All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Dalak]

"It seems like your argument is that every MMA academy, everywhere, has bad cops who brag about beating protestors in it. On top of that it seems like you are saying everyone at these academies is fine with that, owners included"

Again - I never said this, this is all in your mind! I can't address/respond to something I didn't say, something I have no idea about. Do you understand? I am obviously not going to provide "evidence" for something that I am not stating, something that I have no idea about. Do you understand?

And now that you know, I’ve clarified (hopefully beyond any doubt), that that's not what I said - at all - are you able to understand that I am unable to answer a question on a statement I didn't do? You can ask me questions about what I said, of course.

You didn't go on a tangent - you went on a parallel universe. And for what?

Quote 1: These aren't your average idiots, I don't think they are everywhere.

Quote 2: Right Wingers are everywhere in MMA

Quote 3: I meant this kind. It seems like you're saying they're everywhere.

Quote 4: Mockery and nothing saying "That's not what I meant" just a gish gallop of links not talking about what I was saying. No clarification.

You changed your story after you said you didn't care about debate rules, and it was clearly changing as you suddenly started downplaying how bad MMA was after going all-in on how it was tainted.

A.

I currently train at one of the top MMA academies here in London and there's a lot of that here as well, even more than in Madrid.

B.

Where I train right now, there are hundreds of folks training on a regular basis; I haven’t done a poll but the vast majority aren’t far right.

"London is worse than Madrid where I was confronted by bad cops who brag about beating protestors making me & others uncomfortable in a MMA academy where the owners were fine with it . . but I haven't done a poll so it's not as bad as I made out."

So I leave off with another quote, one of mine:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234

Why admitting you're wrong should be the new right

[Dalak]

It's not that it's okay to be a jerk, that implies that the statements are unfair when the opposite is true. Like I said, it's not as if you're being forced at gunpoint to support racists and bigots and people who limit woman's bodily autonomy, you have a choice and if you cared about lgbtq rights, women's rights and the equitable treatment of minorities you wouldn't choose to support politicians who rail against those populations every single day.

So when you make the choice not to change then that means that you are okay with limiting those rights...which makes you a bad person. And that's not me being a jerk, it's just an objective fact at the point.

It didn't used to be that way, the Republican party wasn't always synonymous with being a bad person...but it is now.

The argument can be made that it isn't "bad" to support white nationalism and bigotry if it serves one's personal agenda -- especially in a democracy.

The fact that many Republicans are willing to engage in unconstitutional and criminal behavior to force that agenda on others is what is objectively problematic.

That isn't to say such views aren't ethically and morally repugnant -- only to emphasize the fact that they view the alternative (diversity) as the greater evil.

Mets has shown little to no concern about Republican bigotry yet expects others to respect his self-proclaimed authority regarding ethical behavior.



Morality can be argued but hypocrisy regarding factually documented Republican white nationalist behavior -- and violence -- is inherently indefensible.

Several posters in this forum say they focus on decorum and morality in ways not shown by those they support, or themselves when they lie about other posters and do not acknowledge they are wrong or apologize. Double standards are worth pointing out when individuals don't live up to the standards they maintain for others to live by.

Trump attorney Habba: Menendez Indictment Intended to Divert Attention from Hunter Biden

And....they found a crazy way of twisting this. :eyeroll:

As if anyone outside of Qpublicans actually give a damn about Hunter. Last I checked, he wasn’t running for office, but, no one from the right wants to discuss Jared and Ivanka pulling in two billion from Saudi Arabia while part of Trump’s cabinet of criminals.

Dems don't police their own, until they are "trying to divert attention" from how they are. The GoP doesn't police their own, because they don't want to give Dems a win by actually holding criminals accountable for their crimes (Santos, Trump, Paxton, etc) and give up their power & influence.

As someone who has sacrificed much of his personal time to several of those charities over the past decades:
You do not know what you are talking about.

Charities that help minority groups, charities that are controversial to many people, are barely getting by as it is. We're always broken hearted about not being able to do all the help we want to provide. Where do you think the money comes from?

Now you want to dump more work on us?
When is the last time you donated for an LGBTQ charity, and how much was it?

