Douchebag Thread for Politics & Religion Spill Over

[Mierin]

^ That isn't what happened, ED.

 

[knapplc]

That's an extremely poor analogy. Of course a person can't punch somebody in the face and then say I don't care to fight you.

But what happened is Redux said the Trump statement was true, which it was. Then others attempted to pull him into a discussion about healthcare, UHC etc. He said he wasn't interested in talking about that. Then people started throwing a hissy fit because he made that simple comment and didn't want to engage any further.

I would agree with you if an opinion had been offered or if somebody had been punched in the face, But that isn't what happened. And I do agree that many Trump supporters approach a discussion in that manner, offering opinions and presenting baseless facts. That is chickensh#t and can be classified as only bringing feelings to a fact fight. But once again, that isn't what happened in this situation.

I suppose we could bury him up to his neck in a pile of fire ants and make him talk about UHC or the AHCA or until he is leading the charge piling on yet another confusing Trump quote. Or we could realize people have varying levels of concern about issues and let them engage only as far as they want to and reserve the holier than thou chastising for the people who actually deserve it.

1. No analogy is 1:1. Please don't attack the analogy, please discuss the intent of the analogy.

2. The discussion was always about the ACA/AHCA/UHC. I know because I started it.

3. No "hissy fit" was made. He was told, at first nicely and then more directly, that if he didn't want to engage in the topic that he shouldn't.

4. Nobody forced Redux to discuss this. If he doesn't want to be told facts that make him feel attacked, then he shouldn't jump in over his head.

The continued inability or unwillingness to understand how that conversation evolved is amazing.

 

[NUance]

Here's one instance where I've specifically admitted being wrong, with good humor and self-deprecation.

That's one more instance than most people could point to.

:

How many P&R conversations can you point to where someone pointed out that you were wrong and you acknowledged it and changed your opinion?

I don't venture into the P&R forum very often--in regards to politics, at least. As far as religion goes, I believe what I believe. And I've laid out the reasons why I believe that way. It saddens me that I can't convince more people about the truth of my experience. But what's a fella to do?

 

[knapplc]

As far as religion goes, I believe what I believe. And I've laid out the reasons why I believe that way. It saddens me that I can't convince more people about the truth of my experience. But what's a fella to do?

I believe what I believe and I'm not going to change. I'm not going to try to change anyone else, so we can all just be happy in our beliefs.

But I do feel saddened that we are on different sides of this topic. I feel like you and I used to have a much better relationship here, and the fact that I'm vocal about my different belief has harmed that.

I went to church for a family thing yesterday. First time at a service in years and years. I was reminded how much joy people have in their faith, and it was nice to see. I feel good for them that they have that, and it saddens me that my unbelief has made my friends sad. But it doesn't change anything for me. Likely never will.

 

[NUance]

As far as religion goes, I believe what I believe. And I've laid out the reasons why I believe that way. It saddens me that I can't convince more people about the truth of my experience. But what's a fella to do?

I believe what I believe and I'm not going to change. I'm not going to try to change anyone else, so we can all just be happy in our beliefs.

But I do feel saddened that we are on different sides of this topic. I feel like you and I used to have a much better relationship here, and the fact that I'm vocal about my different belief has harmed that.

I went to church for a family thing yesterday. First time at a service in years and years. I was reminded how much joy people have in their faith, and it was nice to see. I feel good for them that they have that, and it saddens me that my unbelief has made my friends sad. But it doesn't change anything for me. Likely never will.

I hear what you're saying. But I hope you understand that, given my experience and point of view, I sort of feel obligated to try to induce change. Especially for people I care about. But I also realize there's a fine line between influencing and annoying--a line I've probably strayed across a time or two. Oh well.

 

[ZRod]

Well I take it as an insult to my intelligence every time Zoogs and Knapp call me a Trump supporter or sympathizer, does that not count?

And I'm not diggin back through this sh#t show, feel free to do so though.

Who questioned your intelligencen and where?

With 13,000+ posts, including probably several hundred since the election, let's give Redux a pass if he can't find the specific instance. Much like NUance's question to me (where have you admitted being wrong) with so many posts, with such a crummy search mechanism, it's difficult to find exact posts - even if you know specific word combinations you used.

I only ment in the context of the argument that's been going on the last few days. I followed pretty closely and no one questioned Redux's intelligence to the best of my memory. But he explained it for us. And while I agree it's stupid and lazy that knapp and occasionally zoogs (I think, maybe he hasn't) fall back to labeling those that aren't constantly bashing Trump as supporters, I don't think it's quite the same as saying someone is questioning your intelligence, i.e. calling you stupid.
Oh well!

