Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SexWarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 147  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 03:21:59 PM »
Take what Trump said during the election
ok, let's do just that:

Mr Trump called Nato "obsolete" because it "wasn't taking care of terror".

Nato, he said, was "very important" to him but only five of its 28 member-states were paying their fair share and that, he said, was "very unfair to the United States"

Now, let's compare it to what Stoltenberg is "totally agreeing" with:

BLITZER: Because you know the president has repeatedly said, President Trump, that he is upset with NATO because NATO as an organization is not doing enough to fight terror.

Did he say that to you today?

STOLTENBERG: He said that he would like NATO to do more. And I totally agree with him.

Yes, you can make a truly SexWarrior-style case for how "not taking care of something" and "not doing enough to take care of something" are two different things. But we've all heard a whole lot of Trump talking in the past few years. Even a proper anti-Trump sycophant is likely to agree that the man exaggerates a lot when he gets too excited about something.

Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind.
No, he agreed with Trump before he changed his mind (obsolete -> not obsolete). Reading between the lines, it sounds like your issue is that Trump said NATO "wasn't taking care of terror", where in your mind NATO was taking care of terror. In other words, Trump's choice of words was piss-poor. If I'm reading you correctly: yeah, you're technically right. Trump shouldn't have said NATO aren't taking care of terror, he should have said that they're doing a shitty job at it (agree or not, this was clearly his stance on the matter).

However, there's an important message to be sent there: Trekky, the world has mostly moved on past the short "haha BIGLY Trump uses wrong words!!!!" phase. Now, let me be clear, uh, let me be clear: his communication style isn't going to change anytime soon. If you keep denying current events just because someone you don't like didn't phrase them so well, well, Rama's already said it.

Of course, let's not forget that people focusing on pointless trite like this is only hurting the Democrats. Nobody else. It's going to become the party of "The Secretary General of NATO says he completely agrees with Trump and that NATO will change accordingly, BUT ACTUALLY IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY AND TRUMP IS WRONG :D :D :D"

Where does he say that NATO did not fight terrorism, but now does, as Trump said?
I Googled "NATO doesn't fight terrorism", but all I found was a comments section on an InfoWars article. If you're going to pussyfoot around with phrasing and semantics, you may want to make sure that you're not committing the very fallacy you're trying to capitalise on.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 08:23:22 AM »
I'm not sure how you can take his statement to mean he agrees with Trump
Stoltenberg said he was of the same mind as Trump

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that the organization "can do more" in efforts to combat international terrorism and increase investments into defense expenditures

STOLTENBERG: And I told him that I welcome that he is pushing for more adaptation, that NATO has to continue to change, especially when it comes to stepping up our efforts in fighting international terrorism.

We do a lot, but we can do more. And also when it comes to fairer burden sharing inside the alliance, many allies have to invest more in defense.


BLITZER: Because you know the president has repeatedly said, President Trump, that he is upset with NATO because NATO as an organization is not doing enough to fight terror.

Did he say that to you today?

STOLTENBERG: He said that he would like NATO to do more. And I totally agree with him.
Yeah buddy I have no idea where one might get that idea. How could anyone possibly take the words "Trump wants us to do more [on terrorism] and I totally agree with him" to imply that he agrees with him.

The man literally says he agrees. Multiple times.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 24, 2017, 06:38:43 PM »
NATO didn't just start focusing on terrorism, though. Trump just found out that they focus on terrorism. There's a difference.
The Secretary General of NATO disagrees with you. I'll take his word for it over yours, sorry.

From the Politico article I've linked above as part of my clarification:

Stoltenberg said he was of the same mind as Trump on terrorism, a problem toward which NATO has sought to adapt itself to address, and defense spending among member states, which both men agreed must increase.

Then maybe he should look up the definition of Obsolete cause I think the word he should have used was "ineffective" or maybe just say "They should be focusing on Terrorism..." instead of using a word that means "No longer useful as newer things have replaced it's function/it's function is no longer required."
Certainly, he could have picked a better word. But this word was not used in a vacuum, it was followed up with an explanation of what he meant and why. I guess if you're really looking to fault him for something there, then sure: he did not have the best words. Sad!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 24, 2017, 04:15:59 PM »
He doesn't answer the question and also admits to making strong statements about things he wasn't knowledgeable about on the campaign trail. What is the point of this answer? All it does is demonstrate he doesn't know or does not want to answer what has changed about NATO to cause a reversal in his stance that it is obsolete.
This seems to be a short (but clear) reference to his previous words on the subject:

"The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more Nato can do in the fight against terrorism.

