Displaying 1 - 10 of 3599 Forum Posts 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Apr 27, 2017 01:40 PM
    Last: 1hr
    39

    This doesn't make any sense at all.

    The United States is not being ruled by a fascist oligarchy. Do you understand the definition of fascism, oligarchy, or fact?

    We have a Republican(!!) Congress that hasn't allowed Donald to get any of his priorities passed into law and we have courts that have blocked Donald every step of the way. And he hasn't even been President for 100 days!

    I also don't understand your infatuation with George Orwell. Animal Farm and 1984 are works of fiction, not documentaries. I've read both, but I've also read most of his nonfiction books.

    Fictional books are just that - works of fiction. Do you read works of fiction and convince yourself that they are factual? If so then there are some awesome fictional books out there that will blow you mind!

    Take a deep breath. Inhale and then exhale. The sun will come out tomorrow. That is unless you live in Portland. We've had one hell of a rainy season this year...

  • Apr 24, 2017 08:40 AM
    Last: 1d
    86
    TJ Wrote:

    Deja (@X!&÷?) Vu

    Can't win, won't win. Watch out, heard that last October.

    Touché.

    Although I will point out that the US and France have entirely different electoral systems. A multi-party system makes it a little more difficult to elect a demagogue to lead a country.

  • Nov 19, 2016 03:43 PM
    Last: 10hr
    578
    lonely bird Wrote: ... We must admit that changing the system would mean ignoring low population states and the people in them or at best paying some visits to the population centers in those states. No, I don't buy it. Change the system, yes, but also admit Clinton screwed up.

    We already have a system that does that. No candidates visit New York, California, Texas, Illinois, Wyoming, Idaho, or the vast majority of the rest of the country. They just visit the same handful of states every four years while completely ignoring the rest of the country.

    Why should someone's vote in Pennsylvania or Ohio be worth more than someone's vote in Idaho or Oregon? If we completely got rid of the electoral college then candidates would be forced to have a 50 state strategy and not a 5 state strategy.

    lonely bird Wrote: The coalition you mentioned interestingly did not include a great deal of white women which I find astounding. And it naturally would focus on the geographies that democrats appear to capture almost no matter the election namely urban population centers which also contain much of said coalition by the nature of the tribalism present in the country.

    She still won 47 percent of white women and 54 percent of women overall. That only shows that women don't vote in a monolith in the same way men don't vote in a monolith.

    lonely bird Wrote: She lost because she ran a bad campaign, ignored a segment of voters she shouldn't have, ran into the inherent civic laziness prevalent in this country and an archaic system which she and her campaign ignored as part of her poor campaign. It wasn't simply the system because the system has been in place for 200+ years and everybody knows what the idiotic ground rules are.

    All of that may be true, but she still won three million more votes than Donald. Three million more people vote for her yet she still "lost."

    If that happened in any other country our State Department would be throwing a conniption fit and lecturing that country about how democracy is supposed to work. But it's a-ok in our country. I have a difficult time accepting that.

  • Nov 19, 2016 03:43 PM
    Last: 10hr
    578
    Dockadams Wrote: In my opinion, which is not humble when talking about Charlie Sykes, the man had his own radio show, and I know from listening to him in the past is that he is a radio troll. WTMJ hosted his show, and MSNBC labeled him as a contributor. That's right folks, MSNBC.

    crooksandliars.com/2017/04/charles-syke...

    I get that. I honestly don't care about Charles Sykes. I don't care if he wrote the best book in the world or if he wrote the worst book in the world. I don't care if he's a radio or internet troll either. All I care about are facts.

    What I was pointing out is that quoting Bill Gates without taking the time to research if he actually said what you're quoting him on only makes you look foolish and someone who is susceptible to believing "alternative facts" (aka lies).

    I have no problem when someone states their opinion about Bill Gates or anyone else, but you lose me when you start attributing words to people who never said them and then berate them for saying words they never said.

  • Nov 19, 2016 03:43 PM
    Last: 10hr
    578

    Back to the topic of the thread -

    What caused Hillary to lose is an outdated electoral system that gives an out sized role to rural white states at the expense of urban multi-ethnic states. She won by three million votes, but still "lost" the election. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

    Every Monday morning quarterback says that she should have reached out to more rural white people; like they are the bellwether of the American populace. I think that's nonsense. She won the popular vote by building a coalition of every race and sex. I don't blame her for not reaching out to the deplorable's who would have never voted for her anyway.

    Instead of blaming her, we should blame the system that allows someone to lose by three million votes yet still "win" an election.

  • Nov 19, 2016 03:43 PM
    Last: 10hr
    578
    lonely bird Wrote: Charles Sykes is a pain in the ass. Oooh, life's unfair, get used to it. That same steaming pile of nonsense has been used to justify calcified class stratification for decades. Usually be fools lower down the food chain who think they will someday become rich aka temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

    I don't have an opinion either way because I haven't read the book nor know much about Sykes.

    I just think it's important to be factually correct when you accuse someone of saying something. Accusing Bill Gates of saying something he didn't say and then attacking him for the quote he never actually said is the literal definition of a strawman logical fallacy.

    Facts are important, especially when you are quoting someone.

  • Nov 19, 2016 03:43 PM
    Last: 10hr
    578
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Bill Gates message to the youth: "Don't waste your time voting" in his exact words "life's not fair, get used to it". Did anybody chew him out ? Say what you want but when the world's richest man says voting is a waste of time, people listen. Look at what he said. Don't complain or try to do anything about it. A message he delivered at a high school. Following is a write up by the Jamaican Observer:

    "MICROSOFT’S billionaire Bill Gates recently gave a speech at an American high school at which he spoke about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world."

    Just a quick heads up that neither of these quotes have been said by Bill Gates. Ever.

    The "don't waste your time voting" quote you came up with seems to be an outright fabrication. I can't find any source even accusing Gates of saying that, let alone confirming or contradicting it.

    The "life's not fair" quote was actually written by Charles Sykes in his 1996 book "Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can’t Read, Write, Or Add."

    "Rule No. 1: Life is not fair. Get used to it. The average teen-ager uses the phrase “It’s not fair” 8.6 times a day. You got it from your parents, who said it so often you decided they must be the most idealistic generation ever. When they started hearing it from their own kids, they realized Rule No. 1."

    Charles Sykes

    The fact checking site Snopes.com also researched the claim accusing Gates of saying this and labeled it incorrectly attributed, which is a polite way of saying it's a lie.

    This is why it's important to actually do research and not just blindly accept something you read on the "Jamaican Observer" as fact.

  • Apr 24, 2017 08:40 AM
    Last: 1d
    86
    I'd also point out that most parties in France are rallying around Macron. He received a million more votes than Le Pen and there's a very good chance she will be obliterated in the head to head election if the various parties convince their voters to vote for him.
  • Apr 24, 2017 12:10 PM
    Last: 3d
    53

    It has seemed more like 100 years than 100 days, but President Obama has come out of the shadows and returned to the University of Chicago to host a round table of students and faculty about ways to get people involved in "civic engagement."

    I don't think there's any single more important issue than Americans reengaging with the country they are citizens of. We know we have a major problem when more people watch "Dancing With the Stars" than participate in the democracy that they live in. And if there's anything we should know by now, it's that we get the democracy we vote (or don't vote) for.

    On a side note - it's amazing how much I didn't realize I missed heading his voice on any given day. I would take hearing him over Donald any day of the week...

    (I'll post a video of his speech and Q&A Session once the University of Chicago uploads it.)

  • Apr 19, 2017 06:18 PM
    Last: 6d
    381
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: jaredsxtn, You exagerated and made up facts and conditions and then commented on my objections to your distortions. Stop exaggerating. If that is the only way you can challenge or critique my posts then maybe the problem resides with you.

    Or maybe the problem resides with you?

    Once again, I didn't make up any facts. I encourage you to read my previous response and take some time to critically think about something for once. Critical thinking exercises were some of my favorite lessons in elementary and middle school.

    Debate was my favorite class in high school and college. The main thing I learned from debate classes is that someone who doesn't have facts on their side will always resort to logical fallacies in an attempt to "win," but the only thing they wind up doing is just making themselves look silly.