# Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Here we are, the inauguration is over and President Biden has been sworn in.

What are your hopes for his administration? What do you want from his first set of executive orders?


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

first

Mostly, I want him to do what he's said he'll do. I want to see the utter warzone that is American politics begin to calm down and reconcile during his presidency. That and repair all the damage Trump has done in his various ways.


----------



## AkumaNoYami (Jan 20, 2021)

Godd Bless America 
and pls heal its stupidity 

votekick 4 Trump


----------



## 8BitWonder (Jan 20, 2021)

I’ve my fingers crossed for Puerto Rico/Washington DC statehood.
We’ll see what happens though.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Mostly, I want him to do what he's said he'll do. I want to see the utter warzone that is American politics begin to calm down and reconcile during his presidency.


I dunno, man. Seems like the warzone will continue as Trump seems intent on keeping the fire burning.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 20, 2021)

The Biden dictatorship starts today he already got an standing army on DC.

a illegitimate president  and his Racist VP that could not even get a single delegate in the primary a VP that say he was sexual abuser of women.

This 4 years will be fun and interesting as the US collapses.  

Welcome Beijing Biden


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden dictatorship starts today he already got an standing army on DC.
> 
> a illegitimate president  and his Racist VP that could not even get a single delegate in the primary a VP that say he was sexual abuser of women.
> 
> ...


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 20, 2021)

Drain the swamp.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden dictatorship starts today he already got an standing army on DC.


Dunno, mate, seems like increasing security after an occupation of the Capitol building is something most nations would do.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> I dunno, man. Seems like the warzone will continue as Trump seems intent on keeping the fire burning.


I'm not so sure, it seems like what I said about Trump was correct; he's just flown off to Florida quietly as every political (former) ally of his clapped Biden on at his inauguration. It really does seem like nobody misses him. I'm sure MAGA will continue to rage for years to come but without someone like Trump it's just gonna become a laughing stock as the country (hopefully) improves under Biden and everyone sees how full of shit Trump and MAGA was.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Jan 20, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden dictatorship starts today he already got an standing army on DC.
> 
> a illegitimate president  and his Racist VP that could not even get a single delegate in the primary a VP that say he was sexual abuser of women.
> 
> ...


That's cute. Guess some things just don't change.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jan 20, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden dictatorship starts today he already got an standing army on DC.
> 
> a illegitimate president  and his Racist VP that could not even get a single delegate in the primary a VP that say he was sexual abuser of women.
> 
> ...


Holy shit, can't tell if obvious bait, or if you're genuinely this far gone.  And the fact that I can't tell that difference in this day and age is truly sad.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> Holy shit, can't tell if obvious bait, or if you're genuinely this far gone.  And the fact that I can't tell that difference in this day and age is truly sad.


Poe's Law I'm afraid. Pretty sure it's bait though.


----------



## Chary (Jan 20, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> Holy shit, can't tell if obvious bait, or if you're genuinely this far gone.  And the fact that I can't tell that difference in this day and age is truly sad.


https://gbatemp.net/members/valwin.278824/

Ye olden troll, come back to life, most likely.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Poe's Law I'm afraid. Pretty sure it's bait though.


Doesn't seem like it to me- this is still far less extreme than Frankfort was, and that guy kept escalating in craziness until he got _*banned*_ but never once strayed from the path of acting-like-he-legit-believes-the-bullshit-he-spouts.
Edit: ...oh, this guy's a ban evader. Never mind!


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Oh, something I forgot to add:

I'd also really like to see Biden do something about climate change. It's all well and good for him to acknowledge it exists, but actually pushing for more renewable energy and working towards peak fossil fuels and actually beginning the decline (which I am aware will not happen overnight) is not cheap or easy especially in a country like the US and him actually doing something to tackle it would, in my eyes, prove his ambitions and give massive credit to his rhetoric.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2021)

Chary said:


> This is why I tend to take such a lax laughable response to political threads on here now. A lot of us were or are kids voting for someone they think will suit their views, without digging deep into the finer details of politics. I’m glad we can laugh and be amicable about it after the fact lol.


It must be nice having the kind of privilege that allows for a "lax laughable response" to politics.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Doesn't seem like it to me- this is still far less extreme than Frankfort was, and that guy kept escalating in craziness until he got _*banned*_ but never once strayed from the path of acting-like-he-legit-believes-the-bullshit-he-spouts.
> Edit: ...oh, this guy's a ban evader. Never mind!


I don't remember Frankfort ever outright calling the Biden administration a dictatorship and using the term 'Beijing Biden' though. Doesn't make much difference either way.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> I don't remember Frankfort ever outright calling the Biden administration a dictatorship and using the term 'Beijing Biden' though. Doesn't make much difference either way.


Nah, he said worse- and the final straw IIRC was him stating outright he'd spend the next four years making our lives hell.
But yeah, not important.
Viva la Biden!


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It must be nice having the kind of privilege that allows for a "lax laughable response" to politics.


i agree, but what happens in old thread stays in old thread

this is an opportunity for a fresh start


----------



## djpannda (Jan 20, 2021)

I just want to say. I am Honored to be the last post of the last Thread.. A fitting ending


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i agree, but what happens in old thread stays in old thread
> 
> this is an opportunity for a fresh start


Busted.


----------



## Chary (Jan 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It must be nice having the kind of privilege that allows for a "lax laughable response" to politics.


On GBAtemp, where every third commenter is a 4chan tier nutjob making their 73rd alt because they were banned for outright trolling attempts? You’re telling me to be all hardcore down to business about that? Yeah no lol. 

It must be nice cherry picking parts of what I said and carrying it over to a new thread because you were still thinking about my offhand comment.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Nah, he said worse- and the final straw IIRC was him stating outright he'd spend the next four years making our lives hell.
> But yeah, not important.
> Viva la Biden!


That is true, I forgot about the 'I will make your lives hell for the next 4 years' part.

Viva la Biden


----------



## AkumaNoYami (Jan 20, 2021)

@Valwinz why illigale president? 
becuase the Orange Guy say all votes after 22 o clock are illegal?  
because he say something without a "corpus deliciti" ?  
demokratie is wrong in your eyes?  


(sry my bad english^^)


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Busted.


Was about to point out that you posted in the wrong thread


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

djpannda said:


> I just want to say. I am Honored to be the last post of the last Thread.. A fitting ending


honestly i agree
the last post should have been a shitpost

now, about those executive orders



Chary said:


> chary picking


fixed it for you



Cryoraptor said:


> Viva la Biden


Fuck la Biden


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Fuck la Biden


he literally just started
give the man a chance


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> he literally just started
> give the man a chance


what is this shit, trumpers said this four years ago
biden gets positive coverage when he does something positive
based on previous: fuck biden


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> he literally just started
> give the man a chance


I understand the feeling, though. I wanted Bernie. But yeah, give the man a chance, indeed. Even with Trumpie I said to myself, "Okay, fine, let's see what happens. Maybe it won't be so ba--OH SHIT!"


----------



## AmandaRose (Jan 20, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> a VP that say he was sexual abuser of women.



Anyone remember when an ex president said that he would fuck his own daughter if they weren't related? 

Or that same guy that said to a ten year old girl that in 10 years time he would be dating her.

Or the same guy who used to own the Miss Universe franchise and said he liked to burst into the changing room of girls as young as 15 with no idea if the were undressed or not.

Or the same ex president that made sexual remarks to two 14 year old girls

Oh and he said it was OK to go around grabbing women by the pussy uninvited.

Oh and so many more. 

So yep if you want to throw stones at Biden remember Trump was equally as bad if not worse.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> what is this shit, trumpers said this four years ago
> biden gets positive coverage when he does something positive
> based on previous: fuck biden


we gave trump a chance at all tho
trump just *immediately did as much negative as he could*


----------



## AkumaNoYami (Jan 20, 2021)

as a german .. i like trump he is the hangout of a stupid american ^^  and his fans are stupid too .. 
we are american we are the best .. how much death american you have because he trust trump? 
how much drink disinfectants this is pure Gold   i love the natural selection ^^ 

i really hope america comes back to his roots and be a Friend and a idol for the world 
the land of the dreams where go so many imigrants .. 
how much of your americans have grandparents  of europe (GrandpaTrump was a German too xD but we dont want him so we kicked him out) .. thinking about your roots america


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> based on previous: fuck biden


Can we at least have a few hours of celebration in this dull time?


----------



## smf (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Nah, he said worse- and the final straw IIRC was him stating outright he'd spend the next four years making our lives hell.



So like the last four years?


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Can we at least have a few hours of celebration in this dull time?


i am celebrating, trump is gone :crab:
what i ain't doing is celebrating biden

i am hopeful about these executive orders, and his climate response will be better than _-no response-_


----------



## Chary (Jan 20, 2021)

Biden blinked too many times. That’s it, wrap it up. Failed president. 0/10

For real though, this is going to be an interesting presidency. I look forward to seeing what he’s going to do for climate change, and holy crap that’s a lot of executive orders. One step at a time. It feels weirdly calm after everything.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jan 20, 2021)

AkumaNoYami said:


> as a german .. i like trump he is the hangout of a stupid american ^^  and his fans are stupid too ..
> we are american we are the best .. how much death american you have because he trust trump?
> how much drink disinfectants this is pure Gold   i love the natural selection ^^
> 
> ...


Eeek I just found out Trump's mum was born 4 miles away from where I was born in Lewis. I had no Idea Scotland was partly responsible for Donald Trump


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

if biden does good things, i will give much praise and enthusiasm

nothing has happened yet


----------



## smf (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> biden gets positive coverage when he does something positive
> based on previous: fuck biden



Compared to Trump though, he's a saint.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i am celebrating, trump is gone :crab:
> what i ain't doing is celebrating biden
> 
> i am hopeful about these executive orders, and his climate response will be better than _-no response-_


Ok we're on the same page then


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Chary said:


> It feels weirdly calm after everything.


That's what is scaring me


----------



## smf (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> if biden does good things, i will give much praise and enthusiasm
> 
> nothing has happened yet



Sure, but "fuck biden" is a little premature.



Darth Meteos said:


> That's what is scaring me



No, this is what real life is supposed to be like.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 20, 2021)

Chary said:


> https://gbatemp.net/members/valwin.278824/
> 
> Ye olden troll, come back to life, most likely.


I thought they were familiar. Might be the same avatar.


----------



## djpannda (Jan 20, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Eeek I just found out Trump's mum was born 4 miles away from where I was born in Lewis. I had no Idea Scotland was partly responsible for Donald Trump


seee... Now please take him back ... We have the receipt !


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2021)

Chary said:


> On GBAtemp, where every third commenter is a 4chan tier nutjob making their 73rd alt because they were banned for outright trolling attempts? You’re telling me to be all hardcore down to business about that? Yeah no lol.
> 
> It must be nice cherry picking parts of what I said and carrying it over to a new thread because you were still thinking about my offhand comment.


My point was that it must be nice having the privilege that would allow one to support Trump in the 2020 thread poll, despite your own opinion that he's a dumpster fire, because you're taking a "lax laughable response" to politics.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> My point was that it must be nice having the privilege that would allow one to support Trump in the 2020 thread poll, despite your own opinion that he's a dumpster fire, because you're taking a "lax laughable response" to politics.


Ok ok, new thread, clean slate. Let's not start arguing with each other already, yeah? This is the time for us to celebrate


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> I thought they were familiar. Might be the same avatar.


Considering they literally admitted to it on a profile post...
_a-hem
pulls up GBATemp warning system rules_
"After being suspended or banned anyone caught sneaking back onto the forum under an alias or "suspension/ban evading" will be banned."


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Try not to overdose on copium, trumpies


----------



## Chary (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Considering they literally admitted to it on a profile post...
> _a-hem
> pulls up GBATemp warning system rules_
> "After being suspended or banned anyone caught sneaking back onto the forum under an alias or "suspension/ban evading" will be banned."


Not to derail the thread too wildly, but just for the sake of clarification. 

I could say I’m Kivan’s alt; no one can confirm or deny if the original isn’t around to say anything. Plus, the account was banned the better half of a decade ago. There’s no proof, just someone who may or may not be ban evading, or maybe they’re a fan of Valwin and playing around for attention. Either way, if he’s going to continue to act too much like the old one, he’ll find himself in the same banned purgatory as the OG. We all know the rules


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

smf said:


> Sure, but "fuck biden" is a little premature.


biden voted for the iraq war
one strike you're out


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 20, 2021)

Howl long till they drop the act and Biden steps down so Kamala the racist can be president?

il give it 5 to 9 months


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Howl long till they drop the act and Biden steps down so Kamala the racist can be president?
> 
> il give it 5 to 9 months


"Kamala the racist"
man y'all really gonna throw accusations around randomly like a drunk juggler


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "Kamala the racist"
> man y'all really gonna throw accusations around randomly like a drunk juggler


don't feed the trolls


----------



## rensenware (Jan 20, 2021)

That tyrant Biden ordered soldiers to hold D.C.! . . . before he was inaugurated. Somehow.


----------



## smf (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> biden voted for the iraq war
> one strike you're out



Well there were 81 democrats that voted for it with 126 against.
For republicans it was 215 for with 6 against.

So he wasn't alone, but I guess you support the democrats?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 20, 2021)

"Trump is gone! Trump is gone! Everybody sing along!"


----------



## smf (Jan 20, 2021)

Is it me or has America just become more classy?

I wonder when or if Trumps twitter will be unsuspended.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

smf said:


> Is it me or has America just become more classy?
> 
> I wonder when or if Trumps twitter will be unsuspended.


Hopefully never.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2021)

smf said:


> Compared to Trump though, he's a saint.


That’s not much of a bragging point tho, we’re all saints compared to trump(well, most of us)


----------



## smf (Jan 20, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> That’s not much of a bragging point tho, we’re all saints compared to trump(well, most of us)



I agree, but Biden hasn't even started work yet.

There isn't anything you can do about him until the next election, so it's in your own interest to give him a chance.

If he starts tweeting from his toilet or bullying people and making shit up, then give him hell.


----------



## AkumaNoYami (Jan 20, 2021)

yeah give Biden and Harris a chance


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 20, 2021)

I can't wait to (personally) hold Biden accountable for the next 4 years, rather than just ignore anything he does because "he's our president" and "liberal tears" or whatever bullshit the Trump supporters have been huffing.

Edit - I'm at work and have the PBS inauguration stream on in the background, wasn't watching it, when I heard the cannons start being fired at the Arlington cemetery. I was like "oh god what the fuck happened already" before I looked over and saw what was actually going on


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 20, 2021)

Also the day that we got our first female VP and first second gentlemen.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> My point was that it must be nice having the privilege that would allow one to support Trump in the 2020 thread poll, despite your own opinion that he's a dumpster fire, because you're taking a "lax laughable response" to politics.


Dang blaming Chary for voting for Trump and being responsible for the damaged he caused by putting him in office with her vote. Chary has blood on her hands for the rest of her life. Something that'll cause a person to have problems sleeping at night. 

And you saying she has privilege for laughing and making lite of a situation that damaged the lives of many Americans that she was partly responsible for. You a brutal guy. 

Thats why I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I had no idea about anything. I wasn't knowledgeable enough to make a decision on a president. And because I didn't want to cause damage from my ignorant choices.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 20, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Dang blaming Chary for voting for Trump and being responsible for the damaged he caused by putting him in office with her vote. Chary has blood on her hands for the rest of her life. Something that'll cause a person to have problems sleeping at night.
> 
> And you saying she has privilege for laughing and making lite of a situation that damaged the lives of many Americans that she was partly responsible for. You a brutal guy.
> 
> Thats why I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I had no idea about anything. I wasn't knowledgeable enough to make a decision on a president. And because I didn't want to cause damage from my ignorant choices.



Kindly asking that we please let this branch of the conversation die. Let's leave the conversations from the old thread in the old thread, otherwise why do we even have this one? May as well just unlock the old thread at that point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 20, 2021)

Sicklyboy said:


> Kindly asking that we please let this branch of the conversation die. Let's leave the conversations from the old thread in the old thread, otherwise why do we even have this one? May as well just unlock the old thread at that point.


Pray that I do not alter the deal further.

_*Heavy breathing, fingers gently caressing the handle of a hammer*_


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Dang blaming Chary for voting for Trump and being responsible for the damaged he caused by putting him in office with her vote. Chary has blood on her hands for the rest of her life. Something that'll cause a person to have problems sleeping at night.
> 
> And you saying she has privilege for laughing and making lite of a situation that damaged the lives of many Americans that she was partly responsible for. You a brutal guy.
> 
> Thats why I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I had no idea about anything. I wasn't knowledgeable enough to make a decision on a president. And because I didn't want to cause damage from my ignorant choices.


I was willing to drop it, but since you brought it back up, you should understand that I wasn't condemning Chary for her 2016 Trump vote (I would do that though if that were the topic). I was trying to figure out why she was simultaneously condemning and supporting a dumpster fire, and when she answered that she seemingly did the latter because she wasn't taking things seriously, I acknowledged the privilege that would be required to do so.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Sicklyboy said:


> Kindly asking that we please let this branch of the conversation die. Let's leave the conversations from the old thread in the old thread, otherwise why do we even have this one? May as well just unlock the old thread at that point.





Foxi4 said:


> Pray that I do not alter the deal further.
> 
> _*Heavy breathing, fingers gently caressing the handle of a hammer*_


I made my post above before seeing your posts.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I made my post above before seeing your posts.



Aye I figured that was the case. Point stands, moving forward I'd ask that we please drop that line of discussion.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 20, 2021)

He's already given speeches boring enough to fall asleep to, and that alone brings me some happiness.  It may be a while yet, but next I want just one day with no major political news whatsoever.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 20, 2021)

Xzi said:


> He's already given speeches boring enough to fall asleep to, and that alone brings me some happiness.  It may be a while yet, but next I want just one day with no major political news whatsoever.


One day he's going to pass out during a speech, or forget how to read, and nobody will even notice. It'll just be an old man shouting about cranberries, followed by applause.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 20, 2021)

He sure does like YMCA. No, I didn't watch Trump goodbyes. I didn't even watch any of Biden's speeches yet.



Foxi4 said:


> One day he's going to pass out during a speech, or forget how to read, and nobody will even notice. It'll just be an old man shouting about cranberries, followed by applause.


And would still be better than Trump.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> One day he's going to pass out during a speech, or forget how to read, and nobody will even notice. It'll just be an old man shouting about cranberries, followed by applause.


No shouting please, I'm trying to nap.


----------



## smf (Jan 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> One day he's going to pass out during a speech, or forget how to read, and nobody will even notice. It'll just be an old man shouting about cranberries, followed by applause.



Like the last four years.


----------



## Seliph (Jan 20, 2021)

New guy owes me 2,000 bucks. that's all I care about. It's still the same dumb system just with a nicer coat of paint that might make life marginally better for some people.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Seliph said:


> New guy owes me 2,000 bucks. that's all I care about. It's still the same dumb system just with a nicer coat of paint that might make life marginally better for some people.


Probably, but I'd like to think Biden will put the US on a better course for the future.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It'll just be an old man shouting about cranberries, followed by applause.



I can't wait for him to make cranberries great again.

Please, let politics be boring again.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2021)

Seliph said:


> New guy owes me 2,000 bucks. that's all I care about. It's still the same dumb system just with a nicer coat of paint that might make life marginally better for some people.


$2,000 promised - $600 given = $1,400 owed.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

turns out that in the span of his first day (as in, the one that started a mere five hours ago), Biden's already signed or will sign _seventeen executive actions_ (fifteen being executive orders)_,_ with major stuff on various fronts, from undoing several of Trump's scummy anti-immigration policies preventing workplace discrimination by sexual orientation or gender identity- and since executive orders are basically just "the Prez orders this, so unless we rule it's unconstitutional, that's that", they're basically all either in effect starting today or they're a process that's going to _start_ today or ASAP.

guess he's decided to make a strong first impression by basically speedrunning his efforts to unfuck our country.

also apparently the orders will be signed at 4:15 central time- as in, *LIKE TWELVE MINUTES FROM THIS POST HOLY SHIT WE CAN WATCH HIM IMPROVE THINGS LIVE*


----------



## Seliph (Jan 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> $2,000 promised - $600 given = $1,400 owed.


Nah bud I want 2,000. Honestly, we should have even more considering how many people's lives have been ruined over the past year but that's probably not gonna happen.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Probably, but I'd like to think Biden will put the US on a better course for the future.


He's going to, starting in ten minutes.
_*liberal squeeing*_


----------



## Seliph (Jan 20, 2021)

Brunch is back on the menu oh boy oh boy


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 20, 2021)

#NotMyPresident


----------



## Seliph (Jan 20, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> #NotMyPresident


Just wait until we reverse colonize Europe


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 20, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Just wait until we reverse colonize Europe


Literally already happening.


----------



## Seliph (Jan 20, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Literally already happening.


True 

I'm so sorry


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> #NotMyPresident


Oh sorry, do you need an extra pill of copium?


----------



## Seliph (Jan 20, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Oh sorry, do you need an extra pill of copium?


You fell for it lol

edit: Or I may be dumb but their account says they're from the UK

edit 2: Of course, it also says they're from the Republic of Ireland so honestly who knows at this point


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

yeah wow he's live now
I figured he'd be pretty ineffectual because, well, he's Biden
turns out, the reason Biden is Mister Gaffeman is because he's not afraid to speak his mind (though in a significantly less "I'm offending everyone and I don't care because I'm doing it on purpose" way than Trump) and instead of a "nothing administration", that results in the man practically speedrunning his first day in office



Seliph said:


> You fell for it lol
> 
> Or I may be dumb but their account says they're from the UK


yes and no
on the one hand, yes
on the other hand, they've already spouted a bunch of trumper bs iirc


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> yeah wow he's live now
> I figured he'd be pretty ineffectual because, well, he's Biden
> turns out, the reason Biden is Mister Gaffeman is because he's not afraid to speak his mind (though in a significantly less "I'm offending everyone and I don't care because I'm doing it on purpose" way than Trump) and instead of a "nothing administration", that results in the man practically speedrunning his first day in office



Where's the stream at? After a quick look I don't see anything that's current


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

Sicklyboy said:


> Where's the stream at? After a quick look I don't see anything that's current


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-executive-orders-watch-live-stream-today-2021-01-20/
wait crud he already signed the stuff
sadly I can't seem to find any rewindable streams
but yeah he signed said stuff
and hoo boy is it good


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Seliph said:


> You fell for it lol
> 
> edit: Or I may be dumb but their account says they're from the UK
> 
> edit 2: Of course, it also says they're from the Republic of Ireland so honestly who knows at this point


Nah, he's been doing this for ages now. Even if he's a troll, I'm not bothered. I'm just doing what Trump supporters did to Hillary supporters back in 2016-17 because it's funny to see them be absolute hypocrites.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 20, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Nah bud I want 2,000. Honestly, we should have even more considering how many people's lives have been ruined over the past year but that's probably not gonna happen.


Just be sure to invest it accordingly - put that free money somewhere where it can grow.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Just be sure to invest it accordingly - put that free money somewhere where it can grow.


how about food so i can eat
i'll do the growing


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> how about food so i can eat
> i'll do the growing


I would consider a diet.



https://www.bitcoinstimulus.net/

The bitcoin surge is slowing down now, but there are still many great opportunities on the stock market.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> how about food so i can eat
> i'll do the growing


You're still growing at 26 years old?!


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Nah bud I want 2,000. Honestly, we should have even more considering how many people's lives have been ruined over the past year but that's probably not gonna happen.


I agree with everything you've said, but the "promise" you referenced was "$2,000 instead of $600," which comes out to $1,400 remaining.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I agree with everything you've said, but the "promise" you referenced was "$2,000 instead of $600," which comes out to $1,400 remaining.


If you want to be picky about it, Biden's administration has given $0 to citizens as of right now since he was only just sworn in. If he's expecting Biden to deliver something, that expectation began today.


----------



## smf (Jan 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I would consider a diet.
> 
> View attachment 242688
> https://www.bitcoinstimulus.net/
> ...



Yeah, all the people pumping it with web sites showing how much it's worth are selling theirs now...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 20, 2021)

smf said:


> Yeah, all the people pumping it with web sites showing how much it's worth are selling theirs now...


Buy low, sell high. I wish I jumped on that bandwagon in April myself. Can't complain about my investments, however.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you want to be picky about it, Biden's administration has given $0 to citizens as of right now since he was only just sworn in. If he's expecting Biden to deliver something, that expectation began today.


Yes, but again, Biden was specifically advocating for $2,000 in place of the $600 that went out, and Biden has been clear that it means $1,400 is what's owed.

I don't think it should stop there, but I'm specifically addressing what's "owed," not what I think it should be.

Biden: We should do $2,000.
Republicans: We will settle for $600.
Biden: That means we should make up the difference with $1,400.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 20, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> Drain the swamp.


Now that Swamp Thing has left, we finally can.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 20, 2021)

Yawn.
New el presidente. Same as old el presidente.
That is to say largely ineffective and pointless by dint of no great real power and having to appease 100 different often mutually exclusive parties with a hand on the puppet strings, this even if he was not a weak entity both as a person and politically. None have ever really had a spine or moral convictions that I can see, and the new set don't have anything remarkable about them either.
No real great changes expected. Probably still be as "polarised" as things are now (it is an effective strategy after all).

Those that claim the need for a healing, end to madness, return to normality and other such things... I don't really see any of the last 4,8 or 12 years as any kind of crazy. Or if you prefer list of policy decisions and actions I am likely to care about in 5, 10 and 15 years from now? The lack of them generally speaking to how mundane things really are.

About as interesting as it gets will be to see how well each political party reinvents itself. Both big ones are rather internally fractured at this point, and arguably should have been shattered some 10 years ago if it was going to be the normal cycle on reinvention, to reform into something interesting. That said if the system is still going to be straight mathematically biased to only having two parties (and the would be very distant third from the libertarians is also content to implode internally) then just more for the "still not interesting" weighting, though with most of the big players being at or around retirement and "could plausibly drop dead at any moment" then outside chance of something fun.


There are some issues facing the US (it is almost a post industrial setup and not handling it that well, even without everybody being too terrified to leave their home for 2 years) but there are too many actors with way too much entrenched power to likely see any great change there (all the political will in the world, which is nowhere near present here, runs up against economics eventually). The zombies that are New York (city), much of California, Oregon and New Jersey (have you seen its taxes and pension deficit?) will probably keep shambling for a few more years so no immediate effect, and I doubt they will get bailed out this go around (way too unpopular for someone seeking reelection in 4 years).

Am going to be interested in seeing what the media spin machine will be doing this time around to try to keep itself relevant (go back a few years and Fox news was the embattled last line of defence against the atrocious left wing, last few years CNN and whatnot then position themselves as the last line of defence against the atrocious right wing... all very boring and predictable in the end), and what its death throes and last vestiges of power might do to those, presumably nice lean internet based news organisations/commentators/setups, looking to replace them (see newspapers vs radio vs TV news for a nice dim and distant one).

If I was not a cynic I might ponder if the everyman would consider some local politics as the US actually still more or less if you squint has some local power still relevant and this last year or two has shown that way more than I thought. However I am a cynic and change rarely happens there.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 20, 2021)

first hurdle to overcome is to ban the EC popular vote is used in most free countries our founding fathers are probably saying the same thing in their graves after that 2016 fiasco well covid is #1 a better response to the pandemic is needed make Gerrymandenig illegal but I'm more intrested in what will affect me as a person the most he made a campaign promise to fix the broken SS/DI system as it is now many disabled americans are unable to work cause you can only make $60 on SSI working without it affecting benifets you cant marry without taking a hit either heck if it wasn't for dems we would've been axed for the cares act the disabled had a voice only 3 decades old (92 cause of clinton the ADA) before that places like my state had things called "ugly laws" permitting establishments to bar the disabled like restaurants for example from dining there


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Yawn.
> New el presidente. Same as old el presidente.
> That is to say largely ineffective and pointless by dint of no great real power and having to appease 100 different often mutually exclusive parties with a hand on the puppet strings, this even if he was not a weak entity both as a person and politically. None have ever really had a spine or moral convictions that I can see, and the new set don't have anything remarkable about them either.
> No real great changes expected. Probably still be as "polarised" as things are now (it is an effective strategy after all).
> ...


"No real great changes expected"? Did you not see or hear about what he did about an hour and a half ago?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 20, 2021)

... For a second I thought this was the older Thread and then I saw the Page Count.

With a large, multi-ethnic population there will always be a difference of opinion, but nothing brings people together like a common cause or enemy; this Term actually has two, one of which predicated the current Government's election, the other which showed itself in the last weeks.

As such, I don't doubt this whole Term's agenda will be COVID-19 and, unlike even the Government-approved Scientists who initially gave out morsels of information on TV and now explains things as needed, I can say that it will take more than just 4 years to get on top of this Pandemic.

Frankly, it's surprising that most Western Media are acting like it's the first time they've heard of Mutations - did nobody finish High-School Biology. The first two years will definitely be about Vaccination rollout and the Mutation, and somewhere towards the end of the Term will be realistic efforts to find Medicine. 

The eventuality of this will probably end up looking like Flu Medication, where people go to their pharmacists for Pills to take for COVID-19 rather than line up for Vaccination; I don't doubt future generations will see COVID-19 as commonplace like we see the Flu now.

Overall, I believe that this Term's legacy will be the Healing of a Nation, both figuratively and literally.


----------



## JaNDeRPeiCH (Jan 20, 2021)

Im from México.. What do expect from Biden Administration?

First i want Trump to get jailed and dont serve any job politics in USA for a long time(100 years)

Next get jailed Ajit Pai,get super regulations about medicine from any pharmaceutic, and finally i want their administration erase all the corruption of my country.

Because here where i live its very known of president (AMLO México) have good allies the narcos and the President Trump.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "No real great changes expected"? Did you not see or hear about what he did about an hour and a half ago?


Is it something that will resonate 5, 10 or 15 years from now? Likely to see notable economic changes for reasonably large sectors or classes? Likely to see changes in freedoms?
If so no great changes. Such things are not unusual. Most times presidents, especially acting on executive orders (which is a far from ideal setup), don't do that anyway so something that actually makes a real difference rather than just political points is the exception rather than the rule.
Or if you prefer then go the other way. What massively positive or negative effects did the last guy and the one before that have?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

JaNDeRPeiCH said:


> Im from México.. What do expect from Biden Administration?
> 
> First i want Trump to get jailed and dont serve any job politics in USA for a long time(100 years)
> 
> ...


So far it seems like Biden's going to do two things: undo as much of the damage Trump did as he can, and solve as many of the major problems left after that as he can (discrimination, inequality, the various economic issues resulting from a shittily-run capitalist system ramming face-first into a global pandemic...).
Seems good so far, especially considering he decided to go at it quick from the start.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "No real great changes expected"? Did you not see or hear about what he did about an hour and a half ago?


He burned a bunch of money by rescinding the permits for Keystone XL and signed an assortment of expensive-sounding executive orders while providing no mechanism for funding them. Time will tell how the results will look like.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-executive-orders-watch-live-stream-today-2021-01-20/


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 20, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Is it something that will resonate 5, 10 or 15 years from now? Likely to see notable economic changes for reasonably large sectors or classes? Likely to see changes in freedoms?
> If so no great changes. Such things are not unusual. Most times presidents, especially acting on executive orders (which is a far from ideal setup), don't do that anyway so something that actually makes a real difference rather than just political points is the exception rather than the rule.
> Or if you prefer then go the other way. What massively positive or negative effects did the last guy and the one before that have?


Considering the last guy was _*Trump,*_ who not only put in place various pretty-darn-unnecessary immigration restrictions (all of which were clearly done because of bigotry against either Mexicans or Muslims instead of any, ya know, logical reason) but is the reason the US got hit so hard by this pandemic (due to his catastrophic mishandling thereof)... yeahhhh.



Foxi4 said:


> He burned a bunch of money by rescinding the permits for Keystone XL and signed an assortment of expensive-sounding executive orders while providing no mechanism for funding them. Time will tell how the results will look like.



Keystone XL being completed would result in a complete and utter environmental disaster- I'd rather money burn than the planet.
And though some of the orders will definitely take time and money, that's what it takes to improve things sometimes. Destruction is easy, construction is harder.
And then there's the fact that the ones that WON'T take that, like the one basically banning anti-LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination, are still pretty great steps in the right direction.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Considering the last guy was _*Trump,*_ who not only put in place various pretty-darn-unnecessary immigration restrictions (all of which were clearly done because of bigotry against either Mexicans or Muslims instead of any, ya know, logical reason) but is the reason the US got hit so hard by this pandemic (due to his catastrophic mishandling thereof)... yeahhhh.



The muslim ban was an interesting one, possibly could have been justified but wasn't really from what I saw (Arab spring and major fallout thereof was some 4 years earlier but ramping back up, almost as though knocking over governments and putting nothing in its place doesn't work so well). Restricting Mexicans seemed reasonable, illegal immigration having a demonstrable effect upon various labour markets (possibly crime but that is less of one), even if wall building is a silly idea. The general trend has been to make it harder for many years now as well.

What rights would I have lost or gained under Trump had I been there?
Ditto Obama?
Equally if they are different what could I have reasonably attributed to the then current el presidente as much as other things.
Despite threats on free speech from all sides it is mostly what it was 10 years ago.
Police can still steal my money/items, claim it was for criminal things and make me sue to get it back, and demonstrably still do make any number of very dubious calls there. Neither furthered nor ended.
Police in general still seem about as skull cracking as US ones ever were, though that is arguably a local/state matter for much of that. Not my idea of a good time but about what I would expect.
If I care about guns then things might well be more restrictive now than they were, and in arguably pointless ways.
Getting divorced is as much a raw deal today as was back in the 90s. The gay alphabet soup lot, something of a cause celebre in recent years, also seem to be able to enjoy marriage and not being kicked out of the job market/life in general and have done for a while now (no change under him anyway). Ditto skin colour if you go in for that one. The poor are pretty hard done by but always have been really, and are in most places.

Any major services or milestones and end results thereof?
Health and net insurance (never mind effective insurance) might be a fun one to ponder.
Infrastructure is always crumbling and everybody knows someone that hit a pot hole. Mostly seems to be new bridges that are collapsing though.

Does the economic outlook via various means* look better for [age ranges] as of last year (and this if you want to count this little pandemic business then go that as well).

*salary to home cost ratio, home availability, savings, debt utilisation (and nature thereof -- US student loans are unpleasant but have not really changed in character in a long time), education level attained, average salary (probably inflation adjusted), retirement and nature thereof, homelessness and nature thereof, unemployment trends (general and underemployment), child poverty... there are plenty to look at. The projected future trends for many of those don't look too pretty, however I am not sure I am inclined to point at presidential meddling on any count for those (student loans being backed rather than means tested and results based... yeah, home loans and bail outs... yeah).

You say his mishandling of the pandemic is something to note. Do go on. What could he have done (and governors, all these states having their own nice healthcare infrastructure and universities of their own to tap after all, could not have done -- most states seem to be doing their own thing quite happily for some time now) or not done that would have made all the difference or just a really notable one? I can't say it was a model to follow but I doubt the US ever could have been (infrastructure never centralised, standardised, no scope to mobilise a force like there is for all sorts of things for hotspots...) and not really that bad as a general trend.

Are my consumer rights really any better or worse than they were in 2008? Few places had cases in their local supreme courts to iron out some of the kinks and some finally wound their way up to the main supreme court (that toner refills one being a fun one). Seeing fewer bills really that done much of anything here.
Most big companies just as inclined to not respect rights and me as a consumer as they ever were. Said companies (and ones looking to rise up) often mired in red tape as well (though that is just as commonly from local/state levels).

Am I likely to find my home buried under a mound of toxic sludge or breathe smog on the way to work where I was not before?


At no point during the last 15 or so years have I wanted to live in the US (I like Europe much more), content enough to visit for long periods though without feeling like I was wading into a fallen country or warzone. Never really felt like it was a country in ascendency either. By similar token for any of those has any country massively eclipsed the US in possibly anything other than healthcare (the third rate nature of that being a long standing cause of amusement for most of the rest of the world) that the US could have done if they had wanted, or indeed something that is fairly obvious the US could have done that would have made things 10000 times better.

To that end this is the new sound, same as the old sound. Last el presidente was an unlikeable arsehole and surrounded by gaping arseholes, but that is just called being a politician and something you get to work with. New one looks no different, and that is without the lack of power available in the role (both generally and with the current setup being as generally evenly matched as it is) and need to spin many plates at once.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 21, 2021)

I'm pretty sure the Keystone XL was already facing problems before Biden. People really shouldn't have bank on it.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> He burned a bunch of money by rescinding the permits for Keystone XL and signed an assortment of expensive-sounding executive orders while providing no mechanism for funding them. Time will tell how the results will look like.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-executive-orders-watch-live-stream-today-2021-01-20/


I'm pretty sure that simply reversing Trump's corporate tax cuts will pay for all of that and so much more.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> He burned a bunch of money by rescinding the permits for Keystone XL and signed an assortment of expensive-sounding executive orders while providing no mechanism for funding them. Time will tell how the results will look like.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-executive-orders-watch-live-stream-today-2021-01-20/





Xzi said:


> I'm pretty sure that simply reversing Trump's corporate tax cuts will pay for all of that and so much more.


Rescinding the permits is also worth the price, considering the existential threat that is human-caused climate change.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Improving access to safe and reliable energy from Canada while reducing dependency on crude oil from unstable regions of the world like the Middle East was a big plus for me. You're not stopping climate change, you're just getting oil from somewhere else. Claiming otherwise is foolish, this doesn't reduce carbon emissions in any shape or form.



Xzi said:


> I'm pretty sure that simply reversing Trump's corporate tax cuts will pay for all of that and so much more.


Correction, you'll be paying for it.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It must be nice having the kind of privilege that allows for a "lax laughable response" to politics.


Sir, perhaps "privilege" is not the word you intended to use here. It is a relative term, so a reference point must be established to convey its meaning. The manner in which you presented the term here can be considered 'low-effort'. 

Your assumption that a disinterest (or 'lax view') of politics is due to 'privledge' comes across as quite narrow. There are *various* reasons and motivations individuals prefer avoiding politics, or watching politics from afar. Please consider these other options.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Improving access to safe and reliable energy from Canada while reducing dependency on crude oil from unstable regions of the world like the Middle East was a big plus for me. You're not stopping climate change, you're just getting oil from somewhere else. Claiming otherwise is foolish, this doesn't reduce carbon emissions in any shape or form.


That's why there's more than just the single step involved.  Step two is obviously putting more focus on developing and expanding our renewable energy infrastructure.  Besides, we have an overabundance of oil in our reserves already, it's basically worthless, and renewables still come in cheaper per kilowatt hour anyway.



Foxi4 said:


> Correction, you'll be paying for it.


You must be overestimating my yearly income by a fair amount.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Improving access to safe and reliable energy from Canada while reducing dependency on crude oil from unstable regions of the world like the Middle East was a big plus for me. You're not stopping climate change, you're just getting oil from somewhere else. Claiming otherwise is foolish, this doesn't reduce carbon emissions in any shape or form.
> 
> Correction, you'll be paying for it.


"Safe and reliable", but also _*EVEN WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAN CRUDE OIL! *_(And that's saying something!) Not only would Keystone XL result in using an even more environmentally unfriendly form of energy, but it'd result in using an absolute _fuckton_ of the stuff, and likely in *addition* to all the crude oil we're already using!
This absolutely does reduce carbon emissions- by preventing something that would've made previous carbon emissions look puny in comparison.

And in terms of the tax cuts, how the hell would basically just taxing big corporations MORE result in consumers paying for it, figuratively or literally? That's... not how that works.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> Sir, perhaps "privilege" is not the word you intended to use here. It is a relative term, so a reference point must be established to convey its meaning. The manner in which you presented the term here can be considered 'low-effort'.
> 
> Your assumption that a disinterest (or 'lax view') of politics is due to 'privledge' comes across as quite narrow. There are *various* reasons and motivations individuals prefer avoiding politics, or watching politics from afar. Please consider these other options.


Please send me a PM if you'd like to have this conversation. The mods were (rightfully) clear that this is wildly off topic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> And in terms of the tax cuts, how the hell would basically just taxing big corporations MORE result in consumers paying for it, figuratively or literally? That's... not how that works.


It's exactly how it works - the cost, most times, is offset by consumers paying a little extra on top of what they're used to. A corporation has a certain level of expected operating income, and if it falls behind on that target, the consumer will pick up the slack. The same rule of thumb applied to Trump's tarrifs against China - since the exemption for consumer goods is expired and hasn't been renewed, American consumers can expect to pay up to 25% more for their graphics cards, SSD's and more.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gpu-tariff-asus-priceincrease

The pocket book will balance out, don't worry - the government introducing a new artificial cost to doing business must necessarily result in a price adjustment, that *is* how it works.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's exactly how it works - the cost, most times, is offset by consumers paying a little extra on top of what they're used to. A corporation has a certain level of expected operating income, and if it falls behind on that target, the consumer will pick up the slack. The same rule of thumb applied to Trump's tarrifs against China - since the exemption for consumer goods is expired and hasn't been renewed, consumers can expect to pay up to 25% more for their graphics cards, SSD's and more.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gpu-tariff-asus-priceincrease
> 
> The pocket book will balance out, don't worry - the government introducing a new artificial cost to doing business must necessarily result in a price adjustment, that *is* how it works.


Oh, that bit's what you mean. (I was afraid you meant some kind of bizarre converse to the trickledown argument.)
But to be fair... there are costs to progress. (Same reason why at some point they'll have to actually RAISE taxes a significant bit- and alter things so that the proportions actually _make a lick of sense relative to people's income instead of acting like an evil reverse Robin Hood.)_


----------



## Xzi (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> A corporation has a certain level of expected operating income, and if it falls behind on that target, the consumer will pick up the slack.


Only in America can this kind of Stockholm Syndrome exist, it's the same excuse given whenever we talk about raising the minimum wage.  Meanwhile, France pays fast food workers between $20 and $22 an hour, and their burgers cost about $0.20 more than ours.  As long as there's any amount of competition present in a given industry, the threat of massively inflated prices resulting from higher taxes is an empty one.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jan 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> The muslim ban was an interesting one, possibly could have been justified but wasn't really from what I saw (Arab spring and major fallout thereof was some 4 years earlier but ramping back up, almost as though knocking over governments and putting nothing in its place doesn't work so well). Restricting Mexicans seemed reasonable, illegal immigration having a demonstrable effect upon various labour markets (possibly crime but that is less of one), even if wall building is a silly idea. The general trend has been to make it harder for many years now as well.
> 
> What rights would I have lost or gained under Trump had I been there?
> Ditto Obama?
> ...


A bit of a pessimist take for my taste, but I do enjoy what you wrote here.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jan 21, 2021)

My hopes for this new administration are a return of common sense and decency, a serious push to get the virus under control, working towards that unity he promised you all, and for the angry blue haired land whales of Tumblr to shut up about equality now that an African/Asian American woman is VP. All that moaning is stopping the ironing getting done, ladies.

I'm joking about that last part. Should be obvious, but in these trying times you can never be too careful so best I spell it out for the perma-offended humour impaired types.

 In all seriousness though, I just hope we can return to times where people actually agreed on basic shit. Like the planet not being flat. Or vaccines working. The last few years I've seen people deeper in angry desperate denial than Yu Yevon and that's just not good for anyone. Biden talked about unity and I agree that's what America, nay the world at large, needs now. We'll never get anywhere as a species if we're fighting over minutia, especially things that were already settled (you can literally see the curvature of the Earth, it's not up for discussion, case closed, get over it). Division is pointless, there's always going to be someone with answers or resources or whatever that you need or want, and it's only by co-operating that we gain access to those things we need. You'll never be a one man army dominating the whole planet no matter how hard you try, so why try at all? The Trump mentality of 'F everyone else, I'm all that matters' is ultimately self defeating so why support it? Because it makes you feel better about your pathetic little lives? Try actually BEING better instead of just FEELING better, you'd be amazed at the results.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Oh, that bit's what you mean. (I was afraid you meant some kind of bizarre converse to the trickledown argument.)
> But to be fair... there are costs to progress. (Same reason why at some point they'll have to actually RAISE taxes a significant bit- and alter things so that the proportions actually _make a lick of sense relative to people's income instead of acting like an evil reverse Robin Hood.)_


That's the definition of a trickle down effect - the cost of the tax "trickles down" on the consumer. Of course you're instead referring to supply-side economics, the correct term that was later boiled down to "trickle down economics" by more liberal-minded politicians and economists who aren't as good with numbers or foresight as their peers, but no, that's not what I was talking about.


----------



## Luckkill4u (Jan 21, 2021)

With Biden's and Trudeau's view on the 'Great Reset', I'm honestly worried for the future and our freedoms.


----------



## omgcat (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's exactly how it works - the cost, most times, is offset by consumers paying a little extra on top of what they're used to. A corporation has a certain level of expected operating income, and if it falls behind on that target, the consumer will pick up the slack. The same rule of thumb applied to Trump's tarrifs against China - since the exemption for consumer goods is expired and hasn't been renewed, American consumers can expect to pay up to 25% more for their graphics cards, SSD's and more.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gpu-tariff-asus-priceincrease
> 
> The pocket book will balance out, don't worry - the government introducing a new artificial cost to doing business must necessarily result in a price adjustment, that *is* how it works.




yup, trump got us with one more fuck you before he left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs#Chinese_products
*
Trump said the tariffs are "paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us." Economic analysts concluded this was an incorrect assertion as American businesses and consumers ultimately pay the tariffs as real-world examples of tariffs working as intended are rare, and consumers of the tariff-levying country are the primary victims of tariffs, by having to pay higher prices. "It is inaccurate to say that countries pay tariffs on commercial and consumer goods—it is the buyers and sellers that bear the costs," said Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist. "Purchasers pay the tariff when they buy popular products. Sellers lose market share when their products get priced out of markets,"
*
anyone who wants to be mad at the chinese tariffs driving up GPU prices and more can go hunt down trump*.*


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

omgcat said:


> yup, trump got us with one more fuck you before he left.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs#Chinese_products
> *
> Trump said the tariffs are "paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us." Economic analysts concluded this was an incorrect assertion as American businesses and consumers ultimately pay the tariffs as real-world examples of tariffs working as intended are rare, and consumers of the tariff-levying country are the primary victims of tariffs, by having to pay higher prices. "It is inaccurate to say that countries pay tariffs on commercial and consumer goods—it is the buyers and sellers that bear the costs," said Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist. "Purchasers pay the tariff when they buy popular products. Sellers lose market share when their products get priced out of markets,"*


These tarrifs were one of the things I disagreed with Trump on, the consumers were always going to be on the short end of that stick. There's really no way to enact a policy like that without affecting the market using just pen and paper. The expectation was that they would force China to sit down at the negotiations table and provide better footing, but without widespread support in the House it had no chance of ever working as intended.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jan 21, 2021)

Now to see if and hope he does good for the country or not. 

If not he can fuck right off with Trump too. 

A good leader does and should do right by their people or they get the boot.


----------



## g00s3y (Jan 21, 2021)

A better president in less than 24 hours than Trump was in 4 years...


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 21, 2021)

Blaze163 said:


> My hopes for this new administration are a return of common sense and decency, a serious push to get the virus under control, working towards that unity he promised you all, and for the angry blue haired land whales of Tumblr to shut up about equality now that an African/Asian American woman is VP. All that moaning is stopping the ironing getting done, ladies.
> 
> I'm joking about that last part. Should be obvious, but in these trying times you can never be too careful so best I spell it out for the perma-offended humour impaired types.
> 
> In all seriousness though, I just hope we can return to times where people actually agreed on basic shit. Like the planet not being flat. Or vaccines working. The last few years I've seen people deeper in angry desperate denial than Yu Yevon and that's just not good for anyone. Biden talked about unity and I agree that's what America, nay the world at large, needs now. We'll never get anywhere as a species if we're fighting over minutia, especially things that were already settled (you can literally see the curvature of the Earth, it's not up for discussion, case closed, get over it). Division is pointless, there's always going to be someone with answers or resources or whatever that you need or want, and it's only by co-operating that we gain access to those things we need. You'll never be a one man army dominating the whole planet no matter how hard you try, so why try at all? The Trump mentality of 'F everyone else, I'm all that matters' is ultimately self defeating so why support it? Because it makes you feel better about your pathetic little lives? Try actually BEING better instead of just FEELING better, you'd be amazed at the results.




Was the last however long a departure from some kind of idyllic land of decency and common sense? A time wherein new laws and revisions to old ones were debated on their practical and ethical merits, as opposed to scratch my back and I scratch yours whilst smearing your opponents (but not so much that you can't get them on side if you need them in a few months)? Because I was there for however many years before and I don't recall such a time, and reading my history books says there was never such a time.

Vaccine denial... well arguably since inoculation 

 
More recently well since the whole MMR nonsense but plenty of others. Doubt it will go away any time soon which is a pity.

On flat earthers. Do you not recognise an obvious acceptable target? Nobody takes them seriously and they have no power which is why you get to make fun of them and makes for a nice distraction.

As for moaning about equality then you have not been paying attention to things -- it is the notion that you might be being called a phobist that gets people to jump. There will always be another hurdle to overcome, stat to be made equal (maybe even overrepresented to make up for past inequalities), diversity officer/department in your company to form... because apparently the world should repeat at every level despite demonstrable differences in biology, psychology and the like. Far too useful a tool to give up on that one. Also I take it you missed the gendered words thing in the House of Representatives (not a ban as some would have you understand it, about as silly from where I sit).
Though depending upon how good they are at maths (debatable if maths now needs to be decolonialised) then they might turn inwards to try to root out the vestiges of the 90s corporate democrats to be replaced with some nice "democratic socialist" types, maybe with it being mirrored in the US right wing as the MAGA set, possibly with a boost from some of the libertarians with the actual skills* booted out of their little camp, take on the remains of the Reagan evangelist religious right (who seldom have been seen actually do any kind of conservative policy as much as copy and paste democrat ones from 20 years earlier). If that scenario does come to pass over the coming years... then something interesting might have happened. I don't know when that lot of changes will happen (and something will) or if it will happen simultaneously.

*whether I agree with the Mises Institute or not is a different matter but them and those like them being shuffled out of libertarian circles to become free agents should probably scare someone, or excite someone -- whatever they are they are not people I take lightly, unlike most politicos which are short term tools of self interest.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

>NEW - Joe Biden's inauguration video is so unpopular that it is now "unlisted" on the White House's YouTube account.
lol but he is more popular than obama i was told


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's the definition of a trickle down effect - the cost of the tax "trickles down" on the consumer. Of course you're instead referring to supply-side economics, the correct term that was later boiled down to "trickle down economics" by more liberal-minded politicians and economists who aren't as good with numbers or foresight as their peers, but no, that's not what I was talking about.


...what
you... I... WHAT
supply-side basically just amounts to "make the person that's either already rich or already has control over the situation economically... _richer or with more control,_ and just kinda wait for things to pool downward"
it would make sense in theory if not for one pivotal flaw: it assumes that people are actually going to _*use and circulate*_ all of that extra undeserved money they're given or modify things so that it ends up circulating- as it turns out, people aren't exactly charitable by default
acting like we "aren't good with numbers" because we look at an approach that gives money to the rich or power to the powerful and go "what the fuck" isn't just condescending and dismissive, it's also pretty damn stupid


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> >NEW - Joe Biden's inauguration video is so unpopular that it is now "unlisted" on the White House's YouTube account.
> lol but he is more popular than obama i was told


The inauguration video got approximately 11 million views on the official inaugural committee YouTube page. It got approximately 9 million views on the CNBC YouTube page. Etc. What are you blathering on about?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ...what
> you... I... WHAT
> supply-side basically just amounts to "make the person that's either already rich or already has control over the situation economically... _richer or with more control,_ and just kinda wait for things to pool downward"
> it would make sense in theory if not for one pivotal flaw: it assumes that people are actually going to _*use and circulate*_ all of that extra undeserved money they're given or modify things so that it ends up circulating- as it turns out, people aren't exactly charitable by default
> acting like we "aren't good with numbers" because we look at an approach that gives money to the rich or power to the powerful and go "what the fuck" isn't just condescending and dismissive, it's also pretty damn stupid


It's not really a matter of opinion, it's a matter of finding the spot on the Laffer Curve that generates the most growth while maintaining maximum tax revenues. All of that talk about power dynamics is silly populism, what actually matters is how much tax revenues you generate with your policy and does it stun growth or not. There's a golden mean here, somewhere between 0% and 100%, the two extremes where you get $0 into the treasury. If you "tax the rich" X% less, but by doing so allow them to generate significantly more revenue (on which they're taxed, mind), they actually end up paying *more* into the pot overall while growing their business at the same time. Tax revenues steadily increased over time under Trump *in spite of* the tax cuts due to rapid economic growth, there's plenty receipts for that. The reason why I say people opposed to the idea are not good with numbers is because they look at the percentage and think "lower number bad". No, not necessarily. There's a point of diminishing returns, yes, but you have to look at the actual results to make a judgement. The deficit ballooned not because the tax cuts were ineffective, but because the spending ballooned also, and in many areas it was stupid spending.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

The revenues gained another 4% in 2019, mind, so it wasn't just a chance result. Now, of course critics will say that by doing so the tax revenues are "lower in relation to the GDP", which does happen, but that's short-sighted. To illustrate, having someone pay 10% on $1000 ($100) is better than having them pay 20% on $500 (also $100). The treasury gets the same amount to fuel the budget anyway, but in the former scenario the entrepreneur has a remainder of $900 to operate whereas in the latter only $400 - you want to enable rapid growth like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

That's all econ talk though, has nothing to do with Biden. The best he can do is leave the current levels alone, that's not how you patch the budget - you patch the budget by reducing needless spending. Of course that's not going to happen, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

reminder 25000 troops


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> reminder 25000 troops



Thank you. What a profound statement. I'm almost able to decipher what the hell your point is.


----------



## omgcat (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> reminder 25000 troops



yeah, cause 5 people died and literal shit was smeared on the wall of congress 2 weeks ago today. The FBI and NSA warned of possible attacks and defense was deployed. think for a moment please. how are people shocked when troops are deployed in response to armed insurrection? like people cannot be this stupid.

hell, the republicans are claiming trump incited the insurrection by feeding people lies.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mcc...apitol-assault-fed-lies-mob/story?id=75349374


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

omgcat said:


> yeah, cause 5 people died and literal shit was smeared on the wall of congress 2 weeks ago today. The FBI and NSA warned of possible attacks and defense was deployed. think for a moment please. how are people shocked when troops are deployed in response to armed insurrection? like people cannot be this stupid.


I hate to thread-drag, but as I said previously...
*The Trumpers attempted a fucking coup two weeks ago. Do I need to spell it out any clearer for these people exactly why security is so high?*
I have a feeling that you too wish the answer was no... but there's no limit on stupidity.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 21, 2021)

Main thing is "where is my $1600". If your going to promise to pay for votes than better be punctual when doing so. Fuck this other dumb shit and quit goin straight to giving China what they want. China's little bitch all over again.


----------



## nero99 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It must be nice having the kind of privilege that allows for a "lax laughable response" to politics.


or you know, just don't give two shits about politics since non of them are worthy to run this country.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> Main thing is "where is my $1600". If your going to promise to pay for votes than better be punctual when doing so. Fuck this other dumb shit and quit goin straight to giving China what they want. China's little bitch all over again.


all over again? We have been chinas bitch for decades because of the money that is owed to them. No one has once pulled us from that debt.


----------



## laudern (Jan 21, 2021)

Oh dear. Very glad I am not an American right now. I heard the AOC woman wants 're-education' programs to be set up in schools to 'de-radicalise' political beliefs that do no agree with the governments.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 21, 2021)

Well...I just woke up to find that Biden's administration is already ahead of Trump's. I mean...

Trump's first day:

Sean Spicer: we've had the largest turnout for an inauguration ever!
Reporters worldwide: erm...it was an okay crowd, but not the largest.
Spicer & Kellyanne Conway: you're wrong. Here: take a look at this picture!
Reporters: we were there, dude. Also: this picture's photoshopped.
Conway: yeah, well...we've got alternative facts to reality.

Biden's first day:
He signs 17 executive orders, namely (translated from Dutch):

1. obligation for facemasks in government buildings
2. rejoining the WHO
3. restructuring the government for a national response for covid-19
4. Renewal of eviction suspension and mortgage exclusion
5. Extension of the pause from student loan payment
6. Rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement
7.  Rollback of Trump's environmental actions (including cancellation of US-Canada oil pipeline) to protect public health and the environment and restore science
8. Launch of Government Joint Approach to Advance Racial Equality
9. Rollback of Trump's Migration Decree, in Benefit of Undocumented Immigrants
10. Maintaining and strengthening the Daca program
11. Rollback of the Muslim ban
12. Rollback of Trump's internal enforcement decree
13. Suspension of funding for the border wall with Mexico
14. Extension of forced departure for Liberians
15. Prevention and fight against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation
16. Decree on Ethics for Executive Staff
17. Decree and Presidential Memorandum for Regulatory Process

That's, apparently, a local record. But to be fair: it's mostly the circumstances. In the latter two years, Trump mostly ruled by executive orders because it wasn't worth the hassle to pass it into law, and executive orders are (at least relatively) easy to rollback. And of course the covid-19 situation is even more pressing. With millions infected and over a thousand dying each day, you can't afford a single day of inaction.


So basically: Biden's administration hit the ground running, whereas Trump hit the ground faceplanting.

I'd be more optimistic if the situation wasn't so dire. You can't resurrect those 400'000 deaths. It'd be foolery to think that once everyone/the large majority is vaccinated, everyone will get their jobs back. Global warming is still a growing problem. Iran is been pissed on for the last four years...it won't be easy getting them back into the nuclear arrangement. And last but not least: the USA population has a serious racist xenophobic problem. It takes more than banning a twitter account to solve it (assuming it can be solved in less than an entire generation). So...there's plenty of challenges ahead. More than any previous US president in my lifetime, at the very least. And having a great start isn't saying much...this is a marathon and not a sprint.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 21, 2021)

bidens still got a lot of shit to cleanup that that other lunatic left


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

nero99 said:


> all over again? We have been chinas bitch for decades because of the money that is owed to them. No one has once pulled us from that debt.


You dont understand how that works, do you boy? 

First for a normal developed country:
- That debt is 'relationship stabilizing' with other countries or entities. Basically, if you buy into my economy - you have less incentive to destabilize my country.
- That debt usually doesnt get payed back - but 'theoretically' whiped out through growth (and subsequently inflation). Think: A Ford Model T sold for 850 USD.
- Debt is different from interest management, during some peoriods in history (say crisis), its perfectly ok, for even a run down state, to do little more than interest management.
(Fun fact: The goal of US foreign politics in their 'factual colonies' was to get their interest payments so high, that the countries GDP (the taxable portion) would be just enough for 'debt services' - at that point you can control a country - which might, or might not go 'ok' for a while (usually means, the country gets run down))
- There is a large difference if your debtors are in your own country, or foreign (Japan is usually the example given)
- There is no point, where a countries 'debt' becomes "too high" - as defined by any metric.

So what are the limiting conditions?
a. Credit investment capability for future generations
b. Creditors believe in a countries ability to pay back
c. GDP growth at levels, where you arent just 'servicing debt'
--

Creditors usually 'stop believing' in a countries ability to pay back, if many of them want to divest - so move their investment elsewhere. Depending on the currency they'll do that in - this means, that this 'money' actually has to be produced. (Printing, selling something, ...)
--

Now to the interesting points.

If your investment capital is so high, that it becomes structural - moving it into other countries comes with serious 'risk of default'. Moving it into other Investments if they are not considered 'solid' comes with 'risk of default'. Getting that much rated 'solid' investments "elsewehere" in the world, isnt exactly easy.

If your ROI in a day is higher than what you can spend in a day - you will not spend that money in a lifetime.

(F.e.: If you are Apple, you currently have reserves at a scale, where you can hire private armies, and successfully annex quite a few small to medium size countries, no problem.)
--

So the question at one point - very distinctly - becomes, do you want a certain country stable - or not. And if you are invested into a certain country, do you want it stable?

If for some reason, stability is not what people can agree on, you will have factors that 'reset' all of that - f.e. wars.

Do you want a war? Probably depends how you are invested.
--

Special case US: US is the worlds hegemon, a superpower, which means - that its currency/infrastructure is _needed_ for several transaction flows in the world currently. They can basically print up what they want - and as a result would inflate most of the world currencies by an equal level. So money to you is free.

What you have to worry is - that parts of the world are "segmenting themselves off" of the US economy (like china does at the moment), because then your risk increases, that someone tries to pull large sums of money, and causes something like a default event - at which point you start printing money - but now china (f.e.) is decoupled - so their worth to investors skyrockets.
--

The goal is NEVER to "pay back all that you owe - that would be just stupid. The goal is to give investors confidence, so that they think that investing in your people/infrastructure, through producing growth, they can make more in return.

Or simply put - states are not housewives.

And there are a bunch of other small details, where f.e. you try not to sell out structural assets to large scale foreign investors, so you could f.e. always change laws, retake the land they own, kick them out of country - without this resulting in your economy tanking - because they owned important parts of it. (Those are events we havent seen in generations, but still -).

Normally the only thing that happens is that in good times, profit ends up at the top, and in bad times people in the middle of society pay. In the meantime - everyone invested big, tries to keep that racket going, because its pretty great - when you 'get a percentage' of 'something structural'. And by that I mean - a real percentage, so one that scales until a countries society stops growing.


edit: Oh, and so you dont just 'always print money' - which doesnt lead to good investments (it leads to prepping up bad ones - usually), you have the "government" decoupled from the entity "thats allowed to print money". Both of them follow different goals (one much more long term than the other), and they should be largely independent, but both still working in the interest of your country.

Also investors deciding, that they want to invest in china mainly - is _not_ the same as 'having become chinas b*tch'. And its not the same as 'so now they want the US to stumble and fall'. Its only about 'higher growth' in one region or another in 20 years or so. And the goal - roughly - is (or at least might be) more interregional equality and equality of income. (Basically allows more people to 'search for the next big thing'. Thats the globalist investors perspective (ideally).)


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 21, 2021)

laudern said:


> I heard the AOC woman wants 're-education' programs to be set up in schools to 'de-radicalise' political beliefs that do no agree with the governments.


Sounds like a load of shit to me.



Taleweaver said:


> the USA population has a serious racist problem


Does it? Or is it a few lunatics?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 21, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Does it? Or is it a few lunatics?


If it were just a few lunatics, I wouldn't have mentioned it. But now I think of it: I've used the wrong word. That should be a xenophobic problem rather than a racist one. And that's actually a much worse problem. I can rather easily point at the police brutality and say "well...those people just don't like black people" but that's creating a debate that's not digging deep enough. It's not "just" the discrimination of black people in jobs, inequal wealth and harsher treatment by the police (though each of these are important problems to deal with). It's basically the treatment of...well..."everyone not us".

Trump's retoric against China or his prolonged silence against the BLM-protests can be attributed to racism (and most likely is, but again: that's not the issue here). But the UN, WHO and the EU are organisations that are just as white as Trump's base, but none of those guys as much as blinked when Trump abandoned them, even if they were allies for decades before.
The sad truth is that many of Trump's base are earnest, willing, able people but that simply have no jobs or real future. And it's pretty easy to point at others and say that those others are to blame because...well...in a certain perspective that's not wrong. The EU produces cheaper steel, for example. It's how global trade works: if it's cheaper elsewhere, you buy elsewhere. But then a Trump came along and blamed us for "not playing fair", which obviously is just what the victims in this situations loved to hear (US steel workers...though you'll understand this is just one example of many).

It used to be a cliche that Americans had no clue about what happened outside of their borders. Thanks to guys like Trump and fox news network, the cliche is turning into the idea that Americans assume everyone outside their borders is out to get them. I mean...do I need to remind you that the past government wanted to quit the World Health Organisation IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC? A normal government wouldn't survive even floating such an idea for a day. In the USA, it got Trump more votes than four years ago. If democrats hadn't turned out to vote in droves(1), the US would have been a literal third world country around 2024.

So yeah...it's far more than "a few lunatics".

(1): or more specific: mailed in their ballots in droves


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> - There is no point, where a countries 'debt' becomes "too high" - as defined by any metric.



You have to service the debt with tax income, in that regard debt can be too high.


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> You have to service the debt with tax income, in that regard debt can be too high.


Yes, but not if you can convince the debtors to still stick with you. Japan, or US WW2 bonds - as a rough example.

So if you are hegemon, you still have a leg up there.

Also if you are hegemon with investors invested in you, its much harder for them to divest into other powerblocks, maintaining the same 'low' risk quotient.

Also - not the case in case of a global pandemic (in the current phase) - so if everyone is printing money, then printing money has little effect. For a long while - until the first real competitor stops printing money.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> But the UN, WHO and the EU are organisations that are just as white as Trump's base, but none of those guys as much as blinked when Trump abandoned them, even if they were allies for decades before.



They did, they just weren't triggered enough to tweet from their toilets.



notimp said:


> Yes, but not if you can convince the debtors to still stick with you.



You convince them by paying interest, as soon as you can't then it's difficult to convince them. This is what happened to Greece.

Debt can be too high, but I'm not aware that the US debt is currently too high.


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> You convince them by paying interest, as soon as you can't then it's difficult to convince them.
> 
> This is what happened to Greece.


Yes to Greece, but Greece is not structurally relevant (except for being a glacee (might have the wrong word here, green area with no trees, so you see the 'enemy' coming, in battle  ).

If you are not Greece - and have enough investors 'bound locally' that for them its hard to divest (f.e. because everyone is doing it in half of the world, and they werent 'first') - rules can still change a little.


Also - not problematic, if you have high concentration at the very top (1%), because that gives them 'structural influence', for a longer while - without this leading to inflation. So if you (as a 1%er) can get that in one country - and buy up your R&D plant in another country.... You broaden your talent pool, and only have to watch out that societies dont crumble.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> Yes to Greece, but Greece is not structurally relevant



It's a small country, but that just means they hit the limit earlier.

I am not convinced that the US is too big to fail, if they mismanaged their way into a crisis.

It would come a point where there aren't any suckers left to prop it up. Financial institutions are unlikely to bet their survival on the US being able to turn it around.


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> It's a small country, but that just means they hit the limit earlier.


I agree, but we were talking 'when will the US default' categories. 

So find me different investment opportunities, for most structural investors in the US (or US markets, or US resources), and it gets a little harder.

(Part of the US housing crisis was caused by chinese money flooding the US investment market. With too little investment opportunities in the US. (The other part was boomer money.))


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> I agree, but we were talking 'when will the US default' categories.



I don't think it's likely, but it's possible if debt was "too high".



notimp said:


> (Part of the US housing crisis was caused by chinese money flooding the US investment market. With two little investment opportunities in the US. (The other part was boomer money.))



The US housing crisis was caused by fraud in the US. Money flowed in from all over the world because cdo's seemed like a good investment. It seems wrong to blame investors without blaming the multiple layers of fraud occurring. From people building houses, to selling houses, to selling mortgages, taking out mortgages, selling on those mortgages, packaging the mortgages into cdo's & rating the cdo's


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> I don't think it's likely, but it's possible if debt was "too high".


Yeah, but "too high" is largely debatable. 

Because it hinges on some pretty wild criteria. Like what if f.e. the US decides 'yep, too high - lets go to war'. (Need a few economies that produce more profit for us.) 

edit: And we'll do that with investors 1,2 and 3 - but we will wipe out all of investors 4,5 and 6 claims. 

At this point it comes down to the discussion table...


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> Yeah, but "too high" is largely debatable.



Well, there is a subjective figure which people say is too high when debating current tax levels required to service the debt and an objective figure where the wheels have fallen off the wagon and it is unequivocally too high.


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> Well, there is a subjective figure which people say is too high when debating current tax levels required to service the debt and an objective figure where the wheels have fallen off the wagon and it is unequivocally too high.


Also greece had no ability to print money - so they had no leaverage to discuss with investors, really.

Well - renegotiate tax rate then.  Or write off some debt.  (Issue - here we are talking serious events, where the market would react with 'loss of trust' -- but then again, you are a structural investor in the US (so pegged to US growth, regardless of what happens, as long as the US exists), you are getting those same investment opportunities in china? With the money you are able to get out of the US? 

So 'freedom of investment' is very much a thing if you are talking about volumes that impact lets say 'one generations growth'. Then 'free market' is actually free, and you can move all your investments around like you want to. If it goes from that into "US might default" territory - very different game.. 



smf said:


> The US housing crisis was caused by fraud in the US. Money flowed in from all over the world because cdo's seemed like a good investment. It seems wrong to blame investors without blaming the multiple layers of fraud occurring.


No, no no - not blaming investors, just describing the investment climate of the time. And yes, because there was too much investment money arround (every boomer tried to get a solid investment, but also safe  ), people just started to make those opportunities up.

To sell them - against commission. (But the money was there - because investors thought that the US was a better investment environment than china - for those few years of the boom (and half of the investment money searching for returns in the US at that time (also because of tax flight issues from china... But also not.))

They (financial engineers) said: We have this great math you know - we can make high risk investments, and then segment them, and then bundle them with other investments - and as a result *poof* no risk anymore! Oh and house prices always go up! Everyone knows that! Otherwise people would loose their homes (because private investments in the US for a generation were backed by mortgages, as the 'real' economy didnt grow for most americans)!!

And then *poof* - and people lost their homes and entire houses were worth nothing over night.


There is also the explaination angle, that this 'guarantee those loans!' was always in the interest of the democratic party (Obama), because 'own house' is really the only security most americans had left. And also the only promise that still seemed attainable.

So it was their form of 'social cohesion'.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> And then *poof* - and people lost their homes and entire houses were worth nothing over night.



America has lots of land and cheap wooden houses that depreciate.

In the UK where houses are made of bricks and there is less available land then you can often stop paying your mortgage and you can negotiate with the lender to let you keep living there, either waiting for you to start paying the mortgage again or until the market picks up and they can sell the property.

I'd argue the houses were always worth practically nothing.



notimp said:


> With the money you are able to get out of the US?



Right, as long as you are getting money out of the US.



notimp said:


> And yes, because there was too much investment money arround (every boomer tried to get a solid investment, but also safe  ), people just started to make those opportunities up.



It's interesting you think there can't be too much debt, but there can be too much investment money.

The problem was too much fraud & nobody was even acknowledging the fraud let alone tackling it.


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> America has lots of land and cheap wooden houses that depreciate.


Yes, that was "streched" to 'but all house prices go up over time' - in the interest of the democratic party (Obama), because it lead to more social cohesion. (House prices where part of the financial economy at that point, so their value grew by more, than the real economy for many people, so they took out loans, and... that stimulated (prepped up) the US economy. So it was the poor man 'partaking' in the financial economies growth.)

But then too much money, and too much fraud - and poof.

(Very, very high risk loans ('cheap wooden houses') green lit, because the democrats liked (social cohesion), and because 'house prices always go up', and then "stripped" of their high risk by the financial magic of segmentation and rebundling math - which sadly turned out to be bullshit.  )


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

nero99 said:


> or you know, just don't give two shits about politics since non of them are worthy to run this country.


It takes a certain level of privilege to not "give two shits" about politics. It other words, it must be nice not being part of a minority group whose livelihood is contingent upon the results of political elections.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> because the democrats liked (social cohesion),



It's not a bad idea (within limits) and if it hadn't been for all the fraud, then it would have worked.



nero99 said:


> or you know, just don't give two shits about politics since non of them are worthy to run this country.



That is a rather elitist and defeatist viewpoint "The country is so special that it needs special people and nobody is special enough." With that kind of twisted logic you end up with Trump

Everything and every man, woman and child is flawed and that is why you should give two shits about politics.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 21, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> You're still growing at 26 years old?!


i sure am shrinking
i remember when i didn't have to choose between food and other essentials



Plasmaster09 said:


> I'll take that as a yes. In fact, I'll take that as a sign you're a bona-fide Poe.


he's not wrong, though


----------



## tabzer (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It takes a certain level of privilege to not "give two shits" about politics. It other words, it must be nice not being part of a minority group whose livelihood is contingent upon the results of political elections.



That soapbox is really big.  Maybe you can donate it to shelter a small family?


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> It's not a bad idea (within limits) and if it hadn't been for all the fraud, then it would have worked.


Yeah, its always a great idea, if you have high influx of investment money - to do nothing with it, let it create a stock market bubble, fail at regulating, then let it create a bust, that shocks the world economy, then fix it by quickly selling those toxic derivatives to 'friendly trading firms' around the globe, then not hold the people responsible accountable in any way - just trying to get the debts you've prepped them up with off the books. Because too big to fail right?

Because the housing market was so great to turn into a speculative financial scheme... 

I dont see how state regulation could have solved any of this, right?

Read wikipedia on regulatory capture.. 

It could have worked, though..


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

Biden America starting off great with more looting and burning
Joe Biden’s America. Any blood spilled is on his hands.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden America starting off great with more looting and burning
> Joe Biden’s America. Any blood spilled is on his hands.


Pfft


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden America starting off great with more looting and burning
> Joe Biden’s America. Any blood spilled is on his hands.


Have you set an old folks home on fire, and told no one...?


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> Because the housing market was so great to turn into a speculative financial scheme...



What was the housing market ever not speculative?



notimp said:


> I dont see how state regulation could have solved any of this, right?



It can work, but not if you look the other way when there is obvious fraud.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden America starting off great with more looting and burning
> Joe Biden’s America. Any blood spilled is on his hands.


Alright- by that logic, the four-hundred-thousand-and-change CoVid deaths are on Trump's hands.
Or does it only count when it's specifically Republican deaths that happen to literally spill blood?


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> What was the housing market ever not speculative?


A problem of our times is, that it has become so speculative, that middle classes cant afford housing anymore.  (edit: Where cheap housing mostly created out of wood isnt so much an option - at least.)

Most politicians currently are at "but if boomers die off - that will be the turn around", which is great and all -- but still, f*ck you? You had one job, ... (Kind of thing..  )

Also the question was "it could have worked", vs. "you created a world wide economic crisis" I believe..


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

In my lifetime I never thought I would see shock troops deployed by a sitting president and engaging in chemical warfare against fellow citizens. Joe Biden’s America is not who we are.

Only been president for 1 day and he is going full fascist on portland


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> In my lifetime I never thought I would see shock troops deployed by a sitting president and engaging in chemical warfare against fellow citizens. Joe Biden’s America is not who we are.
> 
> Only been president for 1 day and he is going full fascist on portland


That one? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/21/portland-leftwing-protesters-democrats-headquarters

Also thanks for the context. Portland helped.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> In my lifetime I never thought I would see shock troops deployed by a sitting president and engaging in chemical warfare against fellow citizens. Joe Biden’s America is not who we are.
> 
> Only been president for 1 day and he is going full fascist on portland


yep, you're a poe
you're literally just making random shit up to throw together into a poorly written dystopia fanfiction
shock troops? chemical warfare? _w a t ?_
also considering that today's portland protest is basically just a small mob of _anarchist far-lefties_ that even I'd find going way too far ("we don't want Biden we want revenge"? seriously? revenge helps nobody.), you'd think you of all people would demonize THEM to hell and back


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

Well get ready to use something else Biden treasury nominee is attacking Bitcoin.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

gotta love how y'all trumpers see any protests against Trump or the bullshit he's caused as horrible riots but suddenly pivot to defend both the Portland riot and the Capitol one
oh and act like a relatively minor response is "fascist chemical warfare" when AFAIK these are the ones where the police _*AREN'T *_using shit like tear gas and rubber bullets


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> In my lifetime I never thought I would see shock troops deployed by a sitting president and engaging in chemical warfare against fellow citizens. Joe Biden’s America is not who we are.



You know all of that happened while Trump was still president, right?


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> gotta love how y'all trumpers see any protests against Trump or the bullshit he's caused as horrible riots but suddenly pivot to defend both the Portland riot and the Capitol one
> oh and act like a relatively minor response is "fascist chemical warfare" when AFAIK these are the ones where the police _*AREN'T *_using shit like tear gas and rubber bullets


Federal agents directed by the president using chemical warfare on its own citizens. We need an international human rights group to step in immediately and investigate.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Federal agents directed by the president using chemical warfare on its own citizens. We need an international human rights group to step in immediately and investigate.


Once again: WHAT chemical warfare?
And also once again: *Then why didn't you take that side when Trump had police gas and suppress peaceful BLM protestors for a fucking photo-op?*


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Well get ready to use something else Biden treasury nominee is attacking Bitcoin.


https://markets.businessinsider.com...d-terrorism-concerns-yellen-2021-1-1029985692



> Hope for a sign
> This is so over, this is so over
> Hope for a sign
> Call a ghost when in trouble, trouble, trouble


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Once again: WHAT chemical warfare?
> And also once again: *Then why didn't you take that side when Trump had police gas and suppress peaceful BLM protestors for a fucking photo-op?*


No I’m sorry. It’s Joe Biden’s America


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> No I’m sorry. It’s Joe Biden’s America


Considering the thing you're going on and on about is a comparatively far-lesser version of something that happened repeatedly for a MONTH in Donald Trump's America and neither you nor any of your fellow Trumpers batted an eye, I'd say that it being a Democrat in charge is the sole reason you give a shit- and that you're hiding the blatant hypocrisy by ignoring that _*the protestors are arguably better targets to strawman us with than Biden's response to them*_ and acting like Biden's some kind of fascist dictator after four years of a man who desperately wanted to BE a fascist dictator.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

Joe Biden’s fascist army is only inflaming this situation. We are a country of laws, not an autocrat with his own personal troops to deploy on our city streets against concerned citizens.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden America starting off great with more looting and burning
> Joe Biden’s America. Any blood spilled is on his hands.



Can you provide some details about it? I'm not seeing anything.

Any blood spilled is the fault of those looting and burning.



notimp said:


> A problem of our times is, that it has become so speculative, that middle classes cant afford housing anymore.



Maybe not where they want to live, but hasn't that always been the case?



notimp said:


> Also the question was "it could have worked", vs. "you created a world wide economic crisis" I believe..



It could have worked if the financial industry hadn't been entirely fraudulent. I am disappointed there were no criminal charges.



Valwinz said:


> Well get ready to use something else Biden treasury nominee is attacking Bitcoin.



They are worried about terrorism, they are right to be worried. If bitcoin is going to be allowed to continue then they need to de-anonymize it.



Valwinz said:


> Federal agents directed by the president using chemical warfare on its own citizens. We need an international human rights group to step in immediately and investigate.



Can you provide some details about it? I'm not seeing anything.



Valwinz said:


> Joe Biden’s fascist army is only inflaming this situation. We are a country of laws, not an autocrat with his own personal troops to deploy on our city streets against concerned citizens.



The concerned citizens elected Biden. The children that invaded the capitol need a time out


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It takes a certain level of privilege to not "give two shits" about politics. It other words, it must be nice not being part of a minority group whose livelihood is contingent upon the results of political elections.


Care to expand upon that one?

Politcos gonna politico, line their pockets and those of their mates while having everybody else in varying amounts (or their hypothetical children that nobody is really having) fund it, all while seeking a next photo opportunity having been shown doing something that is largely automatic anyway or just that it is close enough to where they are at to generate them "aw they care" points for the time investment.
This does not change with the colour of their neck ties. Beyond that there are so many interests pulling in every which way that any change is glacial.

To that end you pretty much can ignore politics*, not least of all because you are hard pressed to change anything there (voting is generally mathematically irrelevant, guns and bombs is generally not a great plan or likely to cause that much in the end, and with a statement like that then you presumably don't have the tens of millions free to spunk on playing it the money way) and there is much you can do for yourself that will have far better improvements upon your general happiness and well being. Make something to sell, fix something, learn a skill, play some games, have a chat with mates... all likely to leave you better off.

*or if you must treat it as an amusing sport or an amusing soap opera. For the latter then the writing and plot lines are not great but there is always more of it to consume whenever you are bored.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Politcos gonna politico, line their pockets and those of their mates while having everybody else in varying amounts



America especially suffers from this because it costs so much to get in power you need donations and most people don't donate unless they are going to get something back in return.

Trump claimed this wouldn't affect him because he was a billionaire, but it turns out that this was a lie.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

Another Biden promise turns out to be a lie He is in fact banning Fracking after he say he would not Period.

Time to point and laugh at the PA voters Election has consequences


----------



## mammastuffing (Jan 21, 2021)

Congratulations to the US and the world.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Another Biden promise turns out to be a lie He is in fact banning Fracking after he say he would not Period.



Apparently he did not, period.

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/n...ough-will-president-biden-do-what-he-promised

Our new president made a promise to ban fracking on public lands while he was on the campaign trail. Whether he keeps it or not could be the first domino to change the fate of the world.


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2021)

smf said:


> Our new president made a promise to ban fracking on public lands while he was on the campaign trail. Whether he keeps it or not could be the first domino to change the fate of the world.


What is that though (I'm still searching/unconvinced), all I hear about is the party of Davos going on and on about "reskilling" and "lifelong reskilling" and "rights to reskill" --

but at the same time "we'll not necessarily have a talent shortage - we'll just have those 'other guys also to deal with'" meaning - if you only need 10% of the population - better make up some BS that keeps the rest around.

Also growth of the service sector to a strange amount is seen with "unbanked people". So create the financial infrastructure, to exploit the worlds poor into happyiness with corpo of your choice.  (Why not facebook?)

Also more STEM because of climate change - 20 years too late.

So to what part of this am I looking forward to? The 'opportunity' part? The If you hustle now, you can get somewhere, by leaving the rest of society in service (platform economy) lead infrastructures?

The part, where its now 'digital growth' that is driving economic progress? (That thing that was always 'free' to us, as it was pure innovation lead, and needed no one to manage it? (Someone creates a thing, we copy (as in copy/paste).). I should be happy that tomorrow I'll get so many more services? (Sounds like someone selling me on 'features'...).

edit: Maybe I'm too pessimistic...


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> edit: Maybe I'm too pessimistic...



Probably, things will either work out for the best or if they won't then it's unlikely you have the ability to do anything about it.

I certainly wouldn't trust those who fight to hold onto the past.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

Press Sec Needs to face the media today and answer why federal agents are using teargas on innocent American citizens in American cities.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Considering the thing you're going on and on about is a comparatively far-lesser version of something that happened repeatedly for a MONTH in Donald Trump's America and neither you nor any of your fellow Trumpers batted an eye, I'd say that it being a Democrat in charge is the sole reason you give a shit- and that you're hiding the blatant hypocrisy by ignoring that _*the protestors are arguably better targets to strawman us with than Biden's response to them*_ and acting like Biden's some kind of fascist dictator after four years of a man who desperately wanted to BE a fascist dictator.



Just to be clear, here - you're taking the bait.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Sicklyboy said:


> Just to be clear, here - you're taking the bait.


Yeah, I know.
But on occasion these ludicrous statements provide the perfect picture of what Trumpers resort to- deluded trolling tucked safely in their own false reality- and basically providing an area-of-effect callout. (It's kinda like testing an under-the-table-loopy-drunk guy for alcohol, and halfway through he spills the beans that _everyone in the party, him included, is on crack as well._)
Sometimes, taking the bait is the perfect way to take down the entire ship.
But yeah, just gonna ignore this guy from now on.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 21, 2021)

Damn it's been less than 24h and since biden has taken over my facebook account has been hacked and I can't recover it. I'm doin what everyone has done the last 4 years and blaming the current president lol. On a serious note how da fuck did my account password get changed when I have 2 step verification installed using my phone # I changed my password but can't get back into facebook because hacker disconnected my phone # and it wants a generated # from an app wtf and no customer support from facebook. Billion dollar company can't get 1 person to help world's goin to shit under biden j/k


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Yeah, I know.
> But on occasion these ludicrous statements provide the perfect picture of what Trumpers resort to- deluded trolling tucked safely in their own false reality- and basically providing an area-of-effect callout. (It's kinda like testing an under-the-table-loopy-drunk guy for alcohol, and halfway through he spills the beans that _everyone in the party, him included, is on crack as well._)
> Sometimes, taking the bait is the perfect way to take down the entire ship.
> But yeah, just gonna ignore this guy from now on.


Yea ignore Biden attack on the American people protesting  is ok now since he is President


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Care to expand upon that one?
> 
> Politcos gonna politico, line their pockets and those of their mates while having everybody else in varying amounts (or their hypothetical children that nobody is really having) fund it, all while seeking a next photo opportunity having been shown doing something that is largely automatic anyway or just that it is close enough to where they are at to generate them "aw they care" points for the time investment.
> This does not change with the colour of their neck ties. Beyond that there are so many interests pulling in every which way that any change is glacial.
> ...


I think I was pretty clear. To be able to not care about politics is to have a life largely free from the consequences of political election results. Minorities whose basic rights are often attacked, for example, don't have that privledge. I wish I could not care about politics, but I don't have that luxury.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> That soapbox is really big.  Maybe you can donate it to shelter a small family?


Did you have something substantive to say in response to my post, or are you just shitposting?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I think I was pretty clear. To be able to not care about politics is to have a life largely free from the consequences of political election results. Minorities whose basic rights are often attacked, for example, don't have that privledge. I wish I could not care about politics, but I don't have that luxury.



What minorities have their rights attacked in the US such that you have to watch the sky/colour of ties on the politicos and their actions lest it unleash something unpleasant upon you?


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> What minorities have their rights attacked in the US such that you have to watch the sky/colour of ties on the politicos and their actions lest it unleash something unpleasant upon you?


Whether LGBT couples are literal families or not continues to be a matter of political discourse, for example.

It takes a certain level of privilege to not consider the plights of others.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 21, 2021)

I honestly want the trans related laws that were repealed or put into place under the Trump administration to be corrected. I know Biden overturned the military ban, I am hoping he also pushes to correct and remove bathroom laws. Trump presidency was not good for the trans community.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Whether LGBT couples are literal families or not continues to be a matter of political discourse, for example.
> 
> It takes a certain level of privilege to not consider the plights of others.


Discourse. Whatever. Politicos chat nonsense. That is what they do. The thing where they are lying or disingenuous when their lips are moving works just as well even they are to be the next one caught in a hotel with 5 pool boys whilst harping about about the evils of dem gays in public.
What actions were taken, things allowed to happen, crimes against, progress slowed or things that were blocked from happening in the last 4 years that could reasonably be tied to el presidente and things he has control over? Or indeed go more local if you want and the supreme court did not wade in to say "maybe not doing that".

You can be concerned about the plights of others, however if said plights are generally the same as everybody else and you see no great ills befalling them or injustices done against them, and deem it unlikely any kind of backsliding will happen (most rights more recently afforded tend to be done at the highest levels and on the basis of fundamental aspects of law so undoing is probably hard) then it seems like an irrelevant factor.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I honestly want the trans related laws that were repealed or put into place under the Trump administration to be corrected. I know Biden overturned the military ban, I am hoping he also pushes to correct and remove bathroom laws. Trump presidency was not good for the trans community.


Overturned the military ban AND banned workplace discrimination for sexuality or gender identity! (I'm still pleasantly surprised that Biden decided to blast out executive actions on major issues as fast as he did!)
Yeah... fuck the whole bathroom thing. Like seriously- anyone acting like it matters if the person in X bathroom has a schlong or not and claiming they're just trying to protect against creeps and perverts... are some of the biggest hypocrites this side of our recent ex-president.



FAST6191 said:


> You can be concerned about the plights of others, however if said plights are generally the same as everybody else and you see no great ills befalling them or injustices done against them, and deem it unlikely any kind of backsliding will happen (most rights more recently afforded tend to be done at the highest levels and on the basis of fundamental aspects of law so undoing is probably hard) then it seems like an irrelevant factor.


dude the entire point is that there ARE numerous injustices done against them
have you listened to a word we've said


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Jan 21, 2021)

Why the fuck is Buttigieg Secretary of Transport? There doesn't really seem like much of a reason to choose him, other than the fact that he adds diversity to the Cabinet (which still isn't very good reasoning).

Oh well, at least it wasn't Rahm Emanuel.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Only in America can this kind of Stockholm Syndrome exist, it's the same excuse given whenever we talk about raising the minimum wage.  Meanwhile, France pays fast food workers between $20 and $22 an hour, and their burgers cost about $0.20 more than ours.  As long as there's any amount of competition present in a given industry, the threat of massively inflated prices resulting from higher taxes is an empty one.


Missed that comment, so I'll respond to it now. The minimum wage shouldn't be increased, it should be abolished. The government setting an acceptable minimum wage disenfranchised workers at the bottom of the hierarchy by removing their bargaining power. The American left wing likes to pull out the Scandinavian model when they're discussing governmental safety nets, but when they do that they neglect to mention that Sweden, Denmark and Norway do not in fact have a mandated minimum wage - wages are negotiated via collective bargaining between employers and unions. The same model is applied in Switzerland, Finland and Iceland also. That bit they don't like, even though it's fundamental to how those economies operate. You'll notice that in 6 of those 6 cases the workers are better off. Of course this is a silly criticism since the U.S. still somehow accepts tipping as a replacement for a living wage (with support from workers in the service industry, mind - tipping is very lucrative), so I'm not expecting groundbreaking reform here. In any case, the average hourly wage of a teacher in the United States ranges between about $17 in Elementary School and $21 in High School, so there's a conundrum here - either teachers are criminally underpaid (they're not) or flipping burgers is not a marketable skill worth $20 an hour. Any implementation of a minimum wage system puts the relation between skill level and remuneration completely out of whack. Not that it really matters since many of the jobs discussed here will be increasingly replaced by automation, not to mention that only about 2% of American workers earn minimum wage or below. It's such a small fraction of the population that it makes the whole debate silly. The fight for a higher minimum wage is mentally stuck in the past, that's the kind of activism you'd see 40-50 years ago. There are better economic mechanisms available when it comes to wages, but what can you do when the Berner youths are following socialist santa who's stuck in the past himself.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The minimum wage shouldn't be increased, it should be abolished.


i love the tortured logic libertarians exposit with such smugness that leads them to the conclusion that corporations can be trusted to pay people enough money to live

you are not a clown
you are the whole circus


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i love the tortured logic libertarians exposit with such smugness that leads them to the conclusion that corporations can be trusted to pay people enough money to live
> 
> you are not a clown
> you are the whole circus


You're welcome to disagree. It works in all of the countries the American left wing is desperately advocating we should all emulate. One of two statements is true - either this model is correct or the American left wing is wrong.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You're welcome to disagree. It works in all of the countries the American left wing is desperately advocating we should all emulate. One of two statements is true - either this model is correct or the American left wing is wrong.


dude, before we can even RISK abolishing minimum wage we need to fix most if not all of the other flavors of economic horsecrap that our nation is full of
even *if* it would work, it wouldn't work _yet_
also just because we want to emulate how those countries handle some things doesn't mean we want to do that
also also, in what way, shape or form are all these ideas any better than just _*doing various things to outright take money from the rich and provide it to the poor?*_ like even if all of this nonsense works as well as you claim, and IF it'd work as well for the US as you claim it would (which is extraordinarily unlikely since we're fucked up in many other ways), it'd probably be better to just do the basic "governmental Robin Hood" method because you don't have to rely on people or corporations doing things that are far too altruistic to ever expect them to actually do


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, before we can even RISK abolishing minimum wage we need to fix most if not all of the other flavors of economic horsecrap that our nation is full of
> even *if* it would work, it wouldn't work _yet_
> also just because we want to emulate how those countries handle some things doesn't mean we want to do that
> also also, in what way, shape or form are all these ideas any better than just _*doing various things to outright take money from the rich and provide it to the poor?*_ like even if all of this nonsense works as well as you claim, and IF it'd work as well for the US as you claim it would (which is extraordinarily unlikely since we're fucked up in many other ways), it'd probably be better to just do the basic "governmental Robin Hood" method because you don't have to rely on people or corporations doing things that are far too altruistic to ever expect them to actually do


It's always funny to me when the mask slips and left-wingers admit that their economic models are based on Robin Hood. You guys are really keen on spending other people's money. My point wasn't that we should abolish minimum wage tomorrow (as great as that would be to a libertarian looney like myself), I was pointing out the cognitive dissonance that currently exists in left-wing thinking. Everybody's keen on following the Scandinavian model except for all of the elements conservatives have been advocating for since the dawn of time. Again, the minimum wage sets a minimum acceptable bar of remuneration which hits those at the bottom the hardest. There's no bargaining to be had here because the employer can just point a finger at the piece of paper and say "look, government said, therefore this is good enough". The small variation between one company and another can be attributed to them competing for labour, but overall they will cluster close to that mean because there is a mean to cluster around in the first place. That's neither here nor there though, the system's "not quite there" yet for such sweeping reform, as you say. It'd be equivalent to detonating a stick of dynamite directly under Sanders' third holiday home - a big mess.

