ringo182 wrote:
There's a big difference between conspiracy theories and political viewpoints. Obviously conspiracy theories such as 911, the moon and Team Sky being on dope ( ) are stupid and crazy, but a conspiracy theory is not a political viewpoint/theory.
I'd argue there's at least as much evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories than for climate change not being a thing. But just because one of the two is brought forward in a political context, it's an opinion that you can't falsify, while the other is crazy? Where do you draw the line, or are you just making it up as you go along?
I watched a nice speech by Mr. Daniele Ganser, who's a swiss historian and peace researcher, about 9/11. I liked the fact, that he said, that even he's unsure what happened and that he said, that everyone needs to make up their mind about it themselves, but he also found it ricidulous, that he went from an honored man to a conspricy theroretic within a few days. He said, that 911 could've happened like Bush said it happened, but that there's also loads of evidence for an inside job or a mixture between those two. He named WTC7 as an example. A 3rd building, which collapsed, but wasn't named in the official 9/11 reports. And especially with Bush being a war crime offender and a liar, it's difficult to believe him, in my mind at least.
After everything that has come to light already...may it be, that Iraq has no nuclear weapons, may it be, that there're official papers, that it was even considered to false-flag an attack on Miami and maybe even Washington...a thing as big as 9/11, which all defines us in our way we think, is still worth to be fully researched.
Without 9/11, we wouldn't see a muslim, when we think about a terrorist. Through 9/11, strong stereotypes were born and it could be world changing, if something different comes to light.
ringo182 wrote:
There's a big difference between conspiracy theories and political viewpoints. Obviously conspiracy theories such as 911, the moon and Team Sky being on dope ( ) are stupid and crazy, but a conspiracy theory is not a political viewpoint/theory.
I'd argue there's at least as much evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories than for climate change not being a thing. But just because one of the two is brought forward in a political context, it's an opinion that you can't falsify, while the other is crazy? Where do you draw the line, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Where have I said there is any weight behind the climate change theory?
My sole point throughout this entire discussion is that you can't label people stupid because they've voted the way you didn't want.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ringo182 wrote:
There's a big difference between conspiracy theories and political viewpoints. Obviously conspiracy theories such as 911, the moon and Team Sky being on dope ( ) are stupid and crazy, but a conspiracy theory is not a political viewpoint/theory.
I'd argue there's at least as much evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories than for climate change not being a thing. But just because one of the two is brought forward in a political context, it's an opinion that you can't falsify, while the other is crazy? Where do you draw the line, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Where have I said there is any weight behind the climate change theory?
My sole point throughout this entire discussion is that you can't label people stupid because they've voted the way you didn't want.
Maybe I misunderstood. But the point others were making (correct me if I'm wrong), was not that their vote is stupid because it's different; it's stupid because it was a vote for someone with crazy or stupid ideas (climate change denier being the example).
"Being different" isn't enough to qualify as a valid idea.
ringo182 wrote:
There's a big difference between conspiracy theories and political viewpoints. Obviously conspiracy theories such as 911, the moon and Team Sky being on dope ( ) are stupid and crazy, but a conspiracy theory is not a political viewpoint/theory.
I'd argue there's at least as much evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories than for climate change not being a thing. But just because one of the two is brought forward in a political context, it's an opinion that you can't falsify, while the other is crazy? Where do you draw the line, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Where have I said there is any weight behind the climate change theory?
My sole point throughout this entire discussion is that you can't label people stupid because they've voted the way you didn't want.
Maybe I misunderstood. But the point others were making (correct me if I'm wrong), was not that their vote is stupid because it's different; it's stupid because it was a vote for someone with crazy or stupid ideas (climate change denier being the example).
"Being different" isn't enough to qualify as a valid idea.
That's true. But the point I was making is that people aren't stupid for voting for Trump. Numerous people have said everyone who voted for Trump is stupid, simply because they do not agree with it. My point is you can't call a whole group of people stupid simply because they voted for something you don't agree with.
I think the argument had become slightly diluted but that is the point I've been trying to make.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ringo182 wrote:
But the point I was making is that people aren't stupid for voting for Trump. Numerous people have said everyone who voted for Trump is stupid, simply because they do not agree with it. My point is you can't call a whole group of people stupid simply because they voted for something you don't agree with.
If the overwhelming majority of experts (read: people who research this for a living) says man made climate change is a thing, then this shouldn't be a matter of opinion anymore. Unless you call the whole concept of (objective) truth into question, that is. Because you don't get much closer to it than that.
If I call people who don't "believe" in climate change stupid, I don't do it because they don't agree with me. I do it because there's overwhelming scientific evidence, and they go and say "nah, this doesn't feel right to me, I'm sure you're all wrong".
Voting for Trump isn't as clear an example as climate change. If Avin calls Trump voters stupid, there's a chance he's wrong, and that it turns out to be a clever decision. But as long as you back it up, you should always be able to call other people's decisions stupid. Be it a vote or anything else.
