I don't think skin color has anything to do with anything other than as a tool for those who want to wrongly use it. A bigger problem is people pointing to an example like the one we talked about, wrongfully deeming it racist, and then saying people who voted for him are racist. That is exactly what has divided the country.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

The biggest problem is that people voted for Trump: known cheat, liar, and sleazy individual.

And it was sexism that divided this country. The racism came after.

Hey there's a lot of things that you can criticize him for that have some validity. On the other hand you had predator Bill with the chance to go back to the White House along with his wife who tried to ruin victim's lives, among other things. The answer is get better candidates.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Agreed, and agreed.

That’s why I’m all in: Bullock 2020. I even made a campaign contribution. First one ever. And I plan on saying his name a lot more over the coming months because he is the ONLY candidate that currently scares Republican pundits.

Does he have any chance though? Warren, Harris, Biden, and Sanders seem like the clear front runners and they all get a big no from me.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

@cricket: Yes, he does. He has won 3 elections in a red state, he won a lawsuit against the Trump administration, and he expanded healthcare in his state with a Republican majority in his state’s legislature. He latched onto the only true way to beat Trump and that is to show up in places that voted for Trump and listen.

He is the only choice if you’re looking for a candidate that will work across the isle. And he had an outstanding performance at the first debate. Plus, he has hardly any baggage that Trump can use against him. Believe me when I say that the Trump campaign is not going to want to go up against him.

Listening to the public’s problems and making this election about them and not Trump is the only way to win. He’s the only one doing that.

But would you still support him if he wasn't gay? Or is him being gay the big sale for you?

Bullock isn't gay. You're probably thinking of Buttigeg.

Bullock and family
https://stevebullock.com/wp-content/...-2000x1503.jpg

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Oh, that's right, I can't keep their name's straight. I actually like Buttigeg, based on the first two debates. More so for his personality than politics. I haven't delved into their various stances to have much of an opinion though...I'm not really a political person, more of a movie guy!

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

For me it is all about core values right now. We can make this election about Trump and his lack of values, or we can make this election about the people and how they can come together when their values are at odds with each other.

Bullock has me energized in a way that I haven't felt since I was young and dumb and voted for Obama in 2008. I believe that he genuinely cares for the people he is out meeting on the campaign trail, and I plan on supporting him the only way I know how: talk about him a lot.

Cool that you have a candidate that you can get behind. Personally I'm undecided. A big part of the problem for me is I'm 50% card carrying liberal and 50% conservative, so there's never one-size-fits-all candidate for me. I need a Franken-candiate. No I don't mean Al Franken either, I mean a composite candidate that would suit me, you know kinda of like how you can build your own pizza:p

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I don’t vote on party lines. This election it’s going to be a vote for anyone that is not Trump. But I would very much want it to be Bullock. Then I won’t feel bad about voting for a candidate I don’t really want all because they’re just not Trump.

I'm just the opposite. I didn't vote for Trump before but feel I have to now so as not to reward all the race baiting crybabies.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

At the risk of being divisive: good lord :rolleyes:

:p ;)

Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke after these horrible shootings-

"What do you think? You know the sh*t he's been saying. He's been calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. I don't know, like, members of the press, what the f**k? Hold on a second. You know, I—it's these questions that you know the answers to."

It's crazy. I continually hear this narrative from leftists and the media that Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists, or more often just that Mexicans are rapists. How do people with a platform get away with making these false claims? It's like the false narrative around the "there were good people on both sides" quote.

This is exactly what Trump actually said-

“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. […] When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you; they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.”

In the broader context, he was talking about illegal immigrants who come to America and commit crime. More specifically here, he's talking about illegal immigrants who are pushed out of their country by the Mexican government.

Then after these people repeat their false narratives over and over again until many of the sheep believe them, they turn around and say that it's the president who is responsible for these shootings. But who are the people who are really making Trump out to be a racist white supremist? Understandably, Trump rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but he has continually and consistently condemned racism.

people have to start by realizing that someone that does this is also committing a suicide in a way,
and people always argue or say that's based on religion, prejudice or something else,
but in my opinion, that always comes from a defective social structure, a environment,
i mean, in the old days you followed a style, a sub-culture, in britain the skinhead movement,
in america people dressed like elvis, or the punk movement, the hippie movement, i don't know
nowadays the only movement you have are extreme in a way, the vegan, environmental, nationalist...
people want to belong, and nowadays they defend there ideals like there is no other way to go,
some years ago there were many things i couldn't stand, i wanted to fight against, i didn't had a route,
and to be honest, my life could have had a big turn if i had someone holding my hand,
i'd probably do things like this man did, but thank god or someone that i fond something else,
realize something, they want to make you fell what they felt/fell, and they don't give a flying f-word,
they want to be noticed and have an impact, the same as you, i'll leave you my favorite taxi driver line:

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Clinton was a creep, his supporters were delusional

Bush was a dolt, his supporters were yokels

Obama is worshiped by the elite, we hate the elitist worshipers

Trump is worshiped by racists, we hate the racist worshipers

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

@cricket: :nope:

Words have consequences. Let's not try and cherry pick excerpts of excerpts to portray Trump as being misunderstood. He knows what he is saying and he knows the effect it will have and any defense of it is just as culpable as the dude himself.

https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-im...ssing-evidence

Dead wrong. It's the left who is cherry picking, changing what he said, and removing context. The left contends that Trump said Mexicans are rapists. I posted what he really said.

