The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Dak]

Here goes the Trump campaign fellating again. Are we even sure his campaign was successful? he lost the popular vote by a larger margin than some presidents and may have only "won" due to Russians hacking our election according to both the FBI and CIA..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...al-college-hillary-clinton-lost-a7418901.html

Donald Trump has pushed back against a surge of liberal anger that he won the presidency last week despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, defending the Electoral College system and adding that if it didn’t exist he would have conducted his campaign differently.

Different election rules would seee different campaigning. Not only that, how many people do not vote in certain states because they know their state will go one way or the other?

The hacking complaints are hilarious for four reasons.
#1: When Trump said the election might be compromised prior to the election, everyone from Obama on down told him to stop whining.
#2: The election was not "hacked". DNC/Clinton Emails were hacked and leaked, and there's no clear connection to either the Kremlin or to the election results.
#3: This after the left was completely dismissive of Clinton's unsecured server/unencrypted emails compromising national security, but now OMG RUSSIAN haxx!
#4: The left/media spends the entire election calling Trump and his followers xenophobic, and yet Russophobia has exploded on the left since the fall.

 

[Baroque]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...al-college-hillary-clinton-lost-a7418901.html



Different election rules would seee different campaigning. Not only that, how many people do not vote in certain states because they know their state will go one way or the other?

The hacking complaints are hilarious for four reasons.
#1: When Trump said the election might be compromised prior to the election, everyone from Obama on down told him to stop whining.
#2: The election was not "hacked". DNC/Clinton Emails were hacked and leaked, and there's no clear connection to either the Kremlin or to the election results.
#3: This after the left was completely dismissive of Clinton's unsecured server/unencrypted emails compromising national security, but now OMG RUSSIAN haxx!
#4: The left/media spends the entire election calling Trump and his followers xenophobic, and yet Russophobia has exploded on the left since the fall.

You are so full of shit.

Trying to spin everything as dem vs repub with these bullshit buzzwords. All I see is "Obama Clinton Clinton haxx russophobia!" you're a little twat. #1-2 are deflecting and #3-4 are buzzwords.

If Russia hacked our election according to both the CIA and FBI this is a serious matter not some left wing made up nonsense.

 

[rms]

don't really get why the idea of a foreign power causing mayhem for us is so unlikely -- of course Russia wants to mess with our elections? We want to mess with theirs..

 

[Dak]

You are so full of shit.

Trying to spin everything as dem vs repub with these bullshit buzzwords. All I see is "Obama Clinton Clinton haxx russophobia!" you're a little twat. #1-2 are deflecting and #3-4 are buzzwords.

If Russia hacked our election according to both the CIA and FBI this is a serious matter not some left wing made up nonsense.

It's plainly obvious when someone doesn't pay attention to the news, so I'll provide at least a few points of evidence:

#1: When Trump said the election might be compromised prior to the election, everyone from Obama on down told him to stop whining.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...lection-reactions_us_58082b39e4b0180a36e8e20f

#2: The election was not "hacked". DNC/Clinton Emails were hacked and leaked, and there's no clear connection to either the Kremlin or to the election results.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...r-putin-donald-trump-us-presidential-election

According to the Post’s report, officials briefed on the matter were told that intelligence agencies had found that individuals linked to the Russian government had provided WikiLeaks with thousands of confidential emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others.

...............................

A second official familiar with the report said the intelligence analysts’ conclusion about Russia’s motives did not mean the intelligence community believed that Moscow’s efforts altered or significantly affected the outcome of the election.

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

You would need to explain how hacking DNC emails is "hacking the election".

#3: This after the left was completely dismissive of Clinton's unsecured server/unencrypted emails compromising national security, but now OMG RUSSIAN haxx!

Before:
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/26/joh...ail-scandal-to-the-buffet-at-a-golden-corral/
https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...e-about-hillarys-stupid-emails-and-neith.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...al-our-ridiculous-classification-rules-121507

After:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/opinion/russian-hackers-and-the-2016-election.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/putin-russia-campaign-hacking_us_5851d9fee4b0732b82fee4ac
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/12/don...that-he-asked-russia-to-hack-hillary-clinton/

#4: The left/media spends the entire election calling Trump and his followers xenophobic, and yet Russophobia has exploded on the left since the fall.

The left on Trump:
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+xenophobia

The New Red Scare:
http://theweek.com/articles/666922/donald-trump-new-red-scare

Plenty of links in that article but here's some more snippets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uld-treat-it-like-one/?utm_term=.92f74756e836
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...ins-deadly-dysfunctional-empire-threat-russia

 

[The Ozzman]

Dude's pretty on point with shit: http://www.youtube.com/user/Styxhexenhammer666

 

[Dak]

I see he is taking donations. I might donate so he can buy a shirt ~

 

[CiG]

you're a little twat.

Mort-tier rebuttals upinherrr.

 

[Dak]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...w-important-hillarys-2864974-popular-vote-win

Hillary’s 4,269,978-vote win of California was 1.49 times — 49% larger than — her nationwide 2,864,974-vote win.

In addition, Hillary also scored big wins in three other big liberal states: NY, IL, and MA.

The following 3 states total to 3,592,220 votes:

• NY 1,702,792
• IL 944,714
• MA 904,303

The grand total of the 4 states (NY, IL, MA, and CA): 7,862,198
..................
If the nation had violated the Constitution and handed Ms. Clinton the win due to her 2,864,974 popular-vote victory, then it would have been handing the entire Presidency to the winner of the biggest state, and written off all the rest of the United States

Puts that popular vote difference into perspective.

