***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Based Jesus]

 

what's wrong with Chuck? He's better than Hillary.

In what ways?

Please be as detailed as possible

He's never had sex with Bill Clinton.....I think 

 

[elpablo21]

Of course

@benpauker: EXCLUSIVE: Trump planning retaliation for leaks -- “ludicrous” revenge plan targeting Obama administration. https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl

He's gonna make Michelle jealous with all this attention

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

If you are worried about Wall Street ties, no he is not

Hillary is way more liberal than Schumer

Thoughts on Kamala Harris running for president?

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

what's wrong with Chuck? He's better than Hillary.

In what ways?


Please be as detailed as possible

He's never had sex with Bill Clinton.....I think 

 

[AEA18]

Of course [QUOTE url="[URL]https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl[/URL]"]
@benpauker: EXCLUSIVE: Trump planning retaliation for leaks -- “ludicrous” revenge plan targeting Obama administration. https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl

He's gonna make Michelle jealous with all this attention
[/quote]

Dude has an obsession with Obama.

 

[RustyShackleford]

If you are worried about Wall Street ties, no he is not

Hillary is way more liberal than Schumer

Thoughts on Kamala Harris running for president?

I don't know much about her for me to pass judgment. The little I do know is that she is progressive, which I like.

I have heard a couple interviews with her, she gives too many no answers imo, she needs to improve on that.

One thing she will have to deal with is that she won't be the only woman in the race. I can see 3-4 women running.

 

[dathbgboy]

Of course [QUOTE url="[URL]https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl[/URL]"]
@benpauker: EXCLUSIVE: Trump planning retaliation for leaks -- “ludicrous” revenge plan targeting Obama administration. https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl

He's gonna make Michelle jealous with all this attention

Dude has an obsession with Obama. [/quote]

Nah, he just knows that blaming a black man is as easy as boiling water in this country .

 

[ninjahood]

And I have absolutely no issue with differing opinions. I take issue with your pomposity.

if Lavar Ball can Vince McMahon strut up and down da media circuit with his pompous opinion about his sons and his 495 kicks, who em i to tell him to turn down? This is America b, there's no rules about what's da limo you're allowed to feel good about yourself, and last time I checked laying down my opinion with da utmost confidence isn't breaking any rules in here.

i speak with conviction about politics cuz i follow it every day, and i got my views i hold firm. like i said before if you ain't feeling what i opined about? its not for you then, simple.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

I don't know much about her for me to pass judgment. The little I do know is that she is progressive, which I like.

I have heard a couple interviews with her, she gives too many no answers imo, she needs to improve on that.

One thing she will have to deal with is that she won't be the only woman in the race. I can see 3-4 women running.

Fair assessment. I'm not extremely familiar with her either.

I mostly just would like to see Trump (or Pence at this point) struggle to debate a Black/Indian woman and not come off as a misogynistic racist

 

[Nawzlew]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...n-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/

The US Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules and the classification of home and mobile Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes eliminating the Title II classification and seeks comment on what, if anything, should replace the current net neutrality rules. But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. Pai's proposal argues that throttling websites and applications might somehow help Internet users.

 

[Armada]

 

[harlemtothebronx]

I'm speaking moreso to the rules of this forum than I am my own personal preference. Your posts don't really bother me personally. I just don't see how you've abided by the rules.

But like I said, I don't really wanna weigh this thread down with a debate. I just wanted to share with Meth.

ninjahood

 

[AEA18]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...n-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/

The US Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules and the classification of home and mobile Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes eliminating the Title II classification and seeks comment on what, if anything, should replace the current net neutrality rules. But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. Pai's proposal argues that throttling websites and applications might somehow help Internet users.

I want to crack him over the head with his over-sized reese's mug

 

[RustyShackleford]

Pai is so bought it is not even funny.

I have actually heard reasonable arguments against current net neutrality laws, that even though I disagreed with them, I could follow the logic and they made sense.

Pai makes none of those arguments, and when he does have a somewhat decent point, he clouds his argument with half truths and talking points your swore Comcast wrote for him.

 

[whywesteppin]

I'm sure Rusty will be "rustled" by this news:

trump is going to nominate Joe Lieberman to head the FBI.

:eyeroll

 

[RustyShackleford]

I'm sure Rusty will be "rustled" by this news:

trump is going to nominate Joe Lieberman to head the FBI.

:eyeroll

 

[wavycrocket]

Joe Lieberman? That ***** is DIRECTLY tied to trump

 

[rolaholic]

Sherrod Brown isn't with the *****

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/18/joe-lieberman-fbi-director-senate-democrats-238570

 

[Methodical Management]

Appreciate the response, and completely respect the perspective.

My issue with ninjahood is he has shown he is unwilling and incapable of having a mature discussion where ideas are exchanged. He's more interested in protecting his beliefs than he is honestly engaging.

He's regularly provoked members, reported those members for their reactions, then came back and boasted about it.

I'd have absolutely no problem discussing politics with the guy if he didn't regularly come off as pompous and engaged in a way that isn't completely dismissive of any thoughts that are not his own.

I suppose he is an accurate representation of the fervent Trump supporter who still won't acknowledge what all of us are actively watching. So if diversity is the goal, mission accomplished. In that, I think you may be overlooking some things, though. I've yet to see any real proof of him engaging in a fashion that isn't dismissive of others. Doesn't break the rules, but it definitely doesn't contribute to a mature and productive discussion about a topic that is extremely serious.

What you've described is a great reason not to engage - but not a great reason to censor.  

For example, would it serve the thread well if I sit here and try, over the next five pages, to "convince" ninjahood that the root word for "intelligentsia" is Latin (intelligentia, to be precise), or that, as a literary technique, the use of dialect involves spelling words in a way that conveys how the would sound when spoken by the character, and, thus, even as an excuse for selectively misspelled words, "intelligentsia" still makes more sense than "intelligencia?" 

What is the point of that argument?  To embarrass someone who's just trying to save face in front of a group of people who already know better?  Who cares?  I saw that a misspelling was becoming contagious, I commented on it.  Dictionaries exist.  That's the end of it.  I don't need to sit there and pin somebody down and make them scream "uncle" before I can leave it alone. 



Typically, what happens is that you'll try several different lines of argument to "seal the deal," and, rather than back them into a corner, the discussion will just continue to branch, leading you further and further astray with each subsequent response.

You're not going to get clear closure in an online argument, particularly if your standard is "you're wrong - now admit it."  Even if you beat someone in a debate or in a sporting event, the loser can still cling to some notion that "it was rigged," "I would've won, but," "I didn't care anyway," etc.  

Chasing somebody to the ends of the Earth to force them to admit defeat only wastes your time and makes you look petty.  I've been down that road myself.  The goal, in politics, is to move the middle, mold consensus, and reach those who are reachable.  Present your position as best you can and let that speak for itself.  Once the egos get involved, it's time to call it a day.  Sustained argument produces diminishing returns. 

The only caveat I'd add, with respect to the rules, is that if someone isn't interested in discussion and only seeks to antagonize - THAT is trolling.  And that's where the "credibility" issue I referenced in my previous post comes in.  If you're clearly talking nonsense just to upset people, that's textbook trolling - and can't be confused with a "confident" assertion or defense of one's sincere personal beliefs. 

 

[wavycrocket]

What you've described is a great reason not to engage - but not a great reason to censor.  

For example, would it serve the thread well if I sit here and try, over the next five pages, to "convince" ninjahood that the root word for "intelligentsia" is Latin (intelligentia, to be precise), or that, as a literary technique, the use of dialect involves spelling words in a way that conveys how the would sound when spoken by the character, and, thus, even as an excuse for selectively misspelled words, "intelligentsia" still makes more sense than "intelligencia?" 

What is the point of that argument?  To embarrass someone who's just trying to save face in front of a group of people who already know better?  Who cares?  I saw that a misspelling was becoming contagious, I commented on it.  Dictionaries exist.  That's the end of it.  I don't need to sit there and pin somebody down and make them scream "uncle" before I can leave it alone. 





Typically, what happens is that you'll try several different lines of argument to "seal the deal," and, rather than back them into a corner, the discussion will just continue to branch, leading you further and further astray with each subsequent response.


You're not going to get clear closure in an online argument, particularly if your standard is "you're wrong - now admit it."  Even if you beat someone in a debate or in a sporting event, the loser can still cling to some notion that "it was rigged," "I would've won, but," "I didn't care anyway," etc.  

Chasing somebody to the ends of the Earth to force them to admit defeat only wastes your time and makes you look petty.  I've been down that road myself.  The goal, in politics, is to move the middle, mold consensus, and reach those who are reachable.  Present your position as best you can and let that speak for itself.  Once the egos get involved, it's time to call it a day.  Sustained argument produces diminishing returns. 



The only caveat I'd add, with respect to the rules, is that if someone isn't interested in discussion and only seeks to antagonize - THAT is trolling.  And that's where the "credibility" issue I referenced in my previous post comes in.  If you're clearly talking nonsense just to upset people, that's textbook trolling - and can't be confused with a "confident" assertion or defense of one's sincere personal beliefs. 

Well said

 

[RustyShackleford]

Libermann works for the law firm Trump used to send the silly letter.

Everything progressive Obama proposed with the ACA that clown was there caping for the insurance lobby.

 

[Armada]

I gotta say I apologize to the thread cause I did let myself go down the hole with that dude on the "Kobe Trump" thing and looking back at it and all the quotes back and forth it was unnecessary and clogging up the thread. I let myself get annoyed and just trying to back him into a corner like meth said which accomplishes nothing in the long run.

I'm gonna do my best to not go down that hole again

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

Serious question: why do y'all argue with him when you know he's ignorant and has no intentions on learning or listening?

You're never gonna get him to say "Yeah, b. That's a good point"

 

[Mark Antony]

*The word is 'intelligentsia.' If you've only heard a word spoken, look it up. You obviously have access to the Internet.

its borrowed from Spanish, da S is English localization pronunciation, im using subtitle​ Spanglish... [emoji]128516[/emoji]

And this is why you don't engage with ninja. Look at this.

 

[moe fab]

They hang trump for treason yet or nah?