Snopes is Utter Crap/Kamala Harris is Likely Descended from Slave Owners.

[eyeball]

On 8/6/2019 at 9:27 AM, WestCanMan said:

You need tp prove to me that the government is doing the things that AOC said they were.

How is that supposed to resolve your issues with discovering right wing media reported on inhumane conditions before AOC even went near the place? 

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How is that supposed to resolve your issues with discovering right wing media reported on inhumane conditions before AOC even went near the place? 

You should know by now exactly where your "inhumane conditions" quote falls short of the mark.

1) It backs the Republicans' claim that there's a crisis at the border (based on overcrowding, underfunding, mass-crossings, human-trafficking, drug-smuggling, influx of criminals, etc) which pre-dates the earliest claims of a similar nature by Dems by about 6 months,

2) it doesn't back AOC's claim that anyone anywhere is forcing people to drink out of toilets. At all. 

[eyeball]

59 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You should know by now exactly where your "inhumane conditions" quote falls short of the mark.

It's not my quote, its CATO's, Times and Associated Press.

Quote

1) It backs the Republicans' claim that there's a crisis at the border (based on overcrowding, underfunding, mass-crossings, human-trafficking, drug-smuggling, influx of criminals, etc) which pre-dates the earliest claims of a similar nature by Dems by about 6 months,

That's right.

Quote

2) it doesn't back AOC's claim that anyone anywhere is forcing people to drink out of toilets. At all.

Who said it did?

[WestCanMan]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Who said it did?

You did. 

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You did. 

Cite please.

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Cite please.

Your whole shtick has been saying that CATO, some Republican whose name I don't recollect, and AOC all said basically the same thing. No one else said anything even close to what AOC said.

Here's an analogy:

Two people said something like "Eyeball and his six kids live in inhumane conditions because his house burned down and they're staying in his one bedroom condo right now." That's bad, but not evil. The third person, IE the AOC stooge, said something like "Eyeball's kids live in inhumane conditions - he forces them to drink from the toilet." Do you get how those statements are not even close to supporting each other? Like, not even in the same ballpark? Are those the same to you eyeball, or is it time for you to admit that you have been wrong 100 times in a row? 

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Your whole shtick has been saying that CATO, some Republican whose name I don't recollect, and AOC all said basically the same thing.

Just one word, inhumane.

Quote

No one else said anything even close to what AOC said.

Yes that's correct, other than the word inhumane, no one even came close to what AOC said.  Apparently you know of a hundred examples of me suggesting otherwise yet you can't actually cite a single one.  How do you explain that?

[scribblet]

After AOC compared border detention areas to concentration camps, she received invitations to visit real concentration camps. One of which came from the Polish Parliament, the second from a Holocaust survivor group who nominated her for a ‘Nobel’ in Stupidity. 

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

Just one word, inhumane.

Yes that's correct, other than the word inhumane, no one even came close to what AOC said.  Apparently you know of a hundred examples of me suggesting otherwise yet you can't actually cite a single one.  How do you explain that?

So you're admitting that the three comments don't all support each now. Perfect. We are in agreement. 

[eyeball]

56 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So you're admitting that the three comments don't all support each now. Perfect. We are in agreement. 

To do that I would have to agree that the three ever had anything to do with one another. You know they dont and now you are lying your ass off suggesting the linkage between them is an invention of mine. If that was true you would have substantiated your claim with a link to where I invented the link.

This chain of responsibility for evidence always leads back to you because you are a liar. It always will until you own up to it. It's inescapable.

Edited August 9, 2019 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

To do that I would have to agree that the three ever had anything to do with one another. You know they dont and now you are lying your ass off suggesting the linkage between them is an invention of mine. If that was true you would have substantiated your claim with a link to where I invented the link.

This chain of responsibility for evidence always leads back to you because you are a liar. It always will until you own up to it. It's inescapable.

Now you're calling me a liar? That's rich. Go read every single back and forth on this topic. I've said the exact same thing 100 times now. It's like you don't speak english.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Now you're calling me a liar? That's rich.  I've said the exact same thing 100 times now. 

More like a hundred variations thereof.

Stupidity wins again I suppose. I offer you my surrender.