The only reason climate change got brought up is because someone said Trump supporters are stupid because alot of them support the climate change is a hoax theory. I said there was no way you can prove a correlation between believing climate change is a hoax and voting for Trump.
I've never said anything for or against the theory or those who believe it.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
It's my example that opinions can objectively be stupid.
Maybe I should've made myself clearer: I'm not necessarily agreeing with calling Trump voters stupid (I do, but that's not my point). I disagree with your argument that they shouldn't be called stupid no matter what, and mainly your argumentation that they're only called stupid because they have a different opinion, which is not the case.
Edited by cunego59 on 19-11-2016 16:15
Lots of people obviously felt that it can't get much worse, so electing someone new is suddenly not that much of a risk anymore.
Also there a huge danger. It surely is a bit weird to see Russians celebrating after Trump won. And surely they did not celebrate because USA and Russia could get closer together.
I think one of the biggest reasons for the difficult relationship between USA and Russia is that the western politicians feel superior to Russia and wouldn't see them as an equal partner. If Trump starts to talk with Putin on one level, I see that as a positive development. I very much doubt he'd become a marionette.
The climate change quote by Trump of course is stupid, but you can't say his voters are generally stupid, just by some of Trump's statements. If so the same could be said about Clinton's voters, judged by some stuff she did/said.
I think that the electoral college system is terrible, but it's also impossible to say the majority wanted Clinton just by looking at the popular vote. If the popular vote would have been deciding the election turnup in non swing states would have been a lot higher, making it impossible to say in which direction the result would have leaned.
Well, actually, we can be pretty safe it would be Hillary comfortably. More people lean towards Democratic side as a whole, it's not close. There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans etc.
This is why Republicans have to fuck constantly with voter suppression and gerrymandering the disctrics. If there was popular vote to win, Republicans would never win.
Edited by Alakagom on 19-11-2016 16:33
Alakagom wrote:
Well, actually, we can be pretty safe it would be Hillary comfortably. More people lean towards Democratic side as a whole, it's not close. There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans etc.
This is why Republicans have to fuck constantly with voter suppression and gerrymandering the disctrics. If there was popular vote to win, Republicans would never win.
The nomination process of Clinton v Sanders showed that the Democrats aren't really better in that regard.
The polls before the election also said Hillary would win comfortably, which she did not in the end. You can not tell how people would have decided on the election day. It is likely she would have won by popular vote but it can't be considered a fact.
I suppose this fits our debate well. Contrasts a little what I've written earlier, or rather extends my argument in that while you should be able to think someone is stupid, a simple insult is never the appropriate consequence.
Bikex wrote:
Lots of people obviously felt that it can't get much worse, so electing someone new is suddenly not that much of a risk anymore.
Also there a huge danger. It surely is a bit weird to see Russians celebrating after Trump won. And surely they did not celebrate because USA and Russia could get closer together.
I think one of the biggest reasons for the difficult relationship between USA and Russia is that the western politicians feel superior to Russia and wouldn't see them as an equal partner. If Trump starts to talk with Putin on one level, I see that as a positive development. I very much doubt he'd become a marionette.
The climate change quote by Trump of course is stupid, but you can't say his voters are generally stupid, just by some of Trump's statements. If so the same could be said about Clinton's voters, judged by some stuff she did/said.
I think that the electoral college system is terrible, but it's also impossible to say the majority wanted Clinton just by looking at the popular vote. If the popular vote would have been deciding the election turnup in non swing states would have been a lot higher, making it impossible to say in which direction the result would have leaned.
This thread gives me brain cancer, but i need to react...
Some people here seems lost in why is Trump in connection to Russia a problem (worldwide problem and especially european one, no problem of USA only, that is one of the reasons why it matters for whole world who is president of USA).
What i see as a problem, and it is not only me, but several top geopolitics analytics, is the fact that Trump wants to be too obliging to Putin. Lets face it...Putin is dangerous egoistic sovereign, who wont stop until Russia has the position of power close to former glory of USSR in its best days. You can see it and hear it from every message he sends to western world. You can see it in what happened to Crimea and who knows if that is enough for Putin...
Several analytics are agreeing that Putin is stepping up the pressure on Baltic region, former part of USSR. There is also rather large minority of russian citizens in Baltic region obviously and we know how nice of a pretext it is for Putin for his "we are just protecting rights of russian minority". Important people in Baltic states are already concered about the future, because living next to Mother Russia is never easy, especially in regards what was done in the past.
Baltic states are part of NATO, that NATO where Trump wants to lower the influence of USA and where he wants to oblige to Putin somewhat. So i think we can be moderately afraid, that those two hegemonic states can make some sort of agreement where Russia will have more free hands in eastern europe and the relationship between them will not be so escalated.
