TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Don't you see your Free Speech Absolutism will DESTROY AMERICA?

If the government were involved or if he had been banned from the internet your paranoia might be justified.

I'm of the opinion that if someone were to intentionally yell fire in a crowded theater, knowing there was no fire, and people were trampled to death as a result, that he would not be able to claim he was just exercising free speech. He would be guilty of a crime.

Yes, this famous analogy is over used, but it fits here. The truth is we all know there are limits to free speech, and also that the limits are not well defined. People use vague terms such as hate speech. In this case it's not a government ruling, it was decided as social media policy. You need to weight the benefit of not manipulating mentally ill people, versus the downside of censorship. I think this was done in a thoughtful way, by civic minded social media companies, and that a slippery slope argument is idiotic at this point.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

The same ones that hate Infowars love Jeong's appointment to the NYT and think Farrakhan is a legit voice of Oppressed POCs.

I don't hate all of infowars, but I hate Alex Jones (even though he can be entertaining), and yet I'm not psyched about at all about Jeong or Farrakan.

The world doesn't always fit your simple us against them model.

Well to be fair, you have threatened violence if Trump is impeached out of office.

I think this is an accepted fact, that there would be a huge amount of violence if Trump were removed from office, no matter what the reasons were, which is pretty interesting in America.

Yeah, things be gettin mighty weird up in this bitch.

I think it's a conspiracy by the oligarchs to make me in to a right winger.

Did Putin actually contribute to the Trump campaign through the NRA ?

Goran_K says

Race cards, and ad Homs are not a replacement for logic and facts

I've felt the same way about right wingers on this forum for years. Emotion is frequently a substitute for reasoned argument with right wingers. Look aback at political arguments that included say Iwgog, Bellingham Bill, JazzMusic and others, I don't recall seeing them taking th low ground ever (or hardly ever).

The truth is the far left and the far right are both guilty of that kind of thing, more so the right until about 2014, when identity politics (infinite genders, micro-aggressions etc) went a little cuckoo and out of control, but it's still a small fraction of democrats. I'd say they are smaller than the IDENTITY POLITICS right side (ie the anti-immigration and or anti muslim and or white nationalist and or otherwise racist side of the right).

Goran_K says

There are no Jordan Petersons, Ben Shapiros, or even Charlie Kirks on the left

IT's true that the identity politics obsessed far left has a problem with Jordan Peterson,. but that problem is that too many of their own (myself for example), like his message, and reject identity politics. IF you think that means they are changing their mind about fairly taxing high and corporate incomes, or health care policy and so on, you are mistaken.

Identity politics on both sides is a distraction from real issues.

The left has Noam CHomsky or the more moderate Brett and Eric Wienstein, or Sam Harris. Moderate democrats are happy to listen to civil conversation that Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, or Dave Rubin is a part of.

The truth is that labels left and right, "conservative" and "liberal" and even "progressive" have totally lost their meaning, compared to decades ago. IF you listen to Joe Rogan, much of the time you wouldn't know if you are listening to someone that usually votes democrat or republican.

You only wish you could claim Jordan Peterson for the right.

Perhaps in the same way that the right changed, becoming the party of Trump, the left is changing to become more reasonable.

The true cores of the groups are revealing themselves.

It's evolving.I think the truth is, it's getting really tough to fit all the most important issues of 2018 America in to our two corrupt and obsolete parties.

RC2006 says

Hillary is far from a socialist but to win she takes on whatever mantle at the moment to try to win.

You mean sort of like Trump ? When he said he would fix health care, and create a lot of high paying jobs, save big coal etc., and lower the deficit ?

Here's a perfect example of how it's really the right that trolls and acts mostly on emotion.

I post this:

marcus says

IT's true that the identity politics obsessed far left has a problem with Jordan Peterson,. but that problem is that too many of their own (myself for example), like his message, and reject identity politics. IF you think that means they are changing their mind about fairly taxing high and corporate incomes, or health care policy and so on, you are mistaken.

Identity politics on both sides is a distraction from real issues.

The left has Noam CHomsky or the more moderate Brett and Eric Wienstein, or Sam Harris. Moderate democrats are happy to listen to civil conversation that Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, or Dave Rubin is a part of.

The truth is that labels left and right, "conservative" and "liberal" and even "progressive" have totally lost their meaning, compared to decades ago. IF you listen to Joe Rogan, much of the time you wouldn't know if you are listening to someone that usually votes democrat or republican.

And this is the reasoned response from a patrick.net right winger:

MrMagic says

Quigley says

Marcus has a terrible memory, but I believe he’s in process of being red pilled by Peterson, which is encouraging!

