So what's the point of political debate/discussion if no one ever changes their minds?

[midnightpulp]

Entertainment? Trolling?

I'm also more pessimistic than ever about the thesis+antithesis=synthesis model of discourse leading to compromise in the way it used to because there's an infinite amount of material on the internet that a person can use to further entrench themselves in confirmation bias, namely conspiracy theories and badly presented arguments that have an academic veneer. The Lord Jesus could descend from the Heavens tomorrow and confirm that anthropocentric climate change is real and the next day there'd be any number of blogs and vlogs claiming it was a hologram created by George Soros.

Is perhaps compromise impossible since many of the issues that divide the left and right are moral gray areas?

[hater]

Ive changed my mind many times tbqh

I used to like the Clintons, was mostly democrat leaning.

Now im a rabid independent and believe democratic party is neocon war party now

Also I used to believe we live in a democracy :lol

[Pavlov]

:lol "independent"

[hater]

Another example of change, This poor bastard above used to post as chumpdymper and now changed to pavlov :lmao

[SpursforSix]

Entertainment? Trolling?

I'm also more pessimistic than ever about the thesis+antithesis=synthesis model of discourse leading to compromise in the way it used to because there's an infinite amount of material on the internet that a person can use to further entrench themselves in confirmation bias, namely conspiracy theories and badly presented arguments that have an academic veneer. The Lord Jesus could descend from the Heavens tomorrow and confirm that anthropocentric climate change is real and the next day there'd be any number of blogs and vlogs claiming it was a hologram created by George Soros.

Is perhaps compromise impossible since many of the issues that divide the left and right are moral gray areas?

I think there are perhaps a larger number of people than you assume that are willing to look at both sides of a debate and do the research and then make their own decision. They may not being the ones doing the debating as this seems dominated by the shouting extremes on both sides but at least they will maybe see the issues and then better try to weed out the noise and understand and form their own opinion.

But I agree there are plenty on both sides who are dug in and wouldn't even consider that the other sight might have a good point or that their side could be wrong about anything.

[benefactor]

I'm here for the lols tbh

[Chris]

Too often the Left will walk away from the discussion once the facts don't suit their narratives. Conservatives OTOH are malleable and willing to change their minds. You can blame decades of identity politics and "political correctness" for creating the disconnect. Watch this recent debate between Cenk Uygar and Ben Shapiro and you will see these tenets play out.

8ko0DVJkLG0


The Left are an emotional lot who prefer to be entertained instead of informed. That's why the key players use comedy to make them more agreeable to their construed narratives. If you can make them laugh or cry, you can make them believe anything. The disconnect is at a subconscious level entering the realm of cognitive dissonance.

[hater]

Trump would have never become president if nobody changed their mind tbqh

This thread is infantile tbqh

[midnightpulp]

I think there are perhaps a larger number of people than you assume that are willing to look at both sides of a debate and do the research and then make their own decision. They may not being the ones doing the debating as this seems dominated by the shouting extremes on both sides but at least they will maybe see the issues and then better try to weed out the noise and understand and form their own opinion.

But I agree there are plenty on both sides who are dug in and wouldn't even consider that the other sight might have a good point or that their side could be wrong about anything.

I feel the right has really dug in on global warming (human influenced) and will not budge, no matter how facts you bludgeon them with. The fact is over 90% of the scientific community agrees with AGW and 97% of specialized climate scientists agree. To dismiss these facts, one would have to assume the world's scientists are participating in some vast conspiracy in order to impose "evil socialism" on the world. Maybe they're right, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

To make the criticism fair game, the Left is dug in with identity politics garbage, framing just about everything in the context of race, gender, and sexual orientation. I do personally find the Left to be more reasonable on the majority of important topics, i.e. economic, environmental, social (identity politics aside).

[baseline bum]

I feel the right has really dug in on global warming (human influenced) and will not budge, no matter how facts you bludgeon them with. The fact is over 90% of the scientific community agrees with AGW and 97% of specialized climate scientists agree. To dismiss these facts, one would have to assume the world's scientists are participating in some vast conspiracy in order to impose "evil socialism" on the world. Maybe they're right, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

To make the criticism fair game, the Left is dug in with identity politics garbage, framing just about everything in the context of race, gender, and sexual orientation. I do personally find the Left to be more reasonable on the majority of important topics, i.e. economic, environmental, social (identity politics aside).

The GOP used to believe in global warming too until the ###### got in office and the Koch's used white anger to rail against it and completely shut it down in their party.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

[midnightpulp]

Too often the Left will walk away from the discussion once the facts don't suit their narratives. Conservatives OTOH are malleable and willing to change their minds. You can blame decades of identity politics and "political correctness" for creating the disconnect. Watch this recent debate between Cenk Uygar and Ben Shapiro and you will see these tenets play out.

8ko0DVJkLG0


The Left are an emotional lot who prefer to be entertained instead of informed. That's why the key players use comedy to make them more agreeable to their construed narratives. If you can make them laugh or cry, you can make them believe anything. The disconnect is at a subconscious level entering the realm of cognitive dissonance.