EDIT: The Robin Hood joke is actually funny on multiple levels. Robin Hood, a thief, wasn't stealing from the local jeweler and giving to the local baker, he was rebelling against excessive taxation by the government. He was taking money away from the state and giving it back to who it belonged to - the people. Barrel of laughs, every single time.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's always funny to me when the mask slips and left-wingers admit that their economic models are based on Robin Hood. You guys are really keen on spending other people's money. My point wasn't that we should abolish minimum wage tomorrow (as great as that would be to a libertarian looney like myself), I was pointing out the cognitive dissonance that currently exists in left-wing thinking. Everybody's keen on following the Scandinavian model except for all of the elements conservatives have been advocating for since the dawn of time. Again, the minimum wage sets a minimum acceptable bar of remuneration which hits those at the bottom the hardest. There's no bargaining to be had here because the employer can just point a finger at the piece of paper and say "look, government said, therefore this is good enough". The small variation between one company and another can be attributed to them competing for labour, but overall they will cluster close to that mean because there is a mean to cluster around in the first place. That's neither here nor there though, the system's "not quite there" yet for such sweeping reform, as you say - it'd be equivalent to detonating a stick of dynamite directly under Sanders' third holiday home.


what mask tho
take from rich
give to poor
that's it
there's no cognitive dissonance, just basic solutions
we're not "spending other people's money", we're literally just trying to redistribute things so that hopefully everyone has enough to fucking live on
once we fix all the other economic problems inherent with capitalism, then MAYBE your ideas would work
but until then, abolishing minimum wage is basically just going to make corporate grossness even worse since companies will basically all stick at the minimum they can get away with as opposed to anything sensible for the workers


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> what mask tho
> take from rich
> give to poor
> that's it
> ...


I mean, you're taking one person's money and spending it however you please (in this case burning it in clerical inefficiency so a small fraction gets to the needy). We have a term for that - theft. When you're in a room with three other people, you hold a vote and they democratically decide they're going to take your money, by force if necessary (try not paying taxes sometime, I hear it's a hoot!), that's called a mugging. Y'know, like Robin Hood, except you're not the Sherrif of Nottingham, aka "the state", you're just a guy. I'm sorry, the jokes just write themselves, you'll have to forgive me. In any case, that's all I had to say on the matter - minimum wage, not so great. There are better ways of controlling wages, negotiation being the chief one, with collective bargaining providing leverage. If I have to stand the existence of unions, they should at least do something productive. As a side note, you are always paid the minimum your employer can get away with, no matter what system you're in. Why introduce inefficiencies into the system, that's not how you run a company. The question is how to set that minimum in a way that benefits the worker without overburdening the employer. Since the contract is between the employer and the employee, they can figure it out, with some advice from their respective solicitors if necessary.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The minimum wage shouldn't be increased, it should be abolished.


Are you mad?!
Removing the minimum wage would literately make American lives complete ass.  Companies have time and time again proven that we cannot trust them. Remember when children worked in factories and there wasn't a minimum wage and non humane work hours?
Yeah people's lives were completely miserable.
Allowing companies to decide to pay someone anything/no floor. Would mean we could return to a situation like that. And instead of one job running through loops. People have to go sustain off of multiple. It's in humane. People aren't supposed to work that way.
People aren't even supposed to work 8 hours a day. It's an arbitrary number that was chosen. Many studies have shown our productivity drops off by the 4th hour of work in a day.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, you're taking one person's money and spending it however you please (in this case burning it in clerical inefficiency so a small fraction gets to the needy). We have a term for that - theft. When you're in a room with three other people, you hold a vote and they democratically decide they're going to take your money, by force if necessary (try not paying taxes sometime, I hear it's a hoot!), that's called a mugging. Y'know, like Robin Hood, except you're not the Sherrif of Nottingham, aka "the state", you're just a guy. I'm sorry, the jokes just write themselves, you'll have to forgive me. In any case, that's all I had to say on the matter - minimum wage, not so great. There are better ways of controlling wages, negotiation being the chief one, with collective bargaining providing leverage. If I have to stand the existence of unions, they should at least do something productive.


"Burning it in clerical inefficiency so a small fraction gets to the needy"? The idea would be to fix that by making sure that _*far more is given to said needy!*_
If I was in a room with three people, I had millions while they had none, and they needed some of my money to survive, I'd gladly give them more than enough! And thing is, it's not three- it's millions, and I look at the many trying to take desperately needed _*surplus*_ from the few as anything but theft.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Are you mad?!
> Removing the minimum wage would literately make American lives complete ass.  Companies have time and time again proven that we cannot trust them. Remember when children worked in factories and there wasn't a minimum wage and non humane work hours?
> Yeah people's lives were completely miserable.
> Allowing companies to decide to pay someone anything/no floor. Would mean we could return to a situation like that. And instead of one job running through loops. People have to go sustain off of multiple. It's in humane. People aren't supposed to work that way.
> People aren't even supposed to work 8 hours a day. It's an arbitrary number that was chosen. Many studies have shown our productivity drops off by the 4th hour of work in a day.


yeah the one major fault in Foxi's plan here is that the changes needed first that I've mentioned amount to fundamentally altering our entire country and basically sucking as much toxic capitalistic greed out as possible
giving more riches and/or power to the rich and/or powerful, whether people or corporations, *DOES NOT END WELL*


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, you're taking one person's money and spending it however you please (in this case burning it in clerical inefficiency so a small fraction gets to the needy).





Foxi4 said:


> We have a term for that - theft


I have a term for what you stated here
it's called bullshit.
If anything, it's the rich, yes, the rich stealing from the poor.
How?
Well for starters minimum wage has not been updated federally for ages. (should be closer to 25 dollars per hour to follow the rate of productivity, the 90% does that labor. not the 10% not the 1%)
Second many of these individuals are making ungodly amounts of money while there are people starving or homeless, along with people who live pay check to pay check. Or even more fun, paying people less than a dollar over seas in countries they can take advantage of.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> If I was in a room with three people, I had millions while they had none, and they needed some of my money to survive, I'd gladly give them more than enough! And thing is, it's not three- it's millions, and I look at the many trying to take desperately needed _*surplus*_ from the few as anything but theft.


1. You accidentally discovered charity. Congratulations.
2. There is no "surplus". That's a made-up term to trick you into thinking that other people's money doesn't actually belong to them, so you don't feel bad about taking it. There's no "surplus", only profit - the reason why anyone engages in any business activity ever. That's not a "surplus", that's money earned.



monkeyman4412 said:


> I have a term for what you stated here
> it's called bullshit.
> If anything, it's the rich, yes, the rich stealing from the poor.
> How?
> ...


You can't steal from the poor - the poor have nothing that can be stolen. You can argue that the poor are underpaid, but that's a different discussion, and one that doesn't have an obvious answer like you expect it to. I don't have a problem with other people making more money than me - by ungodly margins or otherwise. That's not my money, or my problem.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

>calls the idea of taxing the shit out of the rich in order to end or at least dramatically decrease poverty "theft"
>advocates for abolishing minimum wage
>actually trusts giant greedy corporations to use basically complete economic control for _the good of the consumer_
gotta love libertarianism (which has gone from "what anarchism actually is basically" to "far-right plutocracy enthusiasm"), advocating for the economic, social and personal rights... of the uber-rich elite *that already have all those rights due to having too much fucking money*



Foxi4 said:


> 1. You accidentally discovered charity. Congratulations.
> 2. There is no "surplus". That's a made-up term to trick you into thinking that other people's money doesn't actually belong to them, so you don't feel bad about taking it. There's no "surplus", only profit - the reason why anyone engages in any business activity ever. That's not a "surplus", that's money earned.
> 
> You can't steal from the poor - the poor have nothing that can be stolen. You can argue that the poor are underpaid, but that's a different discussion, and one that doesn't have an obvious answer like you expect it to. I don't have a problem with other people making more money than me - by ungodly margins or otherwise. That's not my money, or my problem.


first off, by "surplus" I mean "money that the person doesn't need, could still be pretty damn well off without and that is needed far, far more by others".
second off, 'earned' is wishful thinking. there's a reason the just-world fallacy is a fallacy- if you seriously think that all, or even most, of the world's richest truly earned every drop of the money they practically shower in, you have another think coming.
third off, the poor ARE underpaid, to a degree that might as well _be_ stealing- and that's not even getting into the various flavors of unethical bullshit practices done by major corporations for the sole purpose of fucking over their workers.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude the entire point is that there ARE numerous injustices done against them
> have you listened to a word we've said



Listened to many things. Most of it is vague and wishy washy.

From where I sit the gay alphabet soup crowd is sitting pretty.

While I would say marriage is a stupid idea and I would rather the government leave it with as much legal status as a child's pinky promise then some flavour of it has been recognised for years (though I would agree civil union was sub par in a few ways, and the older ones of power of attorney and wills and whatnot were not ideal), and the final thing of it being called government marriage has been done for some years now and under no threat that I can see.

If I as a business wonk was to fire you, refuse to hire you, refuse to sell you/rent you my house, abuse you or similar then I would get a slap. Quite OK with that one, and does not look to be under any threat.

Ditto education types.

If crimes happen to people in such crowds then they get investigated rather than swept under the rug a la the 40s through 60s.

Such crowds seem to be able to run for political office, and make it.

Such crowds seem to be able to get the same government assistance programs and jobs in the government.

What passes for healthcare in the US seems fairly agreeable here if https://www.healthcare.gov/transgender-health-care/ is to be believed. Not as nice as some places but hardly a horror show.

Gendered toilets seems to be a thing brought up, however actual arrests, never mind prosecutions that go anywhere/convictions, seem few on the ground. To that end sure get rid of the stupid legacy and unenforced law, as far as it being a great injustice then... harder sell there.

The university stuff seemed like a needed shake up of the law with the "I don't exist" set largely being hyperbolic at very best from what I saw.

So yeah I am back to give me nice examples of things done, not done, slowed, deliberately poorly implemented or similar that had net results (or maybe would have had they not been smacked down by a court looking at the whole equal under the law thing) that can be reasonably attributed to the colour of the tie worn by the current el presidente or indeed state government if it is one of those places where things oscillate between the various parties (granted California, very much not a right wing state, seemed to need to get a racist law change smacked down so I guess there is that). Something that would have it make real sense to keep a finger on the pulse of the politics of the country or the area for the sake of your well being, as opposed to doing a bit of a side hustle, putting some more time in your main hustle, learning something, spending time with friends/family, exercising, doing a hobby or similar. The sort of thing that might see someone not pick an area to live/stay if they grew up there, or up sticks and move, on that basis if the other mob gets in rather than them being piss poor at economics or something.
Such things can happen -- the situation with abortion being made a legally difficult as possible in those places that variously lean religious right wing for no great reason other than being something of an end run around firm legal interpretation/standard handed down from the supreme court. As far as something like it befalling any flavour of minority, much less the gay alphabet soup lot, I am still at a loss.
I saw a list of executive orders discussed earlier. Something like that but for examples in this would do in the absence of some nice research for a starting point. If I go looking at outcomes I don't really see a notable variation, if I go looking at access to services/positions I don't see it... at this point it almost feels like trying to prove a negative, however absence of proof is not proof of absence so I once more ask.

From where I sit if the US has an equality problem it is not a minorities issue (be it race, sex, whether you don't care about going for a roll in the hay, whether you like to fumble matching genitals or wish you had the opposite flavour of them) but a financial one -- rarely is your life hard because you are a minority as much as because you are poor and upward mobility is harder than it might be elsewhere. I would much rather funds, resources and efforts be put into fighting poverty than fighting perceived slights against minorities, most of which I would say are imaginary or miscategorising the situation at very best and thus most efforts towards it are burning money spinning wheels and chasing ghosts of people long dead. Politicos changing has little effect here either, whether they would get you hooked on handouts or rip the rug out from under them (the abilities for either to come to the fore also being minimal), which is also where I was at the start -- whinge down the pub or online about politicos if you want but one changing makes little difference to you, you doing something that improves your lot in life for you (see earlier list) likely to be a far more useful use of time and thus back to the earlier thing politics can safely be ignored or treated as mere entertainment unless it is your job or something.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> 1. You accidentally discovered charity. Congratulations.
> 2. There is no "surplus". That's a made-up term to trick you into thinking that other people's money doesn't actually belong to them, so you don't feel bad about taking it. There's no "surplus", only profit - the reason why anyone engages in any business activity ever. That's not a "surplus", that's money earned.


Charity does not, and will not fix the issues stated.
you are relying wayyy too damn much on thinking that companies are going to go change their mode of thinking.
Any wealth they send while you can argue significant, really isn't when you find out how much they make and how much of a fraction it is.


Foxi4 said:


> You can't steal from the poor - the poor have nothing that can be stolen.


Ah so in other words.
The poor is owned by the top.
Mhmm, yup, that explains late stage capitalism in a nutshell.
Thanks for making my argument that in a capitalist society, it is slave labor with extra steps
Since slaves can't own anything. Says the man who owned the slaves, and are taking the fruits of their labor.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> >calls the idea of taxing the shit out of the rich in order to end or at least dramatically decrease poverty "theft"
> >advocates for abolishing minimum wage
> >actually trusts giant greedy corporations to use basically complete economic control for _the good of the consumer_
> gotta love libertarianism (which has gone from "what anarchism actually is basically" to "far-right plutocracy enthusiasm"), advocating for the economic, social and personal rights... of the uber-rich elite *that already have all those rights due to having too much fucking money*


Well, unlike left-wing thinkers I'm aware that this isn't a zero sum game, so I don't accept the notion of "making too much money". That's not a thing. I do know what envy looks like though, and I think I can identify it fairly well.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Charity does not, and will not fix the issues stated.
> you are relying wayyy too damn much on thinking that companies are going to go change their mode of thinking.
> Any wealth they send while you can argue significant, really isn't when you find out how much they make and how much of a fraction it is.
> 
> ...


I don't remember a time when Poland participated in any slave trade. To my knowledge that was never a thing. Workers are not slaves, but they do engage in consensual contracts that they are expected to fulfill in exchange for an agreed upon wage. That's the opposite of slavery, by definition.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 21, 2021)

I see no reason why unions can't bargain for above the minimum wage.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, unlike left-wing thinkers I'm aware that this isn't a zero sum game, so I don't accept the notion of "making too much money". That's not a thing. I do know what envy looks like though, and I think I can identify it fairly well.
> 
> I don't remember a time when Poland participated in any slave trade. To my knowledge that was never a thing. Workers are not slaves, but they do engage in consensual contracts that they are expected to fulfill in exchange for an agreed upon wage. That's the opposite of slavery, by definition.


..."unlike whoever I disagree with, I know how this _works_"
yeah right
wanting the average person to be able to live a decent life and make a decent living isn't envy, it's *sanity*
basically all you've said boils down to "rich people earned it (with an unspoken corollary that poor people deserve it), the government shouldn't be trusted to balance people economically but _*major corporations defined and succeeding from pure greed SHOULD*_"


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> I see no reason why unions can't bargain for above the minimum wage.


What a crazy notion, employees and employers figuring out a mutually beneficial arrangement. Novel idea, get outta here, that's witchcraft.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What a crazy notion, employees and employers figuring out a mutually beneficial arrangement. Novel idea, get outta here, that's witchcraft.


To be clear, I don't understand why we can't have unions and a minimum wage.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What a crazy notion, employees and employers figuring out a mutually beneficial arrangement. Novel idea, get outta here, that's witchcraft.


That'd work in most places.
Unfortunately, this is America, where "mutually beneficial" is basically big-corporate blasphemy.
The solution, at least temporarily in this case, is to KEEP minimum wage _and have unions on top of that so that there's a governmentally defined "lowest bar" to prevent corporations from fucking people over while also being able to raise the effective minimum._


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> To be clear, I don't understand why we can't have unions and a minimum wage.


Because it reduces bargaining power. It's a complex subject, but the way it works in the Scandinavian model is empowering the unions to actually enforce the negotiated minimum in lieu of government intervention. In other words, if people are underpaid, nobody comes to work, there's fines, legal repercussions - that's a risk nobody is going to take. When the minimum wage is federal, the enforcement is on the state, the union has far less power in the arrangement.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Because it reduces bargaining power. It's a complex subject, but the way it works in the Scandinavian model is empowering the unions to actually enforce the negotiated minimum in lieu of government intervention. In other words, if people are underpaid, nobody comes to work - that's a risk nobody is going to take. When the minimum wage is federal, the enforcement is on the state, the union has far less power in the arrangement.


If people are underpaid, and nobody comes to work, then corporations will HAVE to pay them more.
The minimum wage being federal gives unions a safeguard, as there's already an established limit that corporations are literally just not allowed to ever go below.
All of this "can't trust the state, somehow can trust big corporations" nonsense is the pinnacle of bullshit in right-libertarianism (which is just ancap disguised as libertarianism, and ancap is basically just exaggerated capitalism disguised as anarchism...) and it's why I can't stand it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> That'd work in most places.
> Unfortunately, this is America, where "mutually beneficial" is basically big-corporate blasphemy.
> The solution, at least temporarily in this case, is to KEEP minimum wage _and have unions on top of that so that there's a governmentally defined "lowest bar" to prevent corporations from fucking people over while also being able to raise the effective minimum._


There are, like, 8 corporations running the entire world, most other corpos are subsidiaries or small fries. American or non-American literally makes no difference at that level. We'll have to agree to disagree here, this whole thing is grossly off-topic, and I genuinely have nothing else to add, so this chat can be quickly reduced to just bickering and restating the same points - something we should avoid.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There are, like, 8 corporations running the entire world, most other corpos are subsidiaries or small fries. We'll have to agree to disagree here, this whole thing is grossly off-topic, and I genuinely have nothing else to add, so this chat can be quickly reduced to just bickering and restating the same points - something we should avoid.


"There are, like, 8 corporations running the entire world" *is literally the problem.*


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "There are, like, 8 corporations running the entire world" *is literally the problem.*


Your current standard of living is equivalent or higher than that of the nobility just a few centuries ago. Something to think about when you go on your "capitalism bad" crusades. Not saying that the system can't be improved, but you don't seem to be very open to ideas from the other side. I'll grin and bear it when it comes to unions as long as the minimum wage situation gets resolved, I'll also accept the reverse - dismantling unions and relying on the government minimum wage standard as bargained by elected representatives, one or the other. You on the other hand refuse to consider alternatives, and you should. You have a view of corporations that's straight out of Cyberpunk, that's not how it works.


----------



## gamefan5 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Because it reduces bargaining power. It's a complex subject, but the way it works in the Scandinavian model is empowering the unions to actually enforce the negotiated minimum in lieu of government intervention. In other words, if people are underpaid, nobody comes to work, there's fines, legal repercussions - that's a risk nobody is going to take. When the minimum wage is federal, the enforcement is on the state, the union has far less power in the arrangement.


That is indeed what I have learned in my economics class. I admire how you look at this with knowledge and understanding.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Your current standard of living is equivalent or higher than that of the nobility just a few centuries ago. Something to think about when you go on your "capitalism bad" crusades. Not saying that the system can't be improved, but you don't seem to be very open to ideas from the other side. I'll grin and bear it when it comes to unions as long as the minimum wage situation gets resolved, I'll also accept the reverse - dismantling unions and relying on the government minimum wage standard as bargained by elected representatives, one or the other. You on the other hand refuse to consider alternatives, and you should. You have a view of corporations that's straight out of Cyberpunk, that's not how it works.


I'll consider alternatives after the fundamental problems preventing them from possibly functioning properly when implemented into the US have been solved.
I'll let you show me colors to paint the house with once I get a chance to finish repairs.
Oh, and the standard of living bit? Might wanna look at more data than just the mean there, because the gap between the current standard of living and the people at the bottom end of things economically is _vast._


----------



## gamefan5 (Jan 21, 2021)

To be honest with my thoughts, even if medium wage were abolished, companies won’t be that daring to make wages super low, as if their offerings are not interesting, people will not be willing to go work for them, which in turn, impact the amount of what they can offer to customers.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I'll consider alternatives after the fundamental problems preventing them from possibly functioning properly when implemented into the US have been solved.
> I'll let you show me colors to paint the house with once I get a chance to finish repairs.
> Oh, and the standard of living bit? Might wanna look at more data than just the mean there, because the gap between the current standard of living and the people at the bottom end of things economically is _vast._


The wealth gap is a useless metric. I'm not interested in the lives of the rich and famous, I'm interested in improving everyone's standard of living. People always focus on high rollers having more in their pocket at the end of the year instead of focusing on the low wage earners having a little more too, just "not as much", as if growth was a problem. The issue with the left-wing is that they want to reduce the wealth gap by cutting people's hamstrings, it's a recipe for equality - in squalor. I'll shake on going halfsies with the house though, especially since you offered to do the labour while I'm making the decisions - I like this new arrangement.

...

I jest, I jest!


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

gamefan5 said:


> To be honest with my thoughts, even if medium wage were abolished, companies won’t be that daring to make wages super low, as if their offerings are not interesting, people will not be willing to go work for them, which in turn, impact the amount of what they can offer to customers.


Have you seen what they're ALREADY willing to do?
The fundamental problem with corporations deciding it all is that they'll do whatever makes them the most money- while this'd normally go off of a sensible curve of some sort, this doesn't apply when they're given so much control that _*they can all tank wages in unison and people don't have a CHOICE.*_



Foxi4 said:


> The wealth gap is a useless metric. I'm not interested in the lives of the rich and famous, I'm interested in improving everyone's standard of living. The problem with the left-wing is that they want to reduce the wealth gap by cutting people's hamstrings, it's a recipe for equality - in squalor. I'll shake on going halfsies with the house though, especially since you offered to do the labour while I'm making the decisions - I like this new arrangement.



I mean... if it was plausible to improve everyone's standard of living, to a point where even the worst-off are still... _managing fine without risk of going without the fundamentals,_ I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, that's pretty darn difficult- no matter how many improvements people get, the experience of someone poor enough to not afford any of said improvements is nearly identical. Zero times any number (except, depending on the interpretation, infinity) is still zero. It's a lot harder to make things better for everyone than it is to make it a lot better for the worst-off and somewhat worse for the best-off.
And even if it'd result in near-complete equality in squalor... _then THAT'S when you apply strategies that benefit literally everyone!_


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Your current standard of living is equivalent or higher than that of the nobility just a few centuries ago.


a low bar to meet a slightly higher bar than that bar.
aka still a low bar.
Yeah no. We can do better than make people just live pay check to pay check.
When there are 8 corporations running the world due to capitalism, Those 8 get to choose who lives, who dies.
You are a slave to the company you work for.
Failure to be a servant to them means going homeless and having no means of living.
Working should be for the things you want.
Not for the things you need to live.
You shouldn't need to choose between eating and having a home.
And if your going to somehow argue people are lazy by default, and giving them a home is wrong.
People by default strive for more. No person likes being called lazy. And I'm sure no person likes staring at a blank wall or a empty house.


----------



## gamefan5 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Have you seen what they're ALREADY willing to do?
> The fundamental problem with corporations deciding it all is that they'll do whatever makes them the most money- while this'd normally go off of a sensible curve of some sort, this doesn't apply when they're given so much control that *they can all tank wages in unison and people don't have a CHOICE.*



Again, every decision has a set back. Deciding too low may end up having repercussions and make them less of an attractive place to work at. And a consider amount of people WILL leave the workforce. A sensible amount, in fact, if their offers are not up to snuff.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

gamefan5 said:


> Again, every decision has a set back. Deciding too low may end up having repercussions and make them less of an attractive place to work at. And a consider amount of people WILL leave the workforce. A sensible amount, in fact, if their offers are not up to snuff.


Thing is, that shouldn't even be part of the equation- a company cranking up the avarice and economically abusing its workers for greater profits *should not be possible,* either by limiting how little a company can pay for a given amount of work (minimum wage but more proportional to the work done- still ideally set the absolute minimum at "not much but livable") or limiting how much a company can make someone work for a given wage (basically the same principle but inverted with similar results).


----------



## gamefan5 (Jan 21, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> a low bar to meet a slightly higher bar than that bar.
> aka still a low bar.
> Yeah no. We can do better than make people just live pay check to pay check.
> When there are 8 corporations running the world due to capitalism, Those 8 get to choose who lives, who dies.
> ...


Thing is, that’s how life works. You work, so that society benefits and you get something in return. Even the richest people have to invest their time in their own companies in order to get something in return.

The difference however, is how much time the person needs to do and the amount the person earns.
It sucks, but that is sadly how that is.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

gamefan5 said:


> Again, every decision has a set back. Deciding too low may end up having repercussions and make them less of an attractive place to work at. And a consider amount of people WILL leave the workforce. A sensible amount, in fact, if their offers are not up to snuff.


They don't need to worry about that. People will accept it anyways if all of them in unison drop the wage.
As people live off it.
You don't get a choice or say.
Failure to stay in your job means having a chance of going homeless.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

gamefan5 said:


> Thing is, that’s how life works. You work, so that society benefits and you get something in return. Even the richest people have to invest their time in their own companies in order to get something in return.
> 
> The difference however, is how much time the person needs to do and the amount the person earns.
> It sucks, but that is sadly how that is.


dude there are some people- not corporations, INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE- so unfathomably wealthy that they could earn absolutely nothing for the rest of their lives and the amount they *already have* would suffice for luxury.
and if the difference between time or effort expended and money earned is so bad (which it is), then focus on fixing _that_ instead of giving power to the powerful!


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

gamefan5 said:


> Thing is, that’s how life works.


That is not how life works.
Our lives are man-made. The idea of capitalism is man made, the idea of money is man made.
If your going to try to argue "that's how life works"
Then your describing people in the past back as cave men.
Nothing about our world is natural.
We don't have to accept things, we can strive for better. It is stupid to accept something as is.
We define things, we give shape to things,
I see no reason why we can't change our absurd society.


gamefan5 said:


> The difference however, is how much time the person needs to do and the amount the person earns.
> It sucks, but that is sadly how that is.


Defeatist mindset much.


----------



## gamefan5 (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Thing is, that shouldn't even be part of the equation- a company cranking up the avarice and economically abusing its workers for greater profits *should not be possible,* either by limiting how little a company can pay for a given amount of work (minimum wage but more proportional to the work done- still ideally set the absolute minimum at "not much but livable") or limiting how much a company can make someone work for a given wage (basically the same principle but inverted with similar results).


Like I said, if people do not want to work in such bad conditions, they can threaten to leave the workforce. Companies are very dependent on them in order to provide the service they need to provide. 

Companies can be avaricious, but they also need to consider how they treat their workers or else they will fail, as well. Minimum wage or no minimum wage. That’s why unions are a thing. 

All I am saying is that, it isn’t as bad as you make it out to be, especially in some of the richer countries where the notion of minimum wages are not a thing.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

gamefan5 said:


> You work, so that society benefits and you get something in return. Even the richest people have to invest their time in their own companies in order to get something in return.


Then why is it that the man on the top who does so little is rewarded almost 20 times the average man?
No person should be able to profit off the backs of thousands to that degree.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gamefan5 said:


> they can threaten to leave the workforce.


they cannot threaten that.
You don't get it.
You need a job to live.
As long as it remains that way you are fodder to companies
something to consume, burn out, and if rejects you or tastes bad, then thrown into the trash.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

gamefan5 said:


> Like I said, if people do not want to work in such bad conditions, they can threaten to leave the workforce. Companies are very dependent on them in order to provide the service they need to provide.
> 
> Companies can be avaricious, but they also need to consider how they treat their workers or else they will fail, as well. Minimum wage or no minimum wage. That’s why unions are a thing.
> 
> All I am saying is that, it isn’t as bad as you make it out to be, especially in some of the richer countries where the notion of minimum wages are not a thing.


once again, I must bring to the table that this isn't discussing changes to those countries- it's discussing changes to the USA, the fifty-with-error-bars-stated national-scale example of how capitalism can go too fucking far.
What you're saying doesn't apply, because plenty of big companies already have such large holds that people can neither threaten to leave them nor (in the case of consumers) threaten to not _*buy from*_ them.
They're basically feeding themselves with their own greed, and said greed isn't exactly going to run out on its own.

Now that I think about it, neither you nor Foxi are 'Murican yourselves- you're sitting at the top of a fortified steel tower looking at a pile of shattered glass going "Eh, just weld it back together. It'll be fine, it worked for us!"


----------



## gamefan5 (Jan 21, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> That is not how life works.
> Our lives are man-made. The idea of capitalism is man made, the idea of money is man made.
> If your going to try to argue "that's how life works"
> Then your describing people in the past back as cave men.
> ...


I’m not defeatist. I’m just realistic. To get something of value, you have to give something of value back.
If that’s not natural sure, we can debate that on a philosophical level.

Sure, feel free to change the very economic system. It’s either going to go to Capitalism, to Communism, to Socialism, usually. 
But if you have something new in mind that is sustainable in the long run and can be adopted on a worldwide level, then I cannot wait to see how it shapes.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

gamefan5 said:


> I’m not defeatist. I’m just realistic.


Fucking LMAO
"guys it's not defeatist I'm just being _ReAliStIc"_
It is,
"it sucks but that's sadly how it is"
That is defeatist mindset.


gamefan5 said:


> To get something of value, you have to give something of value back.


Your right, the issue is that your not getting value back. Again, why can the top 1% make 20 times the amount than the bottom 90%
Keep in mind, this isn't a vaccum. That top1% is employing people from the bottom 90%. and is making their money from that bottom 90%
That bottom 90% is not getting their value back. Plain and simple. And as long as corporations effectively own everyone through capitalism and we say
"well this is fine" it will remain that way.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gamefan5 said:


> But if you have something new in mind that is sustainable


Implying that socialism or communism or any other mode of economics isn't sustainable?
for fuck sakes dude capitalism isn't. Capitalism treats the world like we have infinite resources.
We don't. We have finite resources


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

If you don't want to work for anybody, start a business and work for yourself - banks will happily fund a good business plan, they're in the profession of burning money on upstarts. Just keep in mind that the failure rate is 90% or so, so if you're not smart, productive and diligent, this "easy life" might be too hard for you. That said, where there's risk, there's rewards. In any case, it's been a page or two of econ talk now, I hope everyone got everything out of their systems, because it's about time to get back to Biden. On-topic, fellas.


----------



## gamefan5 (Jan 21, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Then why is it that the man on the top who does so little is rewarded almost 20 times the average man?
> No person should be able to profit off the backs of thousands to that degree.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...



Because as I said before, the difference is time and the amount people earn. And that will always be unequal in some way. Even in economic backgrounds that isn’t capitalism.

And yes they can. Those are called lockouts. That costs huge money to companies.

No, I do get it. Minimum wages, believe it or not,  are a large part of the reason why homelessness is a thing, because they cannot find jobs that would make them money, as the companies would not be able to pay them, at their current level of workforce.

At the same time, if people are paid too low, they can also keep the job, reduce their spendings in some way and search for something better. That will be at the loss of the company abusing them, simply put.
And I don’t know about you, but if the amount of money isn’t adequate in some way to how much I pay, I either make a sacrifice to reduce spending, or I just don’t accept the work offering.

For everyone to have an acceptable living conditions would be great, don’t get me wrong. But it requires drastic measures that aren’t that easy to implement. Raising the minimum wage for example, would actually make things worse. Especially during this pandemic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> If you don't want to work for anybody, start a business and work for yourself - banks will happily fund a good business plan, they're in the profession of burning money on upstarts. Just keep in mind that the failure rate is 90% or so, so if you're not smart, productive and diligent, this "easy life" might be too hard for you. That said, where there's risk, there's rewards. In any case, it's been a page or two of econ talk now, I hope everyone got everything out of their systems, because it's about time to get back to Biden. On-topic, fellas.


Exactly, thank you for that.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you don't want to work for anybody, start a business and work for yourself - banks will happily fund a good business plan,


Ah yes, start a business idea. It's heavily flawed.
Would of worked back in the past. really doesn't now considering how saturated the market is, or the fact corporations have way more ad power than your little business.And  if your even remotely close in the same market and your doing well
get prepared to get bought out.
Like every other business.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you don't want to work for anybody, start a business and work for yourself - banks will happily fund a good business plan, they're in the profession of burning money on upstarts. Just keep in mind that the failure rate is 90% or so, so if you're not smart, productive and diligent, this "easy life" might be too hard for you. That said, where there's risk, there's rewards. In any case, it's been a page or two of econ talk now, I hope everyone got everything out of their systems, because it's about time to get back to Biden. On-topic, fellas.


i love that you get to say something dumb as fuck then forbid responses to your dumbfuck statement


monkeyman4412 said:


> That is not how life works.


don'tcha know, monkeyman? capitalism is an inherent part of the universe itself
why, if we were to meddle with it, we would be inviting _disaster_ upon ourselves

remarkable how things that make the rich richer are so immutable, but healthcare for all, (something that exists in every modern nation) is out of our reach
i wonder who actually controls the levers of power


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> why, if we were to meddle with it, we would be inviting _disaster_ upon ourselves


Like a orange cheez it, with a sharpy marking an arrow for the trajectory of a supposed hurricane ontop of a map that says a different trajectory?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i love that you get to say something dumb as fuck then forbid responses to your dumbfuck statement


The conversation has shifted from the subject of the thread and became circular, there's no point in continuing it. Not only that, I already said my peace a good page ago - I'm not part of the exchange anymore, nobody's responding to *me*, so you're misrepresenting the circumstances.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 21, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Like a orange cheez it, with a sharpy marking an arrow for the trajectory of a supposed hurricane ontop of a map that says a different trajectory?


that's science, man, hard _science_
can't be fuckin' with science now, y'hear


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 21, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> that's science, man, hard _science_
> can't be fuckin' with science now, y'hear


Your right......


Spoiler



may the cheeto man tell us all of his "scientific" prophecies...
_I heard that bombing hurricanes is a good solution_


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Your right......
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



It's like pissing in the wind, but on a grander scale and significantly more likely to kill people!


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 21, 2021)

In the current world, we have enough wealth and power to correct some long-standing ills of our society.

For one, we can guarantee housing to all, and decommodify the housing market, since having shelter and storage is something we all need to live safely
We are capable of doing this, if we put our minds to it. There are over half a million homeless people in the United States right now that simply do not have to be if a sweeping works project was put into place. This would employ millions of people who otherwise might not be employed- they could even be taught a trade while doing this. The economic benefits of it would be magnificent.

But... We're not doing that. Why? The usual objection: "How're you gonna pay for it?"
The United States spends trillions on its military without a way to pay for it, though. Nobody ever questions how we're gonna fund the military. These people are tacitly implying that the military is a better place to spend money than on housing and employing people, a better place than ensuring education to all who want it, or healthcare, or a universal basic wage, or infrastructure projects, etc etc.

If you are deadass gonna say to me that this cannot happen, I urge you to bring to me the immutable law of the universe that says it cannot be so. The critical physical limitation to our understanding that makes this an impossibility... Where is it?

Or is the only thing standing in the way of a better future the same mob of cancers who always stand in front of progress? The same ones who stood in the way of paid vacation, or social security, or the working weekend, or the abolishment of child labor- any meaningful change our history? The rich, the powerful, those who profit from human misery.

What are your rights, citizen? You can choose your master so you can feed yourself, and clothe yourself, and go on the internets to laugh at the may mays. You have no rights in a workplace. You do what the boss says, or you're removed! A libertarian is waiting to tell you that's your right to find new work, but that's just another master. You can make a business of your own, and still labor for your ability to eat, and then you can one day own some employees you control for your very own, and underpay them for their labor just like you used to be.

_"It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."_


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 21, 2021)

On minimum wage
One thing to remember
"The real minimum wage is zero"
Choice video



I don't see how the US is so radically different to the rest of the world. I have lived and been around workers in much of the US, the UK and Europe as well. Not seeing the fundamental difference that changes things here -- people spend the first however many years being in a school such that they can dress themselves, then from 18-21 (maybe 16-18 in some fields) for most typical setups they spend another 3 years getting some form of training to enter a real market, and if you are good at one in any of those you can probably perform elsewhere if you just read the relevant regs in the other country (cars work much the same in the UK as they do in Europe and in the US, so do bricks, water pretty sure did not flow uphill, blood types appear to be the same notion, and steel was still steel though the septics did mispronounce aluminium for some strange reason) and maybe learn a few words.
This gig economy lark, and the nature of self employment over time, would also speak to something of the US being amenable to self employment.

There is a reason I don't hire an old boy to spend a Saturday taking tickets in my car park any more, there is a reason why when faced with having to spunk out minimum wage rates I will avoid hiring anybody not as capable (sorry dude with downs that I know can wash my dishes at least, gonna need someone that can double up elsewhere when needed and rapid speed it).


and in a move that will likely spark another little flame war. I can see a case for universal basic income before I can see a case for keeping minimum wage. If anything you earn is gravy rather than expected to make do I reckon that makes for a better setup.


There is also the thing wherein one wants to look at who is plumping for the minimum wage. As a hint you do often find some nice big companies going for it and as many have said they don't do anything out of the kindness of their heart -- mcdonalds can have its overheads down low and pay $30 an hour if it has to, fairly killer for mary's burger shack in comparison.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> and in a move that will likely spark another little flame war. I can see a case for universal basic income before I can see a case for keeping minimum wage. If anything you earn is gravy rather than expected to make do I reckon that makes for a better setup.


i would agree, but universal basic income ties a lot of the country to the whims of the ruling party
every time a republican gets in, they would reduce it, or inflict penalties on it
a minimum wage plus ubi system is safer, because it makes it harder to totally destroy it


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i would agree, but universal basic income ties a lot of the country to the whims of the ruling party
> every time a republican gets in, they would reduce it, or inflict penalties on it
> a minimum wage plus ubi system is safer, because it makes it harder to totally destroy it


There we go, an interesting notion! I'm in two minds about UBI. My heart says "no", my head says that Friedman knew what he was talking about. There are certainly some advantages in the government ensuring that you don't starve - a baseline is not an insane notion. Will it increase the number of layabouts? Sure. That said, it also introduces the ability to try, fail and not destroy your life in the process. I can imagine people striving for more knowing that they're jumping over a puddle and not a pit. Something I have to dedicate more time on before I form an opinion on it. Has Biden broached the subject at any point? I fully expect him to be Obama 2.0, so I doubt it.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Discourse. Whatever. Politicos chat nonsense. That is what they do. The thing where they are lying or disingenuous when their lips are moving works just as well even they are to be the next one caught in a hotel with 5 pool boys whilst harping about about the evils of dem gays in public.


It takes a special kind of privilege to refer to political discourse about issues that directly affect people's livelihoods as "politicos chat nonsense."



FAST6191 said:


> What actions were taken, things allowed to happen, crimes against, progress slowed or things that were blocked from happening in the last 4 years that could reasonably be tied to el presidente and things he has control over? Or indeed go more local if you want and the supreme court did not wade in to say "maybe not doing that".


Buckle up, Señor Privilegio. And screw off for implying that elections don't have direct consequences for people who don't have your level of privilege.

It takes a special kind of privilege to not acknowledge how the Trump presidency affected LGBT people alone.
Defying precedent, the Trump White House did not formally recognize Pride Month, nor did the State Department.
Soon after Trump was sworn in, LGBT rights and recognition were scrubbed from government and White House websites.
Trump sought to remove questions related to LGBT people from the census, erasing them from the count.
Trump sought to remove LGBT issues from the Commerce Department's equal employment policy.
Trump banned trans people from the military.
Trump ordered the Department of Education to remove nondiscrimination protections for trans students.
Trump ordered the Department of Education to automatically reject civil rights complaints from trans students.
The Trump administration sought to retain federal funding for schools that discriminate against LGBT people.
Trump announced a proposal that would remove anti-discrimination protections for trans patients in health care.
Trump proposed a regulation that would directly enable medical professions to deny all forms any/all care to LGBT patients based solely on a provider's personal beliefs.
Trump established a new office within HHS with the sole purpose of defending physicians and medical professions who refuse care to LGBT patients.
Trump granted a federally funded foster program to discriminate against families who are LGBT (as well as anyone who is not Christian).
Trump circulated a federal government-wide regulation to erase trans people from all existing protections and acknowledgement completely.
Trump ordered the Centers for Disease Control to stop using the word "transgender" in official reports.
Trump proposed a rule to eliminate data collection on LGBT foster youth and parents, erasing all official knowledge of the needs of LGBT children.
Trump ordered questions on sexual orientation to be removed from surveys of programs that relate to the elderly and disabled.
Trump ordered HUD and Ben Carson to remove the words "inclusive" and "free from discrimination" from HUD's official mission statement.
Trump ordered HUD and Ben Carson to scale back enforcement of nondiscrimination regulations.

Trump ordered HUD and Ben Carson to permit emergency shelters to deny to access to transgender person who are homeless.
Trump ordered HUD to cancel a survey on LGBT homelessness.
Trump and the Trump Justice Department filed a brief in the U.S. Court of appeals that argued federal civil rights laws do not protect LGBT people from discrimination.
Trump and Jeff Sessions issued broad guidelines to permit individuals to discriminate against LGBT people based on personal beliefs.
Trump and Jeff Sessions specifically announced that the law doesn't disallow discrimination against trans people.

Trump defended businesses who openly discriminated against LGBT people.
Trump rolled back all protections for trans people in our prison system.
Trump issued an executive order rolling back nondiscrimination protections for LGBT federal contractors.
Trump ordered the State Department to deny visas to same-sex partners of foreign diplomats.
Trump changed the rules specifically so the child of a same-sex couple born abroad via surrogate would be considered "born out of wedlock" and would not be granted U.S. citizenship.
Trump removed the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council, largely on the basis of LGBT issues.
Trump refused to sign a statement condemning attacks on LGBT people in Chechnya because of #30.
Trump ordered the USDA to remove a department policy specifically welcoming LGBT children in the 4-H program.
Trump's nominations to the federal courts, as well as the Supreme Court, have expressed anti-LGBT views. Many have implied or overtly stated opposition to basic rights like marriage equality, and marriage equality could realistically be repealed.
Trump's ICE has specifically mistreated LGBT migrants and asylum seekers.
Trump has engaged in blatant inaction with regard to LGBT issues, including but not limited to violence against trans people.
And this list is laser focused on LGBT issues. There are many more affecting other groups.



FAST6191 said:


> You can be concerned about the plights of others, however if said plights are generally the same as everybody else and you see no great ills befalling them or injustices done against them, and deem it unlikely any kind of backsliding will happen (most rights more recently afforded tend to be done at the highest levels and on the basis of fundamental aspects of law so undoing is probably hard) then it seems like an irrelevant factor.


It takes a special kind of privilege to think your plights are "generally the same as everybody else's."


----------



## wartutor (Jan 21, 2021)

Damn biden has been in office for 1 day and everyone of his followers are saying steal from the rich and give free money to us. Typical democrats wanting "free money" that they didn't earn.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Damn biden has been in office for 1 day and everyone of his followers are saying steal from the rich and give free money to us. Typical democrats wanting "free money" that they didn't earn.


We're in the middle of a pandemic that has caused a lot of people to suffer economically, thanks largely in part to Trump. A stimulus check isn't only moral, but it's meant to also stimulate the economy, hence the name.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 21, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Damn biden has been in office for 1 day and everyone of his followers are saying steal from the rich and give free money to us. Typical democrats wanting "free money" that they didn't earn.


Let's all point and laugh at the guy who thinks Bezos "earns" thousands of dollars per minute.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We're in the middle of a pandemic that has caused a lot of people to suffer economically, thanks largely in part to Trump. A stimulus check isn't only moral, but it's meant to also stimulate the economy, hence the name.


One thing the two of us can agree on - the people deserve that money. Not only did the state force them to stay home in many instances, denying them their usual income, it's also their money in the first place.


----------



## Lumstar (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> One thing the two of us can agree on - the people deserve that money. Not only did the state force them to stay home in many instances, denying them their usual income, it's also their money in the first place.



A crucial detail to be sure. I didn't expressly vote for, or against, the shutdowns or related measures - neither option was ever presented to me. The state declared an emergency and gave orders.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Missed that comment, so I'll respond to it now. The minimum wage shouldn't be increased, it should be abolished. The government setting an acceptable minimum wage disenfranchised workers at the bottom of the hierarchy by removing their bargaining power.



The workers at the bottom of the hierarchy had no bargaining power before minimum wage, which is why it was introduces. Abolishing the minimum wage and their wages would go lower.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> One thing the two of us can agree on - the people deserve that money. Not only did the state force them to stay home in many instances, denying them their usual income, it's also their money in the first place.


Yeah, I think it's safe to say that the one time it's completely and utterly inexcusable to label receiving money from the government as "undeserved" or "stealing" is when we're in the midst of a global pandemic that's fucked over almost everyone.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> If people are underpaid, and nobody comes to work, then corporations will HAVE to pay them more.



Nope, they just find new people desperate enough.



Foxi4 said:


> Something I have to dedicate more time on before I form an opinion on it.



If your initial thought is lazy people and foreigners then I don't think you'll ever square the circle.

My situation would certainly change if we had UBI.



Plasmaster09 said:


> Yeah, I think it's safe to say that the one time it's completely and utterly inexcusable to label receiving money from the government as "undeserved" or "stealing" is when we're in the midst of a global pandemic that's fucked over almost everyone.



The thing that I'm really annoyed with in the UK is all the people who look down on those out of work and keep on pressuring welfare payments to be reduced, even for people who are too ill to work, as some kind of incentive to work. Then the pandemic hit and they are complaining they can't pay for all their high outgoings "through no fault of their own" and something must be done.

I personally would offer everyone the exact same amount that they pay to those out of work because they are disabled. If they can't live on that amount, then they should have thought about that earlier.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> largely in part


Contradiction


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Contradiction


That's not a contradiction. "Largely in part" can mean "in large part."


----------



## wartutor (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We're in the middle of a pandemic that has caused a lot of people to suffer economically, thanks largely in part to Trump. A stimulus check isn't only moral, but it's meant to also stimulate the economy, hence the name.


I wasn't talking about stimulus I was talking about all the people hear screaming steal from the rich and give to the poor but thinks for showing how much tds you suffer from.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

wartutor said:


> I wasn't talking about stimulus I was talking about all the people hear screaming steal from the rich and give to the poor but thinks for showing how much tds you suffer from.


What are you referring to specifically then?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It takes a special kind of privilege to refer to political discourse about issues that directly affect people's livelihoods as "politicos chat nonsense."
> 
> 
> Buckle up, Señor Privilegio. And screw off for implying that elections don't have direct consequences for people who don't have your level of privilege.
> ...


Struck a nerve but still not sure why.

Politicos do chat nonsense. Actions and results I care about. Trump chatted nonsense about wanting to ban violent games, clearly against free speech, but the end result was nill. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...sts-video-games-blame-mass-shootings-n1039411

Still thanks for attempting a list, was a bit light in previous discussion (and discussion around here despite people normally crying woe is me). Something to possibly chew on here.

So a meaningless statement.
Did not recognise a meaningless event.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/0...nt-mean-trump-is-trying-to-erase-lgbt-people/ would seem to be a reasonable counter in that one.
First I am hearing of the census one (they were kicking off about something else pointless when I heard about it). Nice data to have but I am not seeing the great slight or great use for what the census normally goes for/is intended for.
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/06/16/commerce-dept-leaves-out-lgbt/ seems like they brought it back, if that was the result of an outcry then that does rather bring much of the rest of this into question.
If I look into this am I going to see something similar to how various flavours of medical disability exclude people? Can't be having to drag a pack of hormones around and all that if you are on a mission.
Is this that title 9 thing? That seemed more like a simple wording change from where I sat.
That I assume is the use toilet matching identity thing. What was the end result of that one? Did anybody actually get barred and properly troubled.
Seems like much ado about nothing https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/...lthcare-conscience-rule-blocked-civil-rights/ The system works?

Can't find the defence of the no gays please medic office thing. Most of the rest appear to have stories but this one eluded me.

https://www.hrc.org/news/hhs-decision-allows-discrimination-against-jewish-lgbtq-and-other-families . Far from ideal in that one. One to actually contemplate here and possibly more than just bluster. Got a case (different one to that) up on the supreme court as we speak so guess it is time to await the results there https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia/

I do have to wonder whether this is actual legal changes vs clearly established precedent here.
https://time.com/5068160/cdc-banned-words-transgender/ seems to refute that one. Might have to go looking for final reports, leaked emails or whatever else.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...ng-data-collection-lgbtq-foster-youth-n996066 . Six of one, half a dozen of another there. I do like data in things but there are times when it can become a burden.
If the programs are for the elderly and disabled does it really matter?
If so then some pointless buzzwords are gone. Whoo.
https://archive.curbed.com/2020/8/17/21372168/ben-carson-hud-housing-trump

Whether he ordered or not seems up for debate, though https://www.washingtonblade.com/202...up-on-anti-transgender-homeless-shelter-rule/
The conforming to their identity in segregated shelters is a tricky thing from where I sit. There are merits for and against. Hope those that need it can get it though.

OK. Is a specific survey a necessary item?
The system works? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-lgbt-rights-discrimination-rules-title-vii/ 
https://www.advocate.com/transgende...-will-not-protect-trans-people-workplace-bias

Going to want examples of that one.
The prisons thing is a question without easy answers from where I sit.
Do they need special consideration over baseline laws already there and well established?
Actual equality vs pragmatism. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...gn-diplomats-unmarried-deported-a8564451.html . Fun one there. Something to contemplate at least.
[*]Trump changed the rules specifically so the child of a same-sex couple born abroad via surrogate would be considered "born out of wedlock" and would not be granted U.S. citizenship.
It left, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...aves-trump-withdraw-nikki-haley-a8407151.html , though whether the basis was LGBT issues or general isolationism is a different matter.
Silence could be refusal I guess, especially if pointed, and if the rest of these were evidence it would speak to somewhat poor optics.
So another pointless buzzword was removed and they are still welcome to join? Whoo.
Gay marriage realistically be repealed? Pull the other one.
Went looking and found https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/09/...nt-trans-hiv-healthcare-mental-health-deaths/ . Seems to be generally ICE being ill funded and equipped. Excuse for reforming ICE but part of a greater pattern is a hard one.
An unqualified statement without any examples.


Anyway can well see him being no friend or great champion of the gay alphabet soup set (or at least the trans* element of that). As far as net results that the man on the street (even if some flavour of minority) needing to pay attention to them over otherwise living their life and leaving politics to an amusing hobby... Still not really seeing it. If you want to do the "woe is us, give us money to do activism, have some rage bait" set then seems like they do a nice line in ensuring their existence as do most rage bait authors regardless of political stripe. Somewhat amusingly though some of that might be quite happily fixed if more got off their arses and did some things in the world -- if some random Christian charity is the only one providing services at the levels required...


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What are you referring to specifically then?


Nothing, because he's grasping at straws trying to pull some random excuse out of his ass to blame everything on Democrats.
You can tell a guy's gone too far by the time he actually, _seriously_ uses TDS/"Trump Derangement Syndrome" as a term to describe someone that doesn't absolutely suck the socioeconomic dick of God-Emperor Donald.
*shrug*


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> As far as net results that the man on the street (even if some flavour of minority) needing to pay attention to them over otherwise living their life and leaving politics to an amusing hobby... Still not really seeing it.


I wouldn't expect the aforementioned privilege to allow you to see it, even when it's laid out in front of you.



FAST6191 said:


> If you want to do the "woe is us


You apparently missed my point entirely. If you want to continue this conversation, please summarize my point, whether or not you agree with it, in a sentence or two.


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2021)

smf said:


> Probably, things will either work out for the best or if they won't then it's unlikely you have the ability to do anything about it.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't trust those who fight to hold onto the past.


Then I listen to the people that supposedly 'design whats coming next' - and they have no flipping clue either. So far, they put people into Uber like work contracts, which payed them below living wage, even when hustling (for not hustling enough I guess), and then they acted surprised - that people in the US started rebelling.

Now they are babbling on about shared responsibility between the government, unions, and private industry - want to raise the education budget at corp a little and basically call it a day. The rest is all AI, mashine learning and blockchain (and other useless buzzwords), acknowledging, that we'll loose at least 10% of jobs permanently in the near term - and then licking lipps over unbanked people, and profits in the STEM sector, while for the rest at least they can do a service job. Pampering boomers, very high on the list, because they still can pay - without this needing any 'higher economics' at all.

Basically, the more I hear, the more I hate. And - at least I can write about it.




Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Why the fuck is Buttigieg Secretary of Transport? There doesn't really seem like much of a reason to choose him, other than the fact that he adds diversity to the Cabinet (which still isn't very good reasoning).
> 
> Oh well, at least it wasn't Rahm Emanuel.


See:

https://gbatemp.net/threads/so-amer...-at-specific-spots.559323/page-4#post-9264218


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I wouldn't expect the aforementioned privilege to allow you to see it, even when it's laid out in front of you.
> 
> 
> You apparently missed my point entirely. If you want to continue this conversation, please summarize my point, whether or not you agree with it, in a sentence or two.



I find most discussions of privilege to be variations on the emperor's new clothes or contest of purity. No different than various good boy points various religions sold throughout history.
While I would dismiss the notion of privilege entirely it is clear you at least believe in it, and as such why would you assume I have (or lack as the case may be) such things?

I am not sure that you missed your point.
I said in the US generally if life is hard as a minority it is because you are poor, not because you are a minority. As such ignore politics and improve yourself instead.
You apparently took umbrage at such a statement and reckoned that being a minority meant one eye on the sky, knowledge of exits to the room and hand on a weapon at all times should someone of a given political tie colour be in office. The corollary to that being if you lucked out at birth (or nurture after that) and wound up with few enough points in minority debuffs (granted I have probably just hate crimed calling it lucky to not be a minority and calling such things a debuff rather than a glorious gift, oh well) then even if not keeping an eye on the sky is insensitive or might leave you intellectually wanting (much akin to a claim of being unable to use a computer, drive a car or having ever read a book might be) then the results of a lack of said debuffs meant general immunity to the ebbs and flows of the political aether.

Hopefully that suffices as a summary of the point, continuing on as to what transpired next.

If fighting the injustices of the US is something to do then I would sooner go after poverty than imagining bigots under every rock and in every position of power ready to keep people down. However if there was some evidence that it mattered what politico was in office in a substantial way as effects daily life and future plans then list em up.
You provided what you reckoned to a suitable list, at least for the gay alphabet soup mob side of things. One that would showcase in myriad ways how the previous administration generally made life as a minority generally so much worse such that you needed to keep a pulse on the minutia of politics, and maybe why now it has changed for the other largely identical set in most other ways I can tell that life is going to be better but for the random murderers that are out there preying upon such people in disproportionately high numbers (can never win I guess). Few links or proper citations but I am OK with searching and I did say list was suitable.
At the end of it all after whittling out the non statements of specific events and non events (some words that are basically a reassuring platitude and demonstrably handily covered by other laws was removed, the horror) then I was left with some questions that don't have easy answers (prisons and shelters), some evidence of general failings of government agencies (ICE have generally been a failure for a long time, though I would go more for reform with the same mission than let everybody run free), and in what was the worst of all some sub par adoption agencies in the deep south (shocker I am sure for anybody that follows US history/general political arrangements, though far from ideal even if I would far sooner go after the religious angle) and a pending US national supreme court case for a related matter that will likely decide the result before long (arguments having already been heard, unknown when rulings will land, questions asked not really indicating which way the wind blows though I am sure you will want to tell me that the supreme court is loaded with bad people if that list was anything to go by, even if they and other high courts routine smack down efforts noted in said list as well that might have fallen foul of such things).
If that was the worst the apparently super ultra awful, basically dictator as some would have me understand it, and an axe to grind as you would have me understand it, could do in four years with the added bonus of being able to pack a court with hand picked underlings by virtue of appointments there being until death in most cases, and the end results in terms of general outcomes is what it is then yeah ambivalence about politics is a policy, or a privilege I would suggest exists if you prefer, that the average man on the street, whether they managed to be imbued with some flavour of minority or not, could happily adopt.

He seemed like a standard corporate raider business wonk politico, did little to further consumer rights, reform intellectual property law, healthcare generally stagnant, generally ignored the military and somewhat failed to end the wars going on, failed to reform the economy in any meaningful way other than a minor temporary boost that might well have happened anyway (long term planning not being the strength of the politico as they are kind of required to care most about the next election and it is noted the general public has the memory of a goldfish), though at the same time I am back to my initial point that they have very little power and are being pulled in a hundred different directions by interests with mutually exclusive goals. New guy will be much the same, albeit with a longer career being a politico before now, for so was the one before that and the one before that and the one before that. If any tidal shifts happen in politics (not sure I have really witnessed any, witnessed several power grabs though) it is usually the result of others than politicos, even if they will love to take credit for it (prove it was not my policies and all that).


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 22, 2021)

> Breaking: Thousands of National Guardsmen have been forced to vacate congressional grounds and are now sleeping outside and in parking garages with no heat and 1 bathroom. “We feel incredibly betrayed”: Thousands of Guardsmen forced to vacate Capitol



It just not a good day for Biden voters first he bans Fracking now he does this to his standing army


----------



## Lacius (Jan 22, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> While I would dismiss the notion of privilege entirely


It takes a certain kind of privilege to entirely dismiss the notion of privilege.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 22, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> I find most discussions of privilege to be variations on the emperor's new clothes or contest of purity. No different than various good boy points various religions sold throughout history.
> While I would dismiss the notion of privilege entirely it is clear you at least believe in it, and as such why would you assume I have (or lack as the case may be) such things?
> 
> I am not sure that you missed your point.
> ...


firstly, this manages to be the exact opposite of grammar and spelling so poor it gives me a stroke- phrasing and terminology so self-interested and faux-eloquent it gives me a migraine
secondly, life _is_ harder for minorities in the US
asking people whose lives are made harder mostly by people of a specific political leaning and those of said leaning that refuse to fix the issue to "ignore politics and improve themselves" is the socio-political equivalent of a certain argument I'd rather not mention but which is easily proven flawed with with "Why do you have asthma? There's so much air around you!".
thirdly, for someone claiming privilege isn't a thing, you sure do seem to _breathe_ the fucking stuff with the sheer level of "posh upper-class superiority complex" emanating from this
check your privilege, dude


----------



## Xzi (Jan 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> It just not a good day for Biden voters first he bans Fracking


He did?  That's fucking awesome!  I thought he said he was against a fracking ban during the debates.



Valwinz said:


> now he does this to his standing army


Their purpose was never to become a "standing army," you must be dumb as a bag of rocks if you truly believe that.  They were there to safeguard the inauguration and that's it.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> He did?  That's fucking awesome!  I thought he said he was against a fracking ban during the debates.


he hasn't (though he did do other environmental stuff like stopping the Keystone XL project), and his position on outright banning it has been a bit fuzzy (iirc he wants to transition away from it but not just flat-ban it instantly)
but all the trumptrolls are just exaggerating this tenfold as well as just lying about what he's said, saying and is doing in order to spout nonsense and make him look like a liar


----------



## Lacius (Jan 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> He did?  That's fucking awesome!  I thought he said he was against a fracking ban during the debates.
> 
> 
> Their purpose was never to become a "standing army," you must be dumb as a bag of rocks if you truly believe that.  They were there to safeguard the inauguration and that's it.


Unsurprisingly, Biden merely denied permits for new fracking on federal land, like he always said he would, and a conservative site exaggerated and lied about it. Personally, I wish Biden had banned fracking.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Unsurprisingly, Biden merely denied permits for new fracking on federal land, like he always said he would, and a conservative site exaggerated and lied about it. Personally, I wish Biden had banned fracking.


that site and its echoers can go frack themselves
*rimshot*


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 22, 2021)

Articles of Impeachment have been filed against President Biden
Not a good day for BIden


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Articles of Impeachment have been filed against President Biden
> Not a good day for BIden


good thing said articles are completely devoid of legitimate reasoning (they boil down to "he abused his power when he was VICE president, and by abused his power I mean he literally just let his son have a job in a different country entirely that had nothing to do with his position as VP") and nobody with more than two brain cells is going to approve of it right after Trump fucked over basically everyone in both parties


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It takes a certain kind of privilege to entirely dismiss the notion of privilege.


God exists because the bible says so? Fantastic.

If I look out into the world I see plenty making it, economics saying "good people are hard to find, if you are stupid enough to dismiss them because they like to fumble matching genitals/[insert rest of list] then you deserve to have your competitors overtake you", and the general moral sense of it (a difference from some decades ago), few able to enact schemes based on what an old book says when it wanted more followers and the best way to get those is to breed them, and so forth.

There are plenty that have head starts in life. Stable families, nice communities, familial wealth, choice geography, luck of genetics, born in a time when technology changes some stuff... all good stuff on that front. Doesn't seem denied to minorities though. Frequently hard to obtain for the impoverished. Might be that some minorities are disproportionately (to simple population totals anyway, which is a rather simplistic metric) troubled in one or more of those, however attributing the reasoning for that to modern bigotries of the government and the world at large that is self interested in not allowing them to get places is a rather harder ask. Magically curing bigotry tomorrow (again I would put that at remarkably low levels as a general concept but can go with imagining it being ridiculously high for this) would not see things fixed in short order after that, curing poverty on the other hand would see far greater results in a far shorter period of time (and taking out magic for far less effort).

As far as something to be ashamed or or treated as some kind of original sin equivalent. Yeah not onboard with that.

Equally were I to assume [insert combination of non minority traits] wandering in front of me had it easy because of said traits then I have knocked about in too many places dealing with picking up the pieces when the giant arsehole of fate decides to shit upon them from on high to assume they are somehow immune, or at least is so vanishingly rare as to be a true minority in and of itself.

To go one further and be told I have to ensure minorities are picked over others, which is something I have seen out in the world (and done from on high)... now that seems like real bigotry to me. Fortunately most people still seem stuck on judging those on content of character and the "if you are stupid enough to dismiss the rare and hard to come by good person" thing from earlier.


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Articles of Impeachment have been filed against President Biden
> Not a good day for BIden


First: Start to post sources, or stop posting.

Second:


> Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene files articles of impeachment against Joe Biden
> 
> Lawmaker’s stunt destined to go nowhere with Democratic controlled House and Senate
> 
> src: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...impeachment-taylor-greene-qanon-b1790965.html



Third: This is all a fight to win over the allegiance of the superdumbnuts - that can say Trump, because thats the sound they always make when, ... So basically 'act like you very much with the people that believed in what the idiot was saying - gain their voter base', coast through your next election.

If you are an Evertrumper and havent understood, that nothing you 'learned' or 'held true' in the past three years will even be a thing from now on - it was over, a week from electionday, when republicans decided to humor the president for his voting base - which then didnt deliver Georgia to them, so after that Trump was of no use to anyone.

So this time - that impeachment attempt will be picked up NEITHER by dems, or by reps.

And as I tried to tell the very young people in this forum from the start - much of the impeachment proceedings are about PR anyhow - the moment you consider, that members of congress get 'whipped' (political term) - to rally their votes behind the parties perspective. And as impeachment needs a 2/3 majority, this means - never gonna happen unless nearly both parties want it to.

So in a sense - even that you learned the word impeachment is useless - for a while. Because you just learned it as 'if you say it - the other person has done a bubu', and that means - you probably shouldnt try to tell other people hof to feel about stuff.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 22, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> God exists because the bible says so? Fantastic.
> 
> If I look out into the world I see plenty making it, economics saying "good people are hard to find, if you are stupid enough to dismiss them because they like to fumble matching genitals/[insert rest of list] then you deserve to have your competitors overtake you", and the general moral sense of it (a difference from some decades ago), few able to enact schemes based on what an old book says when it wanted more followers and the best way to get those is to breed them, and so forth.
> 
> ...


what the
dude
you have no idea what you're talking about
first off, this has absolutely jack shit to do with religion and you're equating two entirely unrelated topics as an excuse to use bullshit to fight non-bullshit
second off, the problem with discrimination is that *people are discriminatory towards each other and often make things worse in ways that anti-discrimination laws could mitigate or in some way help to prevent*
third off, we're not telling you to pick minorities over others- that's a really shitty strawman I see a lot, and it's easy to dismiss with a simple analogy
a kid and his family just finished dinner, and the dad gives everyone a slice of pie except said kid
he goes, "I want a slice (like everyone else). Can't I have one too?"
the dad, instead of doing the reasonable thing and giving the kid a fucking slice, goes "We all want a slice.", ignoring the fact that everyone else *has one already* and that the kid was NOT saying "I want the ONLY slice" or "I want the entire pie"
there, now please actually check your damn privilege


----------



## tabzer (Jan 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> what the
> dude
> you have no idea what you're talking about
> first off, this has absolutely jack shit to do with religion and you're equating two entirely unrelated topics as an excuse to use bullshit to fight non-bullshit



You don't understand what he's talking about.  The opening line he made about God shows the same kind of ignorance of the quote he was replying to.  Some people follow their party line and its narratives so religiously.  "Privilege" is being used in a dumb way and reduces the human individual.  Being able to "wah wah" on the internet is a privilege, now pay up.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> what the
> dude
> you have no idea what you're talking about
> first off, this has absolutely jack shit to do with religion and you're equating two entirely unrelated topics as an excuse to use bullshit to fight non-bullshit
> ...



Checked it. It is an imaginary concept, even by the standards of philosophical concepts, that does not exist so no concern for me.

As for the bible thing.
As far as I see it "you have to have privilege to have the privilege of not seeing privilege" is exactly analogous to when someone tells me God must be real because the bible says so. I do find certain religious zeal and propensities in logic choice in those that tell me of the gospel of diversity and how the minorities made it to the promised land of this place, only to find it is a lie and we need to fix it but that is mostly just amusing to me.

Discrimination does exist, would appear to even have some biological roots in some cases. Don't see it existing at the level of movers and shakers in society, the structures by which society functions (which usually serve to limit the ambitions of the former) nor at such a level in the general populace that it is anything more than a terrifically mild annoyance, even to those that would theoretically be most aggrieved by it. Did exist many many years ago, though still within living memory for a few more decades at least, but today it is more "aw that is quaint".

Pick minorities over pure merit? That was an addendum to an earlier thing really but will go it anyway.
So there is not a law in California (where there are some nice companies) saying must pick because genitals
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-board-women-idUSKCN1MB172
or minorities in general
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/30/success/board-diversity-california-law/index.html
Not a hiring and firing factor seen in any number of things, leaked and overt. Also in higher education (and the nice inverse when oriental types were being held to a higher standard, surprisingly that was not in the deep south either).
I did not witness a nice high level politico when they were attempting to take that facebook dickhead to task (all doing spectacularly poorly at that, another reason why would advocate dismissing politicos as largely harmless buffoons) to "commit to having black members on your board" and them then kowtowing to it https://gizmodo.com/as-punishment-facebook-commits-to-hiring-one-1-black-1819420237
Mostly seems like shooting yourself in the foot, and again if you dismiss someone of skill because of pointless reasons then don't be surprised when a competitor picks them up and runs with them, but I will note it as a thing that is out there and standing in stark contrast to sticking purely with merit and content of character.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 22, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Damn biden has been in office for 1 day and everyone of his followers are saying steal from the rich and give free money to us. Typical democrats wanting "free money" that they didn't earn.


Got any quotes or anything to this? What are you on about?


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 22, 2021)

> “For the last week my battalion has been sleeping on the floor in the Senate cafeteria. Today the Senate kicked us out & moved us to a cold parking garage. 5000 soldiers. 1 power outlet. One bathroom. This is how Joe Biden’s America treats solders.”



Biden America amazing start  those midterms are going to be amazing


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 22, 2021)

... I'm growing in confidence that this Thread will make it to Thanksgiving 2021.


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2021)

> “For the last week my battalion has been sleeping on the floor in the Senate cafeteria. Today the Senate kicked us out & moved us to a cold parking garage. 5000 soldiers. 1 power outlet. One bathroom. This is how Joe Biden’s America treats solders.”





Valwinz said:


> Biden America amazing start  those midterms are going to be amazing



As the second twitter comment you swiped this from, without giving the source stated:

Biden has nothing to do with it.

Also - why had those soldiers be there in the first place?



More inciteful, hateful non sequitors, aimed at riling up the stupid:
https://trendingpolitics.com/biden-...m=rss&utm_campaign=biden-admin-betrays-troops

(If in the middle of an article you suddenly turn left and go with - do you remember, thatn Biden called the troups stupid bastards? Then end the article.)

If you read crap like that  - then you become crap like that.
-

Overarching issue is, that washington isnt exactly build like a tourist resort. So the space close to the capitol is bought up by lobbying firms, to have faster access, so there likely are no hotels or youth hostels you could host the military at in close proximity.

Also - "we couldnt even charge our cellphones" - is a hard complaint to make, when you are on deployment. ("There was only one electrical outlet between the trees, ...")

That said, someone probably could have organized that part better.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 22, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> God exists because the bible says so? Fantastic.


It's not circular to acknowledge that it requires privilege to dismiss the notion of privilege. That's embarrassingly absurd.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not circular to acknowledge that it requires privilege to dismiss the notion of privilege. That's embarrassingly absurd.


yeah this is less circular religious bullshit and more "you never know how good you had it until you stop having it that good"


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not circular to acknowledge that it requires privilege to dismiss the notion of privilege. That's embarrassingly absurd.


I was going less circular and more unsubstantiated claim backed by self interest on self made claims.

More generally I have seen fate shit on people from a high height, and seen it grant boons to what you might consider the lowliest of people. If [insert list of "desirable" traits] is a shield it is as a layer of tissue paper is to a speeding bullet. Going further then to assume [insert list of "desirable" traits] has led an easy life because [insert list of "desirable" traits] is what is actually embarrassingly absurd, functionally akin to assuming someone of [insert "non dominant" skin tone] is of poor character with no other information.

Are there those that have never known hardship, or been in very real, never mind persistent, danger of failing to achieve even the bottom rungs of maslow's heirachy, and likely never will? The comprehension of those to turn imagine the plight of those with troubled bottom rungs being almost as an ant contemplating quantum computing?
But of course. Some of them even want to tell me about privilege.
To tie such a scenario exclusively to [insert list of "desirable" traits], as a trait enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of said class or as forever (or maybe just statistically improbably) beyond the grasp of those with at least a few points in minority traits enough to have an oppression rating... once more we find ourselves in the realm of the absurd, at least as far as the US is concerned.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 22, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> I was going less circular and more unsubstantiated claim backed by self interest on self made claims.
> 
> More generally I have seen fate shit on people from a high height, and seen it grant boons to what you might consider the lowliest of people. If [insert list of "desirable" traits] is a shield it is as a layer of tissue paper is to a speeding bullet. Going further then to assume [insert list of "desirable" traits] has led an easy life because [insert list of "desirable" traits] is what is actually embarrassingly absurd, functionally akin to assuming someone of [insert "non dominant" skin tone] is of poor character with no other information.
> 
> ...


You seem to be suggesting that the concept of privilege is that a person with privilege has an easy life. That's not what privilege is, and nobody is suggesting that people with privilege don't work hard or have hardships. You should probably learn what privilege is before you talk about what is or isn't absurd.

In other words, it takes a certain kind of privilege to discuss something with authority without first understanding what that thing is.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 22, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Got any quotes or anything to this? What are you on about?


Am I the only fucking one that read the 2 pages before my post when everyone was talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor hear good fucking god



Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, before we can even RISK abolishing minimum wage we need to fix most if not all of the other flavors of economic horsecrap that our nation is full of
> even *if* it would work, it wouldn't work _yet_
> also just because we want to emulate how those countries handle some things doesn't mean we want to do that
> also also, in what way, shape or form are all these ideas any better than just _*doing various things to outright take money from the rich and provide it to the poor?*_ like even if all of this nonsense works as well as you claim, and IF it'd work as well for the US as you claim it would (which is extraordinarily unlikely since we're fucked up in many other ways), it'd probably be better to just do the basic "governmental Robin Hood" method because you don't have to rely on people or corporations doing things that are far too altruistic to ever expect them to actually do





Plasmaster09 said:


> what mask tho
> take from rich
> give to poor
> that's it
> ...





monkeyman4412 said:


> Are you mad?!
> Removing the minimum wage would literately make American lives complete ass.  Companies have time and time again proven that we cannot trust them. Remember when children worked in factories and there wasn't a minimum wage and non humane work hours?
> Yeah people's lives were completely miserable.
> Allowing companies to decide to pay someone anything/no floor. Would mean we could return to a situation like that. And instead of one job running through loops. People have to go sustain off of multiple. It's in humane. People aren't supposed to work that way.
> People aren't even supposed to work 8 hours a day. It's an arbitrary number that was chosen. Many studies have shown our productivity drops off by the 4th hour of work in a day.





Plasmaster09 said:


> "Burning it in clerical inefficiency so a small fraction gets to the needy"? The idea would be to fix that by making sure that _*far more is given to said needy!*_
> If I was in a room with three people, I had millions while they had none, and they needed some of my money to survive, I'd gladly give them more than enough! And thing is, it's not three- it's millions, and I look at the many trying to take desperately needed _*surplus*_ from the few as anything but theft.
> 
> 
> ...





monkeyman4412 said:


> I have a term for what you stated here
> it's called bullshit.
> If anything, it's the rich, yes, the rich stealing from the poor.
> How?
> ...





Plasmaster09 said:


> >calls the idea of taxing the shit out of the rich in order to end or at least dramatically decrease poverty "theft"
> >advocates for abolishing minimum wage
> >actually trusts giant greedy corporations to use basically complete economic control for _the good of the consumer_
> gotta love libertarianism (which has gone from "what anarchism actually is basically" to "far-right plutocracy enthusiasm"), advocating for the economic, social and personal rights... of the uber-rich elite *that already have all those rights due to having too much fucking money*
> ...



Then just keep reading


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 22, 2021)

Everyone must work for their needs (don't mind the people that don't have to) and as long as we keep the immigrants out, will will have enough jobs for everyone!

Not sure how people going deal with automation when it hits full force in the future.



Lacius said:


> Personally, I wish Biden had banned fracking.


As much as this should have happen sooner, making sure there is enough jobs (especially green jobs) to replace them is fair.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You seem to be suggesting that the concept of privilege is that a person with privilege has an easy life. That's not what privilege is, and nobody is suggesting that people with privilege don't work hard or have hardships. You should probably learn what privilege is before you talk about what is or isn't absurd.
> 
> In other words, it takes a certain kind of privilege to discuss something with authority without first understanding what that thing is.


I don't know if that is quite god works in mysterious ways. Dangerously close though.

But no I was not suggesting that. Possibly an extreme example of the notion.

If I must state an understanding.

Privilege, as it pertains to notions of some operating in the "concern for minorities" space, is the idea that though overt or unconscious bigotry that those not "suffering" from minority traits will be granted boons and nicer paths by others in the world (which being majority makes a bit of a nice feedback loop), such that collectively they might enjoy an increased standard of life, and maybe not even be aware of the boons and desirable paths afforded them and the plight of those that do indeed "suffer" minority traits. Indeed it may even be a conscious effort to account for those boons (be it having them or not).

Could it have existed at one point in time in the US? Oh yeah. Probably still exists in some seriously localised areas of the world and places people would rather not live (which probably have their own unique confluence, though more on that shortly). As it stands in the US today? Lost in the noise and the baseline variables that make up any such concept are anything but sex, race, preference in genital touching or whether biology saw fit to gift them with the genitals their head reckons is good stuff. Further to that generally obviated by random chance and other boons than the supposed negatives of minority status. Poverty and ability to achieve a worthwhile education without particular distraction by other things probably being two good candidates in that one.

Perceived or imagined possession or lack of such a thing might colour the actions of some, see also "god is always watching" (though "the bigots are out to get me" might be the one here) and "say a little prayer before doing this action". Whether it is a useful concept to adopt for yourself is a different matter, could be a useful one to study from an anthropological perspective though.


----------



## notimp (Jan 22, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> As much as this should have happen sooner, making sure there is enough jobs (especially green jobs) to replace them is fair.


Wrong and wrong.

So while in terms of numbers you are probably correct.

There are two issues. Green jobs are about high industry, innovation, and bumblef*ck sales people convincing people that they want a windmill in their backyard, or say nothing to overland electrical lines being stumped through their yards - without them seeing any yield for energy being shiped cross borders ('smartgrids'). So those people who lost fracking jobs - arent necessarily the ones for those jobs. Even after you reskill them. The salesman, that has to sell to their former friends that coals is bad, so now they'd have to get into the other stuff, that was a former coal worker -- eh, lets say produces internal conflicts.

Further more - green jobs ultimately are disruptive - essentially to how oil was transported and then refined, and then refined again, and then used for byproducts, and then also was the greatest energy storage medium we know (energy density), and mobile (you could easily ship gas around), and extremely cheap, even shipped in from the middle east --

this means, that with green energy replacing that - you simple have about a third less 'profit' available to everyone who is dealing in that stuff (even if solar is the cheapest form of energy production around (but we arent only looking at energy production)).

And this comes in addition to - transition having to be pushed in rather fast, so at first you hike up efficiency gain (cut out companies wasting energy) before you hike up CO2 prices (or energy prices, or something that can act as a market signal), which you make sure arent impacting the poorest people in society (other wise rebellion), but which also means, that Industry now has to invest very big into innovation. So there is less 'slack' to hand around.

Which means, if you are a business men in green tech, as in the average one, its a much much worse market than fracking.

It will also produce less jobs.

Less manufacturing.

Less labor.

...

In germany currently its sold as "we are a high industry export lead economy" so we produce that stuff, and then send it out to the rest of the world. If everyone is thinking that way - stuff is not going to pan out.

Also - wind industry is better in that sense for more people, because for high industry manufacturing you need component suppliers, and steel and ...

Solar? Forget it. Installers either cut in on the import price margin, or hope that they are overbooked as they are ahead of a trend, but in terms of qulification, or 'money to go around'.... Nothing, compared to fracking.

That said, green transition has to be phased in, just dont lie to people, and tell them its the next job wonder. No - it will cost jobs. Well paying jobs. For quite a while.


edit: Roughly:
https://www.ogv.energy/news-item/can-renewables-become-as-profitable-as-oil-and-gas

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/wind-and-solar-profits-the-battle
(Articles contain spin - but are not outrageously misleading.)


edit2: Long term impact of green transition as forcast by the Economic and social development report in the EU - is "neutral or slightly positive" - long term.

https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=21417&langId=en

Depending on carbon pricing - and lets say it outright 25 USD is a joke -

in net change would cost jobs until around 2040:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z20oR5APgWIJ:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/would-a-green-new-deal-add-or-kill-jobs1/+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk


Most newly created jobs would be in the service sector, so less well paying - or as part of the transitioning efforts - so once once the infrastructure is in place...


edit:

Best one (easiest to parse) yet:
https://www.epi.org/blog/how-to-thi...some-others-and-increase-job-quality-overall/


----------



## Joom (Jan 22, 2021)

wartutor said:


> showing how much tds you suffer from.


Anyone that unironically uses "TDS" has TDS and/or is some boomer Facebook memer who is just now using "TDS" a few years after it was coined to describe Trump's fart sniffing cult. So, good job on staying ahead of the curb. You sure are "stickin' it to the libs" lol. Your grandchildren must hate you or something, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing politics on a forum for video games.

By the way, the baseless far right is attempting to impeach Biden right off the bat. It's being spearheaded by the Qanon weirdo who was somehow allowed into congress (y'know, the one who kept giving status updates to rioters during the capitol insurrection). I wish I could say this is just sad, but it's become so sad that it's circled back around to hilarious.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 22, 2021)

Well, I was already skeptical that enough jobs (especially well paying jobs) would continuously get replace despite automation becoming more widespread. Guess that goes back to changing how basic needs get met for people.


----------



## Joom (Jan 22, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Well, I was already skeptical that enough jobs (especially well paying jobs) would continuously get replace despite automation becoming more widespread. Guess that goes back to changing how basic needs get met for people.


It's almost like 80s and 90s sci-fi was right about our robot overlords.  Oh well. There are many facets automation and AI are incredibly far off from replacing.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 22, 2021)

Joom said:


> It's almost like 80s and 90s sci-fi was right about our robot overlords.  Oh well. There are many facets automation and AI are incredibly far off from replacing.


The question is, how long do we got before there simply isn't enough facets to go around?


----------



## Joom (Jan 22, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> The question is, how long do we got before there simply isn't enough facets to go around?


I really can't see AI taking over farming or non-descriminatory service jobs any time soon. And what I mean by the latter is that we're very far off from AI determining what is and isn't bank fraud, for example. AI is already being used for this, and it's failing hardcore. Just Google "California EDD fraud" and have fun. Of course, these are just a couple of examples, but until we get on with biotech that can be coupled with AI, we've got a long way to go. Sucks for all the McDonald's burger flippers who are being replaced by some kiosk, but we're also starting to reach "survival of the fittest" territory due to the advancement of technology. Social Darwinism is back, baby. :}


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 22, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> The question is, how long do we got before there simply isn't enough facets to go around?


That was the argument in the 18-19th century when mechanisation displaced large swathes of farmers, so they started burning tractors. Turns out it was a good thing - we've adapted and now produce more food than ever, more than we can eat, in fact. Maybe we should deal with that hurdle once we actually get to it.


----------



## RichardTheKing (Jan 22, 2021)

Get rid of Progressive tyranny, for one - protect Conservatives in universities, schools, and the media. Also remove "critical race theory", which is bullshit. Oh, and make it so online accusations (especially anonymous ones) cannot destroy a person's reputation, career, relationships, and life, no matter what the accusation's about - instead, make the would-be accuser go to the police instead for a proper investigation, arrest, and trial.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 22, 2021)

RichardTheKing said:


> protect Conservatives in universities, schools, and the media



why?



RichardTheKing said:


> Also remove "critical race theory", which is bullshit



Also why?


----------



## wartutor (Jan 22, 2021)

Joom said:


> Anyone that unironically uses "TDS" has TDS and/or is some boomer Facebook memer who is just now using "TDS" a few years after it was coined to describe Trump's fart sniffing cult. So, good job on staying ahead of the curb. You sure are "stickin' it to the libs" lol. Your grandchildren must hate you or something, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing politics on a forum for video games.
> 
> By the way, the baseless far right is attempting to impeach Biden right off the bat. It's being spearheaded by the Qanon weirdo who was somehow allowed into congress (y'know, the one who kept giving status updates to rioters during the capitol insurrection). I wish I could say this is just sad, but it's become so sad that it's circled back around to hilarious.


Lol I'm not stupid enough to have any dumb ass kids (would have to kill them for turning out as fuckin stupid as this God damn generation) but good try dip shit. BTW your ass is arguing politics on the same damn forum dumb ass. As far as impeaching him good they need to, misusing your power is grounds for impeachment and he fucking did. These higher up fucks need to pay for their crimes just like you damn liberals say Trump needs to pay for his.


----------



## RichardTheKing (Jan 22, 2021)

Sicklyboy said:


> why?


https://ussanews.com/News1/2021/01/...of-conservatives-were-going-to-be-aggressive/
This, for example. Conservatives are being censored on social media, for no reason other than them not being Progressive.

https://threader.app/thread/1290479330477240320
Also, this. Woke university professors are not interested in truth whatsoever, and deconstruct ideas to be able to add racism into it.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ism-is-rampant-on-campus-and-ruining-academia
And liberal professors dominate universities, with alarmingly few conservative counterparts to offer a differing opinion.



Sicklyboy said:


> Also why?


https://threader.app/thread/1302913020280975360
CRT is inherently cynical and pessimistic, claiming 'everything is racist', that white people cannot help other races just because it's a good thing to do, but because they'll get some benefit from it, and there will never be an end to racism. That's inherently incorrect, yet so many people believe in this trash. Worse, believers like to use emotional manipulation to sway people to their side, even though they don't use truth at all.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 22, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Lol I'm not stupid enough to have any dumb ass kids (would have to kill them for turning out as fuckin stupid as this God damn generation) but good try dip shit. BTW your ass is arguing politics on the same damn forum dumb ass. As far as impeaching him good they need to, misusing your power is grounds for impeachment and he fucking did. These higher up fucks need to pay for their crimes just like you damn liberals say Trump needs to pay for his.


That touched a nerve didn't it


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 22, 2021)

... Apparently the Draft of a Comment I didn't think was worth Posting is stuck, for several hours now.
So rather than Post that, here is the dire risk Gamification poses on the new Government.



But seriously, never trust anyone who offers Confidentiality and Crabs.


----------



## smf (Jan 22, 2021)

notimp said:


> Then I listen to the people that supposedly 'design whats coming next' - and they have no flipping clue either.



Nobody has a clue, everyone is trying to make the most money but not everyone is equipped to be able to protect themselves.

It's kinda interesting in the states how all these angry people don't want to look after anyone else, but they want their way of life looked after.

It's all a distraction, we'll end up living like star trek eventually anyway.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 22, 2021)

Joom said:


> I really can't see AI taking over farming or non-descriminatory service jobs any time soon. And what I mean by the latter is that we're very far off from AI determining what is and isn't bank fraud, for example. AI is already being used for this, and it's failing hardcore. Just Google "California EDD fraud" and have fun. Of course, these are just a couple of examples, but until we get on with biotech that can be coupled with AI, we've got a long way to go. Sucks for all the McDonald's burger flippers who are being replaced by some kiosk, but we're also starting to reach "survival of the fittest" territory due to the advancement of technology. Social Darwinism is back, baby. :}


Funny how the people that cried the loudest that we need to shut down our economies to save grandma now can't wait for the obsolete to die.

Did I just find MovieBob's alt?


----------



## smf (Jan 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Articles of Impeachment have been filed against President Biden
> Not a good day for BIden



If it makes you happy to think that then fine, but prepare yourself for more disappointment.



FAST6191 said:


> Privilege, as it pertains to notions of some operating in the "concern for minorities" space, is the idea that though overt or unconscious bigotry that those not "suffering" from minority traits will be granted boons and nicer paths by others in the world (which being majority makes a bit of a nice feedback loop), such that collectively they might enjoy an increased standard of life, and maybe not even be aware of the boons and desirable paths afforded them and the plight of those that do indeed "suffer" minority traits. Indeed it may even be a conscious effort to account for those boons (be it having them or not).



It's more like that white men don't know what it's like to be pulled over all the time just because they bought a nice car & they don't know what it's like to live in fear of being killed by a police man just for walking down the street.

You are proving the point that you are privileged enough to not understand privilege. You may just lack the self awareness to be able to deal with this.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 22, 2021)

Joom said:


> ...


wartutor on suicide watch
that was brutal



RichardTheKing said:


> ...


i love how conservatives whine like little bitches, but we're the snowflakes
"protection" from what? facts? things you've done? gonna need a more compelling argument than "everyone's ganging up on us"


----------



## NuadaXXX (Jan 22, 2021)

biden, oh god the end has begun


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 22, 2021)

Since Joe Biden was sworn in, 8,529 people have died from Covid


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Since Joe Biden was sworn in, 8,529 people have died from Covid


"the previous teacher was a cruel and unhelpful asshole that worked the students half to death and gave them no review material or study help whatsoever. he just got fired, and his replacement just gave a quiz of about medium difficulty- and the students did poorly! it must be the new one's fault!"


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 22, 2021)

something related to the Troop thing from last night 


> Trump has given permission for the troops to stay at Trump Hotel DC if any of them need, per advisor


good on him


----------



## leon315 (Jan 22, 2021)

Joe Biden ON 1ST DAY tried to reverse what Trump did in 4 years,

like re-join Paris climate change accord; re-join WTO..... let's see how long he takes.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "the previous teacher was a cruel and unhelpful asshole that worked the students half to death and gave them no review material or study help whatsoever. he just got fired, and his replacement just gave a quiz of about medium difficulty- and the students did poorly! it must be the new one's fault!"


"Thanks Obama." "Thanks Biden."


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 22, 2021)

Seen people angry and sad on twitter because they lost their jobs due to Biden Pipeline Ban breaks my heart but amaze me many of them are Biden voters that are now saying they regret their vote.

Man he could have waited a few days but t lie from day one and leave them without jobs? new record


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Jan 22, 2021)

Well, Fox News' coverage of the Biden Administration is already desperate. A day and a half in and they're whinging about speech notes and a Peloton. News with substance? Who needs _that_? We've got Biden's Peloton!


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Missed that comment, so I'll respond to it now. The minimum wage shouldn't be increased, it should be abolished.


It takes a special level of delusion to trust that without a government regulation making corporations pay their employees, that corporations will still keep paying their employees. History already shows that when there isn't regulations corporations will very willingly move to paying their employees with tokens.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> It takes a special level of delusion to trust that without a government regulation making corporations pay their employees, that corporations will still keep paying their employees. History already shows that when there isn't regulations corporations will very willingly move to paying their employees with tokens.


This part of the discussion is pretty much over at this stage, but you're responding to a post that directly mentions not one, not two, but six developed countries (all of which are apparently paradise worthy of emulating, at least according to the American left) with no minimum wage regulation by the government, so apparently "always" in all actuality means "sometimes, if at all". The use of scrip, IOU's and tokens isn't uncommon around the world, but it's usually reserved for times of extreme recession when legal tender is limited. These alternative methods of payment have nothing to do with minimum wage, frankly. Your level of remuneration is detailed in your contract, the company can't just forget about it - it signed it just like you have.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This part of the discussion is pretty much over at this stage, but you're responding to a post that directly mentions not one, not two, but six developed countries (all of which are apparently paradise worthy of emulating, at least according to the American left) with no minimum wage regulation by the government, so apparently "always" in all actuality means "sometimes, if at all". The use of scrip, IOU's and tokens isn't uncommon around the world, but it's usually reserved for times of extreme recession when legal tender is limited. These alternative methods of payment have nothing to do with minimum wage, frankly. Your level of remuneration is detailed in your contract, the company can't just forget about it - it signed it just like you have.


You are missing my point, without regulation then there’s nothing stopping a company from paying their employees in just tokens and nothing else. Companies can and do change the nature of contracts and do require signing them in order to continue employment. Companies like Walmart have zero hesitation removing employee benefits and finding ways to pay their employees less when government removes things like holiday pay. Why should we trust companies to actually pay their employees? Or is just, government bad no matter what?


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Since Joe Biden was sworn in, 8,529 people have died from Covid


And that's relevant how?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Or is just, government bad no matter what?


Government is like family - it looks best on a family photo. I love it so much that I'm keen to see it once a year, around Christmas time. In fact, my love for it increases with my distance away from it.  I get your point, I simply disagree with your assessment that government intervention is required here - I fully trust employees, individually or unionised, to represent their interests sufficiently. We know this to be true because only a small fraction of employees in the US make minimum wage or below - around 2%. All of this has been discussed already and doesn't belong in this thread - Biden's administration is more interested in raising the minimum wage nationally, so we'll see what the result will be. I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them to myself so as to not stoke the fire further.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Government is like family - it looks best on a family photo. I love it so much that I'm keen to see it once a year, around Christmas time. In fact, my love for it increases with my distance away from it.  I get your point, I simply disagree with your assessment that government intervention is required here - I fully trust employees, individually or in a unionised, to represent their interests sufficiently. We know this to be true because only a small fraction of employees in the US make minimum wage or below - around 2%. All of this has been discussed already and doesn't belong in this thread - Biden's administration is more interested in raising the minimum wage nationally, so we'll see what the result will be. I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them to myself so as to not stoke the fire further.


