Negatory

Fine, I’ll concede Canada. There are bad examples, see my last post. But out of the 11 countries on there, 10 of them provide government healthcare. The US is the only one that says it’s impossible.

Actually, looks like you may be right on Canada using present day numbers, but you’ll notice that many countries on this list have very comparable numbers: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/health-care-wait-times-by-country

That’s a pretty exaggerated talking point: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/trumps-claim-about-canadians-traveling-to-the-united-states-for-medical-care/%3foutputType=amp

This is an extreme viewpoint. If your argument is that “treasure” should never be taken from someone to benefit someone else, I think you’re gonna have a tough time justifying the US military.

You guys are kinda falling into a trap with this argument, as I would say the vast majority of Americans are very thankful and happy with at least the interstate highway system. Arguing about poorly maintained city or state roads isn’t the point when I am 100% sure I can drive safely from New York to Washington with no fees. And that’s thanks to a federal spending program. And it was an example of something the government opened up for everyone to use equally as long as you have a drivers license. If you try to argue this point, I think you’re gonna lose people. Now if you are arguing that healthcare is different in that some people are unnecessary drains, that’s reasonable. Maybe healthcare cost should correspond to factors in your control (smoking, weight gain/loss with no underlying condition, drug usage)? It shouldn’t be an argument for no healthcare at all, though, in my opinion. The point is that it is absolutely possible to provide a service for the benefit of all effectively. Many other countries have actually demonstrated it, so this argument kind of falls flat in the new more global world where we can compare ourselves to everyone else.

Yeah, Jesus christ. Not only Republicans love America.

Haha, responses were perfect. Ad hominem my homies. Easy way out, but it's 100% what's happening. Nothing in the way of addressing the point of the text, just baselessly attacking the person/source. Which is pretty normal when you don't know what to say in response to the actual point. If all you can come up with is that I am "projecting" or I found my information somewhere else - or that it's no different for how republicans feel about the left (even though the point of the post is that it IS different) - then I'll assume you don't actually have a counterpoint. The sources show that groupthink happens significantly more on the right. And, based on your responses, you can't address it. Honestly, I'll bet you never get around to responding to the point of the post. You may literally even plan not to already. And saying stuff like "Biden doesn't know Biden's policies" is about as useful as saying "Trump doesn't know Trump's policies." It's meaningless.

**Trigger warning** You know, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when I'm trying to have legitimate philosophical discussions with republican leaning dudes on this forum and in the real world. I will point something out, and you will just say "no." What do you believe in? What policies do you support? Why is there no consensus? Is there a moral compass that guides republican policies or opinions? Why can't you give me a solid answer to any of these questions? Why must you consult with your news sources to determine what your opinion should be? You see it with everything from Coronavirus to Police Reform to Global Warming to Iran/Syria/China to healthcare to religion to fiscal policy. It's simple: you don't think for yourselves. The only thing that you guys agree with is that the "republican policies are better than the alternatives." You guys are voting for Trump just to not vote for Biden. Not that you actually know any of Biden's policies. The problem, here, is that you guys are not arguing in good faith. It means you're not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds. Arguing here is the equivalent to arguing with sheep, even if you guys are some well-educated, well-employed sheep. Whatever the party, whatever fox news, whatever the memes say - that is what you will believe and vehemently defend. Think for yourselves is easy for me to say, but I know it's not going to happen, based on the actual data: Exhibit 1: Opinion of Syrian airstrikes under Obama vs. Trump. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package) Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package) Exhibit 4: Opinion of Vladimir Putin after Trump began praising Russia during the election. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 5: Opinion of "Obamacare" vs. "Kynect" (Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.) Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don't feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup's Advanced Analytics package) Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump's victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context

Stay on topic, brother. You said something that has been shown to be false, and was even shown false in the article you sent, and that is what was pointed out: From you (this is the false part): "The racist narrative falls apart especially when you look at the race of the police conducting these interactions. Minority police have a higher representation in use of violence against minorities than white police." From your article: "Black officers were not more likely to fatally shoot Black civilians (OR = 1.06 vs. 1.23), and Hispanic officers were less likely to fatally shoot Black (OR = 1.23 vs. 1.29) and Hispanic (OR = 1.32 vs. 1.84) civilians" From nature: see previous graph. Also, if you want to get into a scientific discussion, then I assume you are smart enough to know that how you look at data affects the conclusions you can gather. If you intentionally ignore certain permutations of the data set, then you can often show things that aren't true. Here's the best part, the authors literally RETRACTED their article because it was being misused. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/18130 "The authors wish to note the following: “Our article estimated the role of officer characteristics in predicting the race of civilians fatally shot by police. A critique pointed out we had erroneously made statements about racial differences in the probability of being shot (1), and we issued a correction to rectify the statement (2). Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research." They had to literally issue a retraction because people like you mis-cite it to make false points.

Another demonstrably false claim spouted as fact, which entirely derails your argument. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

And you wanna know the worst part of this, Lord Ratner? It took me 2 minutes to fact-check the BS you wrote using google. In 2 minutes, there’s concrete proof you are incorrect. Other people will just agree with you - without fact checking - because it fits their narrative, and the cycle of false narratives and pointless arguments will be reinforced.

Your baseless bias is showing again. Did you get this talking point from the fox entertainment station, talk radio, or fbook memes? How about Biden? “The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable […] as a country we must condemn the incitement of hate and resentment that led to this deadly clash. It is not a peaceful protest when you go out spoiling for a fight.” “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not.” “There’s no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches or destroying businesses […] we need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest and opportunistic violent destruction” https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN25V2O1 How about Pelosi when she condemned ”the violent actions of people calling themselves antifa”? I mean, I don’t even like Pelosi, but your statements are such obvious mistruths. “Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said at the time.

Another standard tactic is to write small “mistruths” into your statements that you hope are close enough to reality that you can just slightly shift the narrative. https://apnews.com/article/eb4b472fe89b4128990502b2b9e9e581 “Immediate” and clear are the opposite of what happened. Here, this is from a piece of liberal hippy literature: ”And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”

Literally all of it was. Your point in each of the paragraphs was either republicans are better or at least no worse than democrats. False centrism is a pretty standard tactic.

Let’s be honest, though. It’s pretty true. I know 2 people that did not promote in the same case with a DP.

Do you think you could even get mass to a fight like the Taiwan straits with our current air refueling and basing capabilities? Mass seems like a bit of a pipe dream. An expensive one, at that.

Yeah I guess if 72% of votes going to Hillary is the same as right of center, sure.

Hah, I guess then you guys are gonna support when Dems add 2 Supreme Court justices, approve stateship for DC and Puerto Rico, and end the 60 vote filibuster rule here in a year, as well, right? Because they’ll do it all under the legality of the US system and constitution. They’ll be playing “by the rules,” right? https://www.axios.com/democrats-supreme-court-ginsburg-options-871f3e66-e7a4-4f40-9691-d20de1f4be61.html Or are these not the rules that you want to play by? The truth is, a huge amount of US politics is contingent on good will and not doing shit like saying that Obama can’t have a judge within a year of election because of morality and then being a hypocrite less than 4 years later. This is the end of the republic. And it’s animosity on both sides, combined with a good amount of boot licking and pearl clutching, that’s gonna do it.

Of course it is, I even said it was true. There are no facts, there are opinions. Don’t twist the words. The point is that some people idolize the system because it’s always been the system. Not because they can point to a clear way in which having someone from Wisconsin count 3.6 times as much as the exact same occupation from California makes sense for the welfare of the people.

It’s not like this is a new thing. It’s happened before and it has had criticism since literally the founding of the country. It was almost amended in 1970 but was opposed overwhelmingly by segregationists in southern states. Go ahead, read about the electoral college abolition amendment.

You have no idea if that’s true. Judging by how many people still have “Hillary for Jail“ bumper stickers, I would even venture to say you’re wrong.

Yeah and an equal opposition argued against the electoral college in the anti-federalist papers. Just because they write “tyranny of the majority” doesn’t mean it turns out that way. In fact, the majority of civil rights scholars agree that the electoral college and its perpetuation is a large reason that slavery wasn’t abolished sooner and the civil war happened. What is that, tyranny of the minority?

There are no philosophical facts, that’s the point lol. No single idea, whether it came from a 21 year old founding father (like what you’re suggesting) or if it came from me should hold more inherent merit. Debate the ramifications - not the source.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state. Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012 all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored. States rights, huh? Bring back a system that actually makes everyone’s votes matter.

That’s not what it does, though. It just ensures that Wyoming farmers votes count 3.6 times more than California farmers. It ensures that Wyoming millionaire votes count 3.6 times more than California millionaires. Your vote should exactly equal every other Americans vote everywhere when it comes to electing the federal government. And good point that the founding fathers literally made this policy up based on how they felt, with no basis in fact. The federalist papers, by the way, were written primarily by two young people who were 21 and 25 at the time of revolution: Hamilton and Madison. They are not some form of higher truth - they are normal people subject to fallacies and the inability to predict future struggles. Idolizing them does nothing to help. The policy is an experiment that has no philosophical basis in truth, and, while it’s existed for hundreds of years, could still easily be flawed.