For The "Bernie or Busters"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2016, 10:17 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
Ok, if the ad hominems in this thread don't stop, I am going to throw it in the pit. Enough is enough.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 10:40 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(12-06-2016 09:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(12-06-2016 03:49 AM)Vosur Wrote:  All I expect from someone who is debating with me is that they refrain from unwarranted condescension.

Well, then perhaps you should stop dishing it out? You see, I make change in the coin tendered. You're obviously having a hard time grasping this concept, so I'll type it slowly: treat others as you wish to be treated, because I will treat you that way.

(12-06-2016 03:49 AM)Vosur Wrote:  By the way, I never actually talked down to you.

Here is the first communication we had. Note that it is you writing to me; I hadn't addressed you at all before this:

(30-01-2016 05:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You'll find a lot of information about his policies in general there.

(30-01-2016 05:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You'd know that this is wrong if you had watched even a single one of his rallies or watched any of his interviews.

Assuming some is ignorant is indeed condescension. If you don't like people talking down to you, don't talk down to them.
The problem with that line of thinking is that it's not an assumption. When someone makes an ignorant statement, it follows that the person making the statement is ignorant.

(12-06-2016 09:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(12-06-2016 03:49 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You falsely claimed that Trump doesn't say how he intends to pay for his border wall, a claim that a person could only reasonably make if they had never taken a look at Trump's website (which has an entire page dedicated to addressing that matter) and you somehow think that calling you out on that fact is the equivalent of talking down to you?

No. As for the rest of this passage, this is your pedantry in play again.
Pedantry? No. It's called "being truthful", "being accurate" or simply "not lying." It's not my fault that you can't be bothered to express your thoughts in an accurate way.

(12-06-2016 09:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(12-06-2016 03:49 AM)Vosur Wrote:  If you had looked at his website at the time you made that claim, you should have said that you think his plans are unfeasible instead of lying about their existence.

As I wrote in that thread, "Talking points do not a plan make."

I'm unsure why such a simple point should be giving you such fits.

(12-06-2016 03:49 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Why is that type of condescension unwarranted, you ask? Because I have not once in my entire life claimed that a grammatical error invalidates someone's argument. I don't mind quoting my own words because I repeated them accurately:

"Who do you think you are to talk down to me like a child? You can take your condescending attitude and go fuck yourself with it; I'm done wasting my time on you."
Source: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid939282

That condescension is warrranted in your case because 1) you treat people that way yourself, and 2) the difficulties you're having comprehending the simple points I was making tells me that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. When someone is both rude to me, and unable to follow a simple point such as I laid out in that thread, they merit my condescension.

That's you. [Image: 2qi92xg.jpg]
When your 'point' consists of making up a new definition of the word "plan", you shouldn't be surprised that other people take issue with it. Here are some definitions for you:

Oxford Dictionaries
1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something
2. an intention or decision about what one is going to do

Merriam-Webster
1. a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something
2. something that a person intends to do

Dictionary.com
1. a scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc., developed in advance
2. a specific project or definite purpose

I can only imagine what kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to arrive at the conclusion that the following cannot be considered a plan:


"Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:
  • On day 1 promulgate a 'proposed rule' (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.
  • On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.
  • On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.
  • Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).
  • Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.
  • Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.
Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again."
You can argue that the proposals are unrealistic until your head is blue, that doesn't change the fact that they exist. Meanwhile, you said that they didn't. You said that Trump doesn't say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall. You can call it "pedantry" or whatever else you like, but the facts of the matter are that you were wrong. I can't help it that your massive ego prevents you from admitting to it. I can't rightly say that I've ever seen you admit to being wrong on this forum. The last time I did it was in a discussion with earmuffs today. Goes to show the difference between you and me.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
Let's start right here and now a turd party to draft Bernie as an impudent candied date!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(12-06-2016 06:18 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  Here's another good article on the cost of privilege to the Bernie or Busters.

"Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say they’ll “never” vote for Clinton"
Written by Melissa Hillman

http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-a...r-clinton/

Well, I don't know if I could leap to what the article suggests Colin Powell and Rice aren't running for president.

And I was pretty pissed when I heard they'd both done similar things (server issue). I strongly believe this should not be allowed.

But since when does anyone get to say, "well they did it first" as an excuse for their own mistakes?

Many people I know who don't care for Clinton, and say they won't vote for her aren't just picking one or two issues, they have with her.

