Natan RegionBoard

Slarvainian wrote:

Last time America was divided was 1865. Let's stop with the hyperbolic metaphors painting a message of fear. The majority of people have come to accept Trump's presidency. Hillary somehow managed to lose more electors than Trump did, and at the end of the day the buses kept running, bridges stood and people got up in the morning to go to work just as they did before November 8th.
Natan buys a book of his idol after they lose a political battle and then advocates for the burning of books of his political rivals. Sounds like a supporter of the National Socialist German Worker's Party to me.

I agree that America's not as divided as it was in 1865. But that doesn't change the fact that he has divided america, even if we are not at the point of civil war. Donald Trump's rhetoric is a primary cause of this division, which he has actively advocated, and now expects us to come together "for the greater good" and support him. I have accepted the results of the election, and the fact that he'll be the next president, as undemocratic as the result may be. That does not mean, however, that I have to like it, or that I have to respect, trust, or support him in the least, all of which I cannot in good conscience do after the hateful, divisive, anti-american rhetoric he displayed during the election, and I shall remain opposed to him at least until he can earn my respect, trust, and support, all of which seems unlikely as of yet, particularly based on his cabinet picks. I will not stand by him, I will not defend him. He can expect nothing from me but my unbridled opposition. Sure, the buses are still running, bridges are still standing, and people get up to go to work. But what happens when he implements his dangerous policies, which experts have concluded will be a disaster for the nation? Will you say the same thing when his policies throw us into another Great Recession, or worse? What about when he provokes war with another nation because of what he said about them, or because of what they say about him? We cannot just sit back and "wait to see what he does" nor can we think "maybe he won't be that bad". We must expect and prepare for the worst, particularly because this is a dangerous, unpredictable man who's been elected. We've seen what he's said and done in the past, and we should continue to expect that he'll keep to the course, as he's done with his cabinet, rather than attempt to normalize him, nor can we give him the benefit of the doubt, or we may be too late to stop any danger he may cause. We must stay vigilant, protect Obama's policies as best we can, and be ready at a moment's notice to act in any legal way we can against him.

As for Hillary's book, I've been planning to get it for months, long before the election, but Hanukkah was the only time I could get it. Only difference is, I expected to be reading it as the plan for the next 4 years, not as the progressives' crushed hopes and dreams. As for the book burning, that was mostly a joke (though I did burn a minecraft effigy of trump), however, Nazis aren't the only ones who burned books, and I resent such a comparison, being a Jew myself. It's a very inaccurate comparison.

Pretty interesting article: http://time.com/4590994/popular-vote-tax-pledge/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

I'm not saying I'd do it, but I love the idea of putting the GOP on notice.

Slarvainian wrote:

So you don't tell me how he's divided America and instead you go into flowery prose about how you'll oppose Donald Trump anyway you can because a whole bunch of unfounded, un-sourced and slipper slope fallacy ridden conclusions (Has anyone seen Virtue? Virrrrrtue? Where are you Virtue. Everyone, look at me searching for Virtue). Honestly the more logical conclusion would be an extreme skepticism towards Trump, his policies and cabinet positions forgoing that none of his policies have been enacted before with direct disastrous effect. It is always better to assume a stroll through the neighborhood is just a stroll and not an attempt to burn the houses down until someone takes out a match.
And you BURN effigies of Trump in a video game. Natan you are actively helping my case.
Sure the Nazi's weren't the only ones, but regardless burning books in a attempt to wipe out a political opinion is wrong. If you would like me to expand on this point I can.
Also just because you are Jewish does not save you from that comparison.
Won't ever happen and arguably dangerous to do so. Imagine when Emergency services begin to shut down because the government and half of the citizenry are engaged in a gigantic game of chicken. Society would break down negating the point of revolution.

Donald trump has divided america by repeatedly antagonizing minorities, even if unintentionally, causing unrest within the community of americans who dislike minorities, who want to get rid of immigrants, or who are just plain racist, and has advocated policies that are reminiscent of those used in Nazi Germany, such as the registering of a religion, requiring them to wear special identification, and barring immigration of them. No, he did not divide the country himself. But he did exacerbate it, and make it much, much worse. And I don't think that expecting a politician to make good on his campaign promises and judging him based on who he's picked for his cabinet is over the top. These are the people he's chosen to surround himself with for the next four years, to advise him, and to help him run the government. Of course we should judge him based on his cabinet, because it reflects him and his administration. If you see something, say something. Once he does something actually worthy of the benefit of the doubt, then I'll reconsider. But until then, I retain my right to oppose him, and will not unify until he can show that our concerns are unfounded. After all, one should not make a deal with the devil expecting him to be honest. And I will assume a stroll is just a stroll if it looks like a stroll. But if it looks suspicious from the start, and the suspect is clearly not just strolling, but then says "it's ok, I'm just strolling", I'm not just gonna give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm gonna watch him and be ready to call the cops at a moment's notice.