 

[Redux]

The problem with the political discussion around here is people bring feelings to a facts fight. You're not the worst at that, Redux, but you are one of the biggest contributors.

And you don't take things personally when someone insutls your intelligence?Way to ignore my comment by the way. Just some honest to goodness friendly advice, of you guys weren't so confrontational and stubborn I think more people would be willing to join your discussions.

No, because I'm confident in my intelligence and the things I know, and I'm humble enough to know that I don't know everything. If someone shows me I'm wrong, I'm not pig-headed enough not to grasp what they're showing me. Whereas you, when presented with facts that belie your opinions, claim to be attacked or ganged up on and refuse to change your opinion.I didn't ignore your comment any more than you ignored mine. I responded with truth, and I'm not wrong in that assessment. You've said as much yourself - you just don't like having it said back to you.

How would you define multiple people questioning the intelligence and labeling one persom who already admits to not knowing as much about a subject?And the thing about me being presented with facts and not changing my stance is because I like to hear both sides of an issue before making up my mind. The kicker? Nobody ever has another side around here because they are too afraid to share their opinion.

When I worked in California I was a devout Christian. I was the only Christian in my company of, at the time, about ten or twelve people. On several occasions we had everyone in a room for brainstorming sessions that ended up covering a wide range of topics, including personal religious beliefs. I was mocked, I was hounded, I was the focus of everyone in that room telling me I was wrong. We're talking from our IT guy to our sales staff to our CEO - all of them focusing on me.I had the conviction of my belief, and while I felt put-upon, I answered every question they posed to me with the truth that I knew (at that time). It was not comfortable and on more than one occasion someone outright questioned my intelligence.That's WAAAAY more than you're facing here. It was face-to-face. It was uncomfortable as hell. But I stood my ground and defended my position. It was hard, but that's what you have to do.Here, on a forum, you're not remotely in the same boat. Nobody is forcing you to engage in political discussions, whereas I had to be there, had to take part. If you're uncomfortable with these topics, don't click on them. You have choices, while I didn't.It's super hard for me to sympathize with your situation when 1) your words don't match your proffered stance on these subjects and 2) you're not required to participate in any way.If you feel attacked, go talk about something else. There are literally 100 other subjects right here on HuskerBoard you can talk about.(Yes, I know now that that was most likely an actionable offense regarding religious discrimination laws. I didn't know it then. Don't @ me about that)

I can sympathize with your situation and understand how uncomfortable and frustrating that could be.

But if it isn't comparable to this situation, why did you use it as a comparison in yhe first place? To make me feel like a d!(k because things could be worse?

And as I have stated like 4 times now, my plan is to be pretty damned absent from any and all political discussion. Funny thing is, it wasn't the P&R forum where I made my throwaway comment that started this mess. I know you are trying to defend the freedoms of this board and whatnot, but comments like mine are going to happen if you bring that discussion to the front page of the board. Can you at least partly understand now why Saunders moved all your posts and what he was getting at?

 

[JJ Husker]

That's an extremely poor analogy. Of course a person can't punch somebody in the face and then say I don't care to fight you.

But what happened is Redux said the Trump statement was true, which it was. Then others attempted to pull him into a discussion about healthcare, UHC etc. He said he wasn't interested in talking about that. Then people started throwing a hissy fit because he made that simple comment and didn't want to engage any further.

I would agree with you if an opinion had been offered or if somebody had been punched in the face, But that isn't what happened. And I do agree that many Trump supporters approach a discussion in that manner, offering opinions and presenting baseless facts. That is chickensh#t and can be classified as only bringing feelings to a fact fight. But once again, that isn't what happened in this situation.

I suppose we could bury him up to his neck in a pile of fire ants and make him talk about UHC or the AHCA or until he is leading the charge piling on yet another confusing Trump quote. Or we could realize people have varying levels of concern about issues and let them engage only as far as they want to and reserve the holier than thou chastising for the people who actually deserve it.

1. No analogy is 1:1. Please don't attack the analogy, please discuss the intent of the analogy.

2. The discussion was always about the ACA/AHCA/UHC. I know because I started it.

3. No "hissy fit" was made. He was told, at first nicely and then more directly, that if he didn't want to engage in the topic that he shouldn't.

4. Nobody forced Redux to discuss this. If he doesn't want to be told facts that make him feel attacked, then he shouldn't jump in over his head.

The continued inability or unwillingness to understand how that conversation evolved is amazing.

