By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jason1637 on 20 June 2019

So the Oregon state GOP senators are leaving the states to prevent a debate with Democratic senators pertaining to climate change. They're also threatening to shoot the police if they get involved.



Around the Network
sundin13 on 20 June 2019
jason1637 said:

1. They might have an impact but i'm doubtful that it would be a meaningful impact. The majority of suicides don't happen with a gun anyway and those that truly want to end their lives can and will find other ways to do so.

2. Source? Also were those people doing anything wrong? Because you have a gun and got shot by a cop does not mean that you were doing anything bad.

3. Car accidents don't happen if there are no cars. Home burning accidents dont happen if there are no stoves and microwaves. Knife accidents don't happen if there are no knives. That argument is implying that to stop accidents you just ban the cause which imo is not a good solution.

4) Looking at your third edit the inconsistency with the numbers might come from you and the guy that made the post using sources relating to different years.

1) Your doubt is not a valid counterargument, and it seems to be based on a fundamental misconception. Suicide is not often the end result of a long and careful deliberation through which an individual decides rationally that they would rather be dead. It is often impulsive and immediate, which means that avoiding that initial impulse does save lives. About 90% of individuals who attempt suicide and survive do not die by suicide. That means if we shift suicide attempts from one of the most immediate and effective methods (ie firearms), many of those individuals will either not attempt suicide (due to not having the means to attempt suicide in a manner they are comfortable with) or survive the suicide attempt.

2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/?utm_term=.b6aa56c75d0f

3) You seem to be moving the goalposts. The initial argument I am rebutting is the idea that accidents should not be factored into the conversation on gun control. This point makes no sense, and saying that houses also burn down is not an applicable argument as it has no bearing on this discussion. That said, it is also a pretty poor comparison. How many people do you think would die from inadequate shelter if we removed housing?

4) You seem to have missed my point. I am not accusing the OP of lying about the statistics, I am accusing him of using the statistics to lie. Basically, he seems to have cherry picked data from the years and sources which would furthest skew the data in order to draw a misleading conclusion. His numbers are accurate, but the fact that almost every number he picked seems to be well above the statistics for the year he set as a baseline is fundamentally troubling and it implies dishonestly on the part of the OP.

Overall this reddit post was quite poor. It fails at making its central argument and manipulates data in deceitful ways to render its conclusions.

EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

First of all, of course it would make a difference.

Second of all, if not constantly lying through your ass is considered a quality of a "Democrat like President", I think you've got some big problems on the right...

And all this macho "he's just sticking up for himself and fighting the good fight" stuff is nonsense. Again, Trump doesn't get to play the fragile child while being incredibly incendiary. He gives up his right to play the "righteous indignation" card when he stokes shit every chance he gets and abandoned a moral platform on day zero.

These are nothing but shallow excuses and its incredibly transparent.

You still haven't answered the question by chance, so I can still only assume...

I answered your question in my first sentence...

Like...what?



EricHiggin on 20 June 2019
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

You still haven't answered the question by chance, so I can still only assume...

I answered your question in my first sentence...

Like...what?

No.

Hopefully that answers your question and you don't need to ask me to explain myself, since the answer just may happen to be useless otherwise based on the question and/or point being made...



EricHiggin on 20 June 2019
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

So everyone who has clout in the world who tweets something they shouldn't have, or misspells, is an idiot and disrespectful? Got it.

Yes, they are.  People every day get fired over tweets.  There is a story were a bunch of cops got put on leave over tweets.  Any person who are on the level of the President who communicates to the public who doesn't take the time to vet what they say would be considered an idiot if they have bad grammar and spelling errors all the time.  If the same person also shows their ignorance with misstatements incorrect information or just blatant lies then they would be considered an idiot.

Seen as relatable to the average joe which is what made him the Prez, so why would he change?

Yeah, why would he change if sounding and acting like an idiot was what he and you thought was the reason he became President I guess he would not change.  Lets see if this is actually true come the next election.

When was the last time America has implemented something or started an actual war through Twitter?

Not sure what you are talking about.  There has never been another President or even in a person in position of power that use Twitter like Trump. None have presented Policy through Twitter or diplomacy.  No other President would be that stupid and many international and national people has chastised Trump for doing so.  Even if another President would use Twitter for policy and diplomacy they probably would be smart enough to vet it first not throw out the random idiotic tweets making themselves look stupid.  Also if you are talking to the world and diplomatic entities, you would think the President to the US would take the time to correct his grammar and spelling.