The burning of his effigy is mostly just a form of venting, to get my anger out. Has nothing to do with ideology, just venting. And once again, burning his books wouldn't be "to wipe out his ideology". His supporters can be as stupid as they want, it's perfectly legal. I don't like what they say, but I'm not gonna kill them for saying it. Burning his book would simply be a form of venting, not attacking his ideology, as wrong as he may be.

It probably won't, but it's nice to dream.

Slarvainian wrote:

Natan we've been over this point about whose responsible for the short and small outbreak of hate crimes after the election. Unless Donald Trump actively called for these actions and did not condemn them, then he is not responsible. This is merely a attempt of censorship on your part, to try and shutdown a opposing argument without actually attacking the argument on it's merits.
I also like how you admit he did not actually divide the country but say he did anyways/
And of course I am also against some of his policies as well but I will oppose those policies. It doesn't make sense to oppose someone in their entirety based upon some policies. I will admit that a Trump presidency is going to do some good and some bad just as every presidency before has.
Oh so you're ideological differences with Trump aren't the reason you're angry and want to burn a virtual effigy of him and his book? Sure. That makes sense.

What do the hate crimes have to do with it? My argument was that he contributed to the division of this country, and hate crimes aren't the entirety of this division, simply one part of it. It also includes the wide split between the parties, the online "trolling" and hate speech, and many other aspects that I'd delve into if I had more time (I'll elaborate further if you'd like later). And even if he has condemned the hate crimes and divisionism, that doesn't change the fact that he contributed to it, and at the very least inspired more of it, far more than any candidate has. He can condemn it all he wants, and I'll commend him for doing such, but it doesn't change the fact that he's the source of much of it, even if unintentional on his part. He must do more than condemn, he must actively try to heal it. And the only way it's going to be healed is if he renounces his many positions that contributed to the division in the first place.

As for attacking the argument on it's merits, I did indeed do that.

I admit that he's not solely responsible for the division, and much of it was already there when he entered the race. But he did indeed contribute, and at the very least, inspired more of it.

As for the trump presidency itself, I'm not gonna wait around for him to do anything good, he's already shown that as of right now, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. That could change in the next few years, but after all that he's said and done, I cannot in good conscience condone any action he takes, nor can I respect, trust, or support him as of right now, and I cannot simply say "maybe he won't be so bad". We should not hold him to a standard higher than before just because he won. We shouldn't just expect him to back out of his campaign promises, we should expect that he will follow through with them until he can prove otherwise. And one of the prerequisites for me respecting, trusting, and certainly supporting him, is for him to back out of the campaign promises first, renounce all the horrible, racist, bigoted things he said during the election, and abandon a conservative agenda. Then I'd consider it. But do understand, that I can't simply give him the benefit of the doubt just because he won. I will continue to hold him to the same standards I held him to in the election.

The reason I burned the virtual effigy was to vent my anger towards him. It wasn't ideological. Although I certainly disagree with his entire Ideology, I'm not about to burn a book just because I disagree with him, certainly not for the effect of wiping out that ideology. I'll burn a virtual effigy of him simply to take my anger out on. Like punching a punching bag. Except, instead, this is a virtual effigy who's head explodes.

United states of natan wrote:

What do the hate crimes have to do with it? My argument was that he contributed to the division of this country, and hate crimes aren't the entirety of this division, simply one part of it. It also includes the wide split between the parties, the online "trolling" and hate speech, and many other aspects that I'd delve into if I had more time (I'll elaborate further if you'd like later). And even if he has condemned the hate crimes and divisionism, that doesn't change the fact that he contributed to it, and at the very least inspired more of it, far more than any candidate has. He can condemn it all he wants, and I'll commend him for doing such, but it doesn't change the fact that he's the source of much of it, even if unintentional on his part. He must do more than condemn, he must actively try to heal it. And the only way it's going to be healed is if he renounces his many positions that contributed to the division in the first place.
As for attacking the argument on it's merits, I did indeed do that.
I admit that he's not solely responsible for the division, and much of it was already there when he entered the race. But he did indeed contribute, and at the very least, inspired more of it.
As for the trump presidency itself, I'm not gonna wait around for him to do anything good, he's already shown that as of right now, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. That could change in the next few years, but after all that he's said and done, I cannot in good conscience condone any action he takes, nor can I respect, trust, or support him as of right now, and I cannot simply say "maybe he won't be so bad". We should not hold him to a standard higher than before just because he won. We shouldn't just expect him to back out of his campaign promises, we should expect that he will follow through with them until he can prove otherwise. And one of the prerequisites for me respecting, trusting, and certainly supporting him, is for him to back out of the campaign promises first, renounce all the horrible, racist, bigoted things he said during the election, and abandon a conservative agenda. Then I'd consider it. But do understand, that I can't simply give him the benefit of the doubt just because he won. I will continue to hold him to the same standards I held him to in the election.
The reason I burned the virtual effigy was to vent my anger towards him. It wasn't ideological. Although I certainly disagree with his entire Ideology, I'm not about to burn a book just because I disagree with him, certainly not for the effect of wiping out that ideology. I'll burn a virtual effigy of him simply to take my anger out on. Like punching a punching bag. Except, instead, this is a virtual effigy who's head explodes.