You and Moiraine and Enhanced need to read through that status update again, only this time leave your preconceived notions at the door. This time approach it with the thought that the only purpose was to express that the Trump quote in the original post was correct and not to engage in the validity of Trump making such a statement.

I don't care what you "think" or "feel" that status update and the subsequent discussion was supposed to be about. Maybe you intended for it to be about the ACA/AHCA/UHC, but it is clear some others engaging in it didn't intend to go any deeper than some simple comments on it. It's all still there in the English language. At no time did Redux say Trump or the AHCA was heading us towards UHC or that the original statement from Trump was not ironic. Only that the 2 sentences of Trump's statement that knapp posted were in fact true. Australia's healthcare is better than ours. True. Australia has UHC. True. Redux even in 2 or 3 posts agrees that Trump and the AHCA were not heading us towards UHC. Then at some point zoogs puts words in his mouth "Redux, it seems like you're somehow arguing that Trump is a UHC man and that saying the Republican AHCA plan is 180 degrees and 1000 miles in reverse is partisan." That argument was never posited.

F#ck it, I'll copy and paste the whole damn thing.

Well I tried to but "that extension" can't be used here....so go re-read it yourselves.

 

[Mierin]

ED, I wanted to post it before but I figured I'd get slammed for rehashing (although I have tried to do that already). Since you bring it up I'll do that now. I've gotten rid of some irrelevant stuff but nothing by Redux or zoogs or knapp, and I think just your first post. I still posit that what you are saying happened is not what happened. I'm not saying you're lying but that you are misinterpreting the conversation.


knapplc
Trump just said Australia has better healthcare than America. Australia has universal healthcare.

1995 Redux
How is it not better?

zoogs
[Trump] really doesn't know, does he, the extent to which he's working to in the exact opposite direction of UHC?

1995 Redux
I guess I don't see a problem with his statement.

zoogs
*praises UHC*
*destroys moving towards UHC in America*

Actions speak louder than words, don't you think?

1995 Redux
We were not moving towards UHC dude, gimme a freaking break.

zoogs
...
Please, please, please learn about the history of America's healthcare system, the ACA, and the proposed current direction.

UHC = government, socialized healthcare.

If the AHCA passes, it's a victory for everyone who is staunchly, fundamentally opposed to the government solution. In a nutshell. Surely you realize this.

1995 Redux
Surely you can understand I don't take factoids from uber biased political talk. Nothing I respond with will be read by you with a non partisan view.

zoogs
What are the factoids you're not taking here? What are your non-partisan factoids to counter those with?

1995 Redux
Here's the thing, I don't invest a lot of time into following politics daily, partisan or not. So you will have a whole plethora of counter points to throw at me that heavily favor your stance and I won't have anything to refute or add to them. I stress myself out enough without politics.
If you believe Obamacare and the ACA or ACHA were moving us towards Universal coverage, good on you.

(Unrelated) All I know is I would like to see my family plan cost less than my mortgage, something I have said many times. If the Trump administration gets us to that point, fantastic. Selfish? Yes it probably is. But I'm just a blue collar guy looking out for my family, the government sure as hell isn't going to do it.

El Diaco
Well, you both be right but talking past each other a bit. Zoogs is saying we need UHC and Redux is saying this congress is not poised to deliver anything resembling UHC. Both can be true. ...both^may be right...

zoogs
Redux, it seems like you're somehow arguing that Trump is a UHC man and that saying the Republican AHCA plan is 180 degrees and 1000 miles in reverse is partisan. My position is that this is simple fact. It's fine to hate the idea of socialized medicine as long as you understand that this is the position you're staking out. Republicans haven't even been shy to admit that. It's explicitly been their goal for years to get the government out of this system.

As El Diaco said, this is separate from the question of how much it's going to affect your family's plan.

The consistency is lacking, though. You seem to simultaneously think the Trump administration is going to use government policy to help get you there *and* are okay with the "kick government out of the picture" AHCA. You also seem to be pretty positive on UHC, in line with Trump's offhand comments about Australia's system (which is matched almost everwhere, except in the US), *and* feel the government isn't (shouldn't?) look out for the people in this area.

If you're sympathetic to UHC, that's great. I am, too. However, I don't think there's anything partisan about the question of who else is and isn't. Each side is a true, outspoken believer in "closer to/farther from" UHC being the right way to go.

1995 Redux
Not sure how you gleaned that I was saying Trump was going to give us UHC...

El Diaco
Yeah, that confused me too. Zoogs, I think you misread or assumed something that Redux didn't actually say. The system can be improved without UHC but it will likely take moving towards UHC to make it better. I think we all just want it to get much better than the current situation.

zoogs
Trump praised UHC in Australia, you said he was right to do so, or did I misread?

I don't understand how that squares with your stance on the AHCA, unless I've vastly misinterpreted your steadfast opposition to it.

El Diaco
I won't speak for Redux, but from my perspective, what Trump said about Australia's healthcare is correct. It's better than ours and yes, it's UHC. Our's is in shambles and needs to be improved. That improvement is possible with Trump and this congress, without moving towards UHC. Now it's another story if it can be done without moving to UHC or if it can be done by Trump or this congress. I don't really care how it gets accomplished but it needs to happen. All of...

El Diaco
...this is true and doesn't contradict. I think that is where Redux is at also?

zoogs
I truly do not understand the "Let's see if they can do it by doing the opposite of UHC" mindset.

That's putting an awful lot of trust in the hands of people who are clearly concerned with taxes, not health coverage.

If we don't care about the "how" something gets done, every single policy proposal becomes potentially indistinguishable.

If your position is "anyone trying anything might get us there", then our only recourse is to shut down analysis, opinion, and very much let *anyone* try *anything*. I don't understand how this can stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.

1995 Redux
ED is pretty much on point with my statement. Sorry Zoogs, this is the partisan stuff I was talking about. You went off on a tangent fueled by anger/dislike of the administration. That's why I avoid discussions like this.

Trumps statement may have been normal Trump spew, but it wasn't wrong. Our system is crap.

He "praised" it by saying it was better than ours. If that's how you want to take it , fine. I take it as him saying our system is worse off than theirs.

El Diaco
Zoogs, you're over thinking this. Nobody is saying anything like that. You act like UHC, or steps towards it, is the ONLY way to accomplish healthcare reform. That is false. But yeah, this president and this congress are probably not about to improve anything and it appears they will make things worse.

zoogs
Redux, this is yet another instance of you taking issue with someone criticizing the Trump administration, going to lengths to defend him, and then playing the "Hey, I don't follow" card to reject any substantive counterpoint. It's truly bizarre.

Diaco, that's a bit of a separate discussion, but I know you've stated (or implied) numerous times that there are all these non-UHC paths to healthcare reform. What are they?

knapplc
Universal healthcare may not be the only way to fix healthcare, but it is the way that every other first-world nation has gone. Maybe America needs to reinvent the wheel. Maybe round wheels are the way to go. What we should NOT do is YOLO our way through this problem.

El Diaco
I agree UHC is very likely the best and possibly only way. Nobody is saying what these jokers are doing is good. We're just approaching this from slightly different perspectives. I think all of us are basically on the same page except maybe a couple of us just want it to get better no matter the means and maybe a couple only desire UHC. Kind of the same thing dontcha think? As for me, the only hope right now is they accidently do something right.

1995 Redux
Redux: Trumps statement isn't exactly wrong...

Zoogs: YOU'RE A TRUMP SUPPORTER!

Redux: No, I just think it's silly...

Zoogs: QUICK, TO THE DBHOF TO POINT OUT INTERPRETED HYPOCRISY!

zoogs
Nobody has said Trump's statement about Australia was wrong.

 

[zoogs]

Well I take it as an insult to my intelligence every time Zoogs and Knapp call me a Trump supporter or sympathizer, does that not count?

And I'm not diggin back through this sh#t show, feel free to do so though.

This isn't a personal attack on you. I believe you have no intentions of being a Trump supporter, defender, or sympathizer. Only you can really answer the question of why it's important for you to routinely try and demonstrate that Trump critics are being unfair.

I just want to see ideological consistency from people.

--

I don't know why we're this deep into re-litigating the status, but I'll summarize. Knapp posted a status critical of this thing Trump said and others piled on with him in his criticism of Trump. Redux, in clear rebuttal, said he doesn't see what was wrong with what Trump said. What followed was for a brief time a discussion about what was wrong with what Trump said. There's been frustratingly little interest in this aspect of the discussion, however.

 

[Mierin]

I highlighted in red what I think the most important part of the conversation was. Previously, Redux asked how it wasn't better. Let's please stop saying Redux made a casual comment that he didn't have any type of discussion about.

At that point he clearly didn't understand why knapp posted about it in the first place. Then he posted "I guess I don't see a problem with his statement."

Most people see a post saying "I don't see a problem" as an opening for a discussion. It's similar to a question. Trying to answer what the problem is should not be considered discussing something that the person was not interested in. He invited the discussion by posting those 2 things.