Resources for addressing these issues -- as well as immigration, the homeless crisis, etc -- could be addressed by raising corportate taxes to reasonable levels.

Instead corporations are making record profits and the workers who recognize this are now striking because Republican policies continue to promote wealth inequality.

Republicans naturally choose to do the opposite of what has proven to be effective in nearly every other nation.

Much of this is based on their fear that "minorities" will receive the benefits of these social programs -- Reagan popularized this myth with his "welfare queen" lie.

They also lie and claim that the tax cuts will pay for themselves when the Congressional Budget Office has already proved this to be untrue.

Lies, racism and misrepresentation -- even when the data reveals factual effective solutions.

-----

"Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $3.5 Trillion to the Deficit, According to CBO"

New report finds Republicans’ giveaways to the wealthy and large corporations are significantly more costly than previously estimated

Washington, D.C. — According to a report released today by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), extending the Trump tax cuts would add $3.5 trillion to the deficit through 2033...."

No one is crying out for corps to lower their prices after they raised them so quickly now that inflation is falling, and they are defended when it's pointed out their dishonesty and double-dealing by conservatives around the world. When America was Great like MAGA wants it was before the 60's when civil rights and everything upended, and the Tax Rates were far higher than now. Go back to what made America great - people paying their fair share of Taxes and it being spent to improve American lives & more.

[Kirby101]

Federal tax rate USA before Reagan and incl. Reagan:
1960-1967: 52%
1968-1969: 48%
1970-1971: 49.5%
1972-1977: 48%
1978-1986: 46%

Are you advocating corporate federal tax rates of 45%+?

Developed countries currently do not have anything close to that. UK 19%, Canada 15%, France 31%, Japan 30%, Germany 30%. Part of the reason for this is that economies are much more globalized than in the 60s-70s, investment and labor are much more global, as is commerce. Globalization has brought, well, global competition - in the 60s and 70s the US wasn't competing, for example, with companies and factories in China.

The three countries in Europe with highest GDP per capita (the three richest countries per capita):
- Luxembourg 25%
- Rep. Ireland 12.5%
- Denmark 22%
Most tech companies in Europe have HQ in Ireland and Luxembourg, btw

(note that these are federal average tax rates for 2021 - but things haven't changed much)

We're talking about corporate tax rates. When you mentioned Reagan I have a feeling you were thinking more of income tax rates, rather than corporate tax rates?

The relationship between corporate tax levels and economic growth + unemployment is quite complex, anyone who has studied economics will tell you that. aja christopher's comment, without context/data, is a bit simplistic, an empty formula. I am not saying that saying "higher corporate tax" is necessarily wrong, but it's not that simple.

They never paid that rate, and now over a quarter of them pay no taxes at all due to Republican passed tax breaks. The lower rate on the Rich has also worsened things and needs to be raised, as well as the difference between Capital Gains and Income. The GOP tax cuts has lead to most of our deficits and the growing income inequity. The fix is raising taxes on Corporations and the Rich. It's not that complex.

[Dalak]

They never paid that rate, and now over a quarter of them pay no taxes at all due to Republican passed tax breaks. The lower rate on the Rich has also worsened things and needs to be raised, as well as the difference between Capital Gains and Income. The GOP tax cuts has lead to most of our deficits and the growing income inequity. The fix is raising taxes on Corporations and the Rich. It's not that complex.

If every billionaire in the US spared just 1B each (Corps are People too according to conservatives) the differences in the lives of so many poverty stricken people could be turned around in a matter of weeks. That money doesn't even need to be handed to people for nothing, as it could be used to create jobs like in the Great Depression to improve our crumbling infrastructure.

But no, instead we should praise our corporate overlords and allow them to increase the costs of food, utilities, healthcare, medication, housing, and all the other necessities that ordinary people then have to pay more for . . so we can blame liberal politicians for not making everything better. This is a big part of the plan of American Conservatives to make life hard for those poor uneducated voters they fool into voting GoP, and stoking that resentment has gotten us to the incredibly hostile & violent Now.

[Mister Mets]

I don't know if this is intentional, but you do highlight an odd flaw of society, in that people who try to do better are held to a much, much higher standard those who don't even try.