What do hate crimes have to do with it? Natan look at what you wrote in your flowery prose "causing unrest within the community of americans who dislike minorities". I'm sorry if you weren't in fact talking about the hate crimes you talked about at length after the election and blames part of the responsibility onto Trump. I will also point out that this does not mean that the country is divided (nor do any of the other points that you made) only that things happened. Where is the connection to the divisiveness of America?

Natan individual A cannot be responsible individuals B actions if idnividual B was indirectly inspired by individual A. Why might that be the case Natan? Because we are sovering beings Natan that have independent minds from one another. So Natan, what would you have someone do besides condemn it? Stop stating their position? Should preachers be shut up for calling abortion murder if one can claim that they inspire bombings of planned parenthood? Should The Young Turks be shut up for inspiring someone to go out and shoot cops? Should Nietzsche's works be banned because they inspired the Nazi's although Nietzsche wrote that he would rather have all anti-Semites shot? What is the course of action Natan since you seem to think this is a problem? Oh but you say what he should do and that's repeal his position. You'd rather have someone censor themselves then have the intellectual bravery to state what they think. You'd rather impair society by having people self-censor their ideas. This is nonsense. This is tyranny.

You didn't actually attack them on their merit. You stated two of his policies were like something the Nazis would implement but the Nazi's also implemented public works projects, kind of like Hillary wrote about in "Stronger Together". On a side note I actually now find that title somewhat ironic considering the tenets of National Socialism.

I've addressed the inspiring point above.

Alright this point is going to take some unpacking. So i said I would support the good things and condemn the bad of his presidency but withhold any kind of general judgment on him. You said that based on some of his actions you can't condone anything that he's done, unless of course you mean you think everything he's done so far has been bad, does that mean you think his ethics policy for lobbyist is bad or his trade policies? Both are points many liberals would agree with him on so that's why I ask. Also Natan, please, point to one thing that he said during the election you think is racist. Please, because I don't think you'll honestly be able to.

Ya but your mad at him for his ideology and that's because you have a differing ideology. If you had the same ideology you wouldn't be mad because you would agree with him... so therefore yes your anger is ideological.

St james wrote:

this argument is funny lol

For anyone else who is reading this RMB for the enjoyment, feel free to TG me (or at least the ones that haven't already). I'm interested in seeing how many flies on the wall we have.

A moment of silence for Carrie Fisher, everyone.

Nakatomi wrote:

Welcome back! :D
And Happy New Year everyone!!! Hope you all got as drunk as me lol

Happy new year to all! I hope this year is better than the year of crap we just went through.

I actually don't drink (I'm 18, but that's redundant, because I've decided never to drink alcohol). I was at a party on new years' though, and I was the only one who didn't drink besides one of my friends (and she only didn't because she took some nyquill). My girlfriend got mildly drunk on wine and then stopped, and everyone else besides the three of us and my friend's little brother did vodka shots and then smoked pot outside. Honestly I kind of question why I hang out with them xD

My girlfriend actually wishes college made me more "wild", for some reason.

The Commonwealth wishes you all a Happy New Year.

Just watched the Brooklyn Nine Nine 2-part special. Is it true that the nfl can fine players for refusal to speak to the media? If that's true, then that's a clear violation of someone's constitutional rights. You have a right to not speak. Hell, police even say "you have the right to remain silent."

United states of natan wrote:

Just watched the Brooklyn Nine Nine 2-part special. Is it true that the nfl can fine players for refusal to speak to the media? If that's true, then that's a clear violation of someone's constitutional rights. You have a right to not speak. Hell, police even say "you have the right to remain silent."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1kvwXsZtU8

The NFL players sign contracts that state that if the player refuses to speak to the media, the player is subject to penalties.

United states of natan wrote:

1. Yeah, I know, nothing wrong with doing it in moderation, I just feel that she's just being pressured into it.
2. Yeah, but football players aren't spokespersons (at least not for the NFL), and they should not be obligated to speak to the media.

2) But they signed contracts saying they would. It's not like Congress passed a law that all football players must speak to reporters. The players willingly entered into a contract, and thereby agreed to speak to the media or face hefty penalties. So, actually, NFL players are contractually spokespersons.

I have time today and thought I would write a response to the recent report released of alleged Russian involvement in the election. After a quick scan of the report it's honestly laughable.