- 70,049
- 24,223
lying pond scum, Donna Brazile, Shultz, and this Clown Mook, Clinton getting hers all week
, that snake.***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
lying pond scum, Donna Brazile, Shultz, and this Clown Mook, Clinton getting hers all week
, that snake.
- 7,384
- 29,179
You know, as rancorous and polarizing as this election has been (and as many reported posts as this thread has generated), one would think that those on different ends of the political spectrum shared no values in common. That's not really so, is it?
We should all value decency and civility. To that end, I would encourage everyone to live those values.
I used to believe that engaging a polemicist - particularly online - was largely pointless, as you'd just end up talking past each other. I could only find motivation in the possibility that onlookers were engaged in a dialog by proxy, and that, by presenting my position and exposing the weaknesses within opposing arguments, commentary that would go ignored by an adversary could wind up influencing some unseen lurker.
There's a popular theory out there that political views are determined early in life, depending on whether one has been raised in a permissive household and encouraged to think critically, or has, instead, suffered from an authoritarian upbringing. There's no doubt that we are, in many ways, what circumstance has made of us - but we're shaped by more than just our earliest experiences.
If you live long enough, you learn that people are capable of change.
For example: I can't help but smile when I think back to the political discussions taking place on our forums eight years ago and imagine what Rexanglorum circa 2016 would say to Rexanglorum circa 2008.
Whether the person you're arguing with is truly receptive to your ideas or not, they are still people - not positions. A "scorched earth" approach denies that.
On November 9th, you're still going to share a community with each other, so long as you don't get yourself banned first.
No matter how disgusting this election gets, each of you should still hold yourselves accountable for your own behavior. If you value compassion, decency, and respect, you have no business engaging in childish name calling, much less ridiculing someone because they've struggled with substance abuse, they require public assistance, they can't afford a home of their own, etc. Such behavior should be beneath you.
Our community standards are not relative to the behavior of American political candidates or their supporters. Our community standards are not conditioned upon whether or not the other party "deserves it." Our community standards call for decency and civility, period.
There can be no doubt that the Trump campaign in particular has emboldened racists (and sexists, and xenophobes, and so on). Quite a few users have permanently lost their access to our forums community because they chose to follow suit and get bold with their bigotry.
This election has not - and will not - lower our standards.
Those who cannot demonstrate personal respect for others, or respect for our forum rules, will also find themselves on the outside looking in. If you can't handle respectful discourse, go troll Twitter.
We're better than that.
We should all value decency and civility. To that end, I would encourage everyone to live those values.
I used to believe that engaging a polemicist - particularly online - was largely pointless, as you'd just end up talking past each other. I could only find motivation in the possibility that onlookers were engaged in a dialog by proxy, and that, by presenting my position and exposing the weaknesses within opposing arguments, commentary that would go ignored by an adversary could wind up influencing some unseen lurker.
There's a popular theory out there that political views are determined early in life, depending on whether one has been raised in a permissive household and encouraged to think critically, or has, instead, suffered from an authoritarian upbringing. There's no doubt that we are, in many ways, what circumstance has made of us - but we're shaped by more than just our earliest experiences.
If you live long enough, you learn that people are capable of change.
For example: I can't help but smile when I think back to the political discussions taking place on our forums eight years ago and imagine what Rexanglorum circa 2016 would say to Rexanglorum circa 2008.
Whether the person you're arguing with is truly receptive to your ideas or not, they are still people - not positions. A "scorched earth" approach denies that.
On November 9th, you're still going to share a community with each other, so long as you don't get yourself banned first.
No matter how disgusting this election gets, each of you should still hold yourselves accountable for your own behavior. If you value compassion, decency, and respect, you have no business engaging in childish name calling, much less ridiculing someone because they've struggled with substance abuse, they require public assistance, they can't afford a home of their own, etc. Such behavior should be beneath you.
Our community standards are not relative to the behavior of American political candidates or their supporters. Our community standards are not conditioned upon whether or not the other party "deserves it." Our community standards call for decency and civility, period.