[Rue]

On 8/9/2019 at 11:28 AM, scribblet said:

After AOC compared border detention areas to concentration camps, she received invitations to visit real concentration camps. One of which came from the Polish Parliament, the second from a Holocaust survivor group who nominated her for a ‘Nobel’ in Stupidity. 

Thank you. If these detention centres have problems and they do, using scripts that incite shrill emotional reactions will not help simply show the persons using such words like concentration camp have never been to  one or experienced one. No one is being forced to do  labour,, starve to death, subjected to torture, execution.  Over-crowding is the actual issue and the people who use references like concentration camp offer no solution from their sheltered neighbourhoods.

[Rue]

Back to the thread. If I brought up Kamala Harris was Asian and Black in a debate it would be called racist and irrelevant. When she does it its self serving and ethnic pandering is it not? Why is it relevant? I happen to actually like her. Her being  mixed is irrelevant to me and her being a woman is not relevant to me. Her mind and views are what matters. I do  not like it when we ethnics use our identities to pander. We facilitate the bigotry of Trump et al in so doing. Just my opinion. For a country that is supposedly a melting pot the US is so hung up on its ethnicities as much as  Canada if you ask me. She is a well spoken moderate. I like that. I don't find her any different than Mitt Romney in many views if you read them. She is more to the middle than some think. I prefer her to the other Demos at this point. I think she is not an accident. Someone is deliberately test driving a female Obama candidate now Biden has fallen apart. I think the Demo machine is ready tol push her to gp up against Trump in a re-match as an Obama + Hilary hybrid with no Clinton baggage. It seems quite obvious. I ask anyone to point out anything really outrageous she said so far. Her scripts are vented.  She is being pushed like Obama was slow and easy. If the powers behind the scenes feel  Trump has gone too far nothing surprises me with her. The thing is Trump seems to have a clear green light for another 5 years.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Rue
so far

[WestCanMan]

On 8/13/2019 at 10:08 AM, Rue said:

Back to the thread. If I brought up Kamala Harris was Asian and Black in a debate it would be called racist and irrelevant. When she does it its self serving and ethnic pandering is it not? Why is it relevant? I happen to actually like her. Her being  mixed is irrelevant to me and her being a woman is not relevant to me. Her mind and views are what matters. I do  not like it when we ethnics use our identities to pander. We facilitate the bigotry of Trump et al in so doing. Just my opinion. For a country that is supposedly a melting pot the US is so hung up on its ethnicities as much as  Canada if you ask me. She is a well spoken moderate. I like that. I don't find her any different than Mitt Romney in many views if you read them. She is more to the middle than some think. I prefer her to the other Demos at this point. I think she is not an accident. Someone is deliberately test driving a female Obama candidate now Biden has fallen apart. I think the Demo machine is ready tol push her to gp up against Trump in a re-match as an Obama + Hilary hybrid with no Clinton baggage. It seems quite obvious. I ask anyone to point out anything really outrageous she said so far. Her scripts are vented.  She is being pushed like Obama was slow and easy. If the powers behind the scenes feel  Trump has gone too far nothing surprises me with her. The thing is Trump seems to have a clear green light for another 5 years.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/

Harris looks to be stuck around 8% right now, usually 4th.

Is it common for candidates to come from that far behind to win a primary? I honestly don't know. Never paid attention this early in a race before.

FWIW, she makes my skin crawl. Her haughty, accusatory tone and her adherence to the ridiculous party line is just impossible to bear.

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by WestCanMan
took out off-topic material

[ReeferMadness]

Nice.

I see that MLW is following Trump by descending into racist, delusional conspiracy mongering.  Well, done.

[dialamah]

9 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

Nice.

I see that MLW is following Trump by descending into racist, delusional conspiracy mongering.  Well, done.

Yeah, posters seem to be getting more extreme and some just make no sense at all.  Three-quarters of the posts that are made are in my "ignore" file.  

[GostHacked]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yeah, posters seem to be getting more extreme and some just make no sense at all.  Three-quarters of the posts that are made are in my "ignore" file.  

The rate of degradation in threads is much higher than a few years ago. Most threads I cannot participate in because of how shitty the OP was and then the vitriol and stupidity that typcially follows. I can easily tell which thread is going to get locked before it does. Predicted that easily a few times.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

Nice.

I see that MLW is following Trump by descending into racist, delusional conspiracy mongering.  Well, done.

Political dialogue itself is dead.  The new right won by convincingly people objectivity was invented by corrupt university professors and that opinions are more valuable than facts.

[Boges]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Political dialogue itself is dead.  The new right won by convincingly people objectivity was invented by corrupt university professors and that opinions are more valuable than facts.

Trump recently tweeted that a study found that Google manipulated votes in the favour of Hillary. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/politics/trump-google-manipulated-votes-claim/index.html

Quote

"Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought! @JudicialWatch," Trump wrote.

He was referring to a study by psychologist Robert Epstein, which was discussed on Fox Business earlier on Monday.

But Trump did not describe the research correctly. And the research itself has been called into question.

Quote

In the Monday interview, Epstein rejected Trump's claim that Google "manipulated" votes in 2016. He said he does not have firm evidence even that Google intentionally manipulated its search algorithm or results, let alone votes themselves.

"I don't have any evidence that Google manipulated anything. I just have evidence that there was this bias -- highly statistically significantly bias," he said.

Google said Epstein was incorrect in his claims of bias.

"This researcher's inaccurate claim has been debunked since it was made in 2016. As we stated then, we have never re-ranked or altered search results to manipulate political sentiment. Our goal is to always provide people with access to high quality, relevant information for their queries, without regard to political viewpoint," the company said in an email.

Trump is an internet troll that got himself elected President. 

And even on Messageboards like this one, you're often completely discredited if you don't probably have a citation for your opinion. 

Trump can spew unsubstantiated claims and his base of uninformed rubes will believe him and not seek out any further information. 

And if people protest that he's misinforming the public, they're just whiney Dems with TDS. 

It seems to be a pretty effective tool, but only shows how the internet has actually made people dumber. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Boges

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Political dialogue itself is dead.  The new right won by convincingly people objectivity was invented by corrupt university professors and that opinions are more valuable than facts.

I'm trying to imagine a place like this with only facts, and no opinions.  It would get boring fairly quickly.

 

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm trying to imagine a place like this with only facts, and no opinions.  It would get boring fairly quickly.

Well that's the thing right. No one is forced to debate on the internet. Often it's a brain exercise to be able to form informed opinions. A 21st Century version of the Debate Team. 

If people here think spewing their propaganda is changing hearts and minds, they're as ignorant as the opinions they spew. 

I go to the "other board" to argue about JT. It's no fun to debate Trump there. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Boges

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well that's the thing right. No one is forced to debate on the internet. Often it's a brain exercise to be able to form informed opinions. A 21st Century version of the Debate Team. 

Yeah that is how I feel so I try to make sure my opinions are supportable by something other than extremely biased sources.  Center, slightly right and slightly left are all ok, IMO.  Single-issue sources are suspect, as well as those who heavily bash "the other side" about everything.

16 minutes ago, Boges said:

If people here think spewing their propaganda is changing hearts and minds, they're as ignorant as the opinions they spew.

Yeah and I'm dumb as a post every time I let myself respond to those posts.

17 minutes ago, Boges said:

I go to the "other board" to argue about JT. It's no fun to debate Trump there. 

Most of my mind-changing happened through the discussion on the other board.  I still lurk a lot and sometimes think about rejoining.  It still is better and more informative discussion than here.

Overall though, these boards have made me a better critical thinker and more careful and thoughtful about what I read on the internet.  

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I'm trying to imagine a place like this with only facts, and no opinions.  It would get boring fairly quickly.

 

Great defense.

[Greg]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Political dialogue itself is dead.

Nope, it's not. It happens everywhere, everyday.  The only difference is that the objectionable opinions of others (measured differently by each of us) are amplified by social media and other new internet related mediums (forums, etc).

Civility isn't dead either, though many would argue it has taken a nose-dive lately.

If you look back into our history, you'll find that political discourse has always been divisive (and downright vicious at times); it often ebbs and flows with the medium it is delivered through.

A great book on this topic is: Amusing Ourselves to Death - Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, by Neil Postman. I can't recommend this book enough to those that want to learn about how the media (and medium to which we consume news/information) can affect the meaning of the messages we convey and consume.

Basically, it's a great history lesson and explanation of Marshall Mcluhan, "the medium is the message"