I am just gonna agree to disagree and end my input here. I wanted to make my point and I think we will be going in circles if we continue.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 22, 2021)

regarding minimum wage


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 22, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> regarding minimum wage


These are all the same arguments we always hear. "The government spends a lot on the military" - yeah, I don't like that either, even though I recognise the importance of that kind of spending. Spend less and lower the deficit, or better yet, lower taxes. "Big Mac's abroad are only 20c more expensive, that's not much!" - again, left-wingers being poor with numbers. That's a 10% increase in price of goods, and we're talking about one specific product in one specific company. If the price of bread went up by 10%, restaurants, caterers etc. would have a *big problem* on their hands because their baked goods expenses just went up by 10%, and that necessarily means cutting their expenses elsewhere or an increase of prices for customers. Now imagine if it was steel, or some other key resource used in more expensive goods, and that 20c can scale up right quick. It's all the same regurgitated pulp that's always pulled out of the hat whenever the subject rears its head. The system of sudden increases of minimum wage is stupid, it shocks the economy every single time. *If* I'm supposed to accept minimum wage as something that's not set arbitrarily using a random number that looks good on a slogan, it has to be pegged to something so that it's constantly mobile without the need of additional legislation. Want a systemic solution? Make one. Propose a sensible system and stop touching it. Peg it to the GDP, peg it to exchange rates, peg it to relative living costs, but don't just write a cute slogan that demands the entire economy raises the minimum wage by nearly 100% overnight. It should be dynamic, or revisited annualy, or a staggered roll-out to allow for adjustment over time. There's *zero* economic sense in doing this the way the U.S. does.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> These are all the same arguments we always hear. "The government spends a lot on the military" - yeah, I don't like that either, even though I recognise the importance of that kind of spending. Spend less and lower the deficit, or better yet, lower taxes. "Big Mac's abroad are only 20c more expensive, that's not much!" - again, left-wingers being poor with numbers. That's a 10% increase in price of goods, and we're talking about one specific product in one specific company. If the price of bread went up by 10%, restaurants, caterers etc. would have a *big problem* on their hands because their baked goods expenses just went up by 10%, and that necessarily means cutting their expenses elsewhere or an increase of prices for customers. Now imagine if it was steel, or some other key resource used in more expensive goods, and that 20c can scale up right quick. It's all the same regurgitated pulp that's always pulled out of the hat whenever the subject rears its head. The system of sudden increases of minimum wage is stupid, it shocks the economy every single time. *If* I'm supposed to accept minimum wage as something that's not set arbitrarily using a random number that looks good on a slogan, it has to be pegged to something so that it's constantly mobile without the need of additional legislation. Want a systemic solution? Make one. Propose a sensible system and stop touching it. Peg it to the GDP, peg it to exchange rates, peg it to relative living costs, but don't just write a cute slogan that demands the entire economy raises the minimum wage by nearly 100% overnight. It should be dynamic, or revisited annualy, or a staggered roll-out to allow for adjustment over time. There's *zero* economic sense in doing this the way the U.S. does.


You didn't watch the video all the way through.
How sad.
Since a couple of your points where addressed in the video.
First off, it was already found that there was no significant impact at all on pricing.
Second most countries do raise it dynamically.
In the video he said if we wanted to prevent a possible economic shock, minimum wage should be considered every year like every other country.
Something you would of known if you watched the video.
Perhaps you need to hear this part

go to 6:45


----------



## leon315 (Jan 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Seen people angry and sad on twitter because they lost their jobs due to Biden Pipeline Ban breaks my heart but amaze me many of them are Biden voters that are now saying they regret their vote.
> 
> Man he could have waited a few days but t lie from day one and leave them without jobs? new record


what did i miss? how did Biden make them lose jobs?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 22, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> You didn't watch the video all the way through.
> How sad.
> Since a couple of your points where addressed in the video.
> First off, it was already found that there was no significant impact at all on pricing.
> ...


I watched the video, it's why I mentioned it in the first place, along with other solutions. That is *not* what's being proposed by the $15 movement, nor how it's actually arranged in the U.S., which is the problem. One of the many reasons why the current, real-life implementation of minimum wage increases is dumb.


leon315 said:


> what did i miss? how did Biden make them lose jobs?


By rescinding development permissions for Keystone XL which would've further increased American energy security and provided a bunch of jobs in the energy sector and the construction sector.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I watched the video, it's why I mentioned it in the first place, along with other solutions. That is *not* what's being proposed by the $15 movement, nor how it's actually arranged in the U.S., which is the problem. One of the many reasons why the current, real-life implementation of minimum raise increases are enacted is dumb.


So... Keeping it at $7.25 is better? Just because you don't have that one thing?
Arguably speaking that's exceptionally retarded.
You keep complaining about taxes. raising minimum wage would reduce the federal financial burden. Since so many have to apply for economic help such as SNAP and other assistant programs, BECAUSE minimum wage is so low.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 22, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So... Keeping it at $7.25 is better? Just because you don't have that one thing?
> Arguably speaking that's exceptionally retarded.
> You keep complaining about taxes. raising minimum wage would reduce the federal financial burden. Since so many have to apply for economic help such as SNAP and other assistant programs.


Unarguably speaking, if I were asked to increase the wage of workers in a company I was running by 100% overnight *without* increasing prices, I'd either have to cut their hours or sack some of them because I have a set budget for wages. I raise your study to the study by the Congressional Budget Office:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410

This study assumes a staggered roll-out until 2025 in six steps. The rise to $15 has predictable effects:


> In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two-thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.


To translate from Congress-speak to English, overall poverty levels would've lowered at the cost of making millions of workers jobless - you double some incomes and reduce other incomes to zero. I could've told you that without reading it, it's obvious. You're reducing the number of kinda-poor people by increasing the number of extremely poor people - d'uh.

Should the roll-out be instant, the effect would've been more pronounced, as I previously mentioned.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 22, 2021)

It's kind of common sense, isn't it? If you raise the minimum wage, job competition increases, so the people who have jobs are gonna be better off, but it doesn't make much difference if you're making more people homeless in the process, does it? I'm all for making everyone a little bit richer, but increasing job competition during COVID is the absolute last thing anyone needs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 22, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> It's kind of common sense, isn't it? If you raise the minimum wage, job competition increases, so the people who have jobs are gonna be better off, but it doesn't make much difference if you're making more people homeless in the process, does it? I'm all for making everyone a little bit richer, but increasing job competition during COVID is the absolute last thing anyone needs.


I don't understand why people think this completely predictable result wouldn't materialise. They focus on the overall wealth of those who remain employed after such a move without considering the fact that while some people see their incomes increase from X to Y, others see it decrease from X to zero. The only way to prevent that from happening is to simultaneously have a robust economy *and* a wage increase, that gives some wiggle room, and that's not the situation we're in right now. When things are going swell you can afford to loosen the belt a bit, but a lot of businesses have been shut for the past year. In fact, we saw a huge wave of small businesses shutting their doors permanently, not temporarily. Let's punish them some more, that'll make them more competitive with big business.




 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/yel...e-coronavirus-pandemic-are-now-permanent.html

They have *no money* to stay open, let alone increase wages.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't understand why people think this completely predictable result wouldn't materialise. They focus on the overall wealth of those who remain employed after such a move without considering the fact that while some people see their incomes increase from X to Y, others see it decrease from X to zero. The only way to prevent that from happening is to simultaneously have a robust economy *and* a wage increase, that gives some wiggle room, and that's not the situation we're in right now. When things are going swell you can afford to loosen the belt a bit, but a lot of businesses have been shut for the past year. In fact, we saw a huge wave of small businesses shutting their doors permanently, not temporarily. Let's punish them some more, that'll make them more competitive with big business.
> 
> View attachment 242977
> 
> ...


Yep. It's not even just small businesses. Here in the UK a load of the big supermarkets have laid off thousands of employees during this whole thing. If the minimum wage were to increase to $15 (not that it necessarily would, but just using that as an example), it's hitting a lot of those vulnerable, low-paid jobs even harder. The thing about big business is, "they can afford it, they make billions of $ a year", yes, they do, but they are also spending billions of $ a year to make what they sell. Increase the minimum wage to $15 and now your minimum wage employee's work is worth twice as much. So it's either massively increase your wage budgets, and along with the higher corporate tax that will likely arrive with Biden (not that increased corporate tax is necessarily a bad thing), watch your profits sink and your business starts to consume money, or lay off half of your minimum wage workforce. We all know which one businesses that can afford to choose will choose. The ones that can't afford to choose? Well... their profits are gonna sink and they will see their businesses eat money. So what's the end result of that? Big business that can afford to choose is gonna come in to fill as much of the void that they can fill. So the end result of increasing the minimum wage in the current time is a lot of people reliant on the state, a lot of homeless people and an increased prevelance of big business, and said increased amount of people reliant on the state has its own collection of long-term issues. Well done Dems, you really did improve a lot of people's lives, didn't you?


----------



## SG854 (Jan 22, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> You are missing my point, without regulation then there’s nothing stopping a company from paying their employees in just tokens and nothing else. Companies can and do change the nature of contracts and do require signing them in order to continue employment. Companies like Walmart have zero hesitation removing employee benefits and finding ways to pay their employees less when government removes things like holiday pay. Why should we trust companies to actually pay their employees? Or is just, government bad no matter what?


Walmart hates unions so much that any small sign of a union starting to form they will close an entire store and fire all workers just to prevent unions from forming. Then they always give the bullshit answer we are just repairing plumbing.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 22, 2021)

We need universal basic income and higher minimum wage quick or shit's gonna turn real ugly real fast. No, it won't make people homeless. No, it won't shut down businesses. If you're not paying your employees enough in the first place, something is fundamentally wrong. And no, in no reality will companies pay people more or even reasonably if you abolish minimum wage. Give corporations the ability to pay almost nothing, and they'll do it. And because poverty and wealth inequality is so rampant, where employment means life or death, there will always be someone willing to work for less. To advocate against minimum embarrassingly exposes privilege of never having lived paycheck to paycheck.
I'm middle class right now, but only because I was lucky enough to be really damn good at stem AND i had the opportunity to go to school, even if it was through massive loans that I indebted myself with. I grew up poor, with drug addiction and violence rampant in my family and neighborhood. I was doomed to continue life in poverty if I weren't so gifted with opportunity.
I suffer from clinical depression (yes it's a real medical condition despite what some ignorant people suggest) and it has only gotten so much worse from the traumas I and my family went through because of how fucked this country is financially from decades of Republican policies tearing away at middle and lower class life. Most of my family is dead now, from unlucky cancer to not being able to afford medical treatment over the years. Things wouldn't have been so bad in my life had my full-time working parents been more fairly compensated. Had my educational institutions not been so crippled from decades of budget cuts. Had my family been able to afford proper medication instead of relying on affordable street drugs. Had we been able to afford therapy (what luxury!). Had we been able to afford a living space big enough to properly house a 4-person family (not even that big). I didn't have extracurricular programs at school, I didn't have connections to get me a job after college (took me years just to get a position that underpaid me but got my foot in the door.) My family and I were always stressed, always in debt, always fighting. To put it bluntly, life fucking sucked. And having depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation through all of that. It's fucking amazing I'm alive today.
And I was hardly the poorest of the poor growing up. My friends had it worse. Families destroyed, dead, miserable, working dead end jobs that don't pay them livable wages.
You shouldn't be looking at abolishing minimum wage, you should be looking at fixing the wealth disparity that is causing the need for minimum wage in the first place.
Sorry for the long winded rant, but the naivete and privilege that libertarianism reaks of just grinds my gears. I've lived through hell and all these silly libertarian "solutions" would just enable capitalism to become more dangerous and deadly than it already is.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 22, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> No, it won't make people homeless.


Actually, at this point in time, yes it will, for the reasons me and others have explained. I'm not in favour of abolishing minimum wage, in all honesty I think that's an idiotic idea for reasons others have mentioned, but it shouldn't be increased much right now either. Maybe in the future it can be increased _somewhat_. But doubling it during a pandemic is just nonsensical.



IncredulousP said:


> but the naivete and privilege that libertarianism reaks of just grinds my gears


Trust me, I don't come from a privileged background. For the first 8 years of my life I lived in a shite flat in an East London estate, and I went to an even shitter school. So don't pull the privilege card with me, that's not gonna wash. Granted, we weren't about to be thrown out, but it's not like we lived in luxury. We pretty much did live wage to wage until my dad got a better job in late 2010, and when my dad got made redundant earlier that year we were living on jobseekers allowance in the meantime. So no, I'm not 'privileged', I just have common sense.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 22, 2021)

More on-topic, Biden has just announced that there is nothing that can be done about the trajectory of the pandemic for the next several months.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/bid...id-pandemic-over-the-next-several-months.html

Orange man bad, he couldn't do anything. Now I'm in office, I can't do anything.

Pale man bad.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 22, 2021)

Senile man bad


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 22, 2021)

> There’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”



SO Biden lie he told us the issue was trump and here he saying he cant do nothing about the Virus

New record on lies



leon315 said:


> what did i miss? how did Biden make them lose jobs?


People in the USA and Canada just lost their jobs in the XL pipeline


----------



## wartutor (Jan 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> More on-topic, Biden has just announced that there is nothing that can be done about the trajectory of the pandemic for the next several months.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/bid...id-pandemic-over-the-next-several-months.html
> 
> ...


That was obvious any of these people that thinks the virus could of been stopped (or handled better) at the presidential level has just been lied to and are completely full of themselves. Dems used the virus as a way to "blame Trump for everything" and they did a good job of making the sheep believe it. As far as "he didn't get aid out fast enough, didn't do this, or that" it was an unknown virus the likes hasn't been seen in years and never at the population or the ease of travel we have today. As far as the aid that's more on the senate than anything else.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 23, 2021)

oh btw biden as I read has no interest in pardoning trump looks like he's going down and hard as for me Im cheering all of the justice system to win at pin the felony on the asshole (sorry for the language I'm jus gitty that trump will finally be going down for all the bad shit he's done

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> That was obvious any of these people that thinks the virus could of been stopped (or handled better) at the presidential level has just been lied to and are completely full of themselves. Dems used the virus as a way to "blame Trump for everything" and they did a good job of making the sheep believe it. As far as "he didn't get aid out fast enough, didn't do this, or that" it was an unknown virus the likes hasn't been seen in years and never at the population or the ease of travel we have today. As far as the aid that's more on the senate than anything else.


it can be slowed at least though people may not like it by doing mandates to mask wearing and increasing the legal repercussions from jus finds to days in jail that should make people conform mask saves lives I wear a mask always outside and never came down with covid yet


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 23, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> oh btw biden as I read has no interest in pardoning trump looks like he's going down and hard as for me Im cheering all of the justice system to win at pin the felony on the asshole (sorry for the language I'm jus gitty that trump will finally be going down for all the bad shit he's done


you need to commit crimes first to be able to accuse someone


----------



## laudern (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> More on-topic, Biden has just announced that there is nothing that can be done about the trajectory of the pandemic for the next several months.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/bid...id-pandemic-over-the-next-several-months.html
> 
> ...



Very incorrect. The WHO will soon make a statement saying that the number of covid cases has been "unfortunately incorrectly inflated". US hospitals will suggest some cases of covid deaths may have actually not been the result of covid and instead other factors. The media will play alone and everything will get better. All because of Biden.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> More on-topic, Biden has just announced that there is nothing that can be done about the trajectory of the pandemic for the next several months.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/bid...id-pandemic-over-the-next-several-months.html
> 
> ...


Perhaps he would of been able do something about it if you know. Trumps team actually cooperated with him?
Further more
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/biden-covid-vaccination-trump/index.html
Now, I'm going to wait for other sources to make this an absolute. (it's cnn, I really don't like using it as a single source, it's credibility is fairly mixed at times.)
But if this is true, yeah it's going to take a while if literately no infrastructure or plan was made. And even then, deaths lag behind cases, and we still have not got enough testing to find those cases.


Further more, Trump constantly downplayed the virus. And here we are now.
If perhaps, IDK, Trump acted sooner and maybe actually did more (since he didn't) that maybe idk. It wouldn't be as bad as it is now?
Because you know. cases are exponential.
As the (Previous) President pretty much checked out regarding the whole thing.
I'll say Biden is bad, but it's definitely not for having to adopt a broken mess of nonsense that the previous president didn't deal with proper.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> More on-topic, Biden has just announced that there is nothing that can be done about the trajectory of the pandemic for the next several months.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/bid...id-pandemic-over-the-next-several-months.html
> 
> ...


Trump's mess was catastrophic. It's going to take time to undo the damage. Given the epidemiology of where we are, it's absurd to say it's going to be fixed in more than a few months. President Biden's COVID-19 plans are extremely sound and effective, and it's going to make things a lot less worse than they otherwise would have been.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...n-s-covid-19-plan-warn-undoing-trump-n1255210


----------



## wartutor (Jan 23, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> oh btw biden as I read has no interest in pardoning trump looks like he's going down and hard as for me Im cheering all of the justice system to win at pin the felony on the asshole (sorry for the language I'm jus gitty that trump will finally be going down for all the bad shit he's done
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Yeah let's put people in jail for not wearing masks. That's so American what a way to keep this country free. Fuckin dumbest thing I have read all damn day. How about we start by arresting all the democrats that got caught breaking their own rules.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Trump's mess was catastrophic. It's going to take time to undo the damage. Given the epidemiology of where we are, it's absurd to say it's going to be fixed in more than a few months. President Biden's COVID-19 plans are extremely sound and effective, and it's going to make things a lot less worse than they otherwise would have been.
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...n-s-covid-19-plan-warn-undoing-trump-n1255210


With all due respect, so far the Biden plan looks almost exactly the same as the Trump plan, plus some additional mask-wearing recommendations.

In terms of supposedly disastrous plans, Warp Speed is one of the chief reasons why a vaccine was developed in record time, so credit should go where credit is due. The biggest issue right now is individual states being unable to come to an obvious conclusion that healthcare workers and the elderly should be the first two groups to receive it - one due to daily contact with the disease, the other due to the highest level of morbidity from it. Some are so bad at this that they're running the risk of doses expiring. At this point they should just give the shot to anyone who asks, it's better than pouring them down the drain.

If fact, Biden's administration is already following a pre-existing, working distribution plan, contrary to Nancy's ramblings. According to Anthony Faucci, the Patron Saint of COVID, the Biden administration is not "starting from scratch", there's a system in place already, it's being progressively amped up over time, and the new administration will continue to build upon it.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...starting-from-scratch-on-vaccine-distribution


----------



## wartutor (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> With all due respect, so far the Biden plan looks almost exactly the same as the Trump plan, plus some additional mask-wearing recommendations. In terms of supposedly disastrous plans, Warp Speed is one of the chief reasons why a vaccine was developed in record time, so credit should go where credit is due. The biggest issue right now is individual states being unable to come to an obvious conclusion that healthcare workers and the elderly should be the first two groups to receive it - one due to daily contact with the disease, the other due to the highest level of morbidity from it. Some are so bad at this that they're running the risk of doses expiring. At this point they should just give the shot to anyone who asks, it's better than pouring them down the drain.


Their is a couple thing in there that is down right stupid and a waste of money as in the double the testing sights and the develop addition tests including one u can use from home. At this point there is a vaccine and by the time you put all that money into additional sights and "new" ways to test hopefully their is a significant amount of people vaccinated and you won't need as many testing places or types of tests. Put that money into buying and distributing the vaccine faster or (if not needed for that) just save John q taxpayers money. Alot of that shit seams just thrown in there to try and make it look like he is doing more or something better than Trump just a waste of time and money.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

Saying the lack of response to COVID is Biden's fault because he inherited it from Trump is like saying Iraq is Obama's fault because he inherited it from Bush. Stop talking bollocks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Saying the lack of response to COVID is Biden's fault because he inherited it from Trump is like saying Iraq is Obama's fault because he inherited it from Bush. Stop talking bollocks.


Not really the point. The point is that Biden ran on a "Trump doesn't have a plan and I do, it's ready to go from Day 1 when I'm elected" platform. That's obviously not the case - he's continuing with what was already in place, it's not a brand-new plan, it's the same plan. In terms of COVID response, due to the way the U.S. government works, a lot of the blame is on individual state governments, not the federal government which really doesn't have a lot to say on these matters, at least not until the situation reaches full-blown existential threat, national emergency level.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Not really the point. The point is that Biden ran on a "Trump doesn't have a plan and I do, it's ready to go from Day 1 when I'm elected" platform. That's obviously not the case - he's continuing with what was already in place, it's not a brand-new plan, it's the same plan. In terms of COVID response, due to the way the U.S. government works, a lot of the blame is on individual state governments, not the federal government which really doesn't have a lot to say on these matters, at least not until the situation reaches full-blown existential threat, national emergency level.


Maybe, but outright saying the current COVID situation is Biden's fault is frankly idiotic. And yes, some on this thread and elsewhere have said that. They are probably trolls, or at least, I hope so.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Maybe, but outright saying the current COVID situation is Biden's fault is frankly idiotic. And yes, some on this thread and elsewhere have said that. They are probably trolls, or at least, I hope so.


I don't think Biden is responsible for anything at all just yet, he's been in office for all of three days. With that said, we've seen the media turn up the temperature for 4 years, so I sure hope that they'll treat Biden and his gaffes with the same level of pedantic scrutiny that Trump had to deal with. Something tells me that won't be the case. Y'know, like when Biden announced a 100-day mask challenge in federal buildings... while not wearing a mask in federal buildings. When Jen Psaki was asked about that during the press briefing, she dismissed it as Biden celebrating his victory... which is apparently on-going since she wasn't wearing one either. This is starting to look like No Nut November for masks, everybody's getting caught slipping in the first 15 picoseconds of the "challenge".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55761046


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> With all due respect, so far the Biden plan looks almost exactly the same as the Trump plan, plus some additional mask-wearing recommendations.
> 
> In terms of supposedly disastrous plans, Warp Speed is one of the chief reasons why a vaccine was developed in record time, so credit should go where credit is due. The biggest issue right now is individual states being unable to come to an obvious conclusion that healthcare workers and the elderly should be the first two groups to receive it - one due to daily contact with the disease, the other due to the highest level of morbidity from it. Some are so bad at this that they're running the risk of doses expiring. At this point they should just give the shot to anyone who asks, it's better than pouring them down the drain.
> 
> ...


Let's resync with reality, shall we?

*Biden inheriting nonexistent coronavirus vaccine distribution plan and must start 'from scratch,' sources say*

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/biden-covid-vaccination-trump/index.html


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Let's resync with reality, shall we?
> 
> *Biden inheriting nonexistent coronavirus vaccine distribution plan and must start 'from scratch,' sources say*
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/biden-covid-vaccination-trump/index.html


You have contradicting sources - one saying that there is no plan and one (Faucci himself) that says there very much is a plan, it's just being revamped. If Trump's administration somehow managed to inoculate 17 million+ Americans "with no plan" then they're miracle makers. I put precisely zero stock in the claims that distribution wasn't planned at all, that's ludicrous and obviously false.

EDIT: Well lookie here, it was published on defense.gov, what a shocker.

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...announces-covid-19-vaccine-distribution-plan/

Stop reading, there was no plan.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...t-u-s-covid-19-vaccine-distribution-plan.html


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You have contradicting sources - one saying that there is no plan and one (Faucci himself) that says there very much is a plan, it's just being revamped. If Trump's administration somehow managed to inoculate 17 million+ Americans "with no plan" then they're miracle makers. I put precisely zero stock in the claims that distribution wasn't planned at all, that's ludicrous and obviously false.


The facts are clear that there was effectively no vaccine distribution plan. If we want to discuss technicalities that mean the Biden people have to remake 99% of the vaccine "plan" vs. 100% of the vaccine "plan," I'm not particularly interested. Governors cannot even come up with their own plans if they're constantly being misled about the number of vaccine doses they're getting, which is what the Trump admin did. The Trump administration vowed to release reserve doses that didn't even existed. I'd say the distribution plan was a complete fuck-up, but there was no plan to speak of.

*States told by federal government they will receive fewer Pfizer vaccine doses next week, sparking confusion*

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/17/politics/pfizer-vaccine-fewer-doses-states-confusion/index.html

*Vaccine reserve was exhausted when Trump administration vowed to release it, dashing hopes of expanded access*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/15/trump-vaccine-reserve-used-up/

Regarding the first article from December, the Trump people also blatantly lied about why states were receiving fewer vaccines from Pfizer. The Trump admin said it was because Pfizer was having issues, but it turns out Pfizer was doing just fine, and they just weren't told where to ship vaccines by the federal government. There was no coordination plan. There was no distribution plan.

*Covid-19 Vaccine Leaders Waited Months to Approve Distribution Plans*

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-...ths-to-approve-distribution-plans-11610737935

State and local officials clamored for months for federal guidance on a vaccine distribution strategy, but leaders of Operation Warp Speed "waited more than two months to approve a plan to distribute and administer Covid-19 vaccines ... leaving states with little time to implement a mass-vaccination campaign amid a coronavirus surge."


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The facts are clear that there was effectively no vaccine distribution plan. If we want to discuss technicalities that mean the Biden people have to remake 99% of the vaccine "plan" vs. 100% of the vaccine "plan," I'm not particularly interested.


Well, if you're planning to use exaggerated claims then yes, it's not a very interesting discussion. I'm glad that the distribution will improve over time, as it has been improving over time up to this point, but I'm not going to pretend that nothing at all was done between the development of the vaccine and now. Millions of immunised Americans are all the evidence I need - whether that's "fast enough" or not is a different discussion, pending the results of "the new and improved plan" so we have a point of comparison. You don't have to lie by omission to make pale man look better, pale man will have to figure this chestnut out himself.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, if you're planning to use exaggerated claims then yes, it's not a very interesting discussion.


It's not an exaggeration to say there was effectively no vaccine distribution plan. Please see the Trump administration failures above.



Foxi4 said:


> but I'm not going to pretend that nothing at all was done between the development of the vaccine and now.


You don't have to pretend there was effectively no vaccine distribution plan. There was effectively no vaccine distribution plan.



Foxi4 said:


> Millions of immunised Americans are all the evidence I need - whether that's "fast enough" or not is a different discussion


It could have been a lot more by now, and given the number of deaths that will happen that could have been mitigated, the Trump vaccine distribution "plan" is without a doubt a failure.

*Dr. Fauci says US should have had better coronavirus vaccine rollout*

"Clearly, no excuses. We should have gotten 20 distributed, and 20 into the arms of people -- by 20, I mean 20 million," Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Economic Club of Washington.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html

The fact that the actual number of American vaccinations is "good enough for you" is pretty embarrassing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not an exaggeration to say there was effectively no vaccine distribution plan. Please see the Trump administration failures above.
> 
> 
> You don't have to pretend there was effectively no vaccine distribution plan. There was effectively no vaccine distribution plan.


False, demonstrably.


> It could have been a lot more by now, and given the number of deaths that will happen that could have been mitigated, the Trump vaccine distribution "plan" is without a doubt a failure.
> 
> *Dr. Fauci says US should have had better coronavirus vaccine rollout*
> 
> ...


I'm sure they could've done better, the more the better.


> The fact that the actual number of American vaccinations is "good enough for you" is pretty embarrassing.


Dishonest, not what I said. I said that the estimation of how good the plan was is conditional on how the "new and improved plan" compares. If it isn't any better, or it's marginally better, then there's a different bottleneck that needs addressing.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> False, demonstrably.


There was effectively no vaccine distribution plan, and I demonstrated it in multiple ways.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm sure they could've done better, the more the better.


They could have done better, but didn't, because of the fuck-up that was the Trump vaccine distribution "plan."



Foxi4 said:


> Dishonest, not what I said.


Roll the tape.


Foxi4 said:


> but I'm not going to pretend that nothing at all was done between the development of the vaccine and now. Millions of immunised Americans are all the evidence I need


If your argument is the Trump administration didn't fuck up with regard to their vaccine distribution "plan," then you're arguing that the pitifully low number of American vaccinations is good enough for you.



Foxi4 said:


> I said that the estimation of how good the plan was is conditional on how the "new and improved plan" compares.


We know the consequences of the Trump administration fuck ups I've already discussed. We don't need to see how the new plan compares to already know that Trump fucked up and they effectively didn't have a vaccine distribution plan.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Roll the tape.


Yes, let's.


Foxi4 said:


> (...) whether that's "fast enough" or not is a different discussion, *pending the results of "the new and improved plan" so we have a point of comparison*. You don't have to lie by omission to make pale man look better, pale man will have to figure this chestnut out himself.


Y'know, those typical dishonest tricks might work during a verbal debate when there's no written record, but since there is one, all you're demonstrating is poor reading comprehension, or attention span. It's funny either way, so keep it up.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, let's.
> Y'know, those typical dishonest tricks might work during a verbal debate when there's no written record, but since there is one, all you're demonstrating is poor reading comprehension, all attention span. It's funny either way, so keep it up.


I responded to that point in the post above yours, so I don't think I'm the one demonstrating poor reading comprehension.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I responded to that point in the post above yours, so I don't think I'm the one demonstrating poor reading comprehension.


You responded to it by pretending it didn't exist. I never, at any point, imply or say, that 17 million is good enough. That's all something you manufactured out of straw and proceeded to pummel, thus providing me with much-needed entertainment.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You responded to it by pretending it didn't exist. I never, at any point, imply or say, that 17 million is good enough. That's all something you manufactured out if straw and proceeded to pummel, thus providing me with much-needed entertainment.


I'm repeating myself here, but you can either acknowledge that the Trump administration fucked up with regard to vaccine distribution (given the mounds of evidence I've provided, I'm not sure how one couldn't acknowledge the Trump admin fucked up), or you can argue that the number of American vaccinations is satisfactory. Which is it going to be?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm repeating myself here, but you can either acknowledge that the Trump administration fucked up with regard to vaccine distribution (given the mounds of evidence I've provided, I'm not sure how one couldn't acknowledge the Trump admin fucked up), or you can argue that the number of American vaccinations is satisfactory. Which is it going to be?


I can't make that estimation because I have nothing to compare it to that would be relevant logistically. Once a new distribution plan, or rather, the old distribution plan with tweaks, properly starts up I might. It's nice to see you complaining about repeating yourself while simultaneously asking me to repeat myself, multiple times.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Maybe, but outright saying the current COVID situation is Biden's fault is frankly idiotic. And yes, some on this thread and elsewhere have said that. They are probably trolls, or at least, I hope so.



Well yeah.  It is obvious trolling.  People politicized Covid before there was a body count.  And the people who were saying "let's not politicize it" were among the ones doing it.  Biden politicizing it, and saying "I have a plan" doesn't actually have a plan.  Surprised?

Side not, people in Japan are wary of the vaccine because of news regarding adverse effects of the said vaccine.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well yeah.  It is obvious trolling.  People politicized Covid before there was a body count.  And the people who were saying "let's not politicize it" were among the ones doing it.  Biden politicizing it, and saying "I have a plan" doesn't actually have a plan.  Surprised?
> 
> Side not, people in Japan are wary of the vaccine because of news regarding adverse effects of the said vaccine.


In terms of side effects, there's a lot of misinformation on the Web on this subject. There are multiple vaccines in circulation, some more traditional than others, and they were all developed rapidly. It's too early to tell if there's anything to worry about, so my general recommendation would be to take it if you're in any of the prioritised risk groups - your odds are better with it than without it. Old age, obesity and pre-existing conditions, particularly of the respiratory system, are good indicators that you should be queuing up. If any of those affect you, or if you happen to live with someone who fits those descriptions, don't wait.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can't make that estimation


You don't need the results of the new plan to know the old administration fucked up and the old plan effectively didn't exist.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In terms of side effects, there's a lot of misinformation on the Web on this subject. There are multiple vaccines in circulation, some more traditional than others, and they were all developed rapidly. It's too early to tell if there's anything to worry about, so my general recommendation would be to take it if you're in any of the prioritised risk groups - your odds are better with it than without it. Old age, obesity and pre-existing conditions, particularly of the respiratory system, are good indicators that you should be queuing up. If any of those affect you, or if you happen to live with someone who fits those descriptions, don't wait.



There were 29 reported dead in Norway after taking the vaccine.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 23, 2021)

Those in South East Asia are also wary of the current slew of vaccines.

My Medical circle prefer the Chinese Sinovac over the Western alternatives; if you need to ask why then you do not understand the historical extent of the region being test subjects for Western Agricultural and Medical solutions. I'm not going to bore this Thread with the number of Regional Government Officials I know who won't go anywhere near Western-backed Agricultural products; there's no need for me to name brands.

My general public friends prefer the non-MRNA Western alternatives because they don't want to be part of the World's first batch of test subjects; this isn't the COVID-19 Vaccine Thread so I won't go into details, but suffice to say everything any Doctor worth their license knows is being drip-fed to the Media, including the fact that Children are susceptible to COVID-19 more than reported before or how Long-Haul COVID-19 patients are faring.

Not that much of shot to say MRNA is also being disclosed on a need-to-know basis, and most of us are not those that need to know ...


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> There were 29 reported dead in Norway after taking the vaccine.


There's no evidence the vaccine killed those 29 people in Norway.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence the vaccine killed those 29 people in Norway.


Yeah, you can shut it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> There were 29 reported dead in Norway after taking the vaccine.


And 544 reported dead from the virus. One of those numbers is bigger than the other, assuming you're correct. If I were in a high risk group, I would 100% err on the side of caution and take the vaccine developed by medical professionals over crossing my fingers and burying myself underground for the next year or two. Thankfully my chances of catching it are low, let alone dying from it, so I have the luxury of being able to wait for my turn, once the vaccine is more wide-spread and available to the general public.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yeah, you can shut it.


It would be irresponsible for me to let you peddle anti-vaccination nonsense.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> And 544 reported dead from the virus. One of those numbers is bigger than the other, assuming you're correct. If I were in a high risk group, I would 100% err on the side of caution and take the vaccine developed by medical professionals over crossing my fingers or burying myself underground for the next year or two. Thankfully my chances of catching it are low, let alone dying from it, so I have the luxury of being able to wait for my turn, once the vaccine is more wide-spread and available to the general public.



I just wonder what caused such a spike.  Is it a genetic think that wasn't considered in the formulation, allergy, or a bad batch, idk.  But the news had made its round here, and have had people remaining skeptical about the genuineness of the vaccine.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It would be irresponsible for me to let you peddle anti-vaccination nonsense.


The only possible side effect I've read about so far was temporary Bell's Palsy, and that was limited to the Pfizer vaccine and unconfirmed to be caused by the vaccine. Anti-vax nonsense is not acceptable - if there are any scientifically proven side effects then such claims must be substantiated with relevant studies.



tabzer said:


> I just wonder what caused such a spike.  Is it a genetic think that wasn't considered in the formulation, allergy, or a bad batch, idk.  But the news had made its round here, and have had people remaining skeptical about the genuineness of the vaccine.


Or coincidence, since the number is incredibly low. Claims like this must be substantiated, otherwise you're just guessing. If I take the vaccine and have a car accident later, that's not the vaccine's fault. You have to consider externalities, a lot of the patients taking it are already old.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Side not, people in Japan are wary of the vaccine because of news regarding adverse effects of the said vaccine.


_Insert Knuckles "oh no" soundbyte
_



tabzer said:


> There were 29 reported dead in Norway after taking the vaccine.


So they had the vaccine and dropped dead?


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The only possible side effect I've read about so far was temporary Bell's Palsy, and that was limited to the Pfizer vaccine and unconfirmed to be caused by the vaccine. Anti-vax nonsense is not acceptable - if there are any scientifically proven side effects then such claims must be substantiated with relevant studies.
> 
> Or coincidence, since the number is incredibly low. Claims like this must be substantiated, otherwise you're just guessing. If I take the vaccine and have a car accident later, that's not the vaccine's fault. You have to consider externalities, a lot of the patients taking it are already old.



Yeah, you are right that the context is scrutinized... At least more so in the West:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN29P2R1

People here talk, socially, at work and such.  I'm just sharing what I was on the reception end of things.  I've already accepted the fact that I may get Covid and will have to self-isolate.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Cryoraptor said:


> _Insert Knuckles "oh no" soundbyte
> _
> 
> 
> So they had the vaccine and dropped dead?



"Haha".  Ok.  Yes, that's how it sounded.  It seemed like a freak anomoly, and there is no reason why it wouldn't scare people here.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 23, 2021)

One thing I do respect is the fact that the new Government admitted the current Vaccines don't affect the new Mutations.
That is a no-brainer and it would be insulting to be told otherwise.

They then went one step further to explain that even with the Mutations, current-gen Vaccines will help buffer the population.
That makes perfect sense and is the type of reassuring Government response I'd expect from people who know their Fields.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

tomasowa said:


> One thing I do respect is the fact that the new Government admitted the current Vaccines don't affect the new Mutations.
> That is a no-brainer and it would be insulting to be told otherwise.



What do you mean?  Please risk insulting me and explaining.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> What do you mean?  Please risk insulting me and explaining.



There's no intention to insult you in any way with this; it would insult my intelligence if they purported the current-gen Vaccine is a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem it wasn't designed for.

The Vaccine was created to cater to the Strain that was used to develop it, so newer strains aren't factored into its efficacy because, how could they.

Even with the fact that Mutations is a commonplace occurrence, they would not be able to predict which Strain would develop over the masses, so creating any sort of medication is always after-the-fact; that is the given that would be insulting to not be acknowledged.

So with the current Vaccine rollout, the Government acknowledged that Mutations aren't part of the consideration but even without it, if people take the current-gen there would enough of a buffer for COVID-19 to not spread as fast, and possibly Herd Immunity.

I would assume the current Pharmaceutical companies would be incentivised to create for the new Mutations for future releases, because money, so we'll definitely be looking at newer version augmenting the current supply.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

So the "good" vaccination will be evolving, hopefully, as rapidly as the Covid strains?

I wonder if we will start seeing cases where people are overlapping their inoculations to keep with the trend.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> So the "good" vaccination will be evolving, hopefully, as rapidly as the Covid strains?



Your observation is the eventuality that should've been told up-front.



tomasowa said:


> Frankly, it's surprising that most Western Media are acting like it's the first time they've heard of Mutations - did nobody finish High-School Biology. The first two years will definitely be about Vaccination rollout and the Mutation, and somewhere towards the end of the Term will be realistic efforts to find Medicine.
> 
> The eventuality of this will probably end up looking like Flu Medication, where people go to their pharmacists for Pills to take for COVID-19 rather than line up for Vaccination; I don't doubt future generations will see COVID-19 as commonplace like we see the Flu now.



I hope that the patronising of the general public will stop with the new year and Government.


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Jan 23, 2021)

joe biden is not the president of amerika ,dont be angry at me this is commen sense


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

I'm starting to think Tabzer and a few others could be Russian trolls... The Russians are fucking everywhere trying to destabilise the west. Just look at Daily Mail or Sky News comments on YouTube.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



scroeffie1984 said:


> joe biden is not the president of amerika ,dont be angry at me this is commen sense



Please tell me this is a troll


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 23, 2021)

... Abort mission, Comrade.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> People here talk, socially, at work and such.



Ummmmmm. Lmfao. And they don't anywhere else? Regardless, you just said "Oh... I hear gossip and rumors and stuff from others when I'm eavesdropping at work, which I automatically take as fact, unless someone proves me wrong."


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> I'm starting to think Tabzer and a few others could be Russian trolls... The Russians are fucking everywhere trying to destabilise the west. Just look at Daily Mail or Sky News comments on YouTube.



If I am destabilizing you then you should not be hanging out on the internet.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

tomasowa said:


> One thing I do respect is the fact that the new Government admitted the current Vaccines don't affect the new Mutations.
> That is a no-brainer and it would be insulting to be told otherwise.
> 
> They then went one step further to explain that even with the Mutations, current-gen Vaccines will help buffer the population.
> That makes perfect sense and is the type of reassuring Government response I'd expect from people who know their Fields.


The vaccines may be less effective against the new COVID-19 strains, but that doesn't mean the vaccines "don't affect" them.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The vaccines may be less effective against the new COVID-19 strains, but that doesn't mean the vaccines "don't affect" them.



That is a valid point, because at this stage nobody can be sure.

I was referring to the original Press Conference statement, which I do support. 
While it's nice to be optimistic, it's nicer to have the lead Scientists be pragmatic and prepare for the worst outcome.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best is the motto I live by so this approach of engaging the public works for me.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

tomasowa said:


> That is a valid point, because at this stage nobody can be sure.
> 
> I was referring to the original Press Conference statement, which I do support.
> While it's nice to be optimistic, it's nicer to have the lead Scientists be pragmatic and prepare for the worst outcome.
> ...


We have in vitro studies that show the vaccines are still effective against at least some of the new strains. If they are less effective against the new strains, that's all the more reason to vaccinate as many people possible as soon as possible, in order to mitigate the spread of these new strains.

In other words, if the vaccine offers 60% protection instead of 95%, for example, we need to get that vaccine in as many people as possible as soon as possible to reduce the number of likely disease vectors and reduce the odds of coming into contact with the new strains. It would result in an exponential decline in new strain cases.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> ...



We're not at a disagreement here; Vaccination is the best solution until Medicine can be found.

The only issues I have are with MRNA Vaccination and how slow the information to the public has become, even from the Media who supposedly aren't biased and are working to empower the people.

That said, I'm starting to repeat myself, which isn't particularly useful.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We have in vitro studies that show the vaccines are still effective against at least some of the new strains. If they are less effective against the new strains, that's all the more reason to vaccinate as many people possible as soon as possible, in order to mitigate the spread of these new strains.
> 
> In other words, if the vaccine offers 60% protection instead of 95%, for example, we need to get that vaccine in as many people as possible as soon as possible to reduce the number of likely disease vectors and reduce the odds of coming into contact with the new strains. It would result in an exponential decline in new strain cases.


60% protection still means a 60% lower chance of catching the disease, and if you do, a 60% lower chance of you developing symptoms, and so on. We're not trying to eradicate COVID, we're trying to stop people from going to hospital and above all, dying.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If they are less effective against the new strains, that's all the more reason to vaccinate as many people possible as soon as possible



  less is more...


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> less is more...


Thanks for cutting out the part of my post where I attempted to give you an accessible crash course in epidemiology in order to explain why it's even more important to vaccinate as many people as possible if the vaccine is somewhat less effective against new strains. You sound like a fucking moron. I can't imagine how you don't feel any shame or embarrassment by that post.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Thanks for cutting out the part of my post where I attempted to give you an accessible crash course in epidemiology in order to explain why it's even more important to vaccinate as many people as possible if the vaccine is somewhat less effective against new strains. You sound like a fucking moron.



Blah blah.  You said a dumb thing.  I pointed it out.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

The flu mutates every single year, but we don't have a global flu-based culling every single winter season because we've developed an immune response to viruses that are *like* it. Some people die every year, but catching the flu or the common cold is no longer a world-shattering event for *most* people. A vaccine is like a punching bag - it's not just like punching someone, but it lets you learn some technique without breaking your knuckles in the process. Depending on the mutation the efficacy may be reduced, but we're not talking about one strain completely replacing the other, we're dealing with both simultaneously. It's not a this or that, it's both, at the same time. This should motivate you to take it *more*, not less, as your odds of contracting the virus have increased, not decreased.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Blah blah.  You said a dumb thing.  I pointed it out.


No, I didn't, and the fact that you don't see that is part of the reason why you should be embarrassed.

If a vaccine is somewhat less effective against new strains, then we need to reduce the number of disease vectors (people who could catch the disease and spread it to others) as soon as possible, since disease spread with the new strains will likely result in exponential growth unmediated.

In other words, if the vaccine is less effective (let's say 60% instead of 95%) then it doesn't take an epidemiologist to understand that we would want to offset that difference by getting as many people vaccinated with that 60% as soon as possible.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> No, I didn't, and the fact that you don't see that is part of the reason why you should be embarrassed.
> 
> If a vaccine is somewhat less effective against new strains, then we need to reduce the number of disease vectors (people who could catch the disease and spread it to others) as soon as possible, since disease spread with the new strains will likely result in exponential growth unmediated.
> 
> In other words, if the vaccine is less effective (let's say 60% instead of 95%) then it doesn't take an epidemiologist to understand that we would want to offset that difference by getting as many people vaccinated with that 60% as soon as possible.


I'm starting to get really bored with the same shit having to be explained to 2 or 3 morons/trolls over and over again.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> No, I didn't, and the fact that you don't see that is part of the reason why you should be embarrassed.



Because you cannot see it.  I'll demonstrate.

You said "If they are less effective against the new strains, that's all the more reason to vaccinate as many people possible as soon as possible".

What you meant is "If they are at all effective against the new strains, that's all the more reason to vaccinate as many people possible as soon as possible."

Easy.  Admit you said something stupid.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Because you cannot see it.  I'll demonstrate.
> 
> You said "If they are less effective against the new strains, that's all the more reason to vaccinate as many people possible as soon as possible".
> 
> ...


We want as many people vaccinated as soon as possible regardless, but if a vaccine is somewhat less effective, it becomes even more important to vaccinate as many people as possible as soon as possible. I suggest you reread my posts and learn something for once.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Because you cannot see it.  I'll demonstrate.
> 
> You said "If they are less effective against the new strains, that's all the more reason to vaccinate as many people possible as soon as possible".
> 
> ...


I'm not in the Lacius fan club, but even I can see that's not what he said. The fact that the virus is mutating rapidly and efficacy is decreasing with each new strain is in fact a good reason to immunise - the longer you wait the more likely it is that the vaccine will be ineffective and will have to be reworked. You should take it as soon as you can if we're supposed to prevent the virus from mutating further.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> I'm starting to get really bored with the same shit having to be explained to 2 or 3 morons/trolls over and over again.


I'm honestly considering taking a break from politics and COVID-19 threads, because it started getting boring months ago.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The flu mutates every single year, but we don't have a global flu-based culling every single winter season because we've developed an immune response to viruses that are *like* it. Some people die every year, but catching the flu or the common cold is no longer a world-shattering event for *most* people. A vaccine is like a punching bag - it's not just like punching someone, but it lets you learn some technique without breaking your knuckles in the process. Depending on the mutation the efficacy may be reduced, but we're not talking about one strain completely replacing the other, we're dealing with both simultaneously. It's not a this or that, it's both, at the same time. This should motivate you to take it *more*, not less, as your odds of contracting the virus have increased, not decreased.



For the people who were early on the boat with the initial vaccine, wouldn't it be likely that those people would be more likely to take a second vaccine for a variant?  It seems like we might be entering uncharted territory.  The idea of it makes me feel  a little nauseous.  Of course that's placebo speaking.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not in the Lacius fan club


Don't deny it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Don't deny it.


Wine and dine me first, buddy - I don't kiss before I'm tended to.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> For the people who were early on the boat with the initial vaccine, wouldn't it be likely that those people would be more likely to take a second vaccine for a variant?  It seems like we might be entering uncharted territory.  The idea of it makes me feel  a little nauseous.  Of course that's placebo speaking.


This is just waffle. Are you suggesting that the government is using it as an excuse to inject us with new mind-control chemicals or whatever your brand of conspiraceh is annually or am I reading this word salad wrong? Either way, I have news for you: We've been giving yearly flu jabs to certain people for a long while now. This would be nothing new.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> This is just waffle. Are you suggesting that the government is using it as an excuse to inject us with new mind-control chemicals or whatever your brand of conspiraceh is or am I reading this word salad wrong?


What a foolish suggestion.

They put those chemicals in the water. You know nothing, clearly.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What a foolish suggestion.
> 
> They put those chemicals in the water. You know nothing, clearly.


Oh yes. Of course!


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm honestly considering taking a break from politics and COVID-19 threads, because it started getting boring months ago.




You should, it'll be good for your quality of life in general. I did and haven't been missing a thing. Very small doses now. Just sittin' back, watching it burn.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We want as many people vaccinated as soon as possible regardless, but if a vaccine is somewhat less effective, it becomes even more important to vaccinate as many people as possible as soon as possible.



Well, if you are chasing the "thing" then the "thing" is always going to be ahead of you.  That's like the Obama approach.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> You should, it'll be good for your quality of life in general. I did and haven't been missing a thing. Very small doses now. Just sittin' back, watching it burn.


Everybody has a plan when they're running for re-election, never let a good crisis go to waste.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> picture


Because of the Trump failures, it's going to be nearly impossible to change the trajectory of the virus within the next couple of months. Biden is correct. However, the long-term trajectory of the virus is likely to change radically since there's competent leadership in the White House now.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Well, if you are chasing the "thing" than the "thing" is always going to be ahead of you.  That's like the Obama approach.


I'm not even sure what your point is here.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 23, 2021)

scroeffie1984 said:


> joe biden is not the president of amerika ,dont be angry at me this is commen sense




The echo chamber loser whose channel this is on keeps deleting comments that don't fit his narrative. Lmao. What a snowflake. The ONLY comments allowed are praises for the video, the kid, and Trump.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not even sure what your point is here.



Fine.  I give up.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Because of the Trump failures, it's going to be nearly impossible to change the trajectory of the virus within the next couple of months. Biden is correct. However, the long-term trajectory of the virus is likely to change radically since there's competent leadership in the White House now.


The trajectory was going to change regardless as vaccination rates have been ramping up every day. With that said, the current administration does need to intensify the effort, and vaccine disinfo isn't helping, so let's focus on that for the time being.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The trajectory was going to change regardless as vaccination rates have been ramping up every day. With that said, the current administration does need to intensify the effort, and vaccine disinfo isn't helping, so let's focus on that for the time being.


My point was that the current trajectory, when you take into account all of the variables (the current poor vaccination rates, Trump's virus denial and anti-mask rhetoric during the first half of the pandemic, and many many more Trump failings), is unlikely to be affected in the short-term by anything done between now and the next couple of months. The only things we can do is act as quick as possible to mitigate infections and deaths in the long term.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> My point was that the current trajectory, when you take into account all of the variables (the current poor vaccination rates, Trump's virus denial and anti-mask rhetoric during the first half of the pandemic, and many many more Trump failings), is unlikely to be affected in the short-term by anything done between now and the next couple of months. The only things we can do is act as quick as possible to mitigate infections and deaths in the long term.


We'll discuss this over spaghetti and a glass of merlot, then we can discuss club memberships. No point in making this circular.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Because of the Trump failures, it's going to be nearly impossible to change the trajectory of the virus within the next couple of months. Biden is correct. However, the long-term trajectory of the virus is likely to change radically since there's competent leadership in the White House now.




Yeah blah blah horseshit. Trump's Operation Warp Speed brought us from 0mph to approved vaccine distribution in 10 months, and Biden takes credit for the effects. 

Gotta go put gas in my car now. Price is going up if you haven't noticed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah blah blah horseshit. Trump's Operation Warp Speed brought us from 0mph to approved vaccine distribution in 10 months, and Biden takes credit for the effects.
> 
> Gotta go put gas in my car now. Price is going up if you haven't noticed.


To be fair, you had your chance to buy oil stocks when the price per barrel went into the negative. You'd be a considerably richer man now if you did, wink wink.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah blah blah horseshit. Trump's Operation Warp Speed brought us from 0mph to approved vaccine distribution in 10 months, and Biden takes credit for the effects.
> 
> Gotta go put gas in my car now. Price is going up if you haven't noticed.


You should check out my recent posts about how there was no Trump vaccine distribution plan, and the vaccine distribution in this country was as much a logistical failure as it was a moral failure.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2021)

@Lacius

All I remember was old people and necessary personnel first.  All of that relied on the accessibility of a vaccine to begin with.  Maybe you could change your words into links?.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> @Lacius
> 
> All I remember was old people and necessary personnel first.  All of that relied on the accessibility of a vaccine to begin with.  Maybe you could change your words into links?.


Just about everything I've said about the Trump administration's vaccine rollout failures have been supported with links. I suggest you look back at my recent posts today.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> The echo chamber loser whose channel this is on keeps deleting comments that don't fit his narrative. Lmao. What a snowflake. The ONLY comments allowed are praises for the video, the kid, and Trump.



Another funny. He has this posted in the "Community" section of his channel. Yet again, he continually deletes any/all comments he doesn't like or agree with. Lmao. I'll say this for the 1,000th time. Deplorables/Patriots/Trumpers (whatever one wishes to call them) are THE single largest group of compulsive hypocrites on the face of the planet.

Oh yeah, another video of his he's blabbering about "I got a 30 day suspension on Facebook.... for telling the truth!!!!"


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Just about everything I've said about the Trump administration's vaccine rollout failures have been supported with links. I suggest you look back at my recent posts today.


I've stopped taking the bait now. I can't be bothered with these "people" anymore.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Not really the point. The point is that Biden ran on a "Trump doesn't have a plan and I do, it's ready to go from Day 1 when I'm elected" platform. That's obviously not the case - he's continuing with what was already in place, it's not a brand-new plan, it's the same plan. In terms of COVID response, due to the way the U.S. government works, a lot of the blame is on individual state governments, not the federal government which really doesn't have a lot to say on these matters, at least not until the situation reaches full-blown existential threat, national emergency level.


the main reason why shit isn't getting done is because of those sore loser gop senateors are holding up cabnet confimation hearings as i recall only 2 members were appointed mind you investigations into some of the GOP needs to beunless trump pardoned them already which will add more fuel to the fire for trumps post presidency impeachment for jan 6th barring him for life for holding any federal office


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 23, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> the main reason why shit isn't getting done is because of those sore loser gop senateors are holding up cabnet confimation hearings as i recall only 2 members were appointed mind you investigations into some of the GOP needs to beunless trump pardoned them already which will add more fuel to the fire for trumps post presidency impeachment for jan 6th barring him for life for holding any federal office


There's an on-going debate whether he can even be tried after leaving office - the Constitution is vague in this regard since impeachment was designed as a method of removing a sitting president from office. Even if they decide to vote and the SC doesn't stop the trial in its tracks, a 2/3 majority is still required to convict, which they're unlikely to reach. I would prepare for disappointment in case you're counting on your weird revenge fantasy coming true, there's a couple of obstacles in the way. We'll see what happens after the hearings.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Just about everything I've said about the Trump administration's vaccine rollout failures have been supported with links. I suggest you look back at my recent posts today.


responding to tabzer is ineffective, everyone
may i suggest... _not?_


----------



## Joe88 (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Let's resync with reality, shall we?
> 
> *Biden inheriting nonexistent coronavirus vaccine distribution plan and must start 'from scratch,' sources say*
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/biden-covid-vaccination-trump/index.html



and lets debunk anonymously sourced fake news articles from cnn shall we?

*Fauci: We are not 'starting from scratch' on vaccine distribution*

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...starting-from-scratch-on-vaccine-distribution


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> responding to tabzer is ineffective, everyone
> may i suggest... _not?_


I've officially given up conversing with him. The only thing he's interested in is annoying people with political trolling.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> and lets denunk anonymously sourced fake news articles from cnn shall we?
> 
> *Fauci: We are not 'starting from scratch' on vaccine distribution*
> 
> https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...starting-from-scratch-on-vaccine-distribution


Like them or not, reputable news sources like CNN generally don't report news unless the sources are reputable. They know who the sources are and are protecting their anonymity. The reporting is likely correct.

I've also already responded to what Fauci said. Technically having a vaccine distribution plan doesn't mean the Trump administration effectively had a vaccine distribution plan. I have also listed all of the failures of the Trump administration when it comes to vaccine distribution.


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> and lets denunk anonymously sourced fake news articles from cnn shall we?
> 
> *Fauci: We are not 'starting from scratch' on vaccine distribution*
> 
> https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...starting-from-scratch-on-vaccine-distribution



Go ahead and denunk. Rather than being wrong, it's more likely the anonymous report is hyperbole and fauci is being political.

So there probably was a plan, but a shit plan that was not fit for purpose. Like Trump was a shit president, not fit for purpose.

They aren't starting from scratch because Trump did order some vaccine, but strangely he turned down ordering more.



Foxi4 said:


> and vaccine disinfo isn't helping, so let's focus on that for the time being.



Getting Trump out of office and off Twitter & Facebook will already have had an effect on removing disinformation.


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The trajectory was going to change regardless as vaccination rates have been ramping up every day.



Not quickly enough and with a long incubation period and then a long time before people end up in hospital and then a long time before they did, no matter what you do there is going to be a time delay between what you do and the effect.

All the deaths of the next couple of months are already baked in.



Mike_Swe said:


> .



You appear to not understand what he's saying.

What Joe Biden is going to do today will have an effect in a few months & not before.

All Trump could offer were lies, but covid19 isn't stopped by lying to it, insulting it or suing it. So Trump was confused how to deal with it.



Mike_Swe said:


> LOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL



Why are you laughing at reality?


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 23, 2021)

Thank god I am not from America and can laugh at your shitshow :-D


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> Thank god I am not from America and can laugh at your shitshow :-D


The shitshow ended Janauary 20.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You should check out my recent posts about how there was no Trump vaccine distribution plan, and the vaccine distribution in this country was as much a logistical failure as it was a moral failure.




Yeah just ignore 40 million vaccines distributed before the inauguration and that CNN's being a useful mouthpiece for the Biden transition.












Here's the pdf he linked:
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/strategy-for-distributing-covid-19-vaccine.pdf


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The shitshow ended Janauary 20.



No its still going on very clear from this thread, thank you for the show!


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 23, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> No its still going on very clear from this thread, thank you for the show!




You ain't seen nothin' yet.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah just ignore 40 million vaccines distributed before the inauguration and that CNN's being a useful mouthpiece for the Biden transition.


You should go back in this thread to my posts (with links) on the failings of the Trump vaccine distribution "plan." It was fucked up bad, and a lot fewer people have been vaccinated because of it. This will cause people to die.


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> You ain't seen nothin' yet.



I hope so this is fun.


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah just ignore 40 million vaccines distributed before the inauguration and that CNN's being a useful mouthpiece for the Biden transition.



Yeah, just ignore science.

Vaccinating 40 million people out of 328.2 million people in 37 days will probably not have made a significant impact. Trump only ordered enough vaccine for 200 million people.

We don't know what effect the vaccine will have on transmission as it is believed you can still get covid 19 after having the vaccine, it's just less likely to kill you.

The only way to make any kind of dent is to wear masks, socially distance, etc.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> We don't know what effect the vaccine will have on transmission as it is believed you can still get covid 19 after having the vaccine, it's just less likely to kill you.
> 
> The only way to make any kind of dent is to wear masks, socially distance, etc.


We know that the more people who are vaccinated, the less COVID-19 will be transmitted. The vaccine offers approximately 95% effectiveness against contracting the virus. The effectiveness of the vaccine is likely to last at least a few years.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> Vaccinating 40 million people out of 328.2 million people in 37 days will probably not have made a significant impact.



Never said that alone was enough to make a significant impact. But it IS faster than Biden's own goal/benchmark of 100 million in 100 days. But apparently, that was "fucked up bad."


----------



## notimp (Jan 23, 2021)

What do you all have a problem with?

- One of the two vaccines greenlit 'fastest', because it could be produced fastest (mRNA) - was actually produced in Germany.
- But Germany doesnt get the early benefits, because the US payed tripple
- None of which will matter in two months if conventional vaccines get greenlit that are easier to produce
- Issue - those might currently not be effective against some of the mutations already in play.

If you want to get off on a statistic that will not be relevant two months from now - and thereby not in terms of a 'herd immunity equivalent':





People vaccinated as a percentage of population.

So what the heck where the last 10 pages about?


Also - people SERIOUSLY have problems thinking in non linear terms. Amount of vaccine available correlates with factories able to produce it - which for mRNA is flipping limited, but for conventional vaccines is not. So overproduction starts in two to three months (because we also have to produce for the rest of the world).

If those vaccines then also protect against all mutations currently in play - is another question.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 23, 2021)

notimp said:


> What do you all have a problem with?
> 
> - One of the two vaccines greenlit 'fastest', because it could be produced fastest (mRNA) - was actually produced in Germany.
> - But Germany doesnt get the early benefits, because the US payed tripple
> ...


So who's right Lacius or Hanafuda?


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Never said that alone was enough to make a significant impact. But it IS faster than Biden's own goal/benchmark of 100 million in 100 days.



Well you need to compare it to how quickly Trump would have delivered those next 100 million shots.

And it's not safe to assume it would be the same as the previous 40 million, due to it being harder to vaccinate some people more than others. If you look at the figures they peak a few times, there is no guarantee there is going to be the same low hanging fruit.

Moderna and Pfizer needs to be kept really cold and there are limits to how far it can be moved. The oxford (astrazeneca) vaccine doesn't have that issue, but the us hasn't approved it yet.

You are really comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Never said that alone was enough to make a significant impact. But it IS faster than Biden's own goal/benchmark of 100 million in 100 days. But apparently, that was "fucked up bad."


See my previous post on the matter, dude:


Lacius said:


> The facts are clear that there was effectively no vaccine distribution plan. If we want to discuss technicalities that mean the Biden people have to remake 99% of the vaccine "plan" vs. 100% of the vaccine "plan," I'm not particularly interested. Governors cannot even come up with their own plans if they're constantly being misled about the number of vaccine doses they're getting, which is what the Trump admin did. The Trump administration vowed to release reserve doses that didn't even existed. I'd say the distribution plan was a complete fuck-up, but there was no plan to speak of.
> 
> *States told by federal government they will receive fewer Pfizer vaccine doses next week, sparking confusion*
> 
> ...





notimp said:


> - Issue - those might currently not be effective against some of the mutations already in play.


While the vaccines might not offer the same level of resistance against the new strains, there's evidence the vaccines are still at least somewhat effective against them.



SG854 said:


> So who's right Lacius or Hanafuda?


Do you have to ask?


----------



## notimp (Jan 23, 2021)

SG854 said:


> So who's right Lacius or Hanafuda?


Both a bit - I guess, but doesnt matter - because, the real ramp up comes with Astra Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines greenlit.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/22/health/covid-19-vaccines-johnson-and-johnson-next/index.html

Which arent mRNA and therefore easier to produce. US payed tripple the price for early allocations of the mRNA vaccines, but those cant be produced at scale. So if you are rich old guy in the US everything went pogers. If you look at it from a societal perspective, 'whos ahead now' almost doesnt matter. (Doesnt impact, when stores can open again, f.e.)

That said, if Astra Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines f.e. dont protect against mutations already in play -- right strategy would have been to invest massively into scaling up mRNA vaccine production (which is shown to likely protect against the new british strain as well - unknown, how likely against the new brasilian (?) (sorry blanking on the origin) one) (But that was also the 'most risky' vaccine (as clinical trials for other vaccines of that kind were already underway before Covid, but its 'new tech'.).


----------



## SG854 (Jan 23, 2021)

notimp said:


> Also - people SERIOUSLY have problems thinking in non linear terms. Amount of vaccine available correlates with factories able to produce it - which for mRNA is flipping limited, but for conventional vaccines is not. So overproduction starts in two to three months (because we also have to produce for the rest of the world).
> 
> If those vaccines then also protect against all mutations currently in play - is another question.


Thats true, same reason GPU stock is low. 



Lacius said:


> See my previous post on the matter, dude:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I do. I like people to go into more detail and elaborate.


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

SG854 said:


> So who's right Lacius or Hanafuda?



Hanafuda seems blinded by loyalty to Trump and hate of Biden.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 23, 2021)

notimp said:


> Both a bit - I guess, but doesnt matter - because, the real ramp up comes with Astra Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines greenlit.
> https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/22/health/covid-19-vaccines-johnson-and-johnson-next/index.html
> 
> Which arent mRNA and therefore easier to produce. US payed tripple the price for early allocations of the mRNA vaccines, but those cant be produced at scale. So if you are rich old guy in the US everything went pogers. If you look at it from a societal perspective, 'whos ahead now' almost doesnt matter. (Doesnt impact, when stores can open again, f.e.)
> ...


I heard current vaccines will be enough to fight mutations. They aren't mutated enough to be vastly different.

Mutations will cause the virus to be less deadly. Virus needs a host to survive. If the host keeps dying it decreases virus chance of survival. I can only evolve to be less deadly.


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> While the vaccines might not offer the same level of resistance against the new strains, there's evidence the vaccines are still at least somewhat effective against them.



There are some reports there is a 50% reduction in efficacy & they already didn't stop you catching covid19.

Vaccination isn't going to end this, no matter what Trump said it isn't just going to disappear.

The UK government is investing in a production facility that will be able to produce enough vaccine for everyone in the UK within 6 months. It's hoped it will be open by christmas.

We're going to be vaccinating everyone every year for the foreseeable future.



SG854 said:


> I heard current vaccines will be enough to fight mutations. They aren't mutated enough to be vastly different.



Unlikely, even the mutations we have now. Let alone what mutations we might have in another couple of months.



SG854 said:


> Mutations will cause the virus to be less deadly. Virus needs a host to survive. If the host keeps dying it decreases virus chance of survival. I can only evolve to be less deadly.



No, not true at all. Most people don't get symptoms, of those who do then most don't die and it takes a while. The current mutations don't actually increase the numbers of death by a huge amount relatively speaking. We are still a long way from covid19 from mutating to be something more like ebola with a short period before everyone gets really sick and dies. covid19 is a much more effective virus than ebola.

It could become both more deadly and more transmissible. It's too early to be 100% sure, because the mutations have only recently taken hold. But that is what the early results in the UK appear like.


----------



## notimp (Jan 23, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I heard current vaccines will be enough to fight mutations. They are mutated enough to be vastly different.


What I heard is the following.

This goes for mRNA vaccines. This might not go for the Astra Zeneca vaccine. (Still in testing). (Johnson and Johnson is the same 'kind' - might produce different results, dont know.)

Furthermore, the new strain from Great Britain is 'pretty close' in terms of the receptor protein - so likely to be covered by excisting vaccines (thats a yes on both mRNA afair, and a dont know on AstraZeneca).

The new strain from Brasil/South africa (sorry I'm blanking on origin), mutated by quite a bit, and might not be covered by any of them.

That said, AstraZeneca is already working on modifying their vaccine so it covers the new mutations - which is a pretty straight forward thing - for the method that vaccine uses, because they can basically copy the mutation steps in the RNA, and put it into the vaccine -- and thats a process they already do for the annual flue vaccine f.e. So process is easy - but this still means - delay (another year)?

Depends on propagation. (Its not that wide spread in Europe as of now, so it might be fine, if it arrives before the next winter - f.e.).


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> There are some reports there is a 50% reduction in efficacy & they already didn't stop you catching covid19.
> 
> Vaccination isn't going to end this, no matter what Trump said it isn't just going to disappear.
> 
> ...


Yes, the vaccines do indeed offer resistance against catching COVID-19. In addition, with the efficacy likely lasting approximately 2-4 years, we might not see a yearly vaccine. Instead, we might see a vaccine every few years. We will see.


----------



## omgcat (Jan 23, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Since Joe Biden was sworn in, 8,529 people have died from Covid


on average, it takes 2 months from infection to death. those 8+k people were sick way before biden got in office my friend.
great bait, makes this image look real:


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Yes, the vaccines do indeed offer resistance against catching COVID-19.



What do you mean by "catching"

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/can-you-still-spread-covid-19-if-youve-had-the-vaccine/

_As stated on the government website, it is only known for sure the Covid vaccine can protect you from becoming seriously ill, not others who are yet to be vaccinated.

At present, it is unknown if it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus. However, experts do expect it to reduce this risk._


----------



## SG854 (Jan 23, 2021)

notimp said:


> What I heard is the following.
> 
> This goes for mRNA vaccines. This might not go for the Astra Zeneca vaccine. (Still in testing). (Johnson and Johnson is the same 'kind' - might produce different results, dont know.)
> 
> ...


It's alot of catch up and trying to keep up with mutations. Even if we have the best production and distribution methods keeping up with mutations is another thing. But it could be similar to the common flu. We keep up with that yearly.


----------



## omgcat (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> They prevent you from "getting sick" with covid 19. That doesn't mean you can't be a host.



it effectively prevents serious complications and death. that's the point. if we get everyone vaccinated much less people will be hospitalized or dead.


----------



## notimp (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> They prevent you from "getting sick" with covid 19. That doesn't mean you can't be a host.


From showing the worst symptoms yes - so they are beneficial. In any case.

I've heard that as well but currently am unsure for what vaccine that statement was made...

This afair is for new mutations. A working vaccine for those new strands would also mean, it prevents you from spreading it.


----------



## omgcat (Jan 23, 2021)

SG854 said:


> It's alot of catch up and trying to keep up with mutations. Even if we have the best production and distribution methods keeping up with mutations is another thing. But it could be similar to the common flu. We keep up with that yearly.



it took them less than 48 hours to sequence the genome of the original covid virus and making a working vaccine. the mRNA platform they are working on can be programmatically updated based on most common sequenced strains. fuck they could automate the process entirely once an update vaccine is proved safe.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> What do you mean by "catching"


Contracting the virus, it developing into the disease COVID-19, and that person becoming contagious. The vaccine offer resistance against getting COVID-19.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> Hanafuda seems blinded by loyalty to Trump and hate of Biden.




I never even liked Trump, not as a person. Caustic ass. Dig enough through my post history and you'll find me saying so. But I don't vote for politicians on personality, or character. The deregulation of administrative agency procedures, freeing up the fracking industry so the USA could break its dependence on Saudi and Russian oil, no new wars and actual progress toward peace in the Middle East, the booming economy (pre-Covid, not to mention the incredible recovery speed last fall) and lowest unemployment across all demographics pretty much ever ... that I liked. I would vote for him again, but I would vote for Joe Biden if he promised to do the same things.


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

notimp said:


> A working vaccine for that strand would also mean, it prevents you from spreading it.



As it's not know whether the current vaccines stop you spreading the existing strains, then I don't think you can expect it to work on new strains. Especially when there are reports the current vaccines only have 50% efficancy

I don't know if it affects both vaccines the same, but the UK is going to run out of pfizer and moderna doses soon and then it's all oxford all the way. So they are unlikely to single one type of vaccine out at this point.



Hanafuda said:


> I never even liked Trump, not as a person. Caustic ass. Dig enough through my post history and you'll find me saying so. But I don't vote for politicians on personality, or character. The deregulation of administrative agency procedures, freeing up the fracking industry so the USA could break its dependence on Saudi and Russian oil, no new wars and actual progress toward peace in the Middle East, the booming economy (pre-Covid, not to mention the incredible recovery speed last fall) and lowest unemployment across all demographics pretty much ever ... that I liked. I would vote for him again, but I would vote for Joe Biden if he promised to do the same things.



You say no new wars. I didn't realise the US were at war with Iran.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/50982493

Fracking is an environmental hell hole, but Trump loves the oil industry.

Thing is you do sound like you are blinded by a love of Trump. Maybe you just love all his loser ideas.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I never even liked Trump, not as a person.


i love how "reasonable" trump supporters start every conversation with a long-form disavowment, then go on to praise his every move
if you just admitted you love the guy we'd respect you more


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> While the vaccines might not offer the same level of resistance against the new strains, there's evidence the vaccines are still at least somewhat effective against them.


Let me explain this for some who don't understand it yet:

Immunity is not an absolute. It's a blurred continuum. Generally speaking, with viruses, immunity works by the immune system building antibodies that can connect to the protein spikes of the virus. Those protein spikes are _very _complex, which means a sudden flip to a totally different protein build is unlikely. Generally, if a virus gets a mutation in relation to its protein spikes, one _small _part of it will change. That will make _some _of your antibodies against the virus ineffective, but some will still work. Your body retains some sort of *resistance* to the pathogen. 'Resistance' and 'immunity' are not the same things. 'Resistance' implies that something doesn't have _much _of an effect on you, while 'immunity' implies that you are completely invulnerable. The reason why you don't die of colds, but you can still get ill from them is because you have *resistance *to most of the viruses that cause upper respiratory disease. Part of that resistance is inherited through thousands of generations of coexisting with those viruses, and part of it is through exposure. If you get a cold this year, you will retain some sort of resistance to the virus responsible from the cold you had last year or the year before. Hence, you sometimes get a stuffy nose and a headache (a lot of the time no symptoms at all), but you don't really feel _that _ill and you fight it off with relative ease, and your body updates its adaptive immunity to the new mutations the virus gained this year. Rinse and repeat.

COVID doesn't exactly work in that way, but it follows a similar basic model. The new variants will most likely have a small difference in their overall protein structure, but the other 99% is identical to the older variant. Currently we don't think it mutates exceptionally fast, certainly not as much as rhinoviruses, the main culprits of the common cold, so these changes will occur at a considerably slower rate than most other widespread viruses. This means the current vaccines will continue to be effective at preventing _severe _disease for quite some time into the future, possibly for the rest of the person's life if they are able to come into contact with new COVID strains regularly and keep updating their adaptive immunity without falling more than mildly ill. When I say 'mildly', I mean getting a headache or a cough for a couple of days, not 'mildly' as in as bad as the flu and just staying out of the hospital. Also, as Lacius points out, the faster we roll out the vaccine to as many people as possible, the more effective it will stay, as less hosts mean less chances of changing its structure in a way that somehow helps the virus to circumvent the vaccine. This is why people not vaccinating their kids for measles and other such illnesses is such a bad thing; right now it's not that common, so most people will stay resistant, but if more and more people start getting it because people aren't vaccinating, the virus will begin to mutate to a point where the MMR isn't effective against it anymore, and a new measles epidemic, and likely pandemic, will ensue, and millions of children and most likely adults too will die, and millions more children will be left permanently deaf. Measles spreads crazy fast: about twice as fast as COVID does, and COVID spreads about twice as fast as regular human upper respiratory infections (RHURI? Can that be a thing now?). Measles is no joke.

Back to the topic at hand, a new variant or 10 isn't the end of the world. The vaccine will likely offer a significant amount of protection against these slightly different variants. 'But muh new variant' isn't a good reason to not take the vaccine, in fact that directly helps the virus to mutate more and worse than diversify, speciate into entirely different species, at which point a single vaccine becomes almost impossible. Don't be an idiot, take your shot.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 23, 2021)

I love how as soon a Biden is president China starts to mess with Taiwan more is like they know he wont do anything lol Beijing Biden


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> 'But muh new variant' isn't a good reason to not take the vaccine, in fact that directly helps the virus to mutate more and worse than diversify, speciate into entirely different species, at which point a single vaccine becomes almost impossible. Don't be an idiot, take your shot.



Exactly. The same as "I'll let everyone else have the vaccine and rely on herd immunity" is dumb because they won't be the only idiot doing that & you'll end up with the same issue.



Valwinz said:


> I love how as soon a Biden is president China starts to mess with Taiwan more is like they know he wont do anything lol Beijing Biden



Trump didn't do anything other than self harm.

Taiwan seem to have the situation under control.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> Trump didn't do anything other than self harm.


That's going in my signature


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> That's going in my signature



I meant about china. But I'm not sure if he did anything that wasn't self harming in some way.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> I meant about china. But I'm not sure if he did anything that wasn't self harming in some way.


I know, it's just funny


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 23, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i love how "reasonable" trump supporters start every conversation with a long-form disavowment, then go on to praise his every move
> if you just admitted you love the guy we'd respect you more



I have mixed feelings about Trump. Been seeing his face since the early 80's. Always thought he was a bombastic ass, but I don't live vicariously through the television / pop culture like most people so I didn't care. (I don't watch pro sports, and I don't watch ANY American television with commercials, since 1987. I couldn't care less about celebrity endorsements, what happened on the last episode, etc.) But given the choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016 ... no contest. I would vote for a bag of flaming dogshit over Hillary Clinton. I was skeptical of whether Trump would follow through after being elected, since he had been a Democrat, and 3rd party ... not consistent. But he did nominate good conservative judges, he did follow through on the deregulation, he did produce a booming economy, fuel independence for the US for the first time ever, and very low unemployment. So yes, I supported him in re: job performance. But love the guy? No, that's not my personality on any aspect of culture. No religion here, no fanaticism. No red caps, either lol.

I mean, do you really "love" Joe Biden??? Probably not. But you'll take him every fucking day over Trump, amirite?


----------



## notimp (Jan 23, 2021)

> The *South African* variant carries a *mutation* called E484K, among others. ... Scientists have tested the Pfizer *Covid* vaccine against one of the *mutations* found in the *South African* variant, called N501Y, using blood samples from 20 people. In that preliminary study, vaccination appeared to work against the *mutated* virus


Thats Pfizer, which is mRNA - correlate this with:

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavir...ne-system-warn-researchers-1761619-2021-01-22

and:
https://web.archive.org/web/2021012.../20/health/coronavirus-variants-immunity.html


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The shitshow ended Janauary 20.


To be fair, we still have some Trump and Q followers in government, so a little bit is still there.


----------



## smf (Jan 23, 2021)

_using blood samples from 20 people. In that preliminary study, vaccination appeared to work against the *mutated* virus
_
I think I will wait for the result of a full study.

The oxford vaccine is likely going to need to be tweaked, delaying it by months. The UK was relying on the oxford vaccine. But the oxford vaccine was already in doubt, which is why the US hasn't approved it yet and instead doing it's won trials.

I think the UK is going to just keep using it until a better one comes along though.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 23, 2021)

smf said:


> _using blood samples from 20 people. In that preliminary study, vaccination appeared to work against the *mutated* virus
> _
> I think I will wait for the result of a full study.
> 
> ...


Hey, a bit of protection and reduction in severe cases is better than none at all though, right?


----------



## wartutor (Jan 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence the vaccine killed those 29 people in Norway.


Lol lacius still standing in his front yard arguing with the alien about its existence because his government fact checking websites says "their is no proof of aliens" there for they don't exist.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> . If I take the vaccine and have a car accident later, that's not the vaccine's fault. You have to consider externalities, a lot of the patients taking it are already old.


No but if you test positive for covid and die in a car accident covid death numbers just went up 1


----------



## Viri (Jan 23, 2021)

Cool, now where is my 2000 dollar check?


----------



## wartutor (Jan 24, 2021)

Viri said:


> Cool, now where is my 2000 dollar check?


$1400 but it's OK Noone does the math at first. I'm still wondering how him saying that wasnt considered buying votes.

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-w...yDqvkD5XgPbCgK7YGTeBL68bjskTB1B7QUsMFECrQUnr1


----------



## Viri (Jan 24, 2021)

wartutor said:


> $1400 but it's OK Noone does the math at first. I'm still wondering how him saying that wasnt considered buying votes.
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-w...yDqvkD5XgPbCgK7YGTeBL68bjskTB1B7QUsMFECrQUnr1


Wow, that's bull shit! He said 2000 dollars, and now he's trying for 1400? He told people to vote a certain way at the runoff, if they want their 2 grand. DNC has control in both the Senate and House. If no 2000 dollar by the end of the month, then they're just as useless as the other party.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Lol lacius still standing in his front yard arguing with the alien about its existence because his government fact checking websites says "their is no proof of aliens" there for they don't exist.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


People get vaccinated, and things happen to people after they're vaccinated. Correlation doesn't not mean causation, and it's embarrassingly stupid to claim otherwise.

The only person doing any front yard yelling is the one shouting unsubstantiated anti-vaccination nonsense. You might as well be claiming that vaccines cause autism because some people developed autism at some point after receiving vaccinations. That's not how science works. Anecdotes aren't data. When you learn these things, the less like a front yard yeller you'll seem.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> People get vaccinated, and things happen to people after they're vaccinated. Correlation doesn't not mean causation, and it's embarrassingly stupid to claim otherwise.
> 
> The only person doing any front yard yelling is the one shouting unsubstantiated anti-vaccination nonsense. You might as well be claiming that vaccines cause autism because some people developed autism at some point after receiving vaccinations. That's not how science works. Anecdotes aren't data. When you learn these things, the less like a front yard yeller you'll seem.


Oh I'm not spitting anti vac shit. Hell open the line I will get in it. Let's vaccinate and open shit up I'm not scared. Just think its funny you said that just like how u constantly repeated "their is no proof of election fraud" like your reading it from a government approved response book  just ripping and making a little joke. (Apparently not a good one as I have to explain it lol)


----------



## Xzi (Jan 24, 2021)

Viri said:


> Wow, that's bull shit! He said 2000 dollars, and now he's trying for 1400? He told people to vote a certain way at the runoff, if they want their 2 grand. DNC has control in both the Senate and House. If no 2000 dollar by the end of the month, then they're just as useless as the other party.


Biden said $2000 total, and $600 was already sent out.  I agree though that the optics are bad, not just because so many Americans are incapable of doing basic math, but also because an "extra" $600 shouldn't be a deal-breaker after going a year without any relief.  Just about every other first-world nation gave their citizens monthly payments to get through the pandemic.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Oh I'm not spitting anti vac shit. Hell open the line I will get in it. Let's vaccinate and open shit up I'm not scared. Just think its funny you said that just like how u constantly repeated "their is no proof of election fraud" like your reading it from a government approved response book  just ripping and making a little joke. (Apparently not a good one as I have to explain it lol)


You implied I'll deny evidence when it's staring me in the face, so forgive me if I didn't think it was funny.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 24, 2021)

wartutor said:


> just like how u constantly repeated "their is no proof of election fraud"


Are we really gonna talk about 'but muh election fraud' again? Really people? I thought that shit had gone past its use by date now.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jan 24, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Are we really gonna talk about 'but muh election fraud' again? Really people? I thought that shit had gone past its use by date now.



People will keep using 'fake news' and 'fraud' like they're some kind of political Expelliarmus, say it loud enough and the other side can't do anything. Sadly those of us who live in reality just have to deal with their delusions and desperate clinging to false hope. Trump made it sound like he'd fix all their problems and people are nothing if not lazy entitled sheep who'll follow anyone who offers an easy way out. Sod working hard to fix your life, just wait for someone claiming to be a savior to do it all for you. So now Trump is spinning it like he was robbed and he was totally gonna fix all your piddly-ass problems but never got a chance because of the evil people standing in his way. People will stay desperate and stay on his message because they still can't tell false hope from anything real. As long as there are lazy, desperate people with even the smallest problems in life, there will always be people like Trump looking to exploit their desperation for political gain. So no, there is no use by date on election fraud claims. That shit is eternal, better get used to it. It's always been there, the internet just made it obvious.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You implied I'll deny evidence when it's staring me in the face, so forgive me if I didn't think it was funny.



Well...

Correlation is evidence that would solicit further investigation, and unfortunately the Norway situation is disappointing on such accounts.  Denying evidence is a skill you've harnessed, especially via platitudes as if pleading the 5th.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well...
> 
> Correlation is evidence that would solicit further investigation, and unfortunately the Norway situation is disappointing on such accounts.  Denying evidence is a skill you've harnessed, especially via platitudes as if pleading the 5th.


Cool story, not actual evidence as per the normal with you.


----------



## Viri (Jan 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Biden said $2000 total, and $600 was already sent out.


1400 =/= 2000! Those people running in Georgia said we'd be getting 2 grand if they were voted in, they were voted in.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 24, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Cool story, not actual evidence as per the normal with you.



Yes, wanting further understanding is a normal response when being presented with a correlation.  Defensiveness is not.


"Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof. 

Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true. Proof is final and conclusive. Evidence is tentative."

Generalization:  The only reason I can imagine why you say evidence instead of proof, is because you want to hide how defensive you are being.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well...
> 
> Correlation is evidence that would solicit further investigation, and unfortunately the Norway situation is disappointing on such accounts.  Denying evidence is a skill you've harnessed, especially via platitudes as if pleading the 5th.


Investigation is great, but there is currently no more evidence these vaccines killed anybody than there is evidence that vaccines have ever caused autism.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yes, wanting further understanding is a normal response when being presented with a correlation.  Defensiveness is not.
> 
> 
> "Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof.
> ...


So do you actually have evidence or just more random pseudo-intellectual comments?


----------



## tabzer (Jan 24, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> random pseudo-intellectual comment



The subject is how correlation relates to evidence and you ignore both to sound big brained.  What kind of beast are you?


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The subject is how correlation relates to evidence and you ignore both to sound big brained.  What kind of beast are you?


Vaccines don't cause autism. The shrinking number of pirates doesn't cause global warming. As far as you know, vaccines didn't kill 29 people in Norway. As I've said to you a thousand times already, come back when you have some evidence, and learn how logical fallacies work.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 24, 2021)

Viri said:


> 1400 =/= 2000! Those people running in Georgia said we'd be getting 2 grand if they were voted in, they were voted in.


There is some argument about which one is going to happen, as some folks said 2000 and meant different things by it. Biden eventually settled on the 2000 that is actually 1400 but we'll see. It's a bit messed up to me as well. Since we probably won't see it till march or so either way, that extra few months of separation definitely shows how disingenuous that "2000" claim was.

And the senate is split 50/50, so only some things can be tie breaked by the vice president. Some things require 60/40 votes or more. And the republicans can still filibuster. So...democrats are certainly going to try their best to get aid to the american people. Just pay attention to who votes for what.


----------



## notimp (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> As it's not know whether the current vaccines stop you spreading the existing strains, then I don't think you can expect it to work on new strains. Especially when there are reports the current vaccines only have 50% efficancy


BS?

They (likely) do stop you spreading existing strains (they are designed to work against). Partly because of the potentially lower efficiancy on new strains, the other thing is also true.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-g...ading-it-scientists-dont-know-yet-11610989882

edit: https://www.healthline.com/health-n...covid-19-after-getting-a-vaccine-what-to-know

https://web.archive.org/web/2021010...com/2020/12/08/health/covid-vaccine-mask.html


----------



## wartutor (Jan 24, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Are we really gonna talk about 'but muh election fraud' again? Really people? I thought that shit had gone past its use by date now.


I never said that was just talking about how he spits shit out like he is reading from a God damn government approved answer sheet God damn democrats just hear/read what ever they want just insert words here and there.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

wartutor said:


> I never said that was just talking about how he spits shit out like he is reading from a God damn government approved answer sheet God damn democrats just hear/read what ever they want just insert words here and there.


"There is no evidence of widespread election fraud" is the appropriate response to false claims of widespread election fraud.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 24, 2021)

osaka35 said:


> There is some argument about which one is going to happen, as some folks said 2000 and meant different things by it. Biden eventually settled on the 2000 that is actually 1400 but we'll see. It's a bit messed up to me as well. Since we probably won't see it till march or so either way, that extra few months of separation definitely shows how disingenuous that "2000" claim was.
> 
> And the senate is split 50/50, so only some things can be tie breaked by the vice president. Some things require 60/40 votes or more. And the republicans can still filibuster. So...democrats are certainly going to try their best to get aid to the american people. Just pay attention to who votes for what.


Indeed.  AOC wants a new $2000 payment sent out, on top of the $600.  And Bernie Sanders has voiced his support of monthly $2000 payments from the beginning of this pandemic.  Of course the latter is off the table, even with 51* votes in the Senate guaranteed.

* The Vice President is President of the Senate, and her vote breaks any ties.  First time in the country's history the role has had so much power attached AFAIK.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> As far as you know, vaccines didn't kill 29 people in Norway



I agree.  It's not a standing argument.


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 24, 2021)

LOL I find it funny that people are afraid of a flu.

Been living with Chrons for the last 21 Years, I promise you the Morona is a joke in comparison to what most chronically ill peoples health-problems.

Already had the corona and it was a joke, would rather have it another 10000 times if my intestions went back to working like a normal humans.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The subject is how correlation relates to evidence and you ignore both to sound big brained.  What kind of beast are you?


Correlation isn't evidence and I just want to see you actually make a post with evidence in it. You've gone through two threads now and thus far haven't actually posted anything worth a damn for your arguments. Instead, you've only shifted the burden and just posted comments that sound smart but literally provide nothing of substance.


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

notimp said:


> BS?
> 
> They (likely) do stop you spreading existing strains (they are designed to work against). Partly because of the potentially lower efficiancy on new strains, the other thing is also true.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure your point as you say it's BS but then post links that support my argument.

It probably reduces transmission, because the time you are shedding virus is probably shorter as you started killing it quicker but so few people have been vaccinated that it won't make much difference yet. Especially if the people who are vaccinated are vulnerable and have been isolating.



Mike_Swe said:


> LOL I find it funny that people are afraid of a flu.
> 
> Been living with Chrons for the last 21 Years, I promise you the Morona is a joke in comparison to what most chronically ill peoples health-problems.
> 
> Already had the corona and it was a joke, would rather have it another 10000 times if my intestions went back to working like a normal humans.



I think you missed the point. Your argument is so flawed it's like you haven't paid attention at all for the last 10 months.



tabzer said:


> Correlation is evidence that would solicit further investigation,



I would say that correlation is worthless unless you have the ability to find evidence and present it in a way that is compelling.

Otherwise it's as pointless looking for correlation as it is to tell people you're thinking of building a time machine.


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> I'
> I think you missed the point. Your argument is so flawed it's like you haven't paid attention at all for the last 10 months.



I have and I still laugh at your fear.


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> I have and I still laugh at your fear.



You clearly haven't or lack the ability to understand, or you are a troll. It's hard to tell the difference from reading your posts.


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> You clearly haven't or lack the ability to understand, or you are a troll. It's hard to tell the difference from reading your posts.



Not a troll, been laughing at this for the last year, I am chronically ill since 21 years next week, and I had Corona and it was a joke in comparison which made me laugh at peoples fear even more its nothing serious unless you have serious co-morbidies affecting your lungs or old age and stopping the world for it is beyond stupid.

Now if you are not afraid I applaud you, I laugh at the people wearing masks when driving in their cars alone for example, and no matter the amount of snarky comments from you will make me stop laughing at them and you!


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> Not a troll



Says the troll. It can still kill you without pre-existing conditions, problem is you don't know until it's too late.

People wear masks when they are in the car alone because you shouldn't keep touching the mask to take it off & presumably they need the mask when they get out.


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Says the troll. It can still kill you without pre-existing conditions, problem is you don't know until it's too late.
> 
> People wear masks when they are in the car alone because you shouldn't keep touching the mask to take it off & presumably they need the mask when they get out.


Sure bro keep telling yourself that, I will keep laughing enjoy your life, peace out


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> Sure bro keep telling yourself that, I will keep laughing enjoy your life, peace out



Yes, I will keep telling myself the truth. Laugh with people, not at them. That is how you will find peace and stop feeling so inadequate.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 24, 2021)

osaka35 said:


> that extra few months of separation definitely shows how disingenuous that "2000" claim was


Welcome to politics. Don't judge a candidate based on their election promises, judge them on their past actions before they were in the presidential race.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> It can still kill you without pre-existing conditions, problem is you don't know until it's too late


I don't know, I'm not too worried about it myself. I've heard about something like 1 case of someone in the 18-25 category dying. All the freak accident deaths seem to be with younger children (that kawasaki-like syndrome that could be linked with COVID-19 in children) or people in their 30s. Not that I disagree with controlling the disease or anything, fully on board with that.


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> I don't know, I'm not too worried about it myself.





Cryoraptor said:


> Not that I disagree with controlling the disease or anything, fully on board with that.



I'm not too worried about it myself either, but Mike_Swe seems to be saying that by wanting to control it you must be scared of it to the point that it deserves ridicule.

For the UK this is a list of deaths with no pre-existing conditions.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...stingconditionsanddeathtotalsforthelast5years

Age does make a difference, possibly more than is reflected in the figures as those in the "at risk groups" are probably less exposed to the virus generally.



Cryoraptor said:


> I've heard about something like 1 case of someone in the 18-25 category dying.



It's probably not a good idea to base your risk assessment on anecdotal evidence. You also shouldn't assume the age of anyone here.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> I'm not too worried about it myself either, but Mike_Swe seems to be saying that by wanting to control it you must be scared of it to the point that it deserves ridicule.


Oh yeah. I'm not scared of it, but the hospitals are overcrowded as it is. If we were to let it rip with no vaccine or anything, a lot of the older generation would be seen off, especially considering the little room hospitals did have would go towards all the people in their 40s and 50s that need hospital care, leaving anyone older than that to either get over it on their own or choke to death on their own dead white blood cells. Granted, it'd be over quickly and _most _of the population wouldn't die; a lot of people with comorbidities and age would still survive, but 500-750k people dead in this country still isn't great.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 24, 2021)

10,000-20,000 lobs lost due to Biden, war kickstarted in Syria and he got locked out of the white house.

This is going great.


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> 10,000-20,000 lobs lost due to Biden, war kickstarted in Syria and he got locked out of the white house.
> 
> This is going great.



Better than the last four years.

So what Jobs? Is it the environmentally destructive ones that Trump tried to steam roller in?

What about the war Trump tried starting with Iran?

Not so much locked out of the whitehouse as just more of Trumps petty childish bullying.

You want it to go badly, so you're trying to convince yourself it has gone badly. It hasn't


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Better than the last four years.
> 
> So what Jobs? Is it the environmentally destructive ones that Trump tried to steam roller in?
> 
> ...


Only here you can find people happy others lost their jobs you been here makes me think you don't have a job since you have time to post here all-day


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> makes me think you don't have a job since you have time to post here all-day


The fact that you're the one here constantly trolling makes me think you're the one without a job.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Not so much locked out of the whitehouse as just more of Trumps petty childish bullying.




Trump had nothing to do with it, he was long gone. The Bidens were actually locked out, but it was only for a brief time. It was their own doing too ... they fired the guy in charge just before the inauguration started, without designating someone else to do the job. Not a big deal, just a run of the mill snafu.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 24, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Trump had nothing to do with it, he was long gone. The Bidens were actually locked out, but it was only for a brief time. It was their own doing too ... they fired the guy in charge just before the inauguration started, without designating someone else to do the job. Not a big deal, just a run of the mill snafu.



p sure the thing they referred to was Trump basically leaving Biden with as absolutely little as possible, which is in fact his fault


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> they fired the guy in charge just before the inauguration started, without designating someone else to do the job. Not a big deal, just a run of the mill snafu.



Timothy Harleth was supposedly fired at 11:30 which was before anyone from Biden's team arrived.

Trump said he didn't do it. Maybe Trump is telling the truth for the first time in his life? I'd want to see proof.



Valwinz said:


> Only here you can find people happy others lost their jobs you been here makes me think you don't have a job since you have time to post here all-day



Are you saying the only people who post here don't have jobs?

Also, it's Sunday.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Timothy Harleth was supposedly fired at 11:30 which was before anyone from Biden's team arrived.
> 
> Trump said he didn't do it. Maybe Trump is telling the truth for the first time in his life? I'd want to see proof..




