The Official Atheist Forums 'Bernie Sanders or Bust' Thread

[widdershins]

Okay, let's go about this from a different angle.  I'm a little tired of defending my argument against the ones you're making up for me.

Well, if you vote for or against a candidate based on their race or sex, then yes, that makes you a racist or a sexist.  There's simply no getting around that.  And of course, that makes your argument look bad.  Because it is bad.

Please quote the part where I said, specifically, that anyone should, or that I would "vote" for or against any candidate at all.  Can't find that?  That's because I never said it.

Now please quote the part where I said, specifically, that I base my like or dislike for a candidate based on NOTHING but race or gender.  Can't find that either?  Once again, that's because I never said it.  My argument only "looks bad" after you've rewritten it for me.

If you don't want to look bad, perhaps you shouldn't have argued against voting for Sanders on the basis that he's an old white guy.  Because that's the shittiest and most superficial argument against the guy I've ever heard, and I've listened to lots of Trump speeches.

Good point.  Where was it that I argued against VOTING for Sanders again?  I'm very forgetful.  Please quote that particular argument for me.  In fact, maybe you could quote to me ANYTHING I wrote "against" Sanders where I tried, in any way to convince any person that he should not be their choice.  If YOU don't want to look bad perhaps you should spend a little less time rewriting what I said in a way that is more defensible for you and more effort into formulating an honest argument which doesn't require you to control both sides in order to not look like an idiot.

I'm simply pointing it out to show you that the white men club, as you so put it, is over.

LOL, that's exactly what Republicans keep saying!  Racism is over!  If you say it three times while clicking your heals together...  I'm sure all the unarmed black men killed by police last year will be very excited to hear how over racism is.

And apparently this is both a novel and highly contentious concept.  Too idealistic?  Maybe for 1960.  Currently?  Not in the slightest.

Is that how long racism and sexism has been over?  We haven't had to consider it at all since 1960?  All the women to have walked on the moon, not to mention all the female ex-presidents we've had will certainly be excited to hear that.

You say that, but it's manifestly not true.  And that's a trend that will continue, provided we collectively reject identity politics, which unfortunately, seems far from dead.

Wow.  That sounded important.  "Manifestly not true."  Very impressive.  Tell me, according to your article, what percentage of Congress is white and what percentage is ALL OTHER RACES COMBINED?  But since this argument started with gender, shouldn't we be using numbers directly relevant to the actual conversation of gender?  Hey, would you look at that.  It doesn't matter what numbers we use because they both stand at under 20%.  But I see why you didn't use those numbers.  Having to admit that white people hold more than 80% of all seats in Congress while making up only about 63% of the population is considerably better than having to admit that men control more than 80% of Congress while making up only about 50% of the population.  Yes, those are the numbers I would have used too....if we were talking about Congress and not PRESIDENT!  Even so, I would not have so proudly presented numbers like that even if the article did say that things were "better than ever before" knowing that my argument was strongly suggesting that there were no problem at all.  Especially after actually overtly stating that by saying "...the white men club, as you so put it, is over."

You haven't given an honest argument yet.  If you have one, make it.  But I'll make my own arguments from here on, if you please.  I know you're just trying to help, but every time you rewrite my arguments they just look stupid when you're done.  I'm sure that's an accident, of course.

[JBCuzISaidSo]

Sanders' endorsements 2016:

http://front.moveon.org -- MoveOn.org; Major Progressive Movement Campaign Union
http://www.cwa-union.org -- Communications Workers of America Union

2 1/2 weeks into the new year, does not count such things like 3 weeks ago lol......


Check out his donor list:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528

Not to mention 3.1 Million in private donors since TUESDAY......

[Hydra009]

My argument only "looks bad" after you've rewritten it for me.

But personally, I'm not quite ready to go from "our fist non-white President" back to "old white guy" just yet, which is my biggest stickler against Bernie.  He's the oldest, whitest guy running.

Please, look back at what you've written.  If you still think that isn't a superficial, regressive argument, you're clearly either beyond hope or in desperate need of glasses.

LOL, that's exactly what Republicans keep saying!  Racism is over!  If you say it three times while clicking your heals together...  I'm sure all the unarmed black men killed by police last year will be very excited to hear how over racism is.

Is that how long racism and sexism has been over?  We haven't had to consider it at all since 1960?

All the women to have walked on the moon, not to mention all the female ex-presidents we've had will certainly be excited to hear that.

For someone who whines that he's being strawmanned (as a face-saving technique when being slammed for an idiotic comment, apparently in lieu of admitting error), you sure don't seem to mind indulging in it.  If you understand nothing else - which seems to be the case - at least understand that I've stated and continue to state that it's not unreasonable to not judge candidates based on race and sex, not that racism and sexism no longer exist.  Obviously, that's still a problem.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't.

Wow.  That sounded important.  "Manifestly not true."  Very impressive.

It means factually incorrect.  When you say that "non-whites and women literally can't win by cheating right now" and they actually are winning seats, in fact winning much more seats than in the past, you are wrong.

Tell me, according to your article, what percentage of Congress is white and what percentage is ALL OTHER RACES COMBINED?

Please note the subtle difference between being elected more often than in the past and elected exactly at parity.  It's my contention that the situation is getting better, not that it has been resolved.

But since this argument started with gender, shouldn't we be using numbers directly relevant to the actual conversation of gender?

Sure.  And surprise, surprise, it actually corroborates my claim and falsifies yours.  As even you should be able to notice, the number of women in congress has steadily risen.  The situation is getting better.  This stands in stark contrast to "women literally can't win by cheating right now", according to you.  You insult the audience's intelligence with such obvious falsehoods.

