Life
-
Posts
3,829 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Life
-
-
What would supporting Trump mean in this case? Is supporting Trump properly conservative or simply anti-democrat?
Anti-Democrat if Trump goes against Conservative ideals.
-
Leaving aside the 'fuck you, got mine' mentality, how do you suppose the 'root of the problem' is dealt with? Realistically, the only difference is how the money is being spent. Are you saying that you wouldn't support your taxes paying for, say, affirmative action, but you would support your taxes paying for a plan to improve schools in disadvantaged areas? By your own logic, neither of those things would benefit you, so you wouldn't support either. And this is only for education, not even getting into things like Medicare and other such things.
Please explain this.
Regarding the first point, it works like this. This is an example.
I think that the public school system is completely crap because it has absolutely no accountability for when it fails. This is across the board in Canada and Israel too, by the way, just not as pronounced. The problem is that when they fail, they cry about the issue being that they don't have enough money and so the government tosses more money at them. Same exact thing that caused the sub-prime mortgage failure, just substitute "sub-prime mortgage from banks" in for "public schools". The system is flawed to begin with and more money is not going to help because the problem isn't funding. It is lack of accountability. And I don't want any of my money to go to this vicious cycle which A) doesn't benefit me (it wouldn't anyway due to me actually being post-secondary) and B) it doesn't benefit society more than the damage it does. The same two points that I mentioned above.
How do you fix this? Honestly, I'm not so cold hearted to say "well, the poor kids should just get fucked" in actuality. I do think that every person should have some level of education because the trade-off would be worth it (because while they might not become millionaires and that's fine, they'd at least be skilled workers in some trade who can be of use to society and in turn contribute back). When I say "the root of the problem", it's the accountability and the most important thing to do is to cut off funding to public schools that don't produce. After that, the charter school system would be much better with the ability for parents to choose the school. If the school succeeds, they get more money if they need it. If they don't, slice the funding and scrap that school.
Remember John Oliver's shots at charter schools? The one point that he fails to address is the head-on comparison between charter schools and public schools. Public schools are worse than charter schools in almost every measurable category, if not every single one. There's discussion to be had here about this topic.
Oh and I am absolutely against AA but we've had that argument before here.
Second point refers to how, statistically, children who grow up in a nuclear family succeed much more than single-parent households. I'm interested to see the data vs. two gay parent households when it comes out in the USA, mind you. But it won't be out for at least 30 years (we need to see at least one generation if not two before we can make hypotheses about that comparison and I'm not sure that children of same-sex households will statistically succeed to the same level as a nuclear family.
I could absolutely be wrong and if I am, I'll change my position. But reasonable data won't be available for another generation at least.
One of the best ways (if not the best) to escape poverty is to not have children before marriage. It's that simple.
-
The "taxation is theft" argument is more of a libertarian stance instead of pure right-wing, to be quite honest. I don't like the idea of paying for something that A) I won't benefit from and B) I don't think that society gains more from than losing. Do I think about the poor? Sure. But throwing money at the symptom seems less effective to me than understanding the root problem and attempting to tackle that.
If you go by "left-wing views" as per the general consensus, I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-marriage equality (even though I do believe the nuclear family is vital for a child's upbringing)... pretty much libertarian on social issues. There's room to debate on all of them. Where I don't budge is on firearms but as I've stated before, I've been using guns for about 15 years including a 2 1/3 year stint in the IDF.
What sends me right-wing is really the concept that big government will inherently screw up and smaller government will mitigate those mistakes. That is where I differ from libertarians. I recognize the need for state level governments because those are more responsive to the people's wants. -
I'm actually not far right.Well at this point, it really depends how we define what centre is. I was using the median political views of Canadians, since the politics of Canadians are what matters for the opinion of Canadian newspapers, not those of Americans.
Certainly I agree that Canada is to the left of America on average, but so are many (likely most) other democracies. It's very difficult, and arguably pointless, to try to define an international political "centre" point, but if you have a logic for how you're doing so I'm curious to hear it.
I'm not surprised you don't like Trudeau because you are extremely far right, based on your opinions voiced in this and other threads. However, a newspaper having good things to say about a PM who has the approval of a wide array of Canadians doesn't prove they are biased towards the left. It just proves they are to the left of you.
The last time I completed a political compass test, I came out with a 1.88 lean to the right and 1.23 lean to libertarian.
I just seem far right here in contrast.
-
Trump is a huge test for Conservatives. We'll find out who is really conservative and who is just anti-democrat.People that are sticking to their stances regardless of what's happening/happened. It's interesting and making me see them in a different light. That's all.
