Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 156: Debunked by Trump

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik posted...

My first choice to vote for was Jeb Bush. If using populism as being anti-establishment, I am clearly not.

Who?
---

Reg posted...

XIII_rocks posted...

It seems like across the board they're just being way more unnecessarily hostile to everybody, and it's not just from Trump (who I get).

I mean, if you understand it coming from Trump, it should be fairly straightforward to understand that he's surrounding himself with similar types right?

I mean, I suppose? But I expected the rest of the government to be the voices of normality and sanity, not to further represent his childish way of conducting business.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Corrik posted...

Moving to infrastructure now. Hopefully his 1 trillion infrastructure plan gets approved. Instead of building iraq or such we should be rebuilding America.

Sure would be nice if we had a spare trillion to spend on infrastructure. Possibly by, oh I don't know, not instituting massive tax cuts for corporations and people who don't need the help. But that's just such a crazy idea.

Where do you think all the infrastructure comes from? American business. It provides service to Americans, provides jobs to Americans, and it boosts the GDP. I mean, he says he clearly wants to take it from.where we been using it in the middle East. So, he has a plan of where it would come from.

We just spent like a trillion dollars or something bailing out specific companies. I think we can toss a trillion or so to bailout American Infrastructure. It should in theory pay for itself.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

I am also pretty anti-military and I cannot abide any of the bullshit where we have to hero worship people who are literally doing a job they are getting paid for because IT PROTEX UR FREEDOMZ

Key distinction question:

Are you anti-military conceptually, or just the way the US uses the concept?
---

Infrastructure never pays for itself, hence why it's in such a state of disrepair.
---

Corrik posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Corrik posted...

Moving to infrastructure now. Hopefully his 1 trillion infrastructure plan gets approved. Instead of building iraq or such we should be rebuilding America.

Sure would be nice if we had a spare trillion to spend on infrastructure. Possibly by, oh I don't know, not instituting massive tax cuts for corporations and people who don't need the help. But that's just such a crazy idea.

Where do you think all the infrastructure comes from? American business. It provides service to Americans, provides jobs to Americans, and it boosts the GDP. I mean, he says he clearly wants to take it from.where we been using it in the middle East. So, he has a plan of where it would come from.

We just spent like a trillion dollars or something bailing out specific companies. I think we can toss a trillion or so to bailout American Infrastructure. It should in theory pay for itself.

Sure, but how do you pay for it right now? Remember, the GOP just massively cut the government's income and now Trump is talking about massively increasing the government's expenditures. That's not a recipe for financial stability.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Corrik posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Corrik posted...

Moving to infrastructure now. Hopefully his 1 trillion infrastructure plan gets approved. Instead of building iraq or such we should be rebuilding America.

Sure would be nice if we had a spare trillion to spend on infrastructure. Possibly by, oh I don't know, not instituting massive tax cuts for corporations and people who don't need the help. But that's just such a crazy idea.

Where do you think all the infrastructure comes from? American business. It provides service to Americans, provides jobs to Americans, and it boosts the GDP. I mean, he says he clearly wants to take it from.where we been using it in the middle East. So, he has a plan of where it would come from.

We just spent like a trillion dollars or something bailing out specific companies. I think we can toss a trillion or so to bailout American Infrastructure. It should in theory pay for itself.

Sure, but how do you pay for it right now? Remember, the GOP just massively cut the government's income and now Trump is talking about massively increasing the government's expenditures. That's not a recipe for financial stability.

Where were you going to get the money for Free College For All? I mean, they are idealistic ideas. The idea is that in the long run you get the money back.

The reason I was pretty on board with the living stipend is that everyone should get it. It removed food stamps and welfare and such as viable as no one should need it with a living stipend. No one has an excuse to have barriers to the workforce etc. But, it is going to cost a ton out of the gate.

I think if we stopped sending as much aid as we have to many countries that it pays for a sizable amount of the infrastructure deal.
---

If we stopped ALL foreign aid we could afford a trillion dollar infrastructure plan in like.... 2080.

You literally dont know what youre talking about.

Itd be a bit faster if we pulled up stakes in afghanistan and stopped providing air support to fight terrorism
---

Feels vs Facts~
---

Eddv posted...

If we stopped ALL foreign aid we could afford a trillion dollar infrastructure plan in like.... 2080.

You literally dont know what youre talking about.

