BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1103 Pages +
  • « First
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#3521 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,212
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2016-December-06, 17:01

View Posthelene_t, on 2016-December-06, 09:36, said:

I don't think this is true. Left and right is something completely different in modern Chinese.

http://lawprofessors...rigin-of-p.html


Ah yes, where was the internet when I needed it?
Ken
0

#3522 User is offline   onoway 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,220
  • Joined: 2005-August-17

Posted 2016-December-06, 17:42

View PostWinstonm, on 2016-December-05, 22:27, said:

This is encouraging.

Do you have any hope - at all - that this is a pov which will prevail come Dec 19?
0

#3523 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2016-December-06, 17:44

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

No. It means we disagree about language...about what a word means. What on earth does that have to do with whether either of us is stating something that we either know to be untrue or, and this is a little more subtle, something that we don't know one way or the other, and don't care. In law, at least in countries that inherited a common law approach to jurisprudence, one commits civil (not necessarily criminal)fraud when one says something that is false and has said it with a 'reckless disregard' for whether it is true. It is for the court to assess that factor, using what is called an objective test. Would a reasonable man....

Apparent untruths may be due to different uses of a word e.g. "alt-right"

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

I do disagree. I think that most theists display an astounding arrogance....easily the equivalent of most atheists, tho I concede that my arrogance tends towards the high end of the spectrum. Think about the arrogance inherent in believing that any human, let alone the believer in question, is the object of the creation of the universe! Think about the arrogance inherent in claiming that I and only those who think like I do will live forever in heaven and the rest of you will burn in hell forever (or whatever equivalent your particular religion espouses). The universe is some 13.4 billion years old, iirc, and comprises a near infinite volume of space and contains an essentially infinite number of stars, planets etc, and all of this was created in order that we should exist? Billions of stars, billions of planets. novas and supernovas, quasars, nebulae, etc all for no purpose at all, other than to impress us....even tho most of it happened billions of years before 'us' existed?
And you call atheists arrogant?????
.
I agree that a difference of opinion here doesn't make either of us liars. This is a value judgement. There is always some risk of unintended consequence in any human activity. I happen to think that, properly regulated, GMO foods can provide us with needed resources. That doesn't mean that I endorse the predatory practices of some of the GMO companies, nor that I am blind to the risks, especially of promoting monocultures.

Unless your bright scientific friends happen to hold doctorates in climate science, they have little more standing to debate this issue than do you and I. I am a pretty fair trial lawyer, but you wouldn't want to ask me to help structure a corporate merger, yet you'd definitely need a lawyer or two to do so. You'd want someone with expertise. I wouldn't ask a particle physicist to opine on the structure of the mitochondria of a human cell, nor a geneticist to operate CERN.
Strangely, I prefer to listen to the consensus of the 'bright scientific people' who actually know something about the subject. My having an IQ of 'x' doesn't make me a good merger and acquisitions lawyer, and your friends, bright tho they no doubt are, are not thereby climate scientists...unless, of course, they are.
.
Whether they are liars or even stupid liars depends on the facts, does it not? I assume they have some facts upon which they rely in coming to that opinion. As it happens, I think there is little doubt but that many clean energy solutions are uneconomical in their early stages, and may even always be uneconomical compared to some alternatives, but the analysis isn't simple. For example, how do we assess the real costs of fossil fuels, in terms of the harm burning fossil fuels does to the environment? But unless either side is using made up facts or ignoring relevant facts, then this is a value judgement, and a true matter of opinion.

In relevant BBO threads, members are criticised as being stupid or lying. I agree, however, that two people can hold contradictory opinions on a scientific controversy without either being stupid of a liar.

Perhaps we should be wary of over-reliance on authority, establishing what facts we can; doing our best to understand whatever expert-arguments are in vogue; but often preferring our own judgement.

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

What has [calling a person's ideas bullshit] to do with lying or stupidity?

IMO, labelling an opinion as bullshit does not make it untrue or stupid.

