Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 3824770 times)

avromie7 · « **Reply #22100 on:** July 10, 2018, 12:22:36 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on July 10, 2018, 12:19:53 PM

+1. The bottom line is that 'the alternative is worse' is clearly not a long-term answer, both in this discussion of sweatshops and for most problems in general. The fact that in a particular scenario the immediate alternative is worse does not absolve us of responsibility to address a current wrong.

OK so lets work together to help the treatment of workers, but banning/boycotting sweatshops is not a good way to get it done.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #22101 on:** July 10, 2018, 12:25:28 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 10, 2018, 12:21:20 PM

I'm done.

You are done then ping me in the next sentence. Bipolar comes to mind.

aygart · « **Reply #22102 on:** July 10, 2018, 12:37:33 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 10, 2018, 12:21:20 PM

I'm done. @ChaimMoskowitz would still do it all in 1 day because exploitation of children is terrible. I'm not convinced that they really solved much, they now have to turn away any child who wants to work, leaving them in the same situation as the 50,000 referenced in that report, the only difference is that it's impossible to know what happened to the children who would have gone to work in the factories.

False absolute.

aygart · « **Reply #22103 on:** July 10, 2018, 12:38:10 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 10, 2018, 12:22:36 PM

OK so lets work together to help the treatment of workers, but banning/boycotting sweatshops is not a good way to get it done.

There already is an institution to do that. It is called a union.

avromie7 · « **Reply #22104 on:** July 10, 2018, 12:48:35 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 12:38:10 PM

There already is an institution to do that. It is called a union.

Not in Bangladesh where the problems exist.

aygart · « **Reply #22105 on:** July 10, 2018, 01:00:48 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on July 10, 2018, 12:48:35 PM

Not in Bangladesh where the problems exist.

So lets create them!

avromie7 · « **Reply #22106 on:** July 10, 2018, 01:07:02 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 01:00:48 PM

So lets create them!

If you get rid of the sweat shops, you won't have the opportunity.

Yammer · « **Reply #22107 on:** July 10, 2018, 05:03:16 PM »

@avromie7 I was going to respond to your claims but I don't even know where/how to begin.

@ChaimMoskowitz @skyguy918 @aygart are

% right.

Having issues with the unions in 2018 doesn't mean that you need to deny their accomplishments to the avg workers across the US

aygart · « **Reply #22108 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:22:02 PM »

https://twitter.com/LoganDobson/status/1016772228954972163

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #22109 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:27:28 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 08:22:02 PM

Is there a point you want to make?
ETA: Ok I get it know. Logan Dobson is dishonest by cherring picking.

skyguy918 · « **Reply #22110 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:35:25 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 08:22:02 PM

https://twitter.com/LoganDobson/status/1016772228954972163

The weird part is that the first quote on the site is much better suited to the politfact 'article':

Quote

McCaskill supported Obama’s judicial nominees, yet obstructs President Trump.

aygart · « **Reply #22111 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:47:08 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 10, 2018, 08:27:28 PM

Is there a point you want to make?
ETA: Ok I get it know. Logan Dobson is dishonest by cherring picking.

How is something which is verifiable fact only mostly true?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #22112 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:50:32 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 08:47:08 PM

How is something which is verifiable fact only mostly true?

By cherry picking what they said. Your definition of being dishonest.

Our ruling
Hawley said, "Claire McCaskill voted for 100 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees."
Senate Republicans also approved Obama’s nominees with minimal objections 82 percent of the time, and McCaskill voted for most of Bush’s nominees.
Hawley's statement is accurate but requires a touch of clarification. That's our definition of Mostly True.

aygart · « **Reply #22113 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:54:16 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 10, 2018, 08:50:32 PM

By cherry picking what they said. Your definition of being dishonest.

Our ruling
Hawley said, "Claire McCaskill voted for 100 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees."
Senate Republicans also approved Obama’s nominees with minimal objections 82 percent of the time, and McCaskill voted for most of Bush’s nominees.
Hawley's statement is accurate but requires a touch of clarification. That's our definition of Mostly True.

I don't see how what they wrote clarifies anything about what he said. So what she voted for most of Bush's nominees? So what other Rs voted for many of Obama's nominees? She voted for most of Bush's and ALL of Obama's. How does any of that change even one iota. His point is true in fact and spirit!

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #22114 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:57:52 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 08:54:16 PM

I don't see how what they wrote clarifies anything about what he said. So what she voted for most of Bush's nominees? So what other Rs voted for many of Obama's nominees? She voted for most of Bush's and ALL of Obama's. How does any of that change even one iota. His point is true in fact and spirit!

He cherry picked "mostly true" without saying what they meant by it. He did it purposely to change what they said. Totally dishonest by your standards.

aygart · « **Reply #22115 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:59:41 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 10, 2018, 08:57:52 PM

He cherry picked "mostly true" without saying what they meant by it. He did it purposely to change what they said. Totally dishonest by your standards.

I don't see that to be the case. They added some irrelevant stuff to make something true in fact and spirit only mostly true when there is not one thing even slightly misleading about it.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #22116 on:** July 10, 2018, 09:02:22 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 08:59:41 PM

I don't see that to be the case. They added some irrelevant stuff to make something true in fact and spirit only mostly true when there is not one thing even slightly misleading about it.

That's because like most of time you are thinking like a Trumpster. You might not agree with their definition of "mostly true" but it is 100% relevant in this case.

aygart · « **Reply #22117 on:** July 10, 2018, 09:04:10 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 10, 2018, 09:02:22 PM

That's because like most of time you are thinking like a Trumpster. You might not agree with their definition of "mostly true" but it is 100% relevant in this case.

lets just say that if he was cherry picking then they were nit picking much worse. It couldn't be mostly true so they figured out a reason.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #22118 on:** July 10, 2018, 09:06:58 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 09:04:10 PM

lets just say that if he was cherry picking then they were nit picking much worse. It couldn't be mostly true so they figured out a reason.

That would only be true if they only use their definition for this instance. I don't know if that is the case or not.

aygart · « **Reply #22119 on:** July 10, 2018, 09:08:14 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 10, 2018, 09:06:58 PM

That would only be true if they only use their definition for this instance. I don't know if that is the case or not.

Mostly true tpically means that it is missing some mitigating context. That is not the case here.

Topic Wiki

Poll

Who are you voting for?

Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 3824770 times)