The Sporum - The Official Spore Forum
  [Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent Topics   [Hottest Topics] Hottest Topics   [Members]  Member Listing   [Groups] Back to forum index 

NOTE: The Sporum is migrating to EA’s Answers HQ forum environment. The Sporum is currently in Read-Only mode and will remain so for a period of time. For more information about the move and the new location, please see this post

Political Discourse™ Thread  XML
Forum Index » Science and Spore
Poll
Disclaimer: topic counts as political science, therefore valid.
Okay. 64% [ 63 ]
I'm a whiny baby. 36% [ 36 ]
Total Votes : 99
Author Message
Warcodered

Spacefaring Sporeling

Joined: 09/13/2008 05:45:54
Messages: 8651
Location:
Wyoming, USA

Offline

Mavor wrote:I was not aware that the statute of limitation was tied to the term of the president.


Only when it aligns with your point of view apparently *cough* economy *cough*.

Mavor wrote:Very clever wording and use of statistics. Job growth is down under Trump, but employment is at all time highs. Somehow, that doesn’t seem to fit together.


...because unless his job growth was in the negative it would be higher because that's how math works?

Mavor wrote:Let’s see Canadian PM waits for Trump to leave G8 summit and then loses his eyebrow while railing against Trump. French PM saying all sorts of things in the oval office about how great a friend he is with Trump. And then calls him a uncivilized oaf as he steps off the plane in France. Germany giving billions of dollars to Russia while failing to pay it’s share of NATO costs. I can go on.


Has there been a single meeting with a foreign leader that Trump hasn't said things went great everything is tremendous? Also wasn't Trump late to both of those and also didn't he leave early?

Mavor wrote:Opps I guess you missed the story that N. Korea just returned 50 MIA bodies. Gee, 70 years of conflict and you're annoyed because in 1 month not enough has happened. My you do like instant gratification don't you. I bet you eat your dessert first don't you.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07/19/north-korea-yet-to-make-good-on-promise-to-return-us-soldiers-remains.html

I guess you missed that they haven't? Seriously I got that from Fox news.

Mavor wrote:Says the person that refuses to believe anything not reported by fake news.


Really I have a funny feeling you believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I mean whats more likely that most news organizations are all lying and fake or that a small percentage are just horrendously biased.

Sig by: Falvrian/My Creations/ Vehicle Arena/ Arena Disccussion/ There are far too many posts that make me
[MSN]
Fab_Hair

Microbe

Joined: 06/30/2017 21:21:57
Messages: 29
Location:
Location: Location:

Offline

A'ight, so I'm gonna try to word this the best I can so I can best convey myself without disrespecting you, Mavor: I'm just going to end our conversation here. I'll explain why shortly.

First I just wanna express my teensy bit of disappointment in a little Size 4 Font remark of yours: "good enough?" Let me clarify that I wasn't asking you to prove yourself to me, rather my questions aimed at your career were out of genuine curiosity. You didn't disappoint: what you provided was honestly interesting and engaging and the topic might even warrant it's own thread in this Science and Spore section (were it not for the forum shutting down in a month). So thank you for that. As for the rest...

There's a lot that's worth discussing, but I'll only going to sum it up: each and every criticism of the President is immediately met with "well the left did this", or "well the liberals did that" -- okay? I know you're not talking about me, for one, because I already explained multiple times that I don't pigeonhole myself into any political party. But most importantly, it doesn't ultimately matter what one mayor in Puerto Rico did or whether your claim is true or not. Yes, you're going to find corrupt and lying politicians on all points of the political spectrum - but only one person is the President of the United States at a time, and that person is the topic of our conversation. What someone in Puerto Rico has done doesn't affect that conversation and warrants a completely different conversation on its own. That doesn't mean I don't care about what's happening, it only means that she's irrelevant to the discussion I'm trying to have with you: why Trump isn't a good leader. But every time I try to have that discussion with any of his supporters, it always goes back to "yeah, well, this person did that thing!" So what? What does that have to do with Trump?

