The Political & Philosophy Thread

Those first two were replies to Dak, not you. I've been single-handedly debating with 3-4 different conservatives on different topics in this thread, so don't play bullshit games of semantics.

And I think it's safe to assume that Trump brought out a lot of people who don't normally vote, despite your claim that people were just switching to him from other Republicans, but if you don't share that assumption, fine. I doubt there's enough polls out there to slice the data precisely the way you demand it, so I'm comfortable taking leave of that burden of proof.
 
If he brought out new voters and still got less of the popular vote than Mitt did when he lost, that's pretty crazy. I've heard pundits say that the idea that he activated first time voters is unsupported by the data though.

So yeah definitely one the most interesting U.S. cycle I've ever experienced.

 
Those first two were replies to Dak, not you. I've been single-handedly debating with 3-4 different conservatives on different topics in this thread, so don't play bullshit games of semantics.

And I think it's safe to assume that Trump brought out a lot of people who don't normally vote, despite your claim that people were just switching to him from other Republicans, but if you don't share that assumption, fine. I doubt there's enough polls out there to slice the data precisely the way you demand it, so I'm comfortable taking leave of that burden of proof.

A reply to Dak regarding an article about forgotten white people or something, which you turned into a racism issue. The only one playing semantics here is you, shitlord.

TOGIbcP.jpg


As you can see, Trump actually lost votes compared to Romney. It's just that Clinton lost a lot more compared to Obama. Your assumptions are shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
I'd prefer as many boundaries as possible between myself and the ignorance of others. The last thing the US needs is a bunch of magical-thinking insulated urbanites making direct decisions about serious things outside of their concrete skinner box.

Jesus Fucking Christ, were you attacked by C.H.U.D.s last time you visited a big city or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tagradh and CiG
I'm actually annoyed that liberals are using this election result to attack the electoral college. I think federalism is one of America's strengths, and that geographic diversity should have its own influence in elections.



I already said this, but I'll say it another way: there is value in dignity and self-esteem, and people can be harmed by spreading knowledge which threatens those values. Considering that there are already other kinds of knowledge in this world which clearly should not be made widely known (i.e. nuclear weapon designs), I don't see the problem in confining the knowledge you describe to an inner circle of academics.



Yes, I see why you would think that, but I don't see why you would consider it a "paramount" value at the expense of other values like diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem. Market economies already favor people with certain cognitive advantages anyway, so I don't see the point of institutionalizing a system of inequality on top of that.



Is this a serious reply?



People of any race can make ignorant voting decisions. You're free to discuss the ignorance of non-college educated black voters all you want - I simply chose to point out the ignorance of white voters, since it was relevant to the article you posted.



My point is that racism played a direct role in the result of the Republican primary. Even if the general election result was not directly impacted by the racist vote, it was still indirectly impacted by the result of the primary.

If you asked me before the election or anytime in the past 16 years I would be against the electoral college as well. I've been outspoken against it since the gore election.

As far as states rights, that's all well and good and we can keep it how it is, but still change the electoral college. There is already a check and balance for representation of states, the senate and the house. The president is a national leader and we should elect them as a nation not as states.
 
I'm actually annoyed that liberals are using this election result to attack the electoral college. I think federalism is one of America's strengths, and that geographic diversity should have its own influence in elections.



I already said this, but I'll say it another way: there is value in dignity and self-esteem, and people can be harmed by spreading knowledge which threatens those values. Considering that there are already other kinds of knowledge in this world which clearly should not be made widely known (i.e. nuclear weapon designs), I don't see the problem in confining the knowledge you describe to an inner circle of academics.



Yes, I see why you would think that, but I don't see why you would consider it a "paramount" value at the expense of other values like diversity, tolerance, and self-esteem. Market economies already favor people with certain cognitive advantages anyway, so I don't see the point of institutionalizing a system of inequality on top of that.



Is this a serious reply?



People of any race can make ignorant voting decisions. You're free to discuss the ignorance of non-college educated black voters all you want - I simply chose to point out the ignorance of white voters, since it was relevant to the article you posted.



My point is that racism played a direct role in the result of the Republican primary. Even if the general election result was not directly impacted by the racist vote, it was still indirectly impacted by the result of the primary.


You're making big claims basically and they are about philosophical ideas which impact everything about human civilization. Basically, you're saying that feels are more important than understanding the human experience and you frame everything according to a kind of value table. Personally, from what we know, that seems to rank shots of hormones on a equal footing with the knowledge of the existence of these hormones, which seems irrational, frankly especially given some of the other things you mentioned in an offhand way. Yes nuclear weaponry exists. Well, if we are going to maximize the possibility of human survival and colonization of other planets then I'm still not sure how much of a difference feels make, especially not if you are suggesting the status quo to be a good point and are worried about divergence from it. We need to make sure ISIS feel equal... Well, we need to make sure the people in the foreign office who allowed certain states to get nuclear weapons are analysed and similar people aren't allowed into such positions again. Honestly, from personal experience, there are few things more disgusting to me than the left's fear of science.
 