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

This is a complex question [rationalisation in UI rulings], and answering it requires discussing how the mind works. I have no doubt but that in some cases lying is happening. I also accept that in many and probably most cases we don't have lying as such. My own take on the matter is that most people are able to convince themselves, unconsciously, that they didn't use UI. This, btw, is why I often comment, when shown two hands where we are asked to construct an auction to the optimum spot, that it is impossible for me to do so. Awareness of what that spot is will inevitably affect how we see the bidding. It isn't possible for (most) humans to be objective. I'd say nobody can be, but I don't have the evidence to be that categorical.

I find it hard to tell if somebody is lying or believes what he says.

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

No, but your reference to it [Newton and Alchemy] shows that you are somewhat ignorant.

I admit ignorance on many subjects but would prefer that you refrain from pointing out such deficiencies and patronising me.

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

Newton was one of the most intelligent humans who has ever lived. However, that intelligence functioned in an era in which very little was known of how the universe functioned. Chemistry was unknown, at least in the modern sense. The atomic nature of matter was unknown. Heck, even Newtonian physics was unknown until newton came up with his insights.
A belief in alchemy was not irrational for him in his situation. A belief in the notion that thunder and lightning reflected anger on the part of a god was not irrational 10,000 years ago. I mean, how on earth would a human in the stone age work out that there were warm and cold masses of air coming into contact, with differing electrical charges, and that lightning was a discharge of electrons and photons, and thunder was the vibration of disrupted air?
Never judge people out of their context.

That consideration still applies today;
Another relevant example would be Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. Arguably, he was mistaken but not stupid or a liar.

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

See above for the civil definition of fraud. It is as dishonest, imo, to state as fact something that you do not know to be fact and in respect of which you don't care if it is true. A lot of people say things that they would like to be true, and because they want it to be true, they don't make any effort at all to see whether it is. Once in a while they will be lucky (or the people believing them will be lucky) and what they have guessed is actually true, but in most cases that won't be so.

I'm unsure about most things. IMO. If we had to wait for near-certainty, only fools could state opinions. Few people would be able to do anything at all.

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

It's sort of like the difference between theists and atheists discussing the existence of god. Theists like to point out that it is impossible to prove that god doesn't exist. Therefore, since it cannot be proven that god doesn't exist, a belief that it does is rational. Atheists point out that when one is suggesting an extraordinary proposition, one should have the burden of proof. Anyone raised in a culture that has no theistic underpinning would pretty clearly, imo, prefer the atheist logic. As Laplace said, to Napoleon, when asked why his mathematical masterpiece made no reference to god: I have no need of that hypothesis.
.
I have responded point by point to your post in order to show that your points appear to have nothing to do with the apparent purpose of your post. Nothing you wrote seems to me to be relevant to whether my criticisms of K and jon have merit.

In that case I've wasted my time, again.

Also, I doubt that personal attacks have merit in this context. You might employ such tactics, attempting to discredit a hostile witness, in court. They seem inappropriate, however, when discussing topics, in a friendly forum. I prefer it when you state facts and present arguments about the issues.
1

#3524 User is offline   masse24 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 2009-April-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago Suburbs

Posted 2016-December-06, 17:55

View Postonoway, on 2016-December-06, 17:42, said:

Do you have any hope - at all - that this is a pov which will prevail come Dec 19?


Will not happen. Electors are, for the most part, pledged to vote for the party's candidate. My dad was an elector in '68 (I was a little kid). Mom tells me that had he voted against the party, he would have been run out of town on a rail.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” George Carlin
0

#3525 User is offline   jonottawa 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,025
  • Joined: 2003-March-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, ON

Posted 2016-December-06, 18:11

President Trump announces Japanese corporate giant is investing $50 billion in the U.S.

I can feel America getting greater already!



Michigan appeals court rejects Jill Stein's recount as unlawful
"Maybe we should all get together and buy Kaitlyn a box set of "All in the Family" for Chanukah. Archie didn't think he was a racist, the problem was with all the chinks, dagos, niggers, kikes, etc. ruining the country." ~ barmar
0

#3526 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2016-December-06, 19:30

View Postonoway, on 2016-December-06, 17:42, said:

Do you have any hope - at all - that this is a pov which will prevail come Dec 19?


Not really.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#3527 User is offline   Kaitlyn S 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 2016-July-31
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2016-December-06, 21:01

View PostWinstonm, on 2016-December-05, 21:37, said:

This type of ruthlessness - the win at any and all costs type - can only stem from a total conviction of the rightness of the cause being fought for. The only place I have seen this type of certainty is in religions. We are no longer dealing with political opponents but political zealots, driven by their religious-like fervor to convert the sinner or burn him at the stake.
I hear this argument all the time but usually from the alt-right when they tell me that I am not only a deplorable but also an infidel who many want to kill.
0

#3528 User is offline   Kaitlyn S 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 2016-July-31
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2016-December-06, 21:15

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 03:16, said:

I strongly suspect the Hannity's of the world know full well that they are telling a lot of lies. Hannity has found an extraordinarily lucrative gig, earning 29,000,000 a year ranting about how the media elites are lying to the great American public. Limbaugh is, IMO, the same. He has become extremely wealthy preaching lies to his audience. These guys are the equivalent, morally, of the prosperity gospel fraudsters who con the poor and gullible into sending them part of their social security checks.
I'm going to talk from the POV of someone that knows nothing (yes, I know you think that should be easy for me :lol: ) and has no preconceived notions. While what you are saying is possible for Hannity, I have some evidence that it is not the case fr Limbaugh. I believe he started his conservative talk show in the 1980's when it wasn't popular. If he was into pulling off a scam and making a buck, he had many easier ways to do it, as it was difficult for him to get sponsors at the time. He claims to have had to give away advertising time on his show for free in order to prove to advertisers that it was worthwhile to advertise on his show. From your POV, he was essentially gambling several years of his life on an untested sham or an unproven method of making money.

I find it hard to believe that he would have taken that chance if he really didn't believe what he was preaching.

You could make the point that at one time he did believe in it enough to take that life gamble but has since learned that by being more outrageous he can make more money that if he sticks to what he truly believes. I have no facts to disprove that, just as I think you have no facts to prove it. However, he has probably surrounded himself with people with opinions similar to those of the people I've surrounded myself with, so I think it's fairly likely that he still strongly believes what he's preaching.

I will grant you that Hannity may have seen a get rich quick scheme since he has seen that it was successful for others. I'm not conceding the fact; I still think it's likely that he believes most of what he says, but I will concede that there is some chance that I am being duped. But given Limbaugh's start, selling him as a fraud is going to be an uphill battle.
0

#3529 User is offline   Kaitlyn S 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 2016-July-31
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2016-December-06, 21:18

View PostWinstonm, on 2016-December-06, 09:39, said:

Because of that, I have the advantage of realizing that anyone who says "I know" or "I am right" or "I have the answer" is running a scam, regardless if believed or not.
So MikeH is running a scam?
0

#3530 User is offline   Kaitlyn S 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 2016-July-31
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2016-December-06, 21:22

View Postnige1, on 2016-December-06, 10:42, said:

In any case, I would rather discuss issues, than the shortcomings of those who express opinions about them
This. I would nominate this for post of the year if I didn't think that the nomination had to be bridge-related, and if it wasn't too late for nominations.
0

#3531 User is offline   Kaitlyn S 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 2016-July-31
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2016-December-06, 21:26

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

I think that most theists display an astounding arrogance....easily the equivalent of most atheists, tho I concede that my arrogance tends towards the high end of the spectrum. Think about the arrogance inherent in believing that any human, let alone the believer in question, is the object of the creation of the universe! Think about the arrogance inherent in claiming that I and only those who think like I do will live forever in heaven and the rest of you will burn in hell forever (or whatever equivalent your particular religion espouses).
I've finally found something that mikeh and I strongly agree on.
0

#3532 User is offline   Kaitlyn S 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 2016-July-31
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2016-December-06, 21:29

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:

Nothing you wrote seems to me to be relevant to whether my criticisms of K and jon have merit.

View Postdiana_eva, on 2016-December-06, 16:48, said:

even if he would like for us all to see how mistreated K is.

I have reached such a high level of fame that I am now described by one letter :D
0

#3533 User is offline   Kaitlyn S 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 2016-July-31
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2016-December-06, 21:37

View Postmikeh, on 2016-December-06, 16:15, said:

To Kaitlyn and nige1: here is something you may or may not enjoy, but that I think is something that explains my views better than anything that I have written:

http://www.theconver...ur-opinion-9978

Don't be put off by the title...it isn't as arrogant as it may seem to you.

edited to correct the link, I hope
I did enjoy it. BTW you may be surprised to hear that I'm in favor of vaccinations being a requirement to attend school.
0

#3534 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2016-December-06, 22:10

View PostKaitlyn S, on 2016-December-06, 21:18, said:

So MikeH is running a scam?


Does he claim to be right on faith alone? Does he claim ultimate knowledge? No. So quit being obtuse.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#3535 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2016-December-06, 22:10

double post
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#3536 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2016-December-06, 22:13

View PostKaitlyn S, on 2016-December-06, 21:01, said:

I hear this argument all the time but usually from the alt-right when they tell me that I am not only a deplorable but also an infidel who many want to kill.


It comes as no surprise that the alt right would attack anyone who did not follow the "faith".
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
1

#3537 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,784
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-December-06, 23:40

View PostWinstonm, on 2016-December-06, 22:13, said:

It comes as no surprise that the alt right would attack anyone who did not follow the "faith".



Winston says it well
0

#3538 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,784
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-December-06, 23:43

View PostWinstonm, on 2016-December-06, 22:10, said:

Does he claim to be right on faith alone?



Claim?....it is clear that MIkeH is an advocate for his position/faith......and that is ok.....I hope I am for mine.

to say that MIKeH is an advocate a zealous advocate for his claim is a reasonable argument

I would say that he presents a persuasive /logical point of view
0

#3539 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,000
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2016-December-07, 00:20

View PostWinstonm, on 2016-December-06, 22:10, said:

Does he claim to be right on faith alone?

Not sure what you mean by faith in this context. I have biases, unconscious assumptions, and emotions, but as far as I know, I don't have faith in anything. I have opinions and beliefs, but those are mutable, being based on my understanding of facts and arguments. I can be stubborn. I am pretty sure that there are times and subjects about which I am unreasonable, but I really don't think there is any proposition you can suggest where I cannot point to facts and yet where I have absolute certainty as to the answer.

A trite example. I am an atheist. Contrary to what nigel seems to think that word means, I do not believe that there is no god. Leaving aside the fascinating question (to the subtleties of which most religious believers appear oblivious) of what that term actually means, as an atheist I do not believe that there is a god. IOW, I see no reason to postulate the existence of such an entity.

Now, if by some miracle (forgive the liberty), a god-entity were to offer persuasive evidence of its existence, I like to think that I would, if that evidence didn't involve my death, at least consider the possibility that I was wrong. I won't hold my breath, even tho we are, so many claim, in The Last Days, lol.

There is no way, afaik, to falsify the god proposition. Therefore it would make no sense to be certain that one doesn't exist. Of course, that doesn't make its existence likely.

As another example, more relevant to this thread, I strongly believe that Trump will be a disaster as President and that he and Ryan will make America a truly horrible place to live for many millions of non-white, non-Xian people. I am prepared to be, and would be delighted to be, wrong. I think as I do for a number of what appear to me to be cogent reasons. Were he to act in such a way as to negate those reasons, my views would change. My attitude is not about faith: it is about observation and argument.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
2

#3540 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,371
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2016-December-07, 00:35

View Postjonottawa, on 2016-December-06, 18:11, said:



Do you even read your own links? The same article indicates that these are jobs and investments which would probably have come to the US anyway (since we are the world leader in tech).

It does seem that Trump is very good at bribing businesses to let him take credit for them doing things they would've done anyway (as we also saw in the Carrier "deal"). Not clear to me how this is actually good for the country since we end up footing the bill for the bribes (okay they are usually "tax breaks") and the only additional benefit is giving Trump something to brag about.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
1

  • 1103 Pages +
  • « First
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

40 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 40 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google