We also have very different conversation styles and thinking patterns, by which I mean that I can only see us butting heads the whole time. I get the impression you only seek to provoke me because your language is very inflammatory, and that clashes with the intelligent conversation I was hoping to have. I also try to see the much larger picture - you might not think a trade war with China matters very much, but I think it can cause ripples which can turn into waves in the much longer term. Because it's more than just a few cents or dollars within the next year, it can also affect diplomacy and business in the future. Deals that could've been made are now off the table, and underneath the microscope of other foreign nations, we're under their scrutiny just as much as China's. If China suffers, so do dozens of other countries. Most of which will eventually tie in back to us. We're very involved with the world, and upsetting the already haphazard balance we have rocks the boat.

But most importantly, there's one thing that tells me we won't have a fruitful conversation: "Says the person that refuses to believe anything not reported by fake news."

You're more willing to believe a businessman trying to sell you his snake oil. I'm not going to deny that some sources have slight political biases - Fox News most of all, but the reason they got so large in the first place is because they got the reputation for being credible sources. It's why you cross-reference multiple different platforms of credible news sources in order to get the full story in a sea of misinformation created by bloggers and tabloids. If you're not willing to believe the press - the very foundation in which the world is even able to function (which is interesting since you quoted the New York Times earlier, I thought it was "fake news") - then there's no way we can feasibly have an intelligent conversation, because then you simply wouldn't have the appropriate information at your disposal to even discuss it with me. Don't read that as me calling you stupid, because I know you're not - you have a very cool job and you're intelligent enough to understand it - but I think it's unfortunate that you were effectively manipulated into supporting what's obviously a nationalist agenda. Every tyrant in the world has either discredited the press or controls it.

Much love, man. Hope all goes well for you.

midnight1999

Civilized Sporeon

Joined: 02/09/2015 18:11:05
Messages: 4991
Location:
Death X War OTP

Offline

I don't watch or read any mainstream or "fake" news but I'm just as up to date on all this as you guys.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 07/20/2018 02:43:33


Runilith

Multicellular

Joined: 04/11/2017 15:03:47
Messages: 323
Location:
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Offline

Warcodered wrote:
Really I have a funny feeling you believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I mean whats more likely that most news organizations are all lying and fake or that a small percentage are just horrendously biased.


They are all lying to you. And I mean all of them. Mostly by omitting certain details or by deliberately reporting outdated news. You can see this very easily if you compare two articles of the same event from different news sites. Things won't line up because one site decided to only report this information on only interview those people while the other neglected to report this information and interviewed other people.

It is in their best interest to do this. News organizations understand that they attract certain kinds of viewers, thus they choose to report only on stories that would outrage or appeal to those viewers. Everything is editorialized and nothing is sacred. These days you've got to read every possible source you can and then piece together what actually happened. At least niche news sources, like video games, movies, and other hobbies, at least they have the courtesy to outright lie to you.


Mavor

Civilized Sporeon

Joined: 11/29/2008 05:55:44
Messages: 1458
Location:
Look down. You are flying over me right now.

Offline

Warcodered
Only when it aligns with your point of view apparently *cough* economy *cough*.


I have given my reasoning for why I believe Trump has turned around the economy. I have shown in Obama’s own words why he thought the economy would never recover. And I have given the actions that Trump undertook to affect the economy. Please give me the actions that Obama took that you claimed fixed the economy rather that how you “feel” he fixed it by just existing.

..because unless his job growth was in the negative it would be higher because that's how math works?

But, the graph clearly shows that Trump’s job growth numbers are on average higher than Obama’s number when extended to show 2018. So that is not how math works. That is how to manipulate math to provide a false answer by limiting the data.

Also wasn't Trump late to both of those and also didn't he leave early?

So what’s your point? He isn’t punctual therefore he can be be trashed by our allies?