How many people joined the administration and left on their own accord very quickly? 

Quickly, in one year, in 2 years, fired you name it who cares.  At the end of the day, some of Trump most trusted people are getting the hell out.  We can setup a thread on this topic along that would be fun. 

Why hasn't anyone who's stayed been able to manipulate him into correctly using Twitter?

Sorry but this is a dumb question, what does twitter have anything to do with someone manipulating Trump.  The 2 are not married together.  Who says anyone who does manipulate Trump cares about how he uses Twitter.

No, I'm saying if Trump changing who he is won't change his opposition, then why should he change? In fact, if he did change to try and fit their ideal Prez, knowing they wouldn't change anyway, it would guarantee a single term and that's it.

You asked what I was saying, and then ended with "do you even hear yourself", based on what you perceived my points to mean, without knowing my response. I was told something about assuming not to long ago...

No what you are saying is that Trump should stay the incompetent real estate TV personality who lies every chance he gets instead of evolving into a proper leader of the country.  Who cares if Trump changes his opposition, people would just like for him to to not sound and act like an idiot every chance he gets.  Would it be so much trouble for him to take the time to check his spelling and grammar when communicating to the public and the world.  Would it be so much trouble for him to take the time to check his information before throwing out some random dumb opinion he has to take back because it was stupid.  

If Changing to you mean that Trump actually do what pretty much ever half decent competent leader does then I guess that is to much to ask.

You are correct, Trump should never change, never grow into the roll of being President of the United States but continue to be the total griefer he was and still is.  He should continue to lie every chance he gets, say and do dumb stuff to embarrass the US and show the complete ignorance of the office and how it works.  One thing for sure, you do not have to worry about Trump changing any of his current flaws or behavior.  He wallows in it and you accept it like a prize bull.

I am not assuming and never used the word if you noticed.  
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

My fav part of this conversation was trying to put conservatives and safe spaces together when it comes to words. That's like trying to put Trump and widely adored together when it comes to the msm. I would've agreed if something physical like guns or bunkers were part of the explanation.

Well I can't be back if I never left, yet I can be forward if I'm always right.

Your lack of concern and second effort when it comes my feelings is quite unexpected. Is this where I assume racism or bigotry?

You see, I told you I can make you happy.  You are back to the term conservatives and I was just talking about Ben, nothing political, just Ben but as always you cannot separate the person from their political lean.

Assumption is as the term says is when you make an Ass out of u and me.

Sticks and stones, moving goalposts, and dumb queries leading to dumber negation.

When you let people show you who they are, instead of assuming, you should believe them.

Care to take a crack at my next reply for me since you're so in tune with the things I'm saying that I haven't (yet) said?



EricHiggin on 20 June 2019
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

He does get a pass to a degree because of the fact you won't talk about whether or not a change in his tone or "care" in his messages will make a difference, since for the most part it likely won't. Why should Trump act the way some of his critics think he should, if those critics wouldn't change even if Trump did? There are times when the msm or his opposition start something, and lie about him, and yet some people turn a blind eye to it. I don't like it when he clearly lies, but if him telling the truth won't change the lies told about him, why should he change if his opposition won't? Putting up the white flag knowing the enemy is just going to walk up and stab you anyway would be beyond pathetic and un-American.

>Why should Trump act the way some of his critics think he should, if those critics wouldn't change even if Trump did?

If Trump changed, then his critics would also change.  

At minimum they'd find something else to criticize.  There's pretty much always something to criticize about people.  I even criticize Bernie for some things.  

>There are times when the msm or his opposition start something, and lie about him, and yet some people turn a blind eye to it. 

What did the "MSM" lie about?

You don't know that for sure, yet while unlikely, it's possible maybe. However, as you mentioned, he's likely to get very similar if not close to the same negativity consistently thrown his way. So why change if overall, nothing changes? The one thing that could get Trump to attempt changing would be to 'offer' slightly more positive viewpoints of him. That's not to say his opposition should completely change and only praise him, that would be just as bad, but if you want something from someone, you've got to be able to give as well, and neither side seems to be willing to budge. So why should or would either change?