-
Shame. Romney would be excellent.https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/800057305693704193
This is me speculating, but it seems like Romney is not gonna be in Trump's cabinet.
-
Haven't been here for a while.
You know what's frustrating? Having to defend someone that I don't agree with because the claim laid against him is proposterous.
I'm talking about Jeff Sessions. Say what you want regarding his policies but as far as I can tell, he's not racist.
-
what explicitly is meant to be conveyed when you say trans folks that undergo genital operations forego their humanity?
They sterilize themselves in order to switch gender. That's both messing with biology and knowingly taking yourself out of the reproduction game in one move.
-
What I don't really understand is why people think that anyone replacing Scalia will make a difference.
Do you really think Ginsburg and friends will drop dead that quickly? I doubt it.
Yes, they do. Chris Wallace flat out said during the final debate that the next President might end up picking more than 1 SCOTUS justice.
-
-The CPC may not be as right-wing as you are, but they are unquestionably right of centre. If you call them and their supporters "leftist", the term loses all meaning, except as defined relative to your own personal views. (And at that point, of course almost all media will be "leftist" to you.)
-Justin Trudeau has a ~65% approval rating, last I checked, which implies that a lot of centre-right Canadians approve of what he's doing (since some of his disapproval comes from the far left, though more comes from the right I'd hazard). It's entirely possible to praise him without being a leftist, particularly if you praise him on fronts such as his getting the CETA trade deal done with the EU (a deal which started being drawn up under Harper). I will also remind you that leading up to the election, they were strongly in favour of Harper over Trudeau, so at worst you can argue they fall politically between the two, i.e. right of centre.
-I read that article you mentioned. I can see why you take issue with it (it is certainly dismissive and disdainful of Trump supporters, and I won't defend that), but it is definitely a conservative intellectual's criticism of Donald Trump, not a left-wing one. Again, you can't define left- and right- wing solely by one's opinion of Trump. Mitt Romney, Evan McMullen, and the Bush family are not suddenly left-wing just because they spoke out against Trump. I keep saying this, but in many ways Trump isn't even that right-wing: he's a protectionist on trade, he wants to increase government spending on infrastructure, etc. Similarly, I'm not trying to defend the National Post wholesale; you read it regularly and I don't, and it sounds like you have some valid complaints. It just isn't left-wing (or if it is, this is a sudden change which is very out of line with its previous history).
Actually, the PC sits just left of center in Canada, but just barely. The Liberals are firmly left, the NDP are hardcore and the rest are inconsequential. It's actually a common mistake because the country leans towards socialism even with the PCs in charge. Republicans are far more right wing than the PC and the Democrats aren't as left wing as the Liberal Party.
It is possible to praise Trudeau but I find little reason to do so considering that I don't like his immigration and economic policies. Trudeau claimed that he was going to put the country only $10 billion in debt, the number is now sitting at $25 billion and he's going to half to raise taxes and enforce a carbon tax to make money. The country is accepting a lot of Syrian refugees wholesale (and providing fucking housing on the average Canadian's dime) while Eritreans wait 5 years for visas when they could probably integrate into the country's social fabric a lot better than the Syrians. He's fine on social issues (aside from Bill C-16) but fiscal policy and immigration is going to kick in by early 2018 and hopefully drive voters to the PCs.
As for the NP, I know that Trump isn't right wing. But no conservative should find a reason to criticize Trump voters. They should be able to sympathize at the very least. They don't have to support Trump themselves but it's not difficult to see the sway of Trump in the conservative base because of who his opponent was.
Though if the NP wants to go after Kellie Leitch and sink her campaign, I'll be more than thrilled. I do NOT want that woman running the PCs.
-
Walking back on Obamacare. Not suprised. Very much annoyed.
I want Roe v. Wade overturned already. That's the one that bothers me. Send it back to the states, let the states vote on legality and we're good.
-
The National Post certainly isn't leftist. They consistently support right-wing economic positions and the Conservative Party of Canada, and have unequivocally endorsed them (or the Canadian Alliance) in every single election since their inception. If you consider them leftist it says far more about your own political views.
They may not like Trump (I've not read them this year; I don't really do newspapers any more though I made an exception during the Canadian election last year), but liking or disliking Trump isn't necessarily a left/right thing, especially for a Canadian (if Trump followed through on his worst protectionist threats, that would be pretty bad for us; Canada does an insane amount of its trade with the US).
