wouldn't be a real estate mogul like he is.T The study you are quoting from with the 500,000 figure is nitpicking, even then is in dispute. Author of the paper admits it himself (page 15 of the study if you use the following PDF), so as of now your source is potentially invalid. If anything this shows that MORE gun research is needed, not to sit on our asses and do nothing like the CDC is doing right now. Secondly, your claim that Kennesaw, Georgia saw a decrease in violence of 90% is mostly false. Officials said there is zero data to support that the gun ownership law actually did anything, even a rise in gun purchasing. Also take note that Georgia's crime rate was at an already decreasing rate and Kennesaw violence rates were already low as is. Also, your logic is kinda shitty. If every home is required to have a gun (unless the homeowners could not afford one, didn't want to have one, or were mentally incompetent to own one), I would argue that it would be MORE of an incentive to rob the houses for handguns and ammo more than anything, much less lead to a possible rise in in home homicides and suicides. Lastly, Donald Trump very clearly has no idea how economics work if he's planning on cutting taxes monstrously and still expects a functioning government. Even if there IS a chance he can get a 4% increase in GDP his very obvious narcissism and mental instability (not to mention threatening local companies with heavy tariffs for producing in Mexico and other countries) makes me doubt that he would achieve that. Not to mention his Twitter antics make America look shitty, even though it already is. Please do some research before posting bullshit myths
|
|
|
Post by endersai on May 5, 2017 2:44:04 GMT
Actually I would point to a really simple metric. Country with gun laws and a few prior mass shootings has a mass shooting in 1996 that for the longest time was the most violent in human history. It adds highly restrictive conditions on gun ownership and restricts certain classes being available (it's often called a ban but this is ignorance and misleading). Following those legislative changes it has no mass shootings. Gun control works; the difference is when you have a legally permissive culture - that is, your laws are framed around what you can do, whereas most jurisprudence contemplates what people cannot do - and an over-emphasis on individual rights (to the detriment of society as a whole, see also: healthcare) - you end up with a cultural attachment to firearms that ends up with the right to own a gun being more important than the universal right to life. It's a very sorry state of affairs. Otherwise, what PiGuy said. And you realise Trump would have been wealthier had he just parked all his cash in an index fund and left it? Notwithstanding the significant failures of most of his ventures, his real estate empire is usually expanded through branding and not much else. He makes a significant portion of his income from bringing lawsuits that here and in Europe would be dismissed as vexatious against people on libel grounds, usually because they've pointed out he's a terrible businessman. I am also stating as someone who does have a background in econ, that his protectionism is absolutely and 100% proof he doesn't understand economics. As for the systemic racism - I mean, there are as I said literally millions of examples. I used one recent one. Are you listening to black voices in your country? How can I understand their concerns seemingly better than you do? Admitting your country is deeply flawed is a necessary step in demanding it change. It's truly patriotic; blindly defending it is, to disagree with the eminent Dr Samuel Johnson, the first - not last - refuge of the scoundrel. www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/18/why-black-lives-matter-wont-go-away-a-primer-on-systemic-racism-in-america/
|
|
|
Post by piguy3141 on May 5, 2017 4:05:21 GMT
The study you are quoting from with the 500,000 figure is nitpicking, even then is in dispute. Author of the paper admits it himself (page 15 of the study if you use the following PDF), so as of now your source is potentially invalid. If anything this shows that MORE gun research is needed, not to sit on our asses and do nothing like the CDC is doing right now. Secondly, your claim that Kennesaw, Georgia saw a decrease in violence of 90% is mostly false. Officials said there is zero data to support that the gun ownership law actually did anything, even a rise in gun purchasing. Also take note that Georgia's crime rate was at an already decreasing rate and Kennesaw violence rates were already low as is. Also, your logic is kinda shitty. If every home is required to have a gun (unless the homeowners could not afford one, didn't want to have one, or were mentally incompetent to own one), I would argue that it would be MORE of an incentive to rob the houses for handguns and ammo more than anything, much less lead to a possible rise in in home homicides and suicides. Lastly, Donald Trump very clearly has no idea how economics work if he's planning on cutting taxes monstrously and still expects a functioning government. Even if there IS a chance he can get a 4% increase in GDP his very obvious narcissism and mental instability (not to mention threatening local companies with heavy tariffs for producing in Mexico and other countries) makes me doubt that he would achieve that. Not to mention his Twitter antics make America look shitty, even though it already is. Please do some research before posting bullshit myths That 500,000 figure was the Kleck, 2001a as well and the Kleck and Gertz, 1995 study. If you want to go to the other end of the spectrum and assume the lowball estimate of Cook et al., 1997, you still get over 100,000 cases of crime prevented with a firearm. The Kennesaw claim has lots of data on it including the Kleck and Gertz, 1995, Benenson, 1982, and Kleck, 1988. Some Snopes article talking about how the law was largely symbolic(which it was) doesn't disprove the fact that alongside an increase in gun ownership, the property crime rate dropped 79% more than that of the state's rate that same year. It's not that the property crime rate dropped that makes Kennesaw significant, but the fact that it dropped nearly nine times more than the state rates. I will admit these studies rely heavily on association rather than direct proof of causation, but the distinct