A reply to Dak regarding an article about forgotten white people or something, which you turned into a racism issue. The only one playing semantics here is you, shitlord.

TOGIbcP.jpg


As you can see, Trump actually lost votes compared to Romney. It's just that Clinton lost a lot more compared to Obama. Your assumptions are shit.

Actually, Grant said that Trump brought out people who don't usually vote, not that he brought out more Republicans than Romney. It's perfectly plausible that Trump drew a significant number of votes from people who, in the past, didn't vote at all (or even used to vote democrat); and that he alienated many traditional republican voters into voting for Gary Johnson, or not voting at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tagradh and Dak
Is this a serious reply?

Yes and no. If those beliefs were based on looking at data (unlikely), group IQ and jobless claims would provide support.YouTube was tongue in cheek.


My point is that racism played a direct role in the result of the Republican primary. Even if the general election result was not directly impacted by the racist vote, it was still indirectly impacted by the result of the primary.

Fear of terrorism and a dislike of labor flooding are racist issues?
 
If you asked me before the election or anytime in the past 16 years I would be against the electoral college as well. I've been outspoken against it since the gore election.

As far as states rights, that's all well and good and we can keep it how it is, but still change the electoral college. There is already a check and balance for representation of states, the senate and the house. The president is a national leader and we should elect them as a nation not as states.

Christ, are you ever going to explain your position on the electoral college or is it just in this infantile state?
 
A reply to Dak regarding an article about forgotten white people or something, which you turned into a racism issue. The only one playing semantics here is you, shitlord.

Dude, the topic we've been discussing began with a poll I posted about the Republican primary, then you decided to ignore that and focus on the comparative results of the general elections in 2012 versus 2016, and after I made it clear that my point (i.e. the point of my discussion with you) was about the primary (after all, I posted that poll before we even started talking), you again chose to ignore that by citing an "original point" I made to Dak which you had never replied to before.

You're clearly making up excuses to avoid discussing the 2016 Republican primary, because it contradicts your assumption that racism did not play a role in Trump becoming President.

As you can see, Trump actually lost votes compared to Romney. It's just that Clinton lost a lot more compared to Obama. Your assumptions are shit.

There were 19 million votes cast in the 2012 Republican primary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resul...presidential_primaries,_2012#Major_candidates

...and 31 million cast in the 2016 primary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resul...presidential_primaries,_2016#Major_candidates

Trump got 14 million votes in the primary, and Romney got 10 million.


And if you want a more direct correlation, there's the fact that Trump's poll numbers went up after his proposed ban on Muslims:
http://nypost.com/2015/12/14/trumps-poll-numbers-surge-after-muslim-ban-comments/
 
Last edited:
Christ, are you ever going to explain your position on the electoral college or is it just in this infantile state?

Whoa, projection much? He explained his position more than adequately several times, but you have failed to provide a more compelling counterargument besides "muh States' Rights."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baroque
all he's done is say fuck the electoral college at least 5 times since Trump's win. All. Going to have to quote where he actually put some substance behind it

Suggesting that a citizen in NYC, LA or CHI should have as much say as say small-town-wherever the fuck is quite a profound claim, but I guess Baroque can't be bothered.
 
all he's done is say fuck the electoral college at least 5 times since Trump's win. All. Going to have to quote where he actually put some substance behind it

Suggesting that a citizen in NYC, LA or CHI should have as much say as say small-town-wherever the fuck is quite a profound claim, but I guess Baroque can't be bothered.

If you can't be bothered to provide a counter argument fuck off and your opinion is worth no more than mine. Thanks for calling my statement profound though, I agree it's very insightful.
 
Suggesting that a citizen in NYC, LA or CHI should have as much say as say small-town-wherever the fuck is quite a profound claim, but I guess Baroque can't be bothered.

It's amusing to me that you'd use a belittling phrase like "small-town-wherever the fuck" while simultaneously arguing that the people in those towns should have their votes count for more. (Don't mind me, just making a semantic observation. I truly have no wish to join this debate.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baroque
yes, it points out how Baroque only cares about his position because he's from one of the shittiest regions in the country

“By a margin in the millions, Californians overwhelmingly rejected politics fueled by resentment, bigotry, and misogyny,” they wrote. “The largest state of the union and the strongest driver of our nation’s economy has shown it has its surest conscience as well. California is – and must always be – a refuge of justice and opportunity for people of all walks, talks, ages and aspirations – regardless of how you look, where you live, what language you speak, or who you love.”


“California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future,” they conclude. Read the full letter below.

Today, we woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California.

We have never been more proud to be Californians.

By a margin in the millions, Californians overwhelmingly rejected politics fueled by resentment, bigotry, and misogyny.


The largest state of the union and the strongest driver of our nation’s economy has shown it has its surest conscience as well.

California is – and must always be – a refuge of justice and opportunity for people of all walks, talks, ages and aspirations – regardless of how you look, where you live, what language you speak, or who you love.

California has long set an example for other states to follow. And California will defend its people and our progress. We are not going to allow one election to reverse generations of progress at the height of our historic diversity, scientific advancement, economic output, and sense of global responsibility.

We will be reaching out to federal, state and local officials to evaluate how a Trump Presidency will potentially impact federal funding of ongoing state programs, job-creating investments reliant on foreign trade, and federal enforcement of laws affecting the rights of people living in our state. We will maximize the time during the presidential transition to defend our accomplishments using every tool at our disposal.

While Donald Trump may have won the presidency, he hasn’t changed our values. America is greater than any one man or party. We will not be dragged back into the past. We will lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our Constitution.

California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future.


http://fusion.net/story/368645/california-says-no-to-trump/
 
Actually, Grant said that Trump brought out people who don't usually vote, not that he brought out more Republicans than Romney. It's perfectly plausible that Trump drew a significant number of votes from people who, in the past, didn't vote at all (or even used to vote democrat); and that he alienated many traditional republican voters into voting for Gary Johnson, or not voting at all.

I'm assuming Grant is zabu's name. He initially said that the election results were as they were because of white racism, which I'm saying would be a minor component relative to the massive loss of voters Clinton faced. He cited data which shows that Trump's overall margins with the three major ethnic groups did not change significantly compared to the last two elections. He did show that Trump won many more white voters that fall under the less-educated or poorer categories, but that isn't a demonstration that it was racism that brought them out. He explicitly pandered to and tried to represent people from the Rust Belt and other areas where jobs have disappeared, and that's where you see the biggest change in white turnout too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/upshot/how-did-trump-win-over-so-many-obama-voters.html?_r=0

Unless only those whites are racist and the whites in the rest of the country are either 1) racist and already hardcore Republicans or 2) not racist.

Incidentally, I think it'd be interesting to see how Trump did with non-college educated Hispanics. The data show that Clinton lost with blacks and Hispanics relative to Obama, and while it's easy to see why she would do worse with blacks, I'm not sure that Hispanics turned out for Obama with the same enthusiasm (but I'd have to check and have to do something right now)
 
Dude, the topic we've been discussing began with a poll I posted about the Republican primary, then you decided to ignore that and focus on the comparative results of the general elections in 2012 versus 2016, and after I made it clear that my point (i.e. the point of my discussion with you) was about the primary (after all, I posted that poll before we even started talking), you again chose to ignore that by citing an "original point" I made to Dak which you had never replied to before.

You're clearly making up excuses to avoid discussing the 2016 Republican primary, because it contradicts your assumption that racism did not play a role in Trump becoming President.



There were 19 million votes cast in the 2012 Republican primary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resul...presidential_primaries,_2012#Major_candidates

...and 31 million cast in the 2016 primary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resul...presidential_primaries,_2016#Major_candidates

Trump got 14 million votes in the primary, and Romney got 10 million.


And if you want a more direct correlation, there's the fact that Trump's poll numbers went up after his proposed ban on Muslims:
http://nypost.com/2015/12/14/trumps-poll-numbers-surge-after-muslim-ban-comments/

OK, fine, let's talk about the primary. By your own numbers, Trump saw a 50% increase in voters relative to Romney, yet your own shitty poll never shows Trump supporters having supposedly-racist views in excess to the other candidates by that amount. How does racism alone account for his victory in the primary?

Trump had one big surge after the next for most of the primary btw, and he also says all sorts of shit, I wouldn't necessarily assume that the surge was due to wanting to "ban Muslims" (which, if you add a bit of finesse which Trump lacks, isn't necessarily a racist thing).
 
OK, fine, let's talk about the primary. By your own numbers, Trump saw a 50% increase in voters relative to Romney, yet your own shitty poll never shows Trump supporters having supposedly-racist views in excess to the other candidates by that amount. How does racism alone account for his victory in the primary?
I did not say racism alone accounted for his victory in the primary. Re-read my last post. I said the evidence contradicts your assumption that racism did not play a role. In other words, it played some role. Not all. Not none.

wanting to "ban Muslims" (which, if you add a bit of finesse which Trump lacks, isn't necessarily a racist thing)
lol