GOP convention delegate resigns over Trump, endorses Gary Johnson - Polidicks

GOP convention delegate resigns over Trump, endorses Gary Johnson

106 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724733]lmao and you may be able to continue to use the word "fallacy" but clearly you have no idea what it means. I stopped reading there, this is actually a debate so the burden of proof does actually apply here and is a useful tool to keep things honest and guess what! Isak went and provided a source, I commend him for doing that because it's a hell of a lot more than other people would do. [editline]16th July 2016[/editline] Well. That depends on your definition of "debate." Certainly this isn't a formal debate, but I think [U]integrity[/U] is universal no matter the forum.[/QUOTE] Honestly JumpingJackFlash I'm not even sure why you're still arguing. Isak provided his sources, and then you couldn't read them because your internet is bad but somehow still had a problem with what Isak had said?? Like at least Paramud is saying that you should do your own research. You don't agree with Isak, fine. You want him to source his claims, also fine, good for everyone involved really. But then instead of either refuting or agreeing with Isak's valid criticisms of Johnson, you said, well I can't see the sources and I don't care anymore, why don't YOU give me an actual reason why he's a bad candidate? Isak did. He gave the thread loads of good reasons why this guy is a tool. Disagree if you want, but asking for sources, then not reading them and blaming your internet is shit rhetoric. As is saying Latin to make yourself sound more distinguished.

[QUOTE=Govna;50724526]The Department of Education needs to exist. This is a federal nation we live in, and it requires standardization and higher oversight as a result. We've got 319 million people (and counting) to look after, 50 states covering more than 3.8 million square miles... confederating ourselves again like we did the first time around is not an option for us if we want to keep existing as we currently do (it failed the first time around as well lol). Why the hell would anybody seriously think that this is a sensible position to have? I mean never mind the issues I just brought up, what about the issues we've had before with states deliberately butchering their curriculum? Look at Texas and their textbook "modifications". And like others pointed out, look at how many private individuals and large organizations have tried to push teaching Creationism in schools instead of evolution. If we do away with the DoE, what's stopping them exactly? We need the federal government. We need the Department of Education. That's how simple it is. We're too big of a country, both geographically and in terms of our population, to not have higher systems and institutions of oversight and control. This is exactly why I hate Libertarianism (one reason anyway among many others): it's regressive. The idea we need to start splitting up the federal government (and by extension the country) is retarded, and the "big government vs. small government" debate that Libertarians often turn to is bullshit originally designed to distract people from the bigger issue at hand. It's not a question of whether we need big or small government, what we need is [i]efficient[/i] government-- government that works as it's supposed to and that actually does its job. This has to be achieved not only through systematic reforms that do some restructuring to who is responsible for what and how their offices are meant to function, but more importantly this is achieved through changing out the figures that are behind it and replacing them with people we can actually count on to do their jobs: people that know what they're doing and have an honest intention of doing their best. And we the citizens also need to start imposing ourselves against them to ensure that they as our officials are held accountable for their actions. Really, that's one of the worst thing about our government right now: lack of oversight. Way too many Americans are apathetic and too uneducated to do anything to slap some sense into them. [editline]17 July 2016[/editline] I'm not mad at you, Pops. I'm just tired of people believing regression, austerity, and fracturing our country any more than it already is is going to lead to anything good for us. It's clear we need a change, and in a lot of ways we need to start over and start working to eliminate the political and social division that's infecting us right now everywhere we look, but Libertarianism just isn't up to the task in the long-term. It's not a long-term workable ideology for us to operate based off of in other words.[/QUOTE] oh i'm not for any libertarians at all, don't get me wrong. tbh i don't even fully understand the term, or who technically applies to it, since all i've seen for it are basically gary johnson and ron paul, and they seem to be very different ends of the spectrum. i just want a country that's run the way it should be run, with any social, economic and political changes necessary for the times we live in. what we need above all else a is a huge fucking wop of common sense.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50724686]Except taxes and budgeting is more important in day to day life so should be a bit more important to teach, don't you think?[/QUOTE] Being able to drive a car will make you more employable and generally be more useful than learning who the Romans were, what the Berlin Wall was and why it was important, or basically any history really. Drop history classes to teach kids how to drive, they'll have no idea about what the world is like apart from what TV and the Internet tells them, but at least they'll be good employees and wageslaves. Even if you don't agree with this stuff being useful in later life (it is inarguably useful though), do you not think some people will need to know these fundamentals for their career? "I was going to be a surgeon but my state curriculum thought taxes were more important than basic biology so literally no college in this country or otherwise will take me"

