Who you leaning towards in the 2016 Presidential Election?

[Plastic Nathrakh]

Actually, it was from a study made by Princeton University. OH NO, POLITICAL SCIENTISTS! Higher Education! LIBRULS!!!!!! Many factors were weighed, scaled and placed into a complex matrix. I know -- academics.

And I'm tired on non-educated, non-investigative DUMBASSES invoke "common sense" to mean "I don't feel like actually researching this or thinking about things presented by people much smarter than me." Look at those *facts* RiA posted above that could be refuted in two minutes. SO MANY people do this -- politically and otherwise, from both sides -- and it needs to stop. Just because you know how to check your oil doesn't mean you can take a snippet from FOXNews and know the intricacies of foreign policy or healthcare.

I know little about Sanders' politics.

It seems to me that you’re being a bit of a hypocrite. On one hand you bash conservatives for using common sense based discussion as an excuse not to think about what they’re presenting. On the other hand, you just said “This study shows”. What thought did you put into that? I told you why I consider him a socialist, and you brushed that aside and said “BAH, but this study shows…”. I’m asking you to tell me how he is not. How is he less liberal? You’re just saying things. Can you make a case or do you just use typical liberal arguments such as “Uh Uh! You’re stewwwpid”? Come on Jon Stewart, stop making funny faces and saying “REALLY????”, and make a point. Scoffing at something is not a refutation. Use that learned brain of yours.

You know little about his politics, but you’re arguing about it. Silly stuff.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

For some reason, I read your posts in Cartman's voice.

You know little about his politics, but you’re arguing about it. Silly stuff.

Find a place where I said one thing about Commie Sanders. Jesus.... READ!

It seems to me that you’re being a bit of a hypocrite. On one hand you bash conservatives for using common sense based discussion as an excuse not to think about what they’re presenting. On the other hand, you just said “This study shows”. What thought did you put into that?

I acknowledge the fact that there are much, much, much, much smarter people out there actually conducting scientific research, then coming to conclusions based on what they discover. Studies are known to fuck up, so the critical mind must be engaged, and facts can easily be twisted/misinterpreted.

My whole point was:

Science/fact > rudimentary "common sense"

Scoffing at something is not a refutation. Use that learned brain of yours.

You're right. FACTS are refutations. I use them. "Common sense" does not (usually). How can you use "common sense" to look at budgetary figures?

For instance....

STEP 1: Acknowledge facts.
STEP 2: Interpret facts to conclude that this whole "Obammer BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING" thing is objectively and conclusively wrong.

THAT'S my "common sense."

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

How can you use "common sense" to look at budgetary figures?

I didn't.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

I didn't.

"How can ONE..." Not you specifically.

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

STEP 1: Acknowledge facts.
STEP 2: Interpret facts to conclude that this whole "Obammer BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING" thing is objectively and conclusively wrong.

THAT'S my "common sense."

That chart is percentage increase. 1.4% increase is a fuck-ton of spending. Put it in dollars. Nice fact twisting.

Also, you can use rudimentary arguments when faced with stuff like this. Democrats are for bigger government fundamentally. Conservatives are for less government fundamentally. It is a fact that the ideals of liberals require more spending. I'm not sure what point you're going for.

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

You're right. FACTS are refutations. I use them.

You haven't yet.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

That chart is percentage increase. 1.4% increase is a fuck-ton of spending. Put it in dollars. Nice fact twisting.

Rate is more important, many economists would argue, because it deals with inflation and such. Compare it to the rest. There's no way to say Obama has been some huge spender comparatively speaking.

Democrats are for bigger government fundamentally. Conservatives are for less government fundamentally. It is a fact that the principles of liberals require more spending. I'm not sure what point you're going for.

You made it right there. Oversimplification based on no facts. Reagan and Bush SHOULD have been fiscally Conservative, yet they spent out the wazoo. Bush SHOULD have been about the free market, yet he was in office for the biggest government bailout this country has ever seen. Conservatives SHOULD be about less invasive government, yet their attempts to block gay marriage prove otherwise.