correlation is more than coincidental and a person would have to be rather stubborn in their beliefs to wave it away as unrelated. My logic isn't shitty and calling it that doesn't magically make it so. A 1985 survey of thousands of incarcerated felons by the NCJRS showed that nearly 60% of criminals would not commit a violent crime against a victim who was armed. That survey backs the line of thinking that armed households will seem less attractive to robbers. After all, what robber would prefer to have a shootout with the guys he's robbing? Every time Trump is criticized, it seems like half of it is "He's rude, narcissistic and unpresidential." It is key to separate personal traits from policies, because it makes the valid parts of the criticism come off as petty as Republicans were when they called Obama a stuttering communist. His tax plan seems to address something that so many people both left and right have advocated for, and that is the enforcement of the taxation of the overseas funds of multinational corporations based in America. He's eliminating loopholes for companies and using the surplus in revenue to cut taxes to the middle class. I don't see the ineptitude in this plan. I do hours of research on this stuff, and saying I haven't is insulting and yet not productive. Stop doing that. I don't think you understand the word "dispute". It doesn't matter how accredited a person is, a bold claim must be backed up with sufficient evidence, with which this 500,000 claim does not. I personally could not find any 1995 study that mentions Kennesaw from Kleck/Gertz, the Benenson study (Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control) has said that conclusive evidence of a deterrent similar to that that was enacted by Kennesaw would be detectable in a town where crime rate can wildly fluctuate, not to mention that burglary is known to rise during a population boom, which Kennesaw was under from 1980-1987. You are correct in saying that it would be unfair and stubborn to dismiss it, however there's not much hard evidence to back up the claim. Lastly, the 1988 article only describes a redistribution of crime, NOT an overall decrease in crime. Robbers have to play a Schrodingers Cat situation when robbing. They don't know is a home is armed or not until they actually see the bloody things, so of course they would say agree that they wouldn't rob an armed household. It's the same way if robbing if the homeowners are even in the household, or if they have a pet dog, etc etc. That being said, I would say that robbers are not dumbasses and would be able to tell if a house is occupied or not (either during the day or the night) and would not bust in if the house was occupied. If you would prefer some real reasons as to why Trump is criticized, it's also because he has very obvious misunderstandings, flip flops, and blatant ignorant over countless topics ranging from the environment, climate change, space exploration and proper NASA funding (shit I get really salty about personally), economics, separation of church and state, or even the history of his own fucking nation that he claims to be proud of and "America First!". I would be critical of him even if he wasn't an unstable, illiterate, narcissistic, Twitter obsessed orange with a toupe. I would rather have a stutterer that tries to be calm and respectful that I disagree with than a pompous douchebag that I disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on May 5, 2017 4:54:27 GMT
But we're not using it as a metric of how violent a country is; we're using it as a metric of how ineffectual its governance is.
Your point on rights relies on Thomas Jefferson not being a shit philosopher, and he was. He was an idiot, a moron, and a twat, and his argument for natural rights boils down to "we know natural rights exist because they do". He's literally the MrBossFTW of his day.
Rights exist as a contract between the governed and government that, in simple terms, provide inviolate guarantees to the citizens. Without a state to recognise and define the parameters, a right has no place existing. If you subscribe to the mindless idiocy of Jeffersonian natural rights, I'd ask you at what point the ocean respects your right to life if you are drowning? It doesn't. So you may claim a right to life, but it cannot be exercised; therefore, it requires the state to exist.
And this is true in practice in the US too; the state guarantees a right to life, but takes it away in some but not all states with capital punishment...
Finally, I know a lot about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Owning all the guns your heart desires is not a universal human right.
This is a right that America doesn't really recognise:
Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Erm... didn't Trump just make it harder for people, in a deeply flawed non-socialised medicine country, to access health care as part of his achieving his election promises? Like didn't the House just pass this?
But so long as people have guns right.
I can't see the image for the fund point so I'll respond later - work computer.
|
|
|
Post by thedelgadic1 on May 5, 2017 17:28:51 GMT
From the way I see it with Capital punishment, the state's job is to ensure life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In exchange, you follow the laws and institutions that are in place and lead a civilized life. When you break your end of the contract, there is some sort of punishment. In some cases such as undeniable murder, the death penalty may be a suitable punishment for taking away someone else's right to live.
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on May 5, 2017 18:04:23 GMT
From the way I see it with Capital punishment, the state's job is to ensure life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In exchange, you follow the laws and institutions that are in place and lead a civilized life. When you break your end of the contract, there is some sort of punishment. In some cases such as undeniable murder, the death penalty may be a suitable punishment for taking away someone else's right to live. The death penalty is never an option. You can never 100% guarantee that the person convicted was truly guilty. Even 99.9% accuracy isn't good enough, even 99.99%. Who has the right to decide 10,000 people should suffer the death penalty, when there's a chance 1 of those could be wrong?
|
|