I started listening to Peterson in early 2017 or so, but my point of view was always similar. His talks about Jungian psychology, archetypes, myths, religion, and modern identity politics ? These all fit me well. Yes, he's a true liberal.

Remember my religion arguments with Dan ? Peterson debates with Sam Harris are a more thoughtful and less emotional version of the exact same arguments. Peterson sees the radical atheists exactly the same way I do, as basically hung up on an adolescent overly simplistic view, that is itself dogmatic and in a sense it's own religion. But Peterson frames it far better than I.

mell says

The right is far more diverse these days

That's simply not true. TO believe that, you would have to claim everything that is not far left as right .

THat would be mike my claiming everyone that is not a Trump Cuck as "the left."

Quigley says

he is claiming that the Left has become monolithic in ideology tolerating no dissent or divergence in thought, by definition anything different IS outside the Left.

This is an error. IT actually exemplifies the fact that intellectual honesty is higher on the moderate left than on the moderate right.

I understand that not nearly all republicans are racist (although too many are blind to the extent to which it is exploited on the right). I'm not going to make such statements about all republicans having those views, and it isn't becasue there is more diversity on the right. You just happen to be listening to more diverse voices "on the right."

The huge percentage of people on the moderate left, don't challenge the identity politics, and SJW voices enough, I guess becasue of what's seen as "virtue" associated with it, and becasue of what's seen as political self interest (misguided).

It's comparable in some ways to moderate republicans being overly silent about racism on the right. It's different, but what's the same is that not condemning it, is not the same as backing it. I'm sure when it comes to racism it's easy for you to see what I'm talking about.

The identity politcs on the right happens to be working for you guys now, in a way. Where as the identity politics on the left is not working for the left.

Maybe what's going on is that the left is forward looking with respect to demographics and therefore is afraid to shoot itself in the foot. This is messed up, and increases the tribalism in the same way that the identity politics on the right does. But if you think about it, it's not about what moderates on the left actually think.

It's about politics. In the same way that tolerance of racism on the right is about politics.

Goran_K says

The left is losing because their ideas don’t stand up to fact based debate

You mean like this ?

FortWayne says

Lefts argument is simple... “we want free shit from taxpayers”

Right because we all know that if there aren't stories of men harassing women or paying porn stars or hookers for sex then that means they never had sex with women.

And if a man has only been with his wife since they've been married, then well, I think we all know what that implies.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Twitter/Youtube/Facebook also leaves ISIS, AQ, Farrakhan, etc. alone.

So your issue is that you want to see social media companies do this more, if they're going to do it ?

I suppose we need to see more firing of celebrity actors and directors now, by networks and disney right. I mean if they're going to do it, they should do it more, right ?

Tenpoundbass says

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/401215-the-trump-economy-is-destroying-the-obama-coalition#.W22Jljig9No.twitter

While Democrats and their wingmen in the media are falling over themselves to make superstars out of shiny new socialists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, the unapologetic capitalist in the White House is achieving something much more monumental. He’s delivering a booming economy that is bringing increased prosperity, opportunity and freedom to every demographic group. That, in turn, is generating growing support for him and his policies, including, most significantly, from constituencies critical to the Democratic Party.

Tenpoundbass says

Hey did any of you ever figure out why Obama was such a Loser? Let me know if you do.

While you're at it. IF you can figure out why right wingers think Obama is a loser, also let me know what makes them think Trump is a winner ?

Is it Key Largo and the gold plated toilet seat ?

In your world Trump is a class act and Obama is a loser. Hmmm. Complete opposite in my world. NO contest

TrumpCuck says

This post makes no sense whatsoever. What does a Netflix movie have to do with Obama's presidency? Knowd?

Oh, you must be new here !

Welcome to Patrick.net, let me introduce you to TPB. He likes to use click bait titles that are not what's really going on in the linked story, it's usually not even exactly what he's getting out of the story or what he wants or expects you to get out of it. He's a devotee of the Trump school of modern communication thought and theory, which holds that since there's supposedly no such thing as objective truth, and since you can't even really be totally honest with yourself about anything, and since life is short, why not keep things light, but lie, lie, lie like there's no tomorrow.

I suppose the theory goes, that it keeps life interesting. And also, if your beliefs are going to be built only on what you feel (or on things you can not admit to yourself) , then what the heck, you might as well find some colorful lies to attach to the beliefs, you know, becasue emotion based beliefs need to be anchored by something. With some folks, it really doesn't matter what. (this btw is why Alex Jones is totally going to need a replacement on the right. Hey maybe it's an opportunity Glenn Beck, Or Oreilly ?)

Goran_K says

How is the claim wrong?

What taxes are spent on is something we should all have a say in.

You might not think it's fair that someone that makes makes 600K a year pays so much more in taxes than someone that makes 60K, or that they should get to have way more h of a say in how big the deficits are that we run by not taxing the 600K guy more.

None of thses questions are easy or trivial, they certainly can't be reduced to something a simple and stupid as

Goran_K says

FortWayne says

Lefts argument is simple... “we want free shit from taxpayers”

What about the wealthy liberal intellectual that doesn't have children, and is going to pay for his own health care anyway ? If he thinks the best thing in the long run for America, would be to have college far more subsidized for a a lot of students, and some kind of a two tier health care system that has some sort of basic health care provided to everyone and paid for with taxes. (which will obviously eventually exist).

That guy is a counter example to the overly simplified "we want free shit from taxpyers," becasue he wants it for others, not for himself.

IT's too simple and yes, really stupid.

It would by like boiling the right wings position down to: "the right wants to split the country into an ever increasing economic inequality of the haves and have nots. Gated communities for the haves, and some sort of police state ghettos, shanty towns and prisons for the have nots."

Does this image belong in this thread ?

Did anyone ever claim that the single mission or function of the Clinton Foundation was only to take money and channel it to other charities ? You should have taken t a step further and looked at the efficiency ratings for the charities that recieved money from the Clinton Foundation.

If there is Clinton selfishness in the CLinton foundations, it's in the fact that they use their political skills and reputations to get resources devoted to solving very real problems. That gives them the chance to feel that their lives have more meaning and purpose. I guess that's selfish. .

It's inpossible to underestimate the dishonesty of rightwingers. You preach to each other with lies, and say, "yep I know right, can I get an Amen ? Amen brother."

The lengths you go to to believe what you want to believe are astounding. If it's a scam, what is the goal ? To enrich the Clintons ? THe Clintons are rich from books and speaking fees. THey give a lot to the Clinton Family foundation which is not to be confused with the Clinton foundation.

MisterLefty says

It took 486 people who are paid $34.8 million and $91.3 million in fees and expenses, to give away $5.1 MILLION WHICH IS LESS THAN 3% OF TOTAL REVENUES!

I honestly can't tell whats greater in this statement, the disingenuousness of it, or the complete lack of thought that went in to it. Did you ever spend even one minute researching what the Clinton Foundation is ?

Then you'll probably turn around and say, you can't solve problems by just throwing money at them.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2016/6/23/what-the-heck-does-the-clinton-foundation-actually-do.html

FortWayne says

Marcus learned to ignore facts about Democrats that makes them look bad.

If HIllary hadn't been secretary of state, and run for President, then Bill Clinton and the CLinton Foundation would be seen in a very similar light as the Carter post Presidency has been seen. Maybe even better than Carter becasue of the sheer scale of what he's done with the Clinton foundation, and the ways in which Clinton has applied his charms and political skills toward good works.

It's politics above all else that clouds your ability to reason.

It's okay Fort Wayne, you've proven yourself repeatedly to be about as gullbible and programable by right wing bullshit as anyone I have ever even heard of.

Yep. So you're saying basically, "I know you are but what am I." Impressive

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

I can't come up with a mindless troll of a comment that can fit with the other comments here. I'll get back to you if i come up with something.

What the hellll ?

jvolstad says

Oh good grief, grow a pair.

Of what ?

I don't think any of you have the faintest idea how good inflation if for Trump. Do the math. It's kind of simple. Make it conservative. If someone has billions in assets, leveraged so that their equity is say 30%. What happens to their net worth when the dollar becomes worth half what it was worth ?

And I'm saying, what happens to their inflation adjusted net worth ?

It's not a difficult problem.

Start with say 10 billion in assets leveraged, such that they are 30% equity, 70% debt. 3 billion equity, 7 billion debt.

So say the dollar goes to half it's value, and the assets are priced at 20 billion (who knows, maybe higher becasue people are panicking about inflation - esp if interest rates are under priced relative to inflation - i.e. low real rates - like now).

So now these 20 billion in assets still have 7 billion in debt (low interest rate debt wooo woooo !). So the equity is now 13 billion ! The equity or net worth went from 3 billion to 13 billion. OF course those dollars are worh half what dollars were before, so it's actually 6.5 billion (for inf adjusted comparison)

SO in real inflation adjusted dollars, he more than doubles his net worth, if the dollar falls to half it's value.

Some of us remember times when Presidents sold their investments, and didn't have that kind of exposure to economic policies.

Trump might convince himself that inflation is good not just for him, but all the people with leveraged assets (you homeowners - not to mention the federal government with its excessive debt that it would like to pay back in cheaper dollars). SO he might easily rationalize that inflation is good for America. But it's not good for working class folks, especially working class folks without leveraged assets - if real incomes don't keep up, which we all know they won't.

Stupid sheeple.

CBOEtrader says

and instead this is all part of a cover up for HRC Inc's crimes.

Who knew there would be so much HDS ? Incredible considering she didn't even win.

Some of those are pretty good. But you'd have to be fringy right wing moron to like them all.

Take the last one for example. I get vicariously embarrassed for someone who is willing to allow their emotions influence their political thought to that degree.

Patrick says

I was thinking;

If Muslims want to run away from a Muslim country, does that mean they're Islamophobic?

No, but for the person that doesn't want to let them into their country, when they left home country due to oppression and violence, mostly becasue they are muslim ?

Patrick says

If Donald Trump deleted all of his emails, wiped his server with Bleachbit and destroyed all of his phones with a hammer, would the Mainstream Media suddenly lose all interest in the story and declare him innocent.

Actually, if Trump had lost the election, it is safe to say there would be far less interest in whether he colluded with Russians to get help in his campaign. It might be investigated, but I think probably not much. Similarly, if Hillary hadn't run, and was totally out of public office, nobody would give any more of a flying fuck how she handled her email (years ago as secretary of state), than they care now how Colin Powell or for that matter Dick Cheney handled their email.

(yes, yes, I know Cheney was not secretary of state. But it's hard to think of someone at the highest levels of govt influence with more conflicts of interest than he. )

Goran_K says

There will be no "Blue Wave", change my mind!

I'd rather just let the blue wave change your mind, that is, if it happens.

The most likely way it could manifest would be with higher turn out among democrats, based on disgust with Trump.

Wait, if liberals are lying about everything, does that mean you're starting to like them a lot ? OR love them ?

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Why?

Because pure and simple this is an outright and total lie.

"why do they think it's all right for illegals to vote?"

I'm not going to say it's impossible to find a single democrat that thinks it's alright for illegals to vote. But if you want to say as some kind of generalization that democrats think that ? Sheesh. Even CBOE can probably tell that's a lie.

How is it that being comfortable with lies on that level is now some kind of requirement for being a republican ?

I mean I know that liberals lie too, you know, about stuff like climate change, and tax cuts causing deficits to increase.

Patrick says

Another lie.

I've stated repeatedly that I do not think that tolerating Trumps intentionally appealing to racists is not the same as being a racist. It is sort of deplorable, but it doesn't make you a racist.

Maybe we should just skip having trials at all, and try people in the public opinion pages of facebook.

Don't worry about finding jurors that don't have preconceived ideas about the trial. Just let evidence come out willy nilly. First attorney to get their side of the story on Brietbart wins ! They're going to need some new features though, such as an innocent and guitly button.

Seriously though, do any of you remember when Americans had a clue about our government and legal system. They should bring back civics classes. That is assuming our system survives the current idiocracy until 2020.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

It's interesting that they only go after the centrist-ish type people

So now a guy that caused people to go after and harass the parents of young children that were murdered, based on a ridiculous conspiracy theory is a centrist ?

"These people want to eat babies,...I've got them on video

Centrist ?

Another person that doesn't understand probability.

Say I tell you that with this full deck of shuffled cards, there is a 25% chance you will draw a heart.

You draw a card, and it's the 9 of hearts.

Guess what ? That doesn't mean I was wrong !! Yes, I implied that it was far more likely you would not draw the heart. I know it's not easy to comprehend, but that was true.

Goran_K says

How can anyone call a multi-billionaire a dead beat who is bad for business?

Easy. If he had just invested his inheritance in the stock market he would be better off, without ever even having to get involved in laundering money for the Russian Mob.

It's pretty difficult to listen to all the stories of Trumps business dealings, good and bad, and conclude that he's a great business mind.

BayArea says

What will it finally take to turn Trump supporters against him?

Answer: Trump initiating or executing good policies, such as raising taxes on high increments of income, or advocating for some sort nationalized health care (or hybrid system that retains some private insurance and health care options) or appointing moderate SCOTUS candidates. Or backing rules for tighter background checks for gun purchases.

You know, that sort of thing.

Big surprise two scoops wants to talk about race again. When are you going to lighten up on the identity politics ?

Your assertion here is possibly the most stupid nonsense I've seen from you yet.