Yes, words have consequences, so if anyone believes that Trump would be responsible for mass shootings, it's more likely that it's those accusers who are. The left continues to lie about what he said, which I've clearly pointed out, and then brand him a racist. Imagine a messed up kid like one of the shooters; maybe he likes Trump just like half the country does. When he watches TV people keep saying that he called Mexicans rapists, so he decides to shoot up a bunch of Mexicans. Do you blame Trump, who never actually said that, or the people who lie and say he did, thus making the messed up kid believe it? Of course, I'm not stupid enough to blame either, but you should understand the point. You do get that people who make some of these claims are either misinformed, stupid, or flat out lying?

So bizzarre I don't even know what to make of it.

Yes, I do agree Trump is misinformed, stupid, and flat out lying.

Please quit grasping at straws. The man has shown his true colors more than a dozen times. And even if I granted your premise, which I do not, do you honestly think any of that language should be said by the President? Do you think any of it is helpful?

Which language? I'm posting what he actually said which the left seems to ignore. Even you came to the conclusion that the "good people on both sides" was not what you thought it was. He has continually spoken about putting America and its citizens first while condemning racism and hate. You think it's helpful for yourself and others to lie about it?

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I live in MA, so who I vote for doesn't ever seem to matter. We always go blue.

To me, Tulsi seems like the only Dem involved in the televised debates that isn't bat ****.

Trump is pretty much a shoe-in for 2020 at this point.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

@cricket: I never came to any such conclusion, and it is all his language. What he “actually said” was horrible, hate filled, and lies. If you support that and think it’s cool for the President to talk that way then carry on but culpability will be shared.

And your argument rests upon the idea that these people are only consuming left wing media, which they are not. So what’s your point? Because all I’m seeing is someone who is trying to defend a racist.

You are saying all his language. You would need to be specific. And what was horrible about what he said? The truth is sometimes horrible, because yes, illegal immigrants sometimes do commit crime. That's not a slur on all immigrants or the country they are from.

Ayanna Pressley is probably the least known member of "the squad" and this is one of the things she has said-

"If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don't want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don't even show up because we need you to represent that voice."

Excuse me? So are all brown faces supposed to have the same voice, and is that voice supposed to differ from black, Muslim, or queer voices? If I were a queer brown face, which voice would I use? Idiots actually cheered this and then turn around and say well Trump is a racist. What if Trump said it, would it then be racist talk? You bet your ass it would be. Isn't queer a slur? I would never call a homosexual a queer, a straight guy sure but that's because I'm an a**hole.

I sometimes wonder if I should even bother voting.

I don't know if she's ready but I like her.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Media definitely to blame for at least some of the misinformation and division out there.

This is kind of unrelated to Trump and your current line of discussion, but I find it interesting.

It's funny, back when I was a raver in the late 90s, the left was super anti-corporate. Most of the people I knew loathed giant corporations like CNN and the like. Now, I see people on the left schilling for Google, CNN, and all the rest. This is one of the many reasons the left has gone completely off the deep end, IMO. I think another Trump victory will be better for them in the long run, as they would (probably) be forced to take down and rebuild their party, hopefully becoming more moderate again, turning back to the days when they fought for the middle class at large, instead of radical fringe groups and radical fringe interests. I have never liked the Dems, but now I REALLY dislike them.

If they allowed more voices like Tulsi's into the fold, my dislike for them would wane a bit, I think.

Meanwhile, back on the media thing: Styx did a video on it earlier today...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyhvm74htmk

To young to be electable, but she gives me hope for that party. Unless the DNC trashes her and tries claiming she is a Russian plant of something.

Oh... ;)

It seems to me that the far left liberals are venturing into fascist territory.

Yet it's the white supremacists who are gunning down innocents in large numbers. But we don't like to talk about that truth. Instead, we call them lone wolfs. Mutha****ers, these wolves run in packs. Let's not be idiots here.

These were lone wolf misfits. That's like saying everyone who's mentally ill are part of the same group, which you are, because they were mentally ill. Did I mention that Trump has continually condemned white supremacists?

You will have to excuse me if I don't believe the condemnations that are coming from a lying, hypocrite. Besides, have you seen the way white supremacists have been talking about those condemnations? It blows right past them because he continues to spew vile hatred, bolstering their cause. They are of the opinion that he is saying those things only because he has to so it doesn't matter to them.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Unless you are Trump. I mean, just look at that waistline. He is definitely having cake and eating it. Lots of it.

They are coming from him and have been since he's been in office. The brainwashed will believe what they want to believe. Remember, I didn't vote for him. I do like to know the truth though.

That's not his fault. It could be yours since you keep calling him a white supremacist and a racist. Maybe they're like you and believe what they want to despite the evidence?

I can't argue with that.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I don't know who the hell I'm voting for yet, but I know it won't be Trump.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

If it was any other group doing these shootings, there would be no mention of "mental health"

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

@cricket: We should probably stop replying to each other in here because I fundamentally disagree with your assessments, and you’re not interested in the truth if you continue to overlook Trump’s rhetoric and/or qualify it. I’m not saying the media isn’t responsible, too. But I am saying delusion is necessary if you believe Trump’s rhetoric is not culpable.

I don’t need a news agency to tell me when my president says something racist and just plain wrong. I listen to the president with my own ears, and I have concluded with my own mind that he is a bitter, old racist.

I give the actual quotes to debunk your theories. You give me the word "rhetoric", which is a very popular word these days with people who can't give specifics.

It wasn't a group that did these shootings. Enough with the identity politics.

If a Muslim did this, you wouldn't hear a single word about "mental health"


Maybe the shooter was radicalized by his priest? (First time that has been said on the internet)

And I thanked you for proving my point, but I’ll say it again: Thanks! :yup:

Which group was that? If we are talking about mass shootings here (specifically, any shooting with four or more victims, which is the official requirement to qualify as such), I think you will find the crimes are committed by a fairly diverse spectrum of people.

If, however, we are talking about which shootings draw the most spectacle and the most controversy, I think when we drill down, we will find a massive disparity in how the larger media corporations handle such crimes.

Here is a quick snapshot of all of the people who qualify as a perp under the above criteria:

https://i.postimg.cc/8zjwMPcx/Shooters-2019.jpg

I would ask that you please elaborate on exactly which group you meant, as it is tough to easily draw a conclusion in that regard using this photo set.

For the record, I only see one group - a group of psychopaths.

But which is it to you? If you believe these individuals were part of a group, you must certainly believe a Muslim committing mass murder in the name of God is as well. In that case, you must have been for Trump's temporary travel ban with the list of countries that Obama put together. At least, I guess, Trump didn't bomb those countries like Obama did. Oh I'm sorry, was that supposed to be another example of Trump's racism?

Dream on my friend

You just don’t like it when I win. :p ;D

I bet you have more in common with Trump than you realize;)

I’m sorry but I don’t dignify FAKE posts with an @ reply. ;)

what people that aren’t from america actually think about america,
i cry laughing when a american says he lives in the greatest country in the world,
they're preventing people from getting in, they might start thinking about when they get out
https://i.imgur.com/HcfyfZt.jpg

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

There's plenty of problems, but the idea that someone can get an accurate snapshot from the stories they hear from overseas--which are by definition going to be the worst--is kinda absurd.

You wouldn't know from the above, for example, that gun violence has been dropping for decades. Because you can't tell that sort of thing in a nation of hundreds of millions of people by the anecdotal evidence of whatever politically charged stories happen to reach you halfway around the world.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I mean, technically it's possible for America to do great things for a very long time and then become a bad (or just mediocre) place to live. There's no inherent contradiction there.

There's a pretty clear contradiction with a lot of the data, however, so it's incumbent on someone who doesn't live here to actually dig into the numbers a little, rather than make some blithe assessment of a place they don't live based on whatever stray news stories they happen to notice.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Is this there a difference between left and right? Trump is such a small part of much bigger problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFL9y1NzvBI

Yeah. Obama was no liberal.. By his own admission, he's a Republican. I remember him saying "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" and then 5 seconds after the conservative Supreme Court made it alright for gays to get married, The White House was covered with rainbow colors. Bailed out Wall Street, fracked, drilled in the arctic, did nothing liberal, not even his right-winged health plan.

Being anti-Trump is not even close to "left".. There is no left-wing in the US.. All those candidates are echoing exactly what Bernie is saying, but they don't believe it. "20 minute" progressives. Even he is centre-left, and he's the most "extreme", so much a Fox audience supported him. Of course, people might say one thing to show how self-reliant they are, while voting another way in the booth. The media has never been worse, and neither have our "leaders" and the people race to the bottom, lowering the standards for any kind of human decency.

I've seen both of these parties completely trade on issues. Republicans used to hate tariffs, and now they hate them. Free trade to fair trade. So of course, the other side has to play the opposite, which is customary, because their own party won't call out their own party unless its expedient to them somehow. Both parties spend endless money on endless wars, don't seem to care about the deficit. Of course, we only hear "How are we gonna pay for that?" when it comes to helping the public.

I think too many don't know a damn thing about politics, and only know what they think they are supposed to say. When I hear people discuss politics, its a cult of personality, not politics. Its a sports match, with everyone thinking the refs are biased.

Remember when Nixon said, "The last thing I'll ever do is recognized Red China?" -- it was! Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, deregulated Wall Street, repealing Glass-Steagull. Obama tried to get the TPP passed (Hillary, too), while the Democrats stood idly until Bernie was against it. If only Trump was against it, then it wouldn't have been good enough. Ralph Nader himself said it would be NAFTA on steroids... I remember him saying "I'm a different kind of Democrat" - yeah, a Republican!


P.S. - "The Russians are coming!" (another switch-a-roo, just like the support for the CIA, FBI, NSA and other alphabet lettered gestapo groups).. I never believed in that horse***** investigation. They're all vying for jobs at Goldman Sachs when they're out of office, or a book deal.

We also bombed the everliving **** out of their civilian population, so it's not like we rode in on white horses carting Hersey's chocolate. Just sayin'

Huh? We specifically didn't do this. We could've bombed like mad from afar and wrecked Europe, but we took the far more costly option (in terms of lives and wealth) of invading and rooting the problem out.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

At least 1 million civilians dead from our strategic bombing campaign.

We primarily targeted major industrial cities, and people work and live in cities.

I’m totally on the go freedom side. But in hindsight we can acknowledge that civilians paid a high price psychologically from seemingly endless bombing campaigns.

Thanks for your last post Matt. It was an interesting read and I can tell you put a lot of thought into it.

I'm curious about your above quote from your post. My question is: What issues would a left wing politician support? and be against? What would their stance be on the current issues that were discussed at the Democratic debates: gun control, immigration, climate change, minimum wages, global trade, health care, abortion rights, civil rights, nuclear proliferation and anything else they talked about.

...out of 40 million total civilian casualties. Scale matters, given the size of the conflict.

I don't know where the "primarily" is coming from. Regardless, as I said before: we lost many, many American lives, and untold amount of money, to specifically avoid bombing Europe mindlessly. We could've done it a lot more and saved those lives, and that money, but we didn't. We paid a higher price to avoid exactly that. But it's still war.

Of course. It was a World War, after all. But in all things, and war in particular, choices have to be judged based on their alternatives.

1 million is still 1 million. I fail to see why scale matters. Primarily because we didn’t actively bomb the countryside except for a few small campaigns. The point remains that we maintained a sustained bombing effort on the pockets of city civilians. This number might have been small but it doesn’t change the fact that we bombed the crap out of civilians.

The first thing I'd mention is the priorities. Anti-war would be at the top of my list. Health care for all. Ending homelessness would be near the top, and I could argue for the other side, "You don't want those bums lowering your property costs". For example, if we guarantee housing for all (as well as the basics I mentioned along with education), we could be do away with a minimum wage. Maybe I'm discussing left-winged populism mixed with my ideas, but I might be considerate a moderate over immigration. There's 330 million people in the US for one, but I've read enough to believe that the wages of the working-class would remain stagnant. Yes, I've read stats that illegal immigrants commit less crime, but there's no record of those who do commit crime. If any one of us breaks the law, we get into trouble. Speaking of which, this for-profit prison system must end (Kamala)..


I also disagree with a few candidates and I'd give even rich people the same benefits. Because the minute someone decides to cut education for all, the rich would be fine anyway. I also think it sets a good example that we want educated people, because no man is an island. K-12 is covered in the US, what's so radical about K-16? Americans will never be able to compete in this global world when all the 1st world countries offer higher education (along with some 2nd world countries). They'd pay higher taxes, and we'd close so many loopholes. I'd also prefer to bail out the public, as opposed to corporate bail-outs.



I hate the idea of nuclear weapons, but those aren't kitchen table issues, and I don't think the world wants to blow it all up - there's no beneficiaries. I support Civil Rights, but I don't support affirmative action anymore. I think it only creates resentment, especially among minority groups within the working-class.



I was very anti-gun living in European countries, Australia, etc., but there are more guns than Americans, and so if one has the idea that everyone is armed, I can see why some would buy a gun, despite not wanting to. I know these mass shootings are horrible, but I wouldn't want some Patriot-Act lite. Especially when they blame mental illness and video games, ruining it for everyone else. As well as a loss of privacy.


When it comes to climate change, I'm mostly interested in clean water and air. I still think people need food before we tackle something like climate change, which would need a lot of cooperation and change, but I think using solar, hydro, windmills would be good, and then use other forms to make up "when the wind doesn't blow" like Trump likes to say. Speaking of Trump, he signed Criminal Justice reform, where Clinton did the opposite with Biden's help, as well as cutting welfare for so many to give that money (small amount) compared to helping big business.

I'm pro-abortion, and I think it shouldn't be an issue. I believe people have a right to their body. Every decision will have its consequences, and they'll have to deal with it.


I was pissed to hear Bill Maher (who I liked in the late 90s) but he's a phony. He actually wished for America to have a recession. "Its worth it", he said, thinking it would help someone beat Trump. Again, out of touch. Maybe HE can afford it, but the working people who are struggling is going to ditch him because of their own personal circumstances.


Unfortunately, so much talk is over issues that affect 1%, not that they aren't important, but when people are dying due to lack of health care, I'll stick with that first. I got so tired of all this toilet talk, but no worries, I'll install 7 toilets in my 500 sq. foot rented house. They KNOW you can't legislate kindness and understanding, so they keep throwing racism and identity politics in general to win over demographics, while doing nothing for them in reality.

I'm also big on Free Speech, and really can't stand all these anti-war voices being shut down, or any dissenting voices on the right. For many reasons. I want to try and understand them, see how their mind works, but its not about me. When you ban someone on Google/YouTube, Facebook, etc., there is no other public square. Millions of people won't even have a chance to judge. You can't have freedom and expect perfection. I also think as a result of all these bans and domain closures, millions of people who identify with the El Paso shooter's philosophy will say "See, they are shutting us down", which might backfire. I'm not as big on isms as I am with results. I don't like group think, and I think we have to do what is best for ourselves and those around us. What worked 50 years ago cannot work today because we lived in a different society. I've heard of automation dividends, and it sounds like a good idea. I also think as a result of this, people would cooperate, maybe have more respect for their fellow man, as blaming each other for the social ills. I also can't stand when partisans cheer certain outcomes because it makes "the other guy" look bad, when in fact, we ALL live in this country, and "bad things" affect everyone.

Thanks for the reply, Matt. I guess I'm confused, as I thought most of the Democratic candidates were left wing, but it sounds like you're saying their not?

I know some of the issues you covered in your post were also endorsed by some of the Dem candidates in the first two debates. At least it sounded like they endorsed them, it's kind of hard to tell with only 3 minute sound bites of air time.

All the Dems said they were for that (I think?), but as far as I remember only Bernie and Elizabeth Warren wanted to replace privatized health care plans with Medicare. Which some call socialized medicine, do you support Bernie's and Warren's plan?

Is that a left wing issue? I would guess everyone wants to end homelessness, albeit with very different plans. Have you heard of a plan/policy that you endorse on homelessness?

Can you expand on that? Or if not, which of the candidates positions do you agree most with? (if any)

I know Bernie Sanders endorsed that, do you know if any of the other candidates did?

That would make you a conservative on that one issue, wouldn't? Did any of the Dem candidates have a similar view as you on affirmative action?

That sounds like your moderate on gun control. I wonder how much of a factor gun control issues will be in the campaigns?

That sounds like you're conservative on climate change. I noticed some of the Democratic candidates like Buttigieg made the threat of global climate change paramount to their platforms.

I hate to say this but I don't even know what the Criminal Justice reform was about?

I think Dem candidates are universal on pro abortion, aren't they? I think that will be a hot topic when it comes down to the final debates between the Dem and GOP debates.

I like a lot of what you say, but I'm curious about some things.

Isn't it impossible for illegal immigrants to commit less crime, seeing that being in the country illegally is a crime itself? Not trying to justify any laws, but laws do need to be respected and enforced.

A bail out for the public sounds nice, but isn't it more important to protect those who provide the jobs?

You seem to have a thing about mental illness getting blamed for some of these crimes. I don't like to think of it as blame but rather finding a reason why it happened. I think all of these mass shooters must be imbalanced to some extent.

Bill Maher is a jackass just like anyone who wants Trump to fail. We should all want any president to succeed because that's what's best for our country.

How could you not? If the conflict is larger, being involved at all will lead to a larger number of potential casualties, even if great pains are taken to reduce them, relative to a smaller conflict. This is perfectly self-evident, and I'm not sure what part is even supposed to be arguable.

Aye, that point remains because it is not under dispute. And it's not under dispute because it does not conflict with the idea that we actually engaged in massive national sacrifice to reduce civilian casualties. Relative to what was possible while still actually, ya' know, defeating the Nazis, that is.

Sadly, this is the kind of thing that happens when Nazis take over cities full of civilians. So unless it'd have been better to let them have it, I think we have a standard "lesser of two evils" kind of situation. Sadly common with many military actions, but any serious critique of those actions has to be compared to alternatives.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

America bombs civilians. It’s what we do.

I think that mental health has made great strides to progress to where we are today, but we still need more progress. That said I am concerned when people talk about mass shootings and mental health as a correlation issue. (I’m not saying that’s what you’re saying, tho) But when the media and people do tie those two together it undoes progress made by so many to get mental health out of the dark. I definitely think it makes talking about mental health more difficult.

I don't think most people are trying to be insensitive, but these people can't be mentally stable, can they? It also paints a more sympathetic picture of the perpetrator.

Not when the ultra humane Trump rules the roost.

Actually I would say that, by and large, mass shooters are not mentally unstable, but it does depend on the type of shooting. I would say mental instability is less of a factor than the others: radicalization, isolation, and unfettered access to firearms.

You're right there. But he wants to outsource our weaponry to nations with anti-human rights, so I’m against that. ;)

But on a serious note I’m not in favor of selling any of our weaponry to anyone.

1. i can't make my mind that under nazi control we wouldn't be so different from today, i also blame america for that
2. i didn't really need anyone during the ww2, since i'm from portugal we were independent, and because of that independence we were the safest place for jews to arrive, and we saved millions of them, thanks to that our people starved
3. if you go to any european country they'll never say you're anti-(some country) for criticizing some aspect related to that or other country, only in totalitarian countries that idea is applied, like america, you get called anti-american for criticizing something. they've infected there population with a false patriotism and the necessary violence to pillage everyone they please around the globe
4. america didn't grant any freedom to any country on earth, especially there own, do you think we're free? they created a false freedom flag to pillage and destroy nations, and they keep on doing it, and you believe them

now, i like america, is a love and hate, i like the creativity american minorities had,
especially in music, i like the architecture of the rough areas, i like the influences there,
i like some of the mentality, is also a place where most of the movements are born

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

A considerable portion of other countries believe if ever attacked it will be by the US. That really makes me sad.

I believe those laws should be respected, and I don't favor it being a civil offense. If you or I break the law, we have to pay for it. I've been around many borders, and I actually met a few smuggling other people in Greece, and for them it was just a job, but I don't think they should have one. Then again, if corporations were REALLY penalized, border crossings would go down. Big industry likes cheap labor. I think we can pick our own fruit (but of course the wages will have to go up). I worked on a tomato farm in Australia, while everyone else was doing it to get a 2nd work holiday visa (one year) as long as they didn't get in trouble. I think a majority of illegal immigration are overstays.



I don't think much can be done about gun violence but I think banning assault weapons can help. Maybe even have anonymous buy-back programs. The cops in Dayton had hand-guns, which can't compete with an AK-47, or an AR-46, etc... I don't think it takes much time to figure out people have problems. I think there's a lot of mentally ill people, and I do blame technology for dehumanizing society, but its still no excuse. I don't want another Patriot Act, either.








All these candidates (except Bernie) were all against this for 99% of their career. They saw Hillary didn't win, they saw the energy with Bernie, so they just played copy-cat, with a few minor tweaks so it wasn't too obvious (it still is)... I would support Bernie and Warren's plan on health care.


The candidates now are talking reparations, but that had never been mentioned until now. I am not in favor of reparations. I prefer doing something for "the public", and they can expedite and allocate money for poor sections of town, which would help minorities the most, without framing it that way - you don't want 80% of the country feeling like they've been left out, causing resentment between poor whites and poor black/browns. They're playing extreme to their base, and then they'll fly to the center for the general election - happens every time.


As for homelessness, building single-unit housing in a facility would help all around the country, as opposed to these tent cities.


As for the environment, there are cities like Flint with bad water. I'm sure some people fear more regulation might cost them their job, and I don't blame them. They don't have 12 years to wait on for food, but again, if we didn't cut food stamps (which I think is cruel), we could proceed with more robust change.


Trump signed law which let out over 3,000 people for non-violent crimes, as well as reversals or time shortened for those serving because of crack convictions. I remember W. saying how the disparity between smoked and snorted cocaine "Wasn't fair".. I know good behavior was another way they could shorten sentences, and there is funding for programs to get them assimilated back into society. Abortion is the only thing both parties are regularly consistent on.

This is glib, reductive, and doesn't respond to anything I said.

If you don't want to discuss this stuff in depth, whatever, but you keep tossing out loaded accusations and claims and then show little to no interest in defending them at any length. Not cool. I've only got so many hours in the day and I'd like to know before I sit down to respond seriously that the other person's just going to deflect it.

I think so, too, but probably for a different reason.

A lot of the world has a warped view of America that's sometimes blatantly at odds with even basic facts, as we're seeing evidence of right in this thread.

In terms of population, sure, but that's horrendously misleading because American military might is (and was) disproportionately built on technology. It also ignores the fact that most of those little dinosaurs were defending their own doorstep, and the American T-Rex crossed an ocean to support it.

What? :confused:

yes, they crossed the ocean for the last day and made movies about it

america bullying every single country to get there resources, there 1% owns almost everything,
the ones they don't own are pretty much the same or worse,
russia is a oligarchy, there head is a psychopathic ex- kgb where everything is based on corruption
china doesn't know what human rights are, everyone controlled working for some to buy iphones

i think it's like in this scene from the movie stroszek that i love very much
https://youtu.be/n6N2UmofiEw?t=65

First: you think Normandy was like "the last day"? Seriously? :skeptical:

Second: note you didn't respond to either point I made (about the fact that it wasn't our fight, and the distinction between population and actual contribution to the war effort itself).

This is just straight-up false, but I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge the misrepresentations about gun violence, so I'm not sure how much I should bother expounding here. Between those claims and these, it feels quite clear to me that you've formed a hasty opinion of America, again, based on whatever stray news stories happen to reach you. That's not a good way to form an impression (let alone a condemnation!) of any nation, let alone one of this size.

Even if this were true (and again, it demonstrably isn't), the idea that this is as bad as being ruled by Nazis is pretty out there. I hope you don't sincerely believe that, but if you do, tell me now so I know not to waste any more time on this conversation.

I don't need to defend my "loaded accusations and claims". History defends them.

Besides, when have I ever done anything other than glib and reductive? This isn't rocket science.

Just saying "history defends them" is not defending them, since anyone can say that sans elaboration. Ditto for the "you proved my point" refrains without ever articulating how your point was proven.

There's really no point in replying if you're just going to deflect stuff. I think you know that. And I don't think you'd like it if everyone responded to your arguments like this, either.

"I've always been this way" isn't a defense of any type of behavior. It's also not true. We used to have lots of thorough and substantive discussions, even when we disagreed.

I just don't have the time to hold anyone's hand and walk them through a close reading of the material they post. But if it proves my point I will gladly shake their hand, say thanks, and carry on. This is how I exercise my first amendment rights: politely. :yup:

Sure, topics with complex ideas and lots of gray area, whereas this was self-evident.

C'mon. If you have time to contradict them five times, you have time to respond in a little more detail one time. This isn't a time thing. You just don't want to.

I don't think saying an incendiary thing and then refusing to meaningfully engage with people who question it is polite at all. I certainly appreciate that you're at least polite in the superficial sense of not saying overtly hostile things much, but that's a really low bar to clear.

So, your claim is simultaneously simple and self-evident, but also requires a lot of time and a "close reading of the material" to demonstrate? :confused:

Seems pretty out there, regardless, to suggest that the rules of engagement in war are not a "complex idea" with "lots of gray area." They're kinda the first topic I'd file under those headings.

Yeah, because I don't want to take the time to respond in a little more detail. Responding in detail essentially means I am telling someone they can't read and then breaking down whatever they posted to show them how they don't understand it. That's just rude.

See my above. I can either, in a largely pompous way, insult someone's intelligence and explain things to them like a student. Or I can just post what I think and the other person can do with that as they will.

No, one claim required a close reading and another claim was simple and self-evident. Not all claims are equal.

Precisely my point. You're willing to expend more time saying you don't want to do it (and to deflect questions about it) than you would spend with a substantive reply. Every round we go on this only underscores the point.

This is literally exactly what you already did with cricket, and what you're doing with me right now, though! Saying "this proves my point" again after someone has said they don't see how carries the exact implication above. Ditto when you your point is "self-evident" when I've told you I don't see how it is.

Your position is that there's no middle ground between being pompous and just straight-up stonewalling?

In that case, you're using the excuse for not responding in one case to explain another where it isn't applicable. If the military thing is "simple and self-evident," why aren't we talking about it right now?

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

We are not talking about it BECAUSE it is simple and self-evident. I thought that would have been clear by now.

Unless you think you should have the power to simply declare something to be so, and henceforth be immune to questioning about it, that obviously isn't gonna fly. And it's a lot more "rude" than deigning to explain yourself. Which, by the way, I was perfectly happy to do with my position (note how little time it takes when a position really is self-evident):

I don't know if you feel having to explain yourself is somehow beneath you, or what, but whatever you think, it should be obvious that just repeating an assertion over and over really is a waste of time.

If the person you're talking to isn't worth explaining yourself to, they're not worth contradicting either.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

@Yoda: It takes zero time. That’s sorta the point in it being self-evident.

But this really all comes back to whether or not you think bombing civilians is a good thing if it allows for a certain outcome, and you obviously do. I take the stance that bombing civilians is bad. Always has been and always will be.

Now, once again, how was I wrong? Have we ever not bombed civilians? Discuss.

Given the alternatives, yes. Evil men occasionally create situations where they will inflict death and suffering if they are not stopped, and where stopping them will incur casualties. This forces good people to engage in difficult, disturbing moral calculus to try to minimize these things.

It's obviously "bad" in the sense of "not a good thing in and of itself," and no serious person would disagree. But that's not under dispute. What's under dispute is whether it's always bad, on net. Is that your position? That no action which leads to a single civilian death is ever justified?

Keep in mind that you haven't simply taken this position; you've taken the position that it's obvious, and not only that, but so obvious that you shouldn't have to explain why it's obvious. Which is quite a heady claim for something like the rules of engagement and international conventions of war, which have been debated among the nations as long as there have been nations.

The idea that the U.S. indiscriminately or carelessly bombed civilians is wrong. The country went to tremendous lengths and engaged in considerable self-sacrifice to reduce casualties. It's probably plausible to critique the war effort at any number of points, simply because that's the nature of war, but the issue was seriously considered, led to substantial changes in the war, and came at tremendous cost.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

@Yoda: Ok, now I know why you’re getting so bent out of shape. You thought this was some elaborate discussion about the finer points of warfare and the merits of it, which it is not.

What we are actually discussing is how you were wrong and I was right. I said we bombed the crap out of civilians, and then you refuted said fact. Now you have acknowledged said fact. Everything on MoFo does not need a 16 page treatise on the subtleties of grayness.

You were wrong. We bombed civilians. It’s cool if you want to get into a discussion about the merits of said bombing, but I suggest you pick someone who actually wants to have that conversation before flying off the cuff at someone for stating a fact.

:cool:

Hmmm. I just don't think i have the energy to really go down this rabbit hole with you. I'm just gonna say this. We could stop dropping bombs tomorrow. Its still an option we've really never tried.

I would like to go back to something tho if you get time. Earlier in this thread i think you mentioned that shootings are going down? Maybe I misunderstood. Or was it gun violence in general? Anyway, can I ask how you came to that?

Sorry, but that's a clear misrepresentation. Even in your summary just now you start with "I said we bombed the crap out of civilians" (true!) and then pretend the claim was just "we bombed civilians." Those aren't the same thing. The latter was never under dispute, and I never "refuted said fact." I only took issue with the idea that we did it a lot, or excessively, or whatever you meant by "bombed the everliving **** out of" (that was the actual quote).

It went like this:

You did not reply to say "yeah, well, civilians were bombed and that's bad." You specifically argued with the part about scale:

I didn't dispute any fact that I'm now acknowledging, and you did not merely take the position that civilians died. I obviously wouldn't argue with that. Nobody would.

I'm not sure if this is true; lots of military action doesn't involve bombs. Unless you mean refusing to use bombs, for any reason, for an extended period of time? If so, that seems like a tricky thing to commit to given how many rogue actors have bombs. And I think "bombs are bad" is a pretty reasonable starting place, but it ultimately has to grapple with that reality and incorporate it somehow to be a workable political position, in the same way crime policy has to incorporate the fact that people are gonna do some heinous stuff to each other sometimes.

It was homicides by firearm. It was cut in half from 1993 to 2013. IIRC it ticked up in the last year or two (I'd have to check to confirm), but it's still much, much lower overall.

Violent crime in general has been declining for decades. Kinda makes you wonder why it seems like the opposite from the coverage, eh? A question that folds neatly into what I was saying earlier about coming to conclusions from anecdotal news stories and the like. There's so much going on in the world that it's far too easy to create totally opposite impressions based on what gets talked about...

I love it.

https://i.giphy.com/media/ha4i0n9lKx0t2/giphy.gif

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Yeah, I worried I'd get another flippant, non-explanatory response like this.

Look at the bits I quoted. That's what was actually said. If you wanna show me where I disputed the "civilians were bombed" part (who in their right mind would dispute that?), go ahead.

What type of condiments would you like whilst you eat your foot? I especially loved how you italicized didn’t. :)

And then you turned the last two pages into an elaborate word game so you wouldn’t have to admit your mistake. Well sir, you should know that I no longer play that game, so you should keep that in mind when you reply to me.

You conveniently omitted the thing I was replying to. Here's the whole exchange:

The "this" is not "bombed" but "bombed the everliving *** out of," since that's what you, ya' know, actually said.

This isn't really ambiguous, but even if you want to pretend it was, it sure wasn't for long, since we immediately started arguing about the scale anyway, and you denied it even mattered (a clearly untenable position that still hasn't really been addressed).

And really, step back for a second and think about what you're claiming. You're claiming that I disputed the idea that any of our bombs killed any civilians in WW2? Come on.

I think you'll find discussions resemble "elaborate word games" a lot more often when someone's stonewalling and trying to make the conversation about itself, rather than simply address each claim in turn.

Really depressed with how this conversation has gone. Not only because of the lack of substance, and the revisionism, but also because of the spiteful little premature victory dances. It's unreasonable and uncharitable, too, and if this is what you think discussions should be these days, I'm not interested.

Don't refute facts then. Don't twist conversations into a discussion about something entirely else so as to avoid admitting errors from flying off the cuff.

When there is room for gray we will dance the dance of a thousand words, but this is what you will get when you come at me because I state a fact in a way that damages your view of the world and your place in it.

'Nuff said. :highfive:

Yeah, I didn't, as I literally just showed you. And it's an absurd suggestion, as I pointed out here:

You acknowledge this is your position, yes? Would like to hear you actually say so, since at that point the whole thing will speak for itself. And it'll speak for itself if for some reason you don't want to acknowledge it, too.

I almost never see any outward support for Trump here in Massachusetts, but I saw this today right as I crossed the border into New Hampshire-



A pretty cool riff on what Rashida Tlaib said, I thought.

No, that was your initial position. Then you side stepped to “well, we didn’t kill a lot”.

No, it really wasn't. You're hinging this whole thing, two pages of pointless runarounds and face-saving, on me saying the word "this" and you assuming (why?) it referred to one word of the quote as opposed to the entire phrase.

But again, just to be clear: your claim is that I actually somehow thought no civilians were killed by our bombs in WW2? That's what you're going with?