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50724988]Being able to drive a car will make you more employable and generally be more useful than learning who the Romans were, what the Berlin Wall was and why it was important, or basically any history really. Drop history classes to teach kids how to drive, they'll have no idea about what the world is like apart from what TV and the Internet tells them, but at least they'll be good employees and wageslaves. Even if you don't agree with this stuff being useful in later life (it is inarguably useful though), do you not think some people will need to know these fundamentals for their career? "I was going to be a surgeon but my state curriculum thought taxes were more important than basic biology so literally no college in this country or otherwise will take me"[/QUOTE] History isn't just about learning facts, or at least it wasn't when I did it. A lot of useful real life skills such as learning how to structure documents, arguing interpretation and critical thinking, and using sources were all part of what we learned in history and you couldn't get top grades without those skills. School is about teaching skills that will help with employment in various sectors and most school subjects have a use in one way or another, even if some have more direct application than others. The point is that our current education system teaches a broad skill set which greatly broadens peoples potential path in life and allows for a more efficient way of filtering talent. Yes we could teach more directly useful subjects like say plumping, but overall that isn't very useful due to its very very narrow skill set.

Frankly it terrifies me that people are saying that learning [i]how the natural world works[/i] is somehow less important than learning how to file taxes.

perhaps we should consider a sort of GOAT testing system for the young'ns to determine what kind of jobs they'll have as adults, and then send them to schooling specifically designed around those careers? fuck, as silly as it sounds, it isn't horrible, it guarantees paid work and would certainly drive the unemployment and welfare rates down.