"I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism.

"I said it [Nato] was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete."

Those were his comments directly after his meeting with Stoltenberg, which, unsurprisingly, he also references in the answer you didn't understand the point of.

I guess outside of the context of world events it might indeed be difficult to figure out what he meant by And then some expert on NATO said, 'You know, Trump is right,'" or "But I said it was obsolete because they weren't focused on terror," but as soon as you take a slight adjustment for, well, current events being current, it stops being quite so baffling.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 24, 2017, 08:58:09 AM »
being direct and supporting my claims with quality sources?  how wily of me. 
It's okay, buddy, we can forget your shameless quote-mining and not knowing what Puerto Rico is. A two-in-one deal, available only while supplies last!

oh, a wikipedia page.
Ah, yes, Gary the "I find Wikipedia pages unreliable when they directly disprove my lies" guy strikes again.

which part do you think supports that korea was once part of china?
About half of it. It's also well-sourced and doesn't involve quote-mining. You're welcome.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 23, 2017, 06:15:24 PM »
maybe do one of those google searches and show me how i'm wrong rather than just declaring that i am.

But, as usual, I'm not too interested in making you admit you're wrong. It's all about making sure no one here falls for your bs. Usually works well enough, too.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 23, 2017, 04:14:27 PM »
to me it's like you're saying that belgum was once part of france because germany conquered them both [...]  i mean if we want to be super vague about what it means to be part of a nation, then sure, i guess.
Yes, you insist on imposing this false equivalency, even though it has nothing to do with what I said. At best, it could be argued (wrongfully) that it's loosely related to one of the multiple periods in history I brought up.

Look, if you really want to espouse South Korean historic revisionism as gospel, that's fine by me. But don't be surprised if it results in you not being taken very seriously in discussions around these subjects, or that you might occasionally be taken to account over simple falsities. And if you choose to quote-mine a book to make it sound like you're right, well, I'll just remind you that this is something that can be verified with a quick Google search. It doesn't really merit much more of anyone's time than that.

or that puetro rico [...] [is] part of the united states
In this case, I agree: the factually correct thing that I stated is just like this other factually correct thing.

Puerto Rico [...] is an unincorporated territory of the United States located in the northeast Caribbean Sea.

"that person is just an incompetent biased liar," and "yeah but if we were talking about something different then you would make a different argument," are not things i can argue against.
It's a good thing that I said neither of those things. I'm just pointing out that, in my view, your eagerness to double-down on revisionism would be considerably lower if that revisionism didn't support your immediate interest. Your inability to respond confirms that suggestion.

also being a tributary is absolutely not the same thing as being incorporated into an empire.
It's a good thing we're talking about a number of occupations and vassalages, then.

i feel like i've mentioned before that i think signals matter in foreign policy.  for example, if the north korean regime collapses, china's behavior may be dictated by the extent to which it believes trump supports their "historical claim" to north korean territory.  or worse, that south korea believes the same thing.
Right, so your entire objection here is that you like South Korea more than you like China. I'm sure you have reasons for that, but I'm not sure that justifies doubling down on alt-facts and considering anyone who disagrees to be hilarious. It's just a tad irrational.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / 8values
« on: April 22, 2017, 11:06:37 PM »
It's another political compass kinda thang, because we didn't have enough of those. You know the drill.

dis me

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 21, 2017, 01:29:23 PM »
In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 21, 2017, 01:27:26 PM »
How much of that was in the AHCA?
Most, but I take your point on not completely repealing Obamacare (which, of course, ended up becoming the bill's downfall). I'd argue it's a mere technicality, but hey ho.

[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.[/time]
[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]
What the fuck even happened here?

Wait, which Syria bombing?  I'm referring to the one in response to the chemical attack, not the MOAB bunker hit as that was well done.
I was referring to the response to the chemical attack, but both earned international praise.