I'm just going by what the news is reporting. It's right there in the video, Biden didn't want anyone Trump-connected left in the White House. Mainstream news reporting is accurate, right?


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm just going by what the news is reporting. It's right there in the video, Biden didn't want anyone Trump-connected left in the White House. Mainstream news reporting is accurate, right?



Well I don't know, I'm only going on what is being reported in the news. It may have been a mistake that Team Biden is now blaming Team Trump for. The problem is that Trump has spent all his time acting like a dick, in the name of getting things done. So it's believable that he's acting like a dick now. It's the risk you take with that strategy.


https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/timothy-harleth-white-house-chief-usher/index.html

_A Biden White House official confirmed Harleth's departure, but added, "he was let go before the Bidens arrived" at the White House._

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-chief-white-house-usher-Timothy-Harleth.html

_'It happened before we walked in the door,' White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at her briefing on Friday when asked who fired Harleth._

https://thegrio.com/2021/01/23/trump-fired-chief-usher-white-house/

_The Bidens were falsely accused of firing the White House's chief usher on their first day in the residence
_
https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-team-fired-white-house-080546001.html


FWIW I believe the Biden's had said they were going to replace him, just not before they moved in.


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

*Snip*

You're saying he didn't order a bombing?

_https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/50982493

General Qasem Soleimani died in an airstrike in neighbouring Iraq which was ordered by US President Donald Trump on Friday 3 January 2020._

_In response, Donald Trump has said the US is ready to attack 52 sites "important to Iran and the Iranian culture"._


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> You're saying he didn't order a bombing?
> 
> _https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/50982493
> 
> ...



FYI your country has been bombing children in the middle east your entire life, that was nothing in comparison


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> I decide to laugh at you because you are ridiculous I laugh with people that don´t shit their pants for a flu virus,



Firstly, nobody is shitting their pants. You are just imagining that.

Secondly, https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/no-covid-19-is-not-the-flu.html


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Firstly, nobody is shitting their pants. You are just imagining that.
> 
> Secondly, https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/no-covid-19-is-not-the-flu.html



I truly dont give a single shit about morona, you fear it, I dont give a shit, peace out


----------



## smf (Jan 24, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> FYI your country has been bombing children in the middle east your entire life, that was nothing in comparison



How has "my country" got anything to do with comparisons between Trump and Biden?



Mike_Swe said:


> I truly dont give a single shit about morona, you fear it, I dont give a shit, peace out



I don't want to catch it, but I'm not living in fear. You are very judgmental, laughing at people that know better than you.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 24, 2021)

Just woke up today and Biden still has no deposited the 2,000 dollars he promise


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 24, 2021)

*Snip*



smf said:


> How has "my country" got anything to do with comparisons between Trump and Biden?


Nobody ever looks at the flag, do they?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Better than the last four years.
> 
> So what Jobs? Is it the environmentally destructive ones that Trump tried to steam roller in?
> 
> ...


Fracking doesn't do shit to the environment. And the war trump PREVENTED in Iran you mean?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 24, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Fracking doesn't do shit to the environment. And the war trump PREVENTED in Iran you mean?


ah yes, preventing international violence with _*squints at hand*_ narrower, more precise international violence
and fracking absolutely does damage to the environment- but you're probably unwilling to even imagine trump ever supporting anything remotely bad, so there's really no way to convince you of basic facts like "violence is the worst thing you could do as a way of _preventing war_" or "in general, convoluted methods of extracting and using oil for fuel are going to beat the shit out of the environment"


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> *Emote of doubt*


Shale gas is, objectively speaking, the cleanest fossil fuel. Burning it releases 45% less carbon dioxide, 75% less nitrogen oxide, nearly no sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, black carbon and particulates or mercury. The concerns in regards to fracking are centered around the accidental release of methane during the extraction process, but that can be limited with proper procedures.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Shale gas is, objectively speaking, the cleanest fossil fuel. Burning it releases 45% less carbon dioxide, 75% less nitrogen oxide, nearly no sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, black carbon and particulates or mercury. The concerns in regards to fracking are centered around the accidental release of methane during the extraction process, but that can be limited with proper procedures.


Fracking is demonstrably associated with various health risks, significantly increases earthquakes in the area, and contributes to the problems of climate change and global warming, both because of the release of methane and because of the burning of fossil fuels.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

Fracking should be illegal.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Shale gas is, objectively speaking, the cleanest fossil fuel. Burning it releases 45% less carbon dioxide, 75% less nitrogen oxide, nearly no sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, black carbon and particulates or mercury. The concerns in regards to fracking are centered around the accidental release of methane during the extraction process, but that can be limited with proper procedures.


alternatively, clean energy


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Fracking is demonstrably associated with various health risks, significantly increases earthquakes in the area, and contributes to the problems of climate change and global warming, both because of the release of methane and because of the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
> 
> Fracking should be illegal.



So does cow farts.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Just woke up today and Biden still has no deposited the 2,000 dollars he promise


He wanted $2,000 instead of $600. You got $600. $2,000 minus $600 is $1,400, and you will get it if Republicans don't fuck it up.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 24, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So does cow farts.


this is perhaps the stupidest take on climate i have seen on the politics section of gbatemp, and think of the ground that covers


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So does cow farts.


It's actually cow burps, not cow farts. And you're right. We should scale down meat production.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 24, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> this is perhaps the stupidest take on climate i have seen on the politics section of gbatemp, and think of the ground that covers


Am I wrong tho

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> It's actually cow burps, not cow farts. And you're right. We should scale down meat production.


Youre absolutely right. We should eat bugs like good little boys and girls. Eat the bugs.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Am I wrong tho
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


The biggest problems are the burning of fossil fuels, so diverting attention to the methane produced by meat production doesn't do anything to counter the need to stop burning fossil fuels. Cow methane could be the #1 problem, and it wouldn't change the conversation about burning fossil fuels.

Methane from the meat industry is a problem. We should reduce the amount of meat we produce.

Nobody said anything about bugs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Fracking is demonstrably associated with various health risks, significantly increases earthquakes in the area, and contributes to the problems of climate change and global warming, both because of the release of methane and because of the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
> 
> Fracking should be illegal.


Those are possible, not confirmed effects. The actual impact of fracking is not well-researched, according to your own link. The problems you've mentioned can be mitigated with proper procedures.


> An assessment of the currently available evidence indicates that the *potential* risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction *will be low* if the operations are properly run and regulated.





> The *potential* environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing include air emissions and climate change, high water consumption, groundwater contamination, land use, risk of earthquakes, noise pollution, and health effects on humans. (...) Escape of methane is a *bigger problem in older wells than in ones* built under more recent EU legislation.





> A better *understanding of the geology of the area being fracked* and used for injection wells can be helpful in mitigating the potential for significant seismic events.





> U.S.Surface water *may be* contaminated through spillage and *improperly built and maintained* waste pits,and ground water can be contaminated *if the fluid is able to escape* the formation being fractured (through, for example, *abandoned wells, fractures, and faults*) or by produced water (the returning fluids, which also contain dissolved constituents such as minerals and brine waters). *The possibility of groundwater contamination* from brine and fracturing fluid leakage through old abandoned wells *is low*.


In other words, there's a good way and a bad way to do it.


Darth Meteos said:


> alternatively, clean energy


This is not sufficient due to the characteristics of green energy sources.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 24, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Am I wrong tho


you are right in that cows emit methane gas
the difference, you absolute moron, is in the quantity and control aspects
i spent about two minutes trying to come up with a metaphor to describe the desolate void that is in your skull, but it's beneath me, and i could be doing something more useful, like sweeping a beach or spitting at a forest fire


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The biggest problems are the burning of fossil fuels, so diverting attention to the methane produced by meat production doesn't do anything to counter the need to stop burning fossil fuels. Cow methane could be the #1 problem, and it wouldn't change the conversation about burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Methane from the meat industry is a problem. We should reduce the amount of meat we produce.
> 
> Nobody said anything about bugs.



https://www.politico.eu/article/bugs-for-dinner-eu-agency-says-mealworms-safe-to-eat/
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nsect-save-planet-global-warming-tasty-trendy
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...save-the-planet-from-climate-change-80gxhrgs6
https://thenewamerican.com/world-ec...eeds-and-bugs-to-save-us-from-climate-change/
https://environmentjournal.online/a...cts-could-be-the-key-to-a-sustainable-planet/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/to-save-the-world-eat-bugs/283970/
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/eat-insects-save-the-world.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/25/health/insects-feed-save-planet-wellness/index.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/natu...hange-meat-production-eating-insects-research

The EU just made worms "safe to eat".
https://www.politico.eu/article/bugs-for-dinner-eu-agency-says-mealworms-safe-to-eat/

"“There are clear environmental and economic benefits if you substitute traditional sources of animal proteins with those that require less feed, produce less waste and result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions," Mazzocchi said in a statement."

Ban fracking. Eat bugs. Drink soy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Darth Meteos said:


> you are right


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Those are possible, not confirmed effects. The actual impact of fracking is not well-researched, according to your own link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fracking as we know it is associated with heath risks, and if you mitigates those risks, it doesn't solve the other problems I mentioned.

It should also be noted that many of the health risks are confirmed, not speculative.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Purple_Shyguy said:


> https://www.politico.eu/article/bugs-for-dinner-eu-agency-says-mealworms-safe-to-eat/
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nsect-save-planet-global-warming-tasty-trendy
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...save-the-planet-from-climate-change-80gxhrgs6
> https://thenewamerican.com/world-ec...eeds-and-bugs-to-save-us-from-climate-change/
> ...


I mean neither of us in the conversation brought up bugs, and eating bugs is not required to mitigate climate change, and bugs are not required to reduce the amount of meat we produce.

There's also nothing wrong with eating bugs and/or soy when one wants to do it. You haven't made an argument against mitigating climate change.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Fracking as we know it is associated with heath risks, and if you mitigates those risks, it doesn't solve the other problems I mentioned.
> 
> It should also be noted that many of the health risks are confirmed, not speculative.


Reducing your reliance on shale gas doesn't reduce your reliance on coal and other fossil fuels - the opposite is true, you're still relying on them, even more so in the absence of fracking.  Shale gas is an excellent transitional fuel before green energy can be rolled out in a sustainable manner, which will take decades. We've had this argument before in the previous thread though, so rehashing it seems pointless.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You haven't made an argument against mitigating climate change.


i have an argument
if we don't do anything, it will hasten our deaths
sounds like everything i've ever wanted


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i have an argument
> if we don't do anything, it will hasten our deaths
> sounds like everything i've ever wanted


Something that always gives me a hearty chuckle. Everybody's in a hurry to get off the roller coaster until they see a bent rail on the horizon, that's when they start looking for emergency breaks.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Reducing your reliance on shale gas doesn't reduce your reliance on coal and other fossil fuels - the opposite is true, you're still relying on them, even more so in the absence of fracking.  Shale gas is an excellent transitional fuel before green energy can be rolled out in a sustainable manner, which will take decades. We've had this argument before in the previous thread though, so rehashing it seems pointless.


Sure, we don't have to rehash our old arguments. I will just say there there's no reason to substantively use any of the fossil fuels, and contrasting natural gas with other fossil fuels doesn't make natural gas or fracking good things. They're demonstrably bad.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Something that always gives me a hearty chuckle. Everybody's in a hurry to get off the roller coaster until they see a bent rail on the horizon, that's when they start looking for emergency breaks.


dude i'm just a millenial no need to break out the metaphors on me
wanting to die is almost like having a personality for us



Lacius said:


> Sure, we don't have to rehash our old arguments. I will just say there there's no reason to substantively use any of the fossil fuels, and contrasting natural gas with other fossil fuels doesn't make natural gas or fracking good things. They're demonstrably bad.


what i don't get is why we don't just do a new deal
we have unemployment issues at the moment and we're in a massive economic depression
now is kind of the time to do a new deal and convert america's energy production to sustainable sources through big public works projects


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Sure, we don't have to rehash our old arguments. I will just say there there's no reason to substantively use any of the fossil fuels, and contrasting natural gas with other fossil fuels doesn't make natural gas or fracking good things. They're demonstrably bad.


Meanwhile, my argument is that you can slice your emissions in more than half by using shale gas more extensively and choose not to because a bunch of squirrels and other assorted critters are in the way (Keystone XL). Fossil fuels, by nature, provide more energy security than green energy does purely because they can be easily stored whereas wind or sunlight cannot - they must be converted into electricity and stored in some form of kinetic or electrochemical battery. It's an engineering challenge. I will agree that burning just about anything is bad for the environment, as is any form of mining, since that's objectively true - they're all detrimental to the environment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> dude i'm just a millenial no need to break out the metaphors on me
> wanting to die is almost like having a personality for us


Always err on the side of Mickey Mouse.



 
Panic is rarely advisible.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Meanwhile, my argument is that you can slice your emissions in more than half by using shale gas more extensively and choose not to because a bunch of squirrels and other assorted critters are in the way (Keystone XL). Fossil fuels, by nature, provide more energy security than green energy does purely because they can be easily stored whereas wind or sunlight cannot - they must be converted into electricity and stored in some form of kinetic or electrochemical battery. It's an engineering challenge. I will agree that burning just about anything is bad for the environment, as is any form of mining, since that's objectively true - they're all detrimental to the environment.


Burning any fossil fuels is unacceptable. The cumulative damage done to the planet is undeniable. We have everything we need to switch to 100% green energy. You are right there are some engineering hurdles, but we already have the technology to more than get over them.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> He wanted $2,000 instead of $600. You got $600. $2,000 minus $600 is $1,400, and you will get it if Republicans don't fuck it up.


fuck what up? is Biden he  controls everything lol  is on Him not the minority


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> fuck what up? is Biden he  controls everything lol  is on Him not the minority


Biden does not "control everything." He is the executive branch, and Republicans can potentially use the filibuster in half of the legislative branch.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Biden does not "control everything." He is the executive branch, and Republicans can potentially use the filibuster in half of the legislative branch.


In all fairness, the last three presidencies are now characterised by large swathes of executive action. Obama signed a bunch of EO's, Trump came in, undid a bunch of them and signed loads of his own, and on the first day in office Biden undid a bunch of Trump's while adding a load of his own. I'm surprised that Congress isn't crying executive overreach at this stage, the office of the presidency has been usurping the power of the legislature for nigh on two decades now.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, the last three presidencies are now characterised by large swathes of Executive action. Obama signed a bunch of EO's, Trump came in, undid a bunch of them and signed loads of his own, and on the first day in office Biden undid a bunch of Trump's while adding a load of his own. I'm surprised that Congress isn't crying Executive overreach at this stage, the office of the Presidency has been usurping the power of the legislature for nigh on two decades now.


I'm not saying Biden can't/hasn't used executive action to unilaterally accomplish certain goals, but he doesn't have unlimited power. He doesn't "control everything." He can't use executive orders to mail out $1,400 stimulus checks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not saying Biden can't/hasn't used executive action to unilaterally accomplish certain goals, but he doesn't have unlimited power. He doesn't "control everything." He can't use executive orders to mail out $1,400 stimulus checks.


Technically he can, if he chooses to announce a national emergency on the grounds of the pandemic making people destitute. He does have the power to divert funds from one branch to another, for whatever purpose, just as Trump did by diverting funds from the military towards wall construction. He doesn't need congressional approval, and the state of the economy is poor, so I can't say it would be completely unreasonable. I can see a scenario wherein funds are diverted from, say, the military, towards social safety nets and direct support. You could make the case that it's necessary to quel civil unrest and improve national security, which is in a dire state, as evidenced by riots.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Technically he can, if he chooses to announce a national emergency on the grounds of the pandemic making people destitute. He does have the power to divert funds from one branch to another, for whatever purpose, just as Trump has by diverting money from the military towards wall construction. He doesn't need congressional approval, and the state of the economy is dire, so I can't say it would be completely unreasonable. I can see a scenario wherein funds are diverted from, say, the military, towards social safety nets and direct support.


Potentially. I disagree, and it would be a matter for the courts to resolve regardless. Biden understandably only wants to use executive action where there's already precedent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Potentially. I disagree, and it would be a matter for the courts to resolve regardless. Biden understandably only wants to use executive action where there's already precedent.


Simply pointing out an avenue. I agree that it would be disconcerting as under that interpretation the president effectively has dictatorial power over all other branches of government with zero oversight, but that's what executive action is accelerating towards - it's a noticeable trend that both sides dabble in.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 25, 2021)

smf said:


> I would say that correlation is worthless unless you have the ability to find evidence and present it in a way that is compelling.



Well yes and no.  While my resources and credentials are limited, pointing out correlation to someone who is in the position to investigate should be enough evidence to compel someone whose interest is potentially at stake.  Correlation does not imply causation, but that does not mean it should be ignored.  Contrarily, it is often the founding evidence of any useful inquiry or working theory.  Having correlations explained _away_ with anecdotal responses, shut down with platitudes, or dismissed altogether is anti-scientific and vilifies natural human curiosity.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well yes and no.  While my resources and credentials are limited, pointing out correlation to someone who is in the position to investigate should be enough evidence to compel someone whose interest is potentially at stake.  Correlation does not imply causation, but that does not mean it should be ignored.  Contrarily, it is often the founding evidence of any useful inquiry or working theory.  Having correlations explained _away_ with anecdotal responses, shut down with platitudes, or dismissed altogether is anti-scientific and vilifies natural human curiosity.


Accepting scientific claims without any sort of scientific evidence to support them is what's anti-scientific, by definition.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 25, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Accepting scientific claims without any sort of scientific evidence to support them is what's anti-scientific, by definition.


Accepting government claims without questioning them and taking everything they say as truth is idiotic and scary that your side can  think that way. Lack of proof doesn't disprove


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Accepting government claims without questioning them and taking everything they say as truth is idiotic and scary that your side can  think that way. Lack of proof doesn't disprove


I don't accept "government claims" without questioning them. I accept claims when there's evidence to support them.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 25, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Simply pointing out an avenue. I agree that it would be disconcerting as under that interpretation the president effectively has dictatorial power over all other branches of government with zero oversight, but that's what executive action is accelerating towards - it's a noticeable trend that both sides dabble in.


well you know who to blame the damn GOP they want us dems either dead or dying (which i feel the opposite is true the republicans who are ignoring mask mandates and becoming super spreaders are the most ones dead or dying if only we can find out the deceased political affiliation pretty sure more from the right are dying or even contracting  covid more than the left who are more likely to abide by the mandates


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 25, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Always err on the side of Mickey Mouse.
> Panic is rarely advisible.


This message by Foxi4 has been removed from public view by Darth Meteos, Today at 11:56 AM, Reason: not an imageboard
Today at 8:41 AM



chrisrlink said:


> well you know who to blame the damn GOP they want us dems either dead or dying


fascists are not operating on the same ethical wavelength as everyone else
they need to be removed, not to censor them, but because they are a scourge of mankind


----------



## omgcat (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So does cow farts.



that can be handled by adding certain types of seaweed to the cattle feed, reducing methane emissions by 30-98% depending on the breed of cattle.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jan 25, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> LOL I find it funny that people are afraid of a flu.
> 
> Been living with Chrons for the last 21 Years, I promise you the Morona is a joke in comparison to what most chronically ill peoples health-problems.
> 
> Already had the corona and it was a joke, would rather have it another 10000 times if my intestions went back to working like a normal humans.


Tell that to the over 400,000 Americans who have died


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 25, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Lack of proof doesn't disprove


It doesn't prove either. Having no proof is not a positive, it's a negative. Creationist Fallacy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Shale gas is, objectively speaking, the cleanest fossil fuel. Burning it releases 45% less carbon dioxide, 75% less nitrogen oxide, nearly no sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, black carbon and particulates or mercury. The concerns in regards to fracking are centered around the accidental release of methane during the extraction process, but that can be limited with proper procedures.


Ok, but 45% less carbon dioxide is still a lot of carbon dioxide if it were to be done on an industrial level. It's still bad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> that can be handled by adding certain types of seaweed to the cattle feed, reducing methane emissions by 30-98% depending on the breed of cattle.


More info? This is news to me.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 25, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> It doesn't prove either. Having no proof is not a positive, it's a negative. Creationist Fallacy.


Having no proof when your not allowed to physically test it on your own should raise questions and does merit a completely different type of proof.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 25, 2021)

wartutor said:


> when your not allowed to physically test it on your own


How does anyone 'physically test it'?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 25, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> How does anyone 'physically test it'?


One of the demands from the Republican side was allowing for the examination of the voting machines and their software to ensure that they were set up correctly and never tampered with. To my knowledge they were never allowed to do so (although I will happily accept any source that proves they were as I'm not sure myself), we only saw re-counts of physical ballots, which is not what was requested. Not that it matters post-inauguration anyway.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 25, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> One of the demands from the Republican side was allowing for the examination of the voting machines and their software to ensure that they were set up correctly and never tampered with. To my knowledge they were never allowed to do so (although I will happily accept any source that proves they were as I'm not sure myself), we only saw re-counts of physical ballots, which is not what was requested. Not that it matters post-inauguration anyway.



Military is in control and the Biden presidency is just a fake reality show, didn't you hear?

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for my scientific proof of fair and equal elections that I am supposed to believe in.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Joe "Don't know what im signing" Biden

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



GhostLatte said:


> Tell that to the over 400,000 Americans who have died



Someone dies from heart attack.
Hospital "yep, that's a covid!"
[Hospital pockets money]


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Having no proof when your not allowed to physically test it on your own should raise questions and does merit a completely different type of proof.





Foxi4 said:


> One of the demands from the Republican side was allowing for the examination of the voting machines and their software to ensure that they were set up correctly and never tampered with. To my knowledge they were never allowed to do so (although I will happily accept any source that proves they were as I'm not sure myself), we only saw re-counts of physical ballots, which is not what was requested. Not that it matters post-inauguration anyway.


The paper votes generated by the machines were hand-counted, and the results comported with what the machine votes tallied. There was no fraud.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/audit-in-michigan-county-refutes-dominion-conspiracy-theory/

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9847904839

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Joe "Don't know what im signing" Biden
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There's no evidence Joe Biden doesn't know what he's signing, and considering what he's signing comports with what he publicly said he'd sign, there's evidence he does know what he's signing.

There's no evidence of widespread COVID-19 death misreporting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Military is in control and the Biden presidency is just a fake reality show, didn't you hear?
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm waiting for my scientific proof of fair and equal elections that I am supposed to believe in.


See my post above for the partial evidence of a fair and secure election, and there's more evidence publicly available to you.

It also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof to say you believe widespread voter fraud "probably" happened until you have evidence to the contrary. It's idiotic and conspiratorial to believe in widespread voter fraud any time before evidence is presented of widespread voter fraud.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Man literally says "I don't know what im signing"

You: bro theres no proof bro where's the evidence bro? You got a peer study to show he doesn't know what he's signing? Evidence? Where's your proof though other than he literally said it?"


----------



## Lumstar (Jan 25, 2021)

Accusations of voter fraud are a symptom of a greater phenomenon. These are people who exist outside established reality. Warped by such extreme social media misinformation, they may very well genuinely believe Biden is not in office.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Man literally says "I don't know what im signing"


You got any video evidence of that mate?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> You got any video evidence of that mate?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 25, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The paper votes generated by the machines were hand-counted, and the results comported with what the machine votes tallied. There was no fraud.
> 
> https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/audit-in-michigan-county-refutes-dominion-conspiracy-theory/
> 
> https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9847904839


Again, counting the print-outs was not what was requested. What the Republicans wanted to see was the data directly on the machines as compared to the data on the print-outs. Counting the same data twice obviously gave the same result twice. It was a huge waste of everyone's time. As I said though, that's inconsequential now since a new president was already inaugurated.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Man literally says "I don't know what im signing"
> 
> You: bro theres no proof bro where's the evidence bro? You got a peer study to show he doesn't know what he's signing? Evidence? Where's your proof though other than he literally said it?"


What he actually said was "Kamala put off signing, huh?" in reference to the fact that he was the first to sign the document. You can clearly hear the "huh" at the end, although the man does have a tendency to mumble in an incomprehensible manner.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What he actually said was "Kamala put off signing, huh?" in reference to the fact that he was the first to sign the document.



Proof? Any evidence of that?


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 25, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What he actually said was "Kamala put off signing, huh?" in reference to the fact that he was the first to sign the document. You can clearly hear the "huh" at the end


This 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Proof? Any evidence of that?


Stop lying


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> This
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Proof?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Proof? Any evidence of that?


I mean, yeah, I do. You just posted it.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Man literally says "I don't know what im signing"
> 
> You: bro theres no proof bro where's the evidence bro? You got a peer study to show he doesn't know what he's signing? Evidence? Where's your proof though other than he literally said it?"


The time to believe something is when there's evidence, and Joe Biden didn't claim to not know what he was signing.



Foxi4 said:


> Again, counting the print-outs was not what was requested. What the Republicans wanted to see was the data directly on the machines as compared to the data on the print-outs. Counting the same data twice obviously gave the same result twice. It was a huge waste of everyone's time. As I said though, that's inconsequential now since a new president was already inaugurated.
> 
> What he actually said was "Kamala put off signing, huh?" in reference to the fact that he was the first to sign the document. You can clearly hear the "huh" at the end, although the man does have a tendency to mumble in an incomprehensible manner.


You don't seem to understand that the machine votes were counted the first time, and the printouts were counted during the audits.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, yeah, I do. You just posted it.


Yeah that video where he says don't know what im signing


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Yeah that video where he says don't know what im signing


That's not what he says in the video.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 25, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The time to believe something is when there's evidence, and Joe Biden didn't claim to not know what he was signing.
> 
> You don't seem to understand that the machine votes were counted the first time, and the printouts were counted during the audits.


Oh, I fully understand the procedure, I just considered the audit somewhat inadequate. In my opinion all of this stuff should be running on open source code and the anonymised results should be public for anyone with doubts to see. That's neither here nor there though, election procedures are up to individual states, that's their business.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That's not what he says in the video.


Yes it is.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 25, 2021)

Lumstar said:


> Accusations of voter fraud are a symptom of a greater phenomenon. These are people who exist outside established reality. Warped by such extreme social media misinformation, they may very well genuinely believe Biden is not in office.



Or that Russia appointed Trump for 4 years.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Yes it is.


I am likely going to have criticisms of Biden over the next four years. He will definitely make a lot of  gaffes over the next four years. This is not one of them. He did not say he didn't know what he was signing. Read the posts above.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



shamzie said:


> Or that Russia appointed Trump for 4 years.


Russia did not appoint Trump. However, Russia demonstrably and illegally meddled in the 2016 election to boost Trump and hurt Clinton, and considering the margin in 2016, it very possibly tipped the election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Russia interference had no wide spread effect on the 2016 US presidential election.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Russia interference had no wide spread effect on the 2016 US presidential election.


There is evidence Russian interference did indeed have a widespread effect on the 2016 election. Whether it tipped the election is something we may never know for sure, but it very possibly did.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Taking out some facebook ads with Trump giving a thumbs up did not decide the 2016 election.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Taking out some facebook ads with Trump giving a thumbs up did not decide the 2016 election.


That wasn't even close to the extent of the Russian meddling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That wasn't even close to the extent of the Russian meddling.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections



This giant page basically boils down to wikileaks and facebook ads. You know Russia took out pro bernie and pro Hillary ads too right?

I posted pro Trump stuff in 2016 i guess i meddled in the 2016 elections too. I admit it. I hacked the election guys. Just like Russia I posted Trump giving a thumbs up and hacked millions of peoples brains to vote Trump.


----------



## satel (Jan 25, 2021)

for a short time only


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 25, 2021)

Another day and Beijing Joe still has not deposited the 2,000 dollars he promises but I think people will need more after leaving them without jobs at the pipeline.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Another day and Beijing Joe still has not deposited the 2,000 dollars he promises but I think people will need more after leaving them without jobs at the pipeline.



"$2000? What do you need $1000 for? Your $600 is coming soon! Just wait and the $400 will be put into your account!"


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> This giant page basically boils down to wikileaks and facebook ads. You know Russia took out pro bernie and pro Hillary ads too right?
> 
> I posted pro Trump stuff in 2016 i guess i meddled in the 2016 elections too. I admit it. I hacked the election guys. Just like Russia I posted Trump giving a thumbs up and hacked millions of peoples brains to vote Trump.


The Russian election interference didn't amount to just "Facebook ads and Wikileaks."



> The Internet Research Agency (IRA), based in Saint Petersburg, Russia and described as a troll farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton. They reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media. Additionally, computer hackers affiliated with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) infiltrated information systems of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Clinton campaign officials, notably chairman John Podesta, and publicly released stolen files and emails through DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks during the election campaign. Several individuals connected to Russia contacted various Trump campaign associates, offering business opportunities to the Trump Organization and proferring damaging information on Clinton. Russian government officials have denied involvement in any of the hacks or leaks.


The Russian election interference also specifically boosted Trump and hurt Clinton.

Your arguments are disingenuous, and they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened in 2016.



Valwinz said:


> Another day and Beijing Joe still has not deposited the 2,000 dollars he promises but I think people will need more after leaving them without jobs at the pipeline.



$2,000 minus $600 is $1,400.
Democrats are working on the $1,400 plan this week.
There's nothing about Biden that warrants calling him Bejing Joe.
The pipeline should absolutely be cancelled, considering the environmental disaster it would be, and green jobs would create a lot more jobs than the pipeline would.


----------



## djpannda (Jan 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Another day and Beijing Joe still has not deposited the 2,000 dollars he promises but I think people will need more after leaving them without jobs at the pipeline.





Purple_Shyguy said:


> "$2000? What do you need $1000 for? Your $600 is coming soon! Just wait and the $400 will be put into your account!"


HEY look the game code is pretty high level ... the NPCs are talking to each other. it almost sounds like 2 people talking...


----------



## rensenware (Jan 25, 2021)

got corona back in july and had to quit running for 8 months because of lung issues after I had recovered, even if you don't die from it it can still fuck you over with chronic health conditions


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Beijing Joe


Dude, Beijing Biden was way better


----------



## djpannda (Jan 25, 2021)

Scoop: Dominion Voting Systems has sued Rudy Giuliani for his false claims over the election. Seeking $1.3 billion.NYT story:  https://t.co/ebNHKf5rhe pic.twitter.com/81ezVxaMQp— Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) January 25, 2021

Hey look Here Rudys chance to Present all the undeniable  "Evidence" of Voter Fraud... You know ...Voter Fraud that people SWEARD was Real and but since has not really mentioned..
Can't wait to for "The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires" defense.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 25, 2021)

Imao Biden will keep the National Guard in DC all way through March. the most popular president more than Obama keeping a standing army in DC


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

djpannda said:


> https://twitter.com/NYTnickc/status/1353675903910502401
> Hey look Here Rudys chance to Present all the undeniable  "Evidence" of Voter Fraud... You know ...Voter Fraud that people SWEARD was Real and but since has not really mentioned..
> Can't wait to for "The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires" defense.



great link that literally nobody can read without an account. Did you even read it yourself or did you just look at the title and then copy and paste the link?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> great link that literally nobody can read without an account. Did you even read it yourself or did you just look at the title and then copy and paste the link?


I can read it in incognito
you're spouting shit


----------



## djpannda (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> great link that literally nobody can read without an account. Did you even read it yourself or did you just look at the title and then copy and paste the link?


oh Im sorry, I guess your Code is not updated to use any search engine.
Please tell your handlers that inputing a Google Search bar option is easy in 2021.
*NBC*
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-giuliani-over-false-election-claims-n1255511
*UK.*
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...liani-sued-election-fraud-trump-b1792216.html
*and Heres the Actual Court doc*
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20463211-govuscourtsdcd22648510_1
....your SAD.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

djpannda said:


> oh Im sorry, I guess your Code is not updated to use any search engine.
> Please tell your handlers that inputing a Google Search bar option is easy in 2021.
> *NBC*
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-giuliani-over-false-election-claims-n1255511
> ...



who uses google in '21


----------



## djpannda (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> who uses google in '21


De-flect-ing.. ..
smart strategy.. Pretending not to know how to look up basic info so when people call you on your BS, you can play dumb..


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jan 25, 2021)

Honest question here: how is "voting fraud" any different from "russian intervention"? They both seem like pretty stupid conspiracy nutjobs, yet I see the left constantly mocking the right for it while at the same time doing the same exact thing. How are you guys not worried about the huge amount of hypocrisy that is at the core of the Democrats nowadays? You literally have Biden saying two completely contradictory things and clap like seals. You guys have come to the point where you would literally follow Hitler to the death and do his bidding with no hesitation and still call yourself "anti fascist". I'd be very worried about that. (Important Note: I am NOT republican or right or left of whatever, I'm a NORMAL person that critically thinks about the different parties without having a hardon for any particular one as if it was a national football team).

Russians didn't need to intervene in the past elections and Biden didn't need to do election fraud; nobody wanted Hillary, and nobody wanted Trump again, it's was a case of "the least evil". No real patriot, neither Democrat nor Republican, should be proud of this.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 25, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Honest question here: how is "voting fraud" any different from "russian intervention"? They both seem like pretty stupid conspiracy nutjobs, yet I see the left constantly mocking the right for it while at the same time doing the same exact thing. How are you guys not worried about the huge amount of hypocrisy that is at the core of the Democrats nowadays? You literally have Biden saying two completely contradictory things and clap like seals. You guys have come to the point where you would literally follow Hitler to the death and do his bidding with no hesitation and still call yourself "anti fascist". I'd be very worried about that. (Important Note: I am NOT republican or right or left of whatever, I'm a NORMAL person that critically thinks about the different parties without having a hardon for any particular one as if it was a national football team).
> 
> Russians didn't need to intervene in the past elections and Biden didn't need to do election fraud; nobody wanted Hillary, and nobody wanted Trump again, it's was a case of "the least evil". No real patriot, neither Democrat nor Republican, should be proud of this.


What is meant by "Russian intervention" is basically a misinformation campaign. Maybe this helped sway the silent majority, it probably didn't. Election fraud has no 'moderate' version.

But I agree with you. Saying that Russia put Trump in charge is just as ridiculous as saying the elections were rigged against Trump. Yeah, Russia probably led a misinformation campaign in 2016. But they probably also intefered with Brexit, the French elections, our two elections since then, and pretty much any public vote in Europe or the US in the last decade that you can think of. This is nothing new; it's not exactly a state secret that Russian intelligence is constantly meddling with foreign affairs to destabilise the west. They are so open about Russian Trolls that I suspect some of the more idiotic people that have commented here and on other forums I've visited over the past few years are probably exactly that. China does it as well; on another forum I used to frequent before quitting, there was one member notorious for posting pro-China propaganda, and it became common knowledge that they were most likely a Chinese troll.


----------



## smf (Jan 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> While my resources and credentials are limited, pointing out correlation to someone who is in the position to investigate should be enough evidence to compel someone whose interest is potentially at stake.



Do you think anyone on this thread is in this position? In which case why mention it?

Anyone with the resources to investigate likely has the skills to notice any correlation that you can.



wartutor said:


> Accepting government claims without questioning them and taking everything they say as truth is idiotic and scary that your side can  think that way. Lack of proof doesn't disprove



Your side? Trumps supporters just spent four years believing every lie that he told them. I'm pretty sure by the end he was just throwing out more and more ridiculous lies just to test how far he could push them.



Acid_Snake said:


> nobody wanted Hillary, and nobody wanted Trump again



Well that is provably false.

65,853,514 wanted Hilary, compared to 62,984,828 who wanted Trump in 2016

81,283,098 wanted Biden, compared to 74,222,958 who wanted Trump in 2020.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 25, 2021)

... Did I violate Thread rules, because I didn't get a Message nor reason for my Post being removed.

I wasn't trying to troll, but if there was any part of my Post which felt like it then it is regrettable and I will remove myself from this Thread.


----------



## smf (Jan 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Imao Biden will keep the National Guard in DC all way through March. the most popular president more than Obama keeping a standing army in DC



It only takes a few dumb idiots to attack & Trumps supporters are dumber than most.

JFK was pretty popular.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Honest question here: how is "voting fraud" any different from "russian intervention"? They both seem like pretty stupid conspiracy nutjobs, yet I see the left constantly mocking the right for it while at the same time doing the same exact thing. How are you guys not worried about the huge amount of hypocrisy that is at the core of the Democrats nowadays? You literally have Biden saying two completely contradictory things and clap like seals. You guys have come to the point where you would literally follow Hitler to the death and do his bidding with no hesitation and still call yourself "anti fascist". I'd be very worried about that. (Important Note: I am NOT republican or right or left of whatever, I'm a NORMAL person that critically thinks about the different parties without having a hardon for any particular one as if it was a national football team).
> 
> Russians didn't need to intervene in the past elections and Biden didn't need to do election fraud; nobody wanted Hillary, and nobody wanted Trump again, it's was a case of "the least evil". No real patriot, neither Democrat nor Republican, should be proud of this.


There's at least a grain of evidence of Russian intervention.
Not likely enough to actually change the winner, but enough to notice and prove.
We're generally not using "Russia fucked shit up" as a way to claim the election results themselves were invalid, we're using it along with Trump's other ties to Russia as one more reason he's fundamentally corrupt.
also...
"You literally have Biden saying two completely contradictory things and clap like seals. You guys have come to the point where you would literally follow Hitler to the death and do his bidding with no hesitation and still call yourself "anti fascist". I'd be very worried about that."
"Important Note: I am NOT republican or right or left of whatever, I'm a NORMAL person that critically thinks about the different parties without having a hardon for any particular one as if it was a national football team."
You beat the argument to death with the balance fallacy and golden mean fallacy, spout some of the most outrageous claims I've ever heard in our direction while completely ignoring the guys that _*stormed the damn capital about three weeks ago and actively tried to overturn the results of an election because their leader was a sore loser *__*and they believed him without question,*_ and then act like you're somehow still not biased in either direction.
What the hell?


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> There's at least a grain of evidence of Russian intervention.
> Not likely enough to actually change the winner, but enough to notice and prove.
> We're generally not using "Russia fucked shit up" as a way to claim the election results themselves were invalid, we're using it along with Trump's other ties to Russia as one more reason he's fundamentally corrupt.


The thing is, the same applies to Biden, his connections with China (if you think being friends with China is better than being friends with Russia I have some bad news for you, you're literally following a Nazi country).
Again, bashing Trump for being allied with Russia while applauding an ally of China is probably the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen. How about this: keep foreign powers out of your politics (ALL OF THEM, not just the ones that you don't like, not just the ones that are allied with your political oponents, ALL OF THEM).



Plasmaster09 said:


> completely ignoring the guys that _*stormed the damn capital about three weeks ago and actively tried to overturn the results of an election because their leader was a sore loser *__*and they believed him without question,*_ and then act like you're somehow still not biased in either direction.
> What the hell?


The hell does the capital storm have to do with anything I said? Also its funny how you talk about this but don't say a single word about BLM and Antifa riots that destroyed city after city, killed tens of people and were inheritently violent. Yet I don't see the army being used against BLM like they were used for the capitol.
Trumptists storming the capitol was the stupidest thing ever and gold mine of memes, it sparks nothing but laughter at such idiots, BLM riots sparkled fear and were something to be very worried about.
So then again, hypocrisy at its finest, which seems to be the main driving force behind democrats nowadays.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jan 25, 2021)

#NotMyPresident

I'm Brazilian lol


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> The thing is, the same applies to Biden, his connections with China (if you think being friends with China is better than being friends with Russia I have some bad news for you, you're literally following a Nazi country).
> Again, bashing Trump for being allied with Russia while applauding an ally of China is probably the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen. How about this: keep foreign powers out of your politics (ALL OF THEM, not just the ones that you don't like, not just the ones that are allied with your political oponents, ALL OF THEM).
> 
> 
> ...


ok so
first off, way to bring in the strawmen and re-invoke godwin's law
like really?
and it's not like china has proven to be linked _to Biden's win itself_
and besides, all I said on that front was that we're not using it as an excuse to claim the election itself was invalid, while trumpers are doing so (despite a complete lack of reliable evidence)
and in terms of the capitol riot vs the BLM riots...
BLM protests were never _*intentionally*_ violent, or at the very least no individual protest was done with intent of violence from the start. Most of the violence in BLM protests was either from police over-escalating things (which was one of the major things _*they were protesting*_, ironically enough) or from far-right counter-protestors like Jake Angeli.
The Capitol riot, on the other hand, was in fact intentionally violent through and through- and the entire point was to use violence to threaten the electors into submission.
And the police response? *Dude, they fucking gassed us but let you guys just stroll on through.*
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ok so
> first off, way to bring in the strawmen and re-invoke godwin's law
> like really?
> and it's not like china has proven to be linked _to Biden's win itself_
> ...



Prove to me BLM protests were never INTENTIONALLY violent and Trump protestors were, if you can't stfu with this my side good yours bad bs


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Prove to me BLM protests were never INTENTIONALLY violent and Trump protestors were, if you can't stfu with this my side good yours bad bs


ok so
BLM violence: you guys claim they're violent on purpose, prove it- that's how the burden of proof works, and how things would work in court (innocent until proven guilty)
Trump riot violence: let's see... bombs, clear preparation, a fucking noose with rioters chanting "Hang Pence"... need I spell it out for you?


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ok so
> BLM violence: you guys claim they're violent on purpose, prove it- that's how the burden of proof works, and how things would work in court (innocent until proven guilty)
> Trump riot violence: let's see... bombs, clear preparation, a fucking noose with rioters chanting "Hang Pence"... need I spell it out for you?



I'm not the one making the same asinine claims all the damn time. "TrUmP sUpPorTeRs BaD BLM gOoOoOoOd" You haven't got an original thought in your brain, you just spew out the same shit over and over. There's bad and good people on both sides. The difference is one side looted, riotted and burned down cities for over 6 months. The other didn't.

*in before not an imageboard*

Yeah like I said, good and bad people on both sides. David Dern ring a bell? Shall we continue tarring every single person with the same brush, thought Biden supporters were all about unity.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> I'm not the one making the same asinine claims all the damn time. "TrUmP sUpPorTeRs BaD BLM gOoOoOoOd" You haven't got an original thought in your brain, you just spew out the same shit over and over. There's bad and good people on both sides. The difference is one side looted, riotted and burned down cities for over 6 months. The other didn't.


dude
burden of proof
you are claiming BLM protests were *intentionally* violent and that the Capitol riot was not
it should be your job to prove BOTH claims because that's how the burden of proof actually works, but I went ahead and disproved one for you
now prove the other one or shut the ever-living fuck up about it


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> I'm not the one making the same asinine claims all the damn time. "TrUmP sUpPorTeRs BaD BLM gOoOoOoOd" You haven't got an original thought in your brain, you just spew out the same shit over and over. There's bad and good people on both sides. The difference is one side looted, riotted and burned down cities for over 6 months. The other didn't.


Trump and his supporters provoked an insurrection against the Capitol. BLM did not. The problems with Trump and his supporters are systemic and by design. The problems with BLM are not. It should also be noted that much of the violence at BLM protests is police-instigated, not BLM-instigated.

There's no comparison to be made.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude
> burden of proof
> you are claiming BLM protests were *intentionally* violent and that the Capitol riot was not
> it should be your job to prove BOTH claims because that's how the burden of proof actually works, but I went ahead and disproved one for you
> now prove the other one or shut the ever-living fuck up about it



There's no burden of proof on me you eejit. You're the one making claims about Trump supporters intentionally being violent and covering your eyes to all the violence by BLM for the last 12 months because like all people who think like you, you're a massive hypocrite.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> Trump and his supporters provoked an insurrection against the Capitol. BLM did not. The problems with Trump and his supporters are systemic and by design. The problems with BLM are not. It should also be noted that much of the violence at BLM protests is police-instigated, not BLM-instigated.
> 
> There's no comparison to be made.



Back your claims up with proof, prove to me the police instigated the violence. You're just hiding behind bullshit as per. "Do as we say not as we do"


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> There's no burden of proof on me you eejit. You're the one making claims about Trump supporters intentionally being violent and covering your eyes to all the violence by BLM for the last 12 months because like all people who think like you, you're a massive hypocrite.


you made the claim about BLM protests being violent
the claim I made, I have actual evidence for
you have no evidence of intentional BLM violence
prove it or stfu


shamzie said:


> Back your claims up with proof, prove to me the police instigated the violence. You're just hiding behind bullshit as per. "Do as we say not as we do"


you seem to misunderstand how proof works
you made the original claim (that BLM protests were intentionally violent, and thus that the violence was instigated almost solely by protestors)
you must prove it and provide evidence
that is it
there's nothing else to say
that is the burden of proof and it is on you
if I say "shamzie's a pedo" or other major accusations, it is my job to prove it, not yours to disprove it
the same applies here


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 25, 2021)

I'


Plasmaster09 said:


> you made the claim about BLM protests being violent
> the claim I made, I have actual evidence for
> you have no evidence of intentional BLM violence
> prove it or stfu


I've got tonnes of evidence. Are you blind aswell as dumb, I guess the black police officer murdered by BLM doesn't count. I guess the Trump supporter killed in Oregon by BLM doesn't count. https://www.ft.com/content/ba0bc6d3-f498-459b-b722-b7d0469193fe

get back in your echo chamber.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> There's no burden of proof on me you eejit. You're the one making claims about Trump supporters intentionally being violent and covering your eyes to all the violence by BLM for the last 12 months because like all people who think like you, you're a massive hypocrite.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There was systemic violence against press and peaceful protestors by police.

https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/police-brutality-at-the-black-lives-matter-protests

It also doesn't matter with regard to my larger point about how what Trump did was systemic, by design, and instigated by him, and anything done by bad actors at BLM protests was not systemic  nor instigated by BLM.

It's apples and oranges.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> I'
> 
> I've got tonnes of evidence. Are you blind aswell as dumb, I guess the black police officer murdered by BLM doesn't count. I guess the Trump supporter killed in Oregon by BLM doesn't count. https://www.ft.com/content/ba0bc6d3-f498-459b-b722-b7d0469193fe
> 
> get back in your echo chamber.


first off... can you at least try to provide evidence the average person can view? whatever tf that is needs a paid subscription.
second off, the article title doesn't even _imply_ that it was just due to BLM ("man dies as _Trump supporters_ and BLM protestors clash", making it unclear as to who did what or who ultimately caused his demise)
third off, if you have tons of evidence then actually provide it
you made the claims, prove it with verifiable evidence
you've posted a grand total of one (paywalled) link that may or may not actually prove your point
oh and before you ask, here's some evidence that the Capitol riot was in no way shape or form "peaceful" or "unintentionally violent"
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...tails/65-d3fe68e9-0b79-4882-95ed-070da6abf2ee
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ge-certification-updates-n1252864/ncrd1253129
https://nypost.com/2021/01/14/ayanna-pressleys-panic-buttons-torn-out-before-capitol-riot/
bombs, panic buttons and nooses, oh my


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> first off... can you at least try to provide evidence the average person can view? whatever tf that is needs a paid subscription.
> second off, the article title doesn't even _imply_ that it was just due to BLM ("man dies as _Trump supporters_ and BLM protestors clash", making it unclear as to who did what or who ultimately caused his demise)
> third off, if you have tons of evidence then actually provide it
> you made the claims, prove it with verifiable evidence
> ...



Because you can't look yourself.

Because murdering Trump supporters in Oregon isn't enough evidence. Because one guy being murdered isn't enough to provide evidence of violence.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-f...-trump-supporter-gun-pocket/story?id=73609495

There you go your Majesty.

"In before LOL ABC NEWS TOPKEK try and give me a source that can be trusted like CNN"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viole...Forbes, as of,people died during the protests.

Because 19 deaths caused by BLM rioting everywhere isn't enough evidence. It's ONLY trump supporters. You're totally right and not chatting complete and utter shite as usual.


Lacius said:


> There was systemic violence against press and peaceful protestors by police.
> 
> https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/police-brutality-at-the-black-lives-matter-protests
> 
> ...



Defending BLM causing atleast 19 deaths and millions upon millions of damage to homes and business because "muh opressed, but lemme loot that PS5 real quick and some new trainers" as fighting the system. You'll see it how you'll see it I guess. Easy to defend those if you refuse to look and cover your eyes.


----------



## smf (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Prove to me BLM protests were never INTENTIONALLY violent and Trump protestors were, if you can't stfu with this my side good yours bad bs



I am not interested in sides, but Trump and BLM are off topic for this thread.

This thread is about Joe Biden, the 46th president of the united states of america.

If you can't ...


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Because you can't look yourself.
> 
> Because murdering Trump supporters in Oregon isn't enough evidence. Because one guy being murdered isn't enough to provide evidence of violence.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not going to deny actual decent evidence.
Good on you for finally providing some- and as mentioned prior, it was in fact your job to provide it the entire time instead of just telling me to look.
19 over the course of a month (well, vague month), huh? Upon closer reading, a good 4 or 5 of those were protestors or non-protesting innocents killed by either police or far-right counter-protestors.
Even then, that's 14-15 in about a month- and a month filled with a shit-ton of protests. You're also ignoring the large amount of violence against even the press _reporting_ on the protests (which you can see in the very article you cited) as well as all the violence by far-right groups and police- but all of that is either fine because nobody died, or [insert new bullshit goalpost-moving excuse here] I guess.
But even if all of this lines up where you're right and I'm wrong, and all nineteen were by protestors on purpose with clear intent to kill and absolutely no acts of violence were committed by police or counter-protestors...
on a day-to-day average, that's still not even HALF as bad as the Capitol riot.
BLM protests gone bad: about 0.6 deaths/day, uncoordinated, never targeted at specific individuals.
Capitol riot: 5 deaths (partially due to Trump's refusal to actually send the National Guard), _*actually freaking planned,*_ intended to injure and intimidate (if not outright kill, which in some cases was the intent) major government officials.


smf said:


> I am not interested in sides, but Trump and BLM are off topic for this thread. So SFTU.


I mean, Trump at least is on topic, but yeah.


----------



## smf (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I mean, Trump at least is on topic, but yeah.



The topic is "joe biden is now officially the 46th president of the united states of america".Trump is not the president of the united states of america. He lost.

Any mention of him is just whataboutism. I'm probably guilty of mentioning him, but can't we all just forget the sad loser.

What would also be good is if Trump trolls didn't make shit up about Joe Biden or twist things because they can't bear the thought of Trump losing. It would be great if they could take out their anger elsewhere.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

smf said:


> The topic is "joe biden is now officially the 46th president of the united states of america".Trump is not the president of the united states of america. He lost.
> 
> Any mention of him is just whataboutism. I'm probably guilty of mentioning him, but can't we all just forget the sad loser.
> 
> What would also be good is if Trump trolls didn't make shit up about Joe Biden or twist things because they can't bear the thought of Trump losing. It would be great if they could take out their anger elsewhere.


Fair point. Viva la Biden!


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 25, 2021)




----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


>


Also fair point.
Now that Biden's in charge, there's but one circumstance left in which talking about the Orange Julius Caesar himself is on-topic: when discussing Biden's actions to fix what he broke.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Also fair point.
> Now that Biden's in charge, there's but one circumstance left in which talking about the Orange Julius Caesar himself is on-topic: when discussing Biden's actions to fix what he broke.



To fix what he broke?? Biden just re-enacted all Trump's travel bans, and added South Africa.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 25, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


>


Isn't there a covid variant from Africa that our vaccines won't work on?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> To fix what he broke?? Biden just re-enacted all Trump's travel bans, and added South Africa.


For different reasons, and with new precautions.
Trump implemented the bans for the sake of racism, and lifted them a week before he left for whatever reason (likely so that people could blame Biden for having to keep them).
Biden reimplemented them because if he didn't, the pandemic would likely worsen even further.


SG854 said:


> Isn't there a covid variant from Africa that our vaccines won't work on?


This is what I mean.
And it seems that things like the Moderna vaccine do still work, but are significantly less effective.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 25, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Isn't there a covid variant from Africa that our vaccines won't work on?



Well if it was xenophobic and racist to ban people traveling to the US when there was no vaccine, how does it excuse a travel ban when there is? And Biden only _added_ South Africa ... travel from most of Europe and Brazil was banned too.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Well if it was xenophobic and racist to ban people traveling to the US when there was no vaccine, how does it excuse a travel ban when there is? And Biden only _added_ South Africa ... travel from most of Europe and Brazil was banned too.


IIRC, Trump implemented the bans *before there was even a global pandemic in the first place.*
And as mentioned above, Biden's new addition of South Africa is likely due to the new, alarmingly vaccine-resistant strain from there.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> IIRC, Trump implemented the bans *before there was even a global pandemic in the first place.*
> And as mentioned above, Biden's new addition of South Africa is likely due to the new, alarmingly vaccine-resistant strain from there.



Not the ban Biden was referring to in the tweet above. That was in February. Democrats criticized it as racist, xenophobic, and an overreaction then, and later in 2020 they said Trump didn't act fast enough.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Not the ban Biden was referring to in the tweet above. That was in February. Democrats criticized it as racist, xenophobic, and an overreaction then, and later in 2020 they said Trump didn't act fast enough.


...Because last year things kept on getting *worse.*
At the time, it was those things.
But last week, at a time when the ban was quite possibly a substantial help, Trump undid it. Knowing his sheer pettiness, I'd say he likely undid the ban _specifically so that Biden would have to take the blame for redoing it when we actually need it._


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 25, 2021)

> Democrat Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema will not support eliminating the filibuster and her mind cannot be changed, according to a spokesperson


Niceeeeeeeeee some good news finally


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

>a Dem senator refusing to kill the filibuster
well let's just hope there's at least one Republican willing to- among fifty people, there's bound to be SOMEONE going "come on guys, stop trying to block everything Biden does by abusing this one rule"


----------



## smf (Jan 25, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Well if it was xenophobic and racist to ban people traveling to the US when there was no vaccine, how does it excuse a travel ban when there is?



The ban in february 2020 was about limiting visas that could result in permanent residency, not travel.

It's now about preventing virus spread, during a pandemic.

If you don't understand why one is based on xenophobia and racism and the other isn't then I'm not sure you should bother continuing with the conversation.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

smf said:


> The ban in february 2020 was about limiting visas that could result in permanent residency, not travel.
> 
> It's now about preventing virus spread, during a pandemic.
> 
> ...


I mean yeah
if person do bad thing, punish for bad thing
this really shouldn't be a partisan statement, but we're in a timeline where the former president basically tried to beat our democracy to death with a stick made of his own shit and then blame it all on the Dems so I guess it needs to be restated


----------



## smf (Jan 25, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I mean yeah
> if person do bad thing, punish for bad thing
> this really shouldn't be a partisan statement, but we're in a timeline where the former president basically tried to beat our democracy to death with a stick made of his own shit and then blame it all on the Dems so I guess it needs to be restated



I decided it was off topic, so moved to https://gbatemp.net/threads/senate-...chments-of-past-democratic-presidents.581644/


----------



## Lacius (Jan 25, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Defending BLM causing atleast 19 deaths and millions upon millions of damage to homes and business because "muh opressed, but lemme loot that PS5 real quick and some new trainers" as fighting the system. You'll see it how you'll see it I guess. Easy to defend those if you refuse to look and cover your eyes.


Nobody is defending deaths. See my previous posts on why BLM protests and Trump riots are not comparable.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> To fix what he broke?? Biden just re-enacted all Trump's travel bans, and added South Africa.


Trump's travel bans were too little too late, and then he ended the travel bans on his way out of office. Biden fixed Trump's fuck up.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 25, 2021)

> -AZ SL to eliminate "permanent mail in voting list". -GA SL to heavily restrict VBM and require ID check for absentees. -PA SL to introduce legislation repealing VBM entirely. -MI SL plans to FINALLY adopt photo ID requirements to vote.


Damn not looking good for Biden the popular President in 2024


----------



## smf (Jan 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Damn not looking good for Biden the popular President in 2024



F-, must try harder.

*Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term*
Advisers weigh the merits of a one-term pledge by the 77-year-old former vice president.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Jan 25, 2021)

In two days, the US have started again to export democracy in Middle East.
And he left 1000 Canadians workers without a job


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 25, 2021)

A manager of the Keystone XL pipeline says hundreds of workers have already been laid off because of @JoeBiden's halt on the pipeline's construction. pic.twitter.com/x9cIWiKB3S— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 25, 2021


I


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1353815402065739776
> 
> I


A small price to pay for salvation *not fucking up our planet even more than it's already been up-fucked.*


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jan 25, 2021)

Pacheko17 said:


> #NotMyPresident
> 
> I'm Brazilian lol


Well, you aren’t wrong


----------



## omgcat (Jan 26, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> It doesn't prove either. Having no proof is not a positive, it's a negative. Creationist Fallacy.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-cultivate-seaweed-slashes-greenhouse-emission.html

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Well if it was xenophobic and racist to ban people traveling to the US when there was no vaccine, how does it excuse a travel ban when there is? And Biden only _added_ South Africa ... travel from most of Europe and Brazil was banned too.



maybe because the circumstances are different? there is a new strain that is more infectious and possibly vaccine resistant? the south Africa variant and UK/EU variants are fucked so we are trying to keep it out. honestly all flights consumer flights(even between states) should be grounded until we get this shit under control.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 26, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Again, counting the print-outs was not what was requested. What the Republicans wanted to see was the data directly on the machines as compared to the data on the print-outs. Counting the same data twice obviously gave the same result twice. It was a huge waste of everyone's time. As I said though, that's inconsequential now since a new president was already inaugurated.


that and it would help if you could put an actual person with each mail in ballots. There is no way to check and make sure any of them were real or if they are the actual ones filled out and signed by the real voter and not swapped.mail in ballots should of never happened. Too many factors makes it easy for a "politically powerful" individual to rig said election and leaves doubt in alot of people's minds.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 26, 2021)

omgcat said:


> https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane
> 
> https://phys.org/news/2019-05-cultivate-seaweed-slashes-greenhouse-emission.html
> 
> ...


You're right the circumstances are different. It's not trump so it's literally "it's ok when we do it"


----------



## wartutor (Jan 26, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There was systemic violence against press and peaceful protestors by police.
> 
> https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/police-brutality-at-the-black-lives-matter-protests
> 
> ...


Edited clips and videos of police subduing rioters without actually having the full story and what's actually goin on at the time isn't proof and you should be ashamed for providing it as such


----------



## notimp (Jan 26, 2021)

wartutor said:


> that and it would help if you could put an actual person with each mail in ballots. There is no way to check and make sure any of them were real or if they are the actual ones filled out and signed by the real voter and not swapped.mail in ballots should of never happened. Too many factors makes it easy for a "politically powerful" individual to rig said election and leaves doubt in alot of people's minds.


FIrst they (evelopes) are (should be? (based on criteria in the EU)) printed on special paper, that doesnt allow them to be reprinted or forged easily. Second, postal system would notice. Third Electoral offices would notice -- if there is a gross difference in count.

Second, they are sent to 'known home addresses'. That are registered as 'specific people live there'. So any fraud attempt that could 'scale' would have to target the post office, and not individual homes. In my country (EU) you also sign the envelopes, once sealed so that can be compare to a signature from you on record. (That said, graphology is not a science.)
You suggest to replace 'do people have a registered home address' with 'do people have a registered ID'. So how much does that help in your mind?

Third: You make double voting a crime, so people are less likely to fill out 'grannies vote' for them, because granny can go to the police. Also you make them feel bad, because - wtf are you doing. Meaning, there will be individual cases - but thats also not an issue at scale.

Fourth: None of this is especially suitable for 'targeted' voter fraud (meaning, isolating one parties votes and replacing them with another parties votes). So in the end you'd have to 'burn' _all_ vote in a district to engage in any substantial fraud? Also if youd do that - and overdo it with 'stuffing votes' from one party, this will show up in 'statistical likelyhood' checks all over the place - so people will know that you've done it (unless you are super lucky - and only stuff the amount thats statistically probable - while throwing away a bunch of votes you dont know how they've voted in bulk, to replace in bulk).

Fifth: Then the Trump campaign still claims, that bags with thousands of votes showed up at electoral offices out of the blue - meaning, if you can ensure that - why the hell do you bother with manipulating the vote per mail system? Or the other way around - if the Trump campaign cant even prevent that from happening (in their dreams, btw) - why the hell bother tampering with mail votes?


Summery:  In his final speech before the Capitol riots, Trump used 100 different potential reasons of how the electoral system could be tempered with as 'proof' - instead of 'having proof', and didnt especially focus on mail in voting (in fact - none of the accusations made in the end focused much on mail voting at all) - so why do you?

Also - Grandpa gets to vote, when he is white, but the black family accross the street isnt allowed to? (Black people less often have voter ID.) Because thats apparently what Trump signaled to his fans all along...
see: https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw.../the-racial-history-of-the-grandfather-clause

And if you want to pull the 'illegals voting' excuse for the last one - how many illegals do you know with state registered home addresses?


----------



## notimp (Jan 26, 2021)

wartutor said:


> that and it would help if you could put an actual person with each mail in ballots.


And it would ruin anonymous voting - which comes with a whole lot of negative side effects you wouldnt want to trigger.

So far its possible to put an actual person with each envelope that arrives. (Name and signature on the envelope, or Name and an 'order ID' type of system.) As soon as the envelope is opened and the voting slip is seperated (in another envelope), the vote gets anonymized - which is by design.

(People dont pay to produce the second envelope, because they like envelopes, and think, that you'd also enjoy a second one...)

In practice - you had staffers at voting places whining, that they didnt know that the 'opening the outer envelope' procedure was important and should be done with voting inspectors present, and you had signature comparisons waved, if there were too few people to handle the influx 'in time'.

Still leaves a bunch of other checks active. Together with the fact, thats not easy to forge those voting forms.

Also no coordinated attempt of voterfraud ('scalable' beyond targeting 'one person at a time') was detected in the federal elections.


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 26, 2021)

GhostLatte said:


> Tell that to the over 400,000 Americans who have died



Sad but most that died were actually around the already known life expectency in America no need to fret as I said

How man of them were under 75 without serious co-morbididies? and how does that for example compare to the chance of drowning I promise its not a big number and it absolutely does not justify turning off the economy in the entire world.

FYI your life expectancy in America is:

https://www.simplyinsurance.com/average-us-life-expectancy-statistics/#section-5


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 26, 2021)

Mike_Swe said:


> Sad but most that died were actually around the already known life expectency in America no need to fret as I said
> 
> How man of them were under 75 without serious co-morbididies? and how does that for example compare to the chance of drowning I promise its not a big number and it absolutely does not justify turning off the economy in the entire world.
> 
> ...


>400k people died
"Sad but I'm going to spout some soulless, apathetic bullshit so that I can avoid caring about the global pandemic that is mostly being escalated by dumbasses like me"


----------



## Mike_Swe (Jan 26, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> >400k people died
> "Sad but I'm going to spout some soulless, apathetic bullshit so that I can avoid caring about the global pandemic that is mostly being escalated by dumbasses like me"




LOL and you are one of those that think your fear should rule others, go back to bed boy.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 26, 2021)

This thread is fucking stupid now. The trolls have taken over all meaningful discussion. Now we're just back to insults, 'but muh election fraud' and 'but muh sleepy man bad'.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 26, 2021)

Only a little after 11 AM here and I'm already tired of cleaning up after the children.

Calm the fuck down, people. For fuck's sake.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 26, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> This thread is fucking stupid now. The trolls have taken over all meaningful discussion. Now we're just back to insults, 'but muh election fraud' and 'but muh sleepy man bad'.


Honestly, I feel at this point the only purpose for this thread still being open is to contain the stupid so it doesn’t spread into more threads.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 26, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Honestly, I feel at this point the only purpose for this thread still being open is to contain the stupid so it doesn’t spread into more threads.


oh my god
this thread just contains and isolates the dumbest and most deranged ideologies and ideas to prevent it from infecting other threads with its sheer dumbassery
*it's morontine*


----------



## Joe88 (Jan 26, 2021)

A federal judge has barred the U.S. government from enforcing a 100-day deportation moratorium that is a key immigration priority of President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton issued a temporary restraining order sought by Texas. https://t.co/KApL671ZDQ— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) January 26, 2021


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 26, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Honestly, I feel at this point the only purpose for this thread still being open is to contain the stupid so it doesn’t spread into more threads.


That was a factor in me making it, aside from legitimate discussion. When the election thread went down, it's just gonna spread elsewhere. Here I can talk about Biden and the moves he's making in a reasonable context, and also witness the forest fire.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 26, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1354153420886863873


Good news


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 26, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1354153420886863873


What a shame.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 26, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Honestly, I feel at this point the only purpose for this thread still being open is to contain the stupid so it doesn’t spread into more threads.


And Foxi didn't believe me when I said we'd need a cope megathread for butthurt Trumpkins.  Now this is that thread.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And Foxi didn't believe me when I said we'd need a cope megathread for butthurt Trumpkins.  Now this is that thread.


all I see is butthurt Bideninos mad that he turn out to be a liar


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> all I see is butthurt Bideninos mad that he turn out to be a liar


https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/?ruling=true
meanwhile Trump broke 53% of all of his promises.... in total for his entire time in 4 years.
speaking of which? how many days of Biden have we had so far?


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 27, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/?ruling=true
> meanwhile Trump broke 53% of all of his promises.... in total for his entire time in 4 years.
> speaking of which? how many days of Biden have we had so far?



Enough that over 15,000 people have died within that time of COVID. That's how it works right? Anyway Joe Biden is personally responsible for the deaths of 15,000 people and counting. Love playing by your rules.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Enough that over 15,000 people have died within that time of COVID. That's how it works right? Anyway Joe Biden is personally responsible for the deaths of 15,000 people and counting. Love playing by your rules.


I'm not sure how you can honestly blame Biden for any of Trump's COVID-19 nonsense that led us to this point.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not sure how you can honestly blame Biden for any of Trump's COVID-19 nonsense that led us to this point.


A man plants a bomb and quits his job.
His replacement walks in, and a week later the bomb explodes without the replacement ever trying to activate it- and even attempting to _defuse_ it a couple times.
Guess who Shamzie and his fellow lunatics would blame for the bomb?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Enough that over 15,000 people have died within that time of COVID. That's how it works right? Anyway Joe Biden is personally responsible for the deaths of 15,000 people and counting. Love playing by your rules.


Bruh...
I think I just lost some brain cells reading that statement.
Okay... Okay...
So Trump was in charge when the pandemic started, yes?
Trump was the one who said it was as harmless as the flu, yes?
Trump hadn't really taken any action (states did first. Which when you dealing with a highly infectious virus. the states can do only so much)
So...
Saying a guy who just elected in the grand mess someone made is their fault, is the equivalent of saying Trump took a dump on the floor, scrubbed his wrinkly asshole all over the floor. And it's Biden's fault that it happened, when he wasn't even there at the time it happened, but still proceeds to clean up the shit off the floor since someone has to do it.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 27, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Bruh...
> I think I just lost some brain cells reading that statement.
> Okay... Okay...
> So Trump was in charge when the pandemic started, yes?
> ...



He's been in charge for like a week and 15,000 people have died under his leadership, disgraceful to be honest.


----------



## omgcat (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Enough that over 15,000 people have died within that time of COVID. That's how it works right? Anyway Joe Biden is personally responsible for the deaths of 15,000 people and counting. Love playing by your rules.



that actually does the opposite of what you think it does. it shows that you don't care that people are dying and are using them purely for political sports ball. once again there is a difference, Joe Biden is trying to get people vaccinated ASAP instead of claiming it's a hoax, pushing crack pot cures, or flat out claiming the deaths are lies to make him look bad. like fucking clock work you people suddenly believe the disease is real after calling it a fake, the "kung flu", the "holocough", ect for almost a whole year. once again, *there is a lag time of 6 weeks from infection to death with covid is most cases, so we are still seeing "trump deaths".* joe biden has not been in office more than 6 days.

grow the fuck up and stop playing games with other people's lives.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> He's been in charge for like a week and 15,000 people have died under his leadership, disgraceful to be honest.


oh I'm sorry.
*I didn't know you can just, stop an virus week 1 that has spread so badly around the country from the previous president fucked up.*
I guess covid is just like depression
the good saying goes!
_just stop being depressed _*4head*
Now with my temporary hysterical laughter out of the way.
This won't stop right away, cases have been lagging behind since the previous president literately said he was reducing testing. So god who knows the actual case number, and deaths lag about two weeks.
Perhaps maybe idk, don't fuck with something that grows exponentially
*like with what donald trump did.*
He let the fire burn, and burn, and burn, and now it's a forest fire that's going to take a lot more time and effort to stop than what it was before.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> He's been in charge for like a week and 15,000 people have died under his leadership, disgraceful to be honest.


you DO know a)they probably contracted the virus a few weeks to a month BEFORE biden even took office it can take up to a month if severe enough to kill somebody by the virus so no he isn't responciable for it and B) if they disregard expert's advice it's on them not him especially when their ignoring state mandates of course they will get the virus I've been wearing mask sine my governor mandated it and guess what I'm not dead as of today nor infected


----------



## Lacius (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> He's been in charge for like a week and 15,000 people have died under his leadership, disgraceful to be honest.


It's going to take some time to get the United States out of the giant whole Trump has dug us into. Luckily, Biden seems to be getting us on the right path.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not sure how you can honestly blame Biden for any of Trump's COVID-19 nonsense that led us to this point.


He can't _honestly_ blame Biden for it, but he can _dishonestly_ blame Biden for anything.  9/11, the Titanic sinking, reality TV, any of it.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 27, 2021)

Commerce Secretary nominee Gina Raimondo stays open to raising taxes on the middle class, says that we "need funds" for Biden's climate agendahttps://t.co/yiNAOSUdz5 pic.twitter.com/ONG7KPzVUk— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 26, 2021


Imao Biden lies again


----------



## Xzi (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1354126611843579905
> 
> Imao Biden lies again


Firstly, that's assuming a Tweet by "RNC Research" isn't bullshit, and that's a stretch.  Secondly, Biden already said during the campaign, IIRC, nobody who makes less than $85K a year would have their taxes raised.  You aren't middle class unless you're making at least $85K a year, to dispel anybody's illusions of what "middle class" might mean.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 27, 2021)

omgcat said:


> that actually does the opposite of what you think it does. it shows that you don't care that people are dying and are using them purely for political sports ball. once again there is a difference, Joe Biden is trying to get people vaccinated ASAP instead of claiming it's a hoax, pushing crack pot cures, or flat out claiming the deaths are lies to make him look bad. like fucking clock work you people suddenly believe the disease is real after calling it a fake, the "kung flu", the "holocough", ect for almost a whole year. once again, *there is a lag time of 6 weeks from infection to death with covid is most cases, so we are still seeing "trump deaths".* joe biden has not been in office more than 6 days.
> 
> grow the fuck up and stop playing games with other people's lives.



Conservatives are the ones who made a global health crisis political in the first place, should this really surprise you that they're still doing it?


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> He's been in charge for like a week and 15,000 people have died under his leadership, disgraceful to be honest.


every day we stray further from god's light



Valwinz said:


> Imao Biden lies again


what middle class


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 27, 2021)

I'll take one of Guzma's quotes and add one word "You all (Conservatives) are stupid" like seriously you'll blame any bullshit on the left even if it isn't true or even if the right are the ones doing it like now the GOP are disregarding facts and would litterally use (if they could borrow it) use the constitution as TP to wipe the elephants arse (or their own) you claim the left to be sheep well trump has you wrapped around his middle finger the gop are corrupt af they always been face it the 2 party system is severely broken and most of the GOP needs to be tried and impeached next for corruption, rules need to change in congress because half of it is rogue some even criminals that need to be in jail for aiding in the insurection 2 weeks ago (good thing the CAN be charged and thrown in prison cause that unable to be charged is only the sitting president the GOP senators are sitting ducks for the justice system

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

also I'm this close to having a chenyobol sized meltdown as I've been struggling with my mental illness for the past 2 weeks


----------



## smf (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1353815402065739776



Hundreds you say? We should definitely kill the planet to keep hundreds of americans employed.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> You're right the circumstances are different. It's not trump so it's literally "it's ok when we do it"



You are the one that is blind to any thing other than who did it. Forgetting who did it, if Trump had done it now for the reason that Biden did then nobody would criticize Trump for it. It's not our fault Trump only ever made bigoted decisions.



Valwinz said:


> all I see is butthurt Bideninos mad that he turn out to be a liar



That is just your coping strategy.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 27, 2021)

Guys, don't try and use too much logic against the Trumpies. Their heads might explode.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 27, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Guys, don't try and use too much logic against the Trumpies. Their heads might explode.


>looks at flag
will care if you voted here


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 27, 2021)

@shamzie Dude, you pretty much just liked a post insulting you


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 27, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> @shamzie Dude, you pretty much just liked a post insulting you


both Shamzie and Valwinz got hit with Confuse Ray at some point I guess because they're roasting themselves in confusion


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 27, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> @shamzie Dude, you pretty much just liked a post insulting you



He didn't insult me, he said your opinion on American politics is irrelevant, just like mine is. Facts are facts. Just like I couldn't give a damn what they think of Brexit.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> He didn't insult me, he said your opinion on American politics is irrelevant, just like mine is. Facts are facts. Just like I couldn't give a damn what they think of Brexit.


Then why are you even posting here if you think your opinion is irrelevant?


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 27, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Then why are you even posting here if you think your opinion is irrelevant?



My opinion has as much relevance to the topic as anybody elses who isn't American. Not sure where you're struggling with this concept. You're free to voice your opinion, doesn't mean it matters.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> My opinion has as much relevance to the topic as anybody elses who isn't American. Not sure where you're struggling with this concept. You're free to voice your opinion, doesn't mean it matters.


This makes no sense. I don't bother replying to threads or discussions where I don't think I have an opinion that matters. Why would you waste your time replying to a discussion that you have nothing to add to?

Also, it's fucking stupid logic. I don't live in America therefore my opinion doesn't have equal ground? Why not? That's _really _idiotic considering most Americans don't understand their own political system. Same goes for the UK or any other country. Brexit is a whole other fuckshow altogether but 90-something% of Brits have no real clue about the situation and are misled, leave _and _remain, so honestly people from other countries are about as likely to grasp the situation as us. That's the last time I'm mentioning Brexit and I'm not letting this discussion getting hijacked by that. If people here now have an urge to discuss Brexit, they should make a new thread.

At the end of the day, since both you and Valwinz are trolls, what either of you say has much less relevance and matters so much less to the discussion than any legitimate person here.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 27, 2021)

Damn Biden full blown dictator after he say he was no gona use executive orders he has now  use more than Trump and Obama combine in the first month lol. now we know why still has that standing army.

another Biden lie


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Damn Biden full blown dictator after he say he was no gona use executive orders he has now  use more than Trump and Obama combine in the first month lol. now we know why still has that standing army.
> 
> another Biden lie


we all know you're trolling as always but this is a new low
he never said that because executive orders are one of the basic fundamental powers of the President, and a President that had the option to use them but never did would get absolutely nothing done


----------



## smf (Jan 27, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Just like I couldn't give a damn what they think of Brexit.



Right, because you wouldn't want to have to face being wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Damn Biden full blown dictator after he say he was no gona use executive orders he has now  use more than Trump and Obama combine in the first month lol. now we know why still has that standing army.
> 
> another Biden lie


Do you even bother to fact check your own nonsense?

Obama executive orders: 276
Trump executive orders: 220
Biden executive orders so far: 21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Biden also never made a promise that he wouldn't use executive orders.

There's still a standing army because Trump supporters are attempting to overthrow the American government through an armed insurrection, instigated by Trump, his allies, and their lies.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 27, 2021)

smf said:


> Right, because you wouldn't want to have to face being wrong.


Nooooooooooooooo don't take the bait. Let's not turn this into a Brexit argument.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 27, 2021)

Looks like DC statehood is in the Senate.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 27, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Looks like DC statehood is in the Senate.


DC statehood requires a constitutional amendment so thats not happening any time soon


----------



## Lacius (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> DC statehood requires a constitutional amendment so thats not happening any time soon


Statehood does not require a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 27, 2021)

smf said:


> Right, because you wouldn't want to have to face being wrong.



Yeah I'm wrong, shut up. Bored of you're self righteous bs constantly attacking me, there's no right or wrong way to vote.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Statehood does not require a constitutional amendment.


you should go back to school because for The District of Columbia it is require


----------



## Lacius (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> you should go back to school because for The District of Columbia it is require


It doesn't require a constitutional amendment to make DC a state.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It doesn't require a constitutional amendment to make DC a state.


imao please post here when it happens


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 27, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Guys, don't try and use too much logic against the Trumpies. Their heads might explode.


 yeah pointless arguing with them btw i know the point where the GOP can get slammed by the DOJ (all of the senators who are in the impeachment trial) let's revisit the impeachment trial oath shall we? namely the part The Senate practice has been to require each Senator to swear or affirm that he will do *impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.*"

if you rather read along found a good theoretical article by USA today on the matter
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dge-impartial-justice-trump-trial/4488539002/

from reading the article there are no reprocussions for being detecably bias things need to change as you may know in courts a known bias juror would be thrown out of the jury i do hope laws are passed that mirror an actual courtroom  during impeachments this needs to be done for anyone in office to be held accountable


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao please post here when it happens


ah yes, because something has to physically occur for it to be conceptually possible given the framework of society as it exists
conservative can't understand conceptualization and metaphor, what a surprise


----------



## djpannda (Jan 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> DC statehood requires a constitutional amendment so thats not happening any time soon



YOU SOO RIGHT!!!
Who can forget the 46 Amendment  that allowed Hawaii to become a state. I remember it was shortly after the 45 Amendment that stated "Sock with Sandals are a Religious freedom" and the 47 Amendment stating "M&M must melt in your month not in your hand"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

We got to becareful guys we have a Consitiutional  scholar up in here..


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 27, 2021)

djpannda said:


> YOU SOO RIGHT!!!
> Who can forget the 46 Amendment  that allowed Hawaii to become a state. I remember it was shortly after the 45 Amendment that stated "Sock with Sandals are a Religious freedom" and the 47 Amendment stating "M&M must melt in your month not in your hand"
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


i have no idea Hawaii was a federal district


----------



## Kurt91 (Jan 28, 2021)

No, Valwinz is correct. It is specifically written in the Constitution that Washington D.C. is not and cannot be a separate state. Quoted from Time.com...



> But the lack of statehood for the capital is enshrined in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the document reads, “The Congress shall have Power To …exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”
> 
> James Madison outlined the reasoning behind this provision in Federalist 43, calling the arrangement an “indispensable necessity.” He wrote, “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”
> 
> In other words, the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to ‘insult’ or ‘interrupt’ the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power.



Source: https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/

So, if I understand the article correctly, they made sure that the capital of the country was not in any specific state because that state would therefore have more authority than all of the others. D.C. being a separate state would also give the local state-level government the ability to attempt to interfere with federal government. It's not a perfect solution, as while D.C. does have representation in the Electoral College, it does not have representation in Congress as each member of Congress represents their home state.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 28, 2021)

Kurt91 said:


> No, Valwinz is correct. It is specifically written in the Constitution that Washington D.C. is not and cannot be a separate state. Quoted from Time.com...
> 
> 
> 
> Source: https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/


Aw, shit. Well, hopefully an amendment will be possible.


----------



## Kurt91 (Jan 28, 2021)

Edited my post for clarification as to reasoning.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 28, 2021)

Kurt91 said:


> No, Valwinz is correct. It is specifically written in the Constitution that Washington D.C. is not and cannot be a separate state. Quoted from Time.com...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Feels good


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 28, 2021)




----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 28, 2021)

Not only is Washington D.C. not eligible to become an independent state, but if the federal government ever decided it wanted to move the federal district (i.e. capital) to another location (not likely to ever happen, but just hypothetically), the land which makes up Washington D.C. would revert back to Maryland. (This did happen once, in 1846, when the land ceded for the district by Virginia was returned. Washington D.C. was originally intended to be a square.







 .


----------



## Viri (Jan 30, 2021)

Where the hell are our 2 grand checks?!


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 30, 2021)

Link

If Federal land can be turned back into territory for a State, there's no reason that same land can't become a state in itself.


----------



## omgcat (Jan 30, 2021)

Viri said:


> Where the hell are our 2 grand checks?!



ask the republicans, they're the ones blocking shit in congress. we'll probably have to nuke the filibuster if we don't want a repeat of republican obstructionism.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 30, 2021)

omgcat said:


> ask the republicans, they're the ones blocking shit in congress. we'll probably have to nuke the filibuster if we don't want a repeat of republican obstructionism.


Biden is in control lol what with the excuses HAHAHAHAH

WHere is my Money Joe


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 1, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden is in control lol what with the excuses HAHAHAHAH
> 
> WHere is my Money Joe


Biden lied. Biden lied big time. Whatta load of shit.

Now they're fearmongering about Iran. This isn't gonna go well.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 1, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Biden lied. Biden lied big time. Whatta load of shit.
> 
> Now they're fearmongering about Iran. This isn't gonna go well.


Context for the uninitiated?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 1, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden is in control lol what with the excuses HAHAHAHAH
> 
> WHere is my Money Joe



Biden is in control of only one of three branches of government.
Democrats control the House.
Republicans control the Supreme Court.
Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate (50 plus Kamala Harris), but Republicans still have the filibuster as an option, making 10 Republican votes required to pass major pieces of legislation that don't go through reconciliation.
No, Biden is not "in control." He's not a monarch.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Biden is in control of only one of three branches of government.
> Democrats control the House.
> Republicans control the Supreme Court.
> Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate (50 plus Kamala Harris), but Republicans still have the filibuster as an option, making 10 Republican votes required to pass major pieces of legislation that don't go through reconciliation.
> No, Biden is not "in control." He's not a monarch.



But he is a dictator. CNN taught me the POTUS is a dictator for the last 4 years.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 1, 2021)

shamzie said:


> CNN taught me the president is a dictator. It's that simple. Thanks for the compliment though  *lets unite*


They taught you Trump has fascist tendencies and glorifies dictators. They did not teach you "POTUS is a dictator."


----------



## Xzi (Feb 1, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Wow. Care too teach me those amazing mind reading abilities you have


Sure.  If it goose steps like a fascist and tries to violently overturn election results like a fascist, it's probably a fascist.  Really more Occam's Razor than a mind reading technique though.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 2, 2021)

Where is my 2k Joe

Has a president lie so much on their first month than Biejin Biden?

the best part it seems his voters mad in Twitter is delicious


----------



## Lacius (Feb 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Where is my 2k Joe
> 
> Has a president lie so much on their first month than Biejin Biden?
> 
> the best part it seems his voters mad in Twitter is delicious


Joe Biden is working on $1,400 stimulus checks, which is what was promised in conjunction with $600. You've been told this, but you seem to care more about spewing nonsense than listening.

It's the Republicans who are trying to obstruct and bring that down.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Joe Biden is working on $1,400 stimulus checks, which is what was promised in conjunction with $600. You've been told this, but you seem to care more about spewing nonsense than listening.
> 
> It's the Republicans who are trying to obstruct and bring that down.


where is my 2000 joe


----------



## tabzer (Feb 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> If it goose steps like a fascist and tries to violently overturn election results like a fascist, it's probably a fascist.



There is less evidence of any of that than there is of widespread election fraud.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> There is less evidence of any of that than there is of widespread election fraud.


You really need new material. At least the others moved on from that.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> where is my 2000 joe


Being held up by spineless obstructionists still taking their marching orders from Mar-A-Lago.  Bernie says they have enough votes to pass it through reconciliation though, so it's coming as soon as Biden realizes that calling for unity with fascists is fruitless.  Nothing that requires more than a simple majority will get passed in the next four years.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> where is my 2000 joe


Ask the obstructionist Republicans why they insist on decreasing that amount (not that they will succeed).



tabzer said:


> There is less evidence of any of that than there is of widespread election fraud.


That's not even close to true. From "Make America Great Again" to instigating an armed insurrection against the Capitol and American democracy, Trump has demonstrated textbook examples of fascist tendencies, objectively and by definition. I suggest you learn what fascism is before arguing against Trump exhibiting fascism. It is, by definition, a "form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy." Does that sound like anyone you know?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


----------



## tabzer (Feb 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That's not even close to true. From "Make America Great Again" to instigating an armed insurrection against the Capitol and American democracy, Trump has demonstrated textbook examples of fascist tendencies, objectively and by definition. I suggest you learn what fascism is before arguing against it. It is, by definition, a "form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



Forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, to dystopian levels, even...  The dictatorial powers and fascism were never with Trump.  There is less evidence that Trump instigated an armed insurrection than there is of widespread election fraud.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> There is less evidence that Trump instigated an armed insurrection than there is of widespread election fraud.


About the same amount of evidence for both actually, given Trump's speech before the election in which he encouraged voter fraud, and his speech just before the insurrection in which he encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell."  There's also the fact that any number of insurrectionists have confessed to only being at the capitol building because they were told to be by Trump.  Unfortunately the Senate is a court of opinion, not a court of law.  Things will get a lot more fun once impeachment is done with and the criminal charges begin piling up.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> About the same amount of evidence for both actually, given Trump's speech before the election in which he encouraged voter fraud, and his speech just before the insurrection in which he encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell."  There's also the fact that any number of insurrectionists have confessed to only being at the capitol building because they were told to be by Trump.  Unfortunately the Senate is a court of opinion, not a court of law.  Things will get a lot more fun once impeachment is done with and the criminal charges begin piling up.


I was told that the insurrectionists were very special people.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, to dystopian levels, even...  The dictatorial powers and fascism were never with Trump.  There is less evidence that Trump instigated an armed insurrection than there is of widespread election fraud.


We have direct evidence of Trump attempting to overthrow the results of a fair and free election with lies about voting fraud, and we have direct evidence of Trump instigating an insurrection against the Capitol. Try again.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Being held up by spineless obstructionists still taking their marching orders from Mar-A-Lago.  Bernie says they have enough votes to pass it through reconciliation though, so it's coming as soon as Biden realizes that calling for unity with fascists is fruitless.  Nothing that requires more than a simple majority will get passed in the next four years.


excuses Biden is a failure cant tell his dems to vote Kamal is the breaking vote  Where my 2k Joe


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden dictatorship starts today he already got an standing army on DC.
> 
> a illegitimate president  and his Racist VP that could not even get a single delegate in the primary a VP that say he was sexual abuser of women.
> 
> ...



Don't get me starteD


----------



## Xzi (Feb 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> excuses Biden is a failure cant tell his dems to vote Kamal is the breaking vote  Where my 2k Joe


"GIMME MAH INSTANT GRATIFICATION WAAAAH!!!"


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> excuses Biden is a failure cant tell his dems to vote Kamal is the breaking vote  Where my 2k Joe




TRUE! From stopping you knuckleheads from tearing up the USA. Then true! So now what? Oh, and yet I see on your profile, you Demand the pandemic money! The money that even your republicans don't want to put out. So PFFFFFT to you!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> The Biden dictatorship starts today he already got an standing army on DC.
> 
> a illegitimate president  and his Racist VP that could not even get a single delegate in the primary a VP that say he was sexual abuser of women.
> 
> ...




Your very welcome PUTIN

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Cryoraptor said:


> I'm not so sure, it seems like what I said about Trump was correct; he's just flown off to Florida quietly as every political (former) ally of his clapped Biden on at his inauguration. It really does seem like nobody misses him. I'm sure MAGA will continue to rage for years to come but without someone like Trump it's just gonna become a laughing stock as the country (hopefully) improves under Biden and everyone sees how full of shit Trump and MAGA was.



Bravo, Bravo!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



IncredulousP said:


> Drain the swamp.



Nooo. I had to go baad. So I used it. Eeeewww


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 2, 2021)

LoL, look at Valwins playing Both sides of the fence.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, to dystopian levels, even...  The dictatorial powers and fascism were never with Trump.  There is less evidence that Trump instigated an armed insurrection than there is of widespread election fraud.


You of all people talking about lack of evidence when you still haven't shown evidence to prove there was widespread voter fraud


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 2, 2021)

OldBoi said:


> LoL, look at Valwins playing Both sides of the fence.


I noticed that. He is calling him Beijing Biden while also complaining about him having to work with the congress.


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 2, 2021)

Truck Frump!


----------



## tabzer (Feb 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> You of all people talking about lack of evidence when you still haven't shown evidence to prove there was widespread voter fraud


Oh look, it's the "anarchist" who advocates.. what is it you are advocating here?  Self-debasing irony? 


Lacius said:


> We have direct evidence of Trump attempting to overthrow the results of a fair and free election with lies about voting fraud, and we have direct evidence of Trump instigating an insurrection against the Capitol. Try again.


First, the claim of a fair and free election is wanting.  Second, there is no evidence of your claim.  Saying "we have evidence" is not evidence.  Debonked.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Oh look, it's the "anarchist" who advocates.. what is it you are advocating here?  Self-debasing irony?


What does me being an anarchist have to do with you not showing evidence? Using ad hominem doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t shown evidence for mass voter fraud.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Oh look, it's the "anarchist" who advocates.. what is it you are advocating here?  Self-debasing irony?
> 
> First, the claim of a fair and free election is wanting.  Second, there is no evidence of your claim.  Saying "we have evidence" is not evidence.  Debonked.


We do have evidence that the 2020 election was secure. We do not have any evidence of widespread voter fraud. Try harder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election


----------



## Viri (Feb 2, 2021)

Spoiler



MASHUP: $2,000 STIMULUS CHECKS. pic.twitter.com/XBHhcp7l8y— Watchdog (@demswatchdog) February 1, 2021



And here I am, still waiting, even though these promises were made AFTER the 600 dollar checks were approved. So, what does "out the door" mean? Do they mean in the Summer?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 2, 2021)

Viri said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Democrats have effectively rejected the Republican plan for $1,000 checks, so you will be getting $1,400 as soon as it passes the House and Senate. $1,400 plus the $600 you already received equals the $2,000 that was promised.


----------



## Viri (Feb 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Democrats have effectively rejected the Republican plan for $1,000 checks, so you will be getting $1,400 as soon as it passes the House and Senate. $1,400 plus the $600 you already received equals the $2,000 that was promised.


1400 does not equal 2000 dollars! They're not the same! They've been promising 2000 long after that 600 dollar check was approved. Why are people trying to fight for less money?!


----------



## Lacius (Feb 2, 2021)

Viri said:


> 1400 does not equal 2000 dollars! They're not the same! They've been promising 2000 long after that 600 dollar check was approved. Why are people trying to fight for less money?!


$2,000 was the proposed alternative to $600, but we got $600. $2,000 minus $600 is $1,400.

Try again.


----------



## Viri (Feb 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> $2,000 was the proposed alternative to $600, but we got $600. $2,000 minus $600 is $1,400.
> 
> Try again.


There are videos of Democrats saying we'll get 2k, well after the 600 dollar checks were approved. Then once they get into office, WELL ACKUALLY it's 1400 instead. Is it going to become 200 dollars next, since we already got 1200 dollars earlier this year?

Why are you fighting for less money? They're on video saying we'll have 2 grand out the door for us, if they win Georgia. They made the promise of 2 grand, and they should be held accountable. If they didn't want to give us a 2 grand check, they shouldn't have promised it over and over just to win.




Lacius said:


> Try again.


My god you're such a Democrat boot licker.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 2, 2021)

Viri said:


> There are videos of Democrats saying we'll get 2k, well after the 600 dollar checks were approved. Then once they get into office, WELL ACKUALLY it's 1400 instead. Is it going to become 200 dollars next, since we already got 1200 dollars earlier this year?
> 
> Why are you fighting for less money? They're on video saying we'll have 2 grand out the door for us, if they win Georgia. They made the promise of 2 grand, and they should be held accountable. If they didn't want to give us a 2 grand check, they shouldn't have promised it over and over just to win.
> 
> ...


the entire point is that it's 2k total
do you not understand how math works
I wish it was 2k extra but it is not and they never said it would be


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 2, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> the entire point is that it's 2k total
> do you not understand how math works
> I wish it was 2k extra but it is not and they never said it would be


I would like to say that there was some level of sliminess in how the 2000$ stimulus was purposed. They did leave out the details as to how it was going to be done vs the actual method of how it's being done. It's rather upsetting that the promise came off more as "You are getting 2000$" vs "You are actually getting 1,400$ to make 2000$." Even though both statements are correct, one is very clearly leaving out details compared to the other. It would have been better if they had either been honest in their wording or own up to have omitted details and then actually sent the 2000$ checks instead of the 1,400$.


----------



## smf (Feb 2, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Yeah I'm wrong, shut up. Bored of you're self righteous bs constantly attacking me, there's no right or wrong way to vote.



I missed where you bought the right to self righteous bs. You swapped your cow and it turns out the beans weren't magic. I guess that depends on whether you like beans or not.