I mean, we're comparing a single senator, to a past president, and likely future candidate

If the argument is that people should vote for your side because your side is morally superior, that does mean that people on your side should be held to a higher standard.

The Democratic Party are calling for him to resign. Left-leaning posters on this forum want him to resign. It's one guy, versus ALL these corrupt Republicans. Hell, we're only days removed from Texas Republicans closing ranks to keep Ken Paxton in office, after a bunch of PACs that supported him did a cash drop in donations to Texas State Senators who voted to acquit him.

You can't pretend Republicans are better in this category. They're corrupt now on a level where there is next to no accountability.

But you don't want to change how you feel that Republicans aren't better than Democrats in term of corruption, in spite of all the evidence of this incident that they are doing better.

Rejecting facts you don't want to see is truly a Republican trait these days.

Menendez was first indicted in 2015.

This is tiring. And I actually wasn’t “mocking” you. But, honestly, do you think I care about the rules, goalposts, debate tactics, or whatever you’re trying to set? I don’t.

“When I ask for evidence that cops who brag about beating protestors like you described are as common in MMA circles as you suggested”
The problem is that I didn’t say that. I said that it’s common to have far right idiots, including cops/military, in most MMA gyms, along with a right-wing, misogynistic, homophobic culture in MMA circles. I never said that “cops who brag about beating protestors” is a common occurrence (I don’t know if it is or if it isn’t, no idea).

You can believe whatever you want to believe

At the very least, the problem of cops bragging about committing abuse in MMA gyms is big enough that you've become aware of it.

That’s not even remotely the argument - there is no argument in reality.

Just facts backed by evidence that the political party that you support attacks black and LGBT Americans and utilizes bigotry to gain votes.

Because you can’t defend that you instead repeatedly make false allegations against others.

Since you can’t stop lying this dialogue is over - it’s clear you know the truth about the Republican Party whether you will admit to it or not.

If you’re bothered by others pointing out that you support a party of bigots then don’t support bigots.

The argument that it's okay for Democrats to be jerks to Republicans comes up every now and then on this thread. It is very much a commonly stated viewpoint, which should be apparent to anyone reading the board the last few days.

If you'd like me to address facts that you find particularly compelling, you can ask me politely about it in a non-loaded way.

It's not that it's okay to be a jerk, that implies that the statements are unfair when the opposite is true. Like I said, it's not as if you're being forced at gunpoint to support racists and bigots and people who limit woman's bodily autonomy, you have a choice and if you cared about lgbtq rights, women's rights and the equitable treatment of minorities you wouldn't choose to support politicians who rail against those populations every single day.

So when you make the choice not to change then that means that you are okay with limiting those rights...which makes you a bad person. And that's not me being a jerk, it's just an objective fact at the point.

It didn't used to be that way, the Republican party wasn't always synonymous with being a bad person...but it is now.

It's pretty easy for others to claim that people on the left and the center-left are synonymous with bad people because of the least-generous interpretations of controversial policies.

If someone is bothered by something I said about a particular politician or law, it can make sense to bring up those specific posts. If they're unsure how I stand on a particular politician or legislative decision, they can ask.

I think it's better to remain a registered Republican, to do what I can to improve the quality of the general election candidates.

[aja_christopher]

If you'd like me to address facts that you find particularly compelling, you can ask me politely about it in a non-loaded way.

It's you who would like others to stop factually pointing out that you support a party that engages in bigotry and fascism.

Keep that in mind -- rather than projecting onto others.

Several posters in this forum say they focus on decorum and morality in ways not shown by those they support, or themselves when they lie about other posters and do not acknowledge they are wrong or apologize. Double standards are worth pointing out when individuals don't live up to the standards they maintain for others to live by.

That's expected at this point from many conservatives -- if they can't win debates on facts they resort to personal grievance and misreprentation.

Trump does exactly the same thing when facts are brought to bear regading his racist behavior -- deflect and attack.



The repetition shows that he is out of any real objective arguments that might be made in defense of conservative behavior.

[Jack Dracula]

If the argument is that people should vote for your side because your side is morally superior, that does mean that people on your side should be held to a higher standard.