Even so, I would not have so proudly presented numbers like that even if the article did say that things were "better than ever before" knowing that my argument was strongly suggesting that there were no problem at all.

No one "strongly suggested that there was no problem at all."  Obviously, there is a problem.  And as you have demonstrated throughout in this thread, you are a part of that problem.

You haven't given an honest argument yet.  If you have one, make it.

You're delusional.  And talking to you further is hopeless.  You're essentially too stupid to know when you're being stupid.

[widdershins]

Please, look back at what you've written.  If you still think that isn't a superficial, regressive argument, you're clearly either beyond hope or in desperate need of glasses.

YOU look back at what I've written.  I never ONCE tried to sway any vote, nor suggested how I or anyone else should, might or would "vote", as you keep claiming.

For someone who whines that he's being strawmanned (as a face-saving technique when being slammed for an idiotic comment, apparently in lieu of admitting error)...

And here we go again, another attack to hide the lack of substance.  You know the easiest way to save face?  Respond with an attack rather than actually responding to the substance.  I'm not going to bother to read the rest of your post.  Instead, I'll pose the same challenges to you.

POINT OUT where I "argued against Bernie".

POINT OUT where I in any way suggested that "a candidate should get the nod simply for being the owner of a vagina" and gave no other reason whatsoever.

POINT OUT how ANYTHING you said or linked which even REMOTELY suggests that "the old white guy club is over".

POINT OUT how women and minorities have "won" any form of ACTUAL equality anywhere, then point out how that relates to the SPECIFIC example I gave of Affirmative Action for your quote cherry-picking.

You take everything I say out of context and assign to me what I'm saying rather than listen to what I'm saying.  You respond with attacks rather than honest conversation.  This one starts out with a mild attack, makes a stronger attack next and, I see just above what I'm writing, ends with an attack.  The problem here is that you've argued yourself into a corner, making claims about what I've said which, as I have pointed out, simply aren't true.

Case in point, you've done a Watchtower Society on your "quote" of what I said for your last response.  You'll notice that when I respond to you, I quote you UNEDITED, START TO FINISH.  You certainly didn't do that for me.  Why is that, I wonder?  You've turned this:

Please quote the part where I said, specifically, that anyone should, or that I would "vote" for or against any candidate at all.  Can't find that?  That's because I never said it.

Now please quote the part where I said, specifically, that I base my like or dislike for a candidate based on NOTHING but race or gender.  Can't find that either?  Once again, that's because I never said it.  My argument only "looks bad" after you've rewritten it for me.

into this:

My argument only "looks bad" after you've rewritten it for me.

Now why would someone do that?  Let's dissect it.  Let's see, I ask you to back up a claim and point out you can't, I ask you to back up another claim and again point out that you can't, then we get to the part you chose to quote.  Why just that part?  Because that part doesn't require you to defend anything you've said.  If you start there you can spring right into an attack.

I say again, you haven't given an honest argument yet.  This last is no different.  You cherry-pick quotes from me to suit your needs, leaving out the parts inconvenient to you, such as the parts where I ask you to back your claims.  You have chosen personal attacks over backing your claims at every turn.  But I, unlike you, don't think you're to stupid to have a rational discussion with.  You're too stubborn to have a rational discussion with.  You're too arrogant to admit when you misspoke.  You're too proud to admit that you've made a much bigger deal out of what I said than was intended by me.  But stupid?  No.  I do not believe that and I will not lower myself to senseless mudslinging.  But do indulge me a little quote cherry-picking of my own, just this once.

No one "strongly suggested that there was no problem at all."  Obviously, there is a problem.  And as you have demonstrated throughout in this thread, you are a part of that problem.

Really?

I'm simply pointing it out to show you that the white men club, as you so put it, is over.

Well, I guess you're right.  You didn't "strongly suggest" it.  You outright said it was "over".

Cherry-picking quotes out of order and context makes it easy to make someone look stupid with hardly any though or effort at all...and without saying anything worth reading.  But it's dishonest, and if you don't have an honest argument, why are you arguing?  If I don't have an honest argument I want a new argument, not a better defense for it.  I don't mind losing an argument.  The loser is the one who learns something, after all, if he realizes he lost and why.  There's an easy way to tell if you won or lost.  Look back and see if you did a good job meeting all the challenges to your argument, or if you simply ignored them in favor of scoring points by making the other person look stupid with personal attacks.  How do you think you did?

[josephpalazzo]

There are so many Sanders' supporters who have said that if Hillary wins the nomination, they will rather vote for Trump?!? WTF.  How juvenile is that? Trump is literally the anti-Bernie. Everything you like about Sanders, Trump is the opposite. So you take something as serious as voting for the President of the United States as a game to exact revenge on a political opponent in the same party?!? How crazy is that???

[widdershins]

There are so many Sanders' supporters who have said that if Hillary wins the nomination, they will rather vote for Trump?!? WTF.  How juvenile is that? Trump is literally the anti-Bernie. Everything you like about Sanders, Trump is the opposite. So you take something as serious as voting for the President of the United States as a game to exact revenge on a political opponent in the same party?!? How crazy is that???

Unfortunately the conservative hysteria and hyperbole is starting to become the norm in American politics.  Politics in America are becoming decreasingly rational.

[Baruch]

Extremism isn't rational, because you are trying to divide by zero.  Rational means ... divide power according to some reasonable fraction .... even 1/4 for me and 3/4 for you.  But now one side wants 4/4 of the pie, and force the other to accept 0/0 of the pie.  This isn't competition, it is annihilation of your enemy, it is Hitler.