Main » Discussion » Anticipating near future politics » New reply
    Alert
    You are about to bump an old thread. This is usually a very bad idea. Please think about what you are about to do before you press the Post button.
    New reply
    Post help

    Presentation

    [b]…[/b] — bold type
    [i]…[/i] — italic
    [u]…[/u] — underlined
    [s]…[/s] — strikethrough
    [code]…[/code] — code block
    [spoiler]…[/spoiler] — spoiler block
    [spoiler=…]…[/spoiler]
    [source]…[/source] — colorcoded block, assuming C#
    [source=…]…[/source] — colorcoded block, specific language[which?]
    [abbr=…]…[/abbr] — abbreviation
    [color=…]…[/color] — set text color
    [jest]…[/jest] — you're kidding
    [sarcasm]…[/sarcasm] — you're not kidding

    Links

    [img]http://…[/img] — insert image
    [url]http://…[/url]
    [url=http://…]…[/url]
    >>… — link to post by ID
    [user=##] — link to user's profile by ID

    Quotations

    [quote]…[/quote] — untitled quote
    [quote=…]…[/quote] — "Posted by …"
    [quote="…" id="…"]…[/quote] — ""Post by …" with link by post ID

    Embeds

    [youtube]…[/youtube] — video ID only please
    Thread review
    CaptainJistuce SPEAKING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS...
    Ukraine had them. They had the third-largest stockpile in the world after the collapse of the USSR. They gave them up in exchange for written promises of protection from the US, UK, and Russia. (Specifically, they delivered them to Russia.)

    Twenty years later, one signatory of the agreement is an active aggressor (again) and the other two are wringing their hands wailing about how terrible this is and how impotent they are.


    Good look, everyone. This will DEFINITELY ensure other countries trust us to uphold our bargains and that they aren't just pieces of paper to be acknowledged when it is convenient.
    creaothceann
    Posted by CaptainJistuce
    When sanctions don't work, you need to be willing to follow up with something more direct. And if you aren't willing, then your pretty words are meaningless and you shouldn't bother with the sanctions.


    Sure, if there weren't nukes. Sanctions are better than nothing, which could be seen as silent approval.

    https://liveuamap.com
    CaptainJistuce

    These are among the darkest hours of Europe since the Second World War.

    The EU will respond in the strongest possible terms and agree on the harshest package of sanctions we have ever implemented.


    We asked Putin nicely to stop and he ignored us, so now we will ask him SLIGHTLY LESS NICELY, because that worked really well with Hitler.

    Seriously, if they're gonna directly compare it to WW2, maybe remember what it took to end this last time.



    When sanctions don't work, you need to be willing to follow up with something more direct. And if you aren't willing, then your pretty words are meaningless and you shouldn't bother with the sanctions.
    creaothceann *bump*

    https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/t0082j/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/
    ‮strfry("emanresu") It seems like we finally have some hard, quantitative data on impeachments.
    https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/4353/What-will-be-the-balance-of-power-in-Congress-after-the-2020-election

    It seems like it hurts the Democrats, but not that much. Their chance of winning has dropped by about 5%, which is not a great deal, although it isn't nothing either.
    Kawaoneechan Yeah, as an LGBTQ ally and admin of this board I'm gonna consider this your first warning. I get another report, you're outta here. Transphobes and such are not welcome on my server.

    Now, you might wonder why it took this long for me to notice. That'd be because I have the political threads on ignore. So thank you StapleButter for your report.

    Edit: considering how long it was since mnk was last here, let's just skip the warning.
    StapleButter
    Posted by mnk
    So on an irrelevant note: being gay is neutral. Believing being transgendered (as opposed to transsexual - genetic accidents and birth defects happen) being different than believing to be Napoleon is very bad.

    hello transphobe, please get fucked with something hard and spikey. also: you are completely wrong about all of this, but I know you are just going to ego-trip and keep going around with your dick in your mouth, like all transphobes on the internet.



    not too surprised seeing this board.



    regardless, I reported that to the staff.
    creaothceann
    Posted by sureanem
    supporting someone doesn't mean you support them, just that you are supporting them

    ‮strfry("emanresu")
    I meant that supporting someone in any way is going to help push their agenda unless it's completely passive.

