Politics | 2014-15

By Forever Go To PostGabyskra, I've got some powdered elephant tusk to sell you. I hear it defeats Capitalism and prevents wars.

Your country's President swears an oath on an antiquated text that calls for the lapidation of gays and unfaithful women, and tells the story of a guy that is a better trickster than Harry Potter, are you okay with that, or will you stop being selective in the way you're offended by anti-scientific beliefs?

How about some dried tiger penis? It promotes sexual vigor and social justice.

Pretty sure that believing in nonsense that is pushed strongly by law and culture (and fuck, is religion) is a lot better than believing in medicine woo.

Science has its limits you know. It's a means of interrogating reality not a system of beliefs.

By butt Go To PostScience has its limits you know. It's a means of interrogating reality not a system of beliefs.

Should we fund my medicine idea: We inject patients with honey and I charge $1000 an injection.

It has as much backing as homeopathy and science is limited, you know.

This is why the "well, we don't KNOW." is a fallacious argument to argue FOR something. You can argue for literally anything using this line of logic, but we have very limited resources.

I guess we're talking about different things though. I'm pretty sensitive to the science as a god cult. I've got a bio minor btw so I'm not a religious freak or something.

It's pretty clear that we are better off basing social policy on the scientific merit of an argument but it's treacherous territory once we wholly accept science as some sort of savior figure.

I don't support science as an ideology (that would be a contradiction in terms really), I support pragmatism and technocracy. A man who believes that bear juice is a reasonable treatment for cancer (and that this should be funded by the state of all things) probably isn't going to exercise the kind of judgment I'm looking for.

IWMTB is right, there are a lot of radicals on both sides these days. Someone needs to speak for moderation; it might as well be us.

I don't mind the federal govt funding for homeopathy as long as it's by actual doctors with medical degrees. And as long as it's investigated and regulated well.


If someone with a medical degree wants to suggest some herb instead of some prescription drug, I'm fine with it as long as he's willing to risk his reputation and his license. That's fhe attitude behind the medicinal marijuana movement is it not?


If anything, the oversight might force some better record keeping and inspire large corporations to actually invest in researching this stuff to figure out whether or not there is merit to any of the claims.

But yea it's not really a policy position you want a presidential candidate to campaign on.

Herbs don't equal homeopathy.

"Natural" medicine can work for some things. Homeopathy is pure bullshit.

I will say that Corbyn is closer to reality than someone like Scott Walker or Ben Carson and some of Corbyn's ideas aren't bad.

Sisi's dictatorship is going well:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/14/egyptian-security-forces-accidentally-shoot-tourist?CMP=edit_2221

By Forever Go To PostIWMTB is right, there are a lot of radicals on both sides these days. Someone needs to speak for moderation; it might as well be us.

And you base that on discussing homeopathy far more than the Labour Party leader ever did himself. That's not what his election was about. You know why Corbyn won? Because poor people are suffering in Britain, because Corbyn was the chair of the Stop the War coalition, because austerity just does not work, and because centrists have led the Labour Party for over two decades and all they've achieved is to be the Tories-lite, following the Republicans' warhawks, killing their public sector and discouraging young people from believing in politics. That's what the meaning of Corbyn is.

He did not run on homeopathy. He won the election with 60% of the votes while he was supported by only 15 of the 232 members of parliament of his party. It means he was elected by the membership against the leadership, because the rank and file is just so tired of lip-service leftism that is really conservatism.

Putting together European Leftists and American religious nuts that are fighting over the Tea Party type of voters is offensive.

All you do is troll pseudo-science, when the election was about him, for instance, saying student fees, which cripple the youth, could be paid by raising corporate taxes from 20% up to only 20.5%. Do you think a stress-free youth is bad or good for the economy, oh you reasonable man?

So who falls after the CNN debate the hardest. Trump or Carson?

By Fenderputty Go To PostSo who falls after the CNN debate the hardest. Trump or Carson?

I don't know if there's going to be any movement among the poll leaders. This is Walker's and Christie's last stand and they're going to be as ridiculous and over-the-top as possible. That could make the other people seem more reasonable by comparison.

Carson is weird. His ideology is just a collection of right-wing conspiracy theories so I don't know how you counter that without both having a very strong knowledge of paranoid Facebook memes and while being willing to piss off that part of your base.

I would imagine one of those two clowns feels some sort of slide after debate two. Maybe that's just hope and I'm confusing the feeling.

If any of the GOP candidates had a sense of humor, Trump would have been nuked from orbit already. Obama crushed him in 2011 and showed how ridiculously insecure Trump is.