Itd be a bit faster if we pulled up stakes in afghanistan and stopped providing air support to fight terrorism

"Hey, I am only going to count money sent to governments as foreign aid and say you have no fucking idea what you are talking about cuz only like $45 billion a year is sent away to foreign governments, while also spouting off another proponent of foreign aid that could be stopped that is obviously being considered as the number the President is using is 7 trillion in the middle East"

I wonder which of you and peaf is more disingenuous with your jumps to label someone a dumbass or clueless.


---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

My first choice to vote for was Jeb Bush. If using populism as being anti-establishment, I am clearly not.

Who?

I believe he was referring to Jeb!
---

I supported Bernie's idea of support subsidizing college to make it more affordable.

I in theory support the idea of a living stipend.

I in theory support single payer healthcare.

Holy shit, you're more liberal than I am.

(I still think you fit the definition of a populist, at least economically, based on the information you're giving us. But obviously you define yourself whatever you feel comfortable with. You'd know better than me.)
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I supported Bernie's idea of support subsidizing college to make it more affordable.

I in theory support the idea of a living stipend.

I in theory support single payer healthcare.

Holy shit, you're more liberal than I am.

(I still think you fit the definition of a populist, at least economically, based on the information you're giving us. But obviously you define yourself whatever you feel comfortable with. You'd know better than me.)

Depends how you are defining populism. Some define it as anti-establishment. Others define it as for the ordinary person.
---

i don't hero worship but i do appreciate that i have not yet experienced a draft

but then again i also thank the person at the cash register for counting my change properly
---

https://goo.gl/yKc9iH

But sure let's give AT&T a big ol' pat on the back.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

So re: the UN Jerusalem vote.

In a speech before the vote, US permanent representative Nikki Haley stressed that the US decision did not prejudge any final status issues, and did not preclude a two-state solution if the parties agreed to that.

"The United States will remember this day, on which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation," she said.

"America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do. And it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that."

is this actually something Americans want even? Why do any of us give a shit about the location of Isreal's capital?
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

is this actually something Americans want even?

Only the hyper-religious types who want literal armageddon as defined in the bible
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

XIII_rocks posted...

So re: the UN Jerusalem vote.

In a speech before the vote, US permanent representative Nikki Haley stressed that the US decision did not prejudge any final status issues, and did not preclude a two-state solution if the parties agreed to that.

"The United States will remember this day, on which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation," she said.

"America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do. And it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that."

is this actually something Americans want even? Why do any of us give a shit about the location of Isreal's capital?

I went to a Christian high school. Israel and Jerusalem specifically are highly revered as Gods chosen people and potential harbingers of the end times, plus I had one teacher tell us he firmly believed that the only reason God hadnt torn down the US with all the growing acceptance of immorality and whatnot was the countrys steadfast support of Israel.

What Im saying is yes, there are a lot of people in the US who consider Israel a big. Fucking. Deal.
---

Most American Jews are horrified by the embassy move.
---

JonThePenguin posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

XIII_rocks posted...

So re: the UN Jerusalem vote.

In a speech before the vote, US permanent representative Nikki Haley stressed that the US decision did not prejudge any final status issues, and did not preclude a two-state solution if the parties agreed to that.

"The United States will remember this day, on which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation," she said.

"America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do. And it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that."

is this actually something Americans want even? Why do any of us give a shit about the location of Isreal's capital?

I went to a Christian high school. Israel and Jerusalem specifically are highly revered as Gods chosen people and potential harbingers of the end times, plus I had one teacher tell us he firmly believed that the only reason God hadnt torn down the US with all the growing acceptance of immorality and whatnot was the countrys steadfast support of Israel.

What Im saying is yes, there are a lot of people in the US who consider Israel a big. Fucking. Deal.

A large chunk of the people in the US who consider Israel a big deal are the hyper religious christians.

They consider Israel a big deal because of, as stated, they think that Israel and Jerusalem are related to the end of the world.

Specifically, Jerusalem being under the sole control of jews.

Because this is one of the signs of the apocalypse.

They literally want this to happen so the world can end.

Think about that for a bit.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Most American Jews are horrified by the embassy move.

No, they're not.

This is pulling "facts" out of your own ass.
---

Terastodon posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Most American Jews are horrified by the embassy move.

No, they're not.

This is pulling "facts" out of your own ass.

I mean, polls suggest that a majority of Jewish Americans are against the embassy move, so other than a bit of hyperbole, I'm not sure what's wrong with what he said?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Terastodon posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Most American Jews are horrified by the embassy move.