    For sure, that's true. But supporting someone doesn't mean you support them, just that you are supporting them. That was the distinction I was trying to make: you can support the KKK without necessarily being a racist.

    I was talking about Hitler.

    So was I. People wanted to push the national conversation to the right, he was the right man for the job. Not even any need to dislike the communists.

    My thesis here is simple: Voting for a non-extremist candidate is a waste of your vote since you could get more bang for your buck, so you just have to find the closest extremist candidate. By geometry, there are only two of them. Ergo, Hitler.

    Regardless, you've stated that you're just a conservative, not a supremacist, so I won't question you any further.

    I have never once stated that.
    BearOso
    Posted by sureanem

    Look man, I'm an ESL speaker. Do you understand what I'm saying or not? I think it seems pretty clear anyway:
    "To back a cause, party, etc., mentally or with concrete aid." (emphasis added)

    Your English is perfect, probably better than mine. I meant that supporting someone in any way is going to help push their agenda unless it's completely passive.


    Doesn't matter, if he's a better choice than communists. Anything else, wasting your vote.

    I was talking about Hitler. Many voting for him knew he was all for extinguishing certain races. Even among those afraid of the communists, those who knew of Hitler's insanity and didn't agree did not vote for him. Trump's racism may be more subtle, but I think the present situation now parallels it. They didn't vote for classical conservatism. His supporters voted for him because they shared his beliefs, or they believed his lies.


    Only for populations - the net effect of my vote's pretty gradual, taking into account courts, news, overton, etc. Furthermore, FPTP is only in USA and UK.

    It's the US and UK we've been talking about.

    Regardless, you've stated that you're just a conservative, not a supremacist, so I won't question you any further.
    ‮strfry("emanresu")
    Posted by BearOso
    A google search defines support as: "give assistance to, especially financially; enable to function or act."

    Look man, I'm an ESL speaker. Do you understand what I'm saying or not? I think it seems pretty clear anyway:
    "To back a cause, party, etc., mentally or with concrete aid." (emphasis added)

    No, an ethical person would look at him and realize that, even though he shares the same political alignment, his views are crazy, and it doesn't boil down to casual politics.

    Doesn't matter, if he's a better choice than communists. Anything else, wasting your vote.

    That assumption of yours won't pass muster. There are an electoral college, districts, and gerrymandering to deal with. It's winner-take-all. The resulting president isn't going to change alignment based on the voting average.

    Only for populations - the net effect of my vote's pretty gradual, taking into account courts, news, overton, etc. Furthermore, FPTP is only in USA and UK.
    BearOso
    Posted by sureanem

    Right, poor use of words there. Support not used to mean "being a supporter of," but rather "giving support to".

    A google search defines support as: "give assistance to, especially financially; enable to function or act."
    The word choice doesn't matter, though. "Giving support to" him enables him.


    The accurate comparison would be a man looking at 1930s Germany, thinking, "OK, this is a bit too left-wing for my tastes," and then voting for Hitler since he's the furthest right candidate you can find and you want to shift society rightward.

    No, an ethical person would look at him and realize that, even though he shares the same political alignment, his views are crazy, and it doesn't boil down to casual politics.

    If you look at it mathematically: your ballot is just a number n you select between -1.0 and 1.0. The electoral outcome is the average of all ballots. Assuming you know the projected outcome, why would you ever cast a ballot where -1.0 < n < 1.0? Either your desired outcome is below the projected outcome, and then you vote 1.0, or it's above, and then you vote -1.0.

    That assumption of yours won't pass muster. There are an electoral college, districts, and gerrymandering to deal with. It's winner-take-all. The resulting president isn't going to change alignment based on the voting average.
    hunterk
    Posted by sureanem
    The electoral outcome is the average of all ballots
    yao_ming.png
    ‮strfry("emanresu") Right, poor use of words there. Support not used to mean "being a supporter of," but rather "giving support to".

    The accurate comparison would be a man looking at 1930s Germany, thinking, "OK, this is a bit too left-wing for my tastes," and then voting for Hitler since he's the furthest right candidate you can find and you want to shift society rightward.

    If you look at it mathematically: your ballot is just a number n you select between -1.0 and 1.0. The electoral outcome is the average of all ballots. Assuming you know the projected outcome, why would you ever cast a ballot where -1.0 < n < 1.0? Either your desired outcome is below the projected outcome, and then you vote 1.0, or it's above, and then you vote -1.0.
    BearOso
    Posted by sureanem
    I have never once stated in this thread that I agree with the current American president, just that he was effective at rejuvenating the Republican party. Those two aren't the same thing. For instance, I freely admit–and I sure hope this doesn't get me banned–that the other politician with whom he is often compared was very skilled at politics. This does not necessarily imply that I agree with him.

    Furthermore, it is not even necessary to agree with someone to support them. I have never voted for a centrist party in my entire life. You find the most extreme candidate, and then you vote for them. Takes fifteen minutes at most. Even if you're a centrist, the end result will be an average between you and a few million others, so you best make your ballot count.

    Support is affirmation of actions. A parallel would be a 1940s German man saying "I don't agree with Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jews, but I support him because he's really effective at getting it done!"

    Acknowledging Hitler's control of the populace in a retrospective manner is also completely different from allowing and approving negativity and hostility in the present.
    ‮strfry("emanresu") I have never once stated in this thread that I agree with the current American president, just that he was effective at rejuvenating the Republican party. Those two aren't the same thing. For instance, I freely admit–and I sure hope this doesn't get me banned–that the other politician with whom he is often compared was very skilled at politics. This does not necessarily imply that I agree with him.

    Furthermore, it is not even necessary to agree with someone to support them. I have never voted for a centrist party in my entire life. You find the most extreme candidate, and then you vote for them. Takes fifteen minutes at most. Even if you're a centrist, the end result will be an average between you and a few million others, so you best make your ballot count.

    I have stated that before women are worse ("inferior") at chess and soccer, and I stand by those assertions. That's probably not what you're asking about though, so you'll have to clarify your question before I can answer it.
    Kawaoneechan
    Posted by BearOso
    Do you agree with him on this--that women are inferior?
    Fair but stern warning to sureanem: your next post may determine your final fate on this board.
    BearOso
    Posted by sureanem

    Him drawing the alleged conservatives' ire shows my point - he stands up for what they'd abandoned, and does so well, unlike e.g. the 1964 attempt, thus forcing the GOP (who being politicians
    are invertebrate) to go along.

    Maybe they abandoned those values when they realized they were hateful and not for the good of humanity? Being conservative doesn't mean never admitting you made mistakes in the past. The intent is to conserve what is good.


    That's a strong defense of gender roles.

    Do you agree with him on this--that women are inferior?
    Screwtape People in this thread talking about Trump's policies as if he has some kind of interest in or opinion of what other people do, other than whether they admire him or not.

    In a way, he's very nearly the ultimate democratic leader - any hare-brained idea that flickers through the collective id of the electorate, he'll act on - at least until some other, contradictory idea comes to the fore. Of course he can't poll the electorate directly, so he depends on other people's reports of what will make him popular, and since there is considerable political power in having the king's ear, those reports are sadly not as direct and unbiased as we'd like.
    ‮strfry("emanresu") >He’s definitely not socially conservative.

    That's a strong defense of gender roles.

    >[S]ocial conservatism arose as a response to [...] [the] civil rights [movement], the abolition of the death penalty, LGBT rights and abortion

    He's certainly very conservative on most aforementioned matters. More importantly, on those issues where most already caved. To vigilantly defend the uncontroversial isn't hard, resisting pressure on the controversial is.

    Saying Pence et al are conservative overlooks the macro: Romney started arguing about binders; Trump stated outright: you'll have equal pay if you do as good a job.

    >He's gotta be SOME kind of conservative because the liberals hate him!
    >...
    >Oh, so do the conservatives? Well, shit. Maybe he's just a terrible human.

    Him drawing the alleged conservatives' ire shows my point - he stands up for what they'd abandoned, and does so well, unlike e.g. the 1964 attempt, thus forcing the GOP (who being politicians are invertebrate) to go along.
      Main » Discussion » Anticipating near future politics » New reply
      Kawa's Github