Trannies for Trump

[BellaBellucci]

I have the Drumpfinator. 'Trannies for Drumpf' makes 'Drumpf' sound like a sex act.

~B

[filghy2]

Nick Dangler's guide to the art of internet debating in 3 simple steps:

1. Decide on a fixed idea - eg Trump is a genius and everything he does will turn the USA into an incredible success. Choose a fixed idea that will outrage most people, not a sensible one they might agree with. It may be helpful to wrap your fixed idea in a grandiose but meaningless theory - eg economic success comes from leveraging military might.

2. Rationalise whatever happens as being consistent with your fixed idea. Rely on bald assertions with the occasional cherry-picked fact. Evidence should generally be avoided, however, as it tends not to support fixed ideas. Try to find rationalisations that will work in any situation - eg Trump is a master negotiator, so any apparent flip-flopping or crazyness is really a brilliant ploy to unnerve his opponents and intimidate them into submission.

3. When others counter your arguments, just ignore or pretend to misunderstand their points. If necessary, acknowledge a point to pretend you are reasonable, but then minimise it as something not very important. If desperate, claim you your could easily rebut your opponent's points but are not going to waste time on such a contemptible person.

Just follow these 3 steps and you too can be a debating legend in your own mind, never losing an argument and never having to admit your were wrong. Nick Dangler used to be a weedy nerd who was bullied by other kids. Now he's a liberal-vanquishing internet debating superhero.

Bonus tip: It is a good idea to insert a few smugly-superior put-downs into the debate. Another clever touch is to accuse your opponents of the very things you are doing - being closed-minded, ignoring evidence, being superior, resorting to insults.

Caution: On no account should you research issues by reading people who know what they are talking about . That will only raise complications and lead to doubts. The key to debating is to maintain absolute certainty in the fixed idea and discard any conflicting evidence.

Disclaimer: This approach is unlikely to change anybody's mind or help to establish the truth. If those things concern you then you miss the point of debating, which is to be an annoying bastard and convince yourself of your own superiority.

[Nick Danger]

Nick Dangler's guide to the art of internet debating in 3 simple steps:

1. Decide on a fixed idea - eg Trump is a genius and everything he does will turn the USA into an incredible success. Choose a fixed idea that will outrage most people, not a sensible one they might agree with. It may be helpful to wrap your fixed idea in a grandiose but meaningless theory - eg economic success comes from leveraging military might.

2. Rationalise whatever happens as being consistent with your fixed idea. Rely on bald assertions with the occasional cherry-picked fact. Evidence should generally be avoided, however, as it tends not to support fixed ideas. Try to find rationalisations that will work in any situation - eg Trump is a master negotiator, so any apparent flip-flopping or crazyness is really a brilliant ploy to unnerve his opponents and intimidate them into submission.

3. When others counter your arguments, just ignore or pretend to misunderstand their points. If necessary, acknowledge a point to pretend you are reasonable, but then minimise it as something not very important. If desperate, claim you your could easily rebut your opponent's points but are not going to waste time on such a contemptible person.

Just follow these 3 steps and you too can be a debating legend in your own mind, never losing an argument and never having to admit your were wrong. Nick Dangler used to be a weedy nerd who was bullied by other kids. Now he's a liberal-vanquishing internet debating superhero.

Bonus tip: It is a good idea to insert a few smugly-superior put-downs into the debate. Another clever touch is to accuse your opponents of the very things you are doing - being closed-minded, ignoring evidence, being superior, resorting to insults.

Caution: On no account should you research issues by reading people who know what they are talking about . That will only raise complications and lead to doubts. The key to debating is to maintain absolute certainty in the fixed idea and discard any conflicting evidence.

Disclaimer: This approach is unlikely to change anybody's mind or help to establish the truth. If those things concern you then you miss the point of debating, which is to be an annoying bastard and convince yourself of your own superiority.

That sounds...a little butthurt, Flighty. I apologize if I hurt your butt.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Defeat is victory.

[BellaBellucci]

Slavery is freedom.

~B

[filghy2]

That sounds...a little butthurt, Flighty. I apologize if I hurt your butt.

Is that number 6 on your menu of smugly-superior put-downs? My only concern is that I wasted time debating you as if you were a serious person. Ridicule is the only sensible response to the seriously ridiculous.

[javier81]

Nick Danger is being intellectually dishonest or he's genuinely dumb. In either case, he's not worth interacting with on any level.