But yeah. "Common sense."

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

Oversimplification based on no facts. Reagan and Bush SHOULD have been fiscally Conservative, yet they spent out the wazoo. Bush SHOULD have been about the free market, yet he was in office for the biggest government bailout this country has ever seen. Conservatives SHOULD be about less invasive government, yet their attempts to block gay marriage prove otherwise.

Words like oversimplification have no meaning in this context. You're using that word to paint me as a dumbass again, without actually refuting anything that I've said. I'm quite sure I made a statement giving you the opportunity to do so with facts. Does the ideology of a leftist require more government spending? This is clearly true. Would you like me to seriously list the leftist strategy by line-item and tell you how it requires the government to steal more money to spend? Ridiculous.

What did the Bush's spend so much on? War and bailouts, yes. Does a bailout fit in a conservative approach? No. You have to start with the basic principles before you expand from there and apply them to who is currently running. How would you say that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would expand government spending? You can't. How would I say that Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders would increase spending? It's in their principles. But I can also line-item it if you want since you clearly need things painted out for you. Give me another chart to show me how much thought you've put into this.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

Holy hell, I've missed you. Everything I've said has whooshed right over your head. I'll try to make this simple.

"Common sense" often involves oversimplification, based on irrelevant personal experience instead of fact-based inquiry.


TELL ME WHICH IS THE BETTER ARGUMENT
SIDE A: "It's really cold outside. Global warming is bullshit!"
SIDE B: "Yeah, it's really cold. But thousands of studies show that global warming exists -- in fact, close to 98% of scientists agree on it. Since I tend to trust experts in a field who are much smarter than me, I'll accept global warming as a near-indisputable fact to utilize in my choice of taking a political stance."


I would keep "debating" with you, but I have a brick wall to bang my head against.

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

Holy hell, I've missed you. Everything I've said has whooshed right over your head. I'll try to make this simple.

"Common sense" often involves oversimplification, based on irrelevant personal experience instead of fact-based inquiry.


TELL ME WHICH IS THE BETTER ARGUMENT
SIDE A: "It's really cold outside. Global warming is bullshit!"
SIDE B: "Yeah, it's really cold. But thousands of studies show that global warming exists -- in fact, close to 98% of scientists agree on it. Since I tend to trust experts in a field who are much smarter than me, I'll accept global warming as a near-indisputable fact to utilize in my choice of taking a political stance."

I would keep "debating" with you, but I have a brick wall to bang my head against.

At what point did I appeal to irrelevant personal experience? I mentioned common sense once (in the context of calling Bernie Sanders a socialist whom we've already established you don't know much about his politics), and you went on a tear. Whooosh.

Also, Global Warming does not matter to this discussion. It's really about how the government needs to take action on it. For the sake of your argument though, there are studies that show to the contrary. Which studies do you choose? It's pseudo-intellectualism for you to consistently tell me I'm an idiot while not presenting anything to contradict what I've put forth. I have made very easy to understand arguments and you continue to distract with side-discussions that have no bearing on what we're talking about in an attempt to make me look like a dummy. We're not arguing over who is a dummy. This is why politics is mainly about ideology. If Global Warming is true and both sides were to agree. One side would want government to tax you more to pay for research on it. One side does not want government intrusion. The studies you've presented (while distractions) do not prove anything toward what the initial conversation was about.

Replace that brick wall with some philosophical backbone. Bang your head. METAL!

 

[J.]