I guess you missed that they haven't?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/17/politics/us-north-korea-remains/index.html
My bad. That’s what I get for listening to CNN. Ahahahahahaha

I mean whats more likely that most news organizations are all lying and fake or that a small percentage are just horrendously biased.

You mean like believing in all the anonymous sourced news stories about Trump that have had to be retracted by the major news media. Or being distrustful of the people that the IG report and others have said actually are distrustful. Are you speaking of the coverage of Trump on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, AND CNN which is negative 97% of the time? Perhaps you are speaking of the PBS, ABC, CNN and CBS reporters that have been fired for the false stories they have produced. The total is now 6 by my count. I ask you, "Is it likely that top reporters on CNN, ABC, NBC, AND CBS (who all worked for the Clinton and Obama administration) might inject their own bais into the news cycle"? So it looks like to me that of the mainstream media, all but one are horrendously biased. With NBC and FOX being the only ones that haven’t had to fire people for completely making up stories on Trump.
BTW Fox news reports on Trump positively 63% of the time. So yes they are bias too. But they are 34% less bias in their coverage than the others.

Fab_Hair

The teensy size (which I apologized for) was because it was not specifically a political matter. And made the post huge(Please say huge in a Trump voice). I actually felt from the tone of your question that you wanted proof of my job. The “good enough” was a question on whether my answer had convinced you.

The mayor was not intended to be included in my response, that was why it had a “BTW” and came at the end of my post. So I will not respond unless you would like to open a new line of discussion on corruption in world governments.

I get the impression you only seek to provoke me because your language is very inflammatory


Excuse me. I Provoke you? When I said your comment on America’s lack of involvement in World War II disgusted me, you went out of your way to double down on your comments in the next post. You have implied that I am lying about my salary and my job. You imply that I am lying about the facts I cite. And you call into question whether I have the intelligence to even understand politics. You try to paint me as not caring about children and talk down to me about not understanding the fiscal year and being a mindless Trumpite drinking the kool-aid. But you "feel" my language is inflammatory. And clashes with your intelligent conversation? Your conversation has been nothing but stating your feelings and then you run away from anything you don’t want to talk about calling it irrelevant. The passive aggressive behavior you exhibit is beyond belief.

you might not think a trade war with China matters very much, but I think it can cause ripples which can turn into waves in the much longer term.

Ok, lets look long term. Tell me why is it only bad if the US has tariffs? Why does Europe and Asia get to impose restrictions on American products without consequences? I think that Trump’s tariffs are just the long term results of other countries economic misbehavior. And that it has caused economic and business problems now for the US which would only worsen in the futre. And if America (the number one economy in the world) suffers, then many other nations suffer. Besides, Trump has said that ultimately he wants a world without trade restriction on camera and in print. And the world said, "No!".
From another point of view, tariffs are the best way to fairly tax the American people. Since the other countries don't actually "pay", they just pass it on to the customer, American citizen is in effect taxed. So who do you want to tax more, the poor guy buying a cheap used car that has no taxes? Or the rich fat cat that is buying his 3rd Porsche this year? And if you say that the poor still pay you are correct. But they are poor. Which means they don't buy a lot, because they are poor. The rich and middle class but a lot of stuff. It is this group that is going to be paying out the most by far.

It's why you cross-reference multiple different platforms of credible news sources in order to get the full story in a sea of misinformation created by bloggers and tabloids. If you're not willing to believe the press - the very foundation in which the world is even able to function (which is interesting since you quoted the New York Times earlier, I thought it was "fake news") - then there's no way we can feasibly have an intelligent conversation


Wait a minute, in your last post you said you didn’t have time to look up information. Now you are claiming to be viewing multiple news streams regularly and so super informed that I simply can’t meet your level of knowledge. I don’t know why I would think you were calling me stupid. And I quoted the NY Times because you claim it's not fake news. I thought that might be better than quoting Hannity. Sorry you feel you need to run away now.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 07/20/2018 21:07:18


Runilith

Multicellular

Joined: 04/11/2017 15:03:47
Messages: 323
Location:
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Offline

but that debate class i took in high school said you're supposed to make arguements with empathy in mind. why aren't you responding to my appeal to empathy???