Edit: Also makes sense why Cali wants to/should secede.

 

[Einherjar86]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...w-important-hillarys-2864974-popular-vote-win

Puts that popular vote difference into perspective.

Edit: Also makes sense why Cali wants to/should secede.

Way to go Massachusetts! It's all Boston, really. The rest of MA is pretty red.

In other news, Vox cited SSC in one of their links. It's an abridged interview with Steven Pinker, who's not my favorite (because of his science > humanities stance); but an intelligent guy.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14042506/steven-pinker-optimistic-future-2016

Beware of headlines. And beware of statistics from advocacy organizations whose funding stream depends on stoking fear and outrage — I’ve learned that they can never be taken at face value.

There are reasons to doubt that we’re seeing a big post-Trump rise in hate crimes. Rates of hate crime tend to track rates of overall crime, and there was an uptick of both in 2015, before Trumpism.

Indeed, Trump capitalized on the crime uptick to sow panic about the state of the nation, and progressives foolishly ceded the issue to him. Moment-by-moment analyses of Google searches by the data scientist Seth Stephens-Davidowitz show that Islamophobia strongly tracks incidents of terrorism with Muslim perpetrators. So hate crimes will probably depend more on overall crime rates and — in the case of Islamophobic hate crimes — on terrorist attacks than on a general atmosphere created by Trump.

 

[rms]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/how-barack-obama-failed-black-americans/511358/

It seemed that the idea of the "American Dream" was to elevate yourself to another social status, poor to middle class etc. But this author, and esteemed economist, seems to argue that the American Dream is to close the gap with those that have 'old money,' aka white people. Thoughts on this?

Also, the author seems to suggest that forcing wealthy people to pay a inheritance tax, that sounds quite hefty in comparison to the social programs he wants offered, is easy and political feasible. How out of touch is he?

I just can't agree with either notion suggested by the author. But, when articles like these come out, it makes me feel black and that's cool.

 

[The Ozzman]

Also, the author seems to suggest that forcing wealthy people to pay a inheritance tax

Life insurance sales would soar. The proceeds go to the beneficiaries tax free thereby circumventing the tax.

 

[Dak]

A privileged african american yankee can't figure out why other african americans haven't done what he has. Obviously must be racism.

 

[rms]

I don't think that is his premise. I think he's just pointing out that rich people don't lose wealth and that upsets him, and not really sure why.

Most of the article ignores or barely addresses 'income equality' or 'income gap,' it's entirely him being mad that rich parents, predominantly white (no idea if he has any interest in taxing all wealthy families) can fund their students college, down payment on a house, 1st car etc. Just so strange to me

 

[The Ozzman]

I don't think that is his premise. I think he's just pointing out that rich people don't lose wealth and that upsets him, and not really sure why.

Most of the article ignores or barely addresses 'income equality' or 'income gap,' it's entirely him being mad that rich parents, predominantly white (no idea if he has any interest in taxing all wealthy families) can fund their students college, down payment on a house, 1st car etc. Just so strange to me

Seriously. It's not their fault they were able to plan better.

 

[Dak]

I don't think that is his premise. I think he's just pointing out that rich people don't lose wealth and that upsets him, and not really sure why.

Most of the article ignores or barely addresses 'income equality' or 'income gap,' it's entirely him being mad that rich parents, predominantly white (no idea if he has any interest in taxing all wealthy families) can fund their students college, down payment on a house, 1st car etc. Just so strange to me

But if you notice, he says that they don't. Your average middle class white family is not helping their kids with college, and all the college debt is extra proof.

 

[rms]

that logic and experience speaks to me, but his studies/data show that white families in the lowest economic bracket have ~34k of wealth...and I have no idea what that 34k consists of. I read the other piece with the Umbrella title and it didn't go into any more detail.

Paying off a car? can't be considered wealth. Savings? I think all studies support the idea that poor people have little to no savings, blacks and whites are no different here.

Bummer that his study & methodology isn't available because it makes no sense to me. But black people are lovin' this article, if I can go by black twitter.

 

[The Ozzman]

That wealth probably comes from home equity and maybe 401k if their employer offers one

 

[Dak]

Yeah, he provided almost no support for his list of "facts". At least Coates doesn't pretend to deal in facts.

 

[rms]

Coates cited a study that I also linked in this chat (and I think you responded), but this author refutes Coates' study and does not delve into details.

That wealth probably comes from home equity and maybe 401k if their employer offers one

poor people don't own homes, usually, nor do they work at places that offer 401k, usually

 

[Dak]

The misleading media strikes again:

http://qz.com/873011/us-health-care-spending-by-condition/

But perhaps more interesting is how much of the burden of health care costs is born by individuals and their insurers: Total government public health spending in 2013 was $77.9 billion, or just 2.8% of total health spending. Personal health care costs totaled about $2.1 trillion.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statis.../nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html

NHE grew 5.8% to $3.2 trillion in 2015, or $9,990 per person, and accounted for 17.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Medicare spending grew 4.5% to $646.2 billion in 2015, or 20 percent of total NHE. Medicaid spending grew 9.7% to $545.1 billion in 2015, or 17 percent of total NHE.Dec 2, 2016

I guess it looks like the government doesn't spend any money when you don't count the government "insurance" as government spending. 37% of total healthcare spending is through these two programs.