There can be no doubt that the Trump campaign in particular has emboldened racists (and sexists, and xenophobes, and so on). Quite a few users have permanently lost their access to our forums community because they chose to follow suit and get bold with their bigotry.
This election has not - and will not - lower our standards.
Those who cannot demonstrate personal respect for others, or respect for our forum rules, will also find themselves on the outside looking in. If you can't handle respectful discourse, go troll Twitter.
We're better than that.
- 64,966
- 196,172
I say everyone,
I don't follow what you're even trying to say here. My comments were in reference to Donna Brazile, DWS
lying pond scum, Donna Brazile, Shultz, and this Clown Mook, Clinton getting hers all week
I don't follow what you're even trying to say here. My comments were in reference to Donna Brazile, DWS
- 18,385
- 34,054
I'm guessing that the anti-smoking movement has saved countless dollars in both health costs and increased productivity and so would public health campaigns dealing with obesity and other health epidemics that are mitigated with simple lifestyle modifications.
In some ways, many ways no.( I not sure about the Netherlands really)
Yes but they have price controls on drug prices, America would need to get its cost under control.
Not only through regulation, increasing the pool of health paying into the system, but also from competition in the healthcare industry.
And to get my conservative "pick yaself up by the bootstraps steez" for a short second. America need to get their fat ***** in shape
Another issue is that American don't really know the cost of their heath insurance. Too many people attach work to then "earning" health insurance and good care. They have no idea how many others have to get ****** over, and how many tax breaks are need to keep that system afloat.
Nearly everyone gets their healthcare subsidized by the government in some way, and many people don't know this, or strangely refuse to accept it.
mental health is another one that i think in 20 years we will recognize that public health interventions could substantially improve the nation's health. along with smarter gun control and safety legislation can greatly reduce the social and economic cost of mental health issues.
I'm going to throw in safety regulations on cars and planes that have been very beneficial, and self-driving cars will further reduce these costs.
these are low cost interventions that often bring in money by taxing things like cigarettes and lower health care costs in the long run and improve the economy. I'd like to hear well-reasoned arguments why we don't do more of this and/or show me studies that argue that my premise is wrong.
bottom line, i find it hypocritical when people are for economic growth and demand cheaper health care but cry when the government taxes their cigarettes or their gas-guzzling automobiles or their life-taking guns, etc.
Last edited:
- 18,385
- 34,054
Methodical Management
, thank you. i think many of us (me included) have gotten carried away at times and blurred the line between respectful discussion and outright personal attacks.minus the few obvious trolls, we're NTers at the end of the day and I share your hope that some of this ends up as meaningful discussion and not just chest-thumping.
my values and political ideas have changed drastically over the past decade and NT has contributed much to my transformation, so i definitely agree that we are capable of change and that it isn't a waste to post in here, even if sometimes it feels like it's failing on deaf ears.
Last edited:
- 64,966
- 196,172
I'm guessing that the anti-smoking movement has saved countless dollars in both health costs and increased productivity and so would public health campaigns dealing with obesity and other health epidemics that are mitigated with simple lifestyle modifications.
In some ways, many ways no.( I not sure about the Netherlands really)
Yes but they have price controls on drug prices, America would need to get its cost under control.
Not only through regulation, increasing the pool of health paying into the system, but also from competition in the healthcare industry.
And to get my conservative "pick yaself up by the bootstraps steez" for a short second. America need to get their fat ***** in shape
Another issue is that American don't really know the cost of their heath insurance. Too many people attach work to then "earning" health insurance and good care. They have no idea how many others have to get ****** over, and how many tax breaks are need to keep that system afloat.
Nearly everyone gets their healthcare subsidized by the government in some way, and many people don't know this, or strangely refuse to accept it.
mental health is another one that i think in 20 years we will recognize that public health interventions could substantially improve the nation's health. along with smarter gun control and safety legislation can greatly reduce the social and economic cost of mental health issues.