Mavor

Civilized Sporeon

Joined: 11/29/2008 05:55:44
Messages: 1458
Location:
Look down. You are flying over me right now.

Offline

Runilith wrote:but that debate class i took in high school said you're supposed to make arguments with empathy in mind. why aren't you responding to my appeal to empathy???

Because I agree with you. The only thing I could add would be that this is nothing new. Yellow journalism has been around since before the term yellow journalism. In 1845 Edgar Allen Poe wrote to believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see. You are correct that from a business point, the networks deliver what they think will make them money, except for CNN*. The only thing they seem to have forgotten is that in reporting the news, trust is almost as important as the money. And in the latest polls, trust in the news media is only 32%.



*Due to airports and other venues that have long term contracts with CNN, it is not as quick to change content to garner rating. CNN also benefits from being sold as a bundle of all Turner Broadcasting channels so that it is never directly exposed to the choices of the cable providers on whether to carry it or not.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 07/20/2018 21:39:45


Fab_Hair

Microbe

Joined: 06/30/2017 21:21:57
Messages: 29
Location:
Location: Location:

Offline

Returning for a moment to clarify some misconstrued interpretations -- and Runilith, because I'm still technically the OP, I'd like to ask of you to provide some meaningful dialogue instead of provocative and sarcastic remarks or leave; out of interest in maintaining civility.

Mavor, I'd like to ask of you to, for a moment, slow down for a moment, because I get the impression that you think we're still in debate mode. Tone of voice, body language, inflections and modulations aren't present here, so I'm going to go out of the way to express myself better.

Was I harsh about my sentiment about WWII America? Yeah, probably, sorry about that. To be clear, I'm only sorry as sorry as far as hurt feelings go, but I do think it's important to remain objective about the truth of our country's history. If you painted a turd with stars and stripes, it's still a turd.

Like I've already stated, I never meant to imply anything. Was I skeptical about your job? Yeah. I said that. But I asked you to explain your job to me because I was genuinely interested in what it meant, not because I wanted you to prove yourself to me -- like I've already stated, and I'm afraid you've been looking a little too deep into my responses to you, because I've never once called you unintelligent. I did say there was a misunderstanding (which is not the same thing as a lack of understanding) and maybe I misspoke or failed to clarify further behind my meaning, but I've never called you unintelligent or "talked down to you" while making a point about the fiscal year. I never made any comment about you not understanding the fiscal year, in fact I quote, "If you're familiar with the fiscal year, then you'll know..." Of course I had no way of knowing whether you knew about it or not, so I made sure to cover both approaches as passively as possible.

I would comment on your bit about the trade war, but I've already resolved myself to not continue the discussion. The bit I've included in the original post was simply used as an example.

"Now you are claiming to be viewing multiple news streams regularly and so super informed..."

No, actually, I didn't. "It's* why you cross-references multiple different platforms of credible news sources..."

*"It" refers to the act of browsing the news in and of itself. If you're watching and reading the news, and you suspect that the whole story isn't being told, you look at other news sources and see if they're covering it. If they are, see how their articles differ. Then you combine what you've learned from those different sources. This is how you overcome political bias in the news. That was never a claim of my own about how informed I am, that was just an instruction of how to be informed.

Furthermore, that's simply how debate works. Onus probandi. If you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. If you enter law and make every claim expecting your opponent to provide the proof for your own claims, you're simply going to be dismissed and the judge will favor your opponent every time. I've kept my number of claims and recitation of numbers pretty low because I wasn't so invested as to hunt down a link every couple minutes. Given your stance on news media, those sources would've been wasted anyways.