[QUOTE=Pops;50725211]perhaps we should consider a sort of GOAT testing system for the young'ns to determine what kind of jobs they'll have as adults, and then send them to schooling specifically designed around those careers? fuck, as silly as it sounds, it isn't horrible, it guarantees paid work and would certainly drive the unemployment and welfare rates down.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much what school is, people go into careers based on what they did well at in school. There's no real other way of determining a kids potential.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50724918]Honestly JumpingJackFlash I'm not even sure why you're still arguing. Isak provided his sources, and then you couldn't read them because your internet is bad but somehow still had a problem with what Isak had said??[/QUOTE]Jesus Christ fucking [I]read.[/I] All your questions would be solved if you just read my posts: [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724162]That only answers some of my questions, there isn't much context to be had in limited snippets. You didn't really acknowledge that, despite his most staunch positions, he can't actually just arbitrarily decide to do something and then magically do it as president. For example, abolishing corporate tax, this would benefit a lot of people who contribute a large amount of money to many politicians but money alone does not get people reelected at all. Even among some of the right wing a complete and blanket removal of corporate tax wouldn't go over well, and it certainly wouldn't go over well with anyone on the left. (anyone except the "regressive leftists" who are actually more centrists firmly down in the authoritarian camp) All of his most controversial stances, be they personal or party, are going to face opposition from [U]both[/U] sides of the fence and he'll be in the unfortunate position of having little friends if he decides to act on them.[/QUOTE]First one, I have looked at his source.[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724198]On the Issues has links to pages on-site about each source under nearly every quote - including his [i]own book[/i] and blog interviews. I doubt you actually looked at any of those links - the majority come from linked websites, debates, interviews, or his own book (which obviously isn't fully available because it's a paid product). Quick googling of the sources, article titles, and websites could easily find you where they're cited from if you want more context. Don't dismiss it because you don't feel like doing research - I'm not going to do it for you. I already provided you with my source, if you want further context, [I]go look for it[/I] to prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]Isak's reply, explaining the source is more than meets the eye.[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724468]I clicked on those links and nothing happened, so it's probably a data problem on my end. I'll reiterate what I said earlier: I have a 56k connection (technically it's slower this time of day) so it really isn't a matter of how I feel.[/QUOTE]My response. Additionally I posted this:[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724478]Isak again you didn't acknowledge this: [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724162]You didn't really acknowledge that, despite his most staunch positions, he can't actually just arbitrarily decide to do something and then magically do it as president. For example, abolishing corporate tax, this would benefit a lot of people who contribute a large amount of money to many politicians but money alone does not get people reelected at all. Even among some of the right wing a complete and blanket removal of corporate tax wouldn't go over well, and it certainly wouldn't go over well with anyone on the left. (anyone except the "regressive leftists" who are actually more centrists firmly down in the authoritarian camp) All of his most controversial stances, be they personal or party, are going to face opposition from [U]both[/U] sides of the fence and he'll be in the unfortunate position of having little friends if he decides to act on them.[/QUOTE] You're trying to convince me that he's a bad candidate, and so far all you've done is argue the validity of your source and didn't defend anything you've said. I don't give a fuck about your source anymore, I want you to explain why the above is exempt for Hillary but not for Johnson.[/QUOTE] Let me reiterate something: [quote]I don't give a fuck about your source anymore[/quote] It's not the source I'm having trouble with, I'm still reading what Isak linked, it's [I]the rest of my post that's being ignored that's my problem.[/I] Strangely you even acknowledge that I'm not focusing on any cited sources:[QUOTE]But then instead of either refuting or agreeing with Isak's valid criticisms of Johnson, you said, well I can't see the sources and I don't care anymore,[/QUOTE]Remember those parts of my post that were being ignored? Yeah, that's me doing what you want me to do. Well not entirely: [QUOTE]why don't YOU give me an actual reason why he's a bad candidate?[/QUOTE][B]I don't think he is a bad candidate.[/B] [QUOTE]Isak did. He gave the thread loads of good reasons why this guy is a tool.[/QUOTE]No he didn't and no Johnson isn't, in my first post I even argued against what Isak said but [I]apparently[/I] you didn't read that. Actually I even agreed with Isak that yeah, some of the policies are probably a bad idea and best left alone, particularly about tax policy but as I used that particular point as an example as to why Johnson's more wild ideas wouldn't get traction. Oddly enough though nobody seems to take issue with those parts of my posts where I make an actual point, instead we focus on... [QUOTE]As is saying Latin to make yourself sound more distinguished.[/QUOTE]Oh for fuck sake, I didn't know using a probably pretty well-known Latin phrase in lieu of saying "the burden of proof" would make people genuinely upset. Actually the only reason why I didn't link the actual Wikipedia article on the subject is because, surprise, my internet was slow and I couldn't pull up a page. (you know, so I knew I had the right one) [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] Honestly if people think Latin is so goddamn exotic (so much so that multiple people are talking about it) maybe I shouldn't be surprised if they're too lazy to read anything else I type up. Am I the only one who doesn't skim posts? Actually you know what, don't answer that because I don't think I want to know.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50725387]Am I the only one who doesn't skim posts?[/QUOTE] No, but you have admitted to outright skipping them.