Now, I don't expect him to do everything.  His job is to sell his ideas, not write the bill.  But I DO expect him to understand what he's trying to sell.  He promised things without having any understanding on what that meant.  He talks to state leaders without understanding their culture or nation's history.  Yelling at heads of state on the phone is also a fun thing you shouldn't do.
I simply disagree that this is the case. I feel like I've presented my reasoning. If you disagree, oh well, I guess we get to keep our opinions!

But the one thing he promised, more than anything, more than any specific idea?
He had the best people.  The best.  People you've never heard of.
So yes, his team is very important and he surrounded himself with self interest individuals who have absolutely no idea what they're doing in the job they were assigned.  So not only has he failed to do his own research (he even bragged about not preparing for debates), he failed to get experts in the field who would do that for him.
Some of them are absolute pillocks, others seem to be quite on top of things and hence aren't covered all that much. McMaster is my go-to example because he's surpassed expectations to the point that the media can no longer be silent about him

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2017, 07:40:37 PM »
considering korea as part of china because the mongols conquered them both is asinine
It's a great thing that no one considers the Yuan dynasty's invasion of Korea to be "because the Mongols conquered them", then. But, of course, even if you were right (you're not), this would be a moot point since the vassal status carried over when the Ming took over. There was also the Tang dynasty before that... and Qing after that... oh well, I bet they're all just made up, nothing to worry about there.

Gary, have you tried at least brushing up on the history of China before you wrote this? Like, seriously, this is high school level world history.

Kyung Moon Hwang
Breaking news: a left-wing medium managed to find a left-wing Korean-American who's willing to confirm the historical revisionism of the South Korean government, or who at the very least is willing to be a pedant about the difference between being a vassal state and a territory with some autonomy. I wonder how seriously you'd take this if it was a pro-Putin Russian historian making false claims about Russian ownership of Crimea. (Hint: I suspect not very seriously)

frankly, what's laughable is not that he's wrong.
Well, of course. Because he's not wrong and confirmation of that is one Google search away.

what's laughable is that he's inserting himself into a cultural-historical argument between two regional rivals who are both vitally important to us national interests.  for no gain.  it's absurdly amateurish.
What makes you think that there's no gain to it? And what makes you think that he's inserting himself into an argument? So far, the only angry responses to his claim seem to have come from sensationalist American media.

Where's all the outrage from the regional rivals? Judging by the Bloomberg link you gave us (you've actually read that, right?), all that happened was that their presidential candidates have decided to turn it into a dick-measuring contest among themselves, which is both predictable and normal.

Also, I thought China was our ally??????

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2017, 03:57:52 PM »
It actually sounds like China has conquered Korea a number of times but that Korea refuses to accept that that made them a part of China. A semantic difference at best.
B-but Trump is 140% always wrong and that's funny!!1!

Yeah, the Korean Peninsula has been conquered by China (among others) many times throughout history. Quick examples: The Han dynasty held the North in 100BCE, the Yuan dynasty (aka the Mongols) vassalised Korea in the 13th century.

But, as usual, let's not get facts get in the way. It's hilarious that DRUMPTF said it!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« on: April 20, 2017, 03:52:35 PM »
Is this entire thread just a bunch of entitled noobs who failed to read up on EAT?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2017, 10:09:07 AM »
I didn't say that's how it works bud.
I'm glad you retracted that claim. It would have been utter madness for you to pursue it further.

What ideas of Trump's exactly are in the AHCA?
Tax-deductible insurance premiums were promised, tax credits were provided (similar enough, except better for the poor), the lack of an immediate cut to Medicaid and a close equivalent of block grants is there, and the remaining promise (increasing price transparency) couldn't have reasonably been part of a budget plan. So far, so good. I'm very surprised that you so conveniently forgot about all these.

It seems that your dissatisfaction stems from the assumption that Trump has to fulfil all his healthcare promises with a single bill (that and you didn't pay attention before the election, or didn't want to pay attention). That, while completely unrealistic and unrelated to how American politics has ever worked, is at least somewhat understandable. But not everything has to happen in one shot (or one successful shot). The man still has a year or two before ACA collapses (although these estimates may now be outdated given how quickly insurers are fleeing). By then, he has to either secure support from the Democrats or cave to the pressure from hardline Republicans. Time will tell which one he'll choose and how many of his promises he'll be able to fulfil as a consequence.