There's been a combination of misunderstandings, straw man attacks, and highly charged statements that leads me to believe that you're not interested in a healthy discourse. I've come to this conclusion because for one, you found arguments and insults where there weren't any, ignoring previous expressed sentiments, and the charged language (e.g. "run away") despite having given my reasoning for not wishing to continue the conversation. It attacks my own sincerity. Maybe there are reasons for it, like maybe that's how your debate style is and therefore you see it or expect it from other people, or maybe you've got other and maybe personal or private reasons for being emotionally invested in the conversation, or maybe you feel threatened - or none of the above. I've got no way of knowing. But I've given you my thoughts and I hope we'll leave it at that.

Given the nature of this conversation, if you wish to continue, please send me a PM that way we don't bog down the politics thread with personal garbage. I don't want this thread to degenerate into two people attacking one another personally, though I do not think it will come to that.

Runilith

Multicellular

Joined: 04/11/2017 15:03:47
Messages: 323
Location:
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Offline

If America isn't great, than who is? Is anyone? If so, who is the closest the greatness? and Why?


Sharples65

GalacticGod

Joined: 01/18/2014 17:20:11
Messages: 11523
Location:
Where eggs are laid.

Offline

Runilith wrote:If America isn't great, than who is? Is anyone? If so, who is the closest the greatness? and Why?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Kingdom_of_the_Coral_Sea_Islands

[WWW]
Mavor

Civilized Sporeon

Joined: 11/29/2008 05:55:44
Messages: 1458
Location:
Look down. You are flying over me right now.

Offline

On another subject

John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director under Obama has accused Trump of treason for his meeting with Putin.(New York Times) Brennan was not present at the US/Russian summit, nor does he have a transcript of the meeting. So, he has no idea what was said. Yet, he "feels" that Trump somehow betrayed the country so badly that he deserves to be executed (which is the only penalty for treason). Brennan was joined by a number of others who echoed his insane rhetoric or said that it was like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 all over again. But does talking to Putin come to the level of treason? Let's look at past summits and see. FDR, at the Yalta Summit with Stalin, gave away Poland and the Baltic states to Soviet control.(Wiki) Of the Vienna Summit, Kennedy would later say of Khrushchev, “He beat the hell out of me” and told the New York Times it was the “worst thing in my life. He savaged me.” Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev signed the Salt II treaty reducing American ICBM's but allowing the Soviets to continue production. And finally there's Obama's open mike indecent with Dmitry Medvedev, where he was heard to say "Tell Putin that I'll have more flexibility after the election". And after the election Obama quickly removed the missile defense system from Poland and refused to honor the treaty the US had with the Ukraine to defend them.

So I guess a private talk is grounds for treason. Just because Trump has more sanctions on Russia, blew up Russian Troops in Syria aand is sending Weapons to the Ukraine, his possible words are grounds for murdering him. Trump Derangement Syndrome to the max, baby.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 07/21/2018 18:21:29


cardiackid

Spacefaring Sporeling

Joined: 08/09/2010 23:35:25
Messages: 9906
Location:
making bad final posts on the sporum

Offline

get this- donald trump.





ICE AGE COMING ICE AGE COMING




If you're reading this the devil is already here, and you're him!
[WWW]
cardiackid

Spacefaring Sporeling

Joined: 08/09/2010 23:35:25
Messages: 9906
Location:
making bad final posts on the sporum

Offline

btw kanye 2020





ICE AGE COMING ICE AGE COMING




If you're reading this the devil is already here, and you're him!
[WWW]
Mavor

Civilized Sporeon

Joined: 11/29/2008 05:55:44
Messages: 1458
Location:
Look down. You are flying over me right now.

Offline


Sharples65

GalacticGod

Joined: 01/18/2014 17:20:11
Messages: 11523
Location:
Where eggs are laid.

Offline

cardiackid wrote:get this- donald trump.



[WWW]
 
Forum Index » Science and Spore
Go to:   
 
Powered by JForum 2.1.8 © ( EA Dev Build 2018-08-14 15:53:40 ) JForum Team