Not the articles I've been reading. I've seen more praise for Trudeau from the NP than the G&M in recent weeks and a LOT of disdain for anyone who was supporting Trump. That being said, it's not like the CPC is as right wing as I wish it would be (it will be if/when Mad Max Bernier wins the leadership race).
Trust me, I know the NP well. They've done an article on me and my sister personally (interviewed her, got the skinny on me from her and my mother). I have no problem giving them praise when they deserve it but right now, there are only two people writing pieces for the NP that don't insult the public. That's Conrad Black and Rex Murphy. A criminal and goddamn Rex Murphy.
Go read Jonathan Kay's latest piece if you don't believe me.
-
I think a big part of it is the baggage that comes with Republicans. Part of it is many people value religious freedom over the right to luxuries. Like many people think a person's religious freedom overrides a person's right to have a cake baked for their gay wedding. As probably obvious from my earlier posts. I want Gay Marriage to be the law of the land, but I also respect a baker's right to their religious beliefs and don't think they should be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding if they don't want to. Likewise, people should be able to get their wedding done before a judge, but shouldn't be able to force a Catholic priest to perform the ceremony.
A bit of levity from the Onion that seems appropriate. http://www.theonion.com/article/conservative-acquaintance-annoyingly-not-racist-35236
I'm with you on this one 99%. I just don't think that it should be a federal issue. I think that every state should make that decision and that it would be morally wrong for it not to be legal. Hence the 99%.
-
Why are so many people giving Trump the slide with lgbt issues when there are plenty of examples of why he is pretty against lgbt rights on a lot of issues
Mmm.. disagree on Trump being against LGBT rights. I'll give you Pence but the liberal battle has been won (and I'm happy about it).
Concentrate on the crowd's response to Trump saying that. They are CHEERING. They WANT the LGBT community to treated like the rest of them.
-
Hopefully, there will be a bit more objectivity next time.
Us on the right have been skewering the MSM for a long time. I myself am considering buying CRTV just to be able to actually hear the Conservative take on news since all my friends send me liberal stuff and I read The National Post and Globe & Mail (both Canadian papers but still heavily leftist that are still deriding Trump supporters) almost daily.
But Joe Scarborough has occasionally gotten it right. I don't agree with his opinions a lot of time but he tried his best to be objective. Can't say the same about CNN. Or the WP/NYT/Politico... list goes on.
-
that's not really a biological viewpoint, that's a philosophical viewpoint, don't get them confused
no such thing as purpose or meaning in biology, just chemical reactions
Ok, fair way of explaining it. Still doesn't mean that I think that I should take away their rights in any way.
-
Its not going to happen. The hypocrisy in complaining that the electoral college is up democratic and then asking them to do something blatantly un democratic is pretty bad.
Someone quoted the Jonathan Pie video that's getting traction but nobody went into his YouTube channel and watched the "Brexit means Brexit" video.
The whole point is that while the election may not be legally binding, it's morally binding because that is how democracy works. Trump was elected on the premise that the people felt that their plights were being outright ignored. Imagine what would happen if the electoral college screws them.
-
No. Antisemitism is not okay. For what little my words are worth, I'm sorry you had to experience that and it is not okay that you had to experience that. Quite frankly, you are up there in terms of oppression. Not necessarily in terms of how disadvantaged Jews are, but in the hatred they receive. You've got the extreme anti-Zionists on the left on the literal Nazis on the right, and that's terrible.
But that is your belief that not everyone is terrible. Just like you hold this belief, I'm sure their are plenty of black people who think that not every white person is a terrible person. There are probably Jewish people who do complain about the things you've mentioned to the degree you find ridiculous and think that everyone is horrible for being 'okay' with antisemitism and not other forms of bigotry.
I'm not sure you get it.
Like I said, I basically win the Oppression Olympics if I play it with all of you, including Raven. But I haven't once asked for any of you to feel bad for me. And I'm not going to start now.
But that's not the point.
The point is that I will personally advocate to protect anyone's right to speech, even if they are calling me a dirty pig who deserves to be gassed (something I have heard verbatim many times). And I don't search for vitriol because true bile doesn't need to be explained for why it is vile. I know the difference between the two because I have grown up seeing it.
I know that I'm rare with kind of belief. But any minority that voted for or supported Trump probably thinks the same as me. And I evaluate comments by their merit. Your side just wants to demonize people who disagree by looking for racism/bigotry in their comments. That is why Trump won.
right, but do you think it should be that way? is that a desirable society? is there something wrong with wanting to live in a society where people don't need to resort to violence to solve problems?