That argument is somewhat of a fallacy. The correct idea would be to acknowledge the imperfect but objectively greater moral superiority of the Democrats and point out the failure of Republicans to meet that.

This is similar to the idea that journalists should be as hard on Biden as they were on Trump because it’s only “fair”, when the reality is they should look at both and simply report the accomplishments and failures objectively.

[The Cool Thatguy]

If the argument is that people should vote for your side because your side is morally superior, that does mean that people on your side should be held to a higher standard.

As this is a basic of all politics, the same should just as easily apply to the Republicans.

[aja_christopher]

That argument is somewhat of a fallacy. The correct idea would be to acknowledge the imperfect but objectively greater moral superiority of the Democrats and point out the failure of Republicans to meet that.

This is similar to the idea that journalists should be as hard on Biden as they were on the Trump because it’s only “fair”, when the reality is they should look at both and simply report the accomplishments and failures objectively.

It's effectively a loaded question: "why should people support Democrats if they are not as morally superior as they claim."

If he were to ask in a non-loaded way -- which party is morally superior -- then you could answer objectively.

[Farealmer]

That's expected at this point from many conservatives -- if they can't win debates on facts they resort to personal grievance and misreprentation.

Let's not forget the ones that only show up when cons get a win to rub it in the face of the liberals in this thread. Then claim the liberals in this thread are the ones lacking morals.

[thwhtGuardian]

If the argument is that people should vote for your side because your side is morally superior, that does mean that people on your side should be held to a higher standard.

Menendez was first indicted in 2015.

At the very least, the problem of cops bragging about committing abuse in MMA gyms is big enough that you've become aware of it.


The argument that it's okay for Democrats to be jerks to Republicans comes up every now and then on this thread. It is very much a commonly stated viewpoint, which should be apparent to anyone reading the board the last few days.

If you'd like me to address facts that you find particularly compelling, you can ask me politely about it in a non-loaded way.



It's pretty easy for others to claim that people on the left and the center-left are synonymous with bad people because of the least-generous interpretations of controversial policies.

If someone is bothered by something I said about a particular politician or law, it can make sense to bring up those specific posts. If they're unsure how I stand on a particular politician or legislative decision, they can ask.

I think it's better to remain a registered Republican, to do what I can to improve the quality of the general election candidates.

They could try and make that claim, sure, but they'd be objectively wrong.

The Republican party has already rolled back women's bodily autonomy. This is objectively wrong.

The Republican party continues to try and minimize the rights of the LGTBQ community. Again, objectively wrong.

The Republican party is aggressively anti-trans. Again, wrong.

And racism? Yeah, do we need to post all the racist comments that various Republican leaders and elected officials have made? Or that the party refuses to denounce white nationalist groups? That the Republican party hasn't denounced the people who stormed the Capitol building?

It's not a both sides situation Mets, there is no action or policy from the Democratic party or leadership that is even close to being on the same scale of the Republican party. The Republican party is an ugly group of hate and you can't improve it.

And we've talked about the terrible takes you've put forward and the politicians you've defended time and time again. You've defended anti-trans laws, and you've defended Desantis. That's ugliness, pure and simple and if you don't like being called out on that then maybe you have to do some soul searching and realize why people characterize you that way and then change.

[Mister Mets]

That argument is somewhat of a fallacy. The correct idea would be to acknowledge the imperfect but objectively greater moral superiority of the Democrats and point out the failure of Republicans to meet that.

This is similar to the idea that journalists should be as hard on Biden as they were on Trump because it’s only “fair”, when the reality is they should look at both and simply report the accomplishments and failures objectively.

If you're acknowledging that Democrats are imperfect, but suggesting that they are objectively morally superior, you are insisting that they be held to a higher standard.

The claim is that they will easily clear this standard.

I'll agree that it's absurd to insist that journalists be as tough on Biden as they are on Trump. Biden is much less likely to insult gold-star fathers, so there are going to be less negative stories on him.

But they should respond to a story about the Biden White House the same way they would a story about the Trump White House.

As this is a basic of all politics, the same should just as easily apply to the Republicans.

If someone is making that argument, it's a valid counter-response.