:lmao

- 40 years of trickledown trial. Didn't work. Conservatives still believe it does.
- Human caused climate change agreed by 90% of scientists and 97% of specialized climate scientists. Conservatives still believe it's a liberal conspiracy.
- Conservatives think universal healthcare will have negative consequences when it's proven to work fine in every other OECD country.
- Conservatives decry any tax payer funded social program as "ebil socialism" and don't realize the irony that they are biggest socialists on the planet who puff their chests every time the military gets another trillion dollars from the tax payer.
- Conservatives exaggerate any reasonable gun control ideas to wholesale gun grabbing.

I don't see the malleability here.

[spurraider21]

if you're going to judge the ideologies by media pundits like shapiro and uygur you're always going to wind up with a caricature

[midnightpulp]

Trump would have never become president if nobody changed their mind tbqh

This thread is infantile tbqh

Hate for Hillary doesn't equate to changing your mind. Many so-called BernieBros also voted for Trump/didn't vote at all just to spite the DNC, despite having nothing in common with Trump.

[spurraider21]

Entertainment? Trolling?

I'm also more pessimistic than ever about the thesis+antithesis=synthesis model of discourse leading to compromise in the way it used to because there's an infinite amount of material on the internet that a person can use to further entrench themselves in confirmation bias, namely conspiracy theories and badly presented arguments that have an academic veneer. The Lord Jesus could descend from the Heavens tomorrow and confirm that anthropocentric climate change is real and the next day there'd be any number of blogs and vlogs claiming it was a hologram created by George Soros.

Is perhaps compromise impossible since many of the issues that divide the left and right are moral gray areas?
i still learn quite a bit just by having a discussion. arguing forces you to sharpen your points and make sure you can back up your opinions instead of getting away with partisan talking points.

also when a new story breaks out... sometimes it takes a while to digest and really come to a meaningful opinion. in the meantime it's good to be able to read other peoples insights to see if you're missing anything.

but no, i dont think "debate" is going to change peoples minds on defining issues like abortion, immigration, etc

[Chris]

if you're going to judge the ideologies by media pundits like shapiro and uygur you're always going to wind up with a caricature

Just a recent debate from two well know figures on opposing sides. You're welcome to post a debate champ.

[Spurminator]

No one changes their mind mid-argument, but over time and multiple discussions (or life experiences) people do get brought to different perspectives. I used to be a lot more conservative, but then I started working with a more diverse group of people than I had grown up around and learned more about their experiences. I'm not sure I ever had some kind of "You're right, I'm pro choice now" epiphany. It happened over time.

In addition to that, seeing how ridiculous some of the conservative arguments that I used to agree with sounded coming from the mouths of fools gave me pause. Probably nothing was more responsible for my conversion to liberalism than watching a few episodes of Hannity.

[midnightpulp]

i still learn quite a bit just by having a discussion. arguing forces you to sharpen your points and make sure you can back up your opinions instead of getting away with partisan talking points.

also when a new story breaks out... sometimes it takes a while to digest and really come to a meaningful opinion. in the meantime it's good to be able to read other peoples insights to see if you're missing anything.

but no, i dont think "debate" is going to change peoples minds on defining issues like abortion, immigration, etc

Abortion is a very moral gray area that there's no objective right answer to. I see both sides of the argument as equally valid.

[spurraider21]

Just a recent debate from two well know figures on opposing sides. You're welcome to post a debate champ.
uygur is a dumb fuck who happens to be liberal. shapiro is an intellectually dishonest debater. im not going to learn anything by watching that.

i do listen to shapiro's podcast on a semi-regular basis. i dont think he's that bad when it comes to talking about day to day news. he's honest enough about that stuff, and i like getting a different perspective. his on-stage "debate" persona is complete shit though

[spurraider21]

Abortion is a very moral gray area that there's no objective right answer to. I see both sides of the argument as equally valid.
i agree for the most part... but i think we need to come to a realization that no matter which way you lean, there are probably 100+ million people in this country who believe the complete opposite... and so banning the practice just isn't a realistic outcome.

i'm all for practicing what you wish without imposing it on others. at least pro-choice accomplishes that. its not like you're forcing evangelical christians to undergo unwanted abortions.

[CitizenDwayne]

Too often the Left will walk away from the discussion once the facts don't suit their narratives. Conservatives OTOH are malleable and willing to change their minds. You can blame decades of identity politics and "political correctness" for creating the disconnect. Watch this recent debate between Cenk Uygar and Ben Shapiro and you will see these tenets play out.

8ko0DVJkLG0


The Left are an emotional lot who prefer to be entertained instead of informed. That's why the key players use comedy to make them more agreeable to their construed narratives. If you can make them laugh or cry, you can make them believe anything. The disconnect is at a subconscious level entering the realm of cognitive dissonance.
Liberals “just want to be entertained”, and yet repubs now worship at the altar of a reality show star

[midnightpulp]

Just a recent debate from two well know figures on opposing sides. You're welcome to post a debate champ.

How do you reconcile your stance on immigration with your Christian beliefs? Do you think it's "Christian" to deny someone coming from dire circumstances the opportunity to better provide for themselves and their families? I get your logic is that you fear the bad actors coat-tailing along with the well meaning, but how come we never hear from the right: We need immigration reform that keeps the bad actors out but makes it easier for people who want to come here and contribute.