Small govt = old white guys telling a woman what she can abd cant do to her own uterus because a bearded white guy in the sky says its wrong, but its ok to love guns and shoot people even though the bearded white guy's son, who is followed and worshipped by old white guys, was a pacifist that said turn the other cheek

I just blew your mind

 

[dorian gray]

America blows

 

[Reign in Acai]

And I'm tired on non-educated, non-investigative DUMBASSES invoke "common sense" to mean "I don't feel like actually researching this or thinking about things presented by people much smarter than me." Look at those *facts* RiA posted above that could be refuted in two minutes. SO MANY people do this -- politically and otherwise, from both sides -- and it needs to stop. Just because you know how to check your oil doesn't mean you can take a snippet from FOXNews and know the intricacies of foreign policy or healthcare.



I know little about Sanders' politics. I just like the name Commie Sanders.

So you're lambasting the average chap for not doing their research, yet you're behind Commie Sanders full throttle while admittedly knowing next to nothing of his views and prospective policies? Makes sense, since libtards vote based on "muh feelings."

I don't need to know fuck all about Sanders, Cliton, Nikolai Volkhov, because I don't vote libtard, PERIOD. Not into pseudo social imbalance, giving every penny I make to big gubanate, demilitarization, or shitty dream wave pop metal.

I do hope the two dunderheads from Texas make it far along with Trump. It'd make for good SNL skits.

Coming from a Texan, do not vote for Cruz or Perry if they make it. Both are morons. Plus, Cruz is canadian.

I keep hearing this about Perry. This entire Republican lot is pretty much the same dunderhead under a diff surname. They all prattle on against Obama, but similarly cave at a wave of his ashen palm. Hence why I'm leaning towards The Donald. No goat damn way he does a worse job than the Shitcago community activist.

America blows

As does this thread. I should have created another band reco that nobody would listen to.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

So you're lambasting the average chap for not doing their research, yet you're behind Commie Sanders full throttle while admittedly knowing next to nothing of his views and prospective policies? Makes sense, since libtards vote based on "muh feelings."

Goddamn, can NONE of you read???

Find a place where I said one thing about Commie Sanders. Jesus.... READ!

I know little about Sanders' politics. I just like the name Commie Sanders.

FULL THROTTLE



Makes sense, since libtards vote based on "muh feelings."

Also: riding on the LOLerskates with this one. That is the exact reason the Party of Dumb is all pumped about this guy (Trump) with zero experience as an elected official. He plays into the rage of the least-informed (proven by those nebulous things called "studies") FOXNews viewer.



Not into pseudo social imbalance, giving every penny I make to big gubanate, demilitarization, or shitty dream wave pop metal.

Okay, this was actually funny.


Last edited by Reign in Acai : Today at 02:37 AM. Reason: Libtards

 

[refraction]

Well one thing's for sure, same as every election the abysmal failure that is the american educational system is once again put on full display. As if the success of Fox News wasn't proof enough. I'm so very glad I only had to endure one year of US schooling. Though I will say watching republican leaning news casts is a masterclass in oratory, their ability to evoke a sense of anger and patriotism in hundreds of thousands of people without actually saying anything other than a few buzzwords and an oscar worthy delivery is astounding. I'd quite like to see a study on what percentage of the american voting population has a decent knowledge of what constitutes a logical fallacy.

This aside, the republican lineup this election is even more terrifying than it was the last time around. Whether or not you agree with the various stances and credentials of democratic candidates is certainly open for reasoned debate, supporting anyone prominent on the republican ballot is bat shit insane.

 

[Agalloch]

Well one thing's for sure, same as every election the abysmal failure that is the american educational system is once again put on full display. As if the success of Fox News wasn't proof enough. I'm so very glad I only had to endure one year of US schooling. Though I will say watching republican leaning news casts is a masterclass in oratory, their ability to evoke a sense of anger and patriotism in hundreds of thousands of people without actually saying anything other than a few buzzwords and an oscar worthy delivery is astounding. I'd quite like to see a study on what percentage of the american voting population has a decent knowledge of what constitutes a logical fallacy.

This aside, the republican lineup this election is even more terrifying than it was the last time around. Whether or not you agree with the various stances and credentials of democratic candidates is certainly open for reasoned debate, supporting anyone prominent on the republican ballot is bat shit insane.