Obama would eat Trump alive, but I'm not sure about Bern or Hillary...

By IWMTB19 Go To PostObama crushed him in 2011 and showed how ridiculously insecure Trump is.

Obama would eat Trump alive, but I'm not sure about Bern or Hillary…

Dude, Obama does not write his speeches at the Correspondents' Dinner. Neither does the comedian who's highlighting. They have teams of writers.

And going back on the discussion on homeopathy in the UK, you said it's more excusable to believe in religious fairy tales than in homeopathy since religion is promoted heavily by society. The truth is, 46% of people are in favor of the NHS paying for homeopathy, while only around 30% of Brits call themselves religious.

By Gabyskra Go To PostDude, Obama does not write his speeches at the Correspondents' Dinner. Neither does the comedian who's highlighting. They have teams of writers.

Read Game Change 2012. You're right that he didn't write his jokes alone, but he deliberately planned to bury Trump at that event and brought on Daily Show writers to do it.

By Gabyskra Go To PostThe truth is, 46% of people are in favor of the NHS paying for homeopathy

I'm amazed that you're not ashamed of this.

By Forever Go To PostRead Game Change 2012. You're right that he didn't write his jokes alone, but he deliberately planned to bury Trump at that event and brought on Daily Show writers to do it.

What's your point? IWMTB argues that he'd get him off-the-cuff. This is not off-the-cuff.

I'm amazed that you're not ashamed of this.

I'm not British. But British or not, I don't think there are many Europeans who would not clown your record on political leaders over generations. You have dynasties (and you yourself you are in favor of one), Reagan, being christian is a low-key requirement for your candidates, you actually have people debating global warming's causes, creationism is a thing, your education is unaffordable, you call war peace, your idea of health care is to penalize people who can't afford it, etc. Don't think you're on the side of rationality. Stick to your one tweet denunciation to call someone crazy, I truly have no hope you'll realize that just wasn't the issue at all for Corbyn's success, since you seem to think that was discussed in the campaign for even one second.

By Gabyskra Go To PostWhat's your point? IWMTB argues that he'd get him off-the-cuff. This is not off-the-cuff.

IWMTB was talking about debates, which are very far from off-the-cuff.

By Gabyskra Go To PostI'm not British. But British or not, I don't think there are many Europeans who would not clown your record on political leaders over generations. You have dynasties, Reagan, being christian is a low-key requirement for your candidates, you actually have people debating global warming's causes, creationism is a thing, your education is unaffordable, you call war peace, your idea of health care is to penalize people who can't afford it, etc. Don't think you're on the side of rationality. Stick to your one tweet denunciation to call someone crazy, I truly have no hope you'll realize that just wasn't the issue at all for Corbyn's success.

None of this makes homeopathy any less dumb, a fact that seems to make you very uncomfortable for some reason.

By Forever Go To PostNone of this makes homeopathy any less dumb, a fact that seems to make you very uncomfortable for some reason.

I'm not uncomfortable in any way. I despise arrogant centrists who call leftist politicians stupid on incredibly paperthin grounds, while overlooking the meaning of the Blairite leadership being kicked out. You don't know shit about European politics so you just stick to some idiotic argument about homeopathy for a lack of a better approach. Tsipras is dumb, Corbyn is dumb, repeat ad nauseam, until only middle-of-the-road politicians are left for people to choose, repeating the same ol' policies that lead us to the shitstorm that is foreign relations today, and historically high inequality.

Obama obviously didn't write those jokes, but his delivery on jokes just seems much better than Hillary's.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostObama obviously didn't write those jokes, but his delivery on jokes just seems much better than Hillary's.

You didn't like how she was chillin' in Cedar Rapids? :D

I've gotten into some heated arguments about how science doesn't provide a moral framework before.

Jeb! wants you to quit criticizing the NSA because okay.

By Gabyskra Go To PostYou don't know shit about European politics

Bruv. I literally studied political science in London. I've been inside Parliament. I've interviewed Tory MPs and found that they were not the devil (aka Republicans). I participated in a question and answer session with David Cameron (alas I was not called on). You guys really don't know how good you have it with conservatives on your side of the pond. I suspect there's no real hope of persuading you of this, I just find it revealing how far you will go to defend something as patently ridiculous as state funded homeopathy just because it happens to be aligned with your political ideology.

While we're on the subject of London, did you ever happen to catch Mike Bartlett's 13 at the National Theatre? It wasn't my only exposure to British leftism, obviously, but I found it particularly poignant because of how uncomfortable it made me feel; not with the status quo, as was clearly intended, but with the message it was trying to send and the anxieties it belied. Atheism, logic, and reason were tied up in a bow with a Christopher Hitchens analog and vilified. Superstition, faith, and acting on sentiment were associated with the left and with the protagonists. America successfully dragging the UK into a war with Iran was taken for granted (ironic in retrospect) and the "Special Relationship" was cast as something inherently dangerous.

There was a lot that bothered me about some of the undercurrents in British theater but that one stood out because it was explicitly written as a commentary on current British society and politics.

I get it. You want and expect Corbyn to martyr himself stopping a war (a war that the centrist Obama, by the way, has already prevented). Electing Corbyn will not undo Iraq; I rather suspect that you view him as political catharsis in human form, a means of erasing that stain of dishonor from Labour and the British left. In actual practical terms, Corbyn would change little about British foreign policy, and still less about American foreign policy, but this isn't about the future for you, it's about the past. You're willing to compromise on logic and reason because you feel that allowing emotions to guide your politics might produce better results (it won't, we've tried it).

As an aside, it also occurred to me that in America it's the left, the Democrats, who are usually labeled as arrogant elitists by our political adversaries. As far as I can tell, in Europe those roles are generally reversed. Food for thought.

You have more in common with the Republicans than you'd like to admit.

By Gabyskra Go To PostTsipras is dumb, Corbyn is dumb, repeat ad nauseam, until only middle-of-the-road politicians are left for people to choose

Sounds good to me.

That was empty af, full of bravado and caricatures with a long-winded off-topic discussion on a play. You see what you want to see:
- I am not in favor of homeopathy being paid by the NHS.
- I actually wouldn't be a member of the Labour Party and I probably wouldn't have bothered voting for Corbyn, even if his election is relative good news. I don't think it's necessary for the labor movement to be entangled with a revitalized LP. I just know its significance.
- I wouldn't call the Democrats "Left", God no.
- I have no problem with "logic and reason" (once again, you keep repeating that mantra, reason being on the side of compromise every time even in the face of disaster, it's a fleeting argument, and you're the one responsible for it being so abstract).
- No god, no ceasar, no tribune. I dgaf about a martyr.

The point I make is that Corbyn crushed the election because the British Left has come to realize austerity does not work, its past leadership was guilty of war crimes (Corbyn's record matters, it's not being focused on the past to say that) and centrists don't get elected anyway. That's what happened.

And what did you do? "He's crazy cos lol homeopathy" for 10 posts. And when I say that homeopathy is more common than religious beliefs in the UK, you go "lol homeopathy" again. Why now pretend you want to talk in an educated manner, rather than being an insult machine against Left-wing leaders? Why try to go for sophistication then call Republicans names?

I don't know what your point about elitism is meant to convey. The history of anti-populism in the US is rich, and you're kinda representative of the sentiment today. To you, Tea Party today and socialists, it's the same thing, it's loud uneducated people, but thank god we have casual politologues to lump them altogether and discredit them so we can have Clinton the 2nd or Bush the 3rd.

Context for the smear campaign against Corbyn

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/15/the-sun-newspaper-corbyn-privy-council_n_8138174.html

not going to say a thing

I think I would rather 40% of my nation be down with bunk medical science than near 50% who think the rapture will likely happen in the next 40 years and then vote based on this premise

By Fenderputty Go To PostI think I would rather 40% of my nation be down with bunk medical science than near 50% who think the rapture will likely happen in the next 40 years and then vote based on this premise

Sure.

But I'd rather roll with neither :p

Can't post this image on GAF, but I feel it goes well in the new Ben Carson thread:

I just saw that... Disgusting. Racism is dead though.

It's weird how even though there's a split, both trend lines have spikes and drops at the same time until 2004 and again in the obvious 2008. I wonder if 98 was caused by OJ???

By IWMTB19 Go To PostCan't post this image on GAF, but I feel it goes well in the new Ben Carson thread:

Why can't you post it?

Oh. Banned.

I've got your back.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostSure.

But I'd rather roll with neither :p

Yep.

I know we're not supposed to gossip about that other site but has anyone else noticed Sanjuro going off the deep end ever since Trump became a thing?

By KingGondo Go To PostWhy can't you post it?

Oh. Banned.

I've got your back.

Thanks.

By Forever Go To PostYep.

I know we're not supposed to gossip about that other site but has anyone else noticed Sanjuro going off the deep end ever since Trump became a thing?

He posts on here so you can ask him yourself.

By reilo Go To PostHe posts on here so you can ask him yourself.

Haven't seen him or I would've.

Remember when Obama suggested that hedge fund managers can afford a tax increase In Town Hall and he was called a socialist and a wealth stealer?

Now everyone from Trump to Bush to Sanders wants to do away with carried interest and raise how hedge fund managers are taxed. Lulz

Rand Paul
Book and historical figure: “I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand, and I’ve read all of her novels.”

Sure, that makes perfect sense.

Ted Cruz
Historical figure: Ayn Rand, “one of my all-time heroes.”

......... The fuck?

Why doesn't anyone ever ask these people about Ayn Rand's views on religion?

By Forever Go To PostWhy doesn't anyone ever ask these people about Ayn Rand's views on religion?

Ssrly. Ted Cruz is running the "I will bring America closer to a Theocracy" campaign and... Ayn Rand is his hero?

Cruz is going to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood and this woman is his hero?

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

The poll found that 39 percent of Republican primary and caucus voters viewed Mr. Trump as their best shot at winning the presidency, compared with 26 percent in a CBS survey in August. Only 15 percent said they would not back him as the party’s standard-bearer.

Ben Carson, another Republican with no history in the political establishment, is also gaining notable new support and is now running nearly even with Mr. Trump. Mr. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who delivers his socially conservative message and outsider views in more measured tones than Mr. Trump, rose to 23 percent; he had 6 percent early last month before a widely praised performance in the first Republican debate. Mr. Trump draws 27 percent support in the new poll, compared with 24 percent last month.

Oh republicans...

Standard reminder that polls are pretty meaningless this far out:

The presidential race at this moment — a personality-driven free-for-all among 16 insiders and outsiders on the Republican side, an endless political therapy session about angst over Mrs. Clinton on the Democratic side — is so unsettled that national polls can be unreliable predictors this far out from voting for party nominees, which begins in February. At this stage eight years ago, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Fred D. Thompson led the Republican field, and Mrs. Clinton held an 18-point lead over then-Senator Barack Obama in a Times/CBS News poll.

Re-read that article and noticed that Bobby Jindal listed Winston Churchill as his historical figure.

... Churchill wanted to use mustard gas against Jindal's grandparents and he hated Jindal's people. This self-hate makes me sad.

Also, Gondo, what is your state doing with this "executing a guy for no reason other than bloodlust" thing?

Outspoken Mavs owner Mark Cuban told CNBC: "If I ran as a Dem, I know I could beat Hillary Clinton. And if it was me vs. [Donald] Trump, I would crush him. No doubt about it."

LOL

Oklahoma newspaper argues that man should be executed because, even though there's limited evidence that he committed the crime, he acted weird.

http://newsok.com/glossips-actions-hardly-paint-picture-of-innocence/article/5446816/?page=2

#WhyFailedFictionWritersShouldNeverOfferLegalSuggestions

Why that article is bad:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/09/richard_glossip_innocence_governor_or_supreme_court_should_stay_oklahoma.html

By IWMTB19 Go To PostAlso, Gondo, what is your state doing with this "executing a guy for no reason other than bloodlust" thing?

That's the main reason any state executes anyone nowadays. They've dropped all the pretense about the supposed benefits to society and made it an entirely emotional appeal: "I'm sure the victim would have rather been put to sleep after years of appeal instead of being brutally murdered!"

What's insane about the Glossip case is that he didn't even kill the guy, and the state admits to this.

Capital punishment is a moral abomination.

The Washington Post’s David Weigel recently observed that voters were hearing about only three types of Clinton stories, all of which have negative implications for her. First are stories about the scandal surrounding the private email server she used as secretary of state. Next are stories about her declining poll numbers. And third are stories about how Vice President Joe Biden might enter the Democratic presidential race.1

Weigel isn’t exaggerating: For roughly the past two months, voters have heard almost nothing about Clinton apart from these three types of stories. I went through the archives of the news aggregation website Memeorandum, which uses an algorithm to identify the top U.S. news stories of the day. I tracked whether there was a Clinton-related headline in one of the top three positions at 11 a.m. each morning and, if so, what the subject was.2 You can see the results below:

Is our media and constituency that fickle and bored? I'm not saying elect Hillary or anything because I haven't really dug deep into the candidates so far, but ffs. Our country's election is being covered like a Real Housewives show.

Hey IWMTB: Glossip has been granted a stay of execution for 2 weeks.

It's something.