Lilith Valentine said:


> It would have been better if they had either been honest in their wording or own up to have omitted details and then actually sent the 2000$ checks instead of the 1,400$.



All I can find online is quite honest.

_Trump once again called for its *$600 stimulus checks* to be boosted to *$2,000* per person. On December 28, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass a bill to increase the *$600 stimulus checks* to *$2,000*, with the bill receiving the needed two-thirds majority of the members voting to pass in the chamber._

Where did you read anything that didn't make it clear?


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 2, 2021)

smf said:


> You swapped your cow and it turns out the beans weren't magic. I guess that depends on whether you like beans or not.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There are literally videos of Democrats saying that we would get 2000$ checks in the mail. Like, it's literally what they were saying was going to happen. In these videos, they didn't say, "You are getting a 1,400$ check to make 2,000$," they literally said, "You will being 2000$." Now if they meant we would be getting an equivalent of 2000$, they should have said that. I am not misquoting them or anything, it's literally what they said. They should be held accountable for these comments.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 2, 2021)

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

I am looking forward to the impeachment sham starting Feb 7th. Get your popcorn ready... I am expecting an M. Night Shyamalan of a twist at the end of this. 

In 44 days we will all be saying, "Never again!"


----------



## Viri (Feb 2, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> There are literally videos of Democrats saying that we would get 2000$ checks in the mail. Like, it's literally what they were saying was going to happen. In these videos, they didn't say, "You are getting a 1,400$ check to make 2,000$," they literally said, "You will being 2000$." Now if they meant we would be getting an equivalent of 2000$, they should have said that. I am not misquoting them or anything, it's literally what they said. They should be held accountable for these comments.


Indeed! I agree. I sure do love our checks being treated like an Apple TOS agreement, where we have to read the fine print. They promised us 2 grand, well after the 600 dollars was already passed.
"$2000" "immediately" pic.twitter.com/ikiIx7rGe1— Bes D. Marx (@BesDMarx) January 30, 2021

So, has it been next week yet, or does time pass differently to millionaires?



Plasmaster09 said:


> the entire point is that it's 2k total
> do you not understand how math works
> I wish it was 2k extra but it is not and they never said it would be


i no how maff works, i no 2+2 = 4!


----------



## Lacius (Feb 2, 2021)

Viri said:


> There are videos of Democrats saying we'll get 2k, well after the 600 dollar checks were approved. Then once they get into office, WELL ACKUALLY it's 1400 instead. Is it going to become 200 dollars next, since we already got 1200 dollars earlier this year?
> 
> Why are you fighting for less money? They're on video saying we'll have 2 grand out the door for us, if they win Georgia. They made the promise of 2 grand, and they should be held accountable. If they didn't want to give us a 2 grand check, they shouldn't have promised it over and over just to win.
> 
> ...


As I've said numerous times, the promise was "$2,000 instead of $600." If we got $600, which we did, then there's $1,400 remaining.

I personally think it should be $2,000 every month until the economy improves significantly, but that has nothing to do with the promise that is, in fact, on its way to being kept.

If you didn't vote for the Democrats, then I'm also confused as to how you can feel betrayed. You presumably didn't vote for them. It sounds like you're exhibiting politically motivated fake outrage. What a Republican boot-licker.

Try again.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 2, 2021)

The population in the US is around 330 mil. Biden plan is for 1.9 tril or something like that, right? Effectively meaning this stimulus would take out a 5.75 bil loan in each and every American's name. And people would actually be happy to get $1,600??? That is just stupid.

Bottom line is for each time they pass one of these stimulus programs, the value of the American dollar decreases. Ask yourself where is the money really going. Why not just give every American a million dollars, and only borrow 330 mil?

My suggestion... turn of the TV, and start thinking for yourselves. It is what our forefathers would have wanted.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 2, 2021)

Just check my account and it seems to be missing 2k certain person promise


----------



## smf (Feb 2, 2021)

Viri said:


> They promised us 2 grand, well after the 600 dollars was already passed.



Did they promise you $2000 after you'd cashed the $600 check?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Just check my account and it seems to be missing 2k certain person promise


The $1,400 you were promised in addition to the $600 you already received is being worked on despite the Republican obstructionism and their attempt to lower that amount. 

That being said, your fake outrage has gotten old. Unless you voted for Biden and the Democrats, you have no standing to even try to get mad. The transactional agreement was "vote for us so everyone gets $2,000," but if you didn't vote for them, you have no business being mad. In fact, when you do get your $1,400 check, you can mail it to me since you likely voted against the people who will make it happen. Let me know when you get it, and I'll send you my address over PM.


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Democrats have effectively rejected the Republican plan for $1,000 checks, so you will be getting $1,400 as soon as it passes the House and Senate. $1,400 plus the $600 you already received equals the $2,000 that was promised.



Darn it! I only wanted 3 million!


----------



## tthousand (Feb 2, 2021)

F.Y.I. I do not believe the main steam media narrative. I have a couple more 'sayings' for you all.

They say believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words... well this must be worth a million.



Again, in about 44 days things will make a lot more sense.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The $1,400 you were promised in addition to the $600 you already received is being worked on despite the Republican obstructionism and their attempt to lower that amount.
> 
> That being said, your fake outrage has gotten old. Unless you voted for Biden and the Democrats, you have no standing to even try to get mad. The transactional agreement was "vote for us so everyone gets $2,000," but if you didn't vote for them, you have no business being mad. In fact, when you do get your $1,400 check, you can mail it to me since you likely voted against the people who will make it happen. Let me know when you get it, and I'll send you my address over PM.


IL update you tomorrow to see if the most popular 80mil president more than Obama has deposited my 2k


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 2, 2021)




----------



## tthousand (Feb 2, 2021)




----------



## KingVamp (Feb 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> IL update you tomorrow to see if the most popular 80mil president more than Obama has deposited my 2k


And you will continuously be reminded about the group of people that don't want to give you that at all.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> IL update you tomorrow to see if the most popular 80mil president more than Obama has deposited my 2k


You mean my $2,000.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 3, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> And you will continuously be reminded about the group of people that don't want to give you that at all.


shame on the dems that have 51 majority for not giving it


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> shame on the dems that have 51 majority for not giving it



They are working on it, and it's going to happen.
Ignoring reconciliation, which Democrats will likely have to use, 10 Republican votes are required to bypass a filibuster, and that's not going to happen when they're wanting to cut so much from the bill. Among other things, they want to reduce the amount of the checks. It'd be a lot easier if Republicans weren't obstructionists.
Do some reading before posting, and you won't look like such a fool.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 3, 2021)

Imao Biden is opening that facility with the Cage kids again another lie from Joe
NEW: The Biden admin is reopening an overflow facility in Texas for unaccompanied migrant children apprehended at the US-Mexico border. It comes amid an increase in apprehensions + reduced capacity limits at other facilities due to Covid-19. https://t.co/MYRvIr9gm6— Priscilla Alvarez (@priscialva) February 2, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Imao Biden is opening that facility with the Cage kids again another lie from Joe
> https://twitter.com/priscialva/status/1356724733023313920


This has nothing to do with border separations. Don't be disingenuous.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This has nothing to do with border separations. Don't be disingenuous.



what's the point, he isn't anything other than disingenuous. it's "gotchas" 24/7.


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Still talking about that $2000 oh wait $1600 don't want anyone holding bidens hand to bite my head off (even though he said $2000 plan as friggin day and none of those certain people in here would act this way with the math if Trump was the one that said it) not to mention the fact that it should be considered buying votes as that is exactly what it was. Again if Trump had said "if Republicans are elected I guarantee $2000 will go out instantly dems would of jumped all over the buying votes band wagon." I can't wait till half of America wakes up and realizes they voted in the dictator instead of voted one out.(wait many already are.)  From the unheard of executive orders to the "we will pass my stimulus plan whether or not I have congress approval." I'm starting to wonder why we even have a house of representatives or a congress when a dictator is in office. They are even screening questions before white house press conferences. Goin straight from controlling information, your money, to straight dictatorship.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Still talking about that $2000 oh wait $1600 don't want anyone holding bidens hand to bite my head off (even though he said $2000 plan as friggin day and none of those certain people in here would act this way with the math if Trump was the one that said it) not to mention the fact that it should be considered buying votes as that is exactly what it was. Again if Trump had said "if Republicans are elected I guarantee $2000 will go out instantly dems would of jumped all over the buying votes band wagon." I can't wait till half of America wakes up and realizes they voted in the dictator instead of voted one out.(wait many already are.)  From the unheard of presidential degrees to the "we will pass my stimulus plan whether or not I have congress approval." I'm starting to wonder why we even have a house of representatives or a congress when a dictator is in office. They are even screening questions before white house press conferences. Goin straight from controlling information, your money, to straight dictatorship.


Democrats are moving as fast as they can on the $2,000 ($1,400 plus the $600 you already got). They just cleared a major procedural hurdle, and it's going to pass with 51 votes via reconciliation. It's not buying votes if it's for everyone, including those who didn't vote for the Democrats. There is nothing about the Democrats nor the stimulus checks that has anything to do with dictators. It's being passed per the terms of the Constitution, not unilaterally. It has congressional approval.

If you didn't vote for the Democrats, I'm not sure why you're complaining. You voted against the $2,000 stimulus checks. You're being quite ridiculous.


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Democrats are moving as fast as they can on the $2,000 ($1,400 plus the $600 you already got). They just cleared a major procedural hurdle, and it's going to pass with 51 votes via reconciliation. It's not buying votes if it's for everyone, including those who didn't vote for the Democrats. There is nothing about the Democrats nor the stimulus checks that has anything to do with dictators. It's being passed per the terms of the Constitution, not unilaterally. It has congressional approval.
> 
> If you didn't vote for the Democrats, I'm not sure why you're complaining. You voted against the $2,000 stimulus checks. You're being quite ridiculous.


Am I, telling people they will receive money if a certain candidate wins is the exact definition of buying votes.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Still talking about that $2000 oh wait $1600 don't want anyone holding bidens hand to bite my head off (even though he said $2000 plan as friggin day and none of those certain people in here would act this way with the math if Trump was the one that said it)


fair point, he did say 2,000. not some other number, or stating it was supposed to be added up.


wartutor said:


> not to mention the fact that it should be considered buying votes as that is exactly what it was.


eh no. People do actually need the money, and trump pulled a similar stunt, I'll try to pull it up when I can. How I see it is Biden is trying to be what he is. a centrist. the "left" in america isn't democrats. By that I mean, trying to please the fucking corporations like trump was, except with more sugar ontop.
Both parties subscribe to the idea of neoliberalism.


wartutor said:


> wakes up and realizes they voted in the dictator instead of voted one out.


So... this is thrown out a lot.
There's a stark contrast of rhetoric between them. Trump had stated that he wished the press was killed in the past, and any people that disagreed him (john boltons book)
that is authoritarian, and it does follow in fascism general footsteps.
Biden is essentially undoing a lot of the shit trump done (which nearly every single thing is in arguably bad. I mean ffs, he (trump) made it legal for people to accept lobbying in positions that previously had rules stating they couldn't)
It doesn't mean Biden is good.
He has a lot of dirt (war criminal. just like the last couple of presidents)


wartutor said:


> From the unheard of presidential degrees to the "we will pass my stimulus plan whether or not I have congress approval." I'm starting to wonder why we even have a house of representatives or a congress when a dictator is in office.


Well, you can definitely say that if Biden go gets supporters to raid the capital.
My point being, most of what he is putting as executive orders does make sense. A lot of shit Trump did was actively hurting the united states, hell, fauci essentially confirmed that Trump was forcing him to keep his lips zipped.
Now if it goes helps corporations, fuck him.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Am I, telling people they will receive money if a certain candidate wins is the exact definition of buying votes. View attachment 244733 View attachment 244733 View attachment 244735


What Biden and the Democrats isn't buying votes. They're not paying people on exchange for votes. They're giving the stimulus money to everyone.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> fair point, he did say 2,000. not some other number, or stating it was supposed to be added up.
> 
> eh no. People do actually need the money, and trump pulled a similar stunt, I'll try to pull it up when I can. How I see it is Biden is trying to be what he is. a centrist. the "left" in america isn't democrats. By that I mean, trying to please the fucking corporations like trump was, except with more sugar ontop.
> Both parties subscribe to the idea of liberalism.
> ...


He promise was $2,000 instead of $600. That's what it always was. $2,000 minus $600 is $1,400.


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What Biden and the Democrats isn't buying votes. They're not paying people on exchange for votes. They're giving the stimulus money to everyone.


It was a monetary promise made on the grounds of democrats winning an election in Georgia exactly what is was and exact definition of vote buying. It makes no difference if they intend to give 1 person or 100 million people money it is what it is and should be treated as such.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What Biden and the Democrats isn't buying votes. They're not paying people on exchange for votes. They're giving the stimulus money to everyone.


as you said, important distinction!
buying votes: you vote for me, I win and YOU get money
not buying votes: you vote for me, I win and EVERYONE gets money


wartutor said:


> It was a monetary promise made on the grounds of democrats winning an election in Georgia exactly what is was and exact definition of vote buying. It makes no difference if they intend to give 1 person or 100 million people money it is what it is and should be treated as such.


you're right, it doesn't matter how many get the money
but it does matter what the context is
in this case, it is not money exclusively for Democrats, exclusively for his voters or even for specific people
it is money for EVERYBODY
this is not vote buying, it's just "one of my promises is to give everyone some more money to help make it through this pandemic"
heck I'm pretty sure even the scumbags that stormed the Capitol are going to get the stimulus one way or another, so shut your trap about it being vote-buying


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> He promise was $2,000 instead of $600. That's what it always was. $2,000 minus $600 is $1,400.


it depends on how strict you want to be on the matter. Like I said, he said 2,000. He didn't mention if it was supposed to be in tandom with the 600 or not. I do get that math.


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> it depends on how strict you want to be on the matter. Like I said, he said 2,000. He didn't mention if it was supposed to be in tandom with the 600 or not. I do get that math.


Lol he likes doing that math over and over to argue for his supreme leader. Part of bidens new cult lol. It shows when he flat out ignored the definition I posted and defended his leader. He can do no wrong. They gettin as bad as the what do u call them "trumpkins"


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 3, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> it depends on how strict you want to be on the matter. Like I said, he said 2,000. He didn't mention if it was supposed to be in tandom with the 600 or not. I do get that math.


p sure they did say 2000 total
and ngl it's kinda hilarious that they're simultaneously demanding for more money they were not promised, claiming they were promised said money and also _claiming that said promise of money constituting vote buying and getting pissed about RECEIVING MONEY FROM A MAN THEY VOTED AGAINST WHO IS PROVIDING THE MONEY TO EVERYONE, PROVING IT IS NOT VOTE BUYING
_


wartutor said:


> Lol he likes doing that math over and over to argue for
> his supreme leader. Part of bidens new cult lol. It shows when he flat out ignored the definition I posted and defended his leader. He can do no wrong. They gettin as bad as the what do u call them "trumpkins"


bruh you can't do basic math- 2000 - 600 = 1400
also please explain how biden's base constitutes a cult and trump's base, who viciously no-true-scotsmans and even violently threatens anyone that dare speak a word against him, DOESN'T


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> it depends on how strict you want to be on the matter. Like I said, he said 2,000. He didn't mention if it was supposed to be in tandom with the 600 or not. I do get that math.


The whole argument was "$600 is too low. It should be $2,000." We already got $600, which means there's $1,400 remaining.


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> p sure they did say 2000 total
> and ngl it's kinda hilarious that they're simultaneously demanding for more money they were not promised, claiming they were promised said money and also _claiming that said promise of money constituting vote buying and getting pissed about RECEIVING MONEY FROM A MAN THEY VOTED AGAINST WHO IS PROVIDING THE MONEY TO EVERYONE, PROVING IT IS NOT VOTE BUYING_


He isn't providing it tax payers are....well actually future tax payers so your kids and grandkids are paying it. Don't think he is doing anything other than signing a piece of paper


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Lol he likes doing that math over and over to argue for his supreme leader. Part of bidens new cult lol. It shows when he flat out ignored the definition I posted and defended his leader. He can do no wrong. They gettin as bad as the what do u call them "trumpkins"


I think it should be $2,000 a month indefinitely. I disagree with it being $1,400. That being said, the promise was always "$2,000 instead of $600," so there is $1,400 remaining.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> He isn't providing it tax payers are....well actually future tax payers so your kids and grandkids are paying it. Don't think he is doing anything other than signing a piece of paper


so first you're complaining he's not giving you enough money
then you're complaining that the money he is giving to everyone regardless of political affiliation constitutes vote buying
and now you're complaining that he, a government official who is supposed to keep his personal shit out of the government, is not giving you said money OUT OF POCKET


Lacius said:


> I think it should be $2,000 a month indefinitely. I disagree with it being $1,400. That being said, the promise was always "$2,000 instead of $600," so there is $1,400 remaining.


exactly
we all WANT the extra money, but he's giving us what he promised and 2000 - 600 = 1400 is what he promised


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I think it should be $2,000 a month indefinitely. I disagree with it being $1,400. That being said, the promise was always "$2,000 instead of $600," so there is $1,400 remaining.


I could go for $2000 a month and then I could quit working 7 days a week. Damn may even qualify to be a Democrat if I keep that up.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> He isn't providing it tax payers are....well actually future tax payers so your kids and grandkids are paying it. Don't think he is doing anything other than signing a piece of paper


Are you complaining that there are stimulus checks, or are you complaining that the checks aren't big enough? Pick an argument and stick with it. Also, I'm not sure how you can with honesty complain about a thing you voted against.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> I could go for $2000 a month and then I could quit working 7 days a week. Damn may even qualify to be a Democrat if I keep that up.


If you want to be limited to $2,000 a month, good for you. This also isn't something that will last forever.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> I could go for $2000 a month and then I could quit working 7 days a week. Damn may even qualify to be a Democrat if I keep that up.


you do realize that the 7 day work week is fundamentally unhealthy, right?
heck, even the _*five*_ day work week is generally worse than a 10-hr/day 4-day work week- there's been studies done, and 4-day's only real disadvantages are that it's hard to adjust to because it isn't normal _yet_
but like
7 days a week
I hope to god that that's only like 5-6 hr/day


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> so first you're complaining he's not giving you enough money
> then you're complaining that the money he is giving to everyone regardless of political affiliation constitutes vote buying
> and now you're complaining that he, a government official who is supposed to keep his personal shit out of the government, is not giving you said money OUT OF POCKET
> 
> ...


I never once complained about the amount of money just stated I better do the math so certain bidensitters didn't bite my head off for it. My only complaint was why no one considers it vote buying when it was a text book case of it. And I don't know how many times I heard democrats (most of you) point out Trump wasn't sending anyone money it was the tax payers.) So I just threw that out there.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> I never once complained about the amount of money just stated I better do the math so certain bidensitters didn't bite my head off for it. My only complaint was why no one considers it vote buying when it was a text book case of it. And I don't know how many times I heard democrats (most of you) point out Trump wasn't sending anyone money it was the tax payers.) So I just threw that out there.


I mean
the end result would be the same if any given candidate proposed a really precise tax cut for everyone
people gaining money based on if they voted for Biden or not would be blatant vote buying
this isn't, because even the most aggressively far-right still get the checks
it's basically a weird temporary tax cut
also I legit don't remember any of us whining about how Trump wasn't paying for government-provided checks out of pocket


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> you do realize that the 7 day work week is fundamentally unhealthy, right?
> heck, even the _*five*_ day work week is generally worse than a 10-hr/day 4-day work week- there's been studies done, and 4-day's only real disadvantages are that it's hard to adjust to because it isn't normal _yet_


Oh unhealthy it may be but some of us have to do what we have to for money people ain't paying my shit for me. And God knows you can't find anyone wanting to work when the government gives them $900+ a month to sit at home. Hell every company in Southern Indiana has a now hiring sign posted. Noone willing to work when the government pays them not to.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Oh unhealthy it may be but some of us have to do what we have to for money people ain't paying my shit for me. And God knows you can't find anyone wanting to work when the government gives them $900+ a month to sit at home. Hell every company in Southern Indiana has a now hiring sign posted. Noone willing to work when the government pays them not to.


You do understand work isn't an option for a lot of people because of the pandemic, right? Like, have you been living under a rock?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Oh unhealthy it may be but someone us have to do what we have to for money people ain't paying my shit for me. And God knows you can't find anyone wanting to work when the government gives them $900+ a month to sit at home. Hell every company in Southern Indiana has a now hiring sign posted. Noone willing to work when the government pays them not to.


I don't mean it's worse than not working at all, I just mean that working literally every day is just fundamentally awful
considering 4x10 has shown to be both more productive and less stressful than 5x8 (which kinda makes sense- you don't feel much of a difference doing 10 hours versus 8, but an extra day free each week is VERY noticeable), then extrapolating off of that, (40/7)x7 would probably be the worst possible version


Lacius said:


> You do understand work isn't an option for a lot of people because of the pandemic, right? Like, have you been living under a rock?


and yeah this too
people are getting paid regardless of work because a large chunk of the population CAN'T work (or at least going to work would be so unsafe that it outweighs the pay)
the ones that can work should work in whatever way is best for them without chopping productivity to bits
and the ones that cannot work should be provided however much money and/or supplies they need to survive


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You do understand work isn't an option for a lot of people because of the pandemic, right? Like, have you been living under a rock?


No not at all I've been living at work mostly. 70 hour weeks do that to u. And yeah some don't have a choice but many do. It's time to open stuff up and quit this dependency on government money's. Look at florida for instance. At some point you have to quit living in a cave and drag the rock away from the entrance. This pandemic is what it is. Time to move on and quit using it as a crutch. If you quit living because of the virus u might as well die from it. Give me liberty or give me death use to mean something now everyone would give it all up for a chance of not getting this virus. Like them talking about wearing 2 masks. Guess 1 really didn't work hummm wonder who has been saying that forever


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> No not at all I've been living at work mostly. 70 hour weeks do that to u. And yeah some don't have a choice but many do. It's time to open stuff up and quit this dependency on government money's. Look at florida for instance. At some point you have to quit living in a cave and drag the rock away from the entrance. This pandemic is what it is. Time to move on and quit using it as a crutch. If you quit living because of the virus u might as well die from it.


_blinks twice_
Excuse me, SEVENTY?!
You're working four-day hours on a seven-day schedule?
That's... that shouldn't even be fucking LEGAL!
Also... it literally is not safe for a lot of people to work right now.
"People should prioritize their jobs over their lives" is the epitome of capitalism gone sour, and I can't stand it.
The pandemic isn't a crutch, it's a fucking global pandemic that's basically screwed over millions of people because they can no longer go to work without risking ending up in the hospital.
And people like you that act like a person's life is less important than being a cog in whatever machine they work for are just making things worse by propagating views that encourage people to risk catching and potentially spreading the virus.

ngl someone that works an absolutely ungodly amount of hours (spending 5/12 of their time working, and considering the 8 hours of sleep that ends up as _*almost two thirds*_) telling people that their jobs are more important than basically anything else is essentially the cycle of abuse but capitalist


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> _blinks twice_
> Excuse me, SEVENTY?!
> You're working four-day hours on a seven-day schedule?
> That's... that shouldn't even be fucking LEGAL!
> ...


You cannot stop it isn't that clear yet over 15 months since it first surfaced and we are in the same spot as when it first started. We'll except for the hundreds that took their own life because of lock down.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> No not at all I've been living at work mostly. 70 hour weeks do that to u. And yeah some don't have a choice but many do. It's time to open stuff up and quit this dependency on government money's. Look at florida for instance. At some point you have to quit living in a cave and drag the rock away from the entrance. This pandemic is what it is. Time to move on and quit using it as a crutch. If you quit living because of the virus u might as well die from it.


Less than half of the jobs lost due in part to Trump's handling of the pandemic have been recovered. Stimulus checks are necessary for those affected and to stimulate the economy and return back to normal. In fact, the CBO projects that with the proposed stimulus, the vaccine, etc., the American economy may very well return roughly to normal by mid-2021.

Please don't act like the economic recovery isn't desperately needed. It's not a matter of people not working even though they could, etc.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> You cannot stop it isn't that clear yet over 15 months since it first surfaced and we are in the same spot as when it first started. We'll except for the hundreds that took their own life because of lock down.


we're in the same spot because people were and/or are:
a) dipshits that refuse to do things like wear masks, avoid major social gatherings, etc.
b) dipshits that refuse to, you know, actually stay home and quarantine if they CATCH it
c) dipshits that refuse to get the damn vaccine because they've been spoonfed propaganda
d) one specific ex-presidential dipshit that refused to actually act quickly and respond to the pandemic with anything vaguely resembling reason or sanity, from claiming it was a liberal hoax to claiming it's as harmless as the flu to other various excuses to avoid action
e) *people like you that spread ideas like "work over life" and encourage others to risk their health and the health of those around them for their 9-to-5*


----------



## tthousand (Feb 3, 2021)

LOL... all this talk over 2K. At the end of the day, it's simply not enough to really help out. If the government is going to make it illegal to work, then they need to cover those losses. This talk of 2K is a slap in the face to all Americans, especially considering the amount of debt that comes with this tiny amount. All the while, the elites and their allies will be only ones to truly benefit from the stimulus.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 3, 2021)

Just check my account still no 2k Joe.

Where is my money joe also you told me you were stoping  the Covid  why are people still dying Joe


----------



## wartutor (Feb 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> we're in the same spot because people were and/or are:
> a) dipshits that refuse to do things like wear masks, avoid major social gatherings, etc.
> b) dipshits that refuse to, you know, actually stay home and quarantine if they CATCH it
> c) dipshits that refuse to get the damn vaccine because they've been spoonfed propaganda
> ...


We are in this situation because dipshits let the media scare them so damn bad they gave half their freedoms away to the government, stay home scared shitless, and are willing to give up the other half of their freedom in order to be told everything's OK. Hiding in a cave is not the answer to beating this and only hurts the economy further.



Valwinz said:


> Just check my account still no 2k Joe.
> 
> Where is my money joe also you told me you were stoping  the Covid  why are people still dying Joe


His plan to stop the virus was, do what we are doing, throw money at it for no reason, and wait...oh and wear 2 masks cause one don't work.


Shit have to edit it to include BLAME TRUMP FOR EVERYTHING. It's all dems have at the moment.


----------



## Viri (Feb 3, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Am I, telling people they will receive money if a certain candidate wins is the exact definition of buying votes. View attachment 244733 View attachment 244733 View attachment 244735


Ima be honest, it really does feel like they bought our votes, esp the Georgia run off. But I don't give a shit who is in power in Georgia. I don't even give a shit who the President is, as long as I'm not drafted. The only thing I care about is getting paid! If Hillary said she'd mail everyone 2 grand in 2016 if she won, I would have voted for her, lol.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Just check my account still no 2k Joe.
> 
> Where is my money joe also you told me you were stoping  the Covid  why are people still dying Joe


It's too bad Trump fucked things up so badly with regard to COVID-19 that it's going to take awhile to get out of it.

Since you probably voted against the people who are working to make the $2,000 possible, please mail me your $600 now and your $1,400 later. Thanks.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's too bad Trump fucked things up so badly with regard to COVID-19 that it's going to take awhile to get out of it.
> 
> Since you probably voted against the people who are working to make the $2,000 possible, please mail me your $600 now and your $1,400 later. Thanks.


He does it for free


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Just check my account still no 2k Joe.
> 
> Where is my money joe also you told me you were stoping  the Covid  why are people still dying Joe



Heck I still haven't even gotten the $600. Well, it would be $1800, for 3 of us ... me, wife, 17yo kid ... but anyway yeah never came. Did get the first round last Spring, still eligible nothing has changed, so wtf? And IRS doesn't want to hear about it ... I'll have to fill out extra paperwork to claim a credit for the missed payment when I file my taxes. 

I used the IRS payment check website, it shows where I got the direct deposit last April so I know I put my info in correctly, but for the Jan 2021 payment it says "No Information Available." That's nice.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 3, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Heck I still haven't even gotten the $600. Well, it would be $1800, for 3 of us ... me, wife, 17yo kid ... but anyway yeah never came. Did get the first round last Spring, still eligible nothing has changed, so wtf? And IRS doesn't want to hear about it ... I'll have to fill out extra paperwork to claim a credit for the missed payment when I file my taxes.
> 
> I used the IRS payment check website, it shows where I got the direct deposit last April so I know I put my info in correctly, but for the Jan 2021 payment it says "No Information Available." That's nice.


because their shifting to your 2020 tax credit god the GOP is retarded people need it now not after filing taxes

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@Hanafuda https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/wha...-received-your-$600-stimulus-check-2021-01-16 read that


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 3, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Heck I still haven't even gotten the $600. Well, it would be $1800, for 3 of us ... me, wife, 17yo kid ... but anyway yeah never came. Did get the first round last Spring, still eligible nothing has changed, so wtf? And IRS doesn't want to hear about it ... I'll have to fill out extra paperwork to claim a credit for the missed payment when I file my taxes.
> 
> I used the IRS payment check website, it shows where I got the direct deposit last April so I know I put my info in correctly, but for the Jan 2021 payment it says "No Information Available." That's nice.


I have a friend who didn't get their _first_ round of stimulus money until November 7th. The timing was very amusing. The delay was most likely from them not using direct deposit, though.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 3, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> because their shifting to your 2020 tax credit god the GOP is retarded people need it now not after filing taxes
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> @Hanafuda https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/what-to-do-if-you-havent-received-your-$600-stimulus-check-2021-01-16 read that



Won't argue with you on this one. But tbh I don't _need_ it. Won't hurt, but don't need. But if they're literally giving it to everyone else, no reason I should be counted out.

I'll be fine claiming it as a credit on my taxes, but not everyone can hang on like that. It's a shitty deal yep.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 4, 2021)

wartutor said:


> We are in this situation because dipshits let the media scare them so damn bad they gave half their freedoms away to the government, stay home scared shitless, and are willing to give up the other half of their freedom in order to be told everything's OK. Hiding in a cave is not the answer to beating this and only hurts the economy further.


the economy
it's a lie.
No really.
IF ANYTHING proves that, it's gamestonk.
Stocks aren't dictated by businesses doing well. Stocks are dictated by the wealthy and elite who puts bets to ruin people's lives.
Fuck the economy. It doesn't serve me, and it definitely doesn't serve you.
As for staying in, your mentally hurting me.
Basically people like you refused to stay in along with the federal government not making any mandate.
You should be angry at the business exploiting you left and right, those that profited like fucking greedy as hogs off this whole thing.
Capitalism is exploitation.

Think about it. some guy with a lot of capital. banks off your body and time. If they paid you what you were actually working/worth. they wouldn't make profit.
capitalism is essentially theft. to only then have that system manipulated by other people with a fuck ton of capital, affecting those businesses prices. it's all a game to them.
You have such a astronomically low chance to even remotely get close to them, since every step in the way your fucked.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 4, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Fuck the economy. It doesn't serve me, and it definitely doesn't serve you.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Speak for yourself.


So who benefited from the 2008 market crash? definitely wasn't me, or the people I lived with. Who's benefiting from the pandemic? It's definitely not me. And I know it's definitely not most of my peers.
Even in times when the market isn't completely and utterly destroyed. We are not served by it. It's just a number. a number we don't really effect, that just so happens to screw with our lives, while others who practically gamble bet off it. and then change the rules when people finally get the memo that something is wrong.
Again, "gamestonk"
people for various reasons, not even a single goal. End up either accidentally or intentionally said fuck you to wall street. after learning that gamestop was doing okay, despite being shortselled to oblivion. it was not really representative at all to how the business was performing.
When people caught wind of this, and decided to make a smart move, and do the very thing all those rich people told to them to do. go invest. Which at the time most of them said it, there was no way for common person to go invest in a business, or if it at all, unreasonably difficult.
And then those same rich people, go call foul when they loose, and then try changing the rules.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 4, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So who benefited from the 2008 market crash? definitely wasn't me, or the people I lived with. Who's benefiting from the pandemic? It's definitely not me. And I know it's definitely not most of my peers.
> Even in times when the market isn't completely and utterly destroyed. We are not served by it. It's just a number. a number we don't really effect, that just so happens to screw with our lives, while others who practically gamble bet off it. and then change the rules when people finally get the memo that something is wrong.
> Again, "gamestonk"
> people for various reasons, not even a single goal. End up either accidentally or intentionally said fuck you to wall street. after learning that gamestop was doing okay, despite being shortselled to oblivion. it was not really representative at all to how the business was performing.
> ...



except it's just a classic pump and dump scheme we've all seen before. people are going to lose the shirt off their back from this stupid shit. the finance sector doesn't give two shits about GME. it's 1-3 hedge funds losings billions which is basically nothing compared to the flow of the finance sector. anyone who bought into GME in the last 3 weeks are going to be hurting in a month. quote me.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 4, 2021)

omgcat said:


> except it's just a classic pump and dump scheme we've all seen before. people are going to lose the shirt off their back from this stupid shit. the finance sector doesn't give two shits about GME. it's 1-3 hedge funds losings billions which is basically nothing compared to the flow of the finance sector. anyone who bought into GME in the last 3 weeks are going to be hurting in a month. quote me.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Feb 4, 2021)

Ok, now I remember why I stopped visiting this thread.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 4, 2021)

arbitration like RH,Nintendo etc needs to be outright banned because bias can be and maybe rampet and idk if arbitrators can be held legally reliable unlike a judge if blatant bias is found out Arbitration as it is is just a get out of a lawsuit card while their free to sue others


----------



## omgcat (Feb 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


>




hows GME looking now? -48% normal hours, -8% after hours. people are actually stupid.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

Still no 2k


----------



## omgcat (Feb 5, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Still no 2k



is it ok to pick on the mentally retarded in 2021?

it's literally happening right now in real time.

also
*
A grueling debate on up to 400 Senate amendments will begin Thursday afternoon. Then, Senate committees will begin drafting the actual legislation. The Democrat-led House on Wednesday voted to have its committees also begin work. The final product may be subject to additional votes. 


The use of “reconciliation” allows Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to circumvent Republicans without technically undoing the 60-vote threshold needed for most legislation.*


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 5, 2021)

omgcat said:


> hows GME looking now? -48% normal hours, -8% after hours. people are actually stupid.


it's not just that people are stupid
it's that the filthy rich hedge funds and corps that tried to short gamestop to death in the first place are nigh invincible
...especially when the SEC is asleep at the wheel and the only person they can think to investigate is _DFV for some stupid fucking reason_


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 5, 2021)

omgcat said:


> is it ok to pick on the mentally retarded in 2021?



Depends on your political leanings, if you're a democrat or on the left it's widely acceptable and actually encouraged. If you're not on the left then no you'll get sent to the gulag.


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Depends on your political leanings, if you're a democrat or on the left it's widely acceptable and actually encouraged. If you're not on the left then no you'll get sent to the gulag.


Gulag? There arent enough jobs for people under automation.

VR and cheap smart assistants (AI) and UBI more likely.

So segmenting society into the ruling class and a class of disenfranchised people. Where the lower class has nothing in common anymore with everyones current capabilities.

But they all can play Candy Crush much more perfectly than the elite. So you see - differently enabled.

But as long as Starbucks is seen as a status symbol, no problem... Flavored sugar water? I think we can still provide that to everyone.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 5, 2021)

Looks like the Q lady lost her job in education.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

Did joe Cure Covid yet like he say he would ?


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 5, 2021)

Mien got. are you guys still talking about this? It already passed with Kamal's vote. You republicans want the money too, but you don't want to Dish it out to anybody else. Biden Won. that's the end of it! Stop crying,  and live with it!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Looks like the Q lady lost her job in education.



YaY


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Looks like the Q lady lost her job in education.


That reminds me of the joke - of what the European Forum Alpbach (respectively thinktanks featured there) thought should be done about EU citizens not being content with the usual "free travel and one flag for everyone" anymore...

https://polis180.org/

https://valuesunite.eu/wp-content/u...per_European_Agency_Citizenship_Education.pdf

https://ecas.org/ecas-welcomes-the-proposal-for-a-european-agency-for-citizenship-education/

Citizenship education.

What, Orwell was right again? 

This time (with the Q lady) it seemed too on the nose though... Wonder who greenlit that...

When "education" really is just "the PR department", where people with no other qualifications get designated to...

edit: Ah:


> *Removed from education and labor and budget committees*
> In an unprecedented punishment, 219 Democrats and 11 Republicans voted in favor of her removal, while 199 Republicans voted against.
> 
> "No member ought to be permitted to engage in the kind of behavior that Representative Greene has and face zero consequences," Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the chamber. "This vote can be a first step in correcting the error of those who so far have chosen to do nothing."
> ...


So it was a consensus decision to put her into that position.  Party wanted a reliable vote. 

https://www.dw.com/en/us-house-remo...ting-congresswoman-from-committees/a-56459142


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 5, 2021)

I'm still looking for the "Thumbs Down" button, so I can push it on some of these comments. Like for Valwins. Sheesh!


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 5, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Did joe Cure Covid yet like he say he would ?


Looks like you are already moving the goalpost.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

YaY[/QUOTE]


KingVamp said:


> Looks like you are already moving the goal post.


since he did not stop the murders and I don't have my 2k need to keep asking his promises that did not happen


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 5, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> since he did not stop the murders and I don't have my 2k need to keep asking his promises that did not happen


you do not have the 2k that you have also complained about the existence of... *yet*
also, I don't even know what you're referring to but it's basically impossible for him to prevent murders of some type completely without establishing the very sort of control over people's choices that the Republicans seem to loathe with a soul-melting passion


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

Imao Biden after promising 2k has now drop it to 1,400
what a liar 

Pres. Biden in remarks just now: "I'm not cutting the size of the checks. They're going to be $1400. Period. That's what the American people were promised." Actually, it's not. This is an outright lie, as many on the left and right have noted. Proof below per Biden on 1/10: pic.twitter.com/VfUfn0bHBU— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) February 5, 2021


love this one 
Also last month before the GA elections: pic.twitter.com/FSVg22oGVh— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) February 5, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Feb 5, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Imao Biden after promising 2k has now drop it to 1,400
> what a liar
> 
> https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/status/1357744036581408770
> ...


You've been told repeatedly that $2,000 was promised as an alternative to $600, but we already got $600.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You've been told repeatedly that $2,000 was promised as an alternative to $600, but we already got $600.


you have been corrected plenty of times he say 2,000 literally images of him saying it lol

Biden be like 
 pic.twitter.com/1zi7ZS53Us— Robert Turner (@RRobovski) February 5, 2021


----------



## Seliph (Feb 5, 2021)




----------



## Lacius (Feb 5, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> you have been corrected plenty of times he say 2,000 literally images of him saying it lol
> 
> Biden be like
> https://twitter.com/RRobovski/status/1357756639797907457


Your own image in your previous post shows Biden saying "$600 isn't enough. $2,000 is what it should be instead." We got $600, so $2,000 minus $600 equals $1,400. Lol.

Also, since you likely voted against the stimulus checks and the Democrats, I will happily take your $600 now, and you can send me the $1,400 when you get it. Thank you.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

Biden lied, my wallet cried


----------



## rensenware (Feb 5, 2021)

The democrats literally campaigned in the georgia runoffs on the claim that they would immediately propose legislation for $2000 dollar checks if they got the Senate. They lied, and it wasn't even enough to begin with.


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 5, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> because their shifting to your 2020 tax credit god the GOP is retarded people need it now not after filing taxes
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> @Hanafuda https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/what-to-do-if-you-havent-received-your-$600-stimulus-check-2021-01-16 read that


https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashlea...ayments-to-offset-2007-taxes/?sh=29111c0d7e1c


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 5, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Did joe Cure Covid yet like he say he would ?





KingVamp said:


> Looks like you are already moving the goalpost.




@KingVamp is right, Biden never said he would "cure" Covid. What he said is he would not shut down the economy, instead he was going to shut down the virus.

So, did Joe shut down the virus yet?


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> @KingVamp is right, Biden never said he would "cure" Covid. What he said is he would not shut down the economy, instead he was going to shut down the virus.
> 
> So, did Joe shut down the virus yet?


He is failing to do what he say he was going to do quick blame trump


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Feb 5, 2021)

It may be far too late, but TIME just admitted to voter fraud.


 
"Not rigging the election"? Yeah, sure.

Don't expect me to respond to any quotes. I don't want to get sucked back in here.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 5, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It may be far too late, but TIME just admitted to voter fraud.
> View attachment 245093
> "Not rigging the election"? Yeah, sure.
> 
> Don't expect me to respond to any quotes. I don't want to get sucked back in here.


Changing voting systems =/= election fraud


----------



## Lacius (Feb 5, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It may be far too late, but TIME just admitted to voter fraud.
> View attachment 245093
> "Not rigging the election"? Yeah, sure.
> 
> Don't expect me to respond to any quotes. I don't want to get sucked back in here.


This is not evidence of widespread voter fraud, and if you don't want to get sucked back in here, don't post nonsense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



jupitteer said:


> The democrats literally campaigned in the georgia runoffs on the claim that they would immediately propose legislation for $2000 dollar checks if they got the Senate. They lied, and it wasn't even enough to begin with.


Correction: They campaigned on $2,000 instead of $600, but then $600 went through. So, they are fulfilling their promise with $1,400. I'm sure it was an honest mistake on your part. No worries. I am just glad you won't make the same mistake again.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It may be far too late, but TIME just admitted to voter fraud.
> View attachment 245093
> "Not rigging the election"? Yeah, sure.
> 
> Don't expect me to respond to any quotes. I don't want to get sucked back in here.


Biden won so they have no reason to keep it a secret. anyone with a brain knows they stole the election I am surprised they admit it it so fast

GOP that control those states legislature really need to undo all this bs if they ever expect to win again


----------



## Lacius (Feb 5, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden won so they have no reason to keep it a secret. anyone with a brain knows they stole the election I am surprised they admit it it so fast


There is no evidence of anyone stealing an election. To believe the election was stolen is to completely reject critical thinking.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 5, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It may be far too late, but TIME just admitted to voter fraud.
> View attachment 245093
> "Not rigging the election"? Yeah, sure.
> 
> Don't expect me to respond to any quotes. I don't want to get sucked back in here.


....go take your pillow and tears.
The MyPillow CEO’s election conspiracy movie ‘Absolute Proof’ has absolutely no proof. https://t.co/ZFwrhe0m64— VICE News (@VICENews) February 5, 2021


----------



## rensenware (Feb 5, 2021)

The democrats were actively pushing for 2000 dollar checks as their big issue in georgia even after it became obvious that a stimulus bill including 600 dollar checks was going to be passed, and I can bring up plenty of concrete examples of this. Did they campaign on completing out 2000 dollar checks over 2 or 3 months? No, they campaigned on the promise that *they would immediately pass a bill sending $2000 checks out the door.* They lied, and I'm sick and tired of neoliberal types making excuses for this bullshit cheating of the american people. People need that money.


----------



## Driving_duck (Feb 5, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It may be far too late, but TIME just admitted to voter fraud.
> View attachment 245093
> "Not rigging the election"? Yeah, sure.
> 
> Don't expect me to respond to any quotes. I don't want to get sucked back in here.


They make stupid articles like this to try to appeal to the stupid trump supporters so they can get more money. They usually make evidence out of their asses or use evidence thats really weak. Again, they do this to appeal to trump supporters so they can get more money. Its genius and really stupid.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://www.timesrecordnews.com/sto...e-america-headed-toward-civil-war/4292240001/ 

Noice, texas wants to be stupid again. Apparently they want to have a discussion to see if they want to seperate from the U.S and become a indenpent state. News flash, It's impossible to leave the U.S once you joined. Abe already told that, and the laws haven't been changed since. Though I do find it fucking hilarous that Texas cant leave the U.S, but they can split into at most 5 smaller states for some reason.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 5, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> it's not just that people are stupid
> it's that the filthy rich hedge funds and corps that tried to short gamestop to death in the first place are nigh invincible
> ...especially when the SEC is asleep at the wheel and the only person they can think to investigate is _DFV for some stupid fucking reason_


yup
People don't care about it going down.
What's the primary issue, is that when they the hedge fund managers start loosing money, they can minuplate the market, and change the rules.


omgcat said:


> except it's just a classic pump and dump scheme we've all seen before. people are going to lose the shirt off their back from this stupid shit. the finance sector doesn't give two shits about GME. it's 1-3 hedge funds losings billions which is basically nothing compared to the flow of the finance sector. anyone who bought into GME in the last 3 weeks are going to be hurting in a month. quote me.



It's not a classic pump and dump. Primary issue with a Pump and Dump is that you have to prove that wallstreetbets were making misleading claims, or exaggerated ones to get people to buy.
They never did that. And then some of it goes both ways. if you saw the video I sent (legal eagles) it's not super clear

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



jupitteer said:


> The democrats were actively pushing for 2000 dollar checks as their big issue in georgia even after it became obvious that a stimulus bill including 600 dollar checks was going to be passed, and I can bring up plenty of concrete examples of this. Did they campaign on completing out 2000 dollar checks over 2 or 3 months? No, they campaigned on the promise that *they would immediately pass a bill sending $2000 checks out the door.* They lied, and I'm sick and tired of neoliberal types making excuses for this bullshit cheating of the american people. People need that money.


I'm personally just sick of the two party system.
Like for example, democrats finally purpose a bill to raise minimum wage. Great!
But... it won't come into 2025? what, the actual fuck. That's too late too little.
15 is already too low. Our rent is about 40% of our wage (likely more)
So here's the democrats doing meh, but then you get the republican party shitting all over the damn floor with a identity crisis, since right now they are quite literately the party of lies. almost non of their stances are based on fact.
And even then, that meh the democrats are doing is leaking shit into their damn pants, since they lack a actual back bone. While republicans are just completely spineless.
Personally I'm just tired of seeing people settling between lesser of two evils. I hope people finally wake up and just vote with their conscious this time. Don't settle for a garbage or lesser garbage. settle with something that is actually pallet able.


----------



## rensenware (Feb 5, 2021)

If more than two parties was possible in America I and a lot of other people wouldn't be democrats. The most important thing this country needs to get passed is ranked choice voting.


----------



## smf (Feb 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Stocks are dictated by the wealthy and elite who puts bets to ruin people's lives.



That isn't true. They are dictated by how much people want them, rich people have more say because they are rich (what is the point of money if it can't buy you what you want?).



monkeyman4412 said:


> So who benefited from the 2008 market crash? definitely wasn't me, or the people I lived with. Who's benefiting from the pandemic? It's definitely not me.



If everyone could win then you wouldn't win anything.

That is the biggest problem with capitalism. You could try socialism, but what tends to happen is that the people who benefit under capitalism are then the ones moaning about how bad things are for them. Then they elect someone like Trump and it all goes to hell.



shamzie said:


> Depends on your political leanings, if you're a democrat or on the left it's widely acceptable and actually encouraged. If you're not on the left then no you'll get sent to the gulag.



I didn't realise that Trump was a democrat. 



jupitteer said:


> The democrats were actively pushing for 2000 dollar checks as their big issue in georgia even after it became obvious that a stimulus bill including 600 dollar checks was going to be passed, and I can bring up plenty of concrete examples of this. Did they campaign on completing out 2000 dollar checks over 2 or 3 months? No, they campaigned on the promise that *they would immediately pass a bill sending $2000 checks out the door.* They lied, and I'm sick and tired of neoliberal types making excuses for this bullshit cheating of the american people. People need that money.



I think you just didn't understand what they were saying. They did pass a bill to give $2000 instead of $600, like biden said (which you helpfully posted about earlier in the thread).


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

AHAHAHAHAHAAH
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1357801201929228290


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Feb 5, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It may be far too late, but TIME just admitted to voter fraud.
> View attachment 245093
> "Not rigging the election"? Yeah, sure.
> 
> Don't expect me to respond to any quotes. I don't want to get sucked back in here.


I got called a racist white supremacist for using the term "cabal" yet here is Time magazine admitting the entire election is rigged and use the term themselves.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 5, 2021)

smf said:


> That isn't true. They are dictated by how much people want them, rich people have more say because they are rich (what is the point of money if it can't buy you what you want?).


Oh so... 
When those weathy people got bailed out when the 2008 market crash. People wanted that to happen? for their tax payer dollars to go to those wealthy people? For them to go then buy the housing market? Even though it was them, those same wealthy ass people, made the market crash of 2008 happen in the first place? 
Yeah no I don't buy that.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 5, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> AHAHAHAHAHAAH
> https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1357801201929228290


 stick to the main 3 please CNN,Fox News or MSNBC not some crackpot alt right media for the love of god that mostly spew out misinformation (actually fox news have been doing a lot of that as of late no wonder them (and some anchors of FN) are getting sued for what 2.5 bil?


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 5, 2021)

You know what. let's go talk about this.
So everyone on the right usually goes says that Big government is a problem, that it ruins freedom. problem is that Denmark (one of the highest rated places for freedom and equality) has a big government. The real issue is a bought out government, when companies get to control government.
Again, lobbying really shouldn't exist.
I thought I should perhaps mention this.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Feb 5, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> stick to the main 3 please CNN,Fox News or MSNBC not some crackpot alt right media for the love of god that mostly spew out misinformation (actually fox news have been doing a lot of that as of late no wonder them (and some anchors of FN) are getting sued for what 2.5 bil?



Why? What's the problem? They're directly quoting what he said? Do you want a different source?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/poli...rama-bernie-sanders-seems-unfazed/ar-BB1dpu8r


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 5, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> stick to the main 3 please CNN,Fox News or MSNBC not some crackpot alt right media for the love of god that mostly spew out misinformation (actually fox news have been doing a lot of that as of late no wonder them (and some anchors of FN) are getting sued for what 2.5 bil?


 2.7 sorry https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/05/media/smartmatic-fox-news-reliable-sources/index.html damn if they lose (and assuming trump doesn't bail them out) that might be it for the only "tangible" right wing media source serves them right for spreadingg the big lie over and over i hope trump is next on their list to sue, (and don't forget all of the copyright violations ) rally songs, Space force logo to name a few) it maybe more fun watching him lose all these lawsuits first then go to prison GENIUS


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 5, 2021)

believe it or not he can run and get elected in 2024(while in prison) but....... this is the fun part because he get's elected while in prison he technicly loses cause an automatic 25th amendment (the impairment clause at least) would make his VP pick gets in automaticly (and i think he'll get knocked out of the chain even if pardoned) so if the impeachment fails (100% will saddly) if and it's an if trump goes to prison he loses if his sentance doesn't a )get commuted or b runs out on Jan 20th,2025 (which i highly doubt considering the amount of charges if the got at him full force) he can't run


----------



## Xzi (Feb 5, 2021)

So after all that bitching and whining about re-opening schools as soon as possible, Republicans' biggest objection to the COVID relief bill is that it includes "too much funding" for K-12.  

God forbid kids learn some critical thinking skills, what we really need is more high school dropouts like Lauren Boebert becoming Congressmen!  /s


----------



## tthousand (Feb 5, 2021)

Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 5, 2021)

Xzi said:


> So after all that bitching and whining about re-opening schools as soon as possible, Republicans' biggest objection to the COVID relief bill is that it includes "too much funding" for K-12.
> 
> God forbid kids learn some critical thinking skills, what we really need is more high school dropouts like Lauren Boebert becoming Congressmen!  /s


"WE HAVE TO REOPEN SCHOOLS" "ok fine" "WAIT NO THAT COSTS ME MONEY"


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 5, 2021)

Was $2600 ever even mentioned at anytime? 


monkeyman4412 said:


> just vote with their conscious this time. Don't settle for a garbage or lesser garbage. settle with something that is actually pallet able.


Then we end up with someone like Trump and not anyone the majority wanted.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 5, 2021)

I bet trumps been mentioned in this thread more than Biden. Rent free.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Again, lobbying really shouldn't exist.



This ^^^
Politicians should be required to wear jumpsuits with patches of the companies that they lobby for like Nascar drivers and E-sport gamers...


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 5, 2021)

imao
Biden tells CBS he thinks he may have to drop $15 minimum wage hike because it will violate Senate rules on reconciliation. “I don't think it's going to survive.”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 5, 2021


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 6, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao
> https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1357834597795561473


if the republican party is so fucking obstinate about NOT GIVING PEOPLE A LIVING WAGE that congress can't pass this, we have failed as a nation.


----------



## smf (Feb 6, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Oh so...
> When those weathy people got bailed out when the 2008 market crash. People wanted that to happen? for their tax payer dollars to go to those wealthy people? For them to go then buy the housing market? Even though it was them, those same wealthy ass people, made the market crash of 2008 happen in the first place?
> Yeah no I don't buy that.



Things are worth what the highest bidder wants to pay for them. They might prefer to pay less, but when they want to be the highest bidder then they will pay it.  The GFC in 2008 occurred because a lot of people stopped wanting to buy things that turned out to not be as good as everyone thought.

There was undoubtedly fraud or negligence by certain parties which allowed the disparity between perceived and actual worth. But the majority of people just prepared for take off to the moon. Like with gamestop.

The bailout was handled badly, but it would probably have gone much worse if it hadn't happened. https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/...hy-i-bailed-out-the-banks-and-what-would.html

_Our first priority was to prevent catastrophe to protect the American people.

That’s hard to explain and that’s hard for the American people to really understand a catastrophe that never occurred. What they see is a very serious problem that did occur. I can say, we took steps and it would have been much worse if we hadn’t taken them and guess what, *the money we put out in the TARP and the capital to banks and insurance companies came back plus $32 billion.”*_

Until we stop relying on money then there isn't really much option for charnge. Getting rid of money creates more problems as you would still need to control the distribution of resources somehow.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 6, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> if the republican party is so fucking obstinate about NOT GIVING PEOPLE A LIVING WAGE that congress can't pass this, we have failed as a nation.


no that's on dems they control they can pass it


----------



## smf (Feb 6, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> no that's on dems they control they can pass it



Haven't they just moved in? What were the republicans doing all this time other than filling up the swamp?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 6, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> no that's on dems they control they can pass it


we don't technically control the senate
they can filibuster basically anything they dislike
and boy will they
because they'd rather flagrantly misuse the system than just let us do a single damn thing to help people


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 6, 2021)

lol they are not give you anything Biden lie 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/PrichJoseph/status/1358038242499657728


----------



## Lacius (Feb 6, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> lol they are not give you anything Biden lie
> https://twitter.com/PrichJoseph/status/1358038242499657728


If you were to actually read for once in your miserable life, you would see that the concern is tracking people down, and when the title says "if at all," it's referring to people who still haven't gotten the previous two rounds of stimulus.

In reality, Democrats have already cleared the hurdles of the obstructionist Republican Party using reconciliation, and the stimulus bill is likely to be passed within the next few days or so, probably with zero Republican support.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> There is less evidence of any of that than there is of widespread election fraud.


just had to signal boost this wonderful post that made me chuckle
onto relevant things



Valwinz said:


> no that's on dems they control they can pass it


that's reductionist
there are lots of things to criticize in the handling of the stimulus, but acting like biden has unilateral control is nonsense
that's why we have a senate and a congress, so everyone has to agree, there's just enemies of the people like joe manchin in there ruining the point of representative democracy



Plasmaster09 said:


> if the republican party is so fucking obstinate about NOT GIVING PEOPLE A LIVING WAGE that congress can't pass this, we have failed as a nation.


it would suit biden to have this fail
he's the one always moaning about "needing a strong opposition"
here's your strong opposition, dumbass


----------



## granville (Feb 7, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> we don't technically control the senate
> they can filibuster basically anything they dislike
> and boy will they
> because they'd rather flagrantly misuse the system than just let us do a single damn thing to help people


The Republicans can and will filibuster anything they don't like. But saying this is some sort of impossible obstacle is complete bullshit.

The filibuster itself can be nuked with a simple 51 vote majority (it has been altered in the past, and Republicans have no way to filibuster changes to the filibuster). So Republicans only "control" the senate as long as Democrats allow them to do so. If all 48 Democrats, 2 Independents and the Vice President want to end the filibuster, they can do so.

The problem is that two Democrats in the senate are refusing to even consider it. Joe Manchin (West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona). They've also been threatening to derail the budget reconciliation process for Covid relief, which takes longer but only requires 51 votes and is filibuster proof. There's heavy public pressure against them, but it remains to be seen whether it will have any effect. If it doesn't, you can absolutely blame these two idiots for aiding and abetting Republican obstruction.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 7, 2021)

granville said:


> The Republicans can and will filibuster anything they don't like. But saying this is some sort of impossible obstacle is complete bullshit.
> 
> The filibuster itself can be nuked with a simple 51 vote majority (it has been altered in the past, and Republicans have no way to filibuster changes to the filibuster). So Republicans only "control" the senate as long as Democrats allow them to do so. If all 48 Democrats, 2 Independents and the Vice President want to end the filibuster, they can do so.
> 
> The problem is that two Democrats in the senate are refusing to even consider it. Joe Manchin (West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona). They've also been threatening to derail the budget reconciliation process for Covid relief, which takes longer but only requires 51 votes and is filibuster proof. There's heavy public pressure against them, but it remains to be seen whether it will have any effect. If it doesn't, you can absolutely blame these two idiots for aiding and abetting Republican obstruction.


yeah I just pray that there's at least two Republicans that are just sick enough of their own party's monolithic, antagonistic bullshit to side with us on this


----------



## granville (Feb 7, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> yeah I just pray that there's at least two Republicans that are just sick enough of their own party's monolithic, antagonistic bullshit to side with us on this


There's none. There might be a couple who are weary of dealing with Trump. But even most of this dissent is also just performative. Only 5 Republicans sided with Dems on a measure to determine whether impeaching Trump is constitutional. None are going to side with Democrats on their stimulus bills. Or killing the filibuster. They're never going to give the Dems an inch on anything.

10 "moderate" Republicans countered Biden's $1.9 trillion Covid bill with a skinny $618 billion relief plan. It reduces checks to $1000, heavily shortens the unemployment period (probably less money as well), significantly cuts public school funding and cuts the $15 minimum wage. Probably sets aside a good chunk of the money for a corporate slush fund as well. That's unacceptable and will destroy Democrats' hopes for the 2022 and 2024 elections if they agree to such a compromise. Biden would be one of the stupidest presidents in history if he does. There's a good chance the Republicans who propose it plan to back out and vote no anyway when it actually comes to a vote. It's a strategy they adopted during the Obama admin, baiting and pulling the rug out at the last to make Dems look like pathetic fools (and it worked, they were indeed pathetic fools for falling for it).

The only hope is to terrorize Manchin and Sinema into falling in line on Budget Reconciliation and nuking the filibuster. They've gotten huge backlash from their own state constituents over this obstruction, including even WV's GOP governor. Their behavior is hurting people badly. There will be political hell to pay if they continue to give over power to the GOP.


----------



## smf (Feb 7, 2021)

granville said:


> There will be political hell to pay if they continue to give over power to the GOP.



You think people who always vote republican will stop voting republican over it?


----------



## granville (Feb 7, 2021)

smf said:


> You think people who always vote republican will stop voting republican over it?


No. The GOP has fairly consistent turnout from its base. And this probably won't change unless Trump starts a civil war with the GOP and splits off a ton of voters. Not likely though, the GOP are looking to avoid that in any way possible. Democrats lose elections by fucking up and causing their own constituents to turn against them. 2020 saw an enormous turnout for Dems fueled by desperation. This isn't permanent though.

If Manchin and Sinema go through with their threats to kill the stimulus and aid GOP obstruction, it will make the entire Democratic party look like pathetic liars. And the GOP will use it in their attacks. That 2020 turnout will quickly fade. Likely outcome being that Republicans take back the senate in 2022 and quite possibly the presidency in 2024. Maybe even Trump himself again.


----------



## smf (Feb 7, 2021)

granville said:


> And this probably won't change unless Trump starts a civil war with the GOP and splits off a ton of voters.



Trump has paper hands, I don't think he's got the guts to go through with his threats.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> View attachment 245542


Oh my lord.
The conspiracy theories don't stop coming.

So do you believe the moon landing was faked too? or any other presidents where somehow faked?
Are we really going down the conspiracy theory route?


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> View attachment 245542


God I wish they actually used the us flag like that


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

At which point do coincidences become mathematically impossible?

As I said in a previous post, "Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear". If I have not seen it with my own to eyes, I tend to take everything with a grain of salt. Call it a scientific mind, where I understand that no one knows everything... most of us only know what we know is what we know, and are too afraid to look out of that box for fear of being lost.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> At which point do coincidences become mathematically impossible?


What the fuck does this have to do with anything?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lots and lots of impossible feats happened during the 2020 elections. Too many coincidences to believe. 

Here an actual quote from Uncle Joe himself...

*“We have put together one of the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organizations in the history of American politics.”*


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Lots and lots of impossible feats happened during the 2020 elections. Too many coincidences to believe.
> 
> Here an actual quote from Uncle Joe himself...
> 
> *“We have put together one of the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organizations in the history of American politics.”*


Do you have any proof he said that?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Do you have any proof he said that?



You know I do 



That is the one and only thing I enjoy about Biden... his quotes are more laughable than Bush junior. I thought that clown was bad, but Biden put him to shame.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Lots and lots of impossible feats happened during the 2020 elections. Too many coincidences to believe.
> 
> Here an actual quote from Uncle Joe himself...
> 
> *“We have put together one of the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organizations in the history of American politics.”*


So... it's not an old guy who has clearly had mental issues before making a mistake? The problem with the clip is Biden has dementia, or clearly some form, this isn't the first time where he made incoherent sense.
Okay, so generally speaking to beat conspiracies we have to play this out logically. So I hope you stick with me.
1. If it is somehow true, that Biden stole the election. Why is it that every single government entity that had power into looking into elections  when trump had control continued to state there was no election fraud? Are you telling me that he somehow had a lot of biden defectors? Despite the fact Trump offed any person he disliked. (not kill, just fire)
Second, why would any entity adknowlage Biden? Other governing bodies are acknowledging him.
third, and while I'm sure the case won't go for as much.
Dominion is putting out a 2.3 billion dollar defamation lawsuit to everyone who claimed they had rigged the vote. that 2.3 makes them sound pretty confident that they didn't result in election fraud.
Also, if your going to say there's election fraud from Biden, I can point out that even rudy giuliani, you know, trumps laywer. Ended up stating there was no election fraud.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You know I do
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one and only thing I enjoy about Biden... his quotes are more laughable than Bush junior. I thought that clown was bad, but Biden put him to shame.



https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...s-plotting-a-voter-fraud-scheme-idUSKBN27E2VH


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> View attachment 245542


Even as a conspiracy, why would he need to "fake" the inauguration? Why would they even care at that point? If Dems are this powerful, you are never winning anything ever again.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Even as a conspiracy, why would he need to "fake" the inauguration? Why would they even care at that point? If Dems are this powerful, you are never winning anything ever again.


Why only have one bat shit theory when you can have several


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 8, 2021)

60K Americans Dead from COVID-19 in First Three Weeks of Presidency


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So...



1. There are several reasons as why a stolen election would be made official. A) The pressure from outside sources as confirmed in the recent Times magazine. B) People working in collusion, because they have too much to lose if Trump won. C) Like any Sting operation, you let the bad guy think they are getting away with the crime while you collect evidence... and possibly catch even more people in the trap that you did not expect to get caught. 

2. Again, there are several reasons why Biden would be acknowledged. A) These people are either in cahoots with him or his boss(es). B) Or these people know they have been caught, and playing along is part of the plea deal.

3. Of course the Dominion is creating a lawsuit, just like Epstein did against the young innocent women he and his affiliates raped, sold and tortured. The thing about the USA current judicial system, is that it is corrupt and can be changed to favor the guilty with a little bit or money and/or blackmail and/or threats. 

4. I never liked Giuliani.... but when you play chess, you are not going to end the game with the same pieces you started with. Sacrifices must be made.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Scott_pilgrim said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...s-plotting-a-voter-fraud-scheme-idUSKBN27E2VH



If you do not know that Reuters is biased, I will pray that one day you see the light.

Ever heard of a Freudian slip?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Even as a conspiracy, why would he need to "fake" the inauguration? Why would they even care at that point? If Dems are this powerful, you are never winning anything ever again.



It is not the "Dems" who are powerful in this movie... they are just the "good guys" cast by the true directors. 

As for why they would need to show the American public that they had an inauguration, even if it was faked, would be because public opinion matters.

....

Speaking of public opinion, it is funny to me that the most popular president ever receives so many dislikes on his White House youtube page, to the point where Likes are being added in the middle of the night while Dislikes are being removed. 

It is also funny how little followers he has on Twitter. I figure with how popular he is, he would have a shit ton more followers. 

Also very interesting how none of the US military follows him. SMH

As this charade starts coming apart at the seams, more is being revealed daily.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Speaking of public opinion, it is funny to me that the most popular president ever receives so many dislikes on his White House youtube page, to the point where Likes are being added in the middle of the night while Dislikes are being removed.


Who the fuck called him the most popular president ever?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Who the fuck called him the most popular president ever?



The "votes". He received more "votes" than any other President. Making him the most popular President ever.

At least, if one were to believe the hype and lies the media feeds us.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Personally, I like to watch it all and form my own opinions. I watch the left media, the right media, the independent media, and review the sources for myself. Then I form my own theory. I do not ever believe anything to be an absolute truth. We as humans do not have the mental capacity to know all the secrets of the universe.

I did not like the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bidens... and for a while did not much care for the Trumps. Even today I am still on the fence... But what Trump has done in regards to trying to stop the child trafficking has changed my views on him.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Ever heard of a Freudian slip?


Ever heard of dementia? is more likely to happen in old people. you know.... like... Joe Biden?


tthousand said:


> . There are several reasons as why a stolen election would be made official. A) The pressure from outside sources as confirmed in the recent Times magazine. B) People working in collusion, because they have too much to lose if Trump won. C) Like any Sting operation, you let the bad guy think they are getting away with the crime while you collect evidence... and possibly catch even more people in the trap that you did not expect to get caught.


A. what outside pressure? Your telling me a private citizen was somehow about to create a secret sting operation to take over the white house?
I don't buy that.
B. You didn't read the article all the way through, but hey. I can't make a horse drink water. If you noticed it was changing voter suppression laws. to remove them But I guess you like... voter supression....
huh...

B.
So Brittan is in on the show? Russia is? What about the fact he's trying to get peace deals again in the middle east? Yeah no. I don't buy that. Britain is self efficient, along with the rest. none of them need us. We could drop like a fly and die. and nothing would change.
C. FUCKING LMAO
Okay yup, your not a knee deep in kool aid. No your the special kind that is drowning in it.
Wake, the hell up.
Here's the logical problem your exuding.
Essentially your making an argument non sequentially.
Your claiming Biden stole the election.
Your saying that Trump is letting it go, to find more evidence?
Notice the contradiction there. Your presenting an argument, and then trying to find the evidence. rather than finding the evidence and presenting the argument.
Your actively looking for something that you even subconsciously acknowledged, doesn't exist.


tthousand said:


> The "votes". He received more "votes" than any other President. Making him the most popular President ever.
> 
> At least, if one were to believe the hype and lies the media feeds us.


So your conflating turn out with votes.
If you realize, the younger people are more active at voting than the previous generation. Turn out aka, the number of people voting is increasing every election year. This has a strong correlation with those younger individuals becoming of age. Previous years, it was less than 50%. Now it's 60%

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Let me define the people voting. As in people who are eligible to vote. if you had a 100 people that can legally vote. and only half of them choose to vote. that is a 50% voter turn out. it doesn't matter who you vote for. it's if you choose not to that does.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> ...



I am trying to follow you, but I do not feel you are trying to follow me.

I read the Times article all the way through, and I read between the lines as well. It was very biased in my opinion.

As for a sting operation, I said "like". Trying to open your imagination to help answer the question you asked.

You can buy whatever you want still, as you are an American and free at this point. But do not ever doubt what would happen if America falls... We are the last beacon of freedom... once we are extinguished, the hope for the rest of the world falls too.

As for kool aid... where are you getting your drink from?

I am not like you, I am not stating anything as a fact. But I am open to all possibilities. Perhaps Biden won fair and square, perhaps he did not. Perhaps there are plans set to make sure that even if Biden fraudulently won, it would be rectified. I do not have the inside knowledge, but I have faith that one day the truth will be revealed... and hopefully sooner than later.

Again, please re-read my comments with an open mind if you wish you take anything away from it and have an actual peaceful conversation. What's that saying about horses?


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> But what Trump has done in regards to trying to stop the child trafficking has changed my views on him.


So... Q conspiracy...
You need to learn that your eating conspiracies left and right, and it is not mentally helping you. I generally end up laughing or loosing it when I see people who is gone this far off the deep end. But then feeling pretty depressed knowing peers such as you believe this.
So, as a human to human being.
Look up the shit you believe in, see where it came from. and then ask. Is this belief real?


tthousand said:


> I am trying to follow you, but I do not feel you are trying to follow me.


I don't need to follow you, because I already found the end conclusion.
I personally was falling into conspiracy theories at the age of 16. It leads to mental insanity. Crawling out, isn't easy, and finding out how to get out, isn't easy either.
I'm not qualified to give mental help. But I seriously would ask you to look into it. And no, I don't mean it as a rude suggestion. it's a genuine thing. again, as a human being, to human being.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> ...



The proof about Trump saving Children is not conspiracy. I can see the actual effects in my own Town. There are now billboards on the highways informing people about what is going on. They were never there before. You can go look at the number of pedophiles that have been arrested during Trump presidency compared to other presidencies. The gap is astounding. His cabinet is responsible for 3 times as many arrests than any other president... and that was only in 4 years. In 8 years it would have easily been 6 times more if not more.

Of course you do not need to follow a fellow human, as the current moto for the youth is to only care about one's self.

I got one more quote for you, "It's is easy to point out flaws in others that you have in yourself."

And in the words of Tupac, "Close your eyes! Go to sleep!"


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The proof about Trump saving Children is not conspiracy. I can see the actual effects in my own Town. There are now billboards on the highways informing people about what is going on. They were never there before. You can go look at the number of pedophiles that have been arrested during Trump presidency compared to other presidencies. The gap is astounding. His cabinet is responsible for 3 times as many arrests than any other president... and that was only in 4 years. In 8 years it would have easily been 6 times more if not more.
> 
> Of course you do not need to follow a fellow human, as the current moto for the youth is to only care about one's self.
> 
> ...




Trump did nothing meaningful to fight against child sex trafficking.
Cases brought against child sex traffickers fell during the Trump admin. The number did not go up.
The Trump administration does not care about children. They invented and implemented the border child separation policy that cannot be described as anything other than abuse.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The proof about Trump saving Children is not conspiracy. I can see the actual effects in my own Town. There are now billboards on the highways informing people about what is going on. They were never there before. You can go look at the number of pedophiles that have been arrested during Trump presidency compared to other presidencies. The gap is astounding. His cabinet is responsible for 3 times as many arrests than any other president... and that was only in 4 years. In 8 years it would have easily been 6 times more if not more.
> 
> Of course you do not need to follow a fellow human, as the current moto for the youth is to only care about one's self.
> 
> ...



so you believe that trump's stopped some evil child trafficking ring
but can't believe that biden made an innocent slip of the tongue (instead of "voter protection" or "voter fraud protection", saying "voter fraud") when he's made tons and tons of said slips in the past?
what drugs are you on, and how can I ban them?


Lacius said:


> Trump did nothing meaningful to fight against child sex trafficking.
> Cases brought against child sex traffickers fell during the Trump admin. The number did not go up.
> The Trump administration does not care about children. They invented and implemented the border child separation policy that cannot be described as anything other than abuse.


p sure he's referring to the made-up child trafficking conspiracy nonsense- you know, the core of QAnon bullshit


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> so you believe that trump's stopped some evil child trafficking ring
> but can't believe that biden made an innocent slip of the tongue (instead of "voter protection" or "voter fraud protection", saying "voter fraud") when he's made tons and tons of said slips in the past?
> what drugs are you on, and how can I ban them?


Don't ban them, if we take them we might be able to understand him


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

1. Trump administration put a lot of money into child sex trafficking awareness. 
2. The numbers of arrests went up.
3. Obama and Biden actually are responsible for the child separation policy.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> 1. Trump administration put a lot of money into child sex trafficking awareness.
> 2. The numbers of arrests went up.
> 3. Obama and Biden actually are responsible for the child separation policy.


*THE CHILD SEPARATION POLICY WAS DONE BY TRUMP, DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, WITH LIKELY EXCLUSIVELY REPUBLICAN SUPPORT*
please seek psychological help
also is it just me or is this particular brand of batfuck insane very similar to one or two familiar *banned *individuals, one of whom also made a burner account just to jump on this thread or its predecessor?


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 8, 2021)

this is the last time I'm going to challange  you, since clearly the nail is pushed deep.



tthousand said:


> The proof about Trump saving Children is not conspiracy. I can see the actual effects in my own Town.


But you realize that your also ignoring the fact that Trump and Epstein are connected right? Trump was at Epstein's places. Some of the victims also stated they would bounce between Epstein's place, and mar a largo. With Trump fully knowing and helping.
You also have to realize there is way to many allegations of sexual assault or misconduct to be just a coincidence. It was even on tape about him being glad he was groping women essentially.


tthousand said:


> Of course you do not need to follow a fellow human, as the current moto for the youth is to only care about one's self.


If this was true. Why would I bother to try to help in the first place? Hell, people can go press on the fact I believed in conspiracy theories at 16. it is a wound. I felt stupid, retarded, and outright silly. I had effectively put down my defenses, and tried to level with you. I gain nothing from that.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> so you believe that trump's stopped some evil child trafficking ring
> but can't believe that biden made an innocent slip of the tongue (instead of "voter protection" or "voter fraud protection", saying "voter fraud") when he's made tons and tons of said slips in the past?
> what drugs are you on, and how can I ban them?
> 
> p sure he's referring to the made-up child trafficking conspiracy nonsense- you know, the core of QAnon bullshit



You kids are funny. I did not say Trump stopped an evil child trafficking ring. And I am simply saying Biden's slip might have been more than just a common slip. Not that is was, but it is defiantly possible.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You kids are funny. I did not say Trump stopped an evil child trafficking ring. And I am simply saying Biden's slip might have been more than just a common slip. Not that is was, but it is defiantly possible.


definitely*


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> 1. Trump administration put a lot of money into child sex trafficking awareness.


Show me.



tthousand said:


> 2. The numbers of arrests went up.


Show me.



tthousand said:


> 3. Obama and Biden actually are responsible for the child separation policy.


The child separation policy was a Trump administration policy created explicitly so the abuse would act as a deterrent. This policy did not exist during the Obama years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You kids are funny. I did not say Trump stopped an evil child trafficking ring. And I am simply saying Biden's slip might have been more than just a common slip. Not that is was, but it is defiantly possible.


dude biden's made so many innocent slips of the tongue that faux-pas might as well be his middle name
his most well known flaw is his tendency to stutter and make mistakes, which Trump even tried to *exploit* in the debate to make him look senile (you know, like a fucking school bully)
realistically speaking you're full of bull


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

Man its sad to see Cowards making Burner (2nd) account to spew nonsense. .. Makes me Miss Supa... at least he has the balls to be Racist and Sexist to your face.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Man its sad to see Coward making Burner (2nd account) to spew nonsense. .. Makes me Miss Supa... at least he has the balls to be Racist and Sexist to your face.


ngl I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is Frankfort, Supra or someone else that's already had to get their ass banned trying to return under a new burner


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ngl I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is Frankfort, Supra or someone else that's already had to get their ass banned trying to return under a new burner


that would suck, but is a possible reality.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ngl I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is Frankfort, Supra or someone else that's already had to get their ass banned trying to return under a new burner


Nah, Supra is more direct I'd say


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Nah, Supra is more direct I'd say


probably frankfort then
the style of speech combined with the irritating condescension reminds me a lot of him, with the week-old burner being the cherry on top


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 8, 2021)

So, how does this work? Do we make conspiracy theories over every slip of the tongue?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> So, how does this work? Do we make conspiracy theories over every slip of the tongue?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Funny when the people calling others conspiracy theorists are the ones making the conspiracy theories.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Funny when the people calling others conspiracy theorists are the ones making the conspiracy theories.


what conspiracy theories are we making?
the things that Trump did and/or admitted to doing on recording?
or the possibility that maybe Biden made a teeny tiny slip of the tongue by accident like the bajillion times he's done so before, instead of being a part of some kind of overly-specific corruption cabal like you'd have us believe?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> what conspiracy theories are we making?
> the things that Trump did and/or admitted to doing on recording?
> or the possibility that maybe Biden made a teeny tiny slip of the tongue by accident like the bajillion times he's done so before, instead of being a part of some kind of overly-specific corruption cabal like you'd have us believe?



I thought it was funny when my identity was being assumed. If you've been a part of the PS3 scene, you would probably know tthousand.

I think Biden's slips are funny, and simply pointing out the possibility it was a Freudian slip. Come on man, here's the deal... there is no way this guy should be President. It will not be long before the 25th amendment is enacted, and we have Khamala as President and Pellosi as VP.I seriously hope you guys are not a bunch of Pellosi lovers. 

But yeah, there is no one way something that is shown in history to have been in the works for hundreds, if not thousands of years is playing out today, right? The media, and fact checkers would never lie to us right? I mean, obviously to some extent, we can all see something shady is going on behind the scenes, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... but there is no way a group of elites could be behind it all, right? Come on man!


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... but there is no way a group of elites could be behind it all


You are so close, but yet so far away


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

I have known since I was 3 years old that something is not right with the world. I remember questioning why Jesus was murdered, and remember thinking that if I was to pursue truth and goodness, I could be next. Some deep shit to think about when you are only 3.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I thought it was funny when my identity was being assumed. If you've been a part of the PS3 scene, you would probably know tthousand.
> 
> I think Biden's slips are funny, and simply pointing out the possibility it was a Freudian slip. Come on man, here's the deal... there is no way this guy should be President. It will not be long before the 25th amendment is enacted, and we have Khamala as President and Pellosi as VP.I seriously hope you guys are not a bunch of Pellosi lovers.
> 
> But yeah, there is no one way something that is shown in history to have been in the works for hundreds, if not thousands of years is playing out today, right? The media, and fact checkers would never lie to us right? I mean, obviously to some extent, we can all see something shady is going on behind the scenes, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... but there is no way a group of elites could be behind it all, right? Come on man!


NOW !! I remember who you are!

This you, BRO?  ↓


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I have known since I was 3 years old that something is not right with the world. I remember questioning why Jesus was murdered, and remember thinking that if I was to pursue truth and goodness, I could be next. Some deep shit to think about when you are only 3.


I seriously doubt you thought that shit when you were 3


----------



## JaapDaniels (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I thought it was funny when my identity was being assumed. If you've been a part of the PS3 scene, you would probably know tthousand.
> 
> I think Biden's slips are funny, and simply pointing out the possibility it was a Freudian slip. Come on man, here's the deal... there is no way this guy should be President. It will not be long before the 25th amendment is enacted, and we have Khamala as President and Pellosi as VP.I seriously hope you guys are not a bunch of Pellosi lovers.
> 
> But yeah, there is no one way something that is shown in history to have been in the works for hundreds, if not thousands of years is playing out today, right? The media, and fact checkers would never lie to us right? I mean, obviously to some extent, we can all see something shady is going on behind the scenes, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... but there is no way a group of elites could be behind it all, right? Come on man!


that's started right after trump gotr elected! go grow a freaking brain.
if it's true that it's a setup, it's not biden, it's trumps doing..
quit trying to blame someone else for the fucking missing brain mass.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I seriously doubt you thought that shit when you were 3



Yeah, 3 years old. My parents bring it up quite often because we were not a religious family, and they thought it very strange that all of s sudden I started asking them so many questions about Jesus. It's just one of those memories that sticks out clearly in my mind.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I seriously doubt you thought that shit when you were 3


I was weirdly deep as a little kid too but I got nowhere near that meta
like wow
there's two possibilities here
either this guy's had christianity shoved so far up his ass he can eat the eucharist twice since he was THREE, or he's spouting bullshit
either way he's full of bs


tthousand said:


> Yeah, 3 years old. My parents bring it up quite often because we were not a religious family, and they thought it very strange that all of s sudden I started asking them so many questions about Jesus. It's just one of those memories that sticks out clearly in my mind.


okay that is a bizarre third possibility
YOU being so utterly christ-crazy that you asked stuff like that
what the hell
not even being sarcastic here but I sincerely suggest you seek therapy


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I seriously doubt you thought that shit when you were 3


I Believe him...Last year was very important for him as he got potty trained, now a year later, as 4 year old, he has a great level of vocab., but  does not have any rational thinking yet.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

If any of these "conspiracies" ever become fact instead of fiction, I am not the type of person to say "I told you so". But I will gladly help shed light on the subjects. And if they never play out... well, I still will never trust our current government system or main steam media narrative. But just remember, I love you guys!


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I thought it was funny when my identity was being assumed. If you've been a part of the PS3 scene, you would probably know tthousand.
> 
> I think Biden's slips are funny, and simply pointing out the possibility it was a Freudian slip. Come on man, here's the deal... there is no way this guy should be President. It will not be long before the 25th amendment is enacted, and we have Khamala as President and Pellosi as VP.I seriously hope you guys are not a bunch of Pellosi lovers.
> 
> But yeah, there is no one way something that is shown in history to have been in the works for hundreds, if not thousands of years is playing out today, right? The media, and fact checkers would never lie to us right? I mean, obviously to some extent, we can all see something shady is going on behind the scenes, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... but there is no way a group of elites could be behind it all, right? Come on man!


What's wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Wait, don't tell me: She's a reptilian humanoid who is also a pedophile?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I was weirdly deep as a little kid too but I got nowhere near that meta
> like wow
> there's two possibilities here
> either this guy's had christianity shoved so far up his ass he can eat the eucharist twice since he was THREE, or he's spouting bullshit
> ...



Far from religious... but I am in no way an atheist. I prefer agnostic. I can probably count the times I have been to church on Both hands.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If any of these "conspiracies" ever become fact instead of fiction, I am not the type of person to say "I told you so". But I will gladly help shed light on the subjects. And if they never play out... well, I still will never trust our current government system or main steam media narrative. But just remember, I love you guys!








Man, I love when BRAND NEW accounts from old members pop up and tell me that the Loch Ness, and Bigfoot are real


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If any of these "conspiracies" ever become fact instead of fiction, I am not the type of person to say "I told you so". But I will gladly help shed light on the subjects. And if they never play out... well, I still will never trust our current government system or main steam media narrative. But just remember, I love you guys!


if they become fact instead of fiction, then I'll eagerly await the Coming of the Flying Pigs as I stand over the frozen landscape of Hell and melt the cheese-based moon into fondue
don't try to disguise your outrageous claims as mere suggestions by layering false amicability over them
it works about as well as covering up a thoroughly shat pair of pants with a drawing of said pants


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If any of these "conspiracies" ever become fact instead of fiction, I am not the type of person to say "I told you so". But I will gladly help shed light on the subjects. And if they never play out... well, I still will never trust our current government system or main steam media narrative. But just remember, I love you guys!


You don't get to say "I told you so" when all you're providing is a baseless conspiracy. If something were demonstrated to be true later, that doesn't mean it was any less idiotic to believe it before.

The time to believe something is when there's actual evidence to believe it, not before. Being shown evidence later doesn't mean it wasn't a ridiculous thing to believe the entire time before that.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> if they become fact instead of fiction, then I'll eagerly await the Coming of the Flying Pigs as I stand over the frozen landscape of Hell and melt the cheese-based moon into fondue
> don't try to disguise your outrageous claims as mere suggestions by layering false amicability over them
> it works about as well as covering up a thoroughly shat pair of pants with a drawing of said pants


Not just a drawing, a drawing on notebook paper using crayons


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What's wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Wait, don't tell me: She's a reptilian humanoid who is also a pedophile?



What is right with her? I mean yeah, she doesn't look human... but if you look into her background, she has some questionable family ties. Mob relations.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> What is right with her? I mean yeah, she doesn't look human... but if you look into her background, she has some questionable family ties. Mob relations.


Once again I'm asking: do you have proof?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> What is right with her? I mean yeah, she doesn't look human... but if you look into her background, she has some questionable family ties. Mob relations.


There's no evidence that Pelosi has any substantive ties to the mob, lol. I guess that means you don't dislike her anymore. Welcome to the club.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> What is right with her? I mean yeah, she doesn't look human... but if you look into her background, she has some questionable family ties. Mob relations.


Are you saying she's a lizard person


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Are you saying she's a lizard person


This man is next level batshit crazy


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Once again I'm asking: do you have proof?



https://vault.fbi.gov/thomas-dalesandro-jr/thomas-d-alesandro-jr.-part-01-of-01/view


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> https://vault.fbi.gov/thomas-dalesandro-jr/thomas-d-alesandro-jr.-part-01-of-01/view


Would you like to articulate the point you're trying to make instead of link-dropping and shitposting please?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Would you like to articulate the point you're trying to make instead of link-dropping and shitposting please?



F. A. M. I. L. Y. M. O. B. T. I. E. S.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> https://vault.fbi.gov/thomas-dalesandro-jr/thomas-d-alesandro-jr.-part-01-of-01/view



YES!! please believe @tthousand The LOCH Ness Moster is real
Loch Ness Moster is real


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> F. A. M. I. L. Y. M. O. B. T. I. E. S.


no he means actually elaborate and explain these alleged mob ties
unfortunately, lies tend to vanish the moment you're forced to explain them


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> F. A. M. I. L. Y. M. O. B. T. I. E. S.


You're screaming "family mob ties," but you aren't articulating nor demonstrating any family mob ties. Try again please.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

The link includes all the information you need, but feel free to do your own research. As for what is owed to you from me, is the same that has been paid from you to me.

Last I checked this was still the USA.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The link includes all the information you need, but feel free to do your own research. As for what is owed to you from me, is the same that has been paid from you to me.


you are trying to make a point- the alleged mob ties
you must prove that point
don't just show a link without actually explaining anything


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

ME and *@tthousand* BOTH AGREE,
*  We're Living in the Matrix*

 Please BELIEVE me and @tthousand, we are are not just saying Conspiracy Theories because "a Random ass guy with one letter" was LARPING  and making fun of Weak minded People .

ME and @tthousand truly believe in this nonsense... I mean TRUTH  !!!


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> you are trying to make a point- the alleged mob ties
> you must prove that point
> don't just show a link without actually explaining anything



I do not have to make any additional points to anyone. I simply stated that I have seen that her family has mob ties. Point made. As for holding your hand, and walking you through the waters... that is not my job.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The link includes all the information you need, but feel free to do your own research. As for what is owed to you from me, is the same that has been paid from you to me.
> 
> Last I checked this was still the USA.


If you can't articulate any substantive ties between Nancy Pelosi and the mob, forgive us if we don't pay much more attention to you than we already have. Dropping a link and running away like a coward from having to explain yourself says a lot about whether you had a good point to begin with.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tthousand said:


> I do not have to make any additional points to anyone. I simply stated that I have seen that her family has mob ties. Point made. As for holding your hand, and walking you through the waters... that is not my job.


You asserted family ties to the mob, but you didn't explain what those ties were. You dropped a link with zero context and then refused to explain yourself. It's mind-numbingly drab.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I do not have to make any additional points to anyone. I simply stated that I have seen that her family has mob ties. Point made. As for holding your hand, and walking you through the waters... that is not my job.


um, it literally is
you made a point
YOU must prove that point directly
don't just drop links
it is your job to clearly prove the point you have made
that is how the burden of proof works, and said burden of proof is not a matter of opinion


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

I was asked for proof... I gave the proof from the FBI. If you want more...

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=nancy pellosi mafia connection


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I was asked for proof... I gave the proof from the FBI. If you want more...
> 
> https://googlethatforyou.com?q=nancy pellosi mafia connection


dude, actually use your words
it really is not that difficult
also it sure is weird that despite seeming to know enough about Nancy Pelosi's personal life that you know about some secret mafia ties she has, you can't spell her fucking name right


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, actually use your words
> it really is not that difficult


Wait, you're telling me I have to give evidence when I say something? It's not enough to just say bat shit stuff and leave?


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I do not have to make any additional points to anyone. I simply stated that I have seen that her family has mob ties. Point made. As for holding your hand, and walking you through the waters... that is not my job.


@tthousand, was DMing me about Ancient aliens From the Planet Nibiru, were going to Crash their Planet to Earth.. 
Scary stuff that Pelosi does not want you to know, The Government is hiding soo much stuff from us 
Nibiru will pass the Earth - bringing with it volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, actually use your words
> it really is not that difficult



Bottom line, you are not going to believe my words anyways. My point is family mob ties. And if you care to find the truth for youself, I provided you with the tools as well. The road to true understanding must be done on an individual level.

I could say her father had a very very close relationship with known mafia figures, and that's really only the tip of the iceburg. You look at the Brown, Pellosi, Newsom connections for yourselves... and then, and only then, you might start to question who she is for yourselves.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I was asked for proof... I gave the proof from the FBI. If you want more...
> 
> https://googlethatforyou.com?q=nancy pellosi mafia connection


I cannot respond to a point about Pelosi family ties to the mob unless you lay out what those ties are. If you're going to make an argument, make the argument, and then demonstrate that argument with facts and links. You're missing important steps. All you've done is provide out-of-context links, and without an argument, they do nothing.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Bottom line, you are not going to believe my words anyways. My point is family mob ties. And if you care to find the truth for youself, I provided you with the tools as well. The road to true understanding must be done on an individual level.
> 
> I could say her father had a very very close relationship with known mafia figures, and that's really only the tip of the iceburg. You look at the Brown, Pellosi, Newsom connections for yourselves... and then, and only then, you might start to question who she is for yourselves.


you know, I might consider believing you if you bothered explaining your sources or just providing an actual argument
you're just making yourself look like a complete fucking loon by refusing to use your words
also, ONCE AGAIN, Pe*l*osi*


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I cannot respond to a point about Pelosi family ties to the mob unless you lay out what those ties are. If you're going to make an argument, make the argument, and then demonstrate that argument with facts and links. You're missing important steps. All you've done is provide out-of-context links, and without an argument, they do nothing.


You guys are expecting way too much of him


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> My point is* family mob ties.*



OH I get it  you mean "relationships"
I was thinking what the F#$K was Mob Neck TIES have anything to do with it


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Me: I heard Pelosi's family has mob ties.
You: Where is the proof?!?!
Me: Here it is.
You: Well, prove it!!!
Me: Uhh... again?

In terms everyone can understand, the are FBI documents linking the Pelosi family to organized crime. What more needs to be said?


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Me: I heard Pelosi's family has mob ties.
> You: Where is the proof?!?!
> Me: Here it is.
> You: Well, prove it!!!
> Me: Uhh... again?


by your logic ...This photo is some Damning evidence


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Me: I heard Pelosi's family has mob ties.
> You: Where is the proof?!?!
> Me: Here it is.
> You: Well, prove it!!!
> Me: Uhh... again?


That's not what happened, and you probably know that. You said Pelosi has ties to the mob, but all you did in response is post a link without context and without explaining what those ties are.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That's not what happened, and you probably know that. You said Pelosi has ties to the mob, but all you did in response is post a link without context and without explaining what those ties are.


Source(s): dude trust me


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

You guys know the whole Russia Collusion thing was a hoax right? Do you need me to send you the source of that information as well, even though it is publicly available for all to see?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You guys know the whole Russia Collusion thing was a hoax right? Do you need me to send you the source of that information as well, even though it is publicly available for all to see?


Russia demonstrably meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

Good job changing the topic, by the way. I don't blame you for trying. I'd dishonestly change the topic too if I were on a rotten side of the argument.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That's not what happened, and you probably know that. You said Pelosi has ties to the mob, but all you did in response is post a link without context and without explaining what those ties are.



If I was asked to explain what those ties are, I would have included that. I was simply asked to provide proof that her family has ties, which I did.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If I was asked to explain what those ties are, I would have included that. I was simply asked to provide proof that her family has ties, which I did.


that's not how that works
"provide proof" isn't just cite your argument
"provide proof" also involves MAKING your argument


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If I was asked to explain what those ties are, I would have included that. I was simply asked to provide proof that her family has ties, which I did.


WE ASKED YOU MULTIPLE TIMES TO EXPLAIN THE TIES


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Russia demonstrably meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Clinton.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
> 
> Good job changing the topic, by the way. I don't blame you for trying. I'd dishonestly change the topic too if I were on a rotten side of the argument.



LOL, wikipedia as a source, really? 

Try actual US government documents...

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pr...versight-of-crossfire-hurricane-investigation


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> LOL, wikipedia as a source, really?
> 
> Try actual US government documents...
> 
> https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pr...versight-of-crossfire-hurricane-investigation


Wikipedia is the greatest compendium of information this planet has ever seen. Saying "Wikipedia bad" doesn't do anything to counter my points. It's another desperate attempt at deflection.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> WE ASKED YOU MULTIPLE TIMES TO EXPLAIN THE TIES



Which I did...



tthousand said:


> I could say her father had a very very close relationship with known mafia figures.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Which I did...