I'm going to throw in safety regulations on cars and planes that have been very beneficial, and self-driving cars will further reduce these costs.
these are low cost interventions that often bring in money by taxing things like cigarettes and lower health care costs in the long run and improve the economy. I'd like to hear well-reasoned arguments why we don't do more of this and/or show me studies that argue that my premise is wrong.
bottom line, i find it hypocritical when people are for economic growth and demand cheaper health care but cry like babies when the government taxes their cigarettes or their gas-guzzling automobiles or their life-taking guns, etc.
I wouldn't mind seeing regulations on sugar and HFCS, especially on labeling. Even taxing products with added sugars (will lead to others problems I know), but Industry seems like they took the place of the tobacco industry when it comes to scumbag behavior.
When I started tracking my diet was was shocked how many crabs from sugar I was taking it.
They add it to everything
Last edited:
- 18,385
- 34,054
yup, it's insane how much sugar are in our drinks. if people just stuck to water and tea/coffee straight up, it would have a great impact. couple that with making cities more walkable and things would really change.
i will add that we shouldn't regulate things without evidence and careful studies. but when the evidence is there, we need to act.
i will add that we shouldn't regulate things without evidence and careful studies. but when the evidence is there, we need to act.
Last edited:
- 6,346
- 1,111
When we compare our system to that of other major countries, one thing that sticks out is that our healthcare system has no single identity or fundamental principle. Britain is adamant that there will be no payment at the point of service, so NICE will have to rule some things out that are deemed too expensive. They'll take that because the system will work for what they want. Canada says they'll have wait lines, but they value everyone having to wait in those lines, rather than some getting care earlier than others. Obviously, I'm speaking in general, but they all have some sort of basic arrangement, while we have a mesh of ~four fragments (working people bismarck, veterans beveredge, elderly national, uninsured OOP). Also, from my understanding, we are the only one of the major countries (that we talk about when comparing healthcare), that has a for-profit system of financing essential care (not elective care).
I don't know if we've answered (as a country) whether healthcare is a fundamental human right, or how medicine/healthcare and our economic principles are supposed to mesh, and it reflects in the convoluted system we have now. Are certain doctors better than others (say, they spend more time on their craft)? If so, do they deserve to get paid more? How much of a reward does a pharma company deserve for R&D that turned out successful, when so many drugs will fail to ever make it to market? America has it's own context, history, economic system, and national values, so we will never have the same answers or same system as X country.
For the amount of resources we have (that others would dream for), the level of training of our professionals, and the sorts of discoveries we make, it's a shame our system isn't better.
I don't know if we've answered (as a country) whether healthcare is a fundamental human right, or how medicine/healthcare and our economic principles are supposed to mesh, and it reflects in the convoluted system we have now. Are certain doctors better than others (say, they spend more time on their craft)? If so, do they deserve to get paid more? How much of a reward does a pharma company deserve for R&D that turned out successful, when so many drugs will fail to ever make it to market? America has it's own context, history, economic system, and national values, so we will never have the same answers or same system as X country.
For the amount of resources we have (that others would dream for), the level of training of our professionals, and the sorts of discoveries we make, it's a shame our system isn't better.
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
It might've been years since the last time I've seen Meth post
It's funny how Meth touched on the difference between the way Rex posts now and before.
Rex is infinity times easier to understand now
It's funny how Meth touched on the difference between the way Rex posts now and before.
Rex is infinity times easier to understand now
Last edited:
- 18,385
- 34,054
Looks like this election is going to ruin everyone.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...trump-campaign-manager-s-foreign-ties-n675881
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...trump-campaign-manager-s-foreign-ties-n675881
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 33,901
- 81,062
Seven more days (three weeks)....
...So
formerly beyondmeasure
- 17,090
- 7,899
.
Last edited:
- 37,513
- 13,010
A simple look at what's left, and say you broaden the scope even further for swing states.
