The Cellar - How to pressure the electoral college?

Page 2 of 7

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - How to pressure the electoral college? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=32371)

Griff

12-11-2016 10:21 AM

I'm more concerned with Goldman Sachs' continued ownership of economic policy. I don't think that's what Trump's voters were looking for.

xoxoxoBruce

12-11-2016 10:38 AM

Quote:

Donald Trump’s transition team wants the Energy Department to provide the names of any employees who have worked on President Barack Obama’s climate initiatives — a request that has current and former staffers fearing an oncoming “witch hunt.”

The president-elect’s team sought the information as part of a 74-point questionnaire that also asked for details about how DOE’s statistical arm, the Energy Information Administration, does the math on issues such as the cost-effectiveness of wind and solar power versus fossil fuels. POLITICO obtained the document Friday, after Trump’s advisers sent it to the department earlier in the week.

link

tw	12-11-2016 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 976112)

I don't think that's what Trump's voters were looking for.

Of course they were. Because they were not thinking. They voted for their emotions. What is evil yesterday is good today - when one is emotional. When one is an adult still thinking like a child, then what was known yesterday means little to that child today.

Spexxvet

12-12-2016 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 976112)

I'm more concerned with Goldman Sachs' continued ownership of economic policy. I don't think that's what Trump's voters were looking for.

Yeah. It wasn't a case of low class, it was a case of ignorance.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an initative that would fix the problem without a constitutional ammendament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact

Pamela

12-12-2016 06:02 PM

Of course, why obey the Constitution when you can just do an end run around it whenever you don't get what you want?

Peter Skurkiss has a good take on this.

glatt

12-13-2016 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela (Post 976228)

Of course, why obey the Constitution when you can just do an end run around it whenever you don't get what you want?

This is actually kind of funny. Without context, this quote can be used to describe any number of things I've seen in recent years done by your team.

Spexxvet

12-13-2016 07:58 AM

Pam, how can you support a party that has declared war on the LGBTQ community (among other groups)?

classicman

12-13-2016 10:57 AM

Ha! Ask Caitlyn Jenner.

footfootfoot

12-13-2016 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 976107)

Yeh, remember how crazy republicans got when Obama had three Generals in his first cabinet?
me neither.

Two minutes in the penalty box for Tu Quoque Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Quote:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]
An example would be

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

classicman

12-13-2016 12:44 PM

Drops gloves/ Guess you don't remember that either./circles foot3

footfootfoot

12-13-2016 03:15 PM

I honestly wasn't paying attention; I didn't know there was going to be a test.

:)

Pamela

12-13-2016 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 976258)

Pam, how can you support a party that has declared war on the LGBTQ community (among other groups)?

I'd like to see that declaration in the record. Who voted for it? When was the vote?

There is no war on the LGBT community. They are simply not getting everything they demand, which is way more than they need.

Yes, I am part of that group, but I have been deemed a heretic for refusing to recognize more than two genders, refusing to use silly pronouns which do not exist in grammar (zie etc) and daring to use common sense when thinking for myself.

When I cast my vote for President, I voted for the person I thought was best to lead the entire country in many topics, not just one or two. I feel that it would have been irresponsible to vote based on "feelings" or against anyone (impossible to vote against a person, only a ballot question).

I have very few LGBT friends these days.

Clodfobble

12-13-2016 09:23 PM

Quote:

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.

Sort of, unless you're not arguing the basic logic of the argument, but rather the double standard itself. It's not Peter saying that animal products are morally wrong, it's Peter saying, "I won't allow Bill to use animal products" but continuing to use them himself. In that case it doesn't matter if animal products are morally acceptable or not, the primary problem is the injustice.

elSicomoro

12-13-2016 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 975688)

I think he'd look better in a military soft top.

We actually own a VW Thing (my wife and her two siblings) and are in the process of selling it. It was her mom's.

elSicomoro

12-13-2016 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela (Post 976315)

I have very few LGBT friends these days.

If I'm not mistaken, this makes Pamela at least the 3rd transgender woman on Cellar that is also conservative. Just an interesting observation...nothing more.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 AM.

Page 2 of 7

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page