She's Back!

[Coreece 190]

15 hours ago, normiss said:

My effort to like that comment:

Sorry, you cannot add any more reactions today.

Ya, they do that so you guys can only rep whore so many points off each other per day.  At least a third of some peoples' reps here are from lame one liners, or copy/pasting jokes that they didn't even make up themselves - and it diminishes the value of the system, effectively rendering it useless.

I mean this is a skydiving website first, but most of the rep points are coming from a sociopolitical sub-forum designed to keep that type of content from polluting the rest of the community.  If a newbie came here for skydiving tips, how do they know if the poster's positive rep was earned by posting reliable skydiving info rather then by jacking-off a bunch of biased circle-jerk points?

I can see having the ability to up-vote political content, but it shouldn't be part of the runny tally for one's rep if it's not a political website in the first place.

Also, if someone is posting unreliable and possibly dangerous skydiving content, the community should be able mark it as such by down-voting it, which I know is a feature of this forum's interface.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Hang on so you now concede that the only reason you think Joe Biden is corrupt is your own bias? Great! Then if you want to be seen as viewing both sides equally it’s the easiest thing in the world. Apologise to everyone you called naive, and admit that there’s no evidence that Biden or Obama were involved in any Trump-like political corruption involving Ukraine.

No.  I do not conceded that.

What fits your definition of evidence? 

Lets go back and examine all the phone calls they had.

Lets go back and examine the correspondence.

My Bias allows me more of a belief in the possibility to start with.

You dismiss out of hand because of yours.

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

45 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

No.  I do not conceded that.

What fits your definition of evidence? 

Lets go back and examine all the phone calls they had.

Lets go back and examine the correspondence.

My Bias allows me more of a belief in the possibility to start with.

You dismiss out of hand because of yours.

 

Except once again, all available evidence suggests aid was withheld not because the company his son worked at was being investigated, but because the prosecutor was not investigating corruption. The exact opposite of the narrative you are currently on.

[jakee 1,254]

37 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

No.  I do not conceded that.

Then what does any of your last post mean? If you still think what you said is factually correct then what do you think it has to do with your bias?

 

Quote

What fits your definition of evidence? 

Evidence. What have you got?

Quote

Lets go back and examine all the phone calls they had.

Lets go back and examine the correspondence.

You haven't examined his phone calls. You haven't examined his correspondence. You don't have that evidence, yet you've assumed you know what it will show, and you're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with your assumption is naive. You understand why that makes you look bad, right?

 

Quote

My Bias allows me more of a belief in the possibility to start with.

Do you think that people here can't read? Do you think no-one will notice when you try to change your entire position? Possibility my arse. You said that what Biden did "is corruption". Here's an idea - if you want people to believe you, try being honest. Don't try and pull this gaslighting bait and switch bullshit.

 

Quote

You dismiss out of hand because of yours.

Or because we know why the Ukrainian prosecutor was fired. There's solid reasoning, backed by evidence, that the Obama administration wanted him fired for the good of the region. There's no need to imagine any nefarious motive. Anything's possible - that doesn't mean you have any grounds to think it's plausible or likely. Only your deep partisan bias and hipocrisy. 

[yoink 321]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

 

Impeachment isn't the answer - 

Finding a better candidate is.

Lets do that.

 

 

If he's done something illegal then impeachment absolutely IS the answer. If you let him get away with it he'll do worse next time or another president will, and I'd say the same regardless of what president it was.

At the same time as that we should find better candidates.

 

The two should happen in parallel.

[yoink 321]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, they do that so you guys can only rep whore so many points off each other per day.  At least a third of some peoples' reps here are from lame one liners, or copy/pasting jokes that they didn't even make up themselves - and it diminishes the value of the system, effectively rendering it useless.

I mean this is a skydiving website first, but most of the rep points are coming from a sociopolitical sub-forum designed to keep that type of content from polluting the rest of the community.  If a newbie came here for skydiving tips, how do they know if the poster's positive rep was earned by posting reliable skydiving info rather then by jacking-off a bunch of biased circle-jerk points?

I can see having the ability to up-vote political content, but it shouldn't be part of the runny tally for one's rep if it's not a political website in the first place.

Also, if someone is posting unreliable and possibly dangerous skydiving content, the community should be able mark it as such by down-voting it, which I know is a feature of this forum's interface.

The rep should be forum specific. Just because someone gets lots of likes in the General skydiving forum doesn't mean they should be listened to in the Tandem Instructors one, for example.

[normiss 622]

11 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Opportunism - Check

Self centered - Check

People in his entourage that don't follow his line - Check

Unacceptability - Check

Agreed on all parts - 

How do we change it with the least amount of unacceptable damage to the country?

Impeachment isn't the answer - 

Finding a better candidate is.

Lets do that.

 

 

Why do we have a constitution and laws? Murderers shouldn't go to jail with your logic on it.

He's breaking laws, we used to apply consequences for breaking laws.

 

[billvon 2,394]

On 10/25/2019 at 6:38 AM, turtlespeed said:

Impeachment isn't the answer - 

What's wrong with heeding the Constitution?

[mbohu 77]

 

On 10/24/2019 at 3:31 PM, turtlespeed said:

Just because I am in the middle of the spectrum it means I have to seem way far right from as far left as you are.

On 10/25/2019 at 5:53 AM, wmw999 said:

One of my brothers is more liberal than I am, the other more conservative - but only the more conservative one could really be considered middle of the road, and maybe that's only because none of the three of us is as liberal as our parents.

It seems to me that the entire "who is left, who is right, who is middle" is a quite useless discussion based on an artificial scale that doesn't have any subtlety or even reality at all, other than being somewhat pre-determined by our 2-party system.
First, who defines where the middle is? That is entirely subjective (unless one defines it as a statistical bell-curve that only depends on the attitudes of people in the nation, but then would a somewhat less extreme Nazi in Germany in the 1930s have been a centrist??? Or Lenin in 1924 in Russia?)
More importantly, it flattens the entire political spectrum to a one-dimensional scale, and it isn't surprising that, if one accepts this scale, one sometimes finds oneself defending absurd positions, simply because they (seem to!) align with the "side" one favors.

I like the idea of multiple scales forming a multidimensional space that allows for much more interesting definitions of where someone's political viewpoint falls. Here are a few:

1.authoritarian <-> liberal
(somewhat self-explanatory; "liberal" doesn't have the same meaning here as in the 1-dimensional scale, of course)

2. interiorist <-> exteriorist
(=looking for the problem/solution primarily in the interior (i.e. people are bad, need to have better morals) versus the exterior (society disadvantages people, gun laws need to be changed, etc))

3. stepping on the gas <-> stepping on the brakes
(we need to look forward and keep changing society & accept new ideas (lgbtq rights, new renewable energy technologies, etc) versus we need to preserve our traditional values (religion, traditional marriage, traditional morals, etc.)

4. individual <-> collective
(individual rights and freedoms should trump everything versus collective rights are more important (Spok: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few--or the one")

 

There are probably some more.

This way a "right wing libertarian" may be:
1. Towards the liberal end
2. Towards the interiorist end
3. middle but leaning towards stepping on the brakes
4. extreme individual

A different "right wing" person may be:
1. extreme authoritarian
2. interiorist
3. extreme stepping on the brakes
4. center (or even collectivist--placing his religious community and its rules ahead of his individual freedoms)

Now, of course: When we're at the ballot box, we'll still need to pick one of two sides, at least if we live and vote in the US (unless we want to make our vote somewhat irrelevant) BUT we don't have to allow this to define our entire political persona, do we?