Have you tried reading the rules? The one you're struggling with has very little to do with newspeak, and a lot to do with "If you have a point to make, make it. If you don't have one and just want to fling some shit at people, don't."

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 06:36:15 PM »
In the second debate, Trump talked about allowing competition across state lines. That wasn't in the AHCA.
Ah, I was wondering what was missing from this conversation for a few posts. It was Trekky and his "there's one inconsistency therefore IT'S ALL BUNK PACK IT UP GUYS" rhetoric. Welcome back!

The AHCA was a product of Paul Ryan, not Donald Trump.
So, I have to ask you again: Do you really think this is how governance works? Do you think the US President sits in his desk 9-5 and writes lengthy bills by himself? Because, y'know, that's not how this works.

Of course, if you tried reading the discussion before posting, we wouldn't have to say it again, but we wouldn't want that to stop you from partisan shilling, would we? An actual discourse would be oh-so-inconvenient for your narrative.

No President presides alone, he's just a figurehead.
Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.
Agreed, but only if we accept that it's not him personally who has to produce everything. That's just madness.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 02:43:31 PM »
But we're not talking about them, we're talking about him.
I consider the two inseparable. No President presides alone, he's just a figurehead.

That is literally his entire plan to the best of our knowledge.
This is incorrect. He outlined the cornerstones of AHCA during the presidential debates. Not in great detail, of course, but the idea was out there and likely contributed to him winning.

A lapse in judgement?  No, it was simply him getting information from a poor source.
Yes - the British Government.

Electoral success is irrelevant to knowledge and you know it.  The US elections are a popularity contest, nothing more.
I disagree. He started off as an extremely unpopular candidate. He won because of his performance in debates.

He won by the electoral collage, not the popular vote

AND he won by appealing to voters with simple language and simple solutions to complex problems.
Yes... In case you forgot, that's my position. Repeating it to me only makes me think I'm right.

The Syrian bombing was done in reaction to an emotional video, not policy or strategic planning.
McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.

And the Democrats are literally doing what the Republicans did for Obama.  It worked for them, so why not for the Dems?
They're in a very different position from the Republicans during Obama's presidency. They went ham too soon, and they're going in too hard. Moderates are still waiting to see how well Trump will perform in the long term, but all they can see is that the Democrats are trying (and failing) to fuck him up. In Obama's case, a similar error on the Republicans' side secured him a second term in office. One would think the Democrats would learn from this and not hand him a Trump 2020.

Heck, it seems to be working for them too.
For a very specific definition of "working", yes. It's a definition I personally balk at.

Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.
Agreed, but only if we accept that it's not him personally who has to produce everything. That's just madness.

And when it comes time to make good on what he promises, he not only fails to do so, but shows he didn't even understand what he was trying to sell.
So far, this has no backing in reality.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 11:26:17 AM »
But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?
The opposite is the case. We have no evidence that he (and his team) know nothing about healthcare or global politics. All we know about healthcare is that he failed to simultaneously manage the expectation of the more extreme Republicans and the Democrats (he needed support of one or the other, he bet on the latter, this failed. A mistake I'm sure he'll learn not to repeat). The Scotland gaffe was a lapse in judgement, but he was merely parroting the British government who insists over and over that "the British people have spoken", despite many issues with that claim.

Meanwhile, we have ample evidence to the contrary (huge electoral successes, nationwide and international praise after Syria bombing, Democrats left with no choice but to oppose any legislative progress, which in turn will leave them with even less power over time). Trump's successes, as crude, brutish and unfavourable as they may look, are not leaving us anytime soon.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 09:21:25 AM »
The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
And this is where you taking things so literally gets in the way. He's blatantly exaggerating - you know that, and you point it out yourself in your post ("This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew."). You want to think he knows literally nothing, rather than accept that he's just doing politics and covering it up with his showbusiness skills. His positions change because that's how staying in power works - he has to balance policies that he promised with policies that will allow him to stay in power.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 08:50:03 AM »
It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.
I disagree with that assessment. He tells us nothing about what he does or doesn't know, and the assumption that he therefore must know nothing simply doesn't follow.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 147  Next >