Let's say there are 11 states up for grabs (NH, PA, OH, MI, WI, FL, NC, IA, CO, AZ, NV)
Clinton is up 213-181.
PA, MI, WI all have Clinton at 81.1-82.4% odds. In comparison Trump has 84% odds of winning GA.
That would put Clinton at 259 with 98 EV unaccounted for and 8 states still left up for grabs.
NH & CO which would put Clinton over 270, she has better odds to win that than Trump has for winning Alaska. 75 & 77 to 73%, respectively.
And after all that she could still win the Electoral College all while losing the majority of swing states.
Let's say there are 11 states up for grabs (NH, PA, OH, MI, WI, FL, NC, IA, CO, AZ, NV)
Clinton is up 213-181.
PA, MI, WI all have Clinton at 81.1-82.4% odds. In comparison Trump has 84% odds of winning GA.
That would put Clinton at 259 with 98 EV unaccounted for and 8 states still left up for grabs.
NH & CO which would put Clinton over 270, she has better odds to win that than Trump has for winning Alaska. 75 & 77 to 73%, respectively.
And after all that she could still win the Electoral College all while losing the majority of swing states.
- 23,023
- 33,725
Been trying to read everything coming out. This election cycle really needs to be a movie if we live through it.
Just found out who Jeffrey Epstein is :x
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- 46,208
- 23,878
We might end up with no one in office
- 64,966
- 196,172
We only two weeks away famb
-Og, and best believe there will be foolishness at the electoral college in December. If there is any election where a group of people might ban together a pull the ultimate stunt (go against the public's will) it would be this one.
Last edited:
- 18,385
- 34,054
Lebanon went 2 years without a president.We might end up with no one in office
And based on who they finally chose, they were probably better off leaving it vacant.
Maybe we should take notes.
Last edited:
- 6,346
- 1,111
What the NYT also reported today: Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
Notably:
Notably:
Last edited:
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
- 23,023
- 33,725
Welp
- 6,346
- 1,111
Alonzo gif'd reading through it.
- 18,385
- 34,054
interesting.
also kind of funny (but not funny) that Comey is doing what Russia couldn't.
- 64,966
- 196,172
I read the NYT article.
I I guess I will have to wait on whenever real info come out, but Russia hacking voter databases and the Obama administration I see as them just trying to disrupt the election to but egg on the Americans faces.
But hackers focusing on the DNC and Hillary's campaign only I can't gel with them jest wanting to disrupt the election. Why not hack everyone then? Burn down the entire building.
It is clear Wikileaks has it out for Clinton, especially Assange. Which would mean the Russian hackers helping Wikileaks, and the Russia government are acting totally independently. Or they just happen to pick the candidate that would take the more hardline with them by random,.
Nah, not sold on this.
Trump being a willful idiot I can buy, but Russia not caring the outcome, I can't
I I guess I will have to wait on whenever real info come out, but Russia hacking voter databases and the Obama administration I see as them just trying to disrupt the election to but egg on the Americans faces.
But hackers focusing on the DNC and Hillary's campaign only I can't gel with them jest wanting to disrupt the election. Why not hack everyone then? Burn down the entire building.
It is clear Wikileaks has it out for Clinton, especially Assange. Which would mean the Russian hackers helping Wikileaks, and the Russia government are acting totally independently. Or they just happen to pick the candidate that would take the more hardline with them by random,.
Nah, not sold on this.
Trump being a willful idiot I can buy, but Russia not caring the outcome, I can't
Last edited:
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- 46,208
- 23,878
I'm not surprised with these developments. We are essentially in a proxy war with Russia over Syria, Russia is willing to find anything to stop the US into not going total war mode on them. It doesn't help with Clinton being a total idiot regarding the private server issue with more and more secrets are popping up. That's why Comey back at July chastised Clinton for being reckless on a national security level.
At the same time, we can't trust Trump either because we all know he is essentially Putin's close friend, and we have no clue what that "friendship" will do to the US.
This is a confusing and dangerous time to be in as an American.
Similar threads