[QUOTE=Paramud;50725452]No, but you have admitted to outright skipping them.[/QUOTE]Here, let me smooth those feathers, I just said I stopped reading yours because honestly the rest of it was a continuation of the same shit. I still read it afterward but, having already made my comment, I just didn't feel like continuing the argument over something so unbelievably stupid.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50725387]I don't give a fuck about your source anymore.[/QUOTE] Then I don't give a fuck about your post anymore.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50723931] Two things: One, it's "Fahrenheit 451." [I]You're posting on the internet, you can look this shit up.[/I] Two, a critically-acclaimed book is a hell of a lot more credible that a fucking video game that uses wild, exaggerated corporatism as a plot device.[/QUOTE] It's not a video game. You're on [I]the internet[/I], you can look these things up

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50725563]Then I don't give a fuck about your post anymore.[/QUOTE]Okay, cool. I mean in context it was, "I saw it, I'm reading it, I don't need you to cite anything because I have seen that you have done so," but if you [I]really[/I] want to act like that then fine. Above that line is a paragraph you've repeatedly ignored, the part that I did care about. ("give a fuck about") Let's cut the shit, you've clearly never cared about responding to [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1526857&p=50724162&viewfull=1#post50724162]this post I made[/url] where I addressed what you said and you promptly ignored it. I did make an effort here, you didn't. [QUOTE=No Party Hats;50725585]It's not a video game. You're on [I]the internet[/I], you can look these things up[/QUOTE]Oh, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun_(2007_video_game)]what now?[/url] I went to google and I found [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun_Returns]this one too.[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun:_Hong_Kong]This one's really recent, does this one count?[/url] Granted, I've never played those particular examples, but [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun_(1993_video_game)]this game I have played.[/url] I've made arguments, I've replied to arguments, but in this entire thread it's clear that those same arguments are far, far less interesting than shitposting about my use of Latin phrases and trying to one-up me about things I've said. Oh, and by the way [I]great[/I] job on that last one buddy. Did you forget that we are on the internet and I could actually look things up? That aside, my [I]original point[/I] that you've missed is that even though Shadowrun is awesome it is the last thing to reference when you want to speak of the evils of capitalism, the entire world is exaggerated specifically to create a plot where "shadowrunners" are a possibility and relevant. Referencing fiction is fine, sometimes it can be really useful, but in this instance it's completely absurd and comparing that with anyone who references Fahrenheit 451 is doubly absurd. (and 1984, Brave New World, Animal Farm, and a slew of other books who's whole purpose is to state a message) Shadowrun was originally developed as a [I]board game[/I] for entertainment purposes, it's an RPG, there isn't some clever warning hidden in the plot telling us of the evils of letting magic-wielding cyber assassins run free. [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] Actually fuck it, I'm not replying to a single post regarding shit like [I]using google[/I] or other pedantic bullshit. I'm more than willing to discuss the actual topic of the thread though, and so far I haven't seen a reason why Gary Johnson is either a moron or a lunatic (or whatever other epithet people use) beyond [I]a few[/I] questionable statements and maybe some odd policies. I can find the same shit for every other candidate out there, I can find the same shit for candidates I've voted for in the past and I'll probably continue to find them in future elections. I'm sure for a lot of people voting for third party, be it Johnson or Stein, it isn't so much about their policies as much as it is a protest vote but removing the crazy from both the policies aren't terrible. Even at his worst the policies he wants to implement require cooperation in the government before they even materialize, that's a pretty significant litmus test and I don't see it working out too well. Same thing goes for Jill Stein, I do agree with her on some things here and there but some issues (nuclear, etc) I can't get behind but if Johnson wasn't running I would vote for her because I know her wild policies have to undergo the same scrutiny as Johnson's would. I bet it's great yukking it up about these crazy, crazy things and then declaring that Johnson is oh so terrible but [B]the only reason why Johnson is even relevant now is because the two major candidates are fucking atrocious.[/B] I fail to see how he's [I]that[/I] bad.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50725010]History isn't just about learning facts, or at least it wasn't when I did it. A lot of useful real life skills such as learning how to structure documents, arguing interpretation and critical thinking, and using sources were all part of what we learned in history and you couldn't get top grades without those skills. School is about teaching skills that will help with employment in various sectors and most school subjects have a use in one way or another, even if some have more direct application than others. The point is that our current education system teaches a broad skill set which greatly broadens peoples potential path in life and allows for a more efficient way of filtering talent. Yes we could teach more directly useful subjects like say plumping, but overall that isn't very useful due to its very very narrow skill set.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree, history is very useful in real life. As is science, humanities, maths, art, pretty much everything they teach you has uses (at least in my UK experience). Even religious education taught you about religions that you might not have experienced firsthand, which was the case for me, living in a mostly white christian area. Biology teaches you about cells, and how organisms work, how muscles work, what evolution is, what DNA is and the very basics of what genes are. Physics teaches you about planets, forces, energy, and even circuitry and how electronics work. I know how a power plant works, the different types and the dangers and benefits of them as well, but since an employer isn't going to care about that, it's useless apparently. I could go on all day just on science. Haven't even mentioned everything I know from chemistry, but just to stick to things that are relevant in the news, such as energy/power plants, I do know the very basics of what fracking is and how it works, thanks to secondary school/high school chemistry. Everything there is to know, is worth knowing to some degree. You're saying that school is about teaching skills for employment, and I won't entirely disagree with that, but there is so much more to life than work. I've mentioned some useful skills and information that the subjects they teach have, but learning things is fulfilling by itself, even without practical application. There's that classic meme from a tumblr post that goes: [quote] me: what are taxes and how do I pay them? school system: worry not school system: mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell [/quote] And as funny as that is, it actually IS worth knowing what cells are and how they work, because it teaches you the very basics of how life works. Am I ever going to need to know how a cell works, what osmosis is, or what an atom is or an electron? Probably not, but I'm still better for knowing. Also just to go against my point a bit here, if your school system is any good, you'll have time to learn everything that I just mentioned (plus a lot more), as well as learning what taxes are, since citizenship should be a mandatory course that teaches you the very basic nitty gritty of actual life, and that's just in case governments/taxes/welfare isn't already covered by humanities. Literally the only thing they might not teach you is the act of paying taxes, which is information that is easily learnt as an adult and is readily available via the internet.