No, they're not.

This is pulling "facts" out of your own ass.

I mean, polls suggest that a majority of Jewish Americans are against the embassy move, so other than a bit of hyperbole, I'm not sure what's wrong with what he said?

It's fairly extreme hyperbole, though.
---

16 percent of Jewish Americans support moving the embassy to Jerusalem immediately
36 percent favor moving it at a later date in conjunction with progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
44 percent disagree with moving the embassy all together.

Source: AJCs 2017 Survey of American Jewish Opinion

"Most American Jews are horrified by the embassy move."

Uh huh.
---

I wonder how nanis feels about this

yo @Nanis23 get in heree
---

SupremeZero posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Terastodon posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Most American Jews are horrified by the embassy move.

No, they're not.

This is pulling "facts" out of your own ass.

I mean, polls suggest that a majority of Jewish Americans are against the embassy move, so other than a bit of hyperbole, I'm not sure what's wrong with what he said?

It's fairly extreme hyperbole, though.

Eh, to be fair, can we really say that for certain, though? Polls don't go into depth why they're against it, for instance.
---

Polls say 52% are in favour of moving the embassy now or in the future.

Those people are "horrified", really, by this decision?
---

Terastodon posted...

Polls say 52% are in favour of moving the embassy now or in the future.

Those people are "horrified", really, by this decision?

This is a pretty dishonest way to describe that poll, since there's a pretty big qualifier on that "in the future" one.
---

Describing them as "horrified by the decision" in wayyyy more dishonest than saying they are in favour of moving it in the future. Which they are.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

My first choice to vote for was Jeb Bush. If using populism as being anti-establishment, I am clearly not.

Who?

I believe he was referring to Jeb!

Ohhhhhh. He meant JEB! I was confused for a second there.
---

Like, it's honestly less disingenuous to go the other direction and say 80% are against the move right now.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Terastodon posted...

Polls say 52% are in favour of moving the embassy now or in the future.

Those people are "horrified", really, by this decision?

This is a pretty dishonest way to describe that poll, since there's a pretty big qualifier on that "in the future" one.

Yeah, 16% approve of the move now, which is around or even below what I would expect from democrats as a whole.

This is just as dishonest a way of framing it as "a majority are horrified by it".
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I wonder how nanis feels about this

yo @Nanis23 get in heree

That they are fucking selfish
They have zero say in this matter and their opinion doesn't matter, nor it should be
---

Terastodon posted...

Describing them as "horrified by the decision" in wayyyy more dishonest than saying they are in favour of moving it in the future. Which they are.

Grouping them together with the 16% that support it right now is atleast just as dishonest, since that suggests they arbitrarily went "Nah, not today. Maybe next Tuesday" or something, instead of the more natural conclusion of "There's a reason they don't want it right now with the state things are currently in."
---

I'm not arguing that they're in favour of it, just that they're really not horrified by the decision.

And framing my argument in that way to deflect that point is in itself disingenuous. Carry on.
---

Terastodon posted...

And framing my argument in that way to deflect that point is in itself disingenuous. Carry on.

Terastodon posted...

Polls say 52% are in favour of moving the embassy now or in the future.

...I mean, you literally grouped them together yourself, so...?
---

My point is that while his use of hyperbole was dishonest, it's not really any more dishonest than trying to say "52% are in favor of moving it now or in the future" as if they're basically one in the same, and it's easier to get to the truth of the matter (that a majority are against the current move) from what he said than from what you said.
---

Terastodon posted...

I'm not arguing that they're in favour of it, just that they're really not horrified by the decision.

And framing my argument in that way to deflect that point is in itself disingenuous. Carry on.

I mean you intentionally misrepresented statistics to make your point look better. 84% don't approve of the move now, and the "needs to wait" crowd has a huge caveat that would make most of them decidedly opposed to the move now.

The other guy could've just been pulling statistics out of their butt without knowing what they were talking about. You took the numbers and were misleading about them in your argument. You were being disingenuous. He could just be ignorant. There is a difference.

Edit: Sorry, 80% don't approve of the move now, and 4% are apparently undecided one way or the other.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Terastodon posted...

And framing my argument in that way to deflect that point is in itself disingenuous. Carry on.

Terastodon posted...

Polls say 52% are in favour of moving the embassy now or in the future.

...I mean, you literally grouped them together yourself, so...?

...to counter the "fact" that they're horrified.
The stats don't say they're in favour of Trump's decision.