Wow, what an amazing explanation, "I could say her father had a relationship with mafia figures" Yes, you COULD. How was that an explanation at all?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Wow, what an amazing explanation, "I could say her father had a relationship with mafia figures" Yes, you COULD. How was that an explanation at all?



How is it not? I mean, this is all old news to me. I could delve back into it again, and give myself a refresher course, but what would be the point of that? I am not the one who needs to look into it.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> How is it not? I mean, this is all old news to me. I could delve back into it again, and give myself a refresher course, but what would be the point of that? I am not the one who needs to look into it.


You have yet to articulate any alleged Nancy Pelosi ties to the mob. Dropping a link with no context is not you articulating anything.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You have yet to articulate any alleged Nancy Pelosi ties to the mob. Dropping a link with no context is not you articulating anything.



I am pretty sure I said her family has ties. And if you do not want to look into it, then don't. If you do, I gave you the tools. I am not going to hold your hand though.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I am pretty sure I said her family has ties. And if you do not want to look into it, then don't. If you do, I gave you the tools. I am not going to hold your hand though.


Why would I waste my time reading through a bunch of papers when I have literally no way to know if it demonstrates anything you alleged?


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I am pretty sure I said her family has ties. And if you do not want to look into it, then don't. If you do, I gave you the tools. I am not going to hold your hand though.


YEA @tthousand  already provided you with all the info he could find in a 1min google search... But I found this 
REAL INFO TOP Secret


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Why would I waste my time reading through a bunch of papers when I have literally no way to know if it demonstrates anything you alleged?



Exactly. Why would I waste my time explaining to you what is already publicly available information if I do not believe you are going to care either way... and I certainly do not think you are going to look into the documents and fact check them for yourself. 

"I can only show you the door"


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Why would I waste my time reading through a bunch of papers when I have literally no way to know if it demonstrates anything you alleged?


Fuck it, I have time to waste, I'll go through it and see if there's anything actually proving what he said


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Exactly. Why would I waste my time explaining to you what is already publicly available information if I do not believe you are going to care either way... and I certainly do not think you are going to look into the documents and fact check them for yourself.
> 
> "I can only show you the door"


If you're going to argue that Pelosi has ties to the mob, then you need to provide evidence. If you are not going to articulate what those ties are and you're just going to link-drop and run, that's no different than saying "just Google it." Oh wait, you actually did that too, lol.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Pelosi has mob ties, and it turns out there is zero evidence of any substantive ties between Nancy Pelosi and the mob. If you want to argue there are ties, explain those ties, and then provide your evidence. Anything else is unsatisfactory and easily dismissed.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Exactly. Why would I waste my time explaining to you what is already publicly available information if I do not believe you are going to care either way... and I certainly do not think you are going to look into the documents and fact check them for yourself.
> 
> "I can only show you the door"


.,...ewww I don't think any of us want to go inside with you...Creepo
you should come with a Warning sign


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 8, 2021)

djpannda said:


> .,...ewww I don't think any of us want to go inside with you...Creepo
> you should come with a Warning sign


This section should come with a warning sign 

WARNING: you are about to experience insane levels of brain damage, would you like to continue?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

In the 1950's the Baltimore mafia flourished while Nancy Pelosi's father was mayor. And again, he had very very close ties with capos, aka the Corbi brothers. Coincidence? That's not what the FBI thought.

Like I said, look into the connections between the Browns, Pelosi's, Newsoms... it's very odd.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01...-record-as-he-succeeds-brown-his-quasi-uncle/


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In the 1950's the Baltimore mafia flourished while Nancy Pelosi's father was mayor. And again, he had very very close ties with capos, aka the Corbi brothers. Coincidence? That's not what the FBI thought.
> 
> Like I said, look into the connections between the Browns, Pelosi's, Newsoms... it's very odd.
> 
> https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01...-record-as-he-succeeds-brown-his-quasi-uncle/


ITs all connected, man
 Pelosi and Rudy are working together to make Qpublicans look stupid


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

I do not know about you guys, but DAMN,* I am looking forward to this trial tomorrow.*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



djpannda said:


> ITs all connected, man
> Pelosi and Rudy are working together to make Qpublicans look stupid



Everything even happens for a reason, even your posts


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I do not know about you guys, but DAMN,* I am looking forward to this trial tomorrow.*
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> Everything even happens for a reason, even your posts


.. oh you mean the Trial where Qpublicans are going to ignore the Evidences. and refuse to vote based on their "made up" Procedures instead of the facts..  like









and the "We love you, you're very special."


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In the 1950's the Baltimore mafia flourished while Nancy Pelosi's father was mayor. And again, he had very very close ties with capos, aka the Corbi brothers. Coincidence? That's not what the FBI thought.
> 
> Like I said, look into the connections between the Browns, Pelosi's, Newsoms... it's very odd.
> 
> https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01...-record-as-he-succeeds-brown-his-quasi-uncle/


There is no evidence that Pelosi's father was at all tied with the mob. The allegations he might be were admitted to be based on rumor and hearsay from the one who made the allegations.

Also, you could demonstrate mob ties to Pelosi's father, and you've done nothing to articulate any reason why Nancy Pelosi should be disliked. Welcome to the Nancy Pelosi Fan Club.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Yes, the unconstitutional trail where demorats will try every trick in the book to suppress truth, all while condemning acts that they themselves committed over the summer. That's the one.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Yes, the unconstitutional trail where demorats will try every trick in the book to suppress truth, all while condemning acts that committed over the summer. That's the one.


Funny because a lot of Hard core Conservatives lawyer say it Constitutional as "resigning or running out the clock" is does not invalidate Crimes...
Top conservative lawyer Charles Cooper has dismissed Republican arguments against Trump's impeachment.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This one also made me giggle like a School Girl 
*Trump could face criminal investigation over Capitol siege, says Liz Cheney*


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is no evidence that Pelosi's father was at all tied with the mob. The allegations he might be were admitted to be based on rumor and hearsay from the one who made the allegations.
> 
> Also, you could demonstrate mob ties to Pelosi's father, and you've done nothing to articulate any reason why Nancy Pelosi should be disliked. Welcome to the Nancy Pelosi Fan Club.



Do you have proof?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Do you have proof?


Do I have proof of what?


----------



## djpannda (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Do you have proof?


Yes Trump stated 
“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years, terrific guy...He’s fun to be with– it’s even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” 
PROOF!


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Do I have proof of what?



This. 



Lacius said:


> There is no evidence that Pelosi's father was at all tied with the mob. The allegations he might be were admitted to be based on rumor and hearsay from the one who made the allegations.



Where are you getting your information from?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your information from?


"Peter C. Galiano, Baltimore, Maryland, advised during the current investigation that his previous statements were based only on rumor and hearsay. He stated that he could not recall who gave him this information or whether or not there was any truth to the allegations. He further explained that he was never well acquainted with any of the men he had mentioned and had no personal knowledge of their affairs."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nancy-pelosi-crime-family/


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> "Peter C. Galiano, Baltimore, Maryland, advised during the current investigation that his previous statements were based only on rumor and hearsay. He stated that he could not recall who gave him this information or whether or not there was any truth to the allegations. He further explained that he was never well acquainted with any of the men he had mentioned and had no personal knowledge of their affairs."
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nancy-pelosi-crime-family/



LOL, I had a feeling you were going to give me a snopes article. Perhaps you can tell me who runs snopes, and who makes their articles.

If you are going to give me snopes and wikipedia as sources while I am showing actually official declassified government documents, I do not see this going anywhere


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> LOL, I had a feeling you were going to give me a snopes article. Perhaps you can tell me who runs snopes, and who makes their articles.


The information I've presented is cited on Snopes, so your deflection about Snopes is irrelevant.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The information I've presented is cited on Snopes, so your deflection about Snopes is irrelevant.



The problem with your snopes quote is that they do not give you the source where they got their information from. At least as far as I can see. Seems to me that this quote appeared out of thin air.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The problem with your snopes quote is that they do not give you the source where they got their information from. At least as far as I can. Seems to me that this quote appeared out of thin air.


They say where the information came from, and they provided a link to it. That's why criticisms of Snopes are irrelevant. Lol.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> They say where the information came from, and they provided a link to it. That's why criticisms of Snopes are irrelevant. Lol.



SHOW ME?

I looked everywhere on the page, and I could not find where they pulled that quote from. A quick google search of the quotes shows it originated from snopes.com. 

So please, this quote that you are quoting, which comes from snopes... please show me where they got that quote. If you can.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> SHOW ME?
> 
> I looked everywhere on the page, and I could not find where they pulled that quote from. A quick google search of the quotes shows it originated from snopes.com.
> 
> So please, this quote that you are quoting, which comes from snopes... please show me where they got that quote. If you can.


The sources are at the bottom, dude. The verbatim quote I gave you is from Snopes. The information is from other sources they've provided.

Also, by arguing against Snopes, you're doing nothing to argue against the information I've provided. That's why it's deflection. I've also already told you that it doesn't matter if the information you falsely alleged were true or not with regard to whether or not Nancy Pelosi has ties to the mob. What a dumbass.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The sources are at the bottom, dude. The verbatim quote I gave you is from Snopes. The information is from other sources they've provided.
> 
> Also, by arguing against Snopes, you're doing nothing to argue against the information I've provided. That's why it's deflection. I've also already told you that it doesn't matter if the information you falsely alleged were true or not with regard to whether or not Nancy Pelosi has ties to the mob. What a dumbass.



In other words, you cannot show me where that quote came from. You just ASSUME it might be in one of those sources. Who's the ASS?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I am looking at the sources, and I see NOTHING. As far as I can see, snopes if the only source for your quote. I would love to be proven wrong though.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In other words, you cannot show me where that quote came from. You just ASSUME it might be in one of those sources. Who's the ASS?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> I am looking at the sources, and I see NOTHING. As far as I can see, snopes if the only source for your quote. I would love to be proven wrong though.


Before I waste my time, do you have any evidence of any allegations that Pelosi's father had ties with the mob? Can you also tell me how this is relevant to whether or not Nancy Pelosi has ties to the mob? If not, there's no point in going down that road.



tthousand said:


> I am looking at the sources, and I see NOTHING. As far as I can see, snopes if the only source for your quote. I would love to be proven wrong though.


There are sources at the bottom of the page.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Before I waste my time, do you have any evidence of any allegations that Pelosi's father had ties with the mob? Can you also tell me how this is relevant to whether or not Nancy Pelosi has ties to the mob? If not, there's no point in going down that road.
> 
> 
> There are sources at the bottom of the page.



These sources at the bottom of the page do not show your quote that you are using to base your case on. 

You can look at the FBI document I linked you to, and it multiple pages of allegations of Pelosi's father's ties. And all I said is there is some strange family ties in Pelosi, which I have provided proof of. As for Nancy's ties, well, there is speculation... but that was not my point to begin with. 

Personally, I think what she did with the President's State of the Union address was despicable. I would think the same if anyone else did the same thing.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> These sources at the bottom of the page do not show your quote that you are using to base your case on.


One of them does. You might be having trouble accessing it because of the paywall. The fact that you didn't mention the paywall suggests you never tried to look.



tthousand said:


> You can look at the FBI document I linked you to, and it multiple pages of allegations of Pelosi's father's ties. And all I said is there is some strange family ties in Pelosi, which I have provided proof of.


You have not provided any evidence for the allegations. You've only provided the allegations. In other words, you've only provided the claim, not evidence of the claim. The allegations were never officially corroborated and they never resulted in any charges being brought against him.

Also, considering we are talking a man who is not, in fact, Nancy Pelosi. this is all pointless and a waste of time.



tthousand said:


> As for Nancy's ties, well, there is speculation... but that was not my point to begin with.


So, you're whole point about Nancy Pelosi was admittedly unsubstantiated nonsense then. Thank you.



tthousand said:


> Personally, I think what she did with the President's State of the Union address was despicable. I would think the same if anyone else did the same thing.


There is nothing wrong with ripping a piece of garbage in half, so you're going to have to do better than that. You seem to be the kind of person willing to accept conspiracy theories about Nancy Pelosi being a mobster, so something tells me you've already made up your mind about her, and that everything offered since I asked my question has merely been ex post facto rationalizations, lol.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> One of them does.



Sure. I believe you.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Sure. I believe you.


I've already explained how, in many ways, it doesn't matter if you do.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I've already explained how, in many ways, it doesn't matter if you do.



Sure...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I wonder when Biden will get to ride in the Big Boys AF1.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2021)

@tthousand
If you don't have anything substantive to say, just don't post at all. One-word posts are also generally against the rules.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 9, 2021)

Hey look more fun!

Georgia opens investigation into Trump effort to overturn election results


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Hey look more fun!
> 
> Georgia opens investigation into Trump effort to overturn election results



A phone call with about 8 lawyers... let's get a few more to look at it. What a witch hunt the past 4 years has been. Feels like Salem all over again.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A phone call with about 8 lawyers... let's get a few more to look at it. What a witch hunt the past 4 years has been. Feels like Salem all over again.


Trump demonstrably tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. His methods included suggestions of outright result manipulation and, oh yeah, inciting a mob attack on the Capitol.

I don't think you know what a witch hunt is.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Trump demonstrably tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. His methods included suggestions of outright result manipulation and, oh yeah, inciting a mob attack on the Capitol.
> 
> I don't think you know what a witch hunt is.



"If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything"

Like I said, there were multiple lawyers on the call. Nothing he said was incriminating. I read the whole transcript.

As for inciting a riot... lol. The actions were planned, and its quite obvious there were plenty of bad actors playing their role.

While I do believe anyone involved in illegally entering the capitol buying should be fully prosecuted, I also believe there is a lot more to the story then we are being told.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything"


The Republican Party has become a post-policy party. Those in office generally stand for very little, if anything.



tthousand said:


> Like I said, there were multiple lawyers on the call. Nothing he said was incriminating. I read the whole transcript.


"What I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than [the 11,779 vote margin of defeat] we have, because we won the state."

He was repeatedly informed before this that there were no errors and there was no widespread fraud. Whether or not lawyers were present on the call is irrelevant, and I don't know why you continue to bring it up.



tthousand said:


> As for inciting a riot... lol. The actions were planned, and its quite obvious there were plenty of bad actors playing their role.


Those who planned the protest did not get the permits needed to do anything near the Capital, and the storming of the Capitol was unplanned. Trump instigated the storming of the Capitol directly with his speech and indirectly with the rhetoric and lies about fraud preceding the storming of the Capitol.



tthousand said:


> While I do believe anyone involved in illegally entering the capitol buying should be fully prosecuted, I also believe there is a lot more to the story then we are being told.


You are a conspiracy theorist who has sacrificed his logical reasoning skills, integrity, and patriotism because it has become politically inconvenient for you to hold these values, and you sincerely have my pity.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

A) never said i support the republican party. But you are a master assumer.

B) not incriminating

C) sure. Those people must have run to the Capitol building, but even then they would not have been there before the "storm".

The realy question is why did the Capitol decline additional support knowing there was talk of storming the Capitol?

D) I will pray for your soul.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A) never said i support the republican party. But you are a master assumer.
> 
> B) not incriminating
> 
> ...




i'd say get some professional help, but like most Americans you probably couldn't afford it even if you wanted it.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A) never said i support the republican party. But you are a master assumer.


I never said you were a Republican. I was contrasting myself with the Republicans in order to make the point that I don't "stand for nothing." It's not difficult to understand.



tthousand said:


> B) not incriminating


Saying something wasn't incriminating doesn't make it not incriminating. I've already demonstrated how it is. Trump literally told him to just say "we've recounted and Trump won Georgia" without specifying any numerical basis with which to do so at that point. Then, he also said to find at least the exact number of votes he needed, since this was about him winning, not about fraud.



tthousand said:


> C) sure. Those people must have run to the Capitol building, but even then they would not have been there before the "storm".


Please try to be more articulate and explicit. Your point is lost on me here.



tthousand said:


> The realy question is why did the Capitol decline additional support knowing there was talk of storming the Capitol?


There are legitimate questions to be asked about the response by Capitol police, but these questions are not "the real questions," and they're irrelevant to whether or not Trump incited an armed insurrection against the Capitol (he did).



tthousand said:


> D) I will pray for your soul.


There is no reason to think I or anyone else has a soul.

Next time your respond to one of my posts, please have the courage to tag me or respond to it directly so I get a notification. Otherwise, your response might go unseen by me, and we wouldn't want that. You might mistakenly think my lack of a response somehow suggests you said something smart, and that's unlikely to occur.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Enjoy your right to an opinion, and I will mine. And no need to tag you... I have FAITH you will see this.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I never said you were a Republican. I was contrasting myself with the Republicans in order to make the point that I don't "stand for nothing." It's not difficult to understand.
> 
> 
> Saying something wasn't incriminating doesn't make it not incriminating. I've already demonstrated how it is. Trump literally told him to just say "we've recounted and Trump won Georgia" without specifying any numerical basis with which to do so at that point. Then, he also said to find at least the exact number of votes he needed, since this was about him winning, not about fraud.
> ...


To help tag-team:
a) The only person who would spout these outrageous conspiracies about prominent Democrats but write off Trump as an incorruptible saint is someone so aggressively Republican that the stench of hypocrisy could kill a cow from fifty paces.
b) I can't fathom how this is even hard for anyone to understand. The guy tried to strong-arm officials into cheating him the win, and did so on recording.
c) They didn't decline support. *Trump refused to even send the National Guard at all, and Pence had to eventually do it because of Trump's sheer negligence.*
d) oh boy this bullshit


tthousand said:


> Enjoy your right to an opinion, and I will mine. And no need to tag you... I have FAITH you will see this.


That's not how any of this works.
Opinions are fine... *unless you claim or state them as if they were facts.*
I can say my favorite color is blue, and that's fine. That is by nature my own subjective opinion.
But you make these absolutely absurd claims, of Pelosi having mafia ties, Biden being corrupt, Trump somehow NOT being corrupt... and then assert them as fact without proving anything.
It's the motte-and-bailey trick. You push forward with the utter nonsense you're peddling as fact, but the instant someone pushes back and asks for proof you go "oh it's just my opinion so you can't prove me wrong".
You. Will. Prove. Your. Fucking. Argument. *Or. You. Are. Effectively. Wrong. By. Default.*


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Let's get one thing Crystal clear. I harbor no hard feelings or ill will to anyone in this thread.

The hostility coming from you guys is very apparent, which is strange coming from a group pretending to be standing for what is right.

When you stop being civil, you have lost your argument. Although I never actually saw a start to any civility in this thread... well, except for the glimpse @Lacius provided. At least he half assed it.

Still, thank you all. I really mean it too. We are blessed to be able to have these conversations, right or wrong.

At the end of day, these politicians are as crooked a group of politicians. I hope we can all agree on that.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 9, 2021)

I do think lizard people might be real someday, but only because of technical advances we never even seen before. Tho, at that point, "lizard people" would be the least of peoples worries.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If something were demonstrated to be true later, that doesn't mean it was any less idiotic to believe it before.



This is a pathetic outlook.  If someone is right, and you are wrong, and that is proven in time--it means that you lacked a functioning intelligence that the other operated on.  "Even if I am wrong, you are stupid".  That's as idiotic as idiotic can be.

Many an inventor or scientific protégé were regarded as blasphemous or idiotic, until their visions were materialized.  Every working genius was an idiot to follow their impetus?  No.

Also, many religious scholars consider "the soul" to be the vessel, or the body, where the spirit is the working "spark".  Archaic words that modern science has rearticulated.  It's not a matter of "there is no evidence that they exist", unless you are the one suggesting that we are in the matrix.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> When you stop being civil, you have lost your argument.


Tone argument. Classic fallacy. Nice try.
Getting vaguely angry at your sheer BS levels isn't a sign of losing.


tabzer said:


> Also, many religious scholars consider "the soul" to be the vessel, or the body, where the spirit is the working "spark".  Archaic words that modern science has rearticulated.  It's not a matter of "there is no evidence that they exist", unless you are the one suggesting that we are in the matrix.


Can we please keep the spiritual nonsense OUT of this?
Separation of church and state and all that.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> This is a pathetic outlook.  If someone is right, and you are wrong, and that is proven in time--it means that you lacked a functioning intelligence that the other operated on.  "Even if I am wrong, you are stupid".  That's as idiotic as idiotic can be.
> 
> Many an inventor or scientific protégé were regarded as blasphemous or idiotic, until their visions were materialized.  Every working genius was an idiot to follow their impetus?  No.
> 
> Also, many religious scholars consider "the soul" to be the vessel, or the body, where the spirit is the working "spark".  Archaic words that modern science has rearticulated.  It's not a matter of "there is no evidence that they exist", unless you are the one suggesting that we are in the matrix.


If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, and even they are unaware of evidence for that claim, then it's idiotic to believe that claim, and it was idiotic to believe that claim the whole time before evidence later became available. Being right in hindsight doesn't make the belief before the evidence any less idiotic. For example, if I were to believe right now that many parts of our government are controlled by reptilian humanoids, you'd likely agree with me that is an absurd claim, and it would be idiotic to believe it. However, if 50 years from now, reptilian humanoid aliens made first contact with humans and admitted to placing undercover operatives in our government, does that mean the claim was less idiotic back in 2021? The answer is no. A broken clock is right twice a day, and the fact that it's right twice a day does not mean it's a working clock. Whether or not a claim is idiotic has little to do with whether or not it's objectively right; whether or not a claim is idiotic has everything to do with the evidence available that it is objectively right. This is epistemology 101, so your "this is a pathetic outlook" quip does nothing but make you look completely foolish. You may wish to avoid those kinds of comments when you're responding to something you don't understand (if your goal isn't to embarrass yourself).

When you talk about inventors and scientific proteges, you are not talking about proteges who accepted beliefs without evidence. We are talking about scientific minded skeptics who had very good reason for their beliefs (e.g. the heliocentric model of the solar system), and the community rejected the claims because of an adherence go dogma (often religious dogma), not because of an adherence to logic and skepticism. In other words, the idiots were the ones who rejected the heliocentric model after being provided evidence. Your analogy was poor, and when you consider the facts of the examples you were attempting (poorly) to present, they actually demonstrate my point.

There is no evidence for the existence of a soul, as defined by religious beliefs as the immaterial part of a human that lives on after death. If you are using a different and/or more vague definition of the word soul, I'm not interested in discussing it, as it wasn't what I was talking about.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Tone argument. Classic fallacy. Nice try.
> Getting vaguely angry at your sheer BS levels isn't a sign of losing.
> 
> Can we please keep the spiritual nonsense OUT of this?
> Separation of church and state and all that.



It's not spiritual nonsense.  It's etymology.  

Relevant video.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's not spiritual nonsense.  It's etymology.
> 
> Relevant video.



Still doesn't belong in this thread.
It's about as off-topic as can be without spouting random meme-based phrases ad infinitum.
State here, church that way. _gestures outside_


----------



## tabzer (Feb 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Still doesn't belong in this thread.
> It's about as off-topic as can be without spouting random meme-based phrases ad infinitum.
> State here, church that way. _gestures outside_



I didn't bring it up.



Lacius said:


> There is no reason to think I or anyone else has a soul.



Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a soul.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Let's get one thing Crystal clear. I harbor no hard feelings or ill will to anyone in this thread.
> 
> The hostility coming from you guys is very apparent, which is strange coming from a group pretending to be standing for what is right.
> 
> ...


The "all politicians are crooked" platitude is an  intellectually lazy one that comes from people, generally those who are nonconfrontational, who want as many people to like them as possible and also don't want to dedicate the thought and research necessary to discern who is/isn't actually crooked.

In reality, while there are crooked politicians for sure, there are many who are not.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> I didn't bring it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a soul.


By some definitions of the word "soul," sure. However, as I mentioned in one of my recent posts, that's not the definition I used, it should have been obvious to anyone from the context of the post I was responding to that it wasn't the definition I was using, and anything other than a response to the definition I was using is an irrelevant semantic argument that I have no interest in participating in.


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a soul.



Nobody has an immortal soul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Etymology

We just hang on to a romanticized idea of how normies brains reacts to society.

People like Trump though has nothing of the sort.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> By some definitions of the word "soul," sure. However, as I mentioned in one of my recent posts, that's not the definition I used,



Lol.  What "definition" are you going by? 



smf said:


> Nobody has an immortal soul.



That we are certain of, or aware of, as of yet.  But maybe this Jesus was adopted by aliens who have the technology?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I didn't bring it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a soul.





smf said:


> Nobody has an immortal soul.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Etymology
> 
> ...


I actually laughed aloud when I actually checked the etymology of the word soul, from the old English sáwol, which means immortal. I don't think @tabzer knows what etymology is.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Lol.  What "definition" are you going by?
> 
> 
> 
> That we are certain of, or aware of, as of yet.  But maybe this Jesus was adopted by aliens who have the technology?


I gave a thorough definition no more than half an hour ago.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Lol.  What "definition" are you going by?
> 
> 
> 
> That we are certain of, or aware of, as of yet.  But maybe this Jesus was adopted by aliens who have the technology?


The time to believe in the soul is the time we have evidence for it. That was exactly my point when this mess of a conversation started.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I actually laughed aloud when I actually checked the etymology of the word soul, from the old English sáwol, which means immortal. I don't think @tabzer knows what etymology is.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Yeah, I have a feeling they're just spouting random words to try to derail this.
Speaking of which, let's not let them derail this any longer- no more bullshit soul talk. Trump bad, Biden good.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I actually laughed aloud when I actually checked the etymology of the word soul, from the old English sáwol, which means immortal. I don't think @tabzer knows what etymology is.



Immortal principle of man, which is not restrained to a singular person.  I was referring to the Hebraic origin, through which _sáwol was transfixed into a new word._


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Immortal principle of man, which is not restrained to a singular person.  I was referring to the Hebraic origin, through which _sáwol was transfixed into a new word._



_'Soul', one the other hand, comes from Old English *sáwol*, originally *meaning* 'coming from or belonging to the sea or lake' (perhaps symbolic of our psyche or unconscious)
_
Are you saying you belong in a lake? I'm not sure that Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a "belong in a lake"


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Immortal principle of man, which is not restrained to a singular person.  I was referring to the Hebraic origin, through which _sáwol was transfixed into a new word._


*a-hem*
No. More. Bullshit. Soul. Talk.
This is not a theology thread.
"Can we get back to politics, please? Yo."


smf said:


> _'Soul', one the other hand, comes from Old English *sáwol*, originally *meaning* 'coming from or belonging to the sea or lake' (perhaps symbolic of our psyche or unconscious)_


Yeah, he has no clue what he's saying. (Or what "transfixed" means, for that matter.)
But let's not derail things any longer.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Immortal principle of man, which is not restrained to a singular person.  I was referring to the Hebraic origin, through which _sáwol was transfixed into a new word._


Regardless, my previous points about you turning this into a semantic arguement still stand. This is also wildly off-topic. Make a relevant thread and tag me in it or send me a PM if you want to continue the conversation about souls, but you should know I'm unlikely to participate if you're just going to redefine the word from how I and most of the world use it.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Regardless, my previous points about you turning this into a semantic arguement still stand. This is also wildly off-topic.



No, and No.  It doesn't relate to the title directly, but it relates directly to the conversation and the proclamation you made.  It's still an interesting phenomenon how you have come to lean on non-existing definition of a word to support your antagonism.  It seems to parallel the way you use other words, like "evidence" and "unsubstantiated".

Also...



Lacius said:


> If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, and even they are unaware of evidence for that claim, then it's idiotic to believe that claim, and it was idiotic to believe that claim the whole time before evidence later became available. Being right in hindsight doesn't make the belief before the evidence any less idiotic. For example, if I were to believe right now that many parts of our government are controlled by reptilian humanoids, you'd likely agree with me that is an absurd claim, and it would be idiotic to believe it. However, if 50 years from now, reptilian humanoid aliens made first contact with humans and admitted to placing undercover operatives in our government, does that mean the claim was less idiotic back in 2021? The answer is no. A broken clock is right twice a day, and the fact that it's right twice a day does not mean it's a working clock.



A broken clock is right twice a day because it asserts a possibility that will eventually happen at some point.  There is no logical parallel to your story, unless it is an inevitability that what you mentioned will come to pass.

"Unsubstantiated" is based on your estimation, and not objective. If someone knows something that you do not, it makes them smarter than you--relative to the subject.  It's only idiotic for you to believe what they say, unless you had that substance of a reason to believe what they may say.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> No, and No.


Yes and yes.



tabzer said:


> It doesn't relate to the title directly, but it relates directly to the conversation and the proclamation you made.


First, I wasn't the one who brought up the soul. I was responding to someone saying they would pray for my soul. Second, the conversation about souls is off-topic in this thread, whether you think so or not. Off-topic asides are fine, but your obsession with having a semantic argument when it's completely irrelevant to anything I said is causing the topic to spin out of control. Get back on topic, go to or make a thread with the topic of religious nonsense, or send me a PM. I'm not talking about it here anymore. I've already explained exactly what I mean when I say "soul," and it doesn't matter now if you call it "soul" or "glibglob."



tabzer said:


> It's still an interesting phenomenon how you have come to lean on non-existing definition of a word to support your antagonism.


My usage of the word comports with how it's popularly used, the etymology of the word demonstrates this, and I'm uninterested in discussing watered down definitions as though they have anything to do with my original comments.



tabzer said:


> It seems to parallel the way you use other words, like "evidence" and "unsubstantiated".


My usage of these words comports with how they're popularly used.



tabzer said:


> A broken clock is right twice a day because it asserts a possibility that will eventually happen at some point.  There is no logical parallel to your story, unless it is an inevitability that what you mentioned will come to pass.


You seem to have missed the point of the clock analogy, so I will explain. If X has no explanatory power, but X happens to right by chance instead of through explanatory power, that does not mean X ever had any explanatory power. X is the broken clock in the analogy, and X is also the person making an unsubstantiated claim. Being right about something by chance and in hindsight does not make the thing a reasonable belief before the evidence presents itself. You are arguing against very basic epistemology, so you're not going to win this one dude. Like, what I'm saying here isn't considered to be controversial. I don't think I've ever met anyone who disagrees with this.

If I believe it's going to be a long winter solely because of what happened on Groundhog Day, and it does end up being a long winter, that doesn't mean my belief wasn't idiotic. The time to believe something is when it's logically sound to do so, and a belief in the absence of evidence is idiotic, regardless of whether or not we find out down the road that the belief comports with objective reality.



tabzer said:


> "Unsubstantiated" is based on your estimation, and not objective.


Whether or not something is logically sound is objective, not subjective. Whether or not a claim is substantiated is not merely a matter of opinion. If someone says X is substantiated and someone else says X is unsubstantiated, one of them is wrong.



tabzer said:


> If someone knows something that you do not, it makes them smarter than you--relative to the subject.


Sure, but the time to believe the claim the person who is more knowledgeable than me on the topic is making is when there's evidence for what that person is claiming. Anything else would be an argument from authority logical fallacy.



tabzer said:


> It's only idiotic for you to believe what they say, unless you had that substance of a reason to believe what they may say.


It's idiotic to accept any claims without sound reason or evidence to accept that claim is true.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Yeah, he has no clue what he's saying. (Or what "transfixed" means, for that matter.)



The way I used the word "transfixed" was poetically astute.  The fact that you two are caught on the old english instead of the hebrew supports that.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The way I used the word "transfixed" was poetically astute.  The fact that you two are caught on the old english instead of the hebrew supports that.


Frankly, I don't fucking care about the Hebrew etymology of the word "soul" with regard to this conversation, and nor should you. It's wholly irrelevant, and you don't seem to realize this. The word "soul" in modern day English has baggage. My use comports with the way the word "soul" is popularly used. The way I use it is that it's the intangible part of a human being that lives on after death. That's literally how 100% of the Christians I've ever met use it, and I was responding to someone saying they would pray for my soul. This is literally how 100% of the people who have ever sincerely said to me or anyone around me "I will pray for you" use the word "soul." You are embarrassing yourself.

There is no evidence the soul, as described above, exists.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

There seem to be two types of people in the this. Those who know it all, and those who are willing to question.

As for arguing with the know it alls, I might as well turn on CNN and try and talk with the TV. I'll get fed the same line of propaganda, but at least it will come from someone who is pretending to be rational.

And BTW, these blocks and blocks of texts that you guys have to make to prove your points... actions speak louder than words. The truth will speak for itself. Keep it short and sweet 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And one more thing... for you guys preaching what should and should not be posted in this thread, try leading by example. Don't applaud the shit show one day and then start to cry when you don't get your way. I mean, that is what the demorats in office would do, but you are not them.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> There seem to be two types of people in the this. Those who know it all, and those who are willing to question.


You've confused skepticism for "knowing it all." In reality, your conspiratorial thinking is not skepticism, so don't pretend to be a skeptic who is "just questioning."



tthousand said:


> that is what the demorats in office would do


Show me.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You've confused skepticism for "knowing it all." In reality, your conspiratorial thinking is not skepticism, so don't pretend to be a skeptic who is "just questioning."
> 
> Show me.



You already know it all, why would I waste my time with you? 

"The truth it out there"


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You already know it all, why would I waste my time with you?
> 
> "The truth it out there"


If you are going to make ridiculous claims and then cowardly run away without demonstrating them because it's too difficult to do so, don't bother making the ridiculous claim in the first place. The end result is the same.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you are going to make ridiculous claims and then cowardly run away without demonstrating them because it's too difficult to do so, don't bother making the ridiculous claim in the first place. The end result is the same.



I'm not running. I just see no point in arguing with a brick wall. 

As for you thinking I owe you anything, that's your first mistake.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh yeah, are you guys moderators? No... I did not think so. I am a moderator and admin and several sites, and we do not take kind to back seat moderators. Know your role, and know why you are not cut out to be one of us.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> As for you thinking I owe you anything, that's your first mistake.


You don't owe me anything personally. However, if you are going to make a claim, you have a burden of proof. If your goal isn't to look like a buffoon, you owe a demonstration of your claim.

It makes no difference to me if you're a buffoon or not.



tthousand said:


> Oh yeah, are you guys moderators? No... I did not think so. I am a moderator and admin and several sites, and we do not take kind to back seat moderators. Know your role, and know why you are not cut out to be one of us.


You don't know what backseat moderating is apparently, since nothing I did had to do with moderation, so forgive me if I don't believe you've moderated anything in your life.

In other words, acknowledging something is off-topic is not backseat moderating.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I'm not running. I just see no point in arguing with a brick wall.
> 
> As for you thinking I owe you anything, that's your first mistake.
> 
> ...


First off, you are absolutely running. Asking for you to actually demonstrate and prove your point is not being a brick wall, it's being logical. Refusal to do so is nothing but argumentative cowardice.
Second off, if you are making a point, you must prove it. You don't "owe" us anything, this isn't a debt owed, this is just how discussion and argument works.
Third off, considering your grammar, overall tone, tendency to employ various fallacies in liberal (no pun intended) doses and complete lack of understanding of how basically any of this works, I doubt you could moderate a fridge. Combining this with the whole "I questioned my parents about Jesus' murder at age 3" thing, the chances of you actually being a mod or admin on anything remotely significant is far less likely than the chances of you spewing random bullshit claims so that you can tack on 'argument from authority' to that already long list of fallacies.


tabzer said:


> The way I used the word "transfixed" was poetically astute.  The fact that you two are caught on the old english instead of the hebrew supports that.


"Poetically astute" is a nice way to say "throwing around big words to sound eloquent despite not actually using most of them correctly". "Transfixed into a new word" isn't correct in any sense of the word.
And for the last time, this is not a theology thread.
Cut the soul crap.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)




----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2021)

This "argument" is making me lose brain cells


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)




----------



## djpannda (Feb 9, 2021)

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1359223129344675841
Here's the video Raskin played at the beginning of the trial. It's worth watching again, in full. pic.twitter.com/hiYl8nBwn6— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 9, 2021
..
Thats all you need,..


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The way I used the word "transfixed" was poetically astute.  The fact that you two are caught on the old english instead of the hebrew supports that.



I'm neither old english or hebrew. You were the one that wanted to use the old definition of the word.



tthousand said:


> You already know it all, why would I waste my time with you?



Nobody here knows it all, you seem to know less than your fair share.



tthousand said:


> "The truth it out there"



Yes, the truth is out there. Q conspiracy isn't real & Trump received less legal votes than Biden.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tthousand said:


>




It seems they want to criminalize some speech, but not others.

If terrorists want to talk about planting bombs it's bad, if you want to lie about democrats stealing an election and whipping up a crowd to go kill people then it's good.

The people who attacked the capitol thought that Trump was telling them to do that. Trump knew what would happen by saying those words.

Rudi Gulliani wasn't just quoting Game of Thrones.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

smf said:


> Nobody here knows it all.


 Could have fooled me.



smf said:


> you seem to know less than your fair share.


 And what is my fair share?



smf said:


> Yes, the truth is out there. Q conspiracy isn't real & Trump received less legal votes than Biden.


 Wow, you must know it all.



smf said:


> It seems they want to criminalize some speech, but not others.
> 
> If terrorists want to talk about planting bombs it's bad, if you want to lie about democrats stealing an election and whipping up a crowd to go kill people then it's good.


 I see you cannot understand simple speech. He is simply stating if speech from one party is allowed or not allowed, then the same should apply to the other side of aisle as well. I do not know how you got that so confused... but I have a theory


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Could have fooled me.



That doesn't seem very hard.



tthousand said:


> And what is my fair share?



More than what you know.



tthousand said:


> Wow, you must know it all.



No, I just did my own research



tthousand said:


> I see you cannot understand simple speech. He is simply stating if speech from one party is allowed or not allowed, then the same should apply to the other side of aisle as well.



That isn't how enforcing criminal acts work. You can't argue that even though you shot someone, then it's unfair that you are prosecuted because other people were not prosecuted.



tthousand said:


> I do not know how you got that so confused... but I have a theory



I wasn't confused as such as you were too vague to be able to figure out what your point was. I have a theory about that.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

@smf, and how much of your own research did you do exactly? Watch a clip on CNN?

Or let me guess, looked up what some biased fact checker said. Hmm...

SMH


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> @smf, and how much of your own research did you do exactly? Watch a clip on CNN?
> 
> Or let me guess, looked up what some biased fact checker said. Hmm...
> 
> SMH


I give up, we can't even give you evidence without you dismissing the sources as "biased"


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I give up, we can't even give you evidence without you dismissing the sources as "biased"



Evidence from an actual source is different than mere interpretation from a third party who has political affiliation and/or agenda.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 9, 2021)

Trump is guilty as sin, everybody knows it.  Including his supporters.  They just don't _care_, because this is who they are.  A party of grifters and violent lunatics, waiting for their next opportunity to demonstrate exactly how batshit insane they are to the rest of the world.  The Republican Senators who vote to acquit are implicitly endorsing the attempted insurrection, which means it's not a matter of _if_ something similar happens again, but only a matter of _when._


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> @smf, and how much of your own research did you do exactly? Watch a clip on CNN?
> 
> Or let me guess, looked up what some biased fact checker said. Hmm...
> 
> SMH


"This source allegedly contradicts my assertions, so I don't even need to see it to know it must come from a biased source." That's you. That's what you sound like. In the future, please don't pretend like you care about facts or truth, because you've demonstrated here that you clearly don't.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> "This source allegedly contradicts my assertions, so I don't even need to see it to know it must come from a biased source." That's you. That's what you sound like. In the future, please don't pretend like you care about facts or truth, because you've demonstrated here that you clearly don't.



When you have written as much news and contributed to the scene(s) as much as I have, legitimate sourcing becomes very important. Which is why I have provided CLEAR source, while your side has only provided 3rd party sources. Hmm... weird?!?!


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> When you have written as much news and contributed to the scene(s) as much as I have, legitimate sourcing becomes very important. Which is why I have provided CLEAR source, while your side has only provided 3rd party sources. Hmm... weird?!?!


You don't even know what research @smf allegedly did. You dismissed whatever research it was, without seeing it, solely because it was alleged that it contradicted what you had to say. You understand how ridiculous that is, right? You understand that you're the ridiculous one, right?

Given this information, I highly doubt you've contributed anything of value to any sort of real "news scene."


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

I have a feeling most of you do not do your own research or fact checking.


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Or let me guess, looked up what some biased fact checker said.



I only use fact checkers biased towards the truth, not those lying ones that you like.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I have a feeling most of you do not do your own research or fact checking.


I find it interesting that you always seem to want to deflect to things other than arguing ideas. Why do you even post here?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You don't even know what research @smf allegedly did. You dismissed whatever research it was, without seeing it, solely because it was alleged that it contradicted what you had to say. You understand how ridiculous that is, right? You understand that you're the ridiculous one, right?
> 
> Given this information, I highly doubt you've contributed anything of value to any sort of real "news scene."



It's called an estimated guess. @smf still has a chance to respond... but I have a gut feeling he was exaggerating. I would love for him to prove me wrong, and show me this extensive research he has done to prove his facts true... but you and I know that is most likely not going to happen. I am not worried.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It's called an estimated guess. @smf still has a chance to respond... but I have a gut feeling he was exaggerating. I would love for him to prove me wrong, and show me this extensive research he has done to prove his facts true... but you and I know that is most likely not going to happen. I am not worried.


Your "estimated guess" was literally "he contradicts me, so it must be biased." It's ironic that by crying "bias," you demonstrated your own.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> When you have written as much news and contributed to the scene(s) as much as I have, legitimate sourcing becomes very important. Which is why I have provided CLEAR source, while your side has only provided 3rd party sources. Hmm... weird?!?!


Out of context links vs actual trusted sources


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I have a feeling most of you do not do your own research or fact checking.



I have a feeling you do not do your own research or fact checking.

We both believe we are right and we both believe one of us is wrong, we are just disagreeing who it is.

So why can't it be you? Your argument lacks evidence, so it's more likely to be you.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Out of context... LOL. It's called a direct line. It's a lot better then pointing to a source that in turn points to several sources. I am not interested in an easter egg hunt. If you guys cannot find where your information comes from, that's fine... but I do not see why I should have to find it for you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> I have a feeling you do not do your own research or fact checking.
> 
> We both believe we are right and we both believe one of us is wrong, we are just disagreeing who it is.
> 
> So why can't it be you? Your argument lacks evidence, so it's more likely to be you.



I will admit I do not fully fact check everything, but I do try to look into both sides for evidence, or at least follow the sources so I can see for myself if it is true or not.

But I really do agree with you on this point, and appreciate you making it.

At the end of the day, we both could be wrong too.


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Out of context... LOL. It's called a direct line. It's a lot better then pointing to a source that in turn points to several sources. I am not interested in an easter egg hunt. If you guys cannot find where your information comes from, that's fine... but I do not see why I should have to find it for you.



I don't need evidence as I'm merely pointing out there is no evidence of what you claim.



tthousand said:


> I will admit I do not fully fact check everything, but I do try to look into both sides for evidence, or at least follow the sources so I can see for myself if it is true or not.



But it doesn't let you see for yourself if it's true if you believe something that has no real evidence.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

smf said:


> I don't need evidence as I'm merely pointing out there is no evidence of what you claim.



That was less directed at you than others. But seeing as you responded in that manner... which claim are you talking about?


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> That was less directed at you than others. But seeing as you responded in that manner... which claim are you talking about?



All your earlier troll posts.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

smf said:


> But it doesn't let you see for yourself if it's true if you believe something that has no real evidence.



Honestly, I take everything with a grain of salt. I will admit I definitely do not know it all. I am just simply sharing what I hear, and not claiming anything to be my universal truth. Like I said, I am of a scientific mind where I question everything.


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I am just simply sharing what I hear, and not claiming anything to be my universal truth. Like I said, I am of a scientific mind where I question everything.



You are doing a poor job of showing that, when you post something that you aren't sure about then you should make clear that you don't believe it.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

smf said:


> All your earlier troll posts.



There is some trolling going on here for sure... but I am simply raising awareness to the unknown and citing we might not be seeing all there is to see. Instead, I tend to believe we are only shown what others want us to see. My eyes are open, and have been for a long, long time.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> You are doing a poor job of showing that, when you post something that you aren't sure about then you should make clear that you don't believe it.



I make a point of that in the future. I know on the internet it is very easy to misconstrue things and take them out of context.


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> but I am simply raising awareness to the unknown and citing we might not be seeing all there is to see.



None of what you are posting is unknown.



tthousand said:


> Instead, I tend to believe we are only shown what others want us to see. My eyes are open, and have been for a long, long time.



Of course we are shown what people want to show us, but there isn't only one actor at play. So it's more likely you'll see practically everything, but some of it is a lie. The probability is that the lies are coming from Trump and his people, because of how often he's been caught lying before (Trump University etc).

Trump has always claimed that it's rigged when he doesn't win, its kinda unlikely that it was always rigged.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> There is some trolling going on here for sure... but I am simply raising awareness to the unknown and citing we might not be seeing all there is to see. Instead, I tend to believe we are only shown what others want us to see. My eyes are open, and have been for a long, long time.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There's a difference between skepticism and promoting conspiracy theory bullshit.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's a difference between skepticism and promoting conspiracy theory bullshit.



True. And I have not promoted anything consider conspiracy. I stated from the beginning I am not claiming anything as fact, and everything I did claim I have provided source material.

In return, I am treated to what I can only assume is regurgitated propaganda. No actual sources, only baseless opinions.


----------



## smf (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In return, I am treated to what I can only assume is regurgitated propaganda.



To be fair, what you've posted is propaganda.

You don't seem to be aware of this.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 9, 2021)

smf said:


> To be fair, what you've posted is propaganda.
> 
> You don't seem to be aware of this.



If you are going to attempt to tell me what I have done, could you at least explain yourself. I have no real response if you have no real comment.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2021)

tthousand said:


> True. And I have not promoted anything consider conspiracy. I stated from the beginning I am not claiming anything as fact, and everything I did claim I have provided source material.
> 
> In return, I am treated to what I can only assume is regurgitated propaganda. No actual sources, only baseless opinions.


You literally said Nancy Pelosi has ties to the mob.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You literally said Nancy Pelosi has ties to the mob.


And also claimed that Biden making a little word slip-up, like he's done about a million times before, was totally not just an innocent mistake and _definitely_ indicative of some super-secret interconnected Democrat voter fraud ring!


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You literally said Nancy Pelosi has ties to the mob.


nope pretty sure he meant the last guy n the oval office i wonder what the state of these investigations outside of the impeachment is going seems like that's the only way we'll prevent re electing his fat ass ince the impeachment is a dud i feel that the FBI should be looking into the dealings of the GOP senators first off especially the few who either incited or helped with the jan 6th attack


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> nope pretty sure he meant the last guy n the oval office i wonder what the state of these investigations outside of the impeachment is going seems like that's the only way we'll prevent re electing his fat ass ince the impeachment is a dud i feel that the FBI should be looking into the dealings of the GOP senators first off especially the few who either incited or helped with the jan 6th attack


He effectively said Nancy Pelosi was an Italian mobster. Sorry. That was unclear, given Trump is the one who actually has ties to a mob.


----------



## smf (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If you are going to attempt to tell me what I have done, could you at least explain yourself.



Have you forgotten what you've done?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

smf said:


> Have you forgotten what you've done?


We've also reminded him what he's posted. Don't expect a substantive response.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 10, 2021)

that's what I meant I said he probably meant trump (in a sarcastic truth) speaking of the impeachment seems (at least 1)  GOP congressman broke ranks i still highly doubt 11 more will follow suit but still +1 so far 6 as of now broke rank

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-02-09-2021/


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is no evidence the soul, as described above, exists.



Are you using your modern post-election definition of "evidence" or are you using the actual definition?  There's evidence, but you haven't collected enough to convince yourself.  That's fine.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Are you using your modern post-election definition of "evidence" or are you using the actual definition?  There's evidence, but you haven't collected enough to convince yourself.  That's fine.


I'm no more using an alternative definition of "evidence" than I am using an alternative definition of "soul." Screw off.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm no more using an alternative definition of "evidence" than I am using an alternative definition of "soul." Screw off.


man tabzer just will not shut up about the human soul
it's almost like he's delusional and/or trolling and trying to repeatedly distract everyone from how baseless and bullshit his claims are


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm no more using an alternative definition of "evidence" than I am using an alternative definition of "soul." Screw off.



That's a rather long-winded way of saying,"yes".


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That's a rather long-winded way of saying,"yes".


That's objectively and demonstrably untrue.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That's objectively and demonstrably untrue.


That sounds nice, but what does that mean?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That sounds nice, but what does that mean?


It means there was nothing about my previous statement that answered "yes" to your question, objectively. I don't blame you for deflecting though.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It means there was nothing about my previous statement that answered "yes" to your question, objectively. I don't blame you for deflecting though.



When you say that you do something no more than you do something else, it means that you do both at a relatively comparable rate.  Seeing you demonstrate the application of an arbitrarily derived definition of "soul" just to be antagonistic against someone using the word would suggest that you aren't against doing that with other words.  Words like "truth" "facts" and "evidence" for example.  I mean you can use ignorance to further the divide if you want.  That's between you and your god government.  Keep the faith narrative.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> When you say that you do something no more than you do something else, it means that you do both at a relatively comparable rate.  Seeing you demonstrate the application of an arbitrarily derived definition of "soul" just to be antagonistic against someone using the word would suggest that you aren't against doing that with other words.  Words like "truth" "facts" and "evidence" for example.  I mean you can use ignorance to further the divide if you want.  That's between you and your god government.  Keep the faith narrative.


You skipped the part where I wasn't using an alternative definition of "evidence" nor "soul." I don't blame you for wanting to deflect though. I'd rather make posts that lack any real substance too if the alternative were arguing for the existence of widespread voter fraud or the existence of an immortal soul.

Good effort.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You skipped the part where I wasn't using an alternative definition of "evidence" nor "soul."



No I didn't.  You got all pissy and deflected by saying that this isn't the place to talk about it although you want to make sure you had the last word about the subject (not to mention the first edgy comment about the subject).

You are using a very specific definition of the word that has no root in religion or the conversation.  You borrowed it from somewhere else.  Did @tthousand confide in you about his idea of what it means before you decided to reveal your edge?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> No I didn't.  You got all pissy and deflected by saying that this isn't the place to talk about it although you want to make sure you had the last word about the subject (not to mention the first edgy comment about the subject).
> 
> You are using a very specific definition of the word that has no root in religion or the conversation.  You borrowed it from somewhere else.  Did @tthousand confide in you about his idea of what it means before you decided to reveal your edge?


This isn't the place to talk about the concept of the soul and how completely absurd it is. Tag me in a relevant thread or PM me if you really want to talk about it (but I sincerely doubt you actually do). If you just want to have an argument about semantics, I'm not interested, considering my use comports with the popular usage, and it wouldn't matter if it did or not.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> considering my use comports with the popular usage, and it wouldn't matter if it did or not.



Yes it does.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yes it does.


You know what you need to do in order to continue the conversation.

And I agree. It does comport with the popular usage.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You know what you need to do in order to continue the conversation.
> 
> And I agree. It does comport with the popular usage.



I think you mean, "popular usage".


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I think you mean, "popular usage".


That's how he spelt it tho


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> That's how he spelt it tho



The spelling was perfect.


----------



## smf (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Are you using your modern post-election definition of "evidence" or are you using the actual definition?  There's evidence, but you haven't collected enough to convince yourself.  That's fine.



There is no different between pre and post election evidence. Trump had no evidence of rigged election before the election or after it.

There is no evidence of a soul, there is evidence of brain activity and psychology.
What evidence do you think exists for a soul?


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2021)

smf said:


> There is no different between pre and post election evidence. Trump had no evidence of rigged election before the election or after it.
> 
> There is no evidence of a soul, there is evidence of brain activity and psychology.
> What evidence do you think exists for a soul?



I am talking about the definition of words and how they are used.  I haven't been responding to you since you first said something because it seemed like that you weren't even trying to see the points I was making.

First point, and @Lacius knows this; things like affidavits, and people willing to testify, were considered "evidence" for all of our lives, up until last year.  So the underlying definition of "evidence" has clearly been changed to fit a dishonest narrative..

Second point, the Hebrew word for the Judeo-Christian "soul" is "naphesh" which is closer to meaning "living being" than the "popular" fantasy pseudo-definition of "eternal afterlife vehicle".  Of course, with the _current _standard of "evidence" that has been recently adopted, there is no evidence that you or @Lacius exist.  There is more that could be debated about the fate of the soul and so on, but the initial issue I brought up were that people BS'ing their way through a discussion and it turned out that they didn't like to be called out on it.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I am talking about the definition of words and how they are used.  I haven't been responding to you since you first said something because it seemed like that you weren't even trying to see the points I was making.
> 
> First point, and @Lacius knows this; things like affidavits, and people willing to testify, were considered "evidence" for all of our lives, up until last year.  So the underlying definition of "evidence" has clearly been changed to fit a dishonest narrative..
> 
> Second point, the Hebrew word for the Judeo-Christian "soul" is "naphesh" which is closer to meaning "living being" than the "popular" fantasy pseudo-definition of "eternal afterlife vehicle".  Of course, with the _current _standard of "evidence" that has been recently adopted, there is no evidence that you or @Lacius exist.  There is more that could be debated about the fate of the soul and so on, but the initial issue I brought up were that people BS'ing their way through a discussion and it turned out that they didn't like to be called out on it.



Me: Dinosaurs are extinct.
Tabzer: Ah, but the etymology of the word "dinosaur" is "big lizard," so by definition, you actually believe dinosaurs are not extinct.
That's what you sound like, and that's what your semantic argument boils down to. I don't fucking care if you want to redefine the soul into existence. It's not how I was using the word, and it's not how it's popularly used by those who say "I will pray for your soul" in this country.

Respectfully, this kind of semantic "argument" is mind-numbingly boring. I don't care if you want to call what I was talking about a "glib glob" instead of a "soul."


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Me: Dinosaurs are extinct.
> Tabzer: Ah, but the etymology of the word "dinosaur" is "big lizard," so by definition, you actually believe dinosaurs are not extinct.
> That's what you sound like, and that's what your semantic argument boils down to. I don't fucking care if you want to redefine the soul into existence. It's not how I was using the word, and it's not how it's popularly used by those who say "I will pray for your soul" in this country.
> 
> Respectfully, this kind of semantic "argument" is mind-numbingly boring. I don't care if you want to call what I was talking about a "glib glob" instead of a "soul."


This, plus the fact that THIS IS NOT A FUCKING THEOLOGY THREAD AND _*SOUL TALK DOES NOT BELONG HERE.*_ Tabzer, stop deflecting for the sake of salvaging your argument and covering your ass.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> This, plus the fact that THIS IS NOT A FUCKING THEOLOGY THREAD AND _*SOUL TALK DOES NOT BELONG HERE.*_ Tabzer, stop deflecting for the sake of salvaging your argument and covering your ass.


Looks like someone has not accepted Jesus Christ as Their Lord and Savior!


----------



## smf (Feb 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> First point, and @Lacius knows this; things like affidavits, and people willing to testify, were considered "evidence" for all of our lives, up until last year.  So the underlying definition of "evidence" has clearly been changed to fit a dishonest narrative..



affidavits are only evidence that the person is willing to testify when they could be jailed for lying. But that doesn't actually mean much, they could easily still be lying. Otherwise courts wouldn't be necessary, you can just get rid of them and see who would sign to say they were telling the truth. Because only someone telling the truth would do that right?

And what exactly are the affidavits evidence of? No Trump lawsuit actually claimed there was wide spread fraud, because the lawyers didn't want to be guilty of perjury. While some random might take a gamble, a lawyer generally won't as they could end up never working again.



tabzer said:


> Second point, the Hebrew word for the Judeo-Christian "soul" is "naphesh" which is closer to meaning "living being" than the "popular" fantasy pseudo-definition of "eternal afterlife vehicle".



How is it relevant? This thread is modern engish. If I say "soul" then it's the modern definition, not some meaning that requires mental gymnastics to prove you're right.



tabzer said:


> Of course, with the _current _standard of "evidence" that has been recently adopted, there is no evidence that you or @Lacius exist.



The current standard is the same old standard, you have to have something other than "I really want this to be true, please believe me".


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

Christmas is 2 months lates...

Breaking NYT: Prosecutors in Fulton County, GA have initiated a criminal investigation into Trump's attempts to overturn Georgia’s election results, including the phone call he made to Brad Raffensperger to 'find' enough votes to help him reverse his loss. https://t.co/DxOc9VZjbU— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 10, 2021


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You literally said Nancy Pelosi has ties to the mob.



No I did not. I said "she has some questionable family ties." Keyword, family. Do not take what I am saying out of context and try to use it against when the evidence is right here in this thread.



Plasmaster09 said:


> And also claimed that Biden making a little word slip-up, like he's done about a million times before, was totally not just an innocent mistake and _definitely_ indicative of some super-secret interconnected Democrat voter fraud ring!



That was not my claim. I simply asked "Ever heard of a Freudian slip?" From there, it was all of your own misinterpretations that have lead you to believe that I thought anything more.

...

Point proven though fellas. You are determined to make yourselves irrational and intolerable. If you do not wish to actively participate in the TRUE form on conversation, why are you even here? Just to troll those that simply wish to ask questions?


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> That was not my claim. I simply asked "Ever heard of a Freudian slip?" From there, it was all of your own misinterpretations that have lead you to believe that I thought anything more.


Sounds like someone has a *Oedipus complex!*


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Back to the subject, which is not trolling as over half this thread thinks it is...

I do not see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either constitutional or just. The simple fact of the matter is there are government agents actively looking into the situation and collecting more information/evidence daily. The only just thing to do would be to wait until the evidence has been collected, and then hold the trial. Just because the media blasts you in the face with their hot sticky message and you lap it all up, does not mean it is true. I am sure you all know what spinning is.

I suppose some people would rather be led than free. For those, they are probably happy to see the USA take another step backwards towards the tyrannical government we once escaped from.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> ..
> Point proven though fellas. You are determined to make yourselves irrational and intolerable. If you do not wish to actively participate in the TRUE form on conversation, why are you even here? Just to troll those that simply wish to ask questions?



Wait did Plasmaster09 create a Burner account because he did not have the balls to use his main Account?
what a Loser Plasmaster09 is ,that he wanted to Troll and defend Sedition...Shame on you


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I said "she has some questionable family ties."


That's conspiratorial nonsense.



tthousand said:


> Back to the subject, which is not trolling...
> ... I do not see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either constitutional or just.


I love it when people contradict themselves in the next sentence.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Round two... ding ding (today's video stream features no spinning, just 100% raw)


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

if anyone seriously thinks that it is unjust to impeach a president that incited an attempted coup against his own government in order to unlawfully remain in power...
what the fuck is impeachment for, then?
oh right, it's only meant for Democrats that do things as small as breathing in the wrong direction, while Republicans can get away with _*strong-arming elected officials to get them (non-existent and thus fraudulent) votes out of thin air to help them win an election they lost... ON TAPE, *_and suffer no punishment.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

The prejudice in this thread is quite astounding. Sure, let's all go out and try people based on assumption instead of evidence.

Like i said, the investigation is still underway. Let the people in charge do their work.

And as for your sweet and innocent dems, did you not watch yesterday's trial?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The prejudice in this thread is quite astounding. Sure, let's all go out and try people based on assumption instead of evidence.
> 
> And as for your sweet and innocent dems, did you not watch yesterday's trial?



dude, I'm talking about things trump literally said on recording- his blatantly inflammatory rhetoric as well as the Georgia tape


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The prejudice in this thread is quite astounding. Sure, let's all go out and try people based on assumption instead of evidence.
> 
> Like i said, the investigation is still underway. Let the people in charge do their work.
> 
> And as for your sweet and innocent dems, did you not watch yesterday's trial?


lol oh man your a Joke..... I see you did not watch the whole thing
_Trump ‘beyond angry’ with impeachment defense team’s ‘shoddy performance’ as Republicans call for lawyer’s removal_


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, I'm talking about things trump literally said on recording- his blatantly inflammatory rhetoric as well as the Georgia tape



In your opinion, sure. Especially in today's snowflake society where everyone's feelings get hurt by everything.

But in the eyes of law... I have my doubts. Seems to me everything he said will be proven just and fair.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

my fav was when Castor stated that Mangers did such a good job in Destroying their defense they had to make one up on the spot.. thats why he was randomly talking about Senators and Nebraska for 20mins

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

and not forget this FUCKING GEM 
* Castor stated "President Trump no longer is in office. The object of the Constitution has been achieved ..... He was removed by the voters."*
Thats what Trumps own lawyer stated.... lLOLOL


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

djpannda said:


> lol oh man your a Joke..... I see you did not watch the whole thing
> _Trump ‘beyond angry’ with impeachment defense team’s ‘shoddy performance’ as Republicans call for lawyer’s removal_


of course his team's a joke- no sane lawyer would ever defend him



tthousand said:


> In your opinion, sure. Especially in today's snowflake society where everyone's feelings get hurt by everything.
> 
> But in the eyes of law... I have my doubts. Seems to me everything he said will be proven just and fair.


First off, nice pathos gambit you got there. Pity that flavor of condescending horsecrap died off as a viable argument around 2018.
Second off...
GEORGIA TAPE.
This absolute piece of shit tried to strong-arm an elected official into GIVING him (read: making up out of thin air) enough votes to win the state.
That's not hurt feelings.
That's fucking tyranny.

also kinda funny how the republicans that always complain about political correctness, hurt feelings and snowflakes are somehow outraged by the concept of impeaching a man that tried to cheat the election


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Your own image in your previous post shows Biden saying "$600 isn't enough. $2,000 is what it should be instead." We got $600, so $2,000 minus $600 equals $1,400. Lol.
> 
> Also, since you likely voted against the stimulus checks and the Democrats, I will happily take your $600 now, and you can send me the $1,400 when you get it. Thank you.



somebody tell that dumb b, and others, DUH


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

I read the whole call. He did not ask for anything that was not rightfully owed.


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 10, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> of course his team's a joke- no sane lawyer would ever defend him
> 
> 
> First off, nice pathos gambit you got there. Pity that flavor of condescending horsecrap died off as a viable argument around 2018.
> ...



yep


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I read the whole call. He did not ask for anything that was not rightfully owed.


He was absolutely not owed votes that did not exist.
He was not owed victory over a state that he lost.
He was not owed an election that he lost so hard it turned Georgia rightfully blue.
He was not owed ANYTHING.
Your logic is more self-fulfilling and circular than a man sucking his own dick.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I read the whole call. He did not ask for anything that was not rightfully owed.


I made this for you....
HAPPY VALENTINES 




--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Plasmaster09 said:


> Your logic is more self-fulfilling and circular than a man sucking his own dick.


Sounds like a good time!


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Say the circle jerkers... LOL


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Say the circle jerkers... LOL


Hey you cant eat the Cracker and then get made at us


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I read the whole call. He did not ask for anything that was not rightfully owed.


Trump was not owed the exact number of votes it would take to win the state of Georgia. You sound ridiculous.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tthousand said:


> Say the circle jerkers... LOL


The thing I miss most because of the pandemic.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Feb 10, 2021)

You guys still arguing over Trump vs Biden? That's like arguing if a kick in the stomach is better than a broken nose.
It is so infantile to argue in favor of a group of people that have actively done nothing in favor of the common guy.
Trump was a little kid who couldn't accept defeat, and Biden is a poisonous snake disguised as a caterpillar (and all the recent debacle about robbinhood and GME has proven so).
How about you guys mature a bit and realize that being a sucker for a particular political party without taking some time to check what they are actually doing behind the scenes is what has gotten the US to the point where Trump was seen as a viable leader.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> You guys still arguing over Trump vs Biden? That's like arguing if a kick in the stomach is better than a broken nose.
> It is so infantile to argue in favor of a group of people that have actively done nothing in favor of the common guy.
> Trump was a little kid who couldn't accept defeat, and Biden is a poisonous snake disguised as a caterpillar (and all the recent debacle about robbinhood and GME has proven so).
> How about you guys mature a bit and realize that being a sucker for a particular political party without taking some time to check what they are actually doing behind the scenes is what has gotten the US to the point where Trump was seen as a viable leader.


The "both sides are bad" platitude is immature and lazy. Trump and Biden aren't even close to comparable.


----------



## BvanBart (Feb 10, 2021)

Actually, he is number 45. Cleveland was twice in there ;-)


----------



## Acid_Snake (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The "both sides are bad" platitude is immature and lazy. Trump and Biden aren't even close to comparable.


How is it inmature to recognize the huge flaw of a two-party system that many modern democracies are already running away from?
Have you ever heard the term "oligarchy"? Please look it up (though I know you won't cause it doesn't fit the generic mainstream media narrative you've been spitting all this time like a damn printing machine).
Also, anyone who is allied with China is not a good idea for our society, you guys keep talking about fascism and Hitler yet you side with the biggest genocidal and bloodiest dictatorship that has ever existed. Have fun doing deals with Cuba and Venezuela (I'll be the one laughing when I see your cities turned into the living hell that those two countries are).


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> How is it inmature to recognize the huge flaw of a two-party system that many modern democracies are already running away from?
> Have you ever heard the term "oligarchy"? Please look it up (though I know you won't cause it doesn't fit the generic mainstream media narrative you've been spitting all this time like a damn printing machine).
> Also, anyone who is allied with China is not a good idea for our society, you guys keep talking about fascism and Hitler yet you side with the biggest genocidal and bloodiest dictatorship that has ever existed. Have fun doing deals with Cuba and Venezuela (I'll be the one laughing when I see your cities turned into the living hell that those two countries are).


ok but like
what the heck has biden even done yet pertaining to china
also even if every single bad thing people claim about biden is true, trump is so fucking horrible that *biden would still be the better option*
the two party system sucks, but that doesn't change the fact that trump is infinitely worse than biden could ever be


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> How is it inmature to recognize the huge flaw of a two-party system that many modern democracies are already running away from?
> Have you ever heard the term "oligarchy"? Please look it up (though I know you won't cause it doesn't fit the generic mainstream media narrative you've been spitting all this time like a damn printing machine).
> Also, anyone who is allied with China is not a good idea for our society, you guys keep talking about fascism and Hitler yet you side with the biggest genocidal and bloodiest dictatorship that has ever existed. Have fun doing deals with Cuba and Venezuela (I'll be the one laughing when I see your cities turned into the living hell that those two countries are).


You addressed nothing in your last post in this post. Take a breath and try again.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

It is hard to ask people to think for themselves, because if they find they have been lied to, the psyche would begin to crumble. It's a lot easier to accept the mind control and blindly obey. As I previously commented, some people prefer control over freedom. Some people would rather give socialism a try... but I do not believe they are willing to go to a communist country and give it a try.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It is hard to ask people to think for themselves, because if they find they have been lied to, the psyche would begin to crumble. It's a lot easier to accept the mind control and blindly obey. As I previously commented, some people prefer control over freedom. Some people would rather give socialism a try... but I do not believe they are willing to go to a communist country and give it a try.


make sure you wipe your mouth..still got a bit of cracker


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It is hard to ask people to think for themselves, because if they find they have been lied to, the psyche would begin to crumble. It's a lot easier to accept the mind control and blindly obey. As I previously commented, some people prefer control over freedom. Some people would rather give socialism a try... but I do not believe they are willing to go to a communist country and give it a try.


Don't act like you care about critical thinking. When you've spent the past couple of days espousing conspiracy theory nonsense, that ship has sailed.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Don't act like you care about critical thinking. When you've spent the past couple of days espousing conspiracy theory nonsense, that ship has sailed.



You know that is not the truth. You obviously take what I say out of context and make false claims about what I try to convey.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You know that is not the truth. You obviously take what I say out of context and make false claims about what I try to convey.


.. you sound like a Republican Senator..    arguing procedure  not substance.. because you aint got none.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You know that is not the truth. You obviously take what I say out of context and make false claims about what I try to convey.


Saying "I don't like Nancy Pelosi because she has family ties to the mob" is conspiratorial nonsense. You also espoused conspiratorial nonsense about the DC riots. Try again.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Saying "I don't like Nancy Pelosi because she has family ties to the mob" is conspiratorial nonsense. You also espoused conspiratorial nonsense about the DC riots. Try again.



Again, taking what I said out of context and creating your own narrative. Nice try, but the truth is in black and white.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Again, taking what I said out of context and creating your own narrative. Nice try, but the truth is in black and white.


I took nothing out of context. I just described what you said and did. You literally said Nancy Pelosi has family ties to the mob, and you don't like her because of it. That's a conspiracy theory.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I took nothing out of context. I just described what you said and did.



Why don't you actually quote my words? Because you know that is not what I said, and your false narrative will fall apart.

Keep showing your prejudice and unwillingness to have a civil discourse if you want.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Why don't you actually quote my words? Because you know that is not what I said, and your false narrative will fall apart.


Are you denying that you said Nancy Pelosi has family ties to the mob and that you don't like her because of it? If you are, it's easy to disprove your denial.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Are you denying that you said Nancy Pelosi has family ties to the mob and that you don't like her because of it? If you are, it's easy to disprove your denial.



Please, provide some proof. It is the one thing you have not been able to do during our entire conversation.

I never said the reason I do not like her is because her family mob ties. I have plenty of other reasons for not liking her, which is my god/law given right.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Let me help, because it is obvious you are in need. Here is my quote "What is right with her? I mean yeah, she doesn't look human... but if you look into her background, she has some questionable family ties. Mob relations."


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Please, provide some proof. It is the one thing you have not been able to do during our entire conversation.
> 
> I never said the reason I do not like her is because her family mob ties. I have plenty of other reasons for not liking her


Easy.


Lacius said:


> What's wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Wait, don't tell me: She's a reptilian humanoid who is also a pedophile?





tthousand said:


> if you look into her background, she has some questionable family ties. Mob relations.



This isn't the only conspiratorial nonsense your vomited into this thread. You seemed to suggest various conspiracy theories related to the Russia election meddling investigation, the riots on the Capitol, etc.

Also:


tthousand said:


> which is my god/law given right.


There is no evidence that a god exists. Your rights as an American come from the Constitution.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

@Lacius, you make this too easy.

I provided court evidence that the russian collusion was a hoax. Hard evidence.

I simply said the riots are being investigated, and that the investigation should be concluded before a trail begins... like it is supposed to be done.

You my friend on the other hand, have offered no substantial evidence to your claims. N O N E.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I provided court evidence that the russian collusion was a hoax. Hard evidence.


Russia objectively meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Clinton. Are you arguing that's not the case?



tthousand said:


> I simply said the riots are being investigated, and that the investigation should be concluded before a trail begins... like it is supposed to be done.


You suggested there was more going on than just Trump supporters, instigated by Trump, attacking the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the election results. Are you arguing that's that the case?

And again, you argued Nancy Pelosi has family ties to the mob, which is unsubstantiated conspiratorial nonsense.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

@Lacius

A) Yes, there is now HARD EVIDENCE available from the highest branches of the United States government that the Russian collusion hoax was actually created to throw shade on the Clinton email scandal, in an attempt to dissuade voters from electing Trump in 2016.

B) Again, please stop taking my word out of context. But yes, it has been proven already in courts and arrests that there were in fact anti-trump individuals inciting the violence. Not saying we have all the evidence yet (like the dems are), just saying there is more to the story then we know at this point. And we need to wait to see all the facts before forming an opinion.

C) Half correct. I only implied the "questionable" family connections. I did not say with 100% certainty that there is. Just as you do not have the knowledge to state for a fact there is 100% certainty there are not connections.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Russia objectively meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Clinton. Are you arguing that's not the case?
> 
> 
> You suggested there was more going on than just Trump supporters, instigated by Trump, attacking the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the election results. Are you arguing that's that the case?
> ...


yeah, he's pulling the motte and bailey argument again- claiming to be stating simple facts and then pushing forth with absurd nonsense
also, this absolute dumbass is claiming to have provided "hard evidence" when all he did was plop a link or two and refuse to use his words about any of it


tthousand said:


> @Lacius
> 
> A) Yes, there is now HARD EVIDENCE available from the highest branches of the United States government that the Russian collusion hoax was actually created to throw shade on the Clinton email scandal, in an attempt to dissuade voters from electing Trump in 2016.
> 
> ...


A) Then provide it. And not only provide it, but actually explain it this time instead of just plopping links. Until you actually prove your argument, it is by default a load of shit. (And the email scandal itself was used time and time again, months after it had already been resolved... TO DISTRACT PEOPLE FROM WHAT TRUMP WAS SAYING AND DOING. Hypocrite much?)
B) Those are your words IN context. And no, it really hasn't been proven. The one or two times people think that, it's because those people (like Jake Angeli) were also COUNTER-protesting at BLM rallies in an attempt _to incite violence there too._
C) Dude, stop pulling the motte and bailey. It's a load of crap and we all know it.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> @Lacius
> 
> A) Yes, there is now HARD EVIDENCE available from the highest branches of the United States government that the Russian collusion hoax was actually created to throw shade on the Clinton email scandal, in an attempt to dissuade voters from electing Trump in 2016.
> 
> ...


A is conspiratorial nonsense. B is conspiratorial nonsense. You said, with regard to C, that she had family ties to the mob. So that's both conspiratorial nonsense, and you're being disingenuous.

Oh, and we can't forget the conspiractory nightmare that is this post either. You suggested the existence of widespread voter fraud by Dominion, Biden, etc.



tthousand said:


> 1. There are several reasons as why a stolen election would be made official. A) The pressure from outside sources as confirmed in the recent Times magazine. B) People working in collusion, because they have too much to lose if Trump won. C) Like any Sting operation, you let the bad guy think they are getting away with the crime while you collect evidence... and possibly catch even more people in the trap that you did not expect to get caught.
> 
> 2. Again, there are several reasons why Biden would be acknowledged. A) These people are either in cahoots with him or his boss(es). B) Or these people know they have been caught, and playing along is part of the plea deal.
> 
> ...



As someone once said, you make this too easy.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A is conspiratorial nonsense. B is conspiratorial nonsense. You said, with regard to C, that she had family ties to the mob. So that's both conspiratorial nonsense, and you're being disingenuous.
> 
> Oh, and we can't forget the conspiractory nightmare that is this post either. You suggested the existence of widespread voter fraud by Dominion, Biden, etc.
> 
> ...


that last bit he said with the followers really hits me like a truck
like of course biden doesn't have millions of followers
he's a government official, not a cult leader
he doesn't need roving mobs to go wherever he goes, praise his every word, hold rallies in his name for no particular reason and irrationally defend him specifically as if he's some incorruptible saint that can do no wrong


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

A simple misunderstanding on your part @Lacius

I was providing my opinion on why the election "could" have been fraudulent. I am not claiming anything I stated in those quotes to be fact, simply providing a "what if" as was asked of me.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A simple misunderstanding on your part @Lacius
> 
> I was providing my opinion on why the election "could" have been fraudulent. I am not claiming anything I stated in those quotes to be fact, simply providing a "what if" as was asked of me.


That is not how that works.
This is the textbook definition of that motte-bailey argument I mentioned.
Pushing forward with a harder-to-accept argument, and then backing away like a coward and pretending it was something softer all along when you're challenged to prove it.
You have been CLAIMING these things, and then adamantly refusing to provide proper proof.
Don't pretend you aren't claiming anything.
If you aren't claiming anything, then don't post anything.
This isn't a thread for empty hypotheticals.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A simple misunderstanding on your part @Lacius
> 
> I was providing my opinion on why the election "could" have been fraudulent. I am not claiming anything I stated in those quotes to be fact, simply providing a "what if" as was asked of me.


You literally suggested that Dominion is creating lawsuits because they're guilty in the same way Epstein was. That's conspiratorial nonsense. There's no misunderstanding on my part, but thanks for trying your best.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You literally suggested that Dominion is creating lawsuits because they're guilty in the same way Epstein was. That's conspiratorial nonsense. There's no misunderstanding on my part, but thanks for trying your best.



In my opinion, that is what is happening. As for being false, that's your opinion. We can only wait and see what happens with this case.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In my opinion, that is what is happening. As for being false, that's your opinion. We can only wait and see what happens with this case.


And that's what's called "conspiratorial thinking." To accept a claim without having any evidence of that claim requires a suspension of critical thought and a suspension of skepticism. Your ridiculous behavior here is subject to ridicule, by definition. It's not personal.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In my opinion, that is what is happening. As for being false, that's your opinion. We can only wait and see what happens with this case.


First off, that's not how opinions work. You cannot have an opinion, peddle it as if it was fact and then claim it's just an opinion.
That's yet another motte and bailey.
Here's that motte-bailey thing I say a lot lately:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
The motte-and-bailey argument, named after the motte and bailey of a medieval castle, is a fallacious argument in which a person switches from a less defensible argument (the bailey) to a more sensible, agreeable interpretation (the motte) when necessary, and claims to have always been presenting the motte. They will then keep pushing forward with the bailey anyway.
Your baileys are the ideas that Dominion and Biden have committed voter fraud, that Pelosi has ties to the mob that make her untrustworthy, and that the Capitol riot was not entirely the fault of Trump and his supporters.
Your mottes are those, but phrased as vacuous hypotheticals or "mere opinions" to hide the fact that you actually believe things that stupid and insist on claiming them as if they were factual.
(See? The proper way to back up your argument is to provide sources _*and explain your argument with their help!*_)


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In my opinion, that is what is happening. As for being false, that's your opinion. We can only wait and see what happens with this case.





Plasmaster09 said:


> First off, that's not how opinions work. You cannot have an opinion, peddle it as if it was fact and then claim it's just an opinion.
> That's yet another motte and bailey.
> Here's that motte-bailey thing I say a lot lately:
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
> ...


Everyone has a right to their opinion, but no one has a right to their own facts.

It seems fitting that my last post got me to Level 23, right when we got him to admit to accepting a conspiracy theory as true.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Everyone has a right to their opinion, but no one has a right to their own facts.


Exactly- and before he has a chance to say "alternative facts", I'll quote something that applies a lot here.
What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.
What do you call alternative facts that are actually true? Facts.
"Alternative facts" and opinions peddled as such are, by their very definition, false if they have to be "alternative" to established truth.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

It's not hard to look back into the past and see why people create lawsuits against those who create them against them. It's really not arguable, but you guys are obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel for crumbs, because you have nothing else.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It's not hard to look back into the past and see why people create lawsuits against those who create them against them. It's really not arguable, but you guys are obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel for crumbs, because you have nothing else.


When you are the one making unsubstantiated claims, and you accept those claims to be true despite lack of evidence, don't say anybody else is "scraping the bottom of the barrel for crumbs." You're accomplishing nothing other than making yourself look laughably foolish.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> When you are the one making unsubstantiated claims, and you accept those claims to be true despite lack of evidence, don't say anybody else is "scraping the bottom of the barrel for crumbs." You're accomplishing nothing other than making yourself look laughably foolish.



Like I said, it's really not arguable. That is EXACTLY why people make counter-suits. It happens all the time. But you have your own opinions obviously... or at least someone's.

I should start calling you the reach-around boys, because you are constantly reaching here.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Like I said, it's really not arguable. That is EXACTLY why people make counter-suits. It happens all the time. But you have your own opinions obviously... or at least someone's.


You've gone far beyond "sometimes people make countersuits to obfuscate their guilt." You've accepted the claim that Dominion engaged in widespread voter fraud, and that's what they are doing. It's conspiratorial nonsense, and it's intellectually dishonest. You need to learn how to apply skepticism before getting up on your high horse about "asking questions" and "thinking critically," because (and I'm not sure how to make this seem nicer) you're honestly a joke at this point.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

@lacuis, that doesn't really mean much coming from you. You have showed your prejudice time and time again. But yeah, way to stick to a non-topic to throw shade on your own shortfalls you've demonstrated in this thread. Hoorayy!

Where is your proof that they were not involved in acceptable behavior?

There is a lot of court cases going on right now, and going to be happening. You probably are not paying attention, but the truth is slowly being revealed case by case.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> @lacuis, that doesn't really mean much coming from you. You have showed your prejudice time and time again. But yeah, way to stick to a non-topic to throw shade on your own shortfalls you've demonstrated in this thread. Hoorayy!


I have not shown any prejudice against anything other than unsubstantiated claims. That's because the only thing I care about is truth.



tthousand said:


> Where is your proof that they were not involved in acceptable behavior?


I suggest you learn what the shifting of the burden of proof logical fallacy is.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

@lacuis, you have shown you care about truth... your truths. Not to be confused with "the". All your talk with hardly a shred of evidence to support any of your claim, except for some national enquirer grade crap.


----------



## smf (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I do not see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either constitutional or just.



I can't see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either unconstitutional or unjust.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> @lacuis, you have shown you care about truth... your truths. Not to be confused with "the".


No, I only care about the truth.



tthousand said:


> All your talk with hardly a shred of evidence to support any of your claim, except for some national enquirer grade crap.


I haven't provided National Enquirer-grade crap. Actually, your unsubstantiated claims about widespread voter fraud, etc. are the kind of thing you would find in the National Enquirer. Once again, you're making a fool of yourself.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

A king of fools  It's got a nice ring to it.

BTW, I like this guy >> @smf, funny how the one from across the pond is the most sensible.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A king of fools


Wow I can see you like that title but Former President Trump already claimed it!
 but I can make some Titles for you if you want


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A king of fools  It's got a nice ring to it.
> 
> BTW, I like this guy >> @smf, funny how the one from across the pond is the most sensible.



Tag me or respond directly to my messages so I get notifications.
I don't think anybody called you the king of anything.
Being the king of fools is nothing to take pride in.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 10, 2021)

oh, hey, more proof of no voter fraud


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

Proof


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

...


tthousand said:


> Proof
> 
> View attachment 245974


man I miss MORVAN... at least he was entertaining, This guy acts like a Stuck up Troll


----------



## tthousand (Feb 10, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ...
> 
> man I miss MORVAN... at least he was entertaining, This guy acts like a Stuck up Troll



Sometimes you get what you give


----------



## djpannda (Feb 10, 2021)

... well I just took a poop and look..... you appeared...


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 10, 2021)

I said it once, And I'll say it again, and again, and again! *TUCK FRUMP!*


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Like I said, it's really not arguable. That is EXACTLY why people make counter-suits. It happens all the time. But you have your own opinions obviously... or at least someone's.
> 
> I should start calling you the reach-around boys, because you are constantly reaching here.


Dominion's suing for defamation because falsely claiming they instigated widespread election fraud is basically the most defamatory lie you could possibly make about a _voting machine company._
If they DIDN'T sue, these dumbfucks would take it as a sign they were right (somehow- you'll take it as a sign of fraud either way even though there literally is none) and spread the word, which would annihilate Dominion's reputation as a company for something they didn't do.
It's called basic logic. Try it some time.


tthousand said:


> @lacuis, that doesn't really mean much coming from you. You have showed your prejudice time and time again. But yeah, way to stick to a non-topic to throw shade on your own shortfalls you've demonstrated in this thread. Hoorayy!
> 
> Where is your proof that they were not involved in acceptable behavior?
> 
> There is a lot of court cases going on right now, and going to be happening. You probably are not paying attention, but the truth is slowly being revealed case by case.


IIRC there's been around sixty cases, and Trump's team of morons only managed to win ONE.
Besides, as we've said to plenty others, that's not how the burden of proof works.
You started by making the claim of voter fraud.
You must prove it with evidence and explanation.
End of story. Prove your point or fuck off.


----------



## smf (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Proof



Even if I believed that was real, it's not proof of anything.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Sometimes you get what you give


I don't remember giving a shit, so how on earth did we get you?


----------



## Lumstar (Feb 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Lots and lots of impossible feats happened during the 2020 elections. Too many coincidences to believe.
> 
> Here an actual quote from Uncle Joe himself...
> 
> *“We have put together one of the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organizations in the history of American politics.”*



I like it. Rename the GOP to "voter fraud organization".


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 10, 2021)

Lumstar said:


> I like it. Rename the GOP to "voter fraud organization".


Considering Trump's the one who outright encouraged his supporters to vote twice (allegedly _just_ for security purposes, but the actual intent there is about as subtle as a neon-painted brick up the ass), it'd fit quite nicely!


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 10, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Considering Trump's the one who outright encouraged his supporters to vote twice (allegedly _just_ for security purposes, but the actual intent there is about as subtle as a neon-painted brick up the ass), it'd fit quite nicely!



ooowww sounds kinky. LoL


----------



## Lumstar (Feb 10, 2021)

OldBoi said:


> ooowww sounds kinky. LoL



A fitting display for all the lawyers who tried to nullify the results.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 10, 2021)

No wonder tthousand likes trump, they both can't accept defeat


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 10, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> No wonder tthousand likes trump, they both can't accept defeat




Oh, they just like blowin' donald's trump__et. Oh look. they like have a foot fetish too. LoL


----------



## rensenware (Feb 10, 2021)

yall need a mental health break


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 10, 2021)

[Goes to the doctor, doctor give me a clean bill of health, and the freakin Bill] I'm ok. You okay there @jupitteer?


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 11, 2021)

jupitteer said:


> yall need a mental health break


I've been taking mental health breaks to recover lost IQ. Handling too many low level ideas for too long will eventually result in permanent brain damage. Says a study I made up.


----------



## ClancyDaEnlightened (Feb 11, 2021)




----------



## Deleted User (Feb 11, 2021)

aadz93 said:


>



So... We should be okay with 78% of Americans living pay check to paycheck... Not being able to afford surprise medical bills.
Or the fact there are people who just die... because they can't pay for insulin. Or the fact the minimum wage now is lower than the minimum wage then with inflation.



Regardless, saying "well it was worse back then. and we were angry" doesn't make a shit situation better. Biden likely won't address the deep systemic issues. He's a centrist, he's still in bed with corporations just like the rest. He will bring the status quo of 4 years ago. Marginally improve things, and that's that. The same status quo that brought us the previous president. the same status quo that still brought people struggling to pay healthcare. Until something is actually done about the healthcare system in the United States, people will avoid getting care they need, get sick, and have issues.And It's not just physical help. Mental health as well.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 11, 2021)

I gotta say, lurking and reading the last few days has been ... interesting. Arguments made by someone who tries to derail every discussion apparently by acting like a vapid airhead, another a zealot with seemingly no critical thinking skills. And on occasion a sprinkle of other flavors of crazy. And these folks wonder why they feel the world is against them.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You don't even know what research @smf allegedly did. You dismissed whatever research it was, without seeing it, solely because it was alleged that it contradicted what you had to say. You understand how ridiculous that is, right? You understand that you're the ridiculous one, right?
> 
> Given this information, I highly doubt you've contributed anything of value to any sort of real "news scene."


"When you have written as much news and contributed to the scene(s) as much as I have"

tthousand looks like he has a superiority complex. How dare you question me type of guy.


----------



## gamefan5 (Feb 11, 2021)

This thread is amazing. 
My god, to all the actual sane people that had to suffer reading and/or argue through all the nonsense, I salute all of you.

Because my god... I am speechless.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> And that's what's called "conspiratorial thinking." To accept a claim without having any evidence of that claim requires a suspension of critical thought and a suspension of skepticism. Your ridiculous behavior here is subject to ridicule, by definition. It's not personal.


Nobody likes the RNC, but hardlining for the DNC is definitely ridiculous.  There's plenty of evidence to cause a skeptic to think that the country that would rig other countries' elections would rig their own election.  But that's just an appeal to the authority.


Lacius said:


> Me: Dinosaurs are extinct.
> Tabzer: Ah, but the etymology of the word "dinosaur" is "big lizard," so by definition, you actually believe dinosaurs are not extinct.
> That's what you sound like, and that's what your semantic argument boils down to. I don't fucking care if you want to redefine the soul into existence. It's not how I was using the word, and it's not how it's popularly used by those who say "I will pray for your soul" in this country.
> 
> Respectfully, this kind of semantic "argument" is mind-numbingly boring. I don't care if you want to call what I was talking about a "glib glob" instead of a "soul."




There are right definitions, and there are wrong definitions.  What you demonstrate is that you don't care about the context of what a soul means via paper trail, but based on what other people say.  It's the same way that you use the words "evidence" "truth" and "facts".  You are appealing to popularity and not a reliable foundation.  Essentially you are of the camp that believes history is decided by the victor, and think that you are on the winning side.  Also, "terrible lizard" is more accurate, and also more interesting.  I pray for your soul.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Nobody likes the RNC, but hardlining for the DNC is definitely ridiculous.  There's plenty of evidence to cause a skeptic to think that the country that would rig other countries' elections would rig their own election.  But that's just an appeal to the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> There are right definitions, and there are wrong definitions.  What you demonstrate is that you don't care about the context of what a soul means via paper trail, but based on what other people say.  It's the same way that you use the words "evidence" "truth" and "facts".  You are appealing to popularity and not a reliable foundation.  Essentially you are of the camp that believes history is decided by the victor, and think that you are on the winning side.  Also, "terrible lizard" is more accurate, and also more interesting.  I pray for your soul.


There was nothing in your rebuttal that you couldn't say about the dinosaur example.

You should also understand that words don't have objective meanings. All that matters is how they're being used. Words are descriptive, not prescriptive.

You pray for me; I'll think for you.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There was nothing in your rebuttal that you couldn't say about the dinosaur example.



The paper trail of "soul", especially considering the context, trails into other languages that you resist culturing yourself with, and the word "dinosaur" is nearly a two-century year old invention in cultivating an independent story. 

You can reject facts, if you prefer to increase the divide instead.



Lacius said:


> I'll think for you.



Please do, and for everyone too.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The paper trail of "soul", especially considering the context, trails into other languages that you resist culturing yourself with, and the word "dinosaur" is nearly a two-century year old invention in cultivating an independent story.


I don't reject anything you've said about the etymology of the word, just like I wouldn't reject anything said about the etymology of the word dinosaur. You don't seem to realize that these things are equally irrelevant to their respective conversations, and I was hoping the dinosaur example would help you to see this.



tabzer said:


> Please do, and for everyone too.


What does it look like I'm doing?


----------



## tabzer (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You don't seem to realize that these things are equally irrelevant to their respective conversations, and I was hoping the dinosaur example would help you to see this.



Not equally irrelevant, because you didn't openly say that there is no evidence of dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs might still exist; it is a nice fantasy--did you want to talk about dinosaurs?



Lacius said:


> What does it look like I'm doing?



It looks like you are trying to "decide" for everyone.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Not equally irrelevant, because you didn't openly say that there is no evidence of dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs might still exist; it is a nice fantasy--did you want to talk about dinosaurs?


In both examples, you are trying to redefine X into existence. It's not much different from confronting an atheist by saying, "Well, I define God as the universe, so therefore, you believe in God." All three responses are equally irrelevant to the points being made.



tabzer said:


> Dinosaurs might still exist; it is a nice fantasy


The non-avian dinosaurs went extinct approximately 65 million years ago.



tabzer said:


> did you want to talk about dinosaurs?


I always want to talk about dinosaurs, but this isn't the place to do so.



tabzer said:


> It looks like you are trying to "decide" for everyone.


Somebody doesn't recognize a rhetorical joke when he sees one.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

smf said:


> I can't see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either unconstitutional or unjust.


Um... the fact that impeachments are for someone in office, and he's no longer in office? The fact that what he's being accused of is entirely the interpretation of his words, by those biased against him; the SAME "those" who did the same thing all summer while cities and police stations burned?

And the point being? They're afraid of him running again? Afraid he could win again if Biden fucks up (not at all far-fetched considering his first day in office lost 1,000 jobs on the Keystone pipeline, with an estimated 10,400 US jobs to be created for that project, not to mention the border wall construction jobs. https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/v...claim/77-8955155e-457d-4fc2-bbd9-35ea8df83ee3
That first day also sent gas prices on an upward spiral. a month or two ago I was paying less than $2.80 on base. A week after Biden signed those executive orders, I paid $3.08. Today, I paid $3.12... $4+ here we come!

Then there's the ingenious minimum wage hike that all socialist and most Democrats in general, think is a good idea. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/08/raising-minimum-wage-to-15-would-cost-1point4-million-jobs-cbo-says.html#:~:text=Raising minimum wage to $15 would cost 1.4 million jobs, CBO says,-Published Mon, Feb&text=A rise in the minimum,Congressional Budget Office said Monday.

900,000 lifted from poverty! Yay! While 1.4 MILLION lose their jobs completely. And you want to talk about how ridiculous it is to be paid so little.  Minimum wage jobs weren't meant to be careers. That's a whole other discussion though.

Back to the impeachment. Top goal is to prevent him from running for office again. So you want to talk about Democracy, and you're saying that if the majority of an election wants him back, we can't have him back? Highly doubtful that would happen anyway, but the concept is comical. The very definition of anti-democracy. Just as comical as all of the "Walls don't work" crap... and a wall (yea, you can call it a fence, but that's splitting hairs) with armed guards was erected pretty much overnight around that area.