It's called "suck it up, butterfly".
-
ah yes because we should certainly expect people to feel threatened enough by bigots that they need to carry fucking guns around all the time, that sure is a mark of a healthy desirable society. not to mention shooting people or threatening to shoot them is definitely a reasonable way to respond to people perpetuating undesirable attitudes.
come on man, telling people to not let it ruin their life is one thing, but do you think people should have to put up with that? the fact that shitty behaviour is unlikely to cease anytime in the near future doesn't mean you need to be permissive of shitty behaviour.
Well, that's one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment exists. To secure your own freedom with self defense if need be.
-
Obviously scientists can be wrong, but they're still far more likely to be right about their subject than someone who has not studied it.
Put it this way: it's a lot like the fact that 90-some percent of doctors believe that smoking causes cancer. Sure, they could be wrong; after all, doctors have been wrong about things in the past. But they're probably not, and if the overwhelming majority of doctors (/medical scientists) are saying one thing and cigarette companies are saying another, well, I know who I'm gonna trust.
Yes but the argument of consensus is used as "well 97% scientists agree so disagreeing with them is being anti-science".
Even 100% of scientists agreeing doesn't make disagreement anti-science. It is only anti-science if you deliberately lie about proven facts.
-
If you're thinking this is a contradiction for me, then you're wrong. What kinds of questions were you asked? Because I find it quite a shitty thing to do regardless of skin colour.
And how is this looking for racism? She's attempting to justify Obama being demanded to reveal his birth certificate and suspected of being born in Kenya, just because he doesn't have an 'American' sounding name and even after he revealed his birth certificate, was accused of having it digitally forged.
Well, I would say that it's more because Obama grew up in Indonesia, his father was in Kenya and basically became a social Marxist at a young age which fueled the rumour that he probably wasn't born in America. And considering that the President MUST be American born, I'm OK with the idea that Obama has to provide his birth certificate... like every other candidate.
For that same reason, Ted Cruz cannot be President.
Do I blame her skepticism? Not really. It doesn't make her right but it doesn't make her a KKK loving "lynch all the blacks" style racist that you are trying to make her out to be.
So you were also targeted by racists with little understanding of Canada's diversity...
I was targeted by anti-semites which is the only form of discrimination that is acceptable on some level. Being "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionist" in today's era is a façade for hating Jews but because it's Zionism/Israel, it's objectively OK. You want to play the oppression game? I basically trump you all by being a Jew.
Here's the difference. I don't cry about how I need special protection and how you are all terrible people for not giving it to me. I simply protect myself with a gun.
-
Uh, dude. You said transgender people forfeit their humanity (as one of the commonly understood pre-requisites for well... human rights) and even referred to yourself as bigoted in this regard when pushed on it. I don't think you're inherently homophobic, racist or sexist from what I've seen but that is a red flag for that particular thing. Whatever, I couldn't care less about the rest.
That's because I think that purposely throwing away your biological purpose in order to "feel better" means shedding your humanity.
But I would never want to actually take away their rights. I've said that multiple times. I simply look at it from a biological viewpoint.
-
Well that's awful. That these people would paint themselves as better disgusts me.
On another note, unbelievable over what? You realise that pretty much everyone in this thread is in agreement that the left has fucked up and they need to do some serious introspection, right? Everyone was getting mad at Ana because she was saying that Obama not having an 'American' sounding name was enough of a reason to suspect he wasn't born in the US, which is a racist belief.
I was born Canadian. My name (Rafael Broer) has never been considered Canadian. Ever.
Raven might say "well, I look Pakistani so that's why" but I look like the average white guy. And I got asked a ton about my name growing up too.
Your argument is silly because you're LOOKING for racism.
-
My partner actually worked in climate science for some years. I can assure you that while the exact figure may depend on how you define things, 97% sounds about right. It's a completely accepted scientific fact that human activities are causing an increase in temperature, as well as ocean acidification. Whether it is "most" of the reason for temperature change or not is irrelevant; it is certainly significant.
Yes but that's not proof of anything aside from consensus.
Once upon a time, 97% of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth.
can we go over sources that aren't allowed?
in Serious Discussion
Posted
On the right, I rarely read Breitbart, Drudge or any other "crazy nut job" site. Breitbart screwed the pooch for me last year.
One site that I do like for political commentary is The Daily Wire and I think that they are quite fair even with a heavy conservative lean. They're at least open about it and source just about everything.