They also don't support the fact that they're "horrified by the decision".

This is not complicated logic.

I disagreed that "Most American Jews are horrified by the embassy move" and I provided stats and a source (unlike Peaf) to refute Peaf's assertion.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

My point is that while his use of hyperbole was dishonest, it's not really any more dishonest than trying to say "52% are in favor of moving it now or in the future" as if they're basically one in the same, and it's easier to get to the truth of the matter (that a majority are against the current move) from what he said than from what you said.

I mean at the very minimum you could say "52% are not horrified by moving it" from that statistic which definitely makes Peaf's hyperbole the more misleading statement.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

My point is that while his use of hyperbole was dishonest, it's not really any more dishonest than trying to say "52% are in favor of moving it now or in the future" as if they're basically one in the same, and it's easier to get to the truth of the matter (that a majority are against the current move) from what he said than from what you said.

I mean at the very minimum you could say "52% are not horrified by moving it" from that statistic which definitely makes Peaf's hyperbole the more misleading statement.

I think Peaf was just guessing, so he probably didn't have any statistical backing for his argument.

But this:

36 percent favor moving it at a later date in conjunction with progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

While obviously not horrified, could lead to a lot in this group being strongly opposed. Like, that is a huge caveat in there that would lead many in that group to not be happy at all with the way it was handled.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

My point is that while his use of hyperbole was dishonest, it's not really any more dishonest than trying to say "52% are in favor of moving it now or in the future" as if they're basically one in the same, and it's easier to get to the truth of the matter (that a majority are against the current move) from what he said than from what you said.

I mean at the very minimum you could say "52% are not horrified by moving it" from that statistic which definitely makes Peaf's hyperbole the more misleading statement.

Can you? The 36% that say "later" could range from "Not now, definitely later" to "Not now, maaaaaaaaybe later." And the fact that there's a caveat on it suggests it's closer to the latter.

Just saying "52% support it now or later" completely ignores the caveat and is definitely more misleading.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

My point is that while his use of hyperbole was dishonest, it's not really any more dishonest than trying to say "52% are in favor of moving it now or in the future" as if they're basically one in the same, and it's easier to get to the truth of the matter (that a majority are against the current move) from what he said than from what you said.

I mean at the very minimum you could say "52% are not horrified by moving it" from that statistic which definitely makes Peaf's hyperbole the more misleading statement.

Actually you can't say that. Because the ones who are saying, "move it in the future" (with a very demanding precondition) may very well be horrifed that it is being moved now and in this manner.
---

I mean

Keep in mind "52% support it now or later" was accompanied by the literal poll responses so it's pretty cut and dry who was being more misleading tbqh.
---

I don't thing Peaf was being misleading though.

I just don't think he knew what he was talking about >_>
---

Lopen posted...

I mean

Keep in mind "52% support it now or later" was accompanied by the literal poll responses so it's pretty cut and dry who was being more misleading tbqh.

To be honest, I think it makes it more misleading, since it's purposely twisting the poll results to fit the narrative. "Most are horrified" just sounds like something somebody would throw out there out of ignorance. Actually taking the numbers and going "So in conclusion, 52% support it" is purposely using the numbers to mislead.
---

Yeah, my assumption is that Peaf was literally just guessing based on what his Facebook and Twitter feeds said.
---

Terastodon posted...

Yeah, my assumption is that Peaf was literally just guessing based on what his Facebook and Twitter feeds said.

Which is fair enough.

But it gets less fair when you then try to argue against what you see as being misleading/dishonest by... Also being misleading/dishonest. >_>
---

StealThisSheen posted...

To be honest, I think it makes it more misleading, since it's purposely twisting the poll results to fit the narrative. "Most are horrified" just sounds like something somebody would throw out there out of ignorance. Actually taking the numbers and going "So in conclusion, 52% support it" is purposely using the numbers to mislead.

...this is not what I said.

I provided numbers to say that the majority are horrified is BS. And the numbers as I interpret them say that. If you think that 36% are more likely to be horrified than not, more power to you, but I think you'd struggle to get that interpretation to stand up in a crowd of people.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Terastodon posted...

Yeah, my assumption is that Peaf was literally just guessing based on what his Facebook and Twitter feeds said.

Which is fair enough.

But it gets less fair when you then try to argue against what you see as being misleading/dishonest by... Also being misleading/dishonest. >_>

Again, never been misleading/dishonest. I simply grouped the people who weren't completely against the concept of the decision.
---