For the most part, Republican arguments are more about policy, rather than the idea that someone who disagrees with them on policy should support them.

[Mister Mets]

It's effectively a loaded question: "why should people support Democrats if they are not as morally superior as they claim."

If he were to ask in a non-loaded way -- which party is morally superior -- then you could answer objectively.

I am not going around insulting people, asking loaded questions and then criticizing them for being evasive.

As I've said numerous times, loaded questions can be appropriate in some situations, just not when you're insisting the other guy respond.

"If the argument is that people should vote for your side because your side is morally superior, that does mean that people on your side should be held to a higher standard." is a conclusion rather than a question.

You've inferred "why should people support Democrats if they are not as morally superior as they claim?" although I haven't said that.

This gets to a major problem in the discussion where you seem to be upset about what you infer rather than what is actually said.

They could try and make that claim, sure, but they'd be objectively wrong.

The Republican party has already rolled back women's bodily autonomy. This is objectively wrong.

The Republican party continues to try and minimize the rights of the LGTBQ community. Again, objectively wrong.

The Republican party is aggressively anti-trans. Again, wrong.

And racism? Yeah, do we need to post all the racist comments that various Republican leaders and elected officials have made? Or that the party refuses to denounce white nationalist groups? That the Republican party hasn't denounced the people who stormed the Capitol building?

It's not a both sides situation Mets, there is no action or policy from the Democratic party or leadership that is even close to being on the same scale of the Republican party. The Republican party is an ugly group of hate and you can't improve it.

And we've talked about the terrible takes you've put forward and the politicians you've defended time and time again. You've defended anti-trans laws, and you've defended Desantis. That's ugliness, pure and simple and if you don't like being called out on that then maybe you have to do some soul searching and realize why people characterize you that way and then change.

It's a high standard to insist that being pro-choice is objectively right, and that being pro-life is objectively wrong.

The goalpost isn't that you're right, but that you're so obviously right that no one who is decent and informed can disagree with you and that's a high bar.

The LGBTQ and trans issues have tradeoffs. There are times I disagree with Republicans, and times I do agree. It depends on the specific situation.

We can litigate comments that you believe to be racist, though that's always a serious allegation, since you're essentially suggesting that a person is a piece of shit who should be removed from public life, shunned by polite society and abandoned by family and friends.

There should be noting wrong with defending a politician or legislation if I've got the facts on my side. It shouldn't be about whether I defended DeSantis, but whether I defended DeSantis in a situation in which he was clearly wrong. There's a potential trap of saying things that are wrong to bait someone into defending a bad person.

[aja_christopher]

For the most part, Republican arguments are more about policy, rather than the idea that someone who disagrees with them on policy should support them.

Republicans are literally forcing people to agree with their policies.

Disney employees, university employees, school employees, diversity officers, COVID officials -- wherever possible.

Republicans are currently planning to shut down the government again to force others to agree with their policies -- and to protect Trump.



The Republican party you present is a fantasy -- the reailty is that authoritarians like Trump and DeSantis are the new Repubican normal.

I am not going around insulting people, asking loaded questions

No one is insulting anyone and you are asking loaded questions.

[Mister Mets]

An ABC News polls shows Trump leading Biden 51-42 in a general election. This would correspond to strong outcomes in the electoral college, and good coattails for the House and Senate.

President Joe Biden's job approval rating is 19 points underwater, his ratings for handling the economy and immigration are at career lows. A record number of Americans say they've become worse off under his presidency, three-quarters say he's too old for another term and Donald Trump is looking better in retrospect -- all severe challenges for Biden in his reelection campaign ahead.

Forty-four percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they've gotten worse off financially under Biden's presidency, the most for any president in ABC/Post polls since 1986. Just 37% approve of his job performance, while 56% disapprove. Still fewer approve of Biden's performance on the economy, 30%.

On handling immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, Biden's rating is even lower, with 23% approval. In terms of intensity of sentiment, 20% strongly approve of his work overall, while 45% strongly disapprove. And the 74% who say he's too old for a second term is up 6 percentage points since May. Views that Trump is too old also are up, but to 50% in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates.

This is concerning.