No, I'm not really pro-Trump. But I'm definitely against 99% of the shit Democrats say and do (or don't do). Seriously, if you think there is no possible way he could run AND WIN again, then this impeachment after he is already out of office is just another waste of time and money. Congress might get shit done if they spent a fraction of the time and energy into fixing shit, as they do going after Trump. But instead, they inject stupid shit into spending bills that MUST get through or the government collapses, that has nothing to do with spending, because they know damn well it wouldn't be passed otherwise.  Example: Any form of Vape products will be illegal to send by mail starting in March. THIS was in the OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Um... the fact that impeachments are for someone in office, and he's no longer in office?


Impeachment can be used on someone who is no longer in office. We have precedent for it happening, and virtually every legal scholar agrees. It was almost comical when Trump's legal defense misquoted a legal scholar in a desperate attempt to find someone who would agree with them that someone out of office cannot be impeached. Try again.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> In both examples, you are trying to redefine X into existence



By saying this you are doing both of us a disservice.  I haven't redefined "soul" or "dinosaurs" and you know this.  You call it "redefined" because it is homework you elected not to do.  If you want to talk about deflection, this is a potent area.

Do you want to say that dinosaurs don't exist?



Lacius said:


> The non-avian dinosaurs went extinct approximately 65 million years ago.



It appears that you are the one that wants to say that dinosaurs still exist.



Lacius said:


> I always want to talk about dinosaurs, but this isn't the place to do so.



Half-good on you.



Lacius said:


> Somebody doesn't recognize a rhetorical joke when he sees one.



Usually jokes are funny and include the audience in on the joke.  It was passive at best.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Impeachment can be used on someone who is no longer in office. We have precedent for it happening, and virtually every legal scholar agrees. It was almost comical when Trump's legal defense misquoted a legal scholar in a desperate attempt to find someone who would agree with them that someone out of office cannot be impeached. Try again.


I didn't say he Cannot. I say it's a pointless waste of time and money. He isn't going to get a jail sentence. You afraid he'll get reelected in the future if not banned through impeachment? I don't see it. There's more important shit to worry about.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> I didn't say he Cannot.


You literally just argued it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president. Try again.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You literally just argued it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president. Try again.



NO, I responded to an either/or question. Nowhere in my response did I say it was unconstitutional. Nor anywhere else in this thread. You try again.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> By saying this you are doing both of us a disservice.  I haven't redefined "soul" or "dinosaurs" and you know this.


When you take what I meant when I used a particular word and redefine it so my statement is no longer true, that's _redefinition_, by definition. When I said soul, I meant the alleged immutable part of a human that lives on after death. When I said dinosaur, I meant the animals in the clade Dinosauria. These words are popularly used in this way. You're creating these semantic redefinition arguments to, what, get schooled again?



tabzer said:


> You call it "redefined" because it is homework you elected not to do.  If you want to talk about deflection, this is a potent area.


I already told you that I don't disagree with anything you've said about etymology. The problem is the etymology of the word can be irrelevant to how I use it, and it can be irrelevant to how the word is popularly used. Forgive me, but these 101 lessons I'm giving you are getting a little boring.



tabzer said:


> Do you want to say that dinosaurs don't exist?


Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist.



tabzer said:


> It appears that you are the one that wants to say that dinosaurs still exist.


Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist.



urherenow said:


> NO, I responded to an either/or question. Nowhere in my response did I say it was unconstitutional. Nor anywhere else in this thread. You try again.



Original post: "I don't see how someone could say this impeachment is unconstitutional."
You: "Because impeachments are for people in office."
Try again.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The problem is the etymology of the word can be irrelevant to how I use it, and it can be irrelevant to how the word is popularly used.



If you are looking for popularity, then maybe you should be supporting Trump?  If you want to talk about facts, it is a fact that you assumed that @tthousand was using the word "soul" in a way that is erroneous, and perhaps popular in your experience.  If you want to disenfranchise truth for whatever is "popular", then that is your prerogative.  Henceforth, it is reasonable to suggest that you are applying that same logic to the way you use other words, like "truth", "evidence" and "fact".  It doesn't appear that you have a consistent and relatable baseline other than "DNC forever!" which is dumb.



Lacius said:


> Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist.



Non-answer is still an answer.  Don't be ashamed.

It is almost bedtime for me, so I hope you can give me something to think about for next time.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> I didn't say he Cannot. I say it's a pointless waste of time and money. He isn't going to get a jail sentence. You afraid he'll get reelected in the future if not banned through impeachment? I don't see it. There's more important shit to worry about.


what makes you think 2024 will be the last year of democracy if he gets reelected he'll most undoubtivly will try another seize of power plus to let that asshole off the hook for sicking his "Loyal Mutts" on congress just is not even fit the term "not right" it's worse than that if no criminal charges are filed for inciting a riot iirc a felony then i'm sorry but the US is an utter failure of a country


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Original post: "I don't see how someone could say this impeachment is unconstitutional."
> You: "Because impeachments are for people in office."
> Try again.


Lol... partial quotes. Just like a dumbass Democrat with the impeachments. “OR UNJUST”, nitwit. Let’s forget that, and the “I don’t see how” and the “think”. And the fact that I explained the “how” without expressing that view myself.

 Try again. Then again, don’t. You’re spending too much time trying to project some type of superiority complex, when you’re actually showing your ignorance.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If you are looking for popularity


I'm talking about the descriptive usage of words. Don't be disingenuous.



tabzer said:


> If you are looking for popularity, then maybe you should be supporting Trump?


Biden won more votes than Trump and has significantly higher net approval ratings than Trump.



tabzer said:


> it is a fact that you assumed that @tthousand was using the word "soul" in a way that is erroneous


The soul as defined as the immutable part of a human that lives on after death is the wildly popular usage of the world, particularly with people who pray for people's souls. There is nothing erroneous about the way we're using it. Whether you use the word differently has no bearing on my original point.

Wait, are you arguing you don't believe in the existence of the soul as I'm using the word?



tabzer said:


> If you want to disenfranchise truth for whatever is "popular", then that is your prerogative.


Words are descriptive, not prescriptive. This statement here proves that you still haven't grasped that concept, or you wouldn't be talking about the "truth" of what a word means. The closest you can come to the "truth" of what a word means is how people are using it, lol.



tabzer said:


> It doesn't appear that you have a consistent and relatable baseline other than "DNC forever!" which is dumb.


I've never said "DNC forever." Perhaps you're the one making assumptions that are erroneous? (that was a rhetorical question, because you are).



tabzer said:


> Non-answer is still an answer.  Don't be ashamed.


I don't know what your point is here. I answered your question. Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist, and my dinosaur conversation example is perfectly analogous to what happened with the soul.

I feel no shame regarding anything I've said in this thread.



urherenow said:


> Lol... partial quotes.



OP: I can't see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either unconstitutional or unjust.
You: Um... the fact that impeachments are for someone in office, and he's no longer in office?
Try again, perhaps with fewer personal attacks like "dumbass Democrat" and "nitwit" that scream desperation. I'm sorry if I've gotten under your skin.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

There are 3 types of people: those who discus others, those who discuss events, and those who discuss ideas. I have always been the latter. I spend very little time discussing people or events, and always seem to get back to the big idea whenever I do. 

I do not blame anyone for not being able to do the same, but do not take cheap personal shots and make claim like you care for civil discourse. To paraphrase some of the posters in this thread, "It makes you look unintelligent".


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm talking about the descriptive usage of words. Don't be disingenuous.
> 
> 
> Biden won more votes than Trump and has significantly higher net approval ratings than Trump.
> ...


Sorry if you don’t understand English. No more time to tutor you. But yea, nitwit was name calling. And much deserved. “LIKE a dumbass Democrat”, however, is not. Unless you have a guilty conscience.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> There are 3 types of people: those who discus others, those who discuss events, and those who discuss ideas.


Most people discuss all three. How absurd.



tthousand said:


> I do not blame anyone for not being able to do the same, but do not take cheap personal shots and make claim like you care for civil discourse. To paraphrase some of the posters in this thread, "It makes you look unintelligent".


Don't confuse facts and rebuttals for a lack of discourse. I'm sorry your arguments are bad, but the feelings you have when someone rightfully points out your nonsense is not a sign that someone is being uncivil or making things personal.



tthousand said:


> To paraphrase some of the posters in this thread, "It makes you look unintelligent".


It is not a personal attack to rightfully point out when a foolish post makes you look foolish, by definition.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

@Lacius, you definitely fall into the 1st category. You almost make it to the 2nd, but I have seen no proof of you reaching the 3rd.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Sorry if you don’t understand English. No more time to tutor you. But yea, nitwit was name calling. And much deserved. “LIKE a dumbass Democrat”, however, is not. Unless you have a guilty conscience.


Hyperbolic statements like "you don't understand English" serve no purpose other than to make someone feel bad or deflect from your own bad arguments. In other words, a person who is hyperbolic like this is usually overcompensating.

Statements like "nitwit" and "just like a dumbass Democrat" are indeed name-calling, and they serve the same purposes I outlined above.

Try again.



tthousand said:


> @Lacius, you definitely fall into the 1st category. You almost make it to the 2nd, but I have seen no proof of you reaching the 3rd.


I talk about policy, my preferred political conversation topic, whenever possible. Your statement is laughably absurd and easily disproved by the record. Your overgeneralization, like most overgeneralizations, is without evidence.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Hyperbolic statements like "you don't understand English" serve no purpose other than to make someone feel bad or deflect from your own bad arguments. In other words, a person who is hyperbolic like this is usually overcompensating.
> 
> Statements like "nitwit" and "just like a dumbass Democrat" are indeed name-calling, and they serve the same purposes I outlined above.
> 
> ...


In English, the use of “like” is called a simile. Hyperbolic, describes every single one of your posts for the last several pages. You have yet to argue against a single one of my actual thoughts, except to INCORRECTLY state that I said the impeachment was unconstitutional. Still never said that.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> In English, the use of “like” is called a simile. Hyperbolic, describes every single one of your posts for the last several pages. You have yet to argue against a single one of my actual thoughts, except to INCORRECTLY state that I said the impeachment was unconstitutional. Still never said that.


The hyperbole refers to the "you don't understand English" part. That was clearly stated. I also substantively responded to your comment about the impeachment being for sitting presidents. Try again.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Feb 11, 2021)

Why does this thread keep getting suggested to me


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The hyperbole refers to the "you don't understand English" part. That was clearly stated. I also substantively responded to your comment about the impeachment being for sitting presidents. Try again.


This again...

That was an answer to “how” people “think”. It was not a statement. The statement, was the rest. The last paragraph, especially. I’d try again, but you’re a brick wall. <- and that’s called a metaphor


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Why does this thread keep getting suggested to me


I assume users are getting thread suggestions based on where I grace the world with my posts, and I post here a lot.



urherenow said:


> This again...
> 
> That was an answer to “how” people “think”. It was not a statement. I’d try again, but you’re a brick wall. <- and that’s called a metaphor


Why are you trying to teach me, someone who taught English for years, about figurative language when you misread what I did or didn't call hyperbole? I clearly and demonstrably wasn't the one who made the mistake. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I assume users are getting thread suggestions based on where I grace the world with my posts, and I post here a lot.


We already know Biden is the president, we don't need it on repeat


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> We already know Biden is the president, we don't need it on repeat


Based on some people's posts, the reminder is needed.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Based on some people's posts, the reminder is needed.


Yeah, i guess that's fair


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

ngl all the similarities kinda make me think that tthousand is the new burner account of either one of the previously banned guys or this new urherenow guy
there's like three basic types of trumpnut here
1) the omeganut- people like frankfort and tthousand with an ego roughly the size of the moon and a specific kind of argument-dodging that basically amounts to going "I never said that" any time someone disproves something they did, in fact, say
2) the intermediary snob- people like supra and tabzer that aren't quite as batshit but clearly think they're always the smartest person in the room, and then proceed to spout insults and absurdities that disprove that almost immediately
3) the raging toddler- most of the rest of them, really, including urherenow, that show up and spout self-contradictory nonsense with no respect for logic, reason, reality, the literal meanings of the things they say, basic spelling, basic grammar or other users


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ngl all the similarities kinda make me think that tthousand is the new burner account of either one of the previously banned guys or this new urherenow guy
> there's like three basic types of trumpnut here
> 1) the omeganut- people like frankfort and tthousand with an ego roughly the size of the moon and a specific kind of argument-dodging that basically amounts to going "I never said that" any time someone disproves something they did, in fact, say
> 2) the intermediary snob- people like supra and tabzer that aren't quite as batshit but clearly think they're always the smartest person in the room, and then proceed to spout insults and absurdities that disprove that almost immediately
> 3) the raging toddler- most of the rest of them, really, including urherenow, that show up and spout self-contradictory nonsense with no respect for logic, reason, reality, the literal meanings of the things they say, basic spelling, basic grammar or other users


New urherenow guy? Dude, you haven’t even been here a year. And there have been zero rebuttals of anything I said, except for the very first line. Just someone who should be embarrassed to admit that he taught English for years, but doesn’t seem to know how to interpret two posts, when the original statement was quoted in its entirety, above the reply. Then following up with a cherry-picked “quote” of the same line.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> New urherenow guy? Dude, you haven’t even been here a year. And there have been zero rebuttals of anything I said, except for the very first line. Just someone who should be embarrassed to admit that he taught English for years, but doesn’t seem to know how to interpret two posts, when the original statement was quoted in its entirety, above the reply. Then following up with a cherry-picked “quote” of the same line.


I mean new to this thread
you've been on gbatemp for almost twelve years, but picked now as the time to butt in and do many things, none of which are actually contributing to the conversation in a productive manner
and of course there haven't been actual rebuttals to things you've said- when a loaf of bread gets moldy and someone pisses on the already moldy bread, you toss the loaf in the trash instead of trying to salvage the mess!


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

I hear you @urherenow 

As for those wishing to focus on non-issues while not facing the arguments as a whole, their biased is shown. I could say, "try again", but that would just come off as annoying, arrogant, and pompous. 

I appreciate those willing to speak their minds in the face of intolerance. 

For anyone thinking this farce of an impeachment has any hope of doing any damage to Trump is delusional. It will end up being a nothing burger just like the Russian hoax. It is simply a political tactic to further divide this nation and sway focus from what really matters. At the end of the day, it is seen as a complete waste of tax payer money. 

This is not a win for America, it is a win for the CCP and elite bankers.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I hear you @urherenow
> 
> As for those wishing to focus on non-issues while not facing the arguments as a whole, their biased is shown. I could say, "try again", but that would just come off as annoying, arrogant, and pompous.
> 
> ...


w h a t
you and tabzer have been trying to derail this thread for several pages
in fact, you guys tried to derail it (because of your refusal to properly explain your argument) and then you had the audacity to make a new thread "since things had gone off topic"
this impeachment isn't a "nothing-burger"- hopefully it can lead to convicting Trump for all the horrible shit he's done- and neither was the Russian 'hoax', which there is demonstrable actual evidence of
also, you keep trying to link Biden to China somehow without ever bothering to explain how he's actually connected to China in any way, shape or form
prove your own damn argument WHEN you claim it, not after, and don't act like it's our job to disprove it and not yours to prove it


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> w h a t
> you and tabzer have been trying to derail this thread for several pages
> in fact, you guys tried to derail it (because of your refusal to properly explain your argument) and then you had the audacity to make a new thread "since things had gone off topic"
> this impeachment isn't a "nothing-burger"- hopefully it can lead to convicting Trump for all the horrible shit he's done- and neither was the Russian 'hoax', which there is demonstrable actual evidence of
> ...



This impeachment is wrong in too many ways. The Russian hoax has been proven to be a product of deep state manipulation. And what do you mean keep trying to link Biden and China together?

As for civil discourse, I do not believe I will be taking any advice from you. When an artist gives you a painting, there is no law saying he has to tell you exactly what it means. You can take away what ever you want from it. Speaking of which...


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> This impeachment is wrong in too many ways. The Russian hoax has been proven to be a product of deep state manipulation. And what do you mean keep trying to link Biden and China together?
> 
> As for civil discourse, I do not believe I will be taking any advice from you. When an artist gives you a painting, there is no law saying he has to tell you exactly what it means. You can take away what ever you want from it. Speaking of which...
> 
> View attachment 246127


I'm not giving advice, I'm stating how an actual argument works
Whoever makes a claim... has to prove it themselves
Provide evidence, explain, etc.
That's literally just how things work.
If you do not do it, your argument is by default invalid because there literally is no argument- just some guy that acts like he has a superiority complex of celestial proportions spouting baseless conspiracies with zero fact involved.
Also...
"Deep state manipulation" meaning what, exactly? You haven't exactly cited anything regarding that either.
And by "link Biden and China together", I mean that you keep claiming that Biden is either tied to China or that his decisions will benefit the CCP specifically, and haven't provided a lick of evidence for it.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I'm not giving advice, I'm stating how an actual argument works
> Whoever makes a claim... has to prove it themselves
> Provide evidence, explain, etc.
> That's literally just how things work.
> ...



I provided official government evidence on the deep state manipulation of the Russian hoax previously. But here it is again >> https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation
As for my needing to hold you hand and walk you through the evidence, that is not my responsibility. This is not the court of law, it is the court of public opinion. 

Those who wish to seek the truth now have the tools. Those that do not, well, my time would be wasted on them anyways.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

I have made no claims that Biden is tied to China. But I think we can all agree the CCP would love to see Trump impeached.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> This impeachment is wrong in too many ways. The Russian hoax has been proven to be a product of deep state manipulation. And what do you mean keep trying to link Biden and China together?
> 
> As for civil discourse, I do not believe I will be taking any advice from you. When an artist gives you a painting, there is no law saying he has to tell you exactly what it means. You can take away what ever you want from it. Speaking of which...
> 
> View attachment 246127


Thank god everything in this image is labeled, I didn't know what I was looking at


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I provided official government evidence on the deep state manipulation of the Russian hoax previously. But here it is again >> https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation
> As for my needing to hold you hand and walk you through the evidence, that is not my responsibility. This is not the court of law, it is the court of public opinion.
> 
> Those who wish to seek the truth now have the tools. Those that do not, well, my time would be wasted on them anyways.
> ...


...Dude. Either you actually make a proper argument, or you're spouting baseless bullshit and have no right to peddle said bullshit as if it was fact. That is how things work, and that is not a matter of opinion.
The link you provided (with zero explanation to boot) doesn't actually seem to support your argument- if anything, it contains evidence that there WAS Russian meddling! This is why you have to actually provide explanation of your sources!
And lastly, I have a feeling the CCP would arguably want to keep Trump in power- the more incompetent and unstable the US as a whole is due to his rule, the better off they are.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> New urherenow guy? Dude, you haven’t even been here a year. And there have been zero rebuttals of anything I said, except for the very first line. Just someone who should be embarrassed to admit that he taught English for years, but doesn’t seem to know how to interpret two posts, when the original statement was quoted in its entirety, above the reply. Then following up with a cherry-picked “quote” of the same line.


You incorrectly argued the impeachment might not be constitutional because it's for removing sitting presidents.

You're the one arguing about English while being unable to recognize what I am or am not calling hyperbole.

I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient for you.

Next time, have the courage to tag me or respond to my post directly.


----------



## smf (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Um... the fact that impeachments are for someone in office, and he's no longer in office?



That isn't a fact.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516

Other than "I don't want Trump to be impeached", what reason do you have for thinking that impeachment should not be an option once he leaves office?


----------



## djpannda (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> This impeachment is wrong in too many ways. The Russian hoax has been proven to be a product of deep state manipulation. And what do you mean keep trying to link Biden and China together?
> 
> As for civil discourse, I do not believe I will be taking any advice from you. When an artist gives you a painting, there is no law saying he has to tell you exactly what it means. You can take away what ever you want from it. Speaking of which...
> 
> View attachment 246127


hey look I can put up cartoons also...
but the only different mine is an "actual quote" ..


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

smf said:


> That isn't a fact.
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516


How ironic that that example ultimately resulted in acquittal due to... a bunch of idiots that didn't realize that impeachment has no reason to be stopped due to leave of office, or else people would use resignation to escape punishment.


----------



## smf (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> How ironic that that example ultimately resulted in acquittal due to... a bunch of idiots that didn't realize that impeachment has no reason to be stopped due to leave of office, or else people would use resignation to escape punishment.



They impeached him, they didn't convict him. I don't think any president has ever actually been convicted, I'm sure they'll come up with whatever cope to avoid it.

But you need to be on the right side of this and when traitors like Trump/Q/the rest of Trumps supporters behave like this then something has to be done about it, even if people are too scared of doing the right thing.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

djpannda said:


> hey look I can put up cartoons also...
> but the only different mine is an "actual quote" ..


Here's Trump's response to Russian bounties on American soldiers:


Spoiler


----------



## USUKDecks (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I provided official government evidence on the deep state manipulation of the Russian hoax previously. But here it is again >> https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation
> As for my needing to hold you hand and walk you through the evidence, that is not my responsibility. This is not the court of law, it is the court of public opinion.
> 
> Those who wish to seek the truth now have the tools. Those that do not, well, my time would be wasted on them anyways.
> ...




It's funny that you quote twain while ACTUALLY  having that very thing done to you by traitor trump and republicans who want to do away with democracy.

So let me get this straight ... your proof is from Lindsay Graham?????  A racist trump extremist like YOU?
This is like asking the Manson girls if Charles Manson is a great human being and then pointing out all the
reasons they gave you as proof that he is.  OF COURSE THEY'RE GONNA SIDE WITH HIM.

So posting something from graham is stupid, retarded and did I mention stupid? Being that he's a trumpTard just like you and the rest of his sheeple.

You're a typical ignorant oaf, but you ARE gonna get your wish, because this democracy will fall. Trump already exposed all of the selfish, idiot , racist , traitorous people that live in this country and who hold office. So its only a matter of time before these people win because they are a cancer and much like cancer stupidity has no cure.

The amazing thing is that YOU think trump actually cares about YOU. He doesn't, over and over and over again he has cast away people close to him if they only do ONE thing he doesn't like, which is what a DICKtator does. He has done nothing for you and the ONLY people that reaped rewards during his 4 years were corporations and the rich you got nothing.

And in history there has never, ever , EVER been a time, that under authoritarian rule... the people actually benefited and or prospered. Since you like looking for "truth" go ahead ... look.

This is how it will go down:

trump (or the next trump wanna be) will try again to remove free speech. He couldn't legally get free speech removed so he did the next best thing and just said "fake news" after the facts.
So anyway,  Once free speech is removed, they will change election, rules and laws and just remove them all together.

At some point when you dipshits realize your mistake, he/they will disarm you by banning weapons sales. Because after all the constitution is just words on paper and to a dictator that means nothing. They don't want you to rise up! They best way to do that is to take away your precious guns.

A military like regime will be instituted --  and that's it.   But you dopes really think, that trumps madness of power means he's gonna be nice to you and reward YOU? lmao... he needs you to be his pawns and die for him so he can get his power , after that, he'll bend you, your kids, your grand kids...etc over and fuk you all. Because history has already proven, thats how it goes with power hungry dicks. And it'll be your fault.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

LOL... the left wing, hate mob claims they are a party of diversity, but if you do not fall in line to the narrative you are treated like the Jewish people in Germany in WW2. The true emeny of free speech is clear to most of the world. Our first two amendments are actively attacked with the support of pedowood and big tech, all with the support of the demoRat party. If you want proof, you only need to step out of your mental box.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 11, 2021)

USUKDecks said:


> It's funny that you quote twain while ACTUALLY  having that very thing done to you by traitor trump and republicans who want to do away with democracy.
> 
> So let me get this straight ... your proof is from Lindsay Graham?????  A racist trump extremist like YOU?
> This is like asking the Manson girls if Charles Manson is a great human being and then pointing out all the
> ...


Being from the Northwest, I've seen more than one example of folks saying things like, "Trump will get the [insert local goods production here] plant working again!" And in pretty much _every single instance_, nothing. Not a thing came of those promises, Trump never even set foot near lots of those places. I just don't get the obsession over an orange dude who breaks just about every promise he'd made, and hanging on to every word like it came from God Himself. To say nothing of all the other horrible shit he did and does.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> LOL... the left wing, hate mob claims they are a party of diversity, but if you do not fall in line to the narrative you are treated like the Jewish people in Germany in WW2. The true emeny of free speech is clear to most of the world. Our first two amendments are actively attacked with the support of pedowood and big tech, all with the support of the demoRat party. If you want proof, you only need to step out of your mental box.


I... WHAT?!
I'm pretty sure you just literally shat out any possible credibility you had left, flushed it, and then turned to this thread and bent down to let loose the ensuing remainder of gruesome ass-bile into that post.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> LOL... the left wing, hate mob claims they are a party of diversity


They are the party of diversity.



tthousand said:


> but if you do not fall in line to the narrative you are treated like the Jewish people in Germany in WW2.


That's nonsense.



tthousand said:


> The true emeny of free speech is clear to most of the world. Our first two amendments are actively attacked with the support of pedowood and big tech


Donald J. Trump has attacked the free press how many times? Which constitutional right did Trump violate by tear gassing peaceful protestors so he could stage a photograph while holding the Bible?



tthousand said:


> all with the support of the demoRat party.


You're hypocritical partisanship is an utter joke. I literally laughed.



tthousand said:


> If you want proof, you only need to step out of your mental box.


Said the conspiracy theorist who accepts claims without evidence.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I... WHAT?!
> I'm pretty sure you just literally shat out any possible credibility you had left, flushed it, and then turned to this thread and bent down to let loose the ensuing remainder of gruesome ass-bile into that post.



I am not concerned with credibility in a hate mob.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I'm pretty sure you just literally shat out any possible credibility you had left


As my great-grandmother always said, "You can't shit out what you never had in you in the first place."



tthousand said:


> I am not concerned with credibility


I am not surprised.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I am not concerned with credibility in a hate mob.


Of course you aren't.
Especially when it's a hate mob you're *part of.*


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Of course you aren't.
> Especially when it's a hate mob you're *part of.*



It is clear in this thread where the hate is coming from.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It is clear in this thread where the hate is coming from.


Said the guy who made hateful comments about gay people and called the Democratic Party a party of rats.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It is clear in this thread where the hate is coming from.


Considering which one of us derailed the conversation for several pages rather than present a proper argument, create another thread and STILL not present one there either, blame it on everyone else rather than provide and explain evidence and then suddenly burst into an extraordinarily hyperbolic and hypocritical hate-rant...
you're right, but for the wrong reasons.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 11, 2021)

.. how come its always the Sexist and Racist, who wants to give ( Far Right) Conspiracy Theories a chance?.. edited... Lizard people have nothing to do with sexist...!


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You incorrectly argued the impeachment might not be constitutional because it's for removing sitting presidents.
> 
> You're the one arguing about English while being unable to recognize what I am or am not calling hyperbole.
> 
> ...



Go ahead and try again to quote me, where I said “unconstitutional”. I’ve correctly tagged you several times, and explained my reply several times. Didn’t happen.



smf said:


> That isn't a fact.
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516
> 
> Other than "I don't want Trump to be impeached", what reason do you have for thinking that impeachment should not be an option once he leaves office?


Asked and answered. Try reading my entire post. It will accomplish next to nothing, while there are more important things that need to be done. Trump is done. Get over it already. I would have noticed this thread long ago, if I wasn’t...


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Go ahead and try again to quote me, where I said “unconstitutional”. I’ve correctly tagged you several times, and explained my reply several times. Didn’t happen.



OP: Why would someone think this is unconstitutional?
You: Here's why.
Try again.


urherenow said:


> Asked and answered. Try reading my entire post. It will accomplish next to nothing, while there are more important things that need to be done. Trump is done. Get over it already. I would have noticed this thread long ago, if I wasn’t...


Trump needs to be held accountable for instigating an armed insurrection against the Capitol. If he's not, that sets a dangerous precedent that the month of January is basically a "get away with anything" month for lame duck presidents. Oh, and if he's convicted, Trump can be barred from running for office again.

Try again.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Go ahead and try again to quote me, where I said “unconstitutional”. I’ve correctly tagged you several times, and explained my reply several times. Didn’t happen.
> 
> 
> Asked and answered. Try reading my entire post. It will accomplish next to nothing, while there are more important things that need to be done. Trump is done. Get over it already. I would have noticed this thread long ago, if I wasn’t...


You started by defending tthousand's illogical assertion that the impeachment would be unconstitutional.
Doesn't matter if you didn't say it specifically, you stepped into this thread to team up with him on that point and that argument. (Though I can't really call it an argument when tthousand still adamantly refuses to make an actual proper argument...)
And no, Trump isn't done.
He's not done until he's been impeached, convicted and is rotting in jail for the countless crimes he's committed.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Sigh... again with the partial quotes. Is EVERYONE with TDS a brick wall? Sounds like it. All I see is a bunch of the same rhetoric that has been pushed since before he was even inaugurated. No, he is not going to do jail time. I would quite enjoy seeing him actually do jail time, if every single Democrat who encouraged and praised the riots that occurred all summer, destroying businesses, buildings, burning police stations, shooting little kids in the face... all go to jail too.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I... WHAT?!
> I'm pretty sure you just literally shat out any possible credibility you had left, flushed it, and then turned to this thread and bent down to let loose the ensuing remainder of gruesome ass-bile into that post.



NOW THIS IS SIGNATURE WORTHY


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Sigh... again with the partial quotes. Is EVERYONE with TDS a brick wall? Sounds like it. All I see is a bunch of the same rhetoric that has been pushed since before he was even inaugurated. No, he is not going to do jail time. I would quite enjoy seeing him actually do jail time, if every single Democrat to encouraged and praised the riots that occurred all summer, destroying businesses, buildings, burning police stations, shooting little kids in the face... all go to jail too.


Did you or didn't you argue that impeachment was just for sitting presidents?


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Did you or didn't you argue that impeachment was just for sitting presidents?


I did not. I explained  how people would “think that it is unconstitutional OR UNJUST” then I wrapped it up by stating that MY thoughts were that it’s a waste of time, and there are more important things to worry about.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

urherenow said:


> I did not. I explained  how people would “think that it is unconstitutional OR UNJUST”


So you think impeachment of Trump is constitutional then? It's for former presidents too?


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

Funny how the same people screaming 2016 election was tampered with claim with 100% certainty that 2020 has no tampering. And those are the same to claim there was no problem with violence, destruction and murder over the summer, but want to take a stand against someone who did not directly promote violence... but remember, they actually did with their words.

The real people behind the insurrection are the media and politicians who constantly attacked Trump and his supporters for 4 years.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> So you think impeachment of Trump is constitutional then? It's for former presidents too?


Well, sure. If it’s a “high crime or misdemeanor”. The same article about the precedent being used to justify this waste of time, also mentions another case where the successor simply pardoned the last guy. Just like Trump, he didn’t really deserve a pardon, but it was the only way to put a stop to the BS and get the Congress back on task.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Funny how the same people screaming 2016 election was tampered with claim with 100% certainty that 2020 has no tampering. And those are the same to claim there was no problem with violence, destruction and murder over the summer, but want to take a stand against someone who did not directly promote violence... but remember, they actually did with their words.
> 
> The real people behind the insurrection are the media and politicians who constantly attacked Trump and his supporters for 4 years.





djpannda said:


> .. how come its always the Sexist and Racist, who wants to give ( Far Right) Conspiracy Theories a chance?.. edited... Lizard people have nothing to do with sexist...!


HEY looks its a duck....QUACK QUACK MF


----------



## tthousand (Feb 11, 2021)

A message to corrupt politicians...






and to the rest of us...


----------



## Lacius (Feb 11, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Funny how the same people screaming 2016 election was tampered with


Russia definitively and demonstrably meddled with the 2016 election to benefit Trump and hurt Clinton.



tthousand said:


> claim with 100% certainty that 2020 has no tampering.


There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and when it comes to some specific claims, we have evidence disproving widespread voter fraud.



tthousand said:


> And those are the same to claim there was no problem with violence, destruction and murder over the summer, but want to take a stand against someone who did not directly promote violence


Trump has a long history of encouraging violence. Trump repeatedly peddled lies and bullshit about widespread election fraud. Trump told his mob of supporters to march to the Capitol, he told them to never concede, and he told them they wouldn't be able to take their country back with weakness.



tthousand said:


> The real people behind the insurrection are the media and politicians who constantly attacked Trump and his supporters for 4 years.


Trump and his allies are 100% responsible for the insurrection. It was the Trump people who got the permits for going to the Capitol. There was no plan to go to the Capitol until Trump brought it up.



urherenow said:


> Well, sure. If it’s a “high crime or misdemeanor”.


It is. I'm glad to hear you've changed your mind and admit the impeachment trial is constitutional. Former presidents can indeed be impeached.



urherenow said:


> The same article about the precedent being used to justify this waste of time, also mentions another case where the successor simply pardoned the last guy. Just like Trump, he didn’t really deserve a pardon, but it was the only way to put a stop to the BS and get the Congress back on task.


What are you talking about specifically?


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Considering which one of us derailed the conversation for several pages rather than present a proper argument, create another thread


You know I'm checked out of this section, when I didn't even know that thread was made.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Said the guy who made hateful comments about gay people and called the Democratic Party a party of rats.


"But you guys called me out for being wrong, so you're the true mean ones"


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 11, 2021)

So let me get this straight. A guy sending a mob, that stormed the capital to kill certain leaders, and we both know if it wasn't for trump, this wouldn't happen, THAT THIS is okay?
But some guy back in the early 2000s having an affair is not? Even though... the same guy... that sent a mob to the captail also had an... affair... with a porn star....




See none of this fucking make sense. You have one guy who fucked another person who wasn't their wife. And we had a shit show over that. But then when a different guy, who does it early on does the same thing, and then sends angry mob screaming and shouting to kill certain leaders. That it is somehow different and not as bad? Hell it should be considered worse for obvious reasons
_Well yes, of course, 1+2 equals 0. Didn't you know that? this is the reality we live in. 1+0 = 4 for all I know at this point._


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So let me get this straight. A guy sending a mob, that stormed the capital to kill certain leaders, and we both know if it wasn't for trump, this wouldn't happen, THAT THIS is okay?
> But some guy back in the early 2000s having an affair is not? Even though... the same guy... that sent a mob to the captail also had an... affair... with a porn star....
> 
> 
> ...


No, 1 + 2 = 0 is far too sensible.
Perhaps cheeseburger + fuchsia = spleen^cardboard.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> No, 1 + 2 = 0 is far too sensible.
> Perhaps cheeseburger + fuchsia = spleen^cardboard.


Nah, not batshit enough, this example(credit goes to rationalwiki) works better


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 11, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Nah, not batshit enough, this example(credit goes to rationalwiki) works better
> View attachment 246195


At least these idiots haven't gone in depth into the vast pyramid of horsecrap that is QAnon, which I bet they each believe at least 60% of. That makes this equation look like finger-counting.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

tthousand said:


> LOL... the left wing, hate mob claims they are a party of diversity, but if you do not fall in line to the narrative you are treated like the Jewish people in Germany in WW2. The true emeny of free speech is clear to most of the world. Our first two amendments are actively attacked with the support of pedowood and big tech, all with the support of the demoRat party. If you want proof, you only need to step out of your mental box.


so I was thinking about this absolute verbal-digital _*atomic fungus-shart*_ of a post
and I was having some odd deja vu
and then it hit me
of course I'm having deja vu, I KNOW this style of speech
grammar and spelling worse than the average kindergartener, horrendous analogies and abuse of hyperbole, spamming a vast amount of individual baseless accusations and conspiracies like Alex Jones on crack cope-caine, about three gallons of superiority complex and ten pounds of hypocrisy...
this is frankfort!
I had a feeling since he first showed up, but tthousand is almost DEFINITELY frankfort coming back with a second burner- learning his lesson from last time and trying evasive maneuvers at first since he has no real argument, but snapping and showing his true colors when he's shut down and asked to prove his point for real!


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 12, 2021)

you know it's depressing when a group of people are so bat shit insane on "owning the libs" that they would not only be banned, but then comeback on a different account.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> you know it's depressing when a group of people are so bat shit insane on "owning the libs" that they would not only be banned, but then comeback on a different account.


especially considering the reason frankfort got banned was for outright saying he would try to make Democrats' lives hell for the next four years, which is literally only possibly interpretable as a threat
like they're so obsessed with thinking they're right about everything that they'd not only systematically doublethink themselves up their own asses, but threaten vast swathes of other users by political affiliation and then try to break forum rules just to be a dick for a little longer


----------



## tthousand (Feb 12, 2021)

So we got some coincidence believing atheists who are actually the opidimity of everything they claim to stand against. Just call me the 2nd coming from now on. LOL

If you guys could grow up and stop acting like little whiney brats, we could have some REAL fun.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

tthousand said:


> So we got some coincidence believing atheists who are actually the opidimity of everything they claim to stand against. Just call me the 2nd coming from now on. LOL
> 
> If you guys could grow up and stop acting like little whiney brats, we could have some REAL fun.


first of all, atheism has nothing to do with this
second of all, I wasn't the one shitting out a megarant earlier
third of all, epitome*
please don't use big-boy words you can't spell, it doesn't make you look any smarter


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

tthousand said:


> So we got some coincidence believing atheists who are actually the opidimity of everything they claim to stand against. Just call me the 2nd coming from now on. LOL
> 
> If you guys could grow up and stop acting like little whiney brats, we could have some REAL fun.


Do you mean *epitome*?

Edit: Also, just today, you've disparaged both a sexual minority and a religious minority. I truly don't believe this guy is serious.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 12, 2021)

I rest my case...


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I rest my case...


What case? That you're a bigot?


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 12, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If you guys could grow up and stop acting like little whiney brats, we could have some REAL fun.


_oh I'm sorry. I didn't know that I was being whiny. you know, the word you somehow misspelled. Yeah that word._
But yeah, I didn't know I was whiny. Please teach me on how 2+2 = 2 but also equals 4 at the same time. I really want to know your answer on that. Since if two presidents cheated on their wife. But one loses their career due to it, and the other doesn't. well... it really is just like this situation I stated isn't it? A different rule book for a different person for the same action and same context.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> _oh I'm sorry. I didn't know that I was being whinny. you know, the word you somehow misspelled. Yeah that word._
> But yeah, I didn't know I was whinny. Please teach me on how 2+2 = 2 but also equals 4 at the same time. I really want to know your answer on that. Since if two presidents cheated on their wife. But one looses their career due to it, and the other doesn't. well... it really is just like this situation I stated isn't it? A different rule book for a different person for the same action and same context.


before tthousand can take a cheap shot:
whiny*, loses*


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 12, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> before tthousand can take a cheap shot:
> whiny*, loses*


rip,welp, time for me to go in a hole now.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> rip,welp, time for me to go in a hole now.


at least you aren't Bruce Castor
that guy fucked up his defense so unfathomably badly that if I was Trump, I'd make some witty quip like "with friends like these, _who needs _*enemas*"... or I would if not for the fact that me being Trump would necessitate a complete lack of brain matter


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 12, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> at least you aren't Bruce Castor
> that guy fucked up his defense so unfathomably badly that if I was Trump, I'd make some witty quip like "with friends like these, _who needs _*enemas*"... or I would if not for the fact that me being Trump would necessitate a complete lack of brain matter


fucking rofl


----------



## urherenow (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Russia definitively and demonstrably meddled with the 2016 election to benefit Trump and hurt Clinton.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and when it comes to some specific claims, we have evidence disproving widespread voter fraud.
> ...


My bad. It wasn't in the article linked to in this thread. I have a habit of remembering things but not quite recalling where I remember them from. I was, of course, talking about Nixon. He was set for impeachment, and there was zero chance of NOT being both impeached AND convicted. But he resigned. And before the matter was pressed any farther to impeach him anyway, he was pardoned by Ford.

And the Russian meddling thing... no matter what you think about it, it was none of Trump's doing. Please let that ship sail already. What they DID do, is try to boost Trump's chances by releasing information that was damaging to the DNC. Yet all of you cry about Russian interference, as if knowing how shady the people you're voting for are, is a bad thing. It truly boggles my mind.
"U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia did not alter actual votes during the 2016 election."
https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/

To say Trump is 100% responsible for the actions of others, would be to say that several members of the DNC are at least partially responsible for this: "However, the violence by early June 2020 had resulted in two deaths, 604 arrests, and upwards of $500 million in property damage to 1,500 locations, making it the second-most destructive period of local unrest in United States history, after the 1992 Los Angeles Riots" <-- a statement which has at least 8 different references, so I'll not waste my time posting them all here.

At any rate, the chances of conviction are very slim. Time that should be spent fixing the damn health care system, among other things. If you're betting on a conviction, you're a fool. (and that statement is in no way my endorsement of Trump. I do believe he accomplished a lot of good things. I also believe that he's an asshat.)


----------



## smf (Feb 12, 2021)

tthousand said:


> LOL... the left wing, hate mob claims they are a party of diversity, but if you do not fall in line to the narrative you are treated like the Jewish people in Germany in WW2.



If you don't fall in line and vote for Trump then the right wing hate mob try to stop the vote and when that fails they storm the capitol. It's not wrong for the left wing to stand up to that.

Sociopaths argue like you.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Wait, are you arguing you don't believe in the existence of the soul as I'm using the word?



I'm saying that you are disenfranchising people who use the word correctly, and though your consensus mechanism for popularity is suspect, saying things in ways that you think are popular makes you an unreliable shill.



Lacius said:


> Words are descriptive, not prescriptive. This statement here proves that you still haven't grasped that concept, or you wouldn't be talking about the "truth" of what a word means. The closest you can come to the "truth" of what a word means is how people are using it, lol.



They are both.  For example, when you say that there is no evidence of voter fraud in response to someone saying that there is evidence of voter fraud, you are using the word "evidence" prescriptively--even despite the historically valid application of it in the same vein.

In the context of soul.  It wasn't created out of popularity just so that you can shit on it.  There is a direct lineage to where the word comes from, and those who speak about the word on any serious level would have an obvious incentive to be aware of it.  



Lacius said:


> I've never said "DNC forever." Perhaps you're the one making assumptions that are erroneous? (that was a rhetorical question, because you are).



Saying that it appears that you are hardlining for the DNC with a quote that I didn't ascribe to you personally is a little different than saying that there is no evidence of "the soul".  It's better that you admit an unawareness to what "the soul" is, and use that to your advantage when trying to be better than someone on the subject.  It does appear that you are hard for democrats, though.   I'm inviting you to correct me on the subject by telling you how it appears.


----------



## smf (Feb 12, 2021)

urherenow said:


> To say Trump is 100% responsible for the actions of others,



In terms of the capitol siege, that was done for Trump after he coaxed them.

He watched his supporters attack the capitol and never once called for calm, he wanted it to happen and anyone who claims he didn't is delusional.

Trump is at least an accessory to the crimes that took place in January https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose


----------



## urherenow (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It is. I'm glad to hear you've changed your mind and admit the impeachment trial is constitutional. Former presidents can indeed be impeached.
> 
> 
> What are you talking about specifically?





smf said:


> In terms of the capitol siege, that was done for Trump after he coaxed them.
> 
> He watched his supporters attack the capitol and never once called for calm, he wanted it to happen and anyone who claims he didn't is delusional.
> 
> So it's like putting a blind fold on and shooting your gun, you've got a permit right and you don't intend to actually shoot anybody, you couldn't possibly be held responsible if someone got in the way.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-remarks-idUSKBN29I37G

DNC never denounced the riots. They simply stated that they would continue, and sat back with a smug look on their face. And there are actual laws about the discharge of firearms within city limits. Try again.


----------



## smf (Feb 12, 2021)

urherenow said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-remarks-idUSKBN29I37G
> 
> DNC never denounced the riots. They simply stated that they would continue, and sat back with a smug look on their face. Try again.



Try again????
_
A pre-recorded video of U.S. President Donald Trump addressing the U.S. Capitol riot is seen playing on a television in the White House briefing room in Washington, U.S., *January 13, 2021*. REUTERS/Erin Scott

Instead Trump focused his remarks on the violence at the Capitol on *Jan. 6

*_
I was talking about on January 6th, it took him 5 days before he could be persuaded by his legal advisers that it would be bad if he didn't distance himself,

He is president of the US, while the mob were attacking the capitol causing death, he could have asked them to stop and tell the people that it wasn't what he wanted. He didn't, because it was what he wanted.

Try again.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 12, 2021)

smf said:


> Try again????
> _
> A pre-recorded video of U.S. President Donald Trump addressing the U.S. Capitol riot is seen playing on a television in the White House briefing room in Washington, U.S., *January 13, 2021*. REUTERS/Erin Scott
> 
> ...


So you're a mind reader now. And you can prove it. Some lawyer you'd make. Try again.


----------



## smf (Feb 12, 2021)

urherenow said:


> So you're a mind reader now. And you can prove it. Some lawyer you'd make. Try again.



No, I'm going from statements that were released by his advisers. Like this one.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/10/politics/donald-trump-mike-pence-impeachment/index.html

_Advisers to former President Donald Trump say he still has not expressed remorse for the siege at the US Capitol,_

Now you can argue that is fake news, but Trumps own actions by taking 5 days to try to distance himself puts it beyond reasonable doubt. 

Go to jail, do not collect $200, bye bye troll.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 12, 2021)

By the way, he did tell them to go home WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING (or at least pretty damn soon after). Posted a video on Twitter, which was blocked, because they didn't agree with some other BS that he said.



Try again.

Oh, and I'm waiting on the DNC denouncement of the summer riots. Still. Won't hold my breath.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

urherenow said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-remarks-idUSKBN29I37G
> 
> DNC never denounced the riots. They simply stated that they would continue, and sat back with a smug look on their face. And there are actual laws about the discharge of firearms within city limits. Try again.


Virtually everybody but Trump and his supporters condemned the riots. It also took Trump nearly a week before he explicitly condemned the riots, and even then, he continued to falsely claim the election had been stolen. The week prior, he instigated the mob attack on the Capitol, and he called them patriots even after we roughly understood the seriousness and the violence that had occurred. Try again.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> By the way, he did tell them to go home WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING (or at least pretty damn soon after). Posted a video on Twitter, which was blocked, because they didn't agree with some other BS that he said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He begrudgingly and unenthusiastically told them to go home after the damage was done, while calling them patriots after the damage was done, and while continuing to rile them up and falsely claim the election was stolen from him. Try again.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Virtually everybody but Trump and his supporters condemned the riots. It also took Trump nearly a week before he explicitly condemned the riots, and even then, he continued to falsely claim the election had been stolen. The week prior, he instigated the mob attack on the Capitol, and he called them patriots even after we roughly understood the seriousness and the violence that had occurred. Try again.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


You just contradicted yourself in a single post. Try again. (The video in the Youtube video, was not a week later). Still waiting on DNC...


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm saying that you are disenfranchising people who use the word correctly, and though your consensus mechanism for popularity is suspect, saying things in ways that you think are popular makes you an unreliable shill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What an utter waste of time for you to argue the word "soul" means something other than how I and the rest of the world use it, only for you to later admit that the soul has different definitions, and you also use the word the way I and the rest of the world use it. You should be embarrassed by your posts.

Me: Non-avian Dinosaurs are extinct.
You: Actually, when you consider the etymology of the word "dinosaur," it means "big lizard," so you actually don't believe non-avian dinosaurs are extinct.
Me: Yes, that is the etymology of the word "dinosaur," but it is not especially relevant to my comment nor the wildly popular usage of the word.

You: You should really take the etymology of the word "dinosaur" seriously.
Me: I do, but it's not particularly relevant in the context of this conversation. Do you not use the word "dinosaur" in the way I've used it?
You: Oh, well, yeah, I sometimes also use the word "dinosaur" the way you use it.
You appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and you're not doing a good job at it either. The word soul is popularly used to mean the intangible part of a human that lives on after death, and there's nothing controversial about how I used the word. The etymology of the word is wholely irrelevant to my post. Grow up.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> You just contradicted yourself in a single post. Try again. (The video in the Youtube video, was not a week later). Still waiting on DNC...


I already responded to your post with the YouTube video, and I never said it was a week later. Did you not read my post?

With regard to Democrats, virtually every Democratic politician I am aware of condemned the riots. I'm not sure what your goal is here.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> My bad. It wasn't in the article linked to in this thread. I have a habit of remembering things but not quite recalling where I remember them from. I was, of course, talking about Nixon. He was set for impeachment, and there was zero chance of NOT being both impeached AND convicted. But he resigned. And before the matter was pressed any farther to impeach him anyway, he was pardoned by Ford.
> 
> And the Russian meddling thing... no matter what you think about it, it was none of Trump's doing. Please let that ship sail already. What they DID do, is try to boost Trump's chances by releasing information that was damaging to the DNC. Yet all of you cry about Russian interference, as if knowing how shady the people you're voting for are, is a bad thing. It truly boggles my mind.
> "U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia did not alter actual votes during the 2016 election."
> ...



There was no counterintelligence investigation into Trump's relations with Russia.
The Trump campaign took a meeting with Russian officials about wanting to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Trump repeatedly rolled over on issues related to Russia, including but not limited to Russian election meddling and bounties on American soldiers.
Regardless of Trump's level of involvement, Russia objectively meddled in the 2016 election in a way that likely tipped the election in Trump's favor. That's a very serious issue, particularly when Trump and the Republicans have no interest in doing anything about it or preventing something like it in the future. That in itself is a very serious issue.
The violence at the Capitol 100% would not have happened if Trump had not falsely claimed the election was stolen from him, held a rally, gotten a permit for the Capitol, and instigated the riot on the Capitol. This was 100% Trump's fault. We all know before the election even happened that something like the Capitol riot was likely to happen if Trump lost. It's one of the few times in my life I didn't like saying "I told you so."


----------



## Acid_Snake (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> With regard to Democrats, virtually every Democratic politician I am aware of condemned the riots. I'm not sure what your goal is here.


Can you back that claim? Cause all I can find on official Twitter accounts is democrats praising BLM when they were looting and burning entire cities, causing 2 billion dollars in damage.
Also, storming the capitol is unconstitutional, but so is proclaming the Independent Republic of Chad as democrats did during the BLM riots, and nobody from the democrat party ever condemned this.
It was only when these violent riots started getting close to the gated communities of democrat leaders that they actually started calling for the police to do something.
Also, there's no evidence of Russian meddling with the 2016 elections, but there is evidence Biden's son ties with Ukraine and China.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Can you back that claim? Cause all I can find on official Twitter accounts is democrats praising BLM when they were looting and burning entire cities, causing 2 billion dollars in damage.
> Also, storming the capitol is unconstitutional, but so is proclaming the Independent Republic of Chad as democrats did during the BLM riots, and nobody from the democrat party ever condemned this.
> It was only when these violent riots started getting close to the gated communities of democrat leaders that they actually started calling for the police to do something.
> Also, there's no evidence of Russian meddling with the 2016 elections, but there is evidence Biden's son ties with Ukraine and China.


uh what
this is a fucking mess
first off, unlike the Capitol riot, there actually is a meaningful difference between the BLM protests and the portions that turned sour (most notably that a decent amount of said sour violence was caused by either right-wing counter-protestors like Jake Angeli or police getting overzealous)
second off, what the hell does Chad have to do with anything?
third off, there absolutely is evidence of Russian meddling- but Hunter Biden's personal ties, due to not being Joe Biden and not being involved in his presidency directly, *HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.*


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 12, 2021)

urherenow said:


> By the way, he did tell them to go home WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING


ah yes
"kids, you're beautiful, you're wonderful, you're my favorite, i love you very very much"
"but..." -sigh-
"you gotta go home, kids, this... this isn't working. just remember that i think you're the very best!"
"also remember that _*THE DEMOCRATS STOLE THE ELECTION FROM US AND DEMOCRACY IS DEAD FOREVER*_ _*UNLESS YOU FIGHT BACK*_"
"love you!!!"



Acid_Snake said:


> Can you back that claim? Cause all I can find on official Twitter accounts is democrats praising BLM when they were looting and burning entire cities, causing 2 billion dollars in damage.


they should praise blm
people are more valuable than property, the protests were against police murders
large-scale protests come with bad faith actors, but of the millions of people involved, only a minority did something

meanwhile a group of armed people breached the capitol building
this was the complete thrust of the event, to occupy the capitol
there wasn't a protest, and some assholes went and attacked the capitol, people were there specifically to subvert the election

you'd have to be pretty disingenuous (not to mention fucking stupid) to say that blm's goal was attacking local businesses and looting them



Spoiler: Try again.






urherenow said:


> Try again.





smf said:


> Try again.





urherenow said:


> Try again.





urherenow said:


> Try again.





Lacius said:


> Try again.





urherenow said:


> Try again.





we're reaching levels of cringe thought impossible


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Can you back that claim? Cause all I can find on official Twitter accounts is democrats praising BLM when they were looting and burning entire cities, causing 2 billion dollars in damage.
> Also, storming the capitol is unconstitutional, but so is proclaming the Independent Republic of Chad as democrats did during the BLM riots, and nobody from the democrat party ever condemned this.
> It was only when these violent riots started getting close to the gated communities of democrat leaders that they actually started calling for the police to do something.
> Also, there's no evidence of Russian meddling with the 2016 elections, but there is evidence Biden's son ties with Ukraine and China.


When I said riots, I was referring to the Capitol riots.

Russia demonstrably meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Clinton.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

There is no evidence Hunter Biden did anything improper with China or Ukraine, and considering he is not Joe Biden, it wouldn't matter much if there were.

BLM and the Capitol riots are not comparable. One is a peaceful protest movement against systemic racism with no instigation whatsoever for violence. The other is the result of a coordinated effort to use lies of fraud to try to forcibly steal the election and attack democracy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Darth Meteos said:


> ah yes
> "kids, you're beautiful, you're wonderful, you're my favorite, i love you very very much"
> "but..." -sigh-
> "you gotta go home, kids, this... this isn't working. just remember that i think you're the very best!"
> ...


One would be forgiven for mistakenly thinking that, from the try again's, I actually got them the try harder.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 12, 2021)

Anyone not watching the hearings today should probably tune in before they're re-hosted on porn sites under the BDSM category because Democrats are getting slapped so hard that it's going to leave marks. Funny how the President's remarks change meaning when you listen to the full clips instead of cherry-picked segments.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Anyone not watching the hearings today should probably tune in before they're re-hosted on porn sites under the BDSM category because Democrats are getting slapped so hard that it's going to leave marks. Funny how the President's remarks change meaning when you listen to the full clips instead of cherry-picked segments.


Oof. That's really all I have to say.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 12, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> Oof. That's really all I have to say.


There's not much else to say, the compilation of Democrats praising or even calling for violence completely dismantled them. That, tied with the deceptive way Trump's speeches were edited down by the media side-by-side with the full statements was a series of punches right in the gut. There's no recovery from this level of hypocrisy, and this time around America was watching. A very effective presentation, in my opinion. Good show from everyone involved.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There's not much else to say, the compilation of Democrats praising or even calling for violence completely dismantled them. That, tied with the deceptive way Trump's speeches were edited down by the media side-by-side with the full statements was a series of punches right in the gut. There's no recovery from this level of hypocrisy, and this time around America was watching. A very effective presentation, in my opinion. Good show from everyone involved.


Excuse me, what?
Trump outright told his supporters to "fight like hell" and insinuated that Biden's victory was something that they had to stop at all costs.
The clips shown were basically just bits of people saying the word "fight" without any context of the things they were fighting (peacefully) for- healthcare, etc.
If anything in this entire trial has been selectively edited to twist its words, it's those clips.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...live-updates/#link-TORSLDZ2TZEAHH65DRF24BEZ7E
I doubt it dismantled much, considering the main thing was what Trump wanted his supporters to fight FOR- a blatant disregard of our democracy to place him in a position he did not earn. (That, and all the Trumpers that were at the Capitol riot that basically said "I did this because Trump told us to".)


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There's not much else to say, the compilation of Democrats praising or even calling for violence completely dismantled them. That, tied with the deceptive way Trump's speeches were edited down by the media side-by-side with the full statements was a series of punches right in the gut. There's no recovery from this level of hypocrisy, and this time around America was watching. A very effective presentation, in my opinion. Good show from everyone involved.


Democrats didn't call for violence, and Trump's speeches were not deceptively edited. The broad consensus from both sides is the Trump's defense has been pretty poor, and the impeachment managers have done a pretty good, albeit repetitive, job (regardless of where you land on the issue).


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Democrats didn't call for violence, and Trump's speeches were not deceptively edited. The broad consensus from both sides is the Trump's defense has been pretty poor, and the impeachment managers have done a pretty good, albeit repetitive, job (regardless of where you land on the issue).


Trump: I won, Biden cheated, and we must fight like hell to stop him- and I'll be with you fighting for it. (Of course, he wasn't, because in addition to a narcissist, wannabe tyrant, bigot and traitor to everything our nation stands for, he's also a coward.)
Trumpers: that isn't what he said!
Everyone else: no these are literally things that he said on recording, and the additional context is entirely composed of dogwhistles or outright lies
Trumpers: MuSt Be MaNiPuLaTeD!
Some Dem somewhere: _explains his platform and promises_ I'm a fighter, and... _continues explaining platform and promises with absolutely no insinuation of violence whatsoever_
Trump's team: _badly cuts the footage so it just says "I'm a fighter"_
Trumpers: SOUNDS LEGIT LMFAO DEMS BE VIOLENT AND WE AMN'T YEEHAW BITCHES TRUMP 2021


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Trump: I won, Biden cheated, and we must fight like hell to stop him- and I'll be with you fighting for it. (Of course, he wasn't, because in addition to a narcissist, wannabe tyrant, bigot and traitor to everything our nation stands for, he's also a coward.)
> Trumpers: that isn't what he said!
> Everyone else: no these are literally things that he said on recording, and the additional context is entirely composed of dogwhistles or outright lies
> Trumpers: MuSt Be MaNiPuLaTeD!
> ...


While imperfect, this is actually a pretty good paraphrasing of what happened today.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Democrats didn't call for violence, and Trump's speeches were not deceptively edited. The broad consensus from both sides is the Trump's defense has been pretty poor, and the impeachment managers have done a pretty good, albeit repetitive, job (regardless of where you land on the issue).


We must've watched a different hearing then, because that's definitely not how I see it. Republican Senators laid out a very good case for why they'll vote to acquit, and they will. The rest of this trial will be a huge waste of everyone's time.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We must've watched a different hearing then, because that's definitely not how I see it. Republican Senators laid out a very good case for why they'll vote to acquit, and they will. The rest of this trial will be a huge waste of everyone's time.


Respectfully, I'm not surprised that's how you saw it. Trump spent months sowing dangerous rhetoric about the election having been stolen and suggesting people fight to take the country back (by overthrowing democracy), and then Trump incited an angry mob to go to the Capitol, and the Republican response is essentially "Democrats technically used the word 'fight' before." It was pretty silly.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Respectfully, I'm not surprised that's how you saw it. Trump spent months sowing dangerous rhetoric about the election having been stolen and suggesting people fight to take the country back (by overthrowing democracy), and then Trump incited an angry mob to go to the Capitol, and the Republican response is essentially "Democrats technically used the word 'fight' before." It was pretty silly.


To be fair, Foxi isn't wrong.
Most of the Republican senators likely will vote to acquit.
However, this is not because of any semblance of respect for justice or truth, nor is it because their side had a REMOTELY decent argument.
It is because Trump has turned the Republican Party into a cult of personality, and they will side with him until their dying breaths.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Respectfully, I'm not surprised that's how you saw it. Trump spent months sowing dangerous rhetoric about the election having been stolen and suggesting people fight to take the country back (by overthrowing democracy), and then Trump incited an angry mob to go to the Capitol, and the Republican response is essentially "Democrats technically used the word 'fight' before." It was pretty silly.


Democrats have been sowing dangerous rhetoric for the last four years. Nothing I saw today was news to me, but it will be news to many people who don't follow politics as closely. Trump will be acquitted, he didn't incite anyone to do anything. Don't minimise the damage done here - it's not at all about the word "fight". When Waters told her supporters to harass Republicans in the streets because "they're not welcome" or when Pressley said that "there should be unrest in the streets as long as there is unrest in our lives", those weren't ambiguous statements, those were "dog whistles" in Democrat parlance, and this is the first time some Americans will hear that. I have *zero* doubt that right-wingers were harassed as a consequence of this kind of rhetoric - in fact, I have evidence that they were. Rand Paul was berated while just trying to have a meal, so was Ted Cruz and his wife. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was straight up asked to leave by the proprietor of Red Hen just because she was part of the Trump admin. It's very clear to me which side is sowing division, and has been for a very long time by demonising their opposition at every available opportunity.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Democrats have been sowing dangerous rhetoric for the last four years. Nothing I saw today was news to me, but it will be news to many people who don't follow politics as closely. Trump will be acquitted, he didn't incite anyone to do anything. Don't minimise the damage done here - it's not at all about the word "fight". When Waters told her supporters to harass Republicans in the streets because "they're not welcome" or when Pressley said that "there should be unrest in the streets as long as there is unrest in our lives", those weren't ambiguous statements, those were "dog whistles" in Democrat parlance, and this is the first time some Americans will hear that. I have *zero* doubt that right-wingers were harassed as a consequence of this kind of rhetoric - in fact, I have evidence that they were. Rand Paul was berated while just trying to have a meal, so was Ted Cruz and his wife. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was straight up asked to leave by the proprietor of Red Hen just because she was part of the Trump admin. It's very clear to me which side is sowing division, and has been for a very long time by demonising their opposition at every available opportunity.


uh what
what are you smoking
you've somehow managed to be wrong about who did *everything*
literally the only thing we don't tolerate... is intolerance
if someone's a bigoted fuck that is actively part of the problem with our nation, they deserve ridicule for it
if someone STANDS UP TO bigoted fucks and tries to be part of the solution, they deserve praise or at least _not ridicule_ for it
how is "there should be unrest in the streets as long as there is unrest in our lives" (read: as long as people are treated unfairly, we should stand up against said treatment) somehow inciting violence but Trump telling his supporters to fight like hell to change the election results... NOT inciting violence
how have we been "sowing dangerous rhetoric" by basically just looking at everything Trump's said and done and gone "for fucks sake why will you guys refuse to accept that LITERALLY ANY OF THIS IS BAD JUST BECAUSE _*HE*_ DID IT"... but Trump hasn't been sowing any dangerous rhetoric despite basically building all his campaign promises (aside from the couple that basically everyone on either party inevitably has to say but never manages to pull off) around bigotry and xenophobia and then *spending months upon months lying to everyone claiming he won the election, claiming widespread fraud that does not exist and basically slandering the entirety of the Democratic Party 24/7?!*
you're looking at a kid getting bullied, praising the bully and calling the teacher on the one kid with the balls and the morals to stand up for them.
you, and everyone that shares your Trump-centric, paradoxical doublethink-powered worldview of lies and hatred... *are the problem.*
the difference between a Democrat and a Republican right now is that a Democrat is defined by ideologies, and a Republican is defined by their party and whichever talking head they let deceive them at the moment... and an intense loathing for anyone that happens to be defined by ideologies. (and any Republicans that happen to be defined by ideologies... inevitably get on Trump's bad side and are subsequently no-true-scotsmanned out of the party altogether.)
please seek professional deprogramming.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The rest of this trial will be a huge waste of everyone's time.



So, pretty much like every post you've made in this topic.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Democrats have been sowing dangerous rhetoric for the last four years. Nothing I saw today was news to me, but it will be news to many people who don't follow politics as closely. Trump will be acquitted, he didn't incite anyone to do anything. Don't minimise the damage done here - it's not at all about the word "fight". When Waters told her supporters to harass Republicans in the streets because "they're not welcome" or when Pressley said that "there should be unrest in the streets as long as there is unrest in our lives", those weren't ambiguous statements, those were "dog whistles" in Democrat parlance, and this is the first time some Americans will hear that. I have *zero* doubt that right-wingers were harassed as a consequence of this kind of rhetoric - in fact, I have evidence that they were. Rand Paul was berated while just trying to have a meal, so was Ted Cruz and his wife. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was straight up asked to leave by the proprietor of Red Hen just because she was part of the Trump admin. It's very clear to me which side is sowing division, and has been for a very long time by demonising their opposition at every available opportunity.


This isn't an issue of "sowing division." It's an issue about instigating violence against the Capitol in an effort to forcibly overturn our election because Trump didn't like the outcome.

Wait, wait, wait, I'm sorry, did you say Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant? I need to go buy some pearls so I can clutch at them.


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 12, 2021)

‘This will never happen again and it will not be tolerated here at the White House’ — Press Sec. Jen Psaki discusses the suspension of Deputy Press Sec. TJ Ducklo after he allegedly threatened a reporter pic.twitter.com/wbdgWAV5sz— NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 12, 2021



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...y-you-biden-white-houses-first-media-scandal/


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 12, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1360308290056572928
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...y-you-biden-white-houses-first-media-scandal/


It's been less than a month, so they probably don't want to fire any personnel for one-time things to avoid lacking said personnel even longer. (Especially with all the kerfuffle of Republicans being such absolute fucking obstacles that Biden even getting his Cabinet together was an overly long hassle!)
If the guy had a less horrible replacement lined up already, he'd probably have gotten the axe immediately.


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 12, 2021)

But then you have this

https://www.today.com/news/biden-promises-appointees-he-will-fire-them-spot-if-they-t206392

I think one of his staff members telling a reporter "I will end you" among other threats on a phone call should be grounds for it. If not then its no different then the last administration.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> But then you have this
> 
> https://www.today.com/news/biden-promises-appointees-he-will-fire-them-spot-if-they-t206392
> 
> I think one of his staff members telling a reporter "I will end you" among other threats on a phone call should be grounds for it. If not then its no different then the last administration.


AFAIK Biden wasn't the one that made the decision to suspend him- and firing him _mid suspension_ seems both redundant and overly punitive.
Also... there is a LOT that must be done to deserve the stained descriptor of "no different than the [Trump] administration".
Like appointing people like Betsy DeVos who only served in their positions to willingly ruin them as much as humanly possible.
Biden hasn't done that, and has no reason to.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Call reveals Trump wouldn't call off rioters

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Call reveals Trump wouldn't call off rioters
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html


Wonder how the hell they'll spin THIS one as "manipulated" or "out of context" when literally the entire context is Trump being a neglectful, terrorism-encouraging treason-weasel!


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Wonder how the hell they'll spin THIS one as "manipulated" or "out of context" when literally the entire context is Trump being a neglectful, terrorism-encouraging treason-weasel!


McCarthy is literally begging Trump to call off his supporters during the deadly Capitol riot, and Trump gleefully turned him down.



> "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
> 
> McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
> 
> Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Wait, wait, wait, I'm sorry, did you say Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant? I need to go buy some pearls so I can clutch at them.


Yeah, it's an absurdly shitty take by our dear moderator there. If you're an asshole, folks aren't going to want you around, simple as that. It's skirting towards the usual "cancel culture" argument, which does zero to take into account the basic concept of consequences.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> Yeah, it's an absurdly shitty take by our dear moderator there. If you're an asshole, folks aren't going to want you around, simple as that. It's skirting towards the usual "cancel culture" argument, which does zero to take into account the basic concept of consequences.


Whether or not Sarah Huckabee Sanders should be cancelled (she should) is irrelevant to the Trump-instigated insurrection at the Capitol.

Freedom to engage in deplorable behavior doesn't free one from the societal consequences.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 13, 2021)

normally i wouldn't have expected such a blazing shitshow to be lit by an admin, but look at the world we live in


Foxi4 said:


> Democrats have been sowing dangerous rhetoric for the last four years. Nothing I saw today was news to me, but it will be news to many people who don't follow politics as closely. Trump will be acquitted, he didn't incite anyone to do anything. Don't minimise the damage done here - it's not at all about the word "fight". When Waters told her supporters to harass Republicans in the streets because "they're not welcome" or when Pressley said that "there should be unrest in the streets as long as there is unrest in our lives", those weren't ambiguous statements, those were "dog whistles" in Democrat parlance, and this is the first time some Americans will hear that. I have *zero* doubt that right-wingers were harassed as a consequence of this kind of rhetoric - in fact, I have evidence that they were. Rand Paul was berated while just trying to have a meal, so was Ted Cruz and his wife. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was straight up asked to leave by the proprietor of Red Hen just because she was part of the Trump admin. It's very clear to me which side is sowing division, and has been for a very long time by demonising their opposition at every available opportunity.


i mean, just look at this desperate brick of text, this ramble from a guy under obvious brainwashing



Foxi4 said:


> Democrats have been sowing dangerous rhetoric for the last four years.


trump was a fascist
the mental gymnastics required to see nothing wrong with trump and everything wrong with the people going "looks like corruption" is frankly impressive to me in a sick way
nice work



Foxi4 said:


> Trump will be acquitted, he didn't incite anyone to do anything.


wrong, proven wrong so many times this is wasted space



Foxi4 said:


> When Waters told her supporters to harass Republicans in the streets because "they're not welcome"


they aren't welcome because you guys are against the way of life we've clawed our way into over the last seventy years
constant racist "dog whistle", constantly undermining the lower classes, constantly obstructing things a vast majority of the american people want
you guys are collaborating with enemies of the people



Foxi4 said:


> or when Pressley said that "there should be unrest in the streets as long as there is unrest in our lives", those weren't ambiguous statements, those were "dog whistles" in Democrat parlance, and this is the first time some Americans will hear that.


mate, democratic parlance is some hillary clinton shit
you're think of leftist parlance
and "unrest" in leftist parlance means to _protest the police murdering people_
it must be agonizing being so fucking stupid



Foxi4 said:


> I have *zero* doubt that right-wingers were harassed as a consequence of this kind of rhetoric


we can only hope



Foxi4 said:


> Rand Paul was berated while just trying to have a meal, so was Ted Cruz and his wife. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was straight up asked to leave by the proprietor of Red Hen just because she was part of the Trump admin.


i love how when gays were being kicked out of restaurants, it was their "right to refuse," but now it's happening to you you're having a big sook

in conclusion, trump was a liar who grifted you
everyone sees it except you
we're laughing at you
die mad about it


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> normally i wouldn't have expected such a blazing shitshow to be lit by an admin, but look at the world we live in
> 
> i mean, just look at this desperate brick of text, this ramble from a guy under obvious brainwashing
> 
> ...


Oh yeah, this guy (Foxi4) did hypocritically argue that businesses should have the legal right to refuse service to gay people, people of color, etc.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Oh yeah, this guy (Foxi4) did hypocritically argue that businesses should have the legal right to refuse service to gay people, people of color, etc.


i didn't know that, but it was a pretty safe bet
can't believe i got baited into an effortpost, going back into hibernation


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 13, 2021)

seems to me trumps lawyers are going to be dis bared from this shitshow for lying in front of congress

fact check for day 4 below

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/fact-check-trump-defense-impeachment-trial/index.html


----------



## wartutor (Feb 13, 2021)

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-trial-defense-dems-case-gregg-jarrett

Trump 2024 justice. Don't worry he will fix all the shit biden has already fuc*ed up


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

did anyone get their 2k yet?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

wartutor said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-trial-defense-dems-case-gregg-jarrett
> 
> Trump 2024 justice. Don't worry he will fix all the shit biden has already fuc*ed up



The article is an opinion piece from Faux News, not a news article.
The Trump defense was notably awful, and pretty much everybody knows it regardless of where they fall on the issue of impeachment. Even Trump wasn't happy with it.
Biden hasn't fucked anything up.



Valwinz said:


> did anyone get their 2k yet?


Americans have already gotten the first $600, and the remaining $1,400 should be coming once the bill is passed and signed. The Democrats are also raising the child tax credit an additional $1,000-$1,600 (depending on the child's age) per child, which is awesome. Everything is going quite smoothly so far, despite Republican obstructionism. The Democrats are doing a great job. Don't you agree?


----------



## PityOnU (Feb 13, 2021)

Eh, none of this stuff is going to stick. We now live in a world where everything is recorded and documented in HD. Not just everything Trump said/wrote, but also every other currently-serving politician. You take ALL of that from the last 4 years and sift through it with a fine-tooth comb, you will find more than a few enraged/violent statements, from both sides. Once you have that, all you need to do is say "But what about..."

Certainly more extreme, but just look at what ended up happening to those bastards pulling the strings in the IRA: nothing. They were careful to never be the ones pulling the trigger, and the same is true here.

All that being said, if he's pissed off just the right people, just enough, they'll nab him 4-5 years from now on some bullshit charge like tax evasion, just like they did with Al Capone.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> did anyone get their 2k yet?



already got mine.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> The article is an opinion piece from Faux News, not a news article.
> The Trump defense was notably awful, and pretty much everybody knows it regardless of where they fall on the issue of impeachment. Even Trump wasn't happy with it.
> Biden hasn't fucked anything up.
> Americans have already gotten the first $600, and the remaining $1,400 should be coming once the bill is passed and signed. The Democrats are also raising the child tax credit an additional $1,000-$1,600 (depending on the child's age) per child, which is awesome. Everything is going quite smoothly so far, despite Republican obstructionism. The Democrats are doing a great job. Don't you agree?



best part is new language was added to the bill and no taxes have to be paid for unemployment with the $300 or $400 per week stimulus. my wife will be getting 219+400 per week til the end of august, after 11 weeks of 219 + 300. and it's all tax free. easiest tax free 20k we've ever made, thanks dems! and to jog peoples memory, the CARES act was written for the most part by dems and had $600 per week for 16 weeks last year which my wife also got.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

trump is fucked anyways, it takes a simple majority (48 dems, 2 independents + VP harris) to disqualify. even if trump isn't "convicted" he will never be able to run for office again. using the 14th amendment also only takes a simple majority, so that can be used as well.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

Another week another Biden lie


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Another week another Biden lie


I'm unaware of any "Biden lies" so far. Try again.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm unaware of any "Biden lies" so far. Try again.


He does it for free


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> He does it for free


He trolls for free.

Look, I can make unsubstantive posts too. At least mine aren't deflections though.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 13, 2021)

PityOnU said:


> you will find more than a few enraged/violent statements, from both sides. Once you have that, all you need to do is say "But what about..."


So your logic is
"well both sides is bad. so anything about Trump is what about ism"
despite the fact that he was the one who incited it, with a few fellow peers. He constantly talked about widespread election fraud, he constantly stoked the flames that democrats are out to take your votes through voter fraud. He told them he would be there with them, he asked them to be there two weeks early (as in advance). And even though despite all the evidence, court rulings and the information presented there. He continued to spread that misinformation up to the day of the insurrection/riot.  And then, when they break into the captial, he adresses them as "very special people, we love you"
no. You don't. you don't treat people who are screaming and yelling to kill leaders like that.
This goes far beyond acceptable. And if we let him off the hook, not only can it repeat with someone else
we wouldn't be able to do much about it.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So your logic is
> "well both sides is bad. so anything about Trump is what about ism"
> despite the fact that he was the one who incited it, with a few fellow peers. He constantly talked about widespread election fraud, he constantly stoked the flames that democrats are out to take your votes through voter fraud. He told them he would be there with them, he asked them to be there two weeks early. And even though despite all the evidence, court rulings and the information presented there. He continued to spread that misinformation up to the day of the insurrection/riot.  And then, when they break into the captial, he adresses them as "very special people, we love you"
> no. You don't. you don't treat people who are screaming and yelling to kill leaders like that.
> ...


fun bonus fact: asserting that calling one side bad is whataboutism because both sides are bad... *IS BASICALLY THE PUREST FORM OF WHATABOUTISM, LOOPING IN ON ITSELF LIKE AN AUTOFELLATING OUROBOROS OF BULLSHIT!*


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> He does it for free


interesting name considering i've only ever seen you lose



Plasmaster09 said:


> fun bonus fact: asserting that calling one side bad is whataboutism because both sides are bad... *IS BASICALLY THE PUREST FORM OF WHATABOUTISM, LOOPING IN ON ITSELF LIKE AN AUTOFELLATING OUROBOROS OF BULLSHIT!*


what about biden though
L I B E R A L S   D E S T R O Y E D


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 13, 2021)

omgcat said:


> already got mine.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


your wrong bout disqualification saddly he needs to have an conviction first then they can disquallify him, but say if trump goes to prison for his various financial crimes he might win the election but he cant hold office due to the 25th amendment stating a president cannot be impeded (unable) to hold office due to incompasitation (since he is in the big house he cant hold office) soo the VP gets the hot seat automaticly then theres the fact he could instantly pardon trump unless the pardon power is moddified through an amendment cause of trump's gross abuse of pardons


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> McCarthy is literally begging Trump to call off his supporters during the deadly Capitol riot, and Trump gleefully turned him down.


Catch 22. I would do the exact same thing - I'm not going to "call off" anyone, that would be equivalent to taking ownership of the mob. Trump explicitly invited the crowd to peacefully protest, he repeatedly mentioned that he wants to see no violence and that everyone present should show respect of the law and law enforcement officers. The moment he "calls off" a violent crowd that he didn't even incite in the first place, people like you are going to call that crowd his "troopers" and say that he's commanding them. The same thing happened with the "stand down" nonsense. Let's not pretend that this isn't a "damned if he does, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" sort of situation, his opposition will always find something to complain about.



Lacius said:


> Oh yeah, this guy (Foxi4) did hypocritically argue that businesses should have the legal right to refuse service to gay people, people of color, etc.


A business should absolutely have the right to refuse anyone for any reason, I did argue that. I also argued that doing so is stupid and exposes the owner's bigotry. I specifically said that it's bad business practice that, in the long run, opens to doors to competition picking up the slack or even outperforming the bigoted estsblishment. Of course you'll neglect to mention that because lying by omission is easier and sometimes slips through the cracks. Sadly for you, I'm eagle-eyed. Discrimating against another person on the basis of their innate characteristics or personal beliefs is reprehensible in this context, however the ability to do so is an integral element of freedom of association. Red Hen owners are more than welcome to ask anyone to leave their establishment and I, as an observer, can criticise them for doing so, and make subsequent decisions on that basis as a potential customer.


----------



## smf (Feb 13, 2021)

What is the difference between Trump and a piece of shit?

Trump fucks his supporters in the arse while they keep smiling.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html

If Trump isn't impeached then I really fear for him.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Catch 22. I would do the exact same thing - I'm not going to "call off" anyone, that would be equivalent to taking ownership of the mob. Trump explicitly invited the crowd to peacefully protest, he repeatedly mentioned that he wants to see no violence and that everyone present should show respect of the law and law enforcement officers. The moment he "calls off" a violent crowd that he didn't even incite in the first place, people like you are going to call that crowd his "troopers" and say that he's commanding them. The same thing happened with the "stand down" nonsense. Let's not pretend that this isn't a "damned if he does, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" sort of situation, his opposition will always find something to complain about.
> 
> A business should absolutely have the right to refuse anyone for any reason, I did argue that. I also argued that doing so is stupid and exposes the owner's bigotry. I specifically said that it's bad business practice that, in the long run, opens to doors to competition picking up the slack or even outperforming the bigoted estsblishment. Of course you'll neglect to mention that because lying by omission is easier and sometimes slips through the cracks. Sadly for you, I'm eagle-eyed. Discrimating against another person on the basis of their innate characteristics or personal beliefs is reprehensible in this context, however the ability to do so is an integral element of freedom of association. Red Hen owners are more than welcome to ask anyone to leave their establishment and I, as an observer, can criticise them for doing so, and make subsequent decisions on that basis as a potential customer.


The rioters were inarguably Trump's supporters. If Trump isn't going to attempt to call them off because of some Catch 22 in his head about how that might make him, Donald Trump, look, then that's even worse. Also, Trump did indeed incide the mob at the Captiol. It wouldn't have happened if he hadn't.

I acknowledge and appreciate that you don't think gays and people of color should be discriminated against, but history shows that letting the free market sort it out hasn't worked in the past. We don't need to rehash that argument though. My point was that you vehemently defensed a racist's right to deny business to Black people, for example, while also pearl-clutching in response to someone denying business to SHS.

This also isn't a matter of someone being discriminated against because of her conservative beliefs. She was actively lying to the American people and enabling abuse on the part of Trump and the Trump administration. Deplorable behavior comes with its consequences.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Catch 22. I would do the exact same thing - I'm not going to "call off" anyone, that would be equivalent to taking ownership of the mob. Trump explicitly invited the crowd to peacefully protest, he repeatedly mentioned that he wants to see no violence and that everyone present should show respect of the law and law enforcement officers. The moment he "calls off" a violent crowd that he didn't even incite in the first place, people like you are going to call that crowd his "troopers" and say that he's commanding them. The same thing happened with the "stand down" nonsense. Let's not pretend that this isn't a "damned if he does, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" sort of situation, his opposition will always find something to complain about.



You can tell them to stop and condemn their behavior from a position of authority as the leader of the United States, of which they are all members and claim to give their allegiance to; without claiming responsibility for their behavior as a leader of a fringe group of terrorists.

The reason he didnt tell them to stop, or call for national guard is because he is taking ownership of the latter. He wanted to see if it would work. What president would stand by as a group, supporters or not, rampaged the capital?

But let's be real, he did incite this. "We're going to march down to the capital", "fight like hell", "your freedom is at risk", 

(as its happening) "you are all patriots", "we love you", "this is what happens"

(When its over) "remember this day forever", "now go home in peace"

And trump supporters are like "see! He said peace!". Trump and his supporters' tactics of causing harm are similar to a kid putting his finger in his siblings face chanting "im not touching you, I'm not touching you." Then whining "I never touched him" when they get reprimanded.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> You can tell them to stop and condemn their behavior from a position of authority as the leader of the United States, of which they are all members and claim to give their allegiance to; without claiming responsibility for their behavior as a leader of a fringe group of terrorists.
> 
> The reason he didnt tell them to stop, or call for national guard is because he is taking ownership of the latter. He wanted to see if it would work. What president would stand by as a group, supporters or not, rampaged the capital?
> 
> ...


He immediately condemned all violence and urged all the protestors to follow the rule of law. "Fight for your rights" is standard political rhetoric on both sides of the aisle and isn't a reference to actual physical violence - protesting is a form of a fight. He said that everyone should remember the event because a hundred thousand people marched to the Capital to protest an election that they think was compromised and inadequately audited. Yes, a handful of those protestors have engaged in violence and did breach lines they weren't supposed to breach, but those events were pre-planned well in advance and Donald Trump's words during the event couldn't have incited them unless the rioters had a time machine. The timeline simply doesn't line up and Trump will be, rightfully, acquitted yet again.


Lacius said:


> The rioters were inarguably Trump's supporters. If Trump isn't going to attempt to call them off because of some Catch 22 in his head about how that might make him, Donald Trump, look, then that's even worse. Also, Trump did indeed incide the mob at the Captiol. It wouldn't have happened if he hadn't.
> 
> I acknowledge and appreciate that you don't think gays and people of color should be discriminated against, but history shows that letting the free market sort it out hasn't worked in the past. We don't need to rehash that argument though. My point was that you vehemently defensed a racist's right to deny business to Black people, for example, while also pearl-clutching in response to someone denying business to SHS.
> 
> This also isn't a matter of someone being discriminated against because of her conservative beliefs. She was actively lying to the American people and enabling abuse on the part of Trump and the Trump administration. Deplorable behavior comes with its consequences.


They absolutely had the right to deny SHS service. They're also stupid for doing so and I am entitled to criticise that. Political alignment shouldn't have anything to do with how you do business - money has no ideological preference. Refusing service based of whether someone is on the right or the left side of the aisle is, by definition, divisive - it's a form of discriminating against your customer base. I sincerely hope Red Hen saw a financial impact of their poor business decisions.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> He immediately condemned all violence and urged all the protestors to follow the rule of law.



Thats not true. He didnt say anything until the next day where he called the attack heinous and those involved didn't represent America. He also falsely claimed to have deployed nation guard.

But that begs the question.. going back to what you said earlier.. why couldn't he have said that while it was happening? Or even actually deploy the national guard?

It wasn't just what he said at the rally that incited the violence. He had been firing these people up for months, feeding them conspiracy, telling them their families were at risk, their freedom was at risk.

And then he coincidentally decides to hold a rally (after election ends mind you) for all these angry and scared people the same day, in the same city, that they are about to certify the votes they were told are fraud?

And then on a whim he thinks its a good idea to tell them to march down to the capital, where they have no permit or legal right to be at, to "protest"?

"I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you"

He didnt outright say (as far as we know) "you guys go down there and hang the vp and take congress hostage". But his intent was there. We have overwhelming evidence to that fact. 

And if people think we need a videotaped confession to convict for intent, then why have investigators, courts, jury, etc. We dont live in a world where murderers walk because they didnt videotape themselves saying "ma'am, I going to murder you now".


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 13, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> Thats not true. He didnt say anything until the next day where he called the attack heinous and those involved didn't represent America. He also falsely claimed to have deployed nation guard.
> 
> But that begs the question.. going back to what you said earlier.. why couldn't he have said that while it was happening? Or even actually deploy the national guard?
> 
> ...



There's a thing called reasonable doubt. If you want to convict people on intent with no evidence I suggest you move to China. People walk because there is insufficient evidence. If you're trying to take somebodys liberty away you better be damn sure you're correct. If you are itll be proved in court. If it's not proved in court, you're wrong. You don't get to decide somebodys intent thankfully.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 13, 2021)

shamzie said:


> There's a thing called reasonable doubt. *If you want to convict people on intent with no evidence* I suggest you move to China. People walk because there is insufficient evidence. If you're trying to take somebodys liberty away you better be damn sure you're correct. If you are itll be proved in court. If it's not proved in court, you're wrong. You don't get to decide somebodys intent thankfully.





WeedZ said:


> We have overwhelming evidence to that fact.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

Did joe give me the 2k yet ? or they still waisting money on another fail impeachment


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> He didnt outright say (as far as we know) "you guys go down there and hang the vp and take congress hostage". But his intent was there. We have overwhelming evidence to that fact.


I am yet to see one person show just one convincing piece of evidence that Donald Trump specifically asked his supporters to commit acts of violence in order to overturn the election, or even one that there was a plan for a coup at all. I don't want to hear anything about "dog whistles" anymore, Donald Trump is either an idiot or a brilliant mastermind, his detractors should make up their mind which one it is and stick to it.

Here's a mental exercise, the same one that came up during yesterday's hearings - we're the follow through? Let's say the violent crowd pulled out every single representative out of Congress and hung them - grissly, but let's just say that happened. Where's step two? Where's the new shadow government that organised the event and planned to take over? I'm gonna need some names because I'm not seeing any. What I do see is a group of idiots who got enraged by the state of the country, for a variety of reasons, and aimed to unleash their frustration on the party that they considered responsible - Congress.

It was riot, and we've seen those for months. We should all be so lucky to only ever deal with "insurrectionists" that smear poop on walls, use office phones while giggling like children and steal podiums for a laugh, and then disperse once they get bored because there's a curfew. What happened on the 6th of January was inexcusable and the people involved should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, especially since people died in the clash with law enforcement. They shouldn't have been there at all, they should've exercised their 1A right and protest peacefully, but the pretendonitis is strong when this issue is discussed.

Donald Trump is expected to denounce someone every hour of his life until the end of time - that's not how it works. The protestors were *already* breaching the no-go lines *as he was speaking* at the White House Ellipse over a mile away, but somehow there's a weird expectation that he should've pulled out his phone in the middle of his speech and send out a Tweet right quick to tell people to stop being naughty, and that they would've all pulled out their phones as well, read their feed and stopped there and then. That's fantasy.

Trump will be acquitted either way, the Republican senators overwhelmingly agreed that they're unconvinced by the evidence presented, and neither am I. Nobody's opinion of Trump has changed throughout this whole ordeal and the entire process has been a huge waste of time from Day 1.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 13, 2021)

I watched a good part of the hearings and it was quite frankly underwhelming. They focus way too much on the Pathos and intent but without hard cold facts.
Emotions can move people but they have no place in a trial.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am yet to see one person show just one convincing piece of evidence that Donald Trump specifically asked his supporters to commit acts of violence in order to overturn the election, or even one that there was a plan for a coup at all. I don't want to hear anything about "dog whistles" anymore, Donald Trump is either an idiot or a brilliant mastermind, his detractors should make up their mind which one it is and stick to it.
> 
> Here's a mental exercise, the same one that came up during yesterday's hearings - we're the follow through? Let's say the violent crowd pulled out every single representative out of Congress and hung them - grissly, but let's just say that happened. Where's step two? Where's the new shadow government that organised the event and planned to take over? I'm gonna need some names because I'm not seeing any. What I do see is a group of idiots who got enraged by the state of the country, for a variety of reasons, and aimed to unleash their frustration on the party that they considered responsible - Congress.
> 
> ...


If nothing we've shown you counts as convincing for you, then you're so far down the rabbit hole it would warrant a puerile joke.
Please. Seek. Exit. Counseling.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> I watched a good part of the hearings and it was quite frankly underwhelming. They focus way too much on the Pathos and intent but without hard cold facts.
> Emotions can move people but they have no place in a trial.


This whole impeachment, as well as the previous one, is based primarily on emotional appeals from both sides. It's a bizarre referendum on Trump as a person.


Plasmaster09 said:


> If nothing we've shown you counts as convincing for you, then you're so far down the rabbit hole it would warrant a puerile joke.
> Please. Seek. Exit. Counseling.


I'm fine with Trump not being President anymore and I'm totally fine with the Biden administration - I don't need "counselling". I'm simply unmoved by the left's weird desire for revenge porn, which is what this trial is in my estimation. There is no benefit to it whatsoever, Trump is no longer in office. You just hate him *so much* that you don't want him to be involved in politics ever again - you fantasize about him wearing an orange suit and being locked up 50 miles underground in ultra-sec confinement forever. This whole process has nothing to do with national security or the removal of an unfit President from office, which is the actual purpose of impeachment.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> They absolutely had the right to deny SHS service. They're also stupid for doing so and I am entitled to criticise that. Political alignment shouldn't have anything to do with how you do business - money has no ideological preference. Refusing service based of whether someone is on the right or the left side of the aisle is, by definition, divisive - it's a form of discriminating against your customer base. I sincerely hope Red Hen saw a financial impact of their poor business decisions.


Please stop acting like she was refused service because of political alignment. That's not what happened. She was refused service because of her actions, and rightfully so. There's nothing about refusing service to SHS that is comparable to inciting an armed insurrection against the Capitol.



Foxi4 said:


> He immediately condemned all violence and urged all the protestors to follow the rule of law.


This isn't even close to true. Recent reporting shows he refused to call off his supporters, and it wasn't until a long bout of silence from the White House ,after the violence was said and done, that Trump have a disheartened speech about not being violent after all and also called them patriots who should remember these events for the rest of their lives.



Foxi4 said:


> I am yet to see one person show just one convincing piece of evidence that Donald Trump specifically asked his supporters to commit acts of violence in order to overturn the election, or even one that there was a plan for a coup at all. I don't want to hear anything about "dog whistles" anymore, Donald Trump is either an idiot or a brilliant mastermind, his detractors should make up their mind which one it is and stick to it.
> 
> Here's a mental exercise, the same one that came up during yesterday's hearings - we're the follow through? Let's say the violent crowd pulled out every single representative out of Congress and hung them - grissly, but let's just say that happened. Where's step two? Where's the new shadow government that organised the event and planned to take over? I'm gonna need some names because I'm not seeing any. What I do see is a group of idiots who got enraged by the state of the country, for a variety of reasons, and aimed to unleash their frustration on the party that they considered responsible - Congress.
> 
> ...


Trump's repeated and blatant attempts to try to overthrow the results of the election with false claims of voter fraud are reason enough to hold Trump responsible for the riots, but it doesn't end there. His people go the the permits for the Capitol. He incited them to go to the Capitol. He told them to take back their country with strength, not weakness. He refused pleas from members of Congress to do anything about the actions of his supporters in the midst of the violence, snarkily saying that they must just care more about America than the pleading congress people do.

Trump is 100% responsible for what happened at the Capitol, and in more ways than one.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> This whole impeachment, as well as the previous one, is based primarily on emotional appeals from both sides. It's a bizarre referendum on Trump as a person.
> I'm fine with Trump not being President anymore and I'm totally fine with the Biden administration - I don't need "counselling". I'm simply unmoved by the left's weird desire for revenge porn, which is what this trial is in my estimation. There is no benefit to it whatsoever, Trump is no longer in office. You just hate him *so much* that you don't want him to be involved in politics ever again - you fantasise about him wearing an orange suit and being locked up 50 miles underground in ultra-sec confinement forever. This whole process has nothing to do with national security or the removal of an unfit President from office, which is the actual purpose of impeachment.