Someone probably thinks: "why not, it is always better to not escalate things", but with Putin, i dont think it is a good way to make some sorts of concessions, at the expense of security in Europe.
Well have to wait and see what happens. As has been said, Trump won't have free reign to do as he pleases. I doubt many of his Republican advisors/supporters will want closer ties with Russia. At least not enough to give Putin free reign over Eastern Europe.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Bikex wrote:
Lots of people obviously felt that it can't get much worse, so electing someone new is suddenly not that much of a risk anymore.
Also there a huge danger. It surely is a bit weird to see Russians celebrating after Trump won. And surely they did not celebrate because USA and Russia could get closer together.
I think one of the biggest reasons for the difficult relationship between USA and Russia is that the western politicians feel superior to Russia and wouldn't see them as an equal partner. If Trump starts to talk with Putin on one level, I see that as a positive development. I very much doubt he'd become a marionette.
The climate change quote by Trump of course is stupid, but you can't say his voters are generally stupid, just by some of Trump's statements. If so the same could be said about Clinton's voters, judged by some stuff she did/said.
I think that the electoral college system is terrible, but it's also impossible to say the majority wanted Clinton just by looking at the popular vote. If the popular vote would have been deciding the election turnup in non swing states would have been a lot higher, making it impossible to say in which direction the result would have leaned.
This thread gives me brain cancer, but i need to react...
Some people here seems lost in why is Trump in connection to Russia a problem (worldwide problem and especially european one, no problem of USA only, that is one of the reasons why it matters for whole world who is president of USA).
What i see as a problem, and it is not only me, but several top geopolitics analytics, is the fact that Trump wants to be too obliging to Putin. Lets face it...Putin is dangerous egoistic sovereign, who wont stop until Russia has the position of power close to former glory of USSR in its best days. You can see it and hear it from every message he sends to western world. You can see it in what happened to Crimea and who knows if that is enough for Putin...
Several analytics are agreeing that Putin is stepping up the pressure on Baltic region, former part of USSR. There is also rather large minority of russian citizens in Baltic region obviously and we know how nice of a pretext it is for Putin for his "we are just protecting rights of russian minority". Important people in Baltic states are already concered about the future, because living next to Mother Russia is never easy, especially in regards what was done in the past.
Baltic states are part of NATO, that NATO where Trump wants to lower the influence of USA and where he wants to oblige to Putin somewhat. So i think we can be moderately afraid, that those two hegemonic states can make some sort of agreement where Russia will have more free hands in eastern europe and the relationship between them will not be so escalated.
Someone probably thinks: "why not, it is always better to not escalate things", but with Putin, i dont think it is a good way to make some sorts of concessions, at the expense of security in Europe.
Those top geopolitics experts are like the computer experts in germany. They don't deserve the word "expert".
It's a legit opinion. Being an "expert" is no job, nothing to study or similar. Most people are just very interested in this and get called "expert" way too early. Most have never worked in anything, which belongs to their "expertise". For example: In Germany, a guy, who has studied cultural science, and has a PC, can easily be called "Internet expert", if the media makes it out to be. Also, only because people who are called "experts" think something, it doesn't make it right. They're just guessing as well.
Trump COULD be a marionette to Russia(what i don't think, because he's a businessman. He will do what's best for "his" business, the USA), but he could be a great partner to Russia as well.
Like I said, we have to give him a chance. He got elected, fair and square. Just keep your hate to yourself and say something, when he actually does something wrong. What you're currently doing, is "Hitlerising" Trump, before he even had his first day in office. You can't change anything. He is president elect and he will continue to the white house(if he doesn't get shot). So you will have to deal with it. That's how democracy(The US isn't one anyway) works. I don't get why you're not happy, that it's not Clinton, but I guess, that you would prefer a war with russia anyway. And don't start with: "Nah, she wouldn't have started a war.", because she exactly wanted to do that. A no-fly-zone in syria will lead to a war. You're just putting it together, like you want to hear it.
"Trump said A, but he will do B, whilst Clinton said B, but she surely will do A."
First, i dont care about who is called an internet expert in Germany (i think you have misunderstood the meaning, but that is not importnt for my case). I was talking about expert anylytics on geopolitics, who are usually graduates of prestigious universities in politic science or international law. To be honest, opinions of these people are for me somewhat more interesting than half-thought ideas of non-studied workmen or facist propagandists...when it comes to geopolitics ofc...if i would like to build a house, i would choose workmen instead of geopolitics experts.
Your second paragraph are only your projections on the matter of Trump being good choice for the president of most powerful country in the world. You are trying to descibe and laugh on my logics, but fail to have a grasp on them, i have not even indicated half of things you are trying to imply. So please dont put your words in my mouth to justify your point, i have for example never said that Clinton would make a good president or that the elections should not have been respected.
) are stupid and crazy, but a conspiracy theory is not a political viewpoint/theory.