[Spurs Homer]

People are not open to truth - they only want to confirm their beliefs

trump is a lying piece of shit traitor criminal
- but he is white and he has the (R) next to his name

for his supporters - the argument ends there

he can rape an infant

his supporters will invent a conspiracy to support their belief that baby rapers are ok if they are a white supremacist

[RandomGuy]

Entertainment? Trolling?

I'm also more pessimistic than ever about the thesis+antithesis=synthesis model of discourse leading to compromise in the way it used to because there's an infinite amount of material on the internet that a person can use to further entrench themselves in confirmation bias, namely conspiracy theories and badly presented arguments that have an academic veneer. The Lord Jesus could descend from the Heavens tomorrow and confirm that anthropocentric climate change is real and the next day there'd be any number of blogs and vlogs claiming it was a hologram created by George Soros.

Is perhaps compromise impossible since many of the issues that divide the left and right are moral gray areas?

This place used to be a bit more vibrant, with some vaguely intelligent conservatives, who have long since stopped posting. What remains... is the faithful bench for the most part.

The right wing has gotten way more radical since their successful gerrymandering made so many of their seats so safe (ideological purity is what gets GOP elected though the primaries, since the general is a given).

the same force was at work for many Democratic seats in red states. overall the tilt towards the extreme is more marked on the right, despite what the right wing propaganda machine wants to gin up for outrage clicks/ratings.

I have occasionally changed my mind on something when presented with some decent evidence, but that tends to be rare as the "conservative avenger" types that want to "own the libs" rarely are up to the actual task of providing decently reasoned arguments.

[hater]

Hate for Hillary doesn't equate to changing your mind. Many so-called BernieBros also voted for Trump/didn't vote at all just to spite the DNC, despite having nothing in common with Trump.

Sure it does

Obama voters who normally would have voted democrat in 2016 decided to stay home. Thats a change of mind

So is many independents who voted Obama voting for Trump

[Chris]

How do you reconcile your stance on immigration with your Christian beliefs? Do you think it's "Christian" to deny someone coming from dire circumstances the opportunity to better provide for themselves and their families? I get your logic is that you fear the bad actors coat-tailing along with the well meaning, but how come we never hear from the right: We need immigration reform that keeps the bad actors out but makes it easier for people who want to come here and contribute.

"Romans 13:1–7 makes it abundantly clear that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The only exception to this is when a law of the government forces us to disobey a command of God (Acts 5:29). Illegal immigration is the breaking of a government’s law. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the idea of a sovereign nation having immigration laws. Therefore, it is rebellion against God to unlawfully enter another country. Illegal immigration is a sin."

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

- 40 years of trickledown trial. Didn't work. Conservatives still believe it does.
- Human caused climate change agreed by 90% of scientists and 97% of specialized climate scientists. Conservatives still believe it's a liberal conspiracy.
- Conservatives think universal healthcare will have negative consequences when it's proven to work fine in every other OECD country.
- Conservatives decry any tax payer funded social program as "ebil socialism" and don't realize the irony that they are biggest socialists on the planet who puff their chests every time the military gets another trillion dollars from the tax payer.
- Conservatives exaggerate any reasonable gun control ideas to wholesale gun grabbing.

I don't see the malleability here.

Pretty much.

The right suffers from a religious problem IMO. Religion punishes doubt, and discourages questioning beliefs, with a lot of self-identified conservatives being religious. The "God" language stress in many platforms shows this.

My theory is that this tends to impair ones critical thinking abilities in other areas, much like a compromised immune system makes one susceptible to disease. Conservatives tend to be less able to spot bad arguments and bullshit in general, as they are so used to the kinds of rationalization and excuse making that is required to be religiously faithful.

[koriwhat]

People are not open to truth - they only want to confirm their beliefs

trump is a lying piece of shit traitor criminal
- but he is white and he has the (R) next to his name

for his supporters - the argument ends there

he can rape an infant

his supporters will invent a conspiracy to support their belief that baby rapers are ok if they are a white supremacist

you're a nut trying to act like you're somewhat sane. lmao!

[Winehole23]

I disagree, RG, it ebbs and flows. In my opinion it has actually been a little bit better of late. JMO.

I also disagree that any side of an argument has a monopoly on smugness pseudoreason or even openmindedness.

[spurraider21]

1092106166749007872

[RandomGuy]

"Romans 13:1–7 makes it abundantly clear that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The only exception to this is when a law of the government forces us to disobey a command of God (Acts 5:29). Illegal immigration is the breaking of a government’s law. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the idea of a sovereign nation having immigration laws. Therefore, it is rebellion against God to unlawfully enter another country. Illegal immigration is a sin."

Case in point.

The big book of multiple choice. Amazing how "God" always seems to want what you do. Wonder why. #obliviousChris

21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Exodus 22:21
18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. https://www.biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/10-18.html

. “ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. https://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/passage/?q=leviticus+19:33-34


Oblvious Chris will make excuses or ignore the parts of the big book of multiple choice he wants, because of his own biases.

[RandomGuy]

I disagree, RG, it ebbs and flows. In my opinion it has actually been a little bit better of late. JMO.

I also disagree that any side of an argument has a monopoly on smugness pseudoreason or even openmindedness.

Never said any side has a monopoly, but the two sides are in no way equal. Making the case for such is a lazy false equivalence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

(edit) Not sayiing you are here, but I have seen it made, I call it the "both sides" fallacy.

[midnightpulp]

"Romans 13:1–7 makes it abundantly clear that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The only exception to this is when a law of the government forces us to disobey a command of God (Acts 5:29). Illegal immigration is the breaking of a government’s law. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the idea of a sovereign nation having immigration laws. Therefore, it is rebellion against God to unlawfully enter another country. Illegal immigration is a sin."


Luke 14:12-14
He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’

Proverbs 19:17 17 Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward them for what they have done.


And you know there's many, many more verses of this type. Helping the poor seems to be a direct command of God.

[Winehole23]

I think it's a disease to believe and defend everything one says or happens to think to the nth. I also think this proviso applies especially to me since I have the most influence over me. And little over others.

The older I get, the less certain I become about what I thought I already knew.

[midnightpulp]

Pretty much.

The right suffers from a religious problem IMO. Religion punishes doubt, and discourages questioning beliefs, with a lot of self-identified conservatives being religious. The "God" language stress in many platforms shows this.

My theory is that this tends to impair ones critical thinking abilities in other areas, much like a compromised immune system makes one susceptible to disease. Conservatives tend to be less able to spot bad arguments and bullshit in general, as they are so used to the kinds of rationalization and excuse making that is required to be religiously faithful.

It's funny to me because Christianity pretty much contradicts the tenets of American Conservatism. I believe early Christians weren't even opposed to abortion. Aquinas felt the baby wasn't "alive" until the quickening, at which point is was imbued with a soul.

[Winehole23]

Before hitting the post reply button I ask myself nearly every time: is that true, is that fair and do I really believe that?

It's not rare that I withdraw something I was about to post.

[Trill Clinton]

Jesus would be considered a libtard by republicans if he was around today.

[spurraider21]

Jesus would be considered a libtard by republicans if he was around today.
yep


is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven
ugh, class warfare identity politics!

[Pavlov]

"Romans 13:1–7 makes it abundantly clear that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The only exception to this is when a law of the government forces us to disobey a command of God (Acts 5:29). Illegal immigration is the breaking of a government’s law. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the idea of a sovereign nation having immigration laws. Therefore, it is rebellion against God to unlawfully enter another country. Illegal immigration is a sin.":lol "malleable"

[RandomGuy]

How do you reconcile your stance on immigration with your Christian beliefs? Do you think it's "Christian" to deny someone coming from dire circumstances the opportunity to better provide for themselves and their families? I get your logic is that you fear the bad actors coat-tailing along with the well meaning, but how come we never hear from the right: We need immigration reform that keeps the bad actors out but makes it easier for people who want to come here and contribute.

Helpful here is the concept of cognitive dissonance.

A good example is that the bible advocates slavery, and in some places human sacrifice, albeit not as strongly.

Modern Christians hold the thought " I am a good person" at some level, conscious or otherwise.

Being a good person is not compatible with worshiping evil. So the parts of the bible that talk about human sacrifice or say that slavery is OK are glossed over. excuses are made, and all sorts of attempts at distraction and diversion are made to obfuscate this.

The mental gymnastics are fun to watch.

That many people that call themselves Christian are so nasty to immigrants "speak english" "go back where you came from" is just a prime example. The bible, taken overall, is fairly clear about the moral lessons of helping the poor and people in need. Indeed many Christian groups are appalled that people like Chris would ignore this.

But. the right has it's own political correctness that is every bit as insidious and nasty as anything that they say about SJW on the left. Step out of line, out of cannon and you are a "RINO" and find yourself primaried out of office. Support abortion? You aren't really conservative, no matter what your other positions are.

[RandomGuy]

Jesus would be considered a libtard by republicans if he was around today.

Indeed. The parable of the widow's farthings demonstrate the moral and very Christian underpinning of marginal income taxes.

https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/lynch/the_widow's_farthing.htm

Even back then, the concept of personal surplus was obvious. I would be willing to bet that this particular episode came up when the income tax was first being debated in Congress, especially when it comes to the progressive nature of that tax.

[RandomGuy]

yep

[/h]
ugh, class warfare identity politics!


The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus:
https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp

[RandomGuy]

Before hitting the post reply button I ask myself nearly every time: is that true, is that fair and do I really believe that?

It's not rare that I withdraw something I was about to post.

I backspace over a lot, and edit out a lot of nasty derision that I look at and instantly regret as not being worthy. That said, there are some stupid mother fuckers who post here, and I have less patience for that shit as i get older.

[RandomGuy]

It's funny to me because Christianity pretty much contradicts the tenets of American Conservatism. I believe early Christians weren't even opposed to abortion. Aquinas felt the baby wasn't "alive" until the quickening, at which point is was imbued with a soul.

That goes tot he core of the folly of asserting the unseen. "There is a soul in this cluster of cells" reminds me of the Dragon in the Garage analogy from Sagan.




"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

Further, if you want an interesting moral take on this Tracy Harris breaks down some of the moral issues involved in a rather thoughtful, and thorough way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg9o0Q5vDuQ (Atheist experience podcast, taking a call from a gentleman who says abortion should be illegal)

[baseline bum]

yep

[/h]
ugh, class warfare identity politics!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA

[baseline bum]

The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus:
https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp

Beat me to it :lol

[RandomGuy]

And you know there's many, many more verses of this type. Helping the poor seems to be a direct command of God.

Agreed. Not my book, but what is there is pretty consistent overall. It is one of the less ambiguous tenets/concepts that the authors of the book appeared to be trying to get at.

[RandomGuy]

Beat me to it :lol

You got the coding for the clip though. heh.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg9o0Q5vDuQ

There we go. Worth watching no matter what your opinion of the subject is, IMO. A calmly reasoned discussion that explores some of the ethical issues in a thoughtful way, and both sides made their case in that way.

[Nathan89]

There are billions of poor people and letting them come here won't benefit the world.

Letting people in the country that can't contribute isn't compatible with big government programs that require we tax success for them to live at some arbitrary high standard that is deemed a human right.

If global warming is the most pressing issue that impacts the entire world then sending the poors to the US, which has high per capital pollution, isn't beneficial to anyone.

[Pavlov]

There are billions of poor people and letting them come here won't benefit the world.

Letting people in the country that can't contribute isn't compatible with big government programs that require we tax success for them to live at some arbitrary high standard that is deemed a human right.

If global warming is the most pressing issue that impacts the entire world then sending the poors to the US, which has high per capital pollution, isn't beneficial to anyone.How did you change from a Bernie Bro to what you are now?

[DMC]

Entertainment? Trolling?

I'm also more pessimistic than ever about the thesis+antithesis=synthesis model of discourse leading to compromise in the way it used to because there's an infinite amount of material on the internet that a person can use to further entrench themselves in confirmation bias, namely conspiracy theories and badly presented arguments that have an academic veneer. The Lord Jesus could descend from the Heavens tomorrow and confirm that anthropocentric climate change is real and the next day there'd be any number of blogs and vlogs claiming it was a hologram created by George Soros.

Is perhaps compromise impossible since many of the issues that divide the left and right are moral gray areas?

The question has to be asked inward. Are you here to change your mind or here to change other people's minds? You can only change your mind.

[DMC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg9o0Q5vDuQ

There we go. Worth watching no matter what your opinion of the subject is, IMO. A calmly reasoned discussion that explores some of the ethical issues in a thoughtful way, and both sides made their case in that way.

Sorry, skinny white middle-aged chick with long unkept hair and John Lennon glasses usually equals liberal cunt.

[DMC]

This is what I hate the most. People can't fucking compromise and we end up with fucking orange shit because they too good to vote for Hillary. Fucking pussies. :lol

Yeah great argument you fucking idiot. That's why you're stuck with that fat orange bastard because your side is so stupid.

[DMC]

But as a whole, the repubfaggots are ALL fucking idiots. :lmao

yet they won

[ElNono]

Entertainment is probably the largest draw these days, but there are some solid takes here or there, and certainly some debatable topics

[midnightpulp]

The question has to be asked inward. Are you here to change your mind or here to change other people's minds? You can only change your mind.

I'll happily change my mind when presented with a compelling argument. I also hope my compelling arguments might give people pause on their positions. That said, I'm not really a regular here over the years, so I'm not necessarily using my discussion with people here as an example, just political debate/discussion in general.

[midnightpulp]

There are billions of poor people and letting them come here won't benefit the world.

Letting people in the country that can't contribute isn't compatible with big government programs that require we tax success for them to live at some arbitrary high standard that is deemed a human right.

If global warming is the most pressing issue that impacts the entire world then sending the poors to the US, which has high per capital pollution, isn't beneficial to anyone.

Slippery slope argument. No one is suggesting letting in billions of poor people. At some point, charity and logistics do clash. "Can't contribute?" The migrant class has never not contributed. Quit believing the "they're all on welfare" meme. There's some logic to the last point, and that might be a debate worth having, but I don't think the current immigration rate is going to dramatically shift the impact of climate change one way or the other.

[Blake]

The question has to be asked inward. Are you here to change your mind or here to change other people's minds? You can only change your mind.

Pretty much this. Pretty much a waste of time making a concerted effort to try to change someone else's mind.

[Blake]

I'm here for the lols tbh

Pretty much this too.

[midnightpulp]

How did you change from a Bernie Bro to what you are now?

He's in his Libertarian phase. I went from leaning socialist (like real socialist, not social democracy) to Libertarianism because it's a solid and sensible idea in a vacuum, with its main selling point being limited government invention (this idea is attractive because, historically, governments have been bad actors). But for Libertarianism to work in the real world, you'd need a society of near-perfect ethical and rational agents.

Example: A Libertarian would argue there's no need for an FDA, because a food or drug company wouldn't knowingly bring to market a potentially harmful/substandard project since doing so would hurt profits long term. Nice logic. Except that's not how it works in the real world. If a drug company knows 5% of its patients experience dangerous side-effects and runs a cost benefit analysis that to make the drug 100% safe would cost an additional 50 million in research and development vs. 20 million in settled lawsuits/fines, they're going with the latter, especially if they're a publicly traded corporation. The Libertarian supply-side theory also doesn't work in the real world, at the macro corporate level at least.

I would say I'm a micro-Libertarian in that I believe small businesses should enjoy more tax cuts and a less regulated environment (as long as the less regulation doesn't have social consequences) than their corporate counterparts.

[BD24]

that faggot nathan89 changed his mind tbh. Went from a hardcore bernie lover to hard core right leaning trump lover.

Might be useful to ask him what happened.

[Nathan89]

Slippery slope argument. No one is suggesting letting in billions of poor people. At some point, charity and logistics do clash. "Can't contribute?" The migrant class has never not contributed. Quit believing the "they're all on welfare" meme. There's some logic to the last point, and that might be a debate worth having, but I don't think the current immigration rate is going to dramatically shift the impact of climate change one way or the other.

So how many poors is adequate? Some don't even want borders. A mere fence is immoral. We should apparently defund ice. Just a slippery slope argument.

Dems are increasingly pushing for Ubi so usefulness of the low skilled workers is not very significant at present.

What are the welfare statistics on this topic? Also would like to know next generation and from what country these people are coming from. I'd like to look at your sources.

We have anywhere from 11million to high 20s million illegals alone. Pretty sure that's significant. And that's before we get into legal immigrants. And that's all before we get into the high birth rates when they come here. Surely it's not significant. We need immediate and drastic change but not in this area of course.

[midnightpulp]

So how many poors is adequate? Some don't even want borders. A mere fence is immoral. We should apparently defund ice. Just a slippery slope argument.

Dems are increasingly pushing for Ubi so usefulness of the low skilled workers is not very significant at present.

What are the welfare statistics on this topic? Also would like to know next generation and from what country these people are coming from. I'd like to look at your sources.

We have anywhere from 11million to high 20s million illegals alone. Pretty sure that's significant. And that's before we get into legal immigrants. And that's all before we get into the high birth rates when they come here. Surely it's not significant. We need immediate and drastic change but not in this area of course.

From non-partisan econofact (that cites its sources):


Despite scapegoating in public discourse, the drain that undocumented immigrants place on government benefit programs is small. The number of low-income undocumented immigrants is small relative to the size of the overall low-income population, and federal law restricts their participation in most programs. Because so little federal assistance is available, some states and localities bear a disproportionate burden. As enforcement efforts become more aggressive, it is expected that undocumented immigrants will be less likely to access public programs on behalf of their children who, as citizens, are legally eligible for these benefits.

https://econofact.org/do-undocumented-immigrants-overuse-government-benefits

The centrist Brookings Institution (one of the most respected think tanks in the world) concluded that immigrants don't undercut American labor:


As Brookings Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown explains in her new Brookings Essay, “The Wall,” immigrants may not actually be “stealing” as many U.S. jobs as Trump thinks. As she put it, “the impact of immigrant labor on the wages of native-born workers is low… However, undocumented workers often work the unpleasant, back-breaking jobs that native-born workers are not willing to do.”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/08/24/do-immigrants-steal-jobs-from-american-workers/

I don't know how many immigrants we should let in. As I said, there's a point where charity clashes with logistics (A homeless shelter that only has room for 50 people obviously can't let in a 1000). But the current situation is in no way threatening said logistics. The US is fuckin' huge. For a comparison, Japan can fit 130 million people on an island the size of Montana.

Another way to curb illegal immigration is to build industry there, like plants and factories. Yes, more "outsourcing." But not really. Maybe move the plants and factories that were outsourced to China to Mexico and Central America. I believe Ford has a few plants in Mexico. Mexico also manufactures other shit for US corps. And guess what? Immigration from Mexico is at a historic low.

http://tacna.net/companies-succeeding-in-mexico/

[boutons_deux]

BigCorp globalizing NAFTA wiped out Ms of Mexican subsistence family farms, forcing Ms to flee to USA to support their families.

[DMC]

Well at least you not denying repubfaggots aren't all fucking idiots. :lmao

No, they are absolutely fucking idiots.

[DMC]

So 1 in 10 people might be illegal in the US? :lmao

Bad math. If the 20m are illegal, they are likely not counted in the census.

[DMC]

I'll happily change my mind when presented with a compelling argument. I also hope my compelling arguments might give people pause on their positions. That said, I'm not really a regular here over the years, so I'm not necessarily using my discussion with people here as an example, just political debate/discussion in general.
So will anyone else. The issue is that people don't see eye to eye and don't have the same rationality, so "compelling" has a different requirement for each person.

[DMC]

High 20's can be 29. And the census counts illegals.

It doesn't count undocumented illegals.

[Spurtacular]

:lol "independent"

Are you the standard bearer for independent?

[Nathan89]

So 1 in 10 people might be illegal in the US? :lmao

"Generally accepted estimates put the population of undocumented immigrants in the United States at approximately 11.3 million."

"After running 1,000,000 simulations of the model, the researchers’ 95% probability range is 16 million to 29 million, with 22.1 million as the mean. "

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates

[Pavlov]

Are you the standard bearer for independent?He's no more independent than you are.

[AaronY]

that faggot nathan89 changed his mind tbh. Went from a hardcore bernie lover to hard core right leaning trump lover.

Might be useful to ask him what happened.
I think he was a Bernie bro but even that wasn't fucking stupid enough for him so he downgraded iirc

[Winehole23]

It doesn't count undocumented illegals.Sure it does:




Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

[boutons_deux]

... is why Repugs are fighting hard to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census, to reduce the number of illegals counted for apportionment.

Bigger problem than illegals is the Congressional capping of seats at 535 in 1929, when the population was 120M vs todays 330M. So that's not even an Amendment, but an act of Congress.

and of course the Constitutional bias favoring land (per state) over population, aka, the fucking Senate

[TeyshaBlue]

This place used to be a bit more vibrant, with some vaguely intelligent conservatives, who have long since stopped posting. What remains... is the faithful bench for the most part.

ST populated by enlightened progreesives and the occasional "vaguely intelligent conservative".

Yeah, ok. Enjoy the condescension casserole.

[Winehole23]

ST populated by enlightened progreesives and the occasional "vaguely intelligent conservative".

Yeah, ok. Enjoy the condescension casserole.THIS PLACE WAS A PEARL ON A SATIN PILLOW!

[DarrinS]

I'm only here for the mildly entertaining shit posts.

If you want real political debates, watch IQ^2 debates on youtube.

Or here https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org

[TeyshaBlue]

THIS PLACE WAS A PEARL ON A SATIN PILLOW!

Ive lost quite a bit of weight since then.

[Will Hunting]

So 1 in 10 people might be illegal in the US? :lmao
:lol you think that’s bad, there’s literally millions of Alex Jones listeners who claim (with zero evidence) that there are 50+ million illegals in the US

[hater]

Jesus would be considered a libtard by republicans if he was around today.

Jesus would be considered a Putin Russian puppet by Democraps today tbqh

[Winehole23]

Ive lost quite a bit of weight since then.I hope that's a good thing, TB.

(Drugs, disease and divorce being the usual culprits.)

[TeyshaBlue]

I hope that's a good thing, TB.

(Drugs, disease and divorce being the usual culprits.)

Certainly reduced my satin pillow. LOL

[Will Hunting]

He's in his Libertarian phase. I went from leaning socialist (like real socialist, not social democracy) to Libertarianism because it's a solid and sensible idea in a vacuum, with its main selling point being limited government invention (this idea is attractive because, historically, governments have been bad actors). But for Libertarianism to work in the real world, you'd need a society of near-perfect ethical and rational agents.

Example: A Libertarian would argue there's no need for an FDA, because a food or drug company wouldn't knowingly bring to market a potentially harmful/substandard project since doing so would hurt profits long term. Nice logic. Except that's not how it works in the real world. If a drug company knows 5% of its patients experience dangerous side-effects and runs a cost benefit analysis that to make the drug 100% safe would cost an additional 50 million in research and development vs. 20 million in settled lawsuits/fines, they're going with the latter, especially if they're a publicly traded corporation. The Libertarian supply-side theory also doesn't work in the real world, at the macro corporate level at least.

I would say I'm a micro-Libertarian in that I believe small businesses should enjoy more tax cuts and a less regulated environment (as long as the less regulation doesn't have social consequences) than their corporate counterparts.
Libertarians constantly try to qualify the difference between capitalism and “crony capitalism” but they can’t logically explain how “limited government” will lead to the elimination of crony capitalism or why crony capitalism has only gotten more out of control as there’s been more deregulation.

Im also never going to understand why Libertarians claim that they want as little interraction between the public and private sector as possible yet they support the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling. It’s a blatant contradiction they can’t ever explain.

[DarrinS]

Jesus would be considered a libtard by republicans if he was around today.

And JFK would be considered a right wing extremist by today's left

[Winehole23]

And JFK would be considered a right wing extremist by today's leftWhy?

[Will Hunting]

And JFK would be considered a right wing extremist by today's left
Explain.

[Winehole23]

on a completely unrelated tangent, this thumbnail schema of kinds of stupidity is a good reminder that intelligence and advanced specialization aren't necessarily proof against it.

there's much more to life than being right, online or anywhere else.

https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/different-kinds-of-stupid/

[Winehole23]

Explain.Another DarrinS drive by.

He seldom circles back to unpack his own comments, but that's probably smart: his ratio of self-immolating takes is very high.

[Will Hunting]

Another DarrinS drive by.

He seldom circles back to unpack his own comments, but that's probably smart: his ratio of self-immolating takes is very high.

I’m guessing this has something to do with tax cuts and how :cry today’s Liberals don’t support anyone who cuts taxes :cry. IIRC it was either Darrin or that Yonivore retard who tried to argue before that today’s Liberals would hate JFK for his tax cuts.

Of course, that’d be a stupid argument to make that ignores how cutting the top marginal rate from 91% to 70% and the corporate tax rate from 52% to 48% (what JFK did) is completely different from cutting the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 37% while eliminating deductions that primarily benefited the middle class, and also cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 22%, with no plan on how the tax cuts would be paid for (what Trump did).

It also ignores the fact that the top marginal rate under JFKs plan (70%) is the same top marginal rate that one of the party’s most progressive figures (AOC) is advocating for, but has stupid ever stopped Darrin before?

[Winehole23]

is glib for sure

[Spurtacular]

He's no more independent than you are.

So, you're not.

[Isitjustme?]

And JFK would be considered a right wing extremist by today's left

And if JFK was around today the Sean Hannitys, Fox News, and Daily Wires would demonize him and pretend hes a dangerous, womanizing piece of shit

[Pavlov]

So, you're not.Not what?

I've voted for Republicans and Democrats in the past. I'll consider voting for Republicans again when they stop trying to take the vote away from American citizens who have done nothing wrong.

[DarrinS]

Another DarrinS drive by.

He seldom circles back to unpack his own comments, but that's probably smart: his ratio of self-immolating takes is very high.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Qg_4zqpDI

[CitizenDwayne]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Qg_4zqpDI
Dennis Prager. Certainly wouldn’t be biased on the matter

[DarrinS]

Dennis Prager. Certainly wouldn’t be biased on the matter

That wasn't Dennis Prager. It was Larry Elder.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Darrin will never back up an argument himself.

[Will Hunting]

That wasn't Dennis Prager. It was Larry Elder.
So any thoughts on the matter yourself or just a youtube video?

[baseline bum]

And JFK would be considered a right wing extremist by today's left

For wanting a 65% top tax rate? So 5 points is the difference between right winger and socialist nutcase?

[Will Hunting]

For wanting a 65% top tax rate? So 5 points is the difference between right winger and socialist nutcase?
The actual tax plan he passed ended up at 70% iirc.

[Pavlov]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Qg_4zqpDIThat's an easy question.

Democrat.

No video necessary.

[DarrinS]

That's an easy question.

Democrat.

No video necessary.


He would not be a Democrat in 2019.

[Pavlov]

He would not be a Democrat in 2019.Of course he would.

[DarrinS]

Of course he would.

Based on what?

[Will Hunting]

Based on what?
How would he be a Republican? Use your own words this time big boy.

[Pavlov]

Based on what?....if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."

[baseline bum]

The actual tax plan he passed ended up at 70% iirc.

But he got dragged into that kicking and screaming when he was proposing the far more job creator friendly rate of 65%.

[DarrinS]

How would he be a Republican? Use your own words this time big boy.


....if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."



Different standards for different posters, I suppose.

Oh, and based on the quote Pav posted, I am a liberal, too.

[Pavlov]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose.

[Pavlov]

The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, of expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

[Pavlov]

Different standards for different posters, I suppose.

Oh, and based on the quote Pav posted, I am a liberal, too.No you aren't.

Quit trying to co-opt presidents just because they were popular.

You got Trump. You want Trump. You support Trump. You defend Trump.

[Will Hunting]

Different standards for different posters, I suppose.

Oh, and based on the quote Pav posted, I am a liberal, too.

Pavlov and I agree on the issue so there's no need for me to ask him to regurgitate the argument I already put in my own words up above.

Still waiting for you to use your own words though.

[Quadzilla99]

That wasn't Dennis Prager. It was Larry Elder.

:lol like that's any better

[Will Hunting]

For wanting a 65% top tax rate? So 5 points is the difference between right winger and socialist nutcase?
:lol For the record, DarrinS dodged the shit out of this post

[baseline bum]

:lol For the record, DarrinS dodged the shit out of this post

https://i.ibb.co/cXfgGTH/kennedy.jpg

[Pavlov]

Honestly, before Darrin, et.al., accepted Trump into his life, about half the presidents would never have made it to office with a post-Drudge media climate just because of their fucking habits.

Especially JFK.

I'd like to think Darrin and the rest will abandon their faux puritanism for good, but the very second Woman and/or Minority Democratic Candidate has anything resembling sex outside the old mores I think they'll don their hairshirts once more.

[pgardn]

OP

Some of us like to know which board members pull absolute crap off the Internet and believe it.
I personally find it fascinating what people believe to be true.

[Chucho]

Explain.

He hated pinko commie bastards.

[Down Under]

And you know there's many, many more verses of this type. Helping the poor seems to be a direct command of God.
My Dad mentioned this to an American colleague when he was in Afghanistan after she was complaining about dole bludgers (people on benefits) - he said that it wasn't a very Christian attitude in a tongue in cheek way & she went off at him :lol

[RandomGuy]

And if JFK was around today the Sean Hannitys, Fox News, and Daily Wires would demonize him and pretend hes a dangerous, womanizing piece of shit

They would be taking Reagan to task as well, for having raised taxes. Reagan couldn't make it out of the primaries these days, which says volumes about how far to the right the party has lurched, despite their beatifying of St. Reagan.

[RandomGuy]

He's in his Libertarian phase. I went from leaning socialist (like real socialist, not social democracy) to Libertarianism because it's a solid and sensible idea in a vacuum, with its main selling point being limited government invention (this idea is attractive because, historically, governments have been bad actors). But for Libertarianism to work in the real world, you'd need a society of near-perfect ethical and rational agents.

Example: A Libertarian would argue there's no need for an FDA, because a food or drug company wouldn't knowingly bring to market a potentially harmful/substandard project since doing so would hurt profits long term. Nice logic. Except that's not how it works in the real world. If a drug company knows 5% of its patients experience dangerous side-effects and runs a cost benefit analysis that to make the drug 100% safe would cost an additional 50 million in research and development vs. 20 million in settled lawsuits/fines, they're going with the latter, especially if they're a publicly traded corporation. The Libertarian supply-side theory also doesn't work in the real world, at the macro corporate level at least.

I would say I'm a micro-Libertarian in that I believe small businesses should enjoy more tax cuts and a less regulated environment (as long as the less regulation doesn't have social consequences) than their corporate counterparts.

Agreed.

Full on Libertarianism fails to deal with resource asymmetry.

My fear is that corporations are getting bigger faster than anyone realizes. At some point they will be more powerful than any government. That should give anyone pause.