Thanks for your Swiss account of our situation. However, voting for Bernie Sanders would be far more insane than half the republican field (and I hate most of them too). That guy would bring down our economy in weeks with his half brained "promise the idiots everything" theories.

 

[Reign in Acai]

Goddamn, can NONE of you read???








FULL THROTTLE



Makes sense, since libtards vote based on "muh feelings."

Also: riding on the LOLerskates with this one. That is the exact reason the Party of Dumb is all pumped about this guy (Trump) with zero experience as an elected official. He plays into the rage of the least-informed (proven by those nebulous things called "studies") FOXNews viewer.



Not into pseudo social imbalance, giving every penny I make to big gubanate, demilitarization, or shitty dream wave pop metal.

Okay, this was actually funny.


Last edited by Reign in Acai : Today at 02:37 AM. Reason: Libtards

What experience did O'Coon have prior to his presidency? Community activist, Kenyan refugee, and a few Senate meetings where he was too preoccupied swatting the gnats away from his dar gums? What we need is somebody who understands how basic economics work before we are surpassed by the gooks and the punjabs. Same reason I voted for Romney, I want a vunt in there that understands the value of the private sector. Also, I get my news from **********, not Fox. Get yer facts straight kid.

 

[Reign in Acai]

Lol @ a Swiss commenting on U.S affairs. You would be speaking German right now if it were not for the same patriotism you're shitting on right now. If Hitler were alive today, do you honestly think Merica would save ye? Possibly, but not with the same fervor. Oh well, the muslims will be knocking down your door in a decade or two, then maybe, just maybe, you'll feel emboldened enough to give a shart about the country in which ye reside. Maybe a little nationalism would make those camel fuckers think twice, rather than living in a European libtard utopian dream world with open borders.
Come on in Muhammed, we welcome thee.
P.S lolol @ Greece

 

[Reign in Acai]

I also love how disparging Fox News is the only argument libtards can make. It's such a tired slag at this point. I find MSNBC to be total shit, but I don't bring it up in a discussion. Humourously enough, I find Beck/Hannity to be nauseating and disingenuous as fuck. Kind of reminds me of libtards in terms of their character. Fucking snake oil salesman. Only conservative talk show hosts I enjoy are Rush, Bill Cunnigham, Dr. Mark Levine. Main source of news is from KFI 640, which Nad can attest, is a very politically centered news source which attacks both sides of the aisle. Any opinion I have is ingrained in my DNA from dealing with libtards all my life in the favela of my dismay. Ye know personal experience, and seeing a once great state brought down to it's knees by the demoncrats who have been at the helm for eons on end. This state is ass, and I dont want to see the other 49 follow suit. Heh, bleh, liberalism is a diseaaaaaaaaaase, go Trump, your hair sends shivers down their spines.

 

[rms]

At what point did I appeal to irrelevant personal experience? I mentioned common sense once (in the context of calling Bernie Sanders a socialist whom we've already established you don't know much about his politics), and you went on a tear. Whooosh.

Also, Global Warming does not matter to this discussion. It's really about how the government needs to take action on it. For the sake of your argument though, there are studies that show to the contrary. Which studies do you choose? It's pseudo-intellectualism for you to consistently tell me I'm an idiot while not presenting anything to contradict what I've put forth. I have made very easy to understand arguments and you continue to distract with side-discussions that have no bearing on what we're talking about in an attempt to make me look like a dummy. We're not arguing over who is a dummy. This is why politics is mainly about ideology. If Global Warming is true and both sides were to agree. One side would want government to tax you more to pay for research on it. One side does not want government intrusion. The studies you've presented (while distractions) do not prove anything toward what the initial conversation was about.

Replace that brick wall with some philosophical backbone. Bang your head. METAL!

Damn are you really suggesting the private market would stop pursuing oil and then be interested in exploring a less profitable source of energy that is renewable?