[QUOTE=Pops;50725211][B]perhaps we should consider a sort of GOAT testing system for the young'ns to determine what kind of jobs they'll have as adults, and then send them to schooling specifically designed around those careers? [/B] fuck, as silly as it sounds, it isn't horrible, it guarantees paid work and would certainly drive the unemployment and welfare rates down.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure they already do that in Europe and it works great for them. Frankly if we had that here I wouldn't feel fucking lost in life. Biology and everything else the posters here are ranting about is shit I'm just going to forget the moment I step outside of the school building because [I]unless I apply what I learn I'll forget it.[/I]

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50725110]Frankly it terrifies me that people are saying that learning [i]how the natural world works[/i] is somehow less important than learning how to file taxes.[/QUOTE] We should be teaching both. High school and earlier should be used to teach a baseline for human knowledge. Not just "how to file taxes" and "how calculus even works", but also things like art, and that Hitler guy and why he was terrible. Everyone should know a few entry-level subjects in pretty much everything. If we stopped wasting our federal budget on shit like wars and corporate favoritism and dumped some of that into education, we could totally pull that off. Anything else in a subject, well, that's what college is for. And/or Wikipedia.

I find it strange that the United States doesn't have a standardised examination system and it's awful in my opinion that teachers make and grade their own tests. They're trying to heavily introduce that crap over here and the teachers are resisting, but they still might not win. Also, creationism is not scientific and should be banned. Evolution is a scientific [I]fact[/I] that even the Vatican agrees with - professional Bible scholars say now that the Old Testament's description of the beginning of the universe is [I]not literal[/I] and more of explanation of [I]why the world came to be[/I], not [I]how[/I]. Teaching creationism is backwards and only encourages false beliefs and a distrust of science - with very devastating effects.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.