This is too perfect. While there's a tonne of examples, my fav was when Trump met Japanese PM Abe for the first time and fed the fish. On that day, the msm was saying Trump had disgraced the PM and the Japanese people because this was some special ceremony and he just dumped his fish food into the pond like he didn't give a crap. The video had been clipped so that you didn't see Abe dump his first and then Trump followed.

Here is the CNN write up about it, but wouldn't you know it, they wen't back and 'updated' it so it tells the truth now. The video looks to be the same as what Fox News was showing which is from an entirely different angle, showing them from head on instead of side by side like before.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond-japan/index.html

Here is a couple short vids explaining what really happened. The second one has an extra portion showing omitted audio from another story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8WBcPX257o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwfY80M1NY

When they're willing to lie about something as minor as feeding the fish at a ceremony, what aren't they willing to lie about?



Around the Network
EricHiggin on 20 June 2019
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

You don't know that for sure, yet while unlikely, it's possible maybe. However, as you mentioned, he's likely to get very similar if not close to the same negativity consistently thrown his way. So why change if overall, nothing changes? The one thing that could get Trump to attempt changing would be to 'offer' slightly more positive viewpoints of him. That's not to say his opposition should completely change and only praise him, that would be just as bad, but if you want something from someone, you've got to be able to give as well, and neither side seems to be willing to budge. So why should or would either change?

This is too perfect. While there's a tonne of examples, my fav was when Trump met Japanese PM Abe for the first time and fed the fish. On that day, the msm was saying Trump had disgraced the PM and the Japanese people because this was some special ceremony and he just dumped his fish food into the pond like he didn't give a crap. The video had been clipped so that you didn't see Abe dump his first and then Trump followed.

Here is the CNN write up about it, but wouldn't you know it, they wen't back and 'updated' it so it tells the truth now. The video looks to be the same as what Fox News was showing which is from an entirely different angle, showing them from head on instead of side by side like before.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond-japan/index.html

Here is a couple short vids explaining what really happened. The second one has an extra portion showing omitted audio from another story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8WBcPX257o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwfY80M1NY

When they're willing to lie about something as minor as feeding the fish at a ceremony, what aren't they willing to lie about?

>Here is the CNN write up about it, but wouldn't you know it, they wen't back and 'updated' it so it tells the truth now. The video looks to be the same as what Fox News was showing which is from an entirely different angle, showing them from head on instead of side by side like before.

It was updated within a few hours at most of the original post.  Perhaps even quicker than that.  

The difficult thing is that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between an intentional lie and an honest mistake.  I've seen plenty of similar media disseminations (where a false narrative gets spread quickly) that have nothing to do with the prejudices of the writer (and the story had nothing to do with politics or anything to do with anything controversial), but due to an honest mistake.  

And yes, you would know it, because it literally has the "updated" tag with a time stamp.  

> you've got to be able to give as well, and neither side seems to be willing to budge

On the contrary democrats have budged a lot.  

Well I didn't look at the date and time I just noticed it said updated. Which makes me really wonder, because I've mentioned this before in a post way back and I'm pretty sure I linked the clipped vid, and it was well after the story had mostly blown over, like a day or more after, so how they changed it before that point I don't know. Unless they had another page or separate article with the old story and old video, which really makes you wonder why they wouldn't have taken it down immediately if they had put the true story and vid up.

In this case, there is little question. How do you clip a vid like this, write a false article about it, and cover it during the day on TV by mistake, on multiple stations?

On the contrary, cons/right don't seem to think so.



Machiavellian on 21 June 2019
EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

No what you are saying is that Trump should stay the incompetent real estate TV personality who lies every chance he gets instead of evolving into a proper leader of the country.  Who cares if Trump changes his opposition, people would just like for him to to not sound and act like an idiot every chance he gets.  Would it be so much trouble for him to take the time to check his spelling and grammar when communicating to the public and the world.  Would it be so much trouble for him to take the time to check his information before throwing out some random dumb opinion he has to take back because it was stupid.  

If Changing to you mean that Trump actually do what pretty much ever half decent competent leader does then I guess that is to much to ask.

You are correct, Trump should never change, never grow into the roll of being President of the United States but continue to be the total griefer he was and still is.  He should continue to lie every chance he gets, say and do dumb stuff to embarrass the US and show the complete ignorance of the office and how it works.  One thing for sure, you do not have to worry about Trump changing any of his current flaws or behavior.  He wallows in it and you accept it like a prize bull.

I am not assuming and never used the word if you noticed.  
Machiavellian said:

You see, I told you I can make you happy.  You are back to the term conservatives and I was just talking about Ben, nothing political, just Ben but as always you cannot separate the person from their political lean.

Assumption is as the term says is when you make an Ass out of u and me.

Sticks and stones, moving goalposts, and dumb queries leading to dumber negation.

When you let people show you who they are, instead of assuming, you should believe them.

Care to take a crack at my next reply for me since you're so in tune with the things I'm saying that I haven't (yet) said?

Lol, I guess you had nothing.  Next topic.  Try to do better in defense of stupidity.  I mean if you are going to defend ever dumb thing Trump does, you better make stronger arguments.  The BS of trying to blame others for Trump incompetence ring very hollow.  Trying to blame Dems for Trump communicating like an idiot really isn't cutting it.  Believing the common people elected Trump because of his lies, poor grammar, spelling and idiotic statements is a truly lol moment.  I am guessing as long as you can find someone else to blame for Trump incompetence, it will always be rainbows and unicorn farts to power his administration forever.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 21 June 2019

Dark_Lord_2008 on 21 June 2019

Possibly heading towards a war on Iran. US secures Iranian oil supplies and great for American economy and large multinational corporations. Liberate Iran for its oil and install puppet government controlled by the US. Americans love seeing US troops liberate another country and remove corrupt government and install a friendly US controlled puppet government. Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated and have vibrant democracies where people now live great lives.



jason1637 on 21 June 2019


Damn that was close.



jason1637 on 21 June 2019
sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

1. They might have an impact but i'm doubtful that it would be a meaningful impact. The majority of suicides don't happen with a gun anyway and those that truly want to end their lives can and will find other ways to do so.

2. Source? Also were those people doing anything wrong? Because you have a gun and got shot by a cop does not mean that you were doing anything bad.

3. Car accidents don't happen if there are no cars. Home burning accidents dont happen if there are no stoves and microwaves. Knife accidents don't happen if there are no knives. That argument is implying that to stop accidents you just ban the cause which imo is not a good solution.

4) Looking at your third edit the inconsistency with the numbers might come from you and the guy that made the post using sources relating to different years.

1) Your doubt is not a valid counterargument, and it seems to be based on a fundamental misconception. Suicide is not often the end result of a long and careful deliberation through which an individual decides rationally that they would rather be dead. It is often impulsive and immediate, which means that avoiding that initial impulse does save lives. About 90% of individuals who attempt suicide and survive do not die by suicide. That means if we shift suicide attempts from one of the most immediate and effective methods (ie firearms), many of those individuals will either not attempt suicide (due to not having the means to attempt suicide in a manner they are comfortable with) or survive the suicide attempt.

2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/?utm_term=.b6aa56c75d0f

3) You seem to be moving the goalposts. The initial argument I am rebutting is the idea that accidents should not be factored into the conversation on gun control. This point makes no sense, and saying that houses also burn down is not an applicable argument as it has no bearing on this discussion. That said, it is also a pretty poor comparison. How many people do you think would die from inadequate shelter if we removed housing?

4) You seem to have missed my point. I am not accusing the OP of lying about the statistics, I am accusing him of using the statistics to lie. Basically, he seems to have cherry picked data from the years and sources which would furthest skew the data in order to draw a misleading conclusion. His numbers are accurate, but the fact that almost every number he picked seems to be well above the statistics for the year he set as a baseline is fundamentally troubling and it implies dishonestly on the part of the OP.

Overall this reddit post was quite poor. It fails at making its central argument and manipulates data in deceitful ways to render its conclusions.

1. My doubt is based on the fact that firearm suicides make up less than half of all suicides and that there are countries with strict gun laws that have high sucide rates. If someone wan'ts to off themselves they will find other methods.

2. Where on that link says if the victims were armed and were actually committing a crime?

3. I was just trying to show that accidents happen through other things beside guns and it would be irrational to ban these things. Like someone else mentioned in this thread there are laws about cars that prevent accidents from happening. There are also regulations when it comes ot building homes that prevent accidents from happening. Like these things there could be stronger gun laws that prevent these accidents while not infringing on people's rights.

4. Well the dude mentioned that not every site had all the statistics so he had to use different sources and even use infor from 2016 and 2017. I could see how it comes of as misleading but considering how much effort a post like that would take I don't think the person was purposely being misleading.