Then we get to the red part. It's clear to zoogs that Redux is interested in discussing the topic based on his 2 posts, so he tries to explain why knapp posted Trump's quote. He explains it. It's NOT PARTISAN. The ACA got the government more involved in health care. The ACHA would get government less involved. Erego it takes us further away from the health care plan Trump praised in his quote. These are not partisan opinions. They are 100% facts.

Then Redux's reply follows. He won't listen to zoogs' "partisan" explanation because zoogs is "biased." He's accusing him of being biased about something that anyone who knows anything about the ACA and ACHA knows as a fact. The GOP knows it. The Democrats know it. The GOP wouldn't deny it because they are happy about it as are many of their constituents. This is the part of the conversation that should annoy people. zoogs did not "pile on." Nobody else "piled on" Redux. Why do we continue to bring up Redux's "mistreatment" here?? He wasn't mistreated. He wasn't piled on. That never happened. If anything zoogs should have gotten a lot more annoyed than he did. Redux is writing off anything zoogs could possibly say on the topic. If that isn't rude, nothing else in the conversation has been.

 

[Enhance]

That's an extremely poor analogy. Of course a person can't punch somebody in the face and then say I don't care to fight you.

I don't see why it's a poor analogy - words and fists are often not so different. You wouldn't expect to hit someone and get away with it, so why would you expect to be able to say something and get away with it? I think the purpose of my analogy is relatively clear.

But what happened is Redux said the Trump statement was true, which it was. Then others attempted to pull him into a discussion about healthcare, UHC etc. He said he wasn't interested in talking about that. Then people started throwing a hissy fit because he made that simple comment and didn't want to engage any further.[/quote[

Again, if you don't want to argue or talk about a certain discussion, then why get involved at all?

I can't understand your justification for this behavior. From my perspective, you're defending someone's right to be intentionally misinformed, and their decision to offer thought/commentary/opinions when it is convenient for them. That's a lamentable attitude.

 

[Redux]

Well I take it as an insult to my intelligence every time Zoogs and Knapp call me a Trump supporter or sympathizer, does that not count?And I'm not diggin back through this sh#t show, feel free to do so though.

This isn't a personal attack on you. I believe you have no intentions of being a Trump supporter, defender, or sympathizer. Only you can really answer the question of why it's important for you to routinely try and demonstrate that Trump critics are being unfair.I just want to see ideological consistency from people.--I don't know why we're this deep into re-litigating the status, but I'll summarize. Knapp posted a status critical of this thing Trump said and others piled on with him in his criticism of Trump. Redux, in clear rebuttal, said he doesn't see what was wrong with what Trump said. What followed was for a brief time a discussion about what was wrong with what Trump said. There's been frustratingly little interest in this aspect of the discussion, however.

O

Routinely, as in twice? When I said him not taking salary (then I learned changed to him donating it instead...which as far as I know he has done). And when I said his statement wasn't wrong. That's hardly routinely.

And yes you quickly jumped to the assumption I was a "Trump guy". I then made my opinion that Obamacare etc. were not moving us anywhere near UHC either. I said that, that was my uninformed opinion. Zoogs laid down a lot of information. I must note that this information I took with a grain of salt because I'm quite certain you didn't include many ugly parts of it, which is why I'm incredibly hesitant to take any political info I learn here as gospel.

 

[Redux]

I don't see why it's a poor analogy - words and fists are often not so different. You wouldn't expect to hit someone and get away with it, so why would you expect to be able to say something and get away with it? I think the purpose of my analogy is relatively clear.

But what happened is Redux said the Trump statement was true, which it was. Then others attempted to pull him into a discussion about healthcare, UHC etc. He said he wasn't interested in talking about that. Then people started throwing a hissy fit because he made that simple comment and didn't want to engage any further.[/quote[

Again, if you don't want to argue or talk about a certain discussion, then why get involved at all?

I can't understand your justification for this behavior. From my perspective, you're defending someone's right to be intentionally misinformed, and their decision to offer thought/commentary/opinions when it is convenient for them. That's a lamentable attitude.

This doesn't come right out and say it ZRod, but I can kinda sorta see where I may take this as a swipe at my intelligence etc.

I'll say it again, I don't like engaging in discussions of this nature here because it's not very friendly or unbiased if you don't concede to the majority thinking of the discussion at hand. Offering a simple opposing view spirals the conversation into an ugly one.

 

[ZRod]

I could see where you're coming from if it weren't for the fact that zoogs initial replies were simply unbiased facts.