Cool strawman bro.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Political and economic discussion thread
- Thread starter Diophantine
- Start date
Am I wrong? Strawman or not it definitely seems to be the case.
Yes.
I dunno surgo feel free to make your conclusions but I can say with absolute certain about this - Those who supported abortion have already been born similar to how those who supported slavery had already been free (quote by Ronald Regan). I thank my mother for upholding my right to live.
I think you should thank your mother for doing the same.
I think you should thank your mother for doing the same.
Immediately after conception there's one (1) cell. I can understand, at some level, being against abortion a very short time after conception compared to current standards to the point where it's not a feasible procedure, but literally from the moment of conception is silly.
anyone who considers "pro-life" but is not vegan automatically loses the argument. if you can bring up this empathy for an underdeveloped bunch of cells in a womb i feel you should be able to feel that sane empathy for the animals whose meat you consume every day.
have we been watching the same news? probably not because i dont frequent breitbart i guess
timeline
its been a year and a half since Mueller was appointed to the Special Counsel by Rosenstein, and since then, several close people surrounding Trump have either turned or been indicted. Trump's foreign policy advisor George Papadopalous entered a plea deal with Mueller after he was caught lying to the FBI about Trump / Russia meetings; Paul Manafort, chairman of the RNC and Trump campaign manager, was just recently convicted on eight felonies with several new cases for him to appear in; Michael Flynn, former national security advisor for the Trump administration, was also caught lying to the FBI and has now entered a plea deal with the Mueller probe; Rick Gates, deputy to Paul Manafort in the Trump administration, pleaded guilty to a littany of felonies and has since entered a plea deal with Mueller; Deputy finance chairman of the Republican party and former longtime personal lawyer for Trump Michael Cohen is currently under investigation with not only the Mueller probe for obstruction of justice, but also with the state of New York for bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign finance violations. In addition to these already blatantly criminal activity, you have some other nefarious scheming surrounding this whole investigation, such as the time that eight senators visited Russia on July 4th of all days, on the same day that the Senate so happened to condemn Russia for launching cyber attacks on our election in 2016, and which they continue to do so.
You claim that too much money is being spent on this investigation and yet this investigation is by far the most conclusive investigation in United States history. The pace that is set thus far is lightning fast. Watergate took 4 years and we still didn't know what all happened even after that; Iran Contra took six years; Whitewater took 7. That you think there is some sort of time limit on the investigation is baffling and shows you just get your talking points from @realDonaldTrump
and then u include the Pavlovian response to Hillary Clinton, lol classic republican. she's been irrelevant for two years now and people continue to bring her up as a bogeyman for the purposes of deflection. "but her private email server!!!" you say, to which I respond with uhhhhhhhhhh let me get uhhhhhhh 1 hypocrisy please
There's a lot of issues you just brought up about the Mueller investigation. None of these convict Trump himself of colluding, as of right now the investigation is coming to a close soon, and it's looking like Trump's innocent. It's just looking like he hired shit people. Padadopalous did lie under oath, and he should get jail-time for it imo. Paul Manafort was convicted over felony charges completely unrelated to the scandal he's committed previously, the RNC initially recommended him for Trump unaware of his current situation. Michael Flynn was also fired and indicted for cases unrelated to Trump colluding and Russia. Rick Gates is a very similar situation to Paul Manafort. Michael Cohen outed himself to make himself look good and the President not so he can get charged less, there's a good chance he may have lied under oath. Russia may have indeed launched failed cyber attacks, but there is no denying at this point Trump did win that Election fair and square, Hillary just so happens to be the worst candidate in US history. The cyber attacks, as I've heard, is stupid ads by the Russians, which is something that does not turn an election like that. Do you want to know why I brought her up though? She actually committed crimes, and nothing has been done about it, where it's looking like the reverse is the case for Trump. If anything, they tried to cover it all up, until James Comey outed her to preserve her legitimacy for the election, and the DNC came clean soon after the election.
Also, the hypocrite part about other private email servers, those people were not in the White House prior to Trump's election, you realize that right? Hillary Clinton, however, was a senator prior, and secretary of state further down the line. Thats why it's taken seriously and it really put our national security in danger, especially realizing the Chinese managed to hack it.
...I'll pitch on the abortion issue more later when I'm out of class.
Last edited:
I miss economics
Also a fetus is a parasite until the point it's capable of survival outside of its host
Also a fetus is a parasite until the point it's capable of survival outside of its host
No, Trump has not been convicted though I suspect you’ll continue crying “Witchhunt” until Trump is in handcuffs, at which point you’d probably say theres a coup going on. While Trump has not been convicted, not only is Trump seemingly the center for a shitton of witches (funny how they keep popping up), hes also an unindicted coconspirator in Cohen’s case. He has absolutely no credibility as well as repeatedly moving goalposts whenever some new development happens. For someone who lies so much, how exactly can you trust him like “oh its ok guys he said he didnt do it so he really didnt!” Trump is either complicit with the whole mess, likely, or he is so ignorant so as to allow himself to somehow surround himself with corrupt individual after corrupt individual who just so happen to be trying their hardest to deify Trump. like a mr magoo in real life. Now either way do you actually want someone like that in the white house?
Do you have any sources to substantiate your claim of failed attacks? Because I have three credible sources that say that not only did they succeed the effort was far more largescale than “facebook ads” as you stated, ranging from an influx of ads bought with dark money to changing party registration in several key states, all with the intent to undermine the public confidence in the political process, all to influence election (which even if all they did was supply people with targeted ads to influence the political sphere, why would that be ok? are you ok with dark money in politics?) In addition to this, 12 Russian officials have already been indicted by the Justice Department for their role in unauthorized cyberwarfare.
Did you read the article or just the title? It very clearly says that during the first year of office the people listed were using their personal emails for delivering work emails. The issue isnt if a public employee the issue is a public employee using their personal email to deliver work documents and messages. Do you know the reason they are required to use work emails? Security is but one part of it. As an acting public official, they are required to use their work emails so if needed the public can request transparency from their government employees via the Freedom of Information Act. Im not disputing Hillary’s use of a personal email, in fact I think rightfully she was publically shamed for it (whether that scandal was comparable to Trump’s scandals during the campaign is an entirely different entity). That you have an excellent example of this administration doing literally the same thing you demonize Hillary for speaks volumes to your fanatical partisanship.
Ummm, LOL. I'm not even going to bother because of how stupid that statement is. You're on your own.
I really love the double standard when you're accusing me of not sourcing, especially when if you look pages back, I've done anything but, where you graciously decide to step in just now and finally get some. I'll give you that at least, thanks for the sources, even though half of them don't help you. Examples including: the false statement tracker, because everyone knows Trump says 'stuff' and his policy is very different and usually much more productive (not defending that, I still think that's shitty as President no matter how small the statements, but you have to be mindful that that's just how Trump is); the changing part registration article by NBC because it never says how they were compromised, one, not to mention that was all things that should have been handled by Obama given he knew that happened (I've heard that story before, Obama let that all happen, and that was quite frankly garbage), and the state websites being compromised (if they even were, the article does not state or source that well at all) had very little to do with the voting outcomes, as stated by this next point; the NY times article soon after about public confidence because, in the 2nd paragraph even, "But the committee said it saw no evidence that the Russians had ultimately changed vote tallies or voter registration information," proving that that article has little to shit to do with votes actually being changed. Did you get all of that through your thick skull?
Unindicted co-conspirator is absolute bullshit, that was nothing more than a comment by the prosecution. Trump is still not indicted, if you haven't noticed, and probably will not be, because once again, their current evidence has to do with the people Trump hired, not Trump himself. Also, did I ever say witch hunt? You can stop putting shit words in my mouth and assuming my arguments, it's quite shitty and frankly it's beginning to piss me off.
Lastly, your last paragraph, I think this solves that, not to mention there were less than 100 all under email servers from the RNC given during the campaign, for political and campaign related use. Clearly you need to get your news from much better sources, because many of these have been debunked over and over again, that, and/or you're misconstruing what some of these official documents are even pointing out. Kindly grow up, this is turning into a mudsling more than a respectful debate, because you're doing a great job of pissing me off as opposed to showing me another side to these arguments that I'd like to hear and believe. Throwing personal attacks is not going to convince me or anyone of anything you're trying to argue, and if that's how you treat people who disagree with your way of thinking, good luck having others take you seriously. I'm getting sick of it.
Edit: I don't even watch breitbart.
Last edited:
Tory
Banned deucer.
Since we are on the subject about abortion, I would like to ask you guys a question. What do you guys think about government funded legislation on abortion?
Honestly, I disagree with funded abortion taken from taxes. I believe people should work and pay for their own. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the idea of abortion, people can do what they want with their bodies. I am going to add a 2017 United States source below. So, what do you guys think?
Honestly, I disagree with funded abortion taken from taxes. I believe people should work and pay for their own. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the idea of abortion, people can do what they want with their bodies. I am going to add a 2017 United States source below. So, what do you guys think?
On a much lighter note lol, I'm aware of the Hyde Amendment. Ashaebi and I have talked about this among other topics in PMs. Here's my take on abortions:Since we are on the subject about abortion, I would like to ask you guys a question. What do you guys think about government funded legislation on abortion?
Honestly, I disagree with funded abortion taken from taxes. I believe people should work and pay for their own. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the idea of abortion, people can do what they want with their bodies. I am going to add a 2017 United States source below. So, what do you guys think?
1. Personal Belief: No matter how you define it (and my religious values have extremely little to do with this viewpoint, just a disclaimer), it's a life. Inception just so happens to be the finest line you can make to consider something a life, there's the least amount of grey area and controversy. The question I had to ask myself, at least, is when is it ethical to murder that life, if at all. I came to the conclusion that it's pretty hard to make it ethical; only rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger can I consider it so, the previous two being on extremely thin ice as is. These are only 1% of all abortions, not even exaggerating, the other 99% are because of the very situation I'm about to outline. My personal view is take responsibility for your actions. If you have a kid by accident, he or she shouldn't have to bear the consequences of your mistake. I would not want to take away someone's right to live so I can be comfortable. Ask yourself this as well: if my parents got pregnant by accident way-back when, do I deserve to die and not have my opportunity to living my life because of that? There are plenty of families that want children to take in, love, and nurture if you physically can't support a kid. In short, take responsibility for your actions.
2. My Objective Opinion (arguably my biggest reason): My money should not be paying for someone else's abortion. Plain and simple, I think that's fairly Libertarian. If you truly want to get one, you should have to pay for it, because most likely, as stated before, you screwed up. Fun fact, even though abortions count as only 3% of "services" (including any tests, procedures, or services they offer to you prior to an abortion, as well as women's birth control needs), on average, they contribute to ~$489m per year ($1,500 cost per abortion on average × 326k abortions in 2015). That's where my issue with the Hyde Amendment comes in (which, mind you, only blocks Medicaid funding to abortion patients). One way or another, Government funding still finds away into these procedures. Here's a great article that brings that all to light, and it explains how Title X works in doing all of that. I think the decision for abortions should be decided by the states as it was before Roe v. Wade (and before you freak out about that, most hospitals and doctors are trained to do emergency abortions). So if California taxpayers want to keep up the program, they can, it's their money not the federal government's. If Arkansas doesn't, they have that right. I will say though, the Constitution does defend life. Take that as you will.
lol really man?
July 21st - Trickle Down Economics discussion
Source 1 - "The MYTH of Trickle Down Economics" youtube video
not sure if you'd consider a youtube video a credible source
July 22nd -
Source 2 - From Welfare to Work - Brookings.edu
Source 3 - "Do people get more money from welfare than work" Quora question
Source 4 - Three rules for staying out of poverty
here we have three sources in one post wowee, one's 16 years old (probably older than aeshebi if we're being honest), one's a quora question though and the other claims these statistics out of thin air, providing no source for any claim of "If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class." If you could provide an actual statistically based study that would be nice! Neither wikipedia nor the two articles you linked indicate any study other than Ron Haskins saying "yeah we ran study here are the results"
July 22nd - Mother of ur posts
not gonna try to dissect this one tbh cause you provide a ton of sources some ok some HIGHly questionable. D'souza for one, and citing the holocaust for why white privilege does not exist on the other.
July 22nd - Ben fucking Shapiro lmao
A youtube video of Ben Shapiro explaining white privilege. Self-explanatory for rational observers.
August 29th - NYT stands by Sarah Jeong after racist tweet - Fox News
A youtube video of someone not serving a MAGA hat
Another youtube video of the Berkley incident from 2016
the last post u included sources in, where two are youtube videos, and one is fox news, and all to what? prove a point that some dumb leftists out there get carried away? to try to generalize the left movement as racist and backwards i guess?_?
That you accuse me of a "double standard" indicating I am not actually sourcing my material is downright laughable, when literally anything you cite is either a youtube video or some conservative "claims he is not racist but is actually extremely racist" thinktank engine. I think Brookings is the only non rightwing material you sourced statistical analysis, and even then that didnt even show a study, just claims they ran a study. You are incredibly disingenuous and making it impossible to have a rational debate.
so the defense is "thats just how he is?" Thats like saying "ok grandpa, we know you're racist as shit but its ok we understand its just how you are"
you're right, it was a bad source. Here's a better source. Notable to me at least are the lines:
"Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities. 7. In order to carry out their activities to interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation, Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements. "
Deflection to Obama, lol
This is a little complicated. The short answer is he did try to warn states, and importantly wished to sign a bipartisan agreement so that the States and the public could be warned. Unfortunately, Representative McConnell reportedly told Obama to back down, and attempted to turn it into a partisan issue. That is, if Obama came out during the election that states should be wary, Mcconnell could claim it was election interference. Should Obama have still gone ahead and warned states? Yeah, I think so. I think his insistence on compromising was detrimental and set him up to fail at a lot of what he tried to accomplish (Obamacare is a good point for that).
jeez man dont project your anger onto me with your passive aggressive "get that through your thick skull" like you aren't the one linking fox news and quora questions. I never stated that Russia straight up changed votes, nor does the public losing confidence in elections have anything to do with whether or not Russia changed votes.
u ever hear of a RICO case buddy? also man u should really smoke some jazz cabbage i can just picture you with weepinbell face red but with smoke coming out of your ears
when have i personally attacked you? when I inferred u possibly read breitbart? or when i called u a fanatical partisan? if thats your definition of a personal attack then LOL there's so much low hanging rotten fruit that i could be chucking at you
also that article really doesn't, because I wasn't arguing that Trump uses an unsecured device I was arguing that his staff, since the beginning of the presidency, have. Please stay on topic and focus. u wanted to debate but u continually shift the goalposts or deflect from the premise and you cite non-credible sources, if you cite at all.
Dude, I'm so done, you can stop flipping the switch in an attempt to virtue signal. Ok, you cited CBS, The NY Times, and Washington post. Those are better than Fox, I presume? Because they're leftist as all shit and constantly omits facts. Do you see where pulling that argument goes? So, yea, my point stands, you have quite the double standard and you haven't disproven any of it. What I had pertained to the issues at the time outlined them pretty darn well, your sources maybe skinned it at best.
I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of this because it really isn't worth my energy, because your explanations are still extremely faulty. I'd be repeating myself on many of these if I did (like Dinesh D'souza, any of my previous arguments on white privilege, Trump being racist, which there is literally no evidence of), which I really do not feel like doing. I can't force you to agree with me obviously, or at least acknowledge another side, you'd have to make that conscious decision to hear me out, which clearly hasn't been your intent.
Just as a little hint, I wouldn't be angry if you weren't so disrespectful throughout this thread, let alone your last couple replies including this one. You've said some pretty rude shit, and I'm sure you're more than aware of it.
Last edited:
The question I had to ask myself, at least, is when is okay for taxpayer funded fire departments to put out fires, if at all. I came to the conclusion that it's pretty hard to make it ethical; only when there acts of god involved like, say, a freak lightning strikes your homes I consider it so, which is extremely thin ice as is. Lightning strikes probably account for only 1% of all fires, not even exaggerating, the other 99% are because of the very situation I'm about to outline. My personal view is take responsibility for your actions. If your stupid kid sticks a tablecloth in the toaster by accident, or you skimped out on a good electrician then you should have a check in hand or a working credit card before the firefighters enter your house. In short, take responsibility for your actions.
My money should not be paying for putting out someone else's fire. Plain and simple, I think that's fairly Libertarian. If you truly want to get one put out, you should have to pay for it, because most likely, as stated before, you screwed up. I think the using taxpayer money to put out idiot people's fires should be decided by the states as it was before the establishment of the new deal, or federal emergency services for that matter (and before you freak out about that, most people know how to throw a bucket of water at a raging inferno so take a chill fucking pill libtards). So if California taxpayers want to keep up the program, they can, it's their money not the federal government's. If Arkansas doesn't, they have that right. I have read the US constitution in whole so obviously I'm right and you must concede to my superior skills of rhetoric.
My money should not be paying for putting out someone else's fire. Plain and simple, I think that's fairly Libertarian. If you truly want to get one put out, you should have to pay for it, because most likely, as stated before, you screwed up. I think the using taxpayer money to put out idiot people's fires should be decided by the states as it was before the establishment of the new deal, or federal emergency services for that matter (and before you freak out about that, most people know how to throw a bucket of water at a raging inferno so take a chill fucking pill libtards). So if California taxpayers want to keep up the program, they can, it's their money not the federal government's. If Arkansas doesn't, they have that right. I have read the US constitution in whole so obviously I'm right and you must concede to my superior skills of rhetoric.
I gotta pitch you the age-old question mate: if you were in a scenario in which some abortion clinic were on fire and you had the opportunity to rescue either one baby or a container of a dozen viable fetuses (suppose there's some futuristic technology that would enable them to be re-implanted in a surrogate mother), which would you choose? They each represent infinite and unquantifiable potential, yeah?
this is just the trolley problem with a more inflammatory label. next
also i am aware that the point is that it IS the trolley problem, and that the ‘infinite virtue’ thing doesnt add up.
i am also aware that while we may not have the technology in your hypothetical rn, it’s a hypothetical. the point is to make you think, not say it’s moot bc it isnt real. just gonna nip that in the bud.
that being said, don’t be deceptive about the Trolley Problem when u use it. it is what it is, regardless of the lives involved. pulling at heartstrings doesnt change the fact that it is still what it is.
Just because it's the trolley problem doesn't make it wrong or not instructive, though I'm not sure how relevant it is either.
The question of whether or not a fetus is a life or has a soul or any of the other random questions that people get hung up on (and various churches have changed their stances on over the past several centuries) is the fucking stupidest argument you could possibly have. It's kicking around a question that nobody asked and has no relevance to whether or not abortion is what-the-fuck-ever.
The reason those questions don't matter at all is because we as a civilized society have decided that it doesn't matter how much someone medically requires a part of your body, you don't have to give it to them. This means we don't kidnap people to drain their blood when there's a shortage, but this also such a strong concept that it means we even don't harvest their organs after they die unless they explicitly opt-in to that. Given that focus on bodily autonomy, the question of whether or not that blastocyst has a soul or life or brain functions or what-the-fuck-ever is completely irrelevant. The person whose body is on the line to support it gets to decide whether they want to leave their body on the line for the purpose.
Somehow this is literally the only case in our society where that autonomy and choice gets questioned. Probably because the people who would otherwise get to make the choice are women. BTW if you think abortion is murder you should come protest my house, because I refuse to donate blood.
The question of whether or not a fetus is a life or has a soul or any of the other random questions that people get hung up on (and various churches have changed their stances on over the past several centuries) is the fucking stupidest argument you could possibly have. It's kicking around a question that nobody asked and has no relevance to whether or not abortion is what-the-fuck-ever.
The reason those questions don't matter at all is because we as a civilized society have decided that it doesn't matter how much someone medically requires a part of your body, you don't have to give it to them. This means we don't kidnap people to drain their blood when there's a shortage, but this also such a strong concept that it means we even don't harvest their organs after they die unless they explicitly opt-in to that. Given that focus on bodily autonomy, the question of whether or not that blastocyst has a soul or life or brain functions or what-the-fuck-ever is completely irrelevant. The person whose body is on the line to support it gets to decide whether they want to leave their body on the line for the purpose.
Somehow this is literally the only case in our society where that autonomy and choice gets questioned. Probably because the people who would otherwise get to make the choice are women. BTW if you think abortion is murder you should come protest my house, because I refuse to donate blood.
Last edited:
Usually when it's these super grey areas like abortion the precautionary principle always tells you to take the side of caution. For example if you can't be 100% certain if a fetus can feel pain/if it is a life or not you do what's safer and endure the pregnancy. Cuz remember, once a life is lost it's gone forever.
I found it really hilarious that new Zealand and the Swiss went as far to take this principle to ban the boiling of lobsters because there is a chance that they can feel pain.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/switzerland-lobster-boiling-banned/index.html
Also feminists and pro abortionists argue that pro-lifers are basically trying to steal the freedom of choice for women. Unfortunately that's not true. The overwhelming pro-lifers do supports women's rights to choose the following.
1. Choosing to stay abstinent if she is not ready to be a parent
2. If she does choose to engage in sexual activity she has the right to take the proper precaution
3. Also she can easily access birth control. Contraceptives are also sold at an affordable price both in pharmacies and convenient stores.
4. She also has the right to carry a gun or a weapon to protect herself from being a victim of rape.
5. She can also chose to give the child up for adoption or foster care.
If a women bothers to do any of these abortion won't be necessary at all. So doesn't matter to women if roe v wade gets abolished or not.
Prevention > Treatment. Any day of the year.
I found it really hilarious that new Zealand and the Swiss went as far to take this principle to ban the boiling of lobsters because there is a chance that they can feel pain.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/switzerland-lobster-boiling-banned/index.html
Also feminists and pro abortionists argue that pro-lifers are basically trying to steal the freedom of choice for women. Unfortunately that's not true. The overwhelming pro-lifers do supports women's rights to choose the following.
1. Choosing to stay abstinent if she is not ready to be a parent
2. If she does choose to engage in sexual activity she has the right to take the proper precaution
3. Also she can easily access birth control. Contraceptives are also sold at an affordable price both in pharmacies and convenient stores.
4. She also has the right to carry a gun or a weapon to protect herself from being a victim of rape.
5. She can also chose to give the child up for adoption or foster care.
If a women bothers to do any of these abortion won't be necessary at all. So doesn't matter to women if roe v wade gets abolished or not.
Prevention > Treatment. Any day of the year.
Last edited: