Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

forest-spirit said:

Some comedy gold from our friend Ben Shapiro.

And also a great example of how I like interviewers to handle political figures.

When everyone is out to get you, every empire eventually gets cocky and loses battles. What's important is learning from that loss and using it to win the war. There's no doubt he's going to want a round 2 and he's not going to make the same mistake next time. If he doesn't get a round 2, he's going to know and point out they were simply poking the bear.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
LuccaCardoso1 said:
forest-spirit said:

Some comedy gold from our friend Ben Shapiro.

And also a great example of how I like interviewers to handle political figures.

Ben Shapiro is so ignorant and arrogant.

Apparently you don't have to be actually intelligent to be an “intellectual”, you just have to appear intelligent and convinced.

what arguments does he make that you find problematic?



Machiavellian said:
o_O.Q said:

"Maybe if you did not waste your time trying to bring up a subject that has no meaning to the content"

this is literally a discussion about borders, what are you talking about?

"Hell, I just gave an example of doing something outside of the box which I am sure you ignored because it didn't fit your position.  Let me state it again, looking to help our neighbors increase the welfare of their countries probably would benefit more than throwing up a wall or forcing people to make dangerous crossings in the desert."

why couldn't both that and securing the border be done?

why make it into a unilateral thing where its either that borders be secured or aid is given to other countries?

are you aware of how much the us spends on foreign aid btw?

This is where we continue to move away from the article itself.  We will continue to go down the rabbit whole as you try to make a point on something totally different.  As I stated if you really want to discuss this topic, why don't you open a thread on it because the article is about people trying to prevent people from dying.

"I am more than happy to accept anyone who can support their family and increase the welfare of the US."

what about those who cannot? 

"Let me ask you a question, have you ever gone to another country and help build a school, well, housing, roads, bridges you name it.  Well, I have and guess what, I have first hand experience in how such projects changes the people."

you are truly a saint for doing that for people, if i could i would give you a gold star

Nope, not a saint at all but I have definitely lived a life on both ends of the street and know what a hard life can make you do.  I did not do it to be a saint.  I did it to give back to communities after I was able to rise above poverty and live a good life.  I have helped build schools and then see the graduates who were not only able to go to college and get degrees but also come back to their homeland and put back into their community.  It's not about being a saint or anything of the sort, its just a appreciation of people who help me get to where I am at and giving back.

"Laws have come and gone or been changed depending on who is in charge.  The constitution has amendments to update and change it. "

yes but obviously when discussing law we must acknowledge the current state of law

So then how have we come to today with laws being changed and the constitution being amended.  Have people sacrificed their lives to make a difference and a change or did things just change on their own.  If you are going to throw the law into your argument just remember it's a two edged sword which I am sure we will find one you chose to ignore.

it was once within the law to own people and maybe things will revert back to that point again if certain people have their way

the fact of the matter is that the law right now categorises the us as a country without open borders, regardless of whether you want it to be that way or not

Not sure exactly what this sentence means since I already stated my thoughts on the matter.  What I am talking about is people taking a stance to not let people die because others take the law and use it to do so.  There is one thing to lock someone up for entering the country illegally, there is another thinking of ways for them to die or trying to find way to make it happen to enforce a law.  

If you thought a law was unjust are you the person who would sit back and do nothing.  The way you make your statements, it would seem that no matter what law is put into effect, you would just go along with it.

"Just saying "what is Law", "what is in the constitution" what does that actually mean because by itself, it means nothing."

the laws mean nothing because they may change over time?

does this mean you would be ok with me coming into your home and taking your possessions?

My statement is you as a person, do you always just follow the law.  Do you always go the speed limit no matter what.  The point is does "What is Law" only means something as long as it applies to someone else.  If you have broken the law no matter how big or small do not act self rigiouteos throwing that word around because in the end, the majority of the people only care about a law if it's not inconvenient to them.

" Not sure how you came to that conclusion since I gave an answer exactly what I meant but more power to you."

this is how

"Yeah, we should make sure they continue to die in the desert, that will show them."

this implication here to me is that if they are not taken into the country then they will die, is that an unreasonable conclusion to make?

Should I have put the sarcasm tag on that line.

"the article is about people trying to prevent people from dying."

which people? just people in general? or people illegally crossing a border? if its the latter would the discussion not have to in some way address border security?

"Nope, not a saint at all"

you are far too humble, i personally think you should flex a bit, you deserve it

" If you are going to throw the law into your argument"

this discussion is entirely about the law, the law is not a peripheral issue here as you appear to believe

otherwise there would be nothing to discuss since these people would be able to make crossings on proper roadways with proper transportation

they can't for a reason... can you guess why?

"So then how have we come to today with laws being changed and the constitution being amended."

and your argument here is what exactly? that the laws used to secure the borders need to be changed to allow for open borders? can you actually be clear about what your argument here actually is?

"There is one thing to lock someone up for entering the country illegally, there is another thinking of ways for them to die or trying to find way to make it happen to enforce a law.  "

lets say i tell a girl i'll jump down a well if she refuses to sleep with me, if she refuses and i then proceed to break my neck is she at fault?

do you not see that this is pretty much your argument?

no one is forcing these people to walk out into the desert to die, they are choosing to do so

" The way you make your statements, it would seem that no matter what law is put into effect, you would just go along with it."

which law do you disagree with in this context? because if your argument is that anyone should be allowed to enter the country if there is a risk that they may attempt to enter illegally and end up hurting themselves, how is that in any way different to an open border situation?

" There is one thing to lock someone up for entering the country illegally"

would you lock them up with their children or put them in separate cells from their children? i'm digressing here obviously, but i'm just curious

"If you thought a law was unjust are you the person who would sit back and do nothing."

and what do you believe is unjust?

"The point is does "What is Law" only means something as long as it applies to someone else."

lol i just love how despite you stating you are against open borders you're essentially just sliding back on that position

how do you enforce border security without laws? explain this for me

why not just come right out and say you want open borders? no one is going to jump out and bend you over their lap and flog you if you do

disregarding that, why are you against open borders?

"If you have broken the law no matter how big or small do not act self rigiouteos throwing that word around because in the end, the majority of the people only care about a law if it's not inconvenient to them."

again how do you enforce border security without laws?



RolStoppable said:
Machiavellian said:

Should I have put the sarcasm tag on that line.

No, because that would have only meant more work for him if he had to delete more context from your post.

I did no such thing



o_O.Q said:

"Personally, I think in a perfect world, open borders is the only kind of border that makes sense.  "

what about cases where cultures are incompatible?

the us has a vastly different culture to areas in the middle east for example( this is not a value judgement just a fact )

or in this perfect world does everyone all have the same culture, beliefs etc?

I don't believe that "incompatible cultures" exist.  People are individuals, and they tend to morph into the dominant culture.  

Just because certain countries have a different culture, doesn't make it incompatible.  

o_O.Q said:

"If we can improve the lives of people where they are living, they have less incentive to come here.  "

the us spends more than any other country on foreign aid as far as i know

"Spending more" is meaningless.  
Even just "Spending" is meaningless.  If the US was sending trillions of dollars worth of candy to other countries as foreign aid, that would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, yet they could say they spend more.

And even if you're spending more money on the right things, "spending the most" doesn't mean you're spending enough.

o_O.Q said:

the real problem i believe is the government has too much power and so has been allowed for decades to destabalise various regions across the world, which obviously leads to refugees

I don't disagree, but that's not just a product of "big government".  Advocates for small government have just as much pushed for many of the same instigations that caused those types of problems.  

o_O.Q said:

"People shouldn't be dying, because we want to keep them out of the country."

if illegal aliens en masse decide to go on hunger strike because they are not being allowed in, does that mean they should automatically be allowed in ?

Someone choosing to die, is different from helping them die.  

But if someone were at the point where they are choosing to die, chances are probably pretty good that they are in a position where they could qualify for assylum.  



Around the Network
forest-spirit said:

Some comedy gold from our friend Ben Shapiro.

And also a great example of how I like interviewers to handle political figures.

Eh, I generally hate these types of interviews where it's just going over old quotes and trying to make people look bad.  No one gets any more information out of it.  Was there anything gained by trying to undercut a person's message that political anger is a bad thing by the old "hypocrite" cry?

In general, I'm just tired of the whole "owned" culture we've got.



NightlyPoe said:
forest-spirit said:

Some comedy gold from our friend Ben Shapiro.

And also a great example of how I like interviewers to handle political figures.

Eh, I generally hate these types of interviews where it's just going over old quotes and trying to make people look bad.  No one gets any more information out of it.  Was there anything gained by trying to undercut a person's message that political anger is a bad thing by the old "hypocrite" cry?

In general, I'm just tired of the whole "owned" culture we've got.

The interviewer most certainly was using underhanded tactics and clearly thought out the questions and the order in which to ask them, to slowly build up to a climax. You can see it in Ben's face and body language as it goes on. The questions become more and more personal and while he wants to do the right thing by keeping calm, cool and staying focused, he instead get's wound up and doesn't handle it well, being in too deep at that point. Going after Ben for something he's taken the time to reflect on and admit he was incorrect or stupid etc, while publicly posting it so he doesn't have to waste time dealing with it in the future, is something that would surely irk him, which is where he seemed to finally draw the line.

I will say I have to give the interviewer and whoever made and laid out the questions props because they did so very elegantly, from a political point of view, even though it wasn't exactly done in good faith. Another interview with this guy and I think Ben will easily redeem himself without having to stoop to their level.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
NightlyPoe said:

Eh, I generally hate these types of interviews where it's just going over old quotes and trying to make people look bad.  No one gets any more information out of it.  Was there anything gained by trying to undercut a person's message that political anger is a bad thing by the old "hypocrite" cry?

In general, I'm just tired of the whole "owned" culture we've got.

The interviewer most certainly was using underhanded tactics and clearly thought out the questions and the order in which to ask them, to slowly build up to a climax. You can see it in Ben's face and body language as it goes on. The questions become more and more personal and while he wants to do the right thing by keeping calm, cool and staying focused, he instead get's wound up and doesn't handle it well, being in too deep at that point. Going after Ben for something he's taken the time to reflect on and admit he was incorrect or stupid etc, while publicly posting it so he doesn't have to waste time dealing with it in the future, is something that would surely irk him, which is where he seemed to finally draw the line.

I will say I have to give the interviewer and whoever made and laid out the questions props because they did so very elegantly, from a political point of view, even though it wasn't exactly done in good faith. Another interview with this guy and I think Ben will easily redeem himself without having to stoop to their level.

What do you mean from a "political point of view"?



NightlyPoe said:
forest-spirit said:

Some comedy gold from our friend Ben Shapiro.

And also a great example of how I like interviewers to handle political figures.

Eh, I generally hate these types of interviews where it's just going over old quotes and trying to make people look bad.  No one gets any more information out of it.  Was there anything gained by trying to undercut a person's message that political anger is a bad thing by the old "hypocrite" cry?

In general, I'm just tired of the whole "owned" culture we've got.

Im also annoyed with this whole "owned" and "gotcha" culture we have when it comes to debate but imo Shapiro needs to be called out for it. He constantly tries to push this narrative of facts over feeling and civil debate ect while exasperating political divides and not approaching debates on good faith. I mean he sells "leftist tears" mugs, this guy doesn't want to end political toxicity he profits off of it 



the-pi-guy said:

o_O.Q said:

"Personally, I think in a perfect world, open borders is the only kind of border that makes sense.  "

what about cases where cultures are incompatible?

the us has a vastly different culture to areas in the middle east for example( this is not a value judgement just a fact )

or in this perfect world does everyone all have the same culture, beliefs etc?

I don't believe that "incompatible cultures" exist.  People are individuals, and they tend to morph into the dominant culture.  

Just because certain countries have a different culture, doesn't make it incompatible.  

o_O.Q said:

"If we can improve the lives of people where they are living, they have less incentive to come here.  "

the us spends more than any other country on foreign aid as far as i know

"Spending more" is meaningless.  
Even just "Spending" is meaningless.  If the US was sending trillions of dollars worth of candy to other countries as foreign aid, that would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, yet they could say they spend more.

And even if you're spending more money on the right things, "spending the most" doesn't mean you're spending enough.

o_O.Q said:

the real problem i believe is the government has too much power and so has been allowed for decades to destabalise various regions across the world, which obviously leads to refugees

I don't disagree, but that's not just a product of "big government".  Advocates for small government have just as much pushed for many of the same instigations that caused those types of problems.  

o_O.Q said:

"People shouldn't be dying, because we want to keep them out of the country."

if illegal aliens en masse decide to go on hunger strike because they are not being allowed in, does that mean they should automatically be allowed in ?

Someone choosing to die, is different from helping them die.  

But if someone were at the point where they are choosing to die, chances are probably pretty good that they are in a position where they could qualify for assylum.  

"I don't believe that "incompatible cultures" exist.  People are individuals, and they tend to morph into the dominant culture.  "

this is a non-sequitur, people being individuals and adopting a new culture is unrelated to cultures in some instances being incompatible

you aren't acknowledging that sometimes people choose to retain their culture in spite of their environment

and you don't think cultures that for example repress the freedoms of women or collect the heads of outsiders they come into contact with are incompatible with western culture?

""Spending more" is meaningless.  "

well the only other way would be to stop your government from intruding in the affairs of others and how are you going to do that when you want the size of your government to increase?

never mind that with regards to that issue the ship has already sailed

"I don't disagree, but that's not just a product of "big government"."

it is inevitable with big government that has a security apparatus that is not transparent and unaccountable to citizens which has been the case with just about every big government throughout the history of mankind and for some unfathomable reason many people do not seem to understand that

"Advocates for small government have just as much pushed for many of the same instigations that caused those types of problems."

the right wing people who do this are not advocates for smaller government obviously, they are just as confused as the people on the left who claim to want anarchy but are even more authoritarian than hitler

"But if someone were at the point where they are choosing to die"

so if there is a risk of death the borders should be open?