[filghy2]

The thing about the USA is, yeah, we're the richest country in the world. But because of our income inequality, there's a lot of complaining from the lower end and even the middle of the income spectrum. Totally valid complaining I would say.

The USA is not actually the richest country - there are quite a few richer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita But it is among the most unequal of the developed countries and getting more unequal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ncome_equality
This chart sums up the problem neatly. The top 1% have been gaining an increasing share at the expanse of the bottom half.



If you are so concerned about inequality, why do you enthusiastically support a party that is going all out to make it worse? How does giving tax cuts of which 83% will go to the top 1% reduce inequality? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-policy-center How does trying to take health insurance away from millions of low-income American's reduce inequality?

I know you will just provide one of your usual glibly-evasive responses. I'm only posting this because it might be of interest to others.

[Nick Danger]

The USA is not the richest country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita But it is among the most unequal of the developed countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ncome_equality
This chart sums up the problem neatly. The top 1% have been gaining an increasing share at the expanse of the bottom half.



If you are so concerned about inequality, why do you enthusiastically support a party that is going all out to make it worse? How does giving tax cuts of which 83% will go to the top 1% reduce inequality? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-policy-center How does trying to take health insurance away from millions of low-income American's reduce inequality?

I know you will just provide one of your usual glibly-evasive responses. I'm only posting this because it might be of interest to others.

Who do you work for, Flighty? I don't give a damn who you work for, but I'm going to make the point that you work for rich people. Rich people who are constantly trying to become richer, because that's their game. So they're thinking, and researching, and investing millions and billions and ultimately trillions of dollars into advancing the goddamn human race.

And you hate them. That's just you being envious.

But if you'd take that extra mental leap that liberals never seem to be prepared to take, and accept that the leaders of the world and those at the forefront of our current exponential technology explosion, deserve all the advantages of wealth which they have earned legally under the capitalist system which has made us the strongest nation in planetary history, well then maybe we might have some common ground on which to debate ad nauseum. As it stands though, we simply have fundamentally different opinions on what it is that makes the world go round.

My dad had an anecdote about two high school brothers named Bob and Tom. Their father, a middle-class conservative, provided the boys with an incentive to work through the summer - whatever they could earn, he'd match it, and they'd put the total toward buying the boys their own cars for the following school year.

So Bob went out and got a job right away, worked full-time all summer, and ended up saving $5,000 by the end of the summer. Tom, on the other hand, went to the beach with his friends for the first several weeks of the summer. When he returned, he took a part-time job that left plenty of time for partying with his friends. He only saved $500 by the time of the reckoning with Dad.

So they both put their money on the table in front of their father, and the father, true to his word, matched Bob's $5,000 and said, "$10,000 will buy a beautiful car, son." Then he matched Tom's $500 and said nothing. Tom said, "But this isn't fair, Dad. Bob's gonna have an awesome car and I'm gonna have an ugly beater."

The father said, "You're right, Tom. Tell you what, boys, we'll split the difference. I'll give you both $5500 and you can both get decent cars." Then he re-distributed the money on the table evenly.

Tom smiled widely but Bob said, "That's not fair, Dad. I worked all summer for that money while Tom went to the beach and partied with his friends." The father immediately re-distributed the money back into the original piles, hugged Bob tightly, and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party, son."

Anyway, yeah, there's income inequality. And it's getting worse. Because that's how capitalism works.

Have a nice day, Flighty.

[filghy2]

Rich people who are constantly trying to become richer, because that's their game. So they're thinking, and researching, and investing millions and billions and ultimately trillions of dollars into advancing the goddamn human race.

And you hate them. That's just you being envious.

Anyway, yeah, there's income inequality. And it's getting worse. Because that's how capitalism works.

Nice glib story, but bullshit as usual. I have a high enough income that I'm probably in the top 20%, so I'm not motivated by rich envy.

1. Most rich people don't make their money by coming up with new ideas that benefit the human race. They make their money from insider deals and calling on political favours, as Trump did in his real estate deals. Or they make money by taking advantage of gullible and poorly-informed people, which is largely the story of the finance sector where most of the super-rich are found.

2. The biggest determinant of a person's wealth is not their own efforts, but whether their parents were rich. Social mobility has been falling in the USA and it is now worse than most other countries on this measure.



3. Other countries also have capitalism that works pretty well, without the extent of increasing inequality seen in the USA.

4. Contrary to Republican mythology, there is little evidence that cutting taxes on the rich produces better economic outcomes. Bill Clinton had better economic outcomes than Reagan or George W Bush, despite increasing taxes on higher incomes.