I actually worried about this, while during the primaries both Bernie and Hillary supporters leaving so much blood in the water.

But it seems this is the year of the bully for this country.

Still, I wouldn't place too much stalk in what the Bernie or Bust crowd says now. The privacy of the voting booth (or their own home), I'm sure the vast majority will cast a vote for Clinton. However, there are the more petulant types -- the more they're told to just shut up and vote for Clinton, the more likely they become to toss away their vote.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
12-06-2016, 11:51 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2016 12:04 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(12-06-2016 10:40 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Oxford Dictionaries
1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something
2. an intention or decision about what one is going to do

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

I took it apart, crunching the numbers, and demonstrated the "plan" to be terribly undetailed.

(12-06-2016 10:40 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I can only imagine what kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to arrive at the conclusion that the following cannot be considered a plan:


"Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:
  • On day 1 promulgate a 'proposed rule' (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.
  • On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.
  • On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.
  • Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).
  • Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.
  • Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.
Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again."
You can argue that the proposals are unrealistic until your head is blue, that doesn't change the fact that they exist. Meanwhile, you said that they didn't. You said that Trump doesn't say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall. You can call it "pedantry" or whatever else you like, but the facts of the matter are that you were wrong.

Probably because those methods wouldn't provide for 5% of the costs estimated. Yet you, in your blind fealty, consider that an acceptable plan.

Some of us have intellectual standards, and demand more than just vapid words to consider what is touted as a plan. This is my plan to fix the American economy:

1) Stoke xenophobia
2) Run up the national debt
3) ???
4) Profit!

By your pedantry, that is a plan. The fact that Trump gussied his nonplan up in fancier language only fooled people too happy to believe what they wish and not look any deeper behind empty words, because "he has a Plan".

(Anyone interested in reading my detailed deconstruction of Trump's "plan" can read it here. Be forewarned, I'm a huge meanie to ole Vosur there, filled as it is with insult and condescension!)

(12-06-2016 10:40 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I can't help it that your massive ego prevents you from admitting to it. I can't rightly say that I've ever seen you admit to being wrong on this forum. The last time I did it was in a discussion with earmuffs today. Goes to show the difference between you and me.

As for admitting error, I do it often enough, both online and in real life. I may or may not have done it here, I don't know, because generally speaking I don't get into arguments here at TTA. I get into discussions which almost always remain civil, if not cordial. It happens with you sometimes that they turn ugly -- I notice I'm hardly the only one who has these unpleasant exchanges with you -- but per Dom's warning above, I won't go into the reasons. I'm sure a man of your towering insight can figure it out on your own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
12-06-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
I've been a Hillary supporter for a while. I came in a bit too late to vote for her (damn OK voter ID laws, I only got my paperwork in 30 days prior to the election) but I still supported her. However when the state went to Bernie I wasn't heartbroken. The two are close enough to where it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Bernie is a slight bit farther to the left than I am, and as such I am more comfortable with Clinton. While the libertarian candidate and I might agree on more in principal I don't think it's practical for me to vote that way. I'll consider it, since OK is strongly red, but I'm not sure yet.

The Bernie or Bust folks though... they are one of the big reasons I drew away from Bernie. Not just that they were there, all campaigns have them, but that they were all too often loud, belligerent, and obnoxious (if not violent sometimes). Bernie had good points, but this section of his supporters made me draw back. If you don't get EVERYTHING you want then you don't throw a goddamn tantrum and stomp off. You accept a compromise and try to change things in the future.

Bernie lost. He lost in every possible way. He lost most open primaries, most closed primaries, and the popular vote. Wanting more open and democratic a process is great, see my irritation over the damn voter registration and ID laws. But the fact is that the majority wanted Clinton more than they wanted Sanders.

What especially galls me is those who spent the entire process decrying how undemocratic super-delegates are only to now try to sway those same super-delegates so that a candidate who DID NOT win the popular vote can win at the convention. Because it is totally OK when YOUR candidate does it. Just like how closed primaries, with only registered democrats, are an affront to democracy but caucuses are not.

Hillary is a career politician. As such, she has the slime that comes with being a career politician. However I genuinely think she will prove a better president than Drumpf would be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like natachan's post
12-06-2016, 04:11 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(12-06-2016 11:26 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(12-06-2016 06:18 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  Here's another good article on the cost of privilege to the Bernie or Busters.

"Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say they’ll “never” vote for Clinton"
Written by Melissa Hillman

http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-a...r-clinton/

Well, I don't know if I could leap to what the article suggests Colin Powell and Rice aren't running for president.

And I was pretty pissed when I heard they'd both done similar things (server issue). I strongly believe this should not be allowed.

But since when does anyone get to say, "well they did it first" as an excuse for their own mistakes?

Many people I know who don't care for Clinton, and say they won't vote for her aren't just picking one or two issues, they have with her.

I actually worried about this, while during the primaries both Bernie and Hillary supporters leaving so much blood in the water.

But it seems this is the year of the bully for this country.

Still, I wouldn't place too much stalk in what the Bernie or Bust crowd says now. The privacy of the voting booth (or their own home), I'm sure the vast majority will cast a vote for Clinton. However, there are the more petulant types -- the more they're told to just shut up and vote for Clinton, the more likely they become to toss away their vote.

True and I'm not really even saying "shut up and vote for Hillary". Basically I'm still saying make your best vote. If the Trump supporters vote Trump I expect that. What bothers me is the, "if you don't play my way, I'll vote the other team" attitude. That really is a pissy way to act.

Don't vote to give payback. Just vote honestly and make your best vote.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heatheness's post
12-06-2016, 04:36 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(12-06-2016 04:11 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(12-06-2016 11:26 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Well, I don't know if I could leap to what the article suggests Colin Powell and Rice aren't running for president.

And I was pretty pissed when I heard they'd both done similar things (server issue). I strongly believe this should not be allowed.

But since when does anyone get to say, "well they did it first" as an excuse for their own mistakes?

Many people I know who don't care for Clinton, and say they won't vote for her aren't just picking one or two issues, they have with her.

I actually worried about this, while during the primaries both Bernie and Hillary supporters leaving so much blood in the water.

But it seems this is the year of the bully for this country.

Still, I wouldn't place too much stalk in what the Bernie or Bust crowd says now. The privacy of the voting booth (or their own home), I'm sure the vast majority will cast a vote for Clinton. However, there are the more petulant types -- the more they're told to just shut up and vote for Clinton, the more likely they become to toss away their vote.

True and I'm not really even saying "shut up and vote for Hillary". Basically I'm still saying make your best vote. If the Trump supporters vote Trump I expect that. What bothers me is the, "if you don't play my way, I'll vote the other team" attitude. That really is a pissy way to act.

Don't vote to give payback. Just vote honestly and make your best vote.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you said this or meant it.

I think the convention (so long as there isn't a lot of rubbish or someone does or says something incredibly stupid) will sort much of it out. That's what usually happens anyway.

I agree I don't like the attitude either some have been saying -- anymore than I liked it when it was implied early on in the primaries that I should vote for Clinton over Sanders because she's got a vagina.

I did actually support Clinton in 2008 during the primaries. I felt she had more experience than Obama.

My opinion altered greatly after that. But it doesn't really matter.

I'll be paying attention to the election in my state -- which is overwhelmingly democrat.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
12-06-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(12-06-2016 04:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(12-06-2016 04:11 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  True and I'm not really even saying "shut up and vote for Hillary". Basically I'm still saying make your best vote. If the Trump supporters vote Trump I expect that. What bothers me is the, "if you don't play my way, I'll vote the other team" attitude. That really is a pissy way to act.

Don't vote to give payback. Just vote honestly and make your best vote.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you said this or meant it.

I think the convention (so long as there isn't a lot of rubbish or someone does or says something incredibly stupid) will sort much of it out. That's what usually happens anyway.

I agree I don't like the attitude either some have been saying -- anymore than I liked it when it was implied early on in the primaries that I should vote for Clinton over Sanders because she's got a vagina.

I did actually support Clinton in 2008 during the primaries. I felt she had more experience than Obama.

My opinion altered greatly after that. But it doesn't really matter.

I'll be paying attention to the election in my state -- which is overwhelmingly democrat.

I didn't think you did. Smile

I just wanted to reiterate my position. We be cool. Big Grin

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heatheness's post
13-06-2016, 10:10 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(10-06-2016 12:33 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Jill Stein!!

Her numbers are creepin' up.

We need more parties and better representation, y'all.

I agree, if we could ditch our first past the post system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: