The Rules of Debate

[Bill the Cat]

Bill-dono, if he implements his thoughts into actions,

Which the Congress won't allow him to do, so...

then it does matter what his personal opinions are. And as a public figure, it is utterly irresponsible to promote the anti-vaxxer nonsense.

It's also utterly irresponsible to intentionally circumvent national security measures.

But you would never admit that, right?

Of course I admit it. I just don't think it is as dangerous as you're blowing it out of proportion. As I said, it is not a popular position, and few, if any, pediatricians support it.

Because the only people "right" in public policy are those with (R) besides their name, according to people like you.

Oh, that's not true at all. There are several (R) politicians that I think are worthless tools. I just happen to understand a certain hierarchy of what is dangerous to my country and what isn't. Trump blowing smoke on anti-vax is very low.

Saying that he doesn't have the power is silly.

If you have any knowledge of American politics, you will know that on this sort of rhetoric is basically unenforceable.

If he pushes the motion, and the public cries for it because he's riled the people up, then the Senators/Representatives will push his plans through.

Since when have American politicians cared about the public?

I wasn't expecting more from people who make up the majority of conservatives these days. It's like you guys go out of your way to defend Trump.

I only defend Trump against overblown claims, like the ridiculous list you put below. He says stupid things. Big deal.

At least be honest and admit that (at least to you folk), that Trump is as bad for the country as Hillary would be, according to you.

I do not think he will be as bad. Not even close. It's all about the Supreme Court now.

It's kind of ridiculous that you're supporting a candidate who:

Ok, I've had enough of this crap.

said the US should commit war crimes.

You'll get no sympathy from me on enhanced interrogation. Sorry if that makes your heart bleed.

- attacked a Gold Star family

Being a "Gold Star" family does not give someone a pass to speak like an ass. That "Gold Star" family exploited refugees for money and the husband is generally an asshat. He deserved every rebuttal Trump threw at him. He should have gotten a punch in the mouth for exploiting his own son's death for Hillary's political gain. And watching you lot defend Mr. Khan's hiding behind his son's sacrifice makes me puke.

- torture enemy combatants

I'm for that too. Sue me.

- placing nuclear weapons on the table

You'll have to explain that one.

- said we should seize the oil fields

No. He said we should have controlled them after the Iraq war. He was wrong in that it isn't allowed by the Geneva Convention, so it's another thing where he spoke without authority to actually do it.

- praises dictators for their rule

- proposed banning Muslims from the country

TEMPORARILY!!! Until we could get a better vetting process for the wave of refugees coming into the country.

- said Climate Change was a Chinese hoax

Stupid, but nothing worse. At least he doesn't claim to talk to Eleanor Roosevelt...

- has a foundation that is used as a tax shelter

Alleged. Innocent until proven guilty and all that...

- said there should be a Second Amendment solution to Clinton proposing Gun Control

Yeah. It's called voting against her

- encourages violence against protestors

Only in retaliation for their own violence.

- wants to build a pointless wall between Mexico and the USA

I've already schooled everyone here on the wall. Part of it already exists, and it reduced illegal border crossings at Tijuana by 95%. Calling it pointless shows your ignorance. You should be ashamed for regurgitating this pathetic list.

- made fun of a disabled reporter

Stupid, but again, nothing worse. At least he wasn't under sniper fire in Kosovo...

- still accuses the Central Park 5

Citation please.

- said that we should execute Edward Snowden

- said that vaccines cause autism

Stupid, but again, nothing worse.

- donated to a anti-vaxx charity

Wait... I thought the liberal mantra was that Trump didn't really donate to any charity...

And Hillary's foundation has taken millions from countries with atrocious human rights records.

- insulted various women's appearances

Hillary has destroyed women who accused her husband of infidelity.

- said he would have supported the Japanese internment camps

Wrong.



So, no he did not say he would have supported them.

- said that we would leave our military bases & NATO

In 2011, half of Americans felt the same way. Now, 2 in 5 either say NATO is obsolete or they were not sure whether it was still needed or not.

- said he only wanted Jews to count his money

Alleged by a fired casino manager

- didn't disavow David Duke as soon as he couple & is still being promoted by David Duke

So what? Hillary has pro- late term abortion people supporting her

- told people to check out a private sex tape

No. He referenced the existence of the video as proof that Alicia Machado is disgusting. He never said for people to watch it.

- said he'd try and force companies to remain in the USA by force

Source: http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/06/hillary-clinton-wants-to-keep-companies

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told a crowd in Iowa she wanted to keep American companies from moving overseas by "using their patents as leverage to make them pay their taxes," referring to companies like Apple and GE she said "were salting money away offshore."

© Copyright Original Source

- has defrauded people via his terrible "university" (shouldn't even call it that).

His name/brand was used and information was given to people as paid for. He didn't defraud anyone.

- has said that he's performed tax evasion

No he didn't. He said he didn't pay any taxes. I didn't either, and haven't for the past 4 years. My total tax paid after my refund was $0. They are called exemptions.

- insults John McCain for being a POW

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz4LtQiE9Jr
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

- said that we should ban refugees

Already refuted above.

- various other things that would be banned on TWeb.

Can't examine them then...

- said that we should look at loosening libel laws

Some interpretations of the libel laws are stupid. He thinks it would be a good idea to protect from garbage journalism. I ted to agree with him.

- was a Birther

Again, stupid, but nothing more.

- has cheated on his wives

Irrelevant to anyone but his own family.

I'm very disappointed that critical thinking seems to have left the site. But what can you expect when you are blinded by party lines, and not actual critical thought?

I thought this site was better, but as I can clearly see here, if you support Trump, you're no better then the people who called me "Son of Osama" just for being Indian. If you still support him after all of the above, I'm done talking to you, because it's clear you have no sense.

I'm disappointed that your critical thinking has left you and you regurgitate tired misrepresentations of Trump. I guess I overestimated you.

[JimL]

Usually when people claim this, they point to household wages being stagnant, ignoring the fact that household size is shrinking and thus this means wages are actually going up on average.

Having less children doesn't equate to your wages having gone up, what it means is that you can no longer afford to support as many children.

But even if individual wages are stagnant, what must be remembered is that wages are only a part of your income. Benefits are another major factor that are not reflected in your wage. When you consider benefits, your "actual" wage can be 30% higher than what it is listed as! After all, if my employer is paying, say, $2,000 of my insurance, that's essentially $2,000 extra I'm making that isn't reflected on my listed wages.

Let's take a look at some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 1959, your wage was 81.5% of your total compensation (the remaining 19.5% was from benefits). In 2016, your wage was 69.7% (in private industry) of your total compensation. That means that if wages are staying stagnant, the effective amount of money you're earning is increasing because your wages are a smaller percentage of your total compensation.

True, but that doesn't take inflation into account. Your total compensation, including benefits, may be up, but not when you take inflation into consideration.

For example let's suppose I make $40,000 in wages in 1959 (assume the $40,000 is in 2016 dollars). That means my total compensation is $49,080 because that's only 81.5% of my compensation. That $40,000 in wages in 2016, which is 69.7%, means my total compensation is $57,389, approximately a 17% increase!

And what is the percentage of inflation increase in that period? I guarantee you that it is much higher than the 17% increase in worker compensation since 1959.

Also, in regards to corporation profits increasing, much of that is simply because you're selling more things due to being bigger. If I sell 1,000 products at a profit of $10 for each, I'll obviously have a much larger total profit than if I sell 10 products at a profit of $10 for each. And it's much more possible to do that sort of thing than in the past. But that doesn't mean each individual employee should be paid more as a result, particularly because selling more generally requires a higher quantity of employees, meaning even if the profits are higher, they are 'spread out' among more people.

No, prouctivity has increased substantially, which means that the percentage of workers needed to produce the higher percentage of profits is actually less. Higher overall percentage of corporate profits, less overall percentage of worker compensation together with an even higher rate of inflation means the standard of living is substantially lower for the producers of that wealth.

[Let's take an example. Perhaps I own a store that has a profit of $50,000 and I pay my employees $15/hour. Now suppose I own 20 stores that each have a profit of $50,000 (for a total of $400,000). My profits are much bigger, but that's simply because I'm able to sell more stuff. Having increased salaries for employees as a result doesn't make much sense, especially because I'm employing 20 times as many employees.

But you are not factoring in higher productivity or inflation. The owner sells more stuff at a higher cost, more profit, stuff which is produced by a smaller work force percentage wise, and doesn't pass that increased profit on to the producers of it. Again, corporate profits have skyrocketed in the past 30 or 40 years, overall compensation, including benefits, has increased slightly, but inflation surpasses employee compensation.

Let's see what the Department of Labor has to say about that claim. Note that this is from a few years ago, so I'm not comparing "today" but this can be easily compensated for by multiplying the numbers by 1.05 as $1 in 2012 dollars is $1.05 in today's dollars. The minimum wage, at present, is $7.25/hour. So let's see what it was in the 60's and 70's in 2014 dollars. The highest point it was ever at during that time period was when it was $10.34/hour in 1968 ($10.86 when adjusted for today's money). Basic mathematics will show that $7.25/hour is 67% of that... so much for the claim that it's "about half" of it. And note that's the highest point. The average was $8.93/hour ($9.38/hour currently), of which the current minimum wage is 77.3%.

Now, you may say that it's still a notable decrease. However, something being the minimum wage doesn't mean it's actually the wage that, functionally speaking, is the minimum. As inflation occurs, minimum wage laws become less and less relevant; the longer it's been since the minimum wage is set, the higher the percentage of people who will be making above the minimum wage. I believe the jobs people classify as "minimum wage jobs" nowadays actually will almost always pay more than the minimum wage, and I should know, I've worked some of them and the starting salaries were always higher. So comparing the rate of the minimum wage is not that accurate because what matters is the amount people are actually earning.

Not sure how this supports your argument, it is an admission that workers compensation is declining while at the same time productivity and corporate profits are accelerating.

This claim is difficult to interface with due to being rather vague (I mean, I'm sure we can find examples of people who have done exactly what you said, and I wonder how common it even was in the 60's and 70's). Though I strongly expect that anyone who is willing to live at the same qualify of life as people did back in the 60's and 70's (e.g. no Internet, cable TV, etc.) would be very capable of raising that many children. Though you'd have to put up with their complaints about how they don't get the electronic devices that "everyone else" at school would have...

It is not a matter of people being willing to live that lesser quality of life, many people have no choice other than to go into debt which is what so many people are forced to do today.

[Irate Canadian]

I'm disappointed that your critical thinking has left you and you regurgitate tired misrepresentations of Trump. I guess I overestimated you.

Thanks for proving my point Bill!

I'm done talking to someone like you, who supports a bigot like Trump. I'll gladly have a rational discourse with someone on politics, but there is no point being a apologist for his side of the field.

You're as bright as a black hole, and twice as dense.

[P.S: There's a reason I took a long hiatus from this site, and considering how idiotic the conservatives (and some of the liberals) here act, I don't really think there's much holding me here.]

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks for proving my point Bill!

And thanks for proving mine. You didn't interact with a single thing I said, and I showed how you were overblowing and/or blatantly misrepresenting nearly everything you posted that Trump supposedly said.

I'm done talking to someone like you, who supports a bigot like Trump.

But you get to post lies about him and refuse to recant when proven wrong. Got it.

I'll gladly have a rational discourse with someone on politics, but there is no point being a apologist for his side of the field.

No. You'll gladly have a lecture and refuse to admit when you are wrong. That's a sure sign of your immaturity.

You're as bright as a black hole, and twice as dense.

My record here begs to differ. But think what you will. Your ignorance is your own to bear.

P.S: There's a reason I took a long hiatus from this site, and considering how idiotic the conservatives (and some of the liberals) here act, I don't really think there's much holding me here.

Your choice.

[Irate Canadian]

And thanks for proving mine. You didn't interact with a single thing I said, and I showed how you were overblowing and/or blatantly misrepresenting nearly everything you posted that Trump supposedly said.



But you get to post lies about him and refuse to recant when proven wrong. Got it.



No. You'll gladly have a lecture and refuse to admit when you are wrong. That's a sure sign of your immaturity.



My record here begs to differ. But think what you will. Your ignorance is your own to bear.



Your choice.

I can choose to show evidence for each and every one of those points (each one has evidence), but why would I choose to when you're going to reject some out of your own personal opinions on the matter, or claim bias on the others, or whine about authenticity, or so on. Being able to deny objective facts seems to be the conservative M.O. honestly. There's a good bunch of quotes from the Bible regarding people who just jump on to the bandwagon like this:

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words.

A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.

and no. On every other forum, facts are key. This forum doesn't seem to like them much. I see you're calling me immature. I've heard worse from better men then you.

The only ignorant one here is you. I'd rather do some hard science and advance mankind, then debate with someone who wants us back to 100 years in the past.

[demi-conservative]

That level of stupidity cannot be tolerated, Bill.

When someone in power (especially the president) espouses dangerous views, such as these, it allows herd immunity to be lost. That will lead to the resurgence of diseases

Pretty sure number of unimmunised illegal refugee is at least, if not more than children of anti-vax.

For health of community, build big tall wall!!!

[Irate Canadian]

Pretty sure number of unimmunised illegal refugee is at least, if not more than children of anti-vax.

For health of community, build big tall wall!!!

Shut up, demi.

I find it hilarious how you call yourself a Christian but espouse nothing of real worth in terms of faith.

Plus as long as we have herd immunity (which anti-vaxxers are removing), we're good.

Also, pretty sure Mexico isn't that bad that they can't afford vaccines.

[TheWall]

These political threads are doing nothing but causing unneccesary squabling. It aint right. This isnt helping people understand each other. It aint leading to anything constructive.

[demi-conservative]

Shut up, demi. I find it hilarious how you call yourself a Christian but espouse nothing of real worth in terms of faith.

Well that escalated quickly!!

Plus as long as we have herd immunity (which anti-vaxxers are removing), we're good.

Now idiot, you so worried about number of anti-vaxxers' children being unimmunised; meanwhile lots of unimmunised people coming through south border and endangering community. Oh snap!

Also, pretty sure Mexico isn't that bad that they can't afford vaccines.

Maybe. But are vaccines mandatory there? Oh snap!!

Also, of course, many illegals come from countries further south. Oh snap!!!

[demi-conservative]

These political threads are doing nothing but causing unneccesary squabling. It aint right. This isnt helping people understand each other. It aint leading to anything constructive.

Progs often need sense smacked into them with their many silliness, like when they go 'let illegal immigrants come in uncontrolled!' but 'anti-vax is bad because herd immunity weakened etc etc'.

[Irate Canadian]

Well that escalated quickly!!



Now idiot, you so worried about number of anti-vaxxers' children being unimmunised; meanwhile lots of unimmunised people coming through south border and endangering community. Oh snap!



Maybe. But are vaccines mandatory there? Oh snap!!

Also, of course, many illegals come from countries further south. Oh snap!!!

You don't understand the scientific principle of herd immunity.. so please shut up, demi.

Even if we take the hightest estimate of illegal immigrants as 11.4 M immigrants, a majority of them will be vaccinated at birth or after, and herd immunity will cover those who don't get vaccinated.

This is all your baseless assertions so please, go away from this thread, and hopefully this site too, because I don't think you add value to any discussion I've seen you participate in.

[Irate Canadian]

Progs often need sense smacked into them with their many silliness, like when they go 'let illegal immigrants come in uncontrolled!' but 'anti-vax is bad because herd immunity weakened etc etc'.

You're denying the principle of herd immunity? You're a clown that should be shown the door.

[TheWall]

See what I mean? Look at you. Look at yourselves. Is this what you want? To rip and tear at eachother? For what? It does ni good to you.

[JimL]

Apparently, Hillary can't have a step stool to make her look taller, or "coughing breaks" during the debate.

[box]If presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slips into a coughing fit or any other medical crisis during Monday's high-stakes debate, she will have to power through, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!

"There are no commercial breaks," a commission source explains. "Period."

Looks like the only one struggling to power through with his constant sniffling, (coke drip?) and general inability to focus, was Trump. Good call Drudge!

Monday's throwdown could top out at 100 million viewers, making it the biggest political event in history.

Yes, and its to bad for Trump that so many got to see what an incompetent boob he really is.

[Starlight]

To explain my "it's probably better for progressives in the medium term for Clinton not to win" theory from another angle:

There's a known result in political science that voters tend to like a party less on the national level the longer it is in power (it's the opposite on a local level - mayors become more popular the longer they are in power) and in practice this tends to lead to voter-enforced term limits. For example, a common phenomenon in NZ is that parties almost never win more than three consecutive terms. In America, it's been the case since WWII, that no party has ever had more than three consecutive terms in the presidency.

This suggests that Clinton, if she wins, will only get one term, and then Republicans will get the presidency after that. Hillary Clinton herself has consistently gotten less popular over time each time she has put herself in the national spotlight (her favorability ratings consistently trend downwards over the course of campaigns which is very unusual for a politician and shows that the more voters learn about her the less they like her), which agrees that her chances of winning a second term are slim. What potentially could save her would be the country's changing demographics - the growing non-white population leans democrat and the millennials lean democrat. So there's a slim possibility that she could break the historical trends of three terms, but on balance the chances seem pretty high that Clinton would be a one-term presidency.

Given those factors, the highly probable scenarios voters are being asked to choose between are:
a) Four years of a Clinton presidency followed by 1-3 terms of Republican presidencies.
b) Four years of a Trump presidency (I feel I'm being generous to him by assuming he lasts that long and isn't impeached) followed by 1-3 terms of Democratic presidencies.

It's a matter of whether you prefer to briefly have a democratic president followed by potentially multiple Republican terms. Or whether you're happy to grant Republicans a brief term in office now in the hope of a longer stretch of democratic presidents later. i.e. how much do you value the present over the future or vice versa? Likewise it's a matter of how bad / how good you think Trump and Clinton themselves would be.

From the point of view of most progressives, option (b) is probably preferable because (i) Clinton isn't a champion of progressive values so you don't gain much by sacrificing the future to get 4 years of Clinton in the present, (ii) Trump can be relied upon to self-destruct and definitely not be a two term president and to make every undecided voter in the country suddenly want to vote Democrat and you should get majorities handed to you in 2020 when you can put a truly progressive candidate into office and have a good chance of getting three terms on the back of better demographics and the Republican party trying to rethink its existence to cope with the changed demographics.

So, let's say you really care about a particular progressive issue that Hillary's said she's against and has mocked, like single-payer healthcare. Option (a) ensures it won't happen until 2024 at the earliest. Whereas in option (b) it could happen as soon as 2020.