Been unable to reply to @dacree’s post, getting a 500 internal server error, so I’ll just try it here:
In response to this post by @dacree:
… I on the other hand need no evidence since I am not trying to prove anything. …
… I read your final post at House leaders gut NSA-curbing USA FREEDOM Act and I have to say I’m kinda sad that you still conflate statistics, supposition, and assumptions about an alternative timeline as evidence. …
Coming from someone who says they don’t have to provide evidence while demanding it from me makes that statement ring very hollow.
Long before the vote was actually taken, both the Dems and the Reps took test votes and knew the final outcome.
Provide evidence to back that up. The Iraq War wasn’t written in stone and the huge amount of Democrats that voted against the resolution is evidence that supports my case.
In your desperation “to be right”, you are trying to say that when the Democrats overwhelmingly voted against something, that meant they were secretly for it. You’re performing mental gymnastics without any evidence to support your wild claims.
This is the kind of naivety that makes these sort of discussions difficult. Long before the vote was actually taken, both the Dems and the Reps took test votes and knew the final outcome. We were invading Iraq.
Please provide your evidence.
This is a perfect example of why you should provide evidence to back up things you say. If you had gone searching for evidence, you would have found that your baseless supposition was wrong.
Opinion in the Congress leading up to the Iraq War generally favored a diplomatic solution. A January 2003 CBS News/NYT poll found that 63% of Americans wanted GW Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation.
Americans wanted hard evidence. More than two-thirds (77%) said if inspectors hadn’t found a smoking gun, they should keep looking.
If the US public hadn’t embraced false equivelency and voted Republican or voted Republican by proxy by “not voting”, there would have been more Democrats in office who would have found that over 60% in the Democratic House were voting against the Iraq War resolution. And, on top of that, they would have looked at polling that showed that the majority of the American public still wanted to give inspectors more time and still wanted more evidence. The majority of the public still wanted a diplomatic solution over war.
It wasn’t until after the Iraq War was started that public opinion began to support the war, but I’m sure those numbers are radically skewed by those who merely “support the troops” as apposed to supporting every war GW Bush decided to push us into based upon lies and fear.
This is the kind of naivety … this type of reasoning we have come to expect from those so invested in their illusions. … Your position makes assumption based on weak statistics and supposition based on extrapolation where none is possible.
You’re projecting again. You are trying to somehow extrapolate that the evidence shows that Democrats and Republicans are the same, yet the evidence clearly shows that you’re wrong.
Instead of admitting the fault of your logic, you continue to present baseless assumptions that are easily refuted with said evidence.
How about you worry less about how naive you think I am and focus on providing actual solid evidence to support your own claims? You haven’t thus far.
Evidence plays very weakly here
Well, when you bring to the table incorrect percentages and present them as fact, I tend to agree.
My position is that voting serves no practical reason
Right, because you’re embracing an over-simplistic, absurd view of our current reality where evidence for assumptions is irrelevant and Republicans and Democrats are equal in their negative impacts on society at large.
My position is that voting … actually serves the immoral role of an opiate fashioned from false participation by the masses.
If “not voting” would work to wake up the opiated “sheeple”, then we’d already be there. As I’ve already shown multiple times (with evidence) a huge segment of the American public already doesn’t vote.
Like I’ve told you. We’ve tried “not voting”. It’s doesn’t work and only ushers in more greater evil Republicans and the very real negative consequences that come along with them. You’ve provided nothing that refutes this reality.
While some believe that change can come from this system, the changes most necessary are out of reach.
I would probably believe that as well if I ignored things like evidence and reality.
Then we have the problem of voting by the misinformed.
Right, those pesky, misinformed “sheeple” strike again. We’re much better off with outright dictatorships.
Then again, I’m sure you think we already live in a dictatorship, correct? Our republic has a struggling representative democracy within it. You’d have us kill what’s left of it.
Votes cast by the ignorant often bring more harm than good.
You are very confused. You’ve already repeatedly stated that voting is useless since we’re only voting for two sides of the same coin. What does it matter then if the voters are ignorant “sheeple” or not?
Since this is a country which is now governed by oligarchical corporatism
That’s an extremely over-simplistic characterization of our country. While our country is certainly overrun with oligarchical corporatists, there are people that are within our very government that are fighting them. They do it even for thankless ingrates in this country that refuse to educate themselves on this fact.
Voting is left as something those in power want you to do.
I guess in an evidence-free world one can continue to believe that even though I’ve shown you clear, repeated evidence of a very real effort of Republican voter suppression and disenfranchisement along with district gerrymandering to neuter fair voting as well.
The oligarchical corporatists at the very top do NOT want you to vote and, if you do, they want you to embrace false equivalency and flip flop instead of voting more progressively over decades.
Flip, flop, flip, flip, flop, flip, flop…
The recent NSA scandal had a vote that failed to neuter it. Guess who voted in greater numbers to stop it? The Democrats. For some reason the media rarely focuses on how much dissent there was from Democrats. I wonder why?
I’ll tell you why, because false equivalence falls right into the hands of those who want to enslave you. It keeps our country ping-ponging back and forth between lesser evil and greater evil without making the slow progress we’d have by now if we’d consistently voted in lesser evil.
So much so, they have even cast consumerism as patriotism.
That was Bush who championed that. A Republican.
But, never mind, that’s just pesky evidence at play again.
As @andy_hilmer said and @chenille basically said… you’re a bit disconnected from reality.