This isn't about revenge porn. This is about making sure one is held accountable for his deplorable actions and making sure an armed insurrection against the Capitol doesn't happen again. If nothing is done, then precedent exists for any sore loser to use the same playbook again. Please don't be so fucking disingenuous.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Did joe give me the 2k yet ? or they still waisting money on another fail impeachment


Asked and answered. See my previous post on the subject. You're welcome. 

Oh, and considering you likely voted against people who wanted to give you $2,000, I assume your concern stems from your urgent desire to mail me your $2,000 as soon as possible. I will take the $600 you've already gotten.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Please stop acting like she was refused service because of political alignment. That's not what happened. She was refused service because of her actions, and rightfully so. There's nothing about refusing service to SHS that is comparable to inciting an armed insurrection against the Capitol.


She was denied service because she was a part of Trump's admin, and the owners weren't fans of the administration. There's nothing more to it. She was denied based on political affiliation/her employment, which is discriminatory and a terrible business decision. Businesses should be politically agnostic and serve the public - they're entitled to pick and choose in my mind, but there are consequences to being picky.


> This isn't even close to true. Recent reporting shows he refused to call off his supporters, and it wasn't until a long bout of silence from the White House ,after the violence was said and done, that Trump have a disheartened speech about not being violent after all and also called them patriots who should remember these events for the rest of their lives.


Already addressed this, Trump is not their dad. He condemned the violence after the fact, but he's not in a position to tell private citizens what to do - the moment he does, he turns into the mastermind commanding his henchmen. These proceedings prove that this is precisely how his opposition sees him, I see zero reasons why he'd want to reinforce this imaginary version of reality in people's minds.


> Trump's repeated and blatant attempts to try to overthrow the results of the election with false claims of voter fraud are reason enough to hold Trump responsible for the riots, but it doesn't end there. His people go the the permits for the Capitol. He incited them to go to the Capitol. He told them to take back their country with strength, not weakness. He refused pleas from members of Congress to do anything about the actions of his supporters in the midst of the violence, snarkily saying that they must just care more about America than the pleading congress people do.
> 
> Trump is 100% responsible for what happened at the Capitol, and in more ways than one.


Trump is entitled to be displeased by election results and criticise the auditing methodology if he finds it inadequate. He also has the right to hold a rally any time he pleases. What his supporters, grown adults, do is beyond his control and he's not liable for any of it unless he specifically requested that they break the law, which in my opinion he did not.


> This isn't about revenge porn. This is about making sure one is held accountable for his deplorable actions and making sure an armed insurrection against the Capitol doesn't happen again. Please don't be so fucking disingenuous.


It's 100% about revenge and venting frustration, it's perverse and it's sick. I'm entitled to that opinion and you can disagree with it if you so please, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Donald Trump is either an idiot or a brilliant mastermind


That was going to be my next point to you. Either hes so stupid that he didnt see anything wrong with having them march on the capital when they've been calling for civil war for months or seen any sign that every choice or statement he made was leading to a violent breaking point, or he knew exactly what he was doing and purposefully orchestrated an attack on the us capital. Either way you slice it, ineptitude or insurrection, he wasn't fit for presidency and deserves an impeachment conviction. Should have been removed sooner.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 13, 2021)

meteos too scary 2021

i don't know who needs to read this, but trump obviously incited the riot
who are you kidding
what are you gaining by defending the guy apart from just not facing that you got used
what happened to you to make your existence so inexorably bound to making excuses for a guy who got your vote for "drain the swamp" and then put half the deep state in his administration



Foxi4 said:


> It's 100% about revenge and venting frustration, it's unhealthy and it's sick. I'm entitled to that opinion and you can disagree with it if you so please, it doesn't bother me.


"it doesn't bother me"


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> That was going to be my next point to you. Either hes so stupid that he didnt see anything wrong with having them march on the capital when they've been calling for civil war for months or seen any sign that every choice or statement he made was leading to a violent breaking point, or he knew exactly what he was doing and purposefully orchestrated an attack on the us capital. Either way you slice it, ineptitude or insurrection, he wasn't fit for presidency and deserves an impeachment conviction. Should have been removed sooner.


I can think of no better place to protest that the Capitol.


Darth Meteos said:


> meteos too scary 2021
> 
> i don't know who needs to read this, but trump obviously incited the riot
> who are you kidding
> ...


Nice projection. I'll let it slide, I like a little memey picture every now and then as long as you stay on-topic.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can think of no better place to protest that the Capitol.
> 
> Nice projection. I'll let it slide, I like a little memey picture every now and then as long as you stay on-topic.


"Nice projection", says the man that blamed the Democrats for everything the Republicans did and still refuses to admit it.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This isn't about revenge porn.


donald trump was in office for four years, openly being corrupt and going "what are you gonna do"
for four years, nobody did anything except get mad on twitter
the dude finally does something that upset the nest of the elites by threatening their lives, but it's too late
it's the old mass shooting trick

stage 1: there hasn't been a shooting in ages, you're brining up something that doesn't matter
stage 2: how dare you politicize the deaths of innocent people?!
stage 3: have various actors cast doubt onto the situation, do a media campaign spreading misinformation and appeals to majority
stage 4: obstruct anything that gets through the cracks, ignore bad press
stage 5: go back to stage 1


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> She was denied service because she was a part of Trump's admin, and the owners weren't fans of the administration. There's nothing more to it.


Right. That's not the same thing as refusing service because of someone's beliefs. Her actions were the problems, and rightfully so.



Foxi4 said:


> Already addressed this, Trump is not their dad. He condemned the violence after the fact, but he's not in a position to tell private citizens what to do - the moment he does, he turns into the mastermind commanding his henchmen. These proceedings prove that this is precisely how his opposition sees him, I see zero reasons why he's want to reinforce this imaginary version of reality in people's minds.
> Trump is entitled to be displeased by election results and criticise the auditing methodology if he finds it inadequate. He also has the right to hold a rally any time he pleases. What his supporters, grown adults, do is beyond his control and he's not liable for any of it unless he specifically requested that they break the law, which in my opinion he did not.


He didn't condemn the violence during or immediately after the riot. He did nothing to call in the National Guard. He did nothing to respond to the attack on the Capitol. When the attack was in full swing, he didn't Tweet about the violence stopping; he Tweeted attacks against Mike Pence. We have videos of Trump relishing in the violence. He rebuffed calls for help in the middle of the violence. We know that after Trump knew Mike was being rushed to safety and was in danger from the mob, Trump sent the anti-Pence Tweet afterward. Considering how hard it is to argue against the facts, I don't blame you for having to resort to "nah, unconvincing" as your response instead.

If you are going to argue that Trump is the mastermind of the riots if he attempts to call his supporters off, despite the fact that other people condemned and attempted to call of the rioters without being labeled the masterminds behind it, then you've already admitted that Trump is the instigator. If you are going to argue that Trump is more concerned with how the optics affect him personally over stopping the actual insurrection at the Capitol, then you've already admitted that Trump is complicit.



Foxi4 said:


> It's 100% about revenge and venting frustration, it's unhealthy and it's sick. I'm entitled to that opinion and you can disagree with it if you so please, it doesn't bother me.


Not only are you claiming it's about revenge without evidence, but it's also ONE HUNDRED PERCENT about revenge? The hyperbole highlights how disingenuous you're actually being.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can think of no better place to protest that the Capitol.


if I were majority leader, I would offer trump this choice. If he could come before the senate and state for the record that he's not responsible for what happened on the 6th because he's too stupid to understand the consequences of his own actions, I would drop the impeachment. You think his ego would let him, or would he be compelled to take responsibility?


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Nice projection. I'll let it slide, I like a little memey picture every now and then as long as you stay on-topic.


oh, you are very obviously seething, though
i mean, you're a fascistic sympathizer, so it's not like being mad is new to you or anything

see the far-right victim mentality in action, folks
moan about the mean lefties being mean
and what was the mean thing they did
"hey, you should be punished for the bad thing you did/said"
ohhhhhhh cancel culture gone maaaad



WeedZ said:


> if I were majority leader, I would offer trump this choice. If he could come before the senate and state for the record that he's not responsible for what happened on the 6th because he's too stupid to understand the consequences of his own actions, I would drop the impeachment. You think his ego would let him, or would he be compelled to take responsibility?


he'd say he didn't do it and didn't mean to, but if he had meant to it would have worked because he's the best at inciting riots, believe me, the best


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "Nice projection", says the man that blamed the Democrats for everything the Republicans did and still refuses to admit it.


I would like to underline that I am not a Republican. In fact, I kind of hate the GOP - they fail to adequately represent conservative values and baloon the budget. I just happen to like Trump. I think making that distinction is important.


WeedZ said:


> if I were majority leader, I would offer trump this choice. If he could come before the senate and state for the record that he's not responsible for what happened on the 6th because he's too stupid to understand the consequences of his own actions, I would drop the impeachment. You think his ego would let him, or would he be compelled to take responsibility?


Why would he take a plea deal of any kind when he's innocent and he'll obviously be acquitted? Seems like shooting yourself in your own foot for no reason to me. Maybe if there was a dangerous viper on said foot and he was at risk of injury or death from said viper, but not when it's just mud on the shoe that will be wiped off in time.


Darth Meteos said:


> oh, you are very obviously seething, though
> i mean, you're a fascistic sympathizer, so it's not like being mad is new to you or anything


I'm simply having a good laugh. Trump already did his job, he's not in office anymore and as such I don't care what happens to him now. I'm objective-oriented, not people-oriented. It'd be *funny* to me if he was indeed acquitted, which is the most likely outcome, and I pursue comedy and good humour in most things I do. I sincerely hope everyone is mentally prepared for the possibility of Trump getting off scot-free.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I would like to underline that I am not a Republican. In fact, I kind of hate the GOP - they fail to adequately represent conservative values and baloon the budget. I just happen to like Trump. I think making that distinction is important.
> Why would he take a plea deal of any kind when he's innocent and he'll obviously be acquitted? Seems like shooting yourself in your own foot for no reason to me. Maybe if there was a dangerous viper on said foot and he was at risk of injury or death from said viper, but not when it's just mud on the shoe that will be wiped off in time.
> I'm simply having a good laugh. Trump already did his job, he's not in office anymore and as such I don't care what happens to him now. I'm objective-oriented, not people-oriented. It'd be *funny* to me if he was indeed acquitted, which is the most likely outcome, and I pursue comedy and good humour in most things I do. I sincerely hope everyone is mentally prepared for the possibility of Trump getting off scot-free.


Okay, considering what you've said and the abnormally large dropping of Republican registrations as vast numbers of moderate right-wingers realize that the GOP is currently Trump-or-Nothing:
You've blamed the Democrats for everything that _Trump and his supporters _did.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Okay, considering what you've said and the abnormally large dropping of Republican registrations as vast numbers of moderate right-wingers realize that the GOP is currently Trump-or-Nothing:
> You've blamed the Democrats for everything that _Trump and his supporters _did.


I blamed Democrats for what Democrats did - increased the temperature of political discourse to an 11, even before Trump was officially inaugurated.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I would like to underline that I am not a Republican. In fact, I kind of hate the GOP - they fail to adequately represent conservative values and baloon the budget. I just happen to like Trump. I think making that distinction is important.


You like the man who doesn't represent conservative values who ballooned the budget.



Foxi4 said:


> Why would he take a plea deal of any kind when he's innocent and he'll obviously be acquitted?


While he will probably be acquitted for political reasons, he's definitely guilty of inciting the mob attack on the Capitol.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm objective-oriented, not people-oriented.


You're repeatedly ignoring the facts because you irrationally like Trump. For example, Trump was told Pence was in danger and taken by security, and he then tweeted attacks against Pence in the middle of the riot. This riot was Trump's pressure campaign against the results of the election. "I guess [the rioters] just care more about election fraud than you," Trump said said in response to pleas from the Capitol.



Foxi4 said:


> It'd be *funny* to me if he was indeed acquitted, which is the most likely outcome, and I pursue comedy and good humour in most things I do. I sincerely hope everyone is mentally prepared for the possibility of Trump getting off scot-free.


One could argue that you find it funny because of the disparity between someone being guilty and being exonerated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I blamed Democrats for what Democrats did - increased the temperature of political discourse to an 11, even before Trump was officially inaugurated.


This is bullshit, and you know it.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I blamed Democrats for what Democrats did - increased the temperature of political discourse to an 11, even before Trump was officially inaugurated.


Pretty sure that one's not us either.
The closest thing to that we've done is our relatively large concern on _people actually having consequences for their actions_.
Trump, on the other hand, started off his campaign and subsequently his term with a neverending stream of lies and hatred, to a point where anyone that doesn't fall in line with him exactly is deemed a traitor to the party and basically politically excommunicated.
You are currently a member of a cult of personality, hence my pleading with you to seek deprogramming and exit counseling (exit counseling is basically deprogramming with better methods and less negative associations- both serve the same goal, to get the patient to detach themselves from the cult).
Trump could shoot a man in cold blood and you would find a way to defend him.
Please, for the love of who(m)ever you may or may not worship and for your own good, seek help.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This is bullshit, and you know it.


Again, if your standard of incitement were to be applied to every official in the government, Maxine Waters would be in prison. She incited her followers regardless of whether she intended to or not, so if that's the standard, cuffs are on the way.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html

You cannot claim that one is incitement and the other isn't without being a hypocrite. Once you agree to take that L, we can continue our conversation.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Again, if your standard of incitement were to be applied to every official in the government, Maxine Waters would be in prison. She incited her followers regardless of whether she intended to or not, so if that's the standard, cuffs are on the way.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html
> 
> You cannot claim that one is incitement and the other isn't without being a hypocrite. Once you agree to take that L, we can continue our conversation.


On principle, I don't respond to whataboutism, since by definition, it's irrelevant.

It's telling that you have to resort to it though.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Pretty sure that one's not us either.
> The closest thing to that we've done is our relatively large concern on _people actually having consequences for their actions_.
> Trump, on the other hand, started off his campaign and subsequently his term with a neverending stream of lies and hatred, to a point where anyone that doesn't fall in line with him exactly is deemed a traitor to the party and basically politically excommunicated.
> You are currently a member of a cult of personality, hence my pleading with you to seek deprogramming and exit counseling (exit counseling is basically deprogramming with better methods and less negative associations- both serve the same goal, to get the patient to detach themselves from the cult).
> ...


Beep boop, does not compute - not funny, didn't laugh. Jokes aside, I'm in full control of my mental faculties. You on the other hand probably don't own a lot of mirrors. That's neither here nor there - I never cares much about what people think about me and I'm not about to start now. We can agree to disagree without calling each other "programmed".


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

@Foxi4
Actually, I will respond to your whataboutism. Waters told people to refuse service to people in the Trump administration as an act of resistance. Man, I really hope those pearls I ordered on Amazon get here soon so I can clutch them.

Nothing about what she said is relevant to the conversation of inciting an armed insurrection against the Capitol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> On principle, I don't respond to whataboutism, since by definition, it's irrelevant.
> 
> It's telling that you have to resort to it though.


It's not whataboutism, it's establishing a standard. If your argument is that certain kinds of speech incite violence, you have to specify a standard that can be used as a measuring stick. If your measuring stick depends on who is doing the speaking, you can sit on said stick - it's not fit for purpose, but I'm sure you'll find other places to fit it.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not whataboutism, it's establishing a standard. If your argument is that certain kinds of speech incite violence, you have to specify a standard that can be used as a measuring stick. If your measuring stick depends on who is doing the speaking, you can sit on said stick - it's not fit for purpose, but I'm sure you'll find other places to fit it.


Beep boop, other people's alleged incitements of violence (she didn't incite violence) are irrelevant to whether or not someone else incited an armed insurrection against the Capitol. Try again.

It's textbook whataboutism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> @Foxi4
> Actually, I will respond to your whataboutism. Waters told people to refuse service to people in the Trump administration as an act of resistance. Man, I really hope those pearls I ordered on Amazon get here soon so I can clutch them.
> 
> Nothing about what she said is relevant to the conversation of inciting an armed insurrection against the Capitol.


That is not what she said. This is what she said:


> And *if you see anybody from that Cabinet* in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you *push back on them*. And you tell them *they're not welcome anymore, anywhere*.


Meaning harass members of the administration wherever you happen to see them because they're not welcome anywhere. That is what she said.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Beep boop, does not compute - not funny, didn't laugh. Jokes aside, I'm in full control of my mental faculties. You on the other hand probably don't own a lot of mirrors. That's neither here nor there - I never cares much about what people think about me and I'm not about to start now. We can agree to disagree without calling each other "programmed".


dude, you don't quite understand what I'm saying
you may be in control of your mental faculties, but there is a self-imposed barrier against admitting Trump did any bad or Democrats did any good
we shower you with evidence of Donald's dastardly deeds and deadly direction deficiencies... you deny them all
Donald Trump and his slowly dwindling swarm of pet liars have removed your ability to distinguish fact from fiction, and you need to realize that
if Trump was a Democrat (and let's face it, he isn't even Republican- he only cares about himself above all else, so his political affiliation might as well just be "Trump"), I'd want him to rot in jail regardless, and for all the same reasons
but you? if Trump was a Democrat and you weren't attached to him like a louse, you would probably outright wish death upon him!
heck, if Biden did ONE of the hundreds of things Trump has done, you would likely wish him *publicly guillotined!*


Foxi4 said:


> That is not what she said. This is what she said:
> Meaning harass members of the administration wherever you happen to see them because they're not welcome anywhere. That is what she said.


"That's not what she said"... but it's what she meant.
"Push back on them" just means "call them out for being horrible people that sided with a horrible person for the sake of power".
You keep misinterpreting "give people consequences for their _voluntary actions_" as "harass people for personal beliefs". Being in the Trump administration and actively choosing to help him ruin the country is not a personal belief, it is a choice of power over morals and DESERVES public ridicule.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That is not what she said. This is what she said:
> Meaning harras members of the administration wherever you happen to see them because they're not welcome. That is what she said.


Who's going to tell him there are no calls to violence or harassment in that quote? Can I do it? Please? Okay.

There are no calls to violence or harassment in that quote. She's calling people to refuse service, like what was done with SHS. My SHS pearls haven't come in yet, but I plan on clutching those for this one.

Edit: See my previous posts on what Trump actually did. You should also look up whataboutism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, you don't quite understand what I'm saying
> you may be in control of your mental faculties, but there is a self-imposed barrier against admitting Trump did any bad or Democrats did any good
> we shower you with evidence of Donald's dastardly deeds and deadly direction deficiencies... you deny them all
> Donald Trump and his slowly dwindling swarm of pet liars have removed your ability to distinguish fact from fiction, and you need to realize that
> ...


Thanks, doctor. I didn't really ask for a session, but if you are a licensed therapist, now would be the time to flash that license. If you don't have one, you can drop that discussion, as funny as it is to me. This isn't a thread about me - if you want to waste time, waste it via PM so you don't further detract from the subject of the thread. I'm happy that you care so much about me and my well-being, but most people don't, and I like it that way.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm happy that you care so much about me and my well-being, but most people don't, and I like it that way.


I don't.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Who's going to tell him there are no calls to violence or harassment in that quote? Can I do it? Please? Okay.
> 
> There are no calls to violence or harassment in that quote. She's calling people to refuse service, like what was done with SHS. My SHS pearls haven't come in yet, but I plan on clutching those for this one.
> 
> Edit: See my previous posts on what Trump actually did. You should also look up whataboutism.


You need to set an acceptable standard of speech. Detract from that all day if you want, but if you can't vocalise what is and is not permissable in a heated public speech, your bias is showing. For the record, I don't think Waters should be on her way to Gitmo for what she said, but I can easily call it a violence-inciting dog whistle, regardless of her original intention, since apparently intent went out the window with the start of these proceedings.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Thanks, doctor. I didn't really ask for a session, but if you are a licensed therapist, now would be the time to flash that license. If you don't have one, you can drop that discussion, as funny as it is to me. This isn't a thread about me - if you want to waste time, waste it via PM so you don't further detract from the subject of the thread. I'm happy that you care so much about me and my well-being, but most people don't, and I like it that way.


Look at yourself.
Look at what you have said regarding any Democrat, and look at you have said regarding Trump.
Then look at what those people have actually said and done.
*Realize just how fucking wrong you have been and how much hypocrisy you have spouted.*


Foxi4 said:


> You need to set an acceptable standard of speech. Detract from that all day if you want, but if you can't vocalise what is and is not permissable in a heated public speech, your bias is showing. For the record, I don't think Waters should be on her way to Gitmo for what she said, but I can easily call it a violence-inciting dog whistle, regardless of her original intention, since apparently intent went out the window with the start of these proceedings.


I'd say it's an awful lot less likely to incite violence than Trump telling his supporters that Biden stole the election, that they have to be strong to fight it and that they need to fight like hell _to 'reclaim' the election._


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Look at yourself.
> Look at what you have said regarding any Democrat, and look at you have said regarding Trump.
> Then look at what those people have actually said and done.
> *Realize just how fucking wrong you have been and how much hypocrisy you have spouted.*
> ...


Listen, telling you not to play therapist isn't a carte blanche to play the preacher instead. If you don't have anything to say about the currently recessed impeachment proceedings and wish to instead focus on talking about me personally for some undisclosed reason, I'll have to treat your posts as off-topic. I've given you a subtle verbal indication that this will be the case, but you didn't seem to pick up on it. Stick to the topic, get off my back - rides are $5 a minute and you haven't paid yet.

In any case, after the recess the Senate will finally decide whether they want to call in witnesses or vote straight away. There's a fair chance that they'll vote for holding further hearings, extending the circus a little longer. We'll see soon enough.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You need to set an acceptable standard of speech. Detract from that all day if you want, but if you can't vocalise what is and is not permissable in a heated public speech, your bias is showing. For the record, I don't think Waters should be on her way to Gitmo for what she said, but I can easily call it a violence-inciting dog whistle, regardless of her original intention, since apparently intent went out the window with the start of these proceedings.


"Don't serve those who are complicit with the deplorable actions of this administration" is different from "This election was stolen from us, and the only thing we can do to fix it is go to the Capitol and take it back. Oh, and in the middle of the violence. I will cattily tell those pleading for help that they should have cared more about my fake claims of election fraud. I'll also tweet attacks against Mike Pence after I'm told he's being rushed to safety because I've put him in danger."

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@Foxi4 With regard to the words of Waters, you might want to look into the history of peaceful protest and noncompliance with regard to matters of racial injustice in this country.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Listen, telling you not to play therapist isn't a carte blanche to play the preacher instead. If you don't have anything to say about the currently recessed impeachment proceedings and wish to instead focus on talking about me personally for some undisclosed reason, I'll have to treat your posts as off-topic. I've given you a subtle verbal indication that this will be the case, but you didn't seem to pick up on it. Stick to the topic, get off my back - rides are $5 a minute and you haven't paid yet.
> 
> In any case, after the recess the Senate will finally decide whether they want to call in witnesses or vote straight away. There's a fair chance that they'll vote for holding further hearings, extending the circus a little longer. We'll see soon enough.


I mean...
this also applies to all the other hardcore Trumpers in the thread.
The evidence: against you.
The numbers: against you.
The OTHER evidence: also against you.
*A steadily growing fraction of your former allies in collective delusion: now against you because they finally realized just how wrong they were.*
Reality does not side with Trump, and neither should any of you.
The fact that there are still people in this thread (heck, still people anywhere in general) defending Trump's actions by ignoring everything right in front of them, or ignoring all his horrible misdeeds with blatant whataboutism... is just plain fucked up.
Trump incited a coup, refused to actually denounce it for _days_ because he was more focused with "winning" (read: cheating after the fact) an election he rightfully *lost* than the basic democracy of our country or anything resembling morals.
Admit it.

(Also, what the heck am I supposed to play? You refuse to accept piles of legitimate evidence when placed directly in your line of sight, so what on earth SHOULD I do that might convince you to reexamine the situation from a neutral perspective?!)


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> @Foxi4 With regard to the words of Waters, you might want to look into the history of peaceful protest and noncompliance with regard to matters of racial injustice in this country.


I know it very well. The Woolworth's Sit-in, among with many other civil rights protests, were successful without "pushing" anyone from the administration in charge. Restaurants and department stores desegregated in the 1960's specifically as a result of non-compliance with company policies. Not sure what those events have to do with Waters asking her supporters to start hunting for Trump admin team members and harassing them.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I know it very well. The Woolworth's Sit-in, among with many other civil rights protests, were successful without "pushing" anyone from the administration in charge. Restaurants and department stores desegregated in the 1960's specifically as a result of non-compliance with company policies. Not sure what those events have to do with Waters asking her supporters to start hunting for Trump admin team members and harassing them.


First off, you STILL confuse "hunting and harassment" with "giving people social consequences for their actions".
If someone is an immoral scumbag willing to actively participate in ruining the nation for the sake of power, they deserve every last bit of public mockery and refusal they receive.
Second off, Waters' ask for people to give Trump admin members what they deserve _is a form of peaceful protest._
It's protesting Trump's horrific actions and the also-horrific lengths taken to support him and to continue doing so in blatant disregard of facts, morals or the basic tenets of democracy our country was founded upon.
Waters does not want people to be discriminated against for passive beliefs.
However, supporting Trump is not a passive belief. Steps must be taken mentally to distance yourself from the facts, from all forms of media stating said facts (i.e. calling everything negative "fake news"), from anyONE stating said facts, etc. Supporting Trump is an active choice of self-delusion and hatred, and should very well be socially rejected.
Also, the protests you mention weren't aimed at specific government officials because that wasn't what they were protesting- segregation wasn't maintained by the government at that point, but by bigots and a society that refused to punish them.
In this case, various forms of hatred, bigotry and denial ARE being maintained by the (former) government- by Trump and the officials that were in his administration.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> First off, you STILL confuse "hunting and harassment" with "giving people social consequences for their actions".
> If someone is an immoral scumbag willing to actively participate in ruining the nation for the sake of power, they deserve every last bit of public mockery and refusal they receive.
> Second off, Waters' ask for people to give Trump admin members what they deserve _is a form of peaceful protest._
> It's protesting Trump's horrific actions and the also-horrific lengths taken to support him and to continue doing so in blatant disregard of facts, morals or the basic tenets of democracy our country was founded upon.
> ...


The fact that you think they *deserve* to be harassed and berated solely on the basis of being members of Trump's administration speaks volumes about you. I'll refrain from responding to your posts any further until you provide some new and relevant take, for now I'm too busy watching the hearings, the recess is about to finish and the lunacy in the Senate will continue, which is far more interesting than your Analyze This reenactment.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I know it very well. The Woolworth's Sit-in, among with many other civil rights protests, were successful without "pushing" anyone from the administration in charge. Restaurants and department stores desegregated in the 1960's specifically as a result of non-compliance with company policies. Not sure what those events have to do with Waters asking her supporters to start hunting for Trump admin team members and harassing them.



Waters did not incite violence.
Nobody in the Trump administration should be welcome anywhere, except maybe prison.
I apologize for derailing the thread by engaging in Foxi4's pointless whataboutism.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I know it very well.



You've been known to supposedly know many things very well, then proven wrong. What makes this instance any different?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The fact that you think they *deserve* to be harassed and berated solely on the basis of being members of Trump's administration speaks volumes about you. I'll refrain from responding to your posts any further until you provide some new and relevant take, for now I'm too busy watching the hearings, the recess is about to finish and the lunacy in the Senate will continue, which is far more interesting than your Analyze This reenactment.


Firstly, if the principal of a school actively bullies children for things beyond their control, and a teacher sides with them, there are only two reasons why they would do so.
Reason one: they are also a terrible person, in which case they deserve social consequences. (Which, despite what you may think, is not "harassment".)
Reason two: they are a complete and utter coward afraid of suffering punishment or losing their job for doing what's right, in which case they at the very least deserve ridicule for prioritizing personal fear over what is fundamentally right and good.
Either way, they deserve whatever social consequences they get. As Trump and the members of his administration are in an equivalent position (almighty bully and his minions) but on a far larger scale that warrants far more legitimate morality to be a good example to the NATION (of which he has none and is not), this applies to them but even more so.
Secondly, "new and relevant take"? What take do you want?
"You're right and I will dodge every drop of evidence I come across to continue agreeing with you"?
"I'm going to conveniently ignore everything that paints Trump in a bad light so that I can spout nonsense while claiming to have seen things as they 'are'"?
"I'll shut up now because I'm personally afraid that contradicting a global moderator's impenetrable viewpoint might get me banned for stating basic facts of reality"?
What take do you want- denial, ignorance or fear?
Because I'm not giving any of those.
I'm asking for you to analyze things again because you adamantly refuse to.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You've been known to supposedly know many things very well, then proven wrong. What makes this instance any different?


That depends on your definition of "wrong". I stand by everything I've said so far and can't recall making an incorrect judgement in regards to the election. Also, off-topic - fan mail should be directed to my PM box, I collect it there and strongly encourage sending your thoughts and prayers in.


----------



## smf (Feb 13, 2021)

shamzie said:


> There's a thing called reasonable doubt.



Sure and Trump is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, your doubt is not reasonable.

He knew what would happen because people told him before the day what would happen if he kept making fraudulent claims and talking in the way he did, he knew it was happening as he was watching it and refused to stop it because he wanted it to work.

If he was in a real court then his only plea now would be insanity.

He was the president, it was his job to not cause a riot and bring it to a peaceful end if one starts. He was a failure at his job.

Impeachment is stupid because half the jury are your criminal accomplices. He won't get that luxury if they decide he can't be impeached because he is no longer in office, next stage would be to hold him criminally accountable (you can't have it both ways).

Accessory to 5 unlawful killings would be how long?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

The show's back on, for anyone watching.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 13, 2021)

smf said:


> Sure and Trump is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, your doubt is not reasonable.
> 
> He knew what would happen because people told him before the day what would happen if he kept making fraudulent claims and talking in the way he did, he knew it was happening as he was watching it and refused to stop it because he wanted it to work.
> 
> ...



Keep this energy when he gets acquited.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 13, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Keep this energy when he gets acquited.


Even if he is, he has charges to keep him busy in court for the next few years.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2021)

smf said:


> Sure and Trump is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, your doubt is not reasonable.
> 
> He knew what would happen because people told him before the day what would happen if he kept making fraudulent claims and talking in the way he did, he knew it was happening as he was watching it and refused to stop it because he wanted it to work.
> 
> ...


My History Class teacher is teaching me that Trump and Trumpist are Racist.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

Merry Impeachmas!
what a failure of a impeachment ahahaahahah


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> Even if he is, he has charges to keep him busy in court for the next few years.


Unless Covid Kills him


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Merry Impeachmas!
> what a failure of a impeachment ahahaahahah


This impeachment may get the most bipartisan amount of support in the history of presidential impeachments, despite the likely acquittal. Try again.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This impeachment may get the most bipartisan amount of support in the history of presidential impeachments, despite the likely acquittal. Try again.


Says a lot about the state of the Republican Party when they're so obsessed with party lines over sanity that having like five of them budge an inch is quite possibly the most supportive they've ever been of having one of their own leaders get what's coming to him.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 13, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> your wrong bout disqualification saddly he needs to have an conviction first then they can disquallify him, but say if trump goes to prison for his various financial crimes he might win the election but he cant hold office due to the 25th amendment stating a president cannot be impeded (unable) to hold office due to incompasitation (since he is in the big house he cant hold office) soo the VP gets the hot seat automaticly then theres the fact he could instantly pardon trump unless the pardon power is moddified through an amendment cause of trump's gross abuse of pardons



you might want to do a little more legal legwork my dude.

*Judgment - Removal and Disqualification*
SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

*Annotations*

Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.853

The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. *Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction.* *Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856*


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

imao JULY???????? Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/AtomicDenny/status/1360606071950356482


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao JULY???????? https://twitter.com/AtomicDenny/status/1360606071950356482


Morning Consult said this, not Joe Biden.



Plasmaster09 said:


> Says a lot about the state of the Republican Party when they're so obsessed with party lines over sanity that having like five of them budge an inch is quite possibly the most supportive they've ever been of having one of their own leaders get what's coming to him.


One of the sad things is you don't have to look far to find some of these Republican senators who are going to vote to acquit calling Trump a threat to democracy, disqualified from running for president, etc. back in 2015-2016.

It's amazing how things change when your electorate is madly in love with the tyrant you once disparaged.


----------



## smf (Feb 13, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Keep this energy when he gets acquited.



He probably won't ever face justice for the many crimes he has committed.

But until he does then there are a lot of his supporters who will ruin their lives with cope.

At least when Trump was president you could have fun in your moral vacuum. It's not so much fun now I guess.



SG854 said:


> My History Class teacher is teaching me that Trump and Trumpist are Racist.



You only need to listen to what he says to know that.

Your history class teacher should start by teaching you what racism is, it doesn't mean you wear white robes and burn crosses. You can have friends who are black, you can even be black.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

Democrats are a train wreck. Schumer egg on face again.what a failure of a impeachment


----------



## smf (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Democrats are a train wreck. Schumer egg on face again.what a failure of a impeachment



Impeachments always fail because half the jury are in on your crime. Imagine if you held up a bank and demanded that half the jury were your accomplices.

It's all good, Trump is losing money.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

smf said:


> Impeachments always fail because half the jury are in on your crime. Imagine if you held up a bank and demanded that half the jury were your accomplices.
> 
> It's all good, Trump is losing money.


Very true - it is a waste of money, both tax money and Trump's money, but Van Der Veen's performance is worth every penny - he's been phenomenal. I have a feeling I know who's going to be Trump's favourite lawyer going forward, the man is taking scalps with a stone poker face.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 13, 2021)

just going to link this video here
If you don't watch here's pretty much the important part. Senators are supposed to impartial. However the Republican senators are meeting with the defense lawyers and discussing with them


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

Total acquittal imminent. get ready for the salt


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 13, 2021)

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...with-trumps-impeachment-team-to-talk-strategy
https://www.businessinsider.com/3-g...awyers-day-before-defense-presentation-2021-2
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/gop-senators-trump-impeachment-lawyers/index.html
here's sources backing it up

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Total acquittal imminent. get ready for the salt


If it happens, then I wouldn't be surprised. If you read what I just said. Republicans are in bed with the defense team. They are not being impartial as they should be when an impeachment hearing happens.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...with-trumps-impeachment-team-to-talk-strategy
> https://www.businessinsider.com/3-g...awyers-day-before-defense-presentation-2021-2
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/gop-senators-trump-impeachment-lawyers/index.html
> here's sources backing it up
> ...


This is irrelevant as Congress had already established at the beginning of the trial that the process of impeachment is not a federal criminal trial and does not need to follow the same procedural standards. If it was, it would be thrown out by now due to numerous breaches of procedure by the prosecution, including submitting unlisted evidence mid-way through the hearings and relying on hearsay.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Total acquittal imminent. get ready for the salt


It's not a secret that the vast majority of Republicans are going to vote to acquit. It also isn't a secret that some of these Republican Senators are complicit.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This is irrelevant as Congress had already established at the beginning of the trial that the process of impeachment is not a federal criminal trial and does not need to follow the same procedural standards.


bullshit. You have to take a oath that you would be impartial. That is breaking that oath. You know that is bull, I'd highly doubt you wouldn't know that.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Very true - it is a waste of money, both tax money and Trump's money, but Van Der Veen's performance is worth every penny - he's been phenomenal. I have a feeling I know who's going to be Trump's favourite lawyer going forward, the man is taking scalps with a stone poker face.


The guy's wiggling about like he's on crack, spouting distractions and basically turning himself into a comedy act.
SNL is going to have a field day with Mister Phillydelphia.

oh my fucking god
closing arguments
the absolute SOB claims that Trump "wasn't given a chance [to participate in the trial]" when _*he declined, MULTIPLE TIMES, to do anything of the sort,*_ and claimed that the evidence provided was (and I quote verbatim) "cribbed from a biased news media".
who writes his scripts, drumpf himself?
like this endless fountain of horsecrap just denies everything and pins everything on the Dems


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> The guy's wiggling about like he's on crack, spouting distractions and basically turning himself into a comedy act.
> SNL is going to have a field day with Mister Phillydelphia.


Oh no, not SNL, how will he ever recover?


monkeyman4412 said:


> bullshit. You have to take a oath that you would be impartial. That is breaking that oath. You know that is bull, I'd highly doubt you wouldn't know that.


I don't see what one has to do with the other. If this is not a criminal proceeding then there is no rule explicitly preventing the parties from discussing anything. If this is specified in impeachment-related legislation and you can cite the relevant paragraph, I would like to read it - I'm not saying that I'm correct, I simply don't know of any such rule.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh no, not SNL, how will he ever recover?
> I don't see what one has to do with the other. If this is not a criminal proceeding then there is no rule explicitly preventing the parties from discussing anything. If this is specified in impeachment-related legislation and you can cite the relevant paragraph, I would like to read it - I'm not saying that I'm correct, I simply don't know of any such rule.


dude, the entire point of a jury is to be impartial
having one side and one side only discuss with part of said jury is quite possibly the most blatant lack of impartiality that could happen aside from something like *being held at gunpoint by one side DURING THE TRIAL*
it really isn't that hard to understand
and now they're accusing us of basically rigging the trial... when they've tried to rig the jury


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, the entire point of a jury is to be impartial
> having one side and one side only discuss with part of said jury is quite possibly the most blatant lack of impartiality that could happen aside from something like *being held at gunpoint by one side DURING THE TRIAL*
> it really isn't that hard to understand
> and now they're accusing us of basically rigging the trial... when they've tried to rig the jury


I don't care about what the "point" of the jury is, I care about the legal standard. If this is not a criminal trial and the relevant limitations do not apply then they do not apply, regardless of what your fee-fees are telling you.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't see what one has to do with the other.


Let me get this straight.
talking to the defense lawyers, outside of the hearings, after taking an oath that you would be impartial has no correlation in your head? Nothing?
Is this peak braincell loss or something?
"Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the presidingofficer shall administer the oath hereafter provided to the members of the Senate then present,and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take thesame"
and this is the oath:
"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the tria lof the impeachment of , now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."
This phrasing may of changed, however this part still exists. You take an oath to be impartial. 
source:https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/1_1868ImpeachmentRules.pdf


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't care about what the "point" of the jury is, I care about the legal standard. If this is not a criminal trial and the relevant limitations do not apply then they do not apply, regardless of what your fee-fees are telling you.


what?
the legal standard... _is impartiality._
also, please stop the bullshit pathos gambit. I am not arguing from a point of emotion, nor is anyone else here.
I am arguing from a point of basic legality and morality.
one side should not have direct communication with the jury before the trial.
heck, NEITHER side should have any such communication (which is a thing I should NOT have to say because it should be obvious by default), *let alone one side specifically!*
oh and yeah
the whole "they all have to take an oath to be completely impartial" thing
which applies to *all trials*


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

We're not discussing whether they *should* meet - in a federal court case they shouldn't and are prohibited from doing so. We're discussing whether they could. If you believe for one second that any one person in that chamber is impartial and will vote based on the presented evidence, you're the sucker. I will demonstrate.

Every single Democrat will vote to impeach, along with a small handful of Republicans in name only. The gross majority of Republicans will vote to acquit. I could've told you that *before* the trial started

Any delusion of impartiality you still have in your head is misguided and naive. If you think that meeting with the defense team, if it had occurred in a way that would be improper, changed *one* vote, I'll need you to demonstrate that and provide evidence. Minds were made up 5 days ago. Heck, they were made up a month ago.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Every single Democrat will vote to impeach, along with a small handful of Republicans in name only. The gross majority of Republicans will vote to acquit. I could've told you that *before* the trial started.


So... because they vote to impeach Trump, they aren't true Republicans?
That is the textbook definition of the no-true-scotsman fallacy.
That is further proof that you don't side with any political ideologies, any parties, anything... but with one man.
One man named Donald Trump, who incited a violent insurrection against our country and would gladly unplug the life support of everyone on the planet in order to charge his fucking phone.
The fact that ANYONE would vote to acquit Trump is the epitome of what is fundamentally wrong with our country- that almost nobody understands that actions come with consequences, and that Trump's actions warrant impeachment and conviction as the *BARE MINIMUM.*


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

The year is 2023, we still haven't gotten our stimulus checks and Donald Trump has been impeached for the 14th time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> So... because they vote to impeach Trump, they aren't true Republicans?
> That is the textbook definition of the no-true-scotsman fallacy.
> That is further proof that you don't side with any political ideologies, any parties, anything... but with one man.
> One man named Donald Trump, who incited a violent insurrection against our country and would gladly unplug the life support of everyone on the planet in order to charge his fucking phone.
> The fact that ANYONE would vote to acquit Trump is the epitome of what is fundamentally wrong with our country- that almost nobody understands that actions come with consequences, and that Trump's actions warrant impeachment and conviction as the *BARE MINIMUM.*


You're putting words in my mouth. They're RINO's because they fail to represent their party's ideals, nearly every single one in that chamber doesn't follow the creed. Some simply understand how the game works whereas others don't, or they wish to stand out in the crowd, or they're from odd constituencies and it would be politically expedient for them to side with the Democrats. I have very little respect to nearly everyone in that chamber, regardless of which party they're from, you're grossly underestimating the level of disdain I have towards career politicians.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We're not discussing whether they *should* meet - in a federal court case they shouldn't and are prohibited from doing so. We're discussing whether they could. If you believe for one second that any one person in that chamber is impartial and will vote based on the presented evidence, you're the sucker. I will demonstrate.
> 
> Every single Democrat will vote to impeach, along with a small handful of Republicans in name only. The gross majority of Republicans will vote to acquit. I could've told you that *before* the trial started
> 
> Any delusion of impartiality you still have in your head is misguided and naive. If you think that meeting with the defense team, if it had occurred in a way that would be improper, changed *one* vote, I'll need you to demonstrate that and provide evidence. Minds were made up 5 days ago. Heck, they were made up a month ago.


So in other words. the facts don't matter, according to you? Hey fits with all the other Republicans drawing or not looking at the evidence. Because you know. That's what people should do. Act like little children when it something as important as convicting a man for FUCKING SENDING A GODAMN RIOT.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So in other words. the facts don't matter, according to you? Hey fits with all the other Republicans drawing or not looking at the evidence. Because you know. That's what people should do. Act like little children when it something as important as convicting a man for FUCKING SENDING A GODAMN RIOT.


Is it prohibited in a non-criminal trial that is not before a *real* judge and jury or is it not? Because the answer to that question is a relevant fact, your personal view is not.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You're putting words in my mouth. They're RINO's because they fail to represent their party's ideals, nearly every single one in that chamber doesn't follow the creed. Some simply understand how the game works whereas others don't, or they wish to stand out in the crowd, or they're from odd constituencies and it would be politically expedient to them to side with the Democrats. I have very little respect to nearly everyone in that chamber, regardless of which party they're from, you're grossly underestimating the level of disdain I have towards career politicians.


Whether they vote to impeach or not has nothing to do with their party's ideals.
YOU do not decide their party's ideals.
They are not RINOs because they do not bow to Trump's every motherfucking whim.
Voting to impeach Trump is not a vote of party allegiance, it is a vote of conscience and of sanity.
Those that vote to acquit are not "true Republicans", they are traitors to everything our democracy stands for.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That depends on your definition of "wrong". I stand by everything I've said so far and can't recall making an incorrect judgement in regards to the election. Also, off-topic - fan mail should be directed to my PM box, I collect it there and strongly encourage sending your thoughts and prayers in.



Wrong means wrong. There aren't many definitions that I know of. Wrong. Meaning factually incorrect.

I don't believe thoughts and prayers would help, so there's no need to waste my time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Whether they vote to impeach or not has nothing to do with their party's ideals.
> YOU do not decide their party's ideals.
> They are not RINOs because they do not bow to Trump's every motherfucking whim.
> Voting to impeach Trump is not a vote of party allegiance, it is a vote of conscience and of sanity.
> Those that vote to acquit are not "true Republicans", they are traitors to everything our democracy stands for.


If it is indeed a vote of conscience and sanity then the whole chamber will vote to acquit since he's obviously innocent. Seeing that this is not a sincere trial, it will be split down the middle as I predict.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If it is indeed a vote of conscience and sanity then the whole chamber will vote to acquit since he's obviously innocent. Since that is not a sincere trial, it will be split down the middle as I predict.


Erm, what?
How the fuck is he in any way, shape or form INNOCENT?!
Have you not seen the pile of evidence, including the call showing that he OUTRIGHT REFUSED to denounce the rioters and stated that they "clearly care more about the election than [the guy calling him asking him to help in any way whatsoever]"?


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

It's over *SENATE HAS VOTES TO ACQUIT TRUMP ON CHARGE OF INCITING RIOT
IMAO 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1360692820860928002


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Erm, what?
> How the fuck is he in any way, shape or form INNOCENT?!
> Have you not seen the pile of evidence, including the call showing that he OUTRIGHT REFUSED to denounce the rioters and stated that they "clearly care more about the election than [the guy calling him asking him to help in any way whatsoever]"?


Hearsay. This is not evidenced by the parties involved, it's a third-party account. If the prosecution wanted to push that matter, they would've taken depositions from Trump and McCarthy. They did not call them to testify because they knew it was irrelevant to the charge of incitement. In fact, Trump could be clapping from the windows of the White House gleefully and that would not constitute incitement as the siege was *already in progress*. The idea that there's such a thing as "further incitement" is a red herring invented on the spot - in reality, either he incited the crowd and X happened or he didn't. His satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the event is immaterial when the question is whether he caused it or not. As for the phone call itself, it would be thrown out as irrelevant in a real criminal trial for the same reasons, in addition to one crucial detail - it was private and only leaked later by the press, after the fact. Nothing said during the phone call speaks to incitement as nobody in the crowd was aware of it taking place. The prosecution is wearing so many eggs on its face at this stage that if they stand in the sun for too long, they'll turn into an omelette. They failed to support the charge in any shape or form and focused on playing emotional content for dullard instead.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> It's over *SENATE HAS VOTES TO ACQUIT TRUMP ON CHARGE OF INCITING RIOT
> IMAO
> https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1360692820860928002


The only part of what we have control of that matters here is the Senate.
Technically, we DON'T have control of it- it's just that we're tied and in case of ties, we win them for now. (So if the Republicans line up to bash their faces into a wall in unison, and one of the two Independents joins them, we're fucked.)
And for this, we needed a two-thirds vote... and the Senate Reps are so deep into the rabbit hole that not enough would back out of it.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

democrats can't even impeach when they run the whole show


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Hearsay. This is not evidenced by the parties involved, it's a third-party account. If the prosecution wanted to push that matter, they would've taken depositions from Trump and McCarthy. They did not call them to testify because they knew it was irrelevant to the charge of incitement. In fact, Trump could be clapping from the windows of the White House gleefully and that would not constitute incitement as the siege was *already in progress*. The idea that there's such a thing as "further incitement" is a red herring invented on the spot - in reality, either he incited the crowd and X happened or he didn't. His satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the event is immaterial when the question is whether he caused it or not. As for the phone call itself, it would be thrown out as irrelevant in a real criminal trial for the same reasons, in addition to one crucial detail - it was private and only leaked later by the press, after the fact. Nothing said during the phone call speaks to incitement as nobody in the crowd was aware of it taking place. The prosecution is wearing so many eggs on its face at this stage that if they stand in the sun for too long, they'll turn into an omlette.


I can't even fathom how fucking brainwashed you are right now- you don't even understand what hearsay means!
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by someone other than a direct witness- like if some random guy claimed someone else told him that Trump wanted to stop the riots, but without a shred of direct evidence.
As the evidence the prosecution provided was both made in court and either by direct witnesses or _*literally direct recordings of conversations Trump himself had with major officials, *_it is in no way shape or form hearsay.



Valwinz said:


> democrats can't even impeach when they run the whole show


We don't, sideshow indoctrinee.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> It's over *SENATE HAS VOTES TO ACQUIT TRUMP ON CHARGE OF INCITING RIOT
> IMAO
> https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1360692820860928002



Richard Burr
Bill Cassidy
Susan Collins
Lisa Murkowski
Mitt Romney
Ben Sasse
Pat Toomey
Considering today's polarization in politics, it's amazing this many Republican senators voted to convict Trump.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> democrats can't even impeach when they run the whole show


The House impeached Trump twice. I suggest you use the words correctly.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

So they postponed stimulus to impeach Trump and got embarrassed
WHAT A DAYYYYYYYYYYYY


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> So they postponed stimulus to impeach Trump and got embarrassed
> WHAT A DAYYYYYYYYYYYY


that's
you still don't know what you're saying
they DID impeach him, this was the trial to CONVICT


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Looks like the show is over and unraveled exactly as predicted. Thank you for an evening of entertainment and see you all next time. Hopefully Congress can now focus on the long-awaited COVID relief instead of fighting windmills.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2021)

It's not over till it's over


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Looks like the show is over and unraveled exactly as predicted. Thank you for an evening of entertainment and see you all next time. Hopefully Congress can now focus on the long-awaited COVID relief instead of fighting windmills.


Hopefully you can now focus on legitimate contributions to the conversation instead of whataboutism and nonsensical idle mockery of whatever Democrats try to do at any given moment.
And yes, it unraveled exactly as predicted- the Republicans were too busy drinking Trump-brand Kool-Aid to convict the guy that, you know, *incited a violent insurrection against his own government in order to unlawfully maintain power.*
It proved, yet again, that a large chunk of the Republican Party is a circle-jerking personality cult willing to sacrifice the last shreds of their morals in order to please the Almighty Donald.

Hopefully there's at least one criminal court somewhere that can get his ass in jail where he belongs for all his OTHER charges.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Looks like the show is over and unraveled exactly as predicted. Thank you for an evening of entertainment and see you all next time. Hopefully Congress can now focus on the long-awaited COVID relief instead of fighting windmills.


Yes, with the majority of Republican Senators sucking down that Trump cock instead of doing their fucking jobs. Jesus, if you have this much of an issue determining how impartiality is supposed to work, go hang up your moderator hat.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2021)

What happened to all the other Republicans? Is it just foxi and the one dude


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I can't even fathom how fucking brainwashed you are right now- you don't even understand what hearsay means!
> Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by someone other than a direct witness- like if some random guy claimed someone else told him that Trump wanted to stop the riots, but without a shred of direct evidence.
> As the evidence the prosecution provided was both made in court and either by direct witnesses or _*literally direct recordings of conversations Trump himself had with major officials, *_it is in no way shape or form hearsay.


A third-party account on the contents of a partially overheard phone call, or one they were told about second-hand, is hearsay. There is a specific legal standard here.


> *Hearsay* evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
> 
> In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.
> 
> For example, to prove that Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" *Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay.*


Only the two parties involved in the phone call and knowing the entirety of its contents can testify to what was said. In order to verify the statement they would have to cross-examine McCarthy, Trump or both. They did not, therefore the contents of the call would be inadmissible in a *real* court proceeding and summarily tossed in the trash.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

SG854 said:


> What happened to all the other Republicans? Is it just foxi and the one dude


I may have suspended them all at some point, they like to be naughty.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

2-0— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) February 13, 2021


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> A third-party account on the contents of a partially overheard phone call, or one they were told about second-hand, is hearsay. There is a specific legal standard here.
> Only the two parties involved on the phone call and knowing the entirety of its contents can testify to what was said. In order to verify the statement they would have to cross-examine McCarthy, Trump or both. They did not, therefore the contents of the call would be inadmissible in a *real* court proceeding and summarily tossed in the trash.


In a real court proceeding, neither side would be allowed to _meet with the jury in private_ and Trump's lawyer for today would probably be chucked into another court on around five to ten different perjury charges for all the blatant lies he spewed.
And even if that one bit is hearsay... what about the rest? There's mountains of evidence proving that the Capitol riot was a direct result of Trump having spewed years of inflammatory rhetoric, months of lies about the election results and a solid month or two of encouraging his supporters to "stop the steal" and "fight like hell [to change the election results]".
By the time Trump himself refuses to testify or comment or just provide information on a single shred of this, it should be pretty obvious that the reason thereof is because if he did testify, he'd either be lying under oath (more perjury) or incriminating himself.
The only reason Trump, who loves talking about himself to no end oh so much, would have to decline to testify or comment... would be that he did what they're accusing him of. Otherwise, why wouldn't he testify? A guy practically obsessed with himself would surely LOVE to show his side of the story in order to 'own the libs', right?
All the Republican Senators that voted to acquit... are basically victims of an abusive relationship.
They don't want to call him out or help to make him get what he deserves, because if they do that then he'll lash out at them and make things worse for them with the help of his fanatic base of madmen. (That last bit is rather special and basically exclusive to this case, as most other abusers aren't _*the fucking President abusing his own Congress while wielding a follower base that checks every single box on the definition of a cult of personality.*_)
So they deny everything, inadvertently helping fool decent chunks of the masses into doing the mental gymnastics necessary to earnestly believe he's innocent and could do no wrong.
They deny everything, and the result is that everyone in the situation suffers except the abuser.
They acquit, and the result is that everyone in the nation suffers except Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> In a real court proceeding, neither side would be allowed to _meet with the jury in private_ and Trump's lawyer for today would probably be chucked into another court on around five to ten different perjury charges for all the blatant lies he spewed.
> And even if that one bit is hearsay... what about the rest? There's mountains of evidence proving that the Capitol riot was a direct result of Trump having spewed years of inflammatory rhetoric, months of lies about the election results and a solid month or two of encouraging his supporters to "stop the steal" and "fight like hell [to change the election results]".
> By the time Trump himself refuses to testify or comment or just provide information on a single shred of this, it should be pretty obvious that the reason thereof is because if he did testify, he'd either be lying under oath (more perjury) or incriminating himself.
> The only reason Trump, who loves talking about himself to no end oh so much, would have to decline to testify or comment... would be that he did what they're accusing him of. Otherwise, why wouldn't he testify? A guy practically obsessed with himself would surely LOVE to show his side of the story in order to 'own the libs', right?
> ...


Thank goodness it wasn't a real criminal proceeding then or both parties would be in trouble.

It's over, and it's okay.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank goodness it wasn't a real criminal proceeding then or both parties would be in trouble.
> 
> It's over, and it's okay.


First off, that's more shameless whataboutism- what others did or did not do does not impact whether or not Trump deserves to rot in jail for having incited a violent insurrection. (Facts, morals and basic common sense on that one reach a verdict of "why the hell do we even need to say 'yes', it should be pretty obvious by default" on that one.)
Second off, it is neither of those things.
Said criminal proceedings may still happen, as there are numerous other charges Trump could be convicted on elsewhere that are not the single charge he was acquitted of today.
And it is absolutely not okay for him to walk free with zero consequences.
Under no circumstances should anyone be eligible for a position of power after doing what he did.
Under no circumstances should anyone even have anything less than a life sentence after doing what he did. (In fact, SEVERAL life sentences- that way he can't cheat it by getting out after whatever the parole deadline is by bribing everyone involved for instant parole.)
Under no circumstances should anyone that voted to _*acquit*_ someone that did what he did be allowed to stay in their position.
This is less than zero percent okay.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> First off, that's more shameless whataboutism- what others did or did not do does not impact whether or not Trump deserves to rot in jail for having incited a violent insurrection. (Facts, morals and basic common sense on that one reach a verdict of "why the hell do we even need to say 'yes', it should be pretty obvious by default" on that one.)
> Second off, it is neither of those things.
> Said criminal proceedings may still happen, as there are numerous other charges Trump could be convicted on elsewhere that are not the single charge he was acquitted of today.
> And it is absolutely not okay for him to walk free with zero consequences.
> ...


The worst thing about it all is that by the time they finish crying on the podium, the statute of limitations is going to run out. 

I'll sleep easy. You should too. Biden is the president, you can go and rejoice.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank goodness it wasn't a real criminal proceeding then or both parties would be in trouble.
> 
> It's over, and it's okay.


A real criminal proceeding needs to come next.  We cannot set the precedent that attempted insurrection carries no consequences, otherwise we might as well rid ourselves of all copies of the constitution now and accept our status as a banana republic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> A real criminal proceeding needs to come next.  We cannot set the precedent that attempted insurrection carries no consequences, otherwise we might as well rid ourselves of all copies of the constitution now and accept our status as a banana republic.


I will be here next time to commentate on that also.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The worst thing about it all is that by the time they finish crying on the podium, the statute of limitations is going to run out.
> 
> I'll sleep easy. You should too. Biden is the president, you can go and rejoice.


Believe me, I rejoiced when Biden won, rejoiced at every loss Trump's shambling mound of idiots he calls a legal team lost one of their frivolous lawsuits to change the results, practically held a party on Inauguration Day (or as I like to call Biden's one specifically, the Ex-Presidential Ejection)... but I can't sleep easy knowing that Trump is still legally allowed to run again in 2024.
Also, doesn't the statute of limitations apply to individual issues? Just because Trump got acquitted of arguably his largest charge doesn't mean he couldn't get convicted on things like tax evasion (remember all that craziness?) or anything else he's done.


Foxi4 said:


> I will be here next time to commentate on that also.


On us becoming a banana republic? Because we both know, with significantly differing emotions thereupon, that the majority of the Republicans will do everything they can to prevent Trump from facing a shred of consequences.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Believe me, I rejoiced when Biden won, rejoiced at every loss Trump's shambling mound of idiots he calls a legal team lost one of their frivolous lawsuits to change the results, practically held a party on Inauguration Day (or as I like to call Biden's one specifically, the Ex-Presidential Ejection)... but I can't sleep easy knowing that Trump is still legally allowed to run again in 2024.
> Also, doesn't the statute of limitations apply to individual issues? Just because Trump got acquitted of arguably his largest charge doesn't mean he couldn't get convicted on things like tax evasion (remember all that craziness?) or anything else he's done.


The fact that he was acquitted by the Senate means almost nothing to a private citizen, which is precisely why these 5-day proceedings were entirely masturbatory in nature and a pointless waste of time and money.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The fact that he was acquitted by the Senate means almost nothing to a private citizen, which is precisely why these 5-day proceedings were entirely masturbatory in nature and a pointless waste of time and money.


It'll be a much bigger waste of time and money if Trump runs again in 2024, loses again, and incites another riot.  Probably end up with more lives lost too.  That's precisely what conviction in the Senate is meant to prevent.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The fact that he was acquitted by the Senate means almost nothing to a private citizen, which is precisely why these 5-day proceedings were entirely masturbatory in nature and a pointless waste of time and money.


It would've meant a lot more if he HADN'T been acquitted, though.
It'd mean that he would face actual legal consequences for his actions for quite possibly the first time in his life.
It'd mean he _wouldn't be able to run again._
Millions of Trumpers would practically shit themselves, so there's roughly a 40-45% chance (let's go with 43%, to be thematic) that any given US citizen would have to have a change of pants and (possibly, but unlikely) a legitimate reexamining of their affiliation.


----------



## smf (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> but Van Der Veen's performance is worth every penny - he's been phenomenal. I have a feeling I know who's going to be Trump's favourite lawyer going forward, the man is taking scalps with a stone poker face



Trump has to run out of lawyers willing to peddle his lies sometime.



monkeyman4412 said:


> bullshit. You have to take a oath that you would be impartial. That is breaking that oath.



What you going to do? Impeach them?



Foxi4 said:


> Thank goodness it wasn't a real criminal proceeding then or both parties would be in trouble.
> 
> It's over, and it's okay.



I do hope there are criminal and civil lawsuits against Trump.

If he doesn't face justice then I think someone will just shoot him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> It would've meant a lot more if he HADN'T been acquitted, though.
> It'd mean that he would face actual legal consequences for his actions for quite possibly the first time in his life.
> It'd mean he _wouldn't be able to run again._
> Millions of Trumpers would practically shit themselves, so there's roughly a 40-45% chance (let's go with 43%, to be thematic) that any given US citizen would have to have a change of pants and (possibly, but unlikely) a legitimate reexamining of their affiliation.


To be fair, Trump never runs - he has a golf cart. Jokes aside, given his age, I don't know if he would've been too keen on running in 2024. He's already pretty old, even if America voted in a living fossil to replace him. I'd like to see a younger, more spry presidential candidate next time, I'm sick and tired of increasingly older and older frontrunners.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

smf said:


> If he doesn't face justice then I think someone will just shoot him.


Imao the insanity rent free


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Looks like the show is over and unraveled exactly as predicted. Thank you for an evening of entertainment and see you all next time. Hopefully Congress can now focus on the long-awaited COVID relief instead of fighting windmills.


Trump is the only one who has ever fought windmills.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Trump is the only one who has ever fought windmills.


See, that's a funny quip. You can be funny when you want to.

Poor migratory birds, not to mention all the cancer.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 13, 2021)

mind you of trumps (Possiable) criminal rap sheet crunching the numbers of YEARS if convicted of everything he'll rot in prison almost any middle age person would  probably die in prison for how many charges he commited interestingly enough (very small chance though) he could be still criminally prosecuted for the exact same charges he got aquitted for in the impeachment


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1360693375549194241


The only president to be impeached twice.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 13, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> mind you of trumps (Possiable) criminal rap sheet crunching the numbers of YEARS if convicted of everything he'll rot in prison almost any middle age person would  probably die in prison for how many charges he commited interestingly enough (very small chance though) he could be still criminally prosecuted for the exact same charges he got aquitted for in the impeachment


honestly, if someone did everything Trump did and then found the Fountain of Youth, going all the way back to a single cell, and that single cell was brought to court...
it would still die in jail of old age by the end.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The fact that he was acquitted by the Senate means almost nothing to a private citizen, which is precisely why these 5-day proceedings were entirely masturbatory in nature and a pointless waste of time and money.


Just because the Senate was nearly destined to acquit doesn't mean you just don't impeach him. It was the right thing to do.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The only president to be impeached twice.


>when we lose we still win
imao this is great the damage control here is the real deal


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> To be fair, Trump never runs - he has a golf cart. Jokes aside, given his age, I don't know if he would've been too keen on running in 2024. He's already pretty old, even if America voted in a living fossil to replace him. I'd like to see a younger, more spry presidential candidate next time, I'm sick and tired of increasingly older and older frontrunners.


And I'm sick and tired of the increasingly dumber and dumber ways his supporters and defenders find ways to twist their brains around. The dude is a bad and untrustworthy actor on the political stage. Or any stage for that matter. We've known that for decades, long before he ever ran his bid in 2016.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> >when we lose we still win
> imao this is great the damage control here is the real deal


Trump should be the spokesperson for Tefal.


Arecaidian Fox said:


> And I'm sick and tired of the increasingly dumber and dumber ways his supporters and defenders find ways to twist their brains around. The dude is a bad and untrustworthy actor on the political stage. Or any stage for that matter. We've known that for decades, long before he ever ran his bid in 2016.


Is he running again? You're really overselling him, I already liked him the first time around.

I'm a bad guy.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> >when we lose we still win
> imao this is great the damage control here is the real deal


Nobody thought it was particularly likely that 17 Republican senators would vote to convict Trump. The fact that seven voted to convict can be seen as a real accomplishment though, and it's pretty damning that there was bipartisan agreement that Trump was guilty.


----------



## smf (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> >when we lose we still win
> imao this is great the damage control here is the real deal



The vultures are circling round Trump already, his businesses are not doing well.

I don't think winning is something he's going to be doing ever again.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 13, 2021)

smf said:


> The vultures are circling round Trump already, his businesses are not doing well.
> 
> I don't think winning is something he's going to be doing ever again.


We know there are criminal prosecutions about to come down in Georgia, New York, and perhaps even federally. I can't wait.


----------



## smf (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump should be the spokesperson for Tefal.



One of his friends that he shares common interests with, A Mr Jeffrey Epstein. thought the same way.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1360693375549194241


he better wipe that smile off his face when the tsunami of criminal charges comes crashing into dear ol daddy


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

smf said:


> One of his friends that he shares common interests with, A Mr Jeffrey Epstein. thought the same way.


Ah, so we're back to the conspiracy theories now. Jeffrey Epstein was a public person of interest, he was "friends" with binders of politicians and public figures. Remind me, which president flew with him on the Lolita Express? Oh, that's right, Clinton... and which president banned him from their resorts for being a creep? Oh, that's right, Trump did. Huh.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 13, 2021)

To any Trump supporters left, please seek professional help. Not just to help yourself but for everyone else too.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

In more relevant, Biden-related news, the Biden administration has approved a weapons deal with Chile concerning Raytheon missiles.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-chile-arms-idUSKBN2A52MC

Completely coincidentally, Biden's active Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin used to be a board member at Raytheon and presumably still owns anywhere between $500k-$1.7m worth of shares in the company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin

I hope everyone's enjoying the distractions though.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In more relevant, Biden-related news, the Biden administration has approved a weapons deal with Chile concerning Raytheon rockets.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-chile-arms-idUSKBN2A52MC
> 
> ...


Why did the Trump administration approve of the weapon sales? And is it going to be in dangerous hands?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 13, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Why did the Trump administration approve of the weapon sales? And is it going to be in dangerous hands?


The Biden administration initially paused all deals for review. They have re-green lit the deal despite a clear conflict of interests, which is somewhat concerning. The Secretary of Defense stands to gain from this transaction, which is pretty inconvenient for the current administration, but I suppose they found nothing wrong with it.

No contract has been signed yet to my knowledge, we'll see how this proceeds. Theoretically the SoD has a moral obligation to either reject the deal or to liquidate shares before it is signed. I somehow doubt either scenario will take place, but we'll see. Stranger things have happened. They have some degree of plausible deniability, but it still smells pretty rancid.


----------



## smf (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> and which president banned him from their resorts for being a creep? Oh, that's right, Trump did.



In public sure. But Trump inspected those underage undressed pageant queens. According to him it was one of the perks.

He also made inappropriate comments about his own daughter when she was 16.

But yeah, in public nothing to do with epstein.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Why did the Trump administration approve of the weapon sales?



Greased palms. That swamp isn't going to fill itself.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Is he running again? You're really overselling him, I already liked him the first time around.
> 
> I'm a bad guy.


This reply is so full of stupid I don't even know where to begin... If you look back on the Trump administration and see nothing but a golden, shining city, then the only thing I can hope for is that your head eventually dislodges itself from that far up your ass.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> This reply is so full of stupid I don't even know where to begin... If you look back on the Trump administration and see nothing but a golden, shining city, then the only thing I can hope for is that your head eventually dislodges itself from that far up your ass.


It could've been much, much better. Trump should've moved hard and fast when he had both of the chambers. A missed opportunity, but then again, as a newcomer he didn't have the experience he has now. Not much point in complaining about it now - he's out of office and a little too old to run again in 2024, in my estimation.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It could've been much, much better. Trump should've moved hard and fast when he had both of the chambers. A missed opportunity, but then again, as a newcomer he didn't have the experience he has now. Not much point in complaining about it now - he's out of office and a little too old to run again in 2024, in my estimation.


The Republicans got everything they wanted during Trump's presidency: tax cuts for the rich.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It could've been much, much better. Trump should've moved hard and fast when he had both of the chambers. A missed opportunity, but then again, as a newcomer he didn't have the experience he has now. Not much point in complaining about it now - he's out of office and a little too old to run again in 2024, in my estimation.


It could have been much, much better if the man wasn't a petty, petulant child who made political issues out of shit as common sense as wearing a fucking mask.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Republicans got everything they wanted during Trump's presidency: tax cuts for the rich.


Tax cuts across the board, more like, but that's ancient history at this point that was discussed ad nauseam when it was actually news. A majority of Americans paid less in taxes following the cuts, not "just billionaires".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html

According to the IRS, percentage-wise some of the biggest beneficiaries of the revamp were low-ish middle-class families with individual incomes between $15k-$20k (per person) who saved 12.9% on average compared to previous years, taxpayers making $1m annually only saved 4.3%.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...first-year-after-trumps-tax-reform-2020-03-03

Who's keeping track though, what does the IRS know. After all, they're only in charge of the whole shabam.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

It all disappointing, but I can't help still be a bit happy that at least that many crossed over.


Lacius said:


> The Republicans got everything they wanted during Trump's presidency: tax cuts for the rich.


And the Supreme Court.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> And the Supreme Court.


I'm looking into my crystal ball, and my crystal ball has spoken - the next big ticket item? Lifetime nominations. Those Supreme Justices? They need term limits now because we don't like them.  I wonder when they'll get around to cramming that one through past the goalie - it's the next logical step. Maybe they won't be this brazen though, who knows. Not taking bets just yet.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Maybe they won't be this brazen though, who knows. Not taking bets just yet.


Brazen? You mean like arbitrarily blocking seat picks and then shoving a Justice in right before election. That we now know in hindsight, that they completely lost?


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 14, 2021)

BREAKING: WH accepts resignation of TJ Ducklo.For those keeping score, he lasted 1.5 Scaramuccis. pic.twitter.com/V2kZh9VwUa— Jenna Ellis 🍊🦅 (@JennaEllisEsq) February 14, 2021


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Brazen? You mean like arbitrarily blocking seat picks and then shoving a Justice in right before election. That we now know in hindsight, that they completely lost?


I believe Mitch explained it pretty succinctly at the time.


Joe88 said:


> Ducklo resigns.


Too funny. I'm sure he made the decision independently, motivated by a strong sense of duty and devotion to the country.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Tax cuts across the board, more like, but that's ancient history at this point that was discussed ad nauseam when it was actually news. A majority of Americans paid less in taxes following the cuts, not "just billionaires".
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html
> 
> ...


No, the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich. Specifically, two-thirds of the law’s benefits went to the top income quintile. In addition, Trump and the Republicans promised a drop in deficit spending, not an increase, due to their imaginary trickle down effect. I don't need to tell anyone that the deficit ballooned in large part because of the tax cuts that disproportionately affected the rich, and trickle down economics are as dead a concept as ever.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/site...agreement_for_the_tax_cuts_and_jobs_act_0.pdf


----------



## SG854 (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> No, the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich. Specifically, two-thirds of the law’s benefits went to the top income quintile. In addition, Trump and the Republicans promised a drop in deficit spending, not an increase, due to their imaginary trickle down effect. I don't need to tell anyone that the deficit ballooned in large part because of the tax cuts that disproportionately affected the rich, and trickle down economics are as dead a concept as ever.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/site...agreement_for_the_tax_cuts_and_jobs_act_0.pdf


PDF file doesn't want to open for some reason


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Republicans got everything they wanted during Trump's presidency: tax cuts for the rich.


Gotta love how that basically sums up everything they actually got (due to all the other issues being kept in stasis in order to dangle them over their base like bait for a fish) and thus what all the Trumpers retroactively only ever wanted to begin with, as Trump wouldn't POSSIBLY deny them anything they wanted, so they must not have really wanted it if it didn't happen!


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> No, the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich. Specifically, two-thirds of the law’s benefits went to the top income quintile. In addition, Trump and the Republicans promised a drop in deficit spending, not an increase, due to their imaginary trickle down effect. I don't need to tell anyone that the deficit ballooned in large part because of the tax cuts that disproportionately affected the rich, and trickle down economics are as dead a concept as ever.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/site...agreement_for_the_tax_cuts_and_jobs_act_0.pdf


Clicking it in my post didn't work, but copying and pasting it into my address bar worked. I'm also on my phone. My apologies.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> No, the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich. Specifically, two-thirds of the law’s benefits went to the top income quintile. In addition, Trump and the Republicans promised a drop in deficit spending, not an increase, due to their imaginary trickle down effect. I don't need to tell anyone that the deficit ballooned in large part because of the tax cuts that disproportionately affected the rich, and trickle down economics are as dead a concept as ever.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/site...agreement_for_the_tax_cuts_and_jobs_act_0.pdf


"The Tax Policy Center has released distributional estimates of the conference agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as filed on December 15, 2017. *We find the bill would reduce taxes on average for all income groups* in both 2018 and 2025."

Thank you very much, please continue proving my point, my point being that the tax cuts benefitted Americans across the board, do so by all means. As a side note, this report was published in December 2017 based on predicted results, the IRS reports were published in 2019 based on real 2017 data. Nice try though.

If your counterpoint is that "the rich saved more dollaridoos total compared to the poor", I don't care about that. The majority of Americans ended the year with more money in their pockets, and I trust the IRS filings more than a Brookings-funded propaganda outlet.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> "The Tax Policy Center has released distributional estimates of the conference agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as filed on December 15, 2017. *We find the bill would reduce taxes on average for all income groups* in both 2018 and 2025."
> 
> Thank you very much, please continue proving my point, my point being that the tax cuts benefitted Americans across the board, do so by all means. As a side note, this report was published in December 2017 based on predicted results, the IRS reports were published in 2019 based on real 2017 data. Nice try though.


I didn't say taxes weren't reduced for all income groups. Try again.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say taxes weren't reduced for all income groups. Try again.


I maintain my position. Lower and middle income taxpayers benefitted from the changes the most - they're the 99% and they're the ones who stand to gain from saving a thousand or two at the end of the year. A reduction of income tax by 12-14% can be life changing to them, a saving of 4% on a zillion dollars means nothing to an ultra rich magnate who will never want for anything in their life, not to mention that there's five of them compared to millions of everyday Joes and Janes. These families stood to gain the most out of this, and have gained the most, as per the IRS analysis based on actual tax filings, not predictions.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

The Biden Regime needs a permanent army at the capital lol
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1360654279686635523


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I maintain my position. Lower and middle income taxpayers benefitted from the changes the most - they're the 99% and they're the ones who stand to gain from saving a thousand or two at the end of the year. A reduction of income tax by 12-14% can be life changing to them, a saving of 4% on a zillion dollars means nothing to an ultra rich magnate who will never want for anything in their life, not to mention that there's five of them compared to millions of everyday Joes and Janes. These families stood to gain the most out of this, and have gained the most, as per the IRS analysis based on actual tax filings, not predictions.


The tax breaks disproportionately benefited higher income learners. If you're going to preach caring about objective facts, you should actually start doing so. You sound ridiculous when you zigzag around the point.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> The Biden Regime needs a permanent army at the capital lol
> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1360654279686635523


What do you expect when Trump continues to peddle dangerous lies about the election being stolen?


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What do you expect when Trump continues to peddle dangerous lies about the election being stolen?


imao that was proven false today


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao that was proven false today


What was proven false? Youre either confused about what happened or we're missing some context..


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao that was proven false today


That wasn't disproven today. Do you know what the impeachment was about? I don't think you do.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> What was proven false? Youre either confused about what happened or we're missing some context..


acquitted


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> acquitted


You do know what he was acquitted for, right?


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

Guy is ok you can drop the act now 80 million votes Biden is not going to pay you


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You do know what he was acquitted for, right?


I don't think they know much of anything. Acquittal also doesn't mean "not guilty" of what he is accused of. As folks have been so keen to throw around, this is a political process, not a criminal one. Acquittal, just like last time, doesn't mean Trump didn't do what he was accused of.


----------



## Iamapirate (Feb 14, 2021)

A partisan process ends in a predictable outcome. Who can they obsess over now?


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Guy is ok you can drop the act now 80 million votes Biden is not going to pay you


Well, if things goes Biden's way, possibly more than 80 million will get help, even for the people that didn't vote at all. 



Iamapirate said:


> A partisan process ends in a predictable outcome. Who can they obsess over now?


Both the House and the Senate had bipartisan support.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

TWO SCOOPS
TWO ACQUITTALS


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden Regime needs a permanent army at the capital lol


I wonder how many nights they'll spend sleeping in parking lots this year. Truly disgraceful.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I wonder how many nights they'll spend sleeping in parking lots this year. Truly disgraceful.


I'm not even trying to be snarky when I say that this one wins my personal Poe Award because I legitimately cannot tell:
a) what exactly you mean
b) who you refer to
or
c) if you're siding with Valwinz's trolling (unlikely and hopefully not) or snarkily riffing off of it (more likely and what I hope)


----------



## Lumstar (Feb 14, 2021)

Impeachment was constitutional, but it's more often than not a conducted as a kangaroo "court" without a impartial jury or witnesses.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I wonder how many nights they'll spend sleeping in parking lots this year. Truly disgraceful.


Those insurgents should have thought about that.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> Those insurgents should have thought about that.


yes the old ladies and the people with no guns truly the  Stoßtruppen


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> yes the old ladies and the people with no guns truly the  Stoßtruppen


The Trump-instigated armed insurrection against the Capitol was not just "old ladies and people with no guns."

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> TWO SCOOPS
> TWO ACQUITTALS


Two impeachments.
Two popular vote losses.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> yes the old ladies and the people with no guns truly the  Stoßtruppen


Oh is that what happened? Bunch of mega karens trying to talk to the ultimate manager? I thought they had brought weapons, destroyed property, assaulted cops, killed an officer, attempted kidnapping of congressmen, attempted murder of the vice president.. guess its not a big deal.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

funny since cities were burned all summer of last year and those don't have standing armies there right now


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> funny since cities were burned all summer of last year and those don't have standing armies there right now


Funny how you guys go from using your own ineptitude as an excuse to using riots. I've been arguing on twitter and they all do the same thing.

There have been ten of thousands of arrests during the protests. Moreover, the protesters arent strictly leftists as you guys would believe. The rioters arent even politically motivated, they are criminals that want to steal stuff.

The insurrection was politically motivated, undeniably all trump supporters, and it was an attack on a government building with an intent to kill and do harm.

Even if the actions of one person that you condemn excused your actions, which it doesnt, you are comparing two different things.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Oh i need to add. Show me one of these cities that have been burned to the ground. I hear so much about them but never seen it.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> Funny how you guys go from using your own ineptitude as an excuse to using riots. I've been arguing on twitter and they all do the same thing.
> 
> There have been ten of thousands of arrests during the protests. Moreover, the protesters arent strictly leftists as you guys would believe. The rioters arent even politically motivated, they are criminals that want to steal stuff.
> 
> ...


Ironically, some of the rioters specifically (as in, the ones that actually escalated things into being violent riots) were politically motivated... but they were generally alt-right nuts like Angeli who "joined in" on the protests for the clear and express purpose of turning things violent in order to ruin said protests.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 14, 2021)

I'm just going to call it gg.
When I get the chance I'm moving out of the country.
It's not a matter if, but when shit like this is going to happen again. Also due to aqquitial. It's pretty much okay now to send a giant mob to the capital, or outright demand officials to change votes.  And I'm sure there is going to be someone who will pick up trump playbook. And succeed at overthrowing the government next time it happens. Which I'm not looking forward to, since ya know. Facism.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> I'm just going to call it gg.
> When I get the chance I'm moving out of the country.
> It's not a matter if, but when shit like this is going to happen again. Also due to aqquitial. It's pretty much okay now to send a giant mob to the capital, or outright demand officials to change votes.  And I'm sure there is going to be someone who will pick up trump playbook. And succeed at overthrowing the government next time it happens. Which I'm not looking forward to, since ya know. Facism.


We already know there's a real criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to coerce Georgian officials into committing election fraud, and it might not stop there. Depending on how that goes, it may become an unfeasible playbook. Don't abandon hope yet.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

Wasn't there more resistance to BLM than the people that actually attacked the Capitol?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Wasn't there more resistance to BLM than the people that actually attacked the Capitol?


Significantly more, especially from (of course) police.
Peaceful BLM protest? Fucking *gas* them so that the Almighty Donald can take a photo-op with a backwards, upside-down Bible.
Violent insurrectionist riot? Eh, just let them waltz on in and *literally write on the walls of the Capitol dome IN THEIR OWN PISS AND SHIT.*


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I'm not even trying to be snarky when I say that this one wins my personal Poe Award because I legitimately cannot tell:
> a) what exactly you mean
> b) who you refer to
> or
> c) if you're siding with Valwinz's trolling (unlikely and hopefully not) or snarkily riffing off of it (more likely and what I hope)


Pff--

Valwin and I go way back. He's a veteran of the site and he's funnier than most people here put together. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but it is misplaced - I am absolutely ridiculing the current administration for being incapable or too inept to provide lodging for the troops it called in.

For the record, *none* of you provided a succinct and relevant counter to any of his "trolling" so far - he's correct about Biden failing to deliver Day 1 COVID relief, he's correct about the troops staying at the Capitol and he was correct about DC being ineligible for statehood.

Sometimes it takes someone like good old Valw to post one sentence in broken English that has you guys dismantled and unraveled.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Pff--
> 
> Valwin and I go way back. He's a veteran of the site and he's funnier than most of people here put together. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but it is misplaced - I am absolutely ridiculing the current administration for being incapable or too inept to provide lodging for the troops it called in.
> 
> ...


I mean...
he's basically been spamming the "anyone got their 2k yet" remark ad nauseam
it got old fast, and it became clear he's just doing it to get our attention
also pretty much the one thing he's said that we can all agree wasn't baiting was the thing about dc statehood
and I will admit, he was right about that one
but the other stuff?
the past month has been an absolute catastrophe, and Trump didn't exactly leave Biden in anything vaguely resembling a good position to start fixing things ASAP.
he may have had the courtesy to drag the party down with him so hard that it turned Georgia blue and just casually handed us both the House and (beyond-simple-majority votes notwithstanding) Senate, but he also pulled a couple of things in his last week (like undoing the travel ban at quite possibly the one time it was legitimately necessary) that can only be seen as spiteful attempts to make Joe's job harder.
nobody expected he'd be able to pull off covid relief on _*day one. *_the only people on EITHER side that expected that are either hilariously naive or are hardcore trumpers that remained willfully ignorant of what he promised and what was physically and legally plausible to accomplish for the sake of accusing him of incompetence.
honestly, I'm surprised Biden's pulled off what he has so far, especially the absolute barrage of executive orders.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I mean...
> he's basically been spamming the "anyone got their 2k yet" remark ad nauseam
> it got old fast, and it became clear he's just doing it to get our attention


That's a good point, that joke is getting old.

@Valwinz, official verbal warning, please don't mention the 2K thing anymore, it's spammy. You can Val-win at another category. Next one's a warn.

Everybody happy now, I hope.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a good point, that joke is getting old.
> 
> @Valwinz, official verbal warning, please don't mention the 2K thing anymore, it's spammy. You can Val-win at another category. Next one's a warn.
> 
> Everybody happy now, I hope.


...pareto optimal
not exactly ecstatic, but there's not exactly much else that can be done atm that wouldn't also make things worse in some way
*vaguely neutral-to-pleased shrug*

...*wait a second*
[a solid paragraph of hmst, shattered by a detail I somehow managed to miss]


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ...pareto optimal
> not exactly ecstatic, but there's not exactly much else that can be done atm that wouldn't also make things worse in some way
> *vaguely neutral-to-pleased shrug*
> 
> ...


Valwin has been long since forgiven, we're talking ancient times here. He's not ban evading, we're fully aware of him being here, as it was mentioned repeatedly in the thread.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Valwin has been long since forgiven, we're talking ancient times here. He's not ban evading, we're fully aware of him being here, as it was mentioned repeatedly in the thread.


oh
fair point
idk how I managed to miss that
anywinz
back to our regularly scheduled bickering programming

like this gem of a quote from our oh-so-lovely ex-president in regards to his second impeachment trial:
"Our cherished Constitutional Republic was founded on the impartial rule of law, the indispensable safeguard for our liberties, our rights and our freedoms. It is a sad commentary on our times that one political party in America is given a free pass to denigrate the rule of law, defame law enforcement, cheer mobs, excuse rioters, and transform justice into a tool of political vengeance, and persecute, blacklist, cancel and suppress all people and viewpoints with whom or which they disagree."
like
I'm pretty sure this is _*beyond*_ the dictionary definition of projecting
it's like
projecting^2
pretty much the only thing on that list that Trump and his base didn't themselves do is the law-enforcement one
and when said law enforcement does what it has been shown to do over these past couple few years... it's less defamation and more gesturing around at everything they've done and going "look at these bad things, PLEASE LOOK AT THEM AND _ACT ACCORDINGLY_"


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

You guys criticizing DAY ONE covid relief when over the course of 12+ months trump only issues a total of 2000? A one time check of 1200 and a follow up of 600. Some of you are even from countries that have had continuous payments.

Its issues like this, that conservatives take up, where the hypocrisy makes it clear what their motivations are. Its not the good of the people, its not about the truth, or whats morally right, its just "im red team, and I dont like blue team"


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> You guys criticizing DAY ONE covid relief when over the course of 12+ months trump only issues a total of 2000? A one time check of 1200 and a follow up of 600. Some of you are even from countries that have had continuous payments.
> 
> Its issues like this, that conservatives take up, where the hypocrisy makes it clear what their motivations are. Its not the good of the people, its not about the truth, or whats morally right, its just "im red team, and I dont like blue team"


Promises given, promises not kept. Instead of focusing on their stated Day 1 goals, Congress focused on an impeachment trial that was doomed to fail from the start, suspending most of their activity besides that one issue. Anything relevant achieved by Biden so far was achieved through overreaching executive orders. The balance score card is looking extremely favourable to Trump, by any stretch of the imagination. The Biden administration has delivered zero direct relief and it's mid-February. No, I'm not going to count the latest $600 as a "Biden win", that package was well-underway when Trump was still in office. The voters in many states voted in part on the basis of "we are the party that is going to give you $2000 instead of $600 in your time of need" and they've seen ziltch. It's not beyond the pale to call this a bribe without putting any actual money on the table. The Democrats had ample time to pursue impeachment before the inauguration, they could've mounted a more effective push when Trump was still in office, or they could've refrained from wasting time on a fool's errand. Instead, they chose to pursue the issue in January because it enables them to stall. I don't see how any of this is disputable, they have both chambers and the presidency, they can do whatever they want in this regard, even without a supermajority. In fact, Biden himself has the power to redirect funds from the military towards a national emergency, the same power Trump used to secure wall funding - that absolutely would work in a pinch, but he hasn't done that. I would say that a pandemic that put large swathes of Americans out of work and led to the permanent closures of an unprecedented percentage of small businesses classifies as an "emergency", so it wouldn't exactly be without precedent. Long story short, people voted to get the bag, and they should get the bag they were promised. If Biden's admin has the time to review arms deals, they most certainly have the time to secure the livelyhoods of the citizens, specifically as a matter of national security given the recent public unrest that spread across the country. It's a perfectly valid criticism. The GOP cheapskates are not without blame here, but they're not in power right now - the Democrats are, at every level of the federal government (besides the judiciary, perhaps, if we consider the Supreme Court, but political affiliation is irrelevant there). I heard a lot about "keeping the President's feet to the fire" after the election, but I'm not seeing it. He should be hollering about it 24/7 until it's done.



Plasmaster09 said:


> oh
> fair point
> idk how I managed to miss that
> anywinz
> back to our regularly scheduled bickering programming


No harm done, you would be surprised by how many people raise the issue regularly, it's how the cookie crumbles. I mean, he's using nearly the exact same username, the exact same avatar and he has been a member since April last year. He's also chatting in the presence of a Global well-aware of his history on the site. If he were evading, he wouldn't be doing a very good job now, would he? 

This isn't something users should be used to, however - unbans are exceptionally rare, I can only think of a handful of instances when they were allowed, either due to improved behaviour outside of the forum structure or due to the fact that, upon reflection, perhaps the punishment didn't quite fit the crime... Or simply because a long stretch of time has passed and we let bygones be bygones. @Valwinz quips are still biting, but they're biting and to the point, he isn't going around flaming like he used to, so we showed him some kindness. That can of course change depending on the circumstances, there are limits to kindness, but he hasn't reached them as of yet. One thing I can say with certainty is that asking to be unbanned is a surefire way to stay banned, so treat this as an exception, not a common occurance.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Promises given, promises not kept. Instead of focusing on their stated Day 1 goals, Congress focused on an impeachment trial that was doomed to fail from the start, suspending most of their activity besides that one issue. Anything relevant achieved by Biden so far was achieved through overreaching executive orders. So far the balance score card is looking extremely favourable to Trump, by any stretch of the imagination. The Biden administration has delivered zero direct relief and it's mid-February. No, I'm not going to count the latest $600 as a "Biden win", that package was well-underway when Trump was still in office. The voters in many states voted in part on the basis of "we are the party that is going to give you $2000 instead of $600 in your time of need" and they've seen ziltch. It's not beyond the pale to call this a bribe without putting any actual money on the table. The Democrats had ample time to pursue impeachment before the inauguration, they could've mounted a more effective push when Trump was still in office, or they could've refrained from wasting time on a fool's errand. Instead, they chose to pursue the issue in January because it enables them to stall. I don't see how any of this is disputable, they have both chambers and the presidency, they can do whatever they want in this regard, even without a supermajority. In fact, Biden himself has the power to redirect funds from the military towards a national emergency, the same power Trump used to secure wall funding - that absolutely would work in a pinch, but he hasn't done that. I would say that a pandemic that put large swathes of Americans out of work and led to the permanent closures of an unprecedented percentage of small businesses classifies as an "emergency", so it wouldn't exactly be without precedent. Long story short, people voted to get the bag, and they should get the bag they were promised. If Biden's admin has the time to review arms deals, they most certainly have the time to secure the livelyhoods of the citizens, specifically as a matter of national security given the recent public unrest that spread across the country. It's a perfectly valid criticism. The GOP cheapskates are not without blame here, but they're not in power right now - the Democrats are, at every level of the federal government. I heard a lot about "keeping the President's feet to the fire" after the election, but I'm not seeing it. He should be hollering about it 24/7 until it's done.


I guess my first question is how does that make trump any better? 

But there are a few things that need to be corrected. An impeachment is a two part process. The house will initiate and vote on the impeachment. Which was done immediately by a Democrat controlled house. It then has to go to the senate to determine if the impeachment is valid enough to bring charges. The republican controlled senate, more specifically majority leader mcconnell, delayed this process. He refused to take care of this before the inauguration and sent the senate home. Thats why they held their trial the last few days.

The other issue with the covid relief is that conservatives can continue to stall it as well. They are still able to filibuster and want to continue to ammend the relief bill, which every change needs to be debated and voted on. Its just partisan stall tactics.

You are right about one thing though. We voted Biden for a reason, and the problem is that he wants to work with Republicans instead of acting as a dictator with the dem majority in ever corner of our government, because he promised unity and all that. My arguement is, we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. We should do what we set out to do while we have the chance. The conservatives would never give us the same consideration.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> I guess my first question is how does that make trump any better?
> 
> But there are a few things that need to be corrected. An impeachment is a two part process. The house will initiate and vote on the impeachment. Which was done immediately by a Democrat controlled house. It then has to go to the senate to determine if the impeachment is valid enough to bring charges. The republican controlled senate, more specifically majority leader mcconnell, delayed this process. He refused to take care of this before the inauguration and sent the senate home. Thats why they held their trial the last few days.
> 
> ...


Trump has been shouting from the rooftops that the GOP is spineless for not delivering an adequate relief bill when he was still president, it was the one solitary issue he was in agreement with AOC and the other ultra-progressives about. He explicitly demanded $2K relief on multiple occasions. I fully encourage criticising the GOP cheapskates just as much as I encourage criticising the Biden government for not pushing the issue through by any means necessary. I expect the promise to be kept, the relief should be delivered as quickly as possible, even if at the cost of secondary, less important causes. Given the current situation in regards to COVID and the economy, the "arts" can wait a little bit for their funding - there are some obvious priorities here. Tax money is people's money, and right now they need it more than the government does.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump has been shouting from the rooftops that the GOP is spineless for not delivering an adequate relief bill when he was still president, it was the one solitary issue he was in agreement with AOC and the other ultra-progressives about. He explicitly demanded $2K relief on multiple occasions. I fully encourage criticising the GOP cheapskates just as much as I encourage criticising the Biden government for not pushing the issue through by any means necessary. I expect the promise to be kept, the relief should be delivered as quickly as possible, even if at the cost of secondary, less important causes. Given the current situation in regards to COVID and the economy, the "arts" can wait a little bit for their funding - there are some obvious priorities here. Tax money is people's money, and right now they need it more than the government does.


I think we're mostly in agreement except where trump is concerned. If he were all for covid relief, why didn't HE redirect funds to address the national emergency? I can admit that Biden isn't acting to the best of his ability, he has the power to overide anything the conservatives want to do, but chooses to allow them a voice. I just hope his patience runs out eventually.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> I think we're mostly in agreement except where trump is concerned. If he were all for covid relief, why didn't HE redirect funds to address the national emergency? I can admit that Biden isn't acting to the best of his ability, he has the power to overide anything the conservatives want to do, but chooses to allow them a voice. I just hope his patience runs out eventually.


There's only so much funding you can redirect at any given time. The wall was one of Trump's election promises and he was expected to deliver that, although you make a good point - the calculus should have changed. With that being said, whenever he did anything like that he was immediately called a dictator, this would've been particularly likely so close to the election, so there were multiple concerns at play. Regardless, Trump is out of office now, and has been out of office since January 6th. The ball is not in his court anymore and I'm not particularly interested in a shoulda coulda woulda, I'm interested in the here and now. Still, glad to see some common ground.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 14, 2021)

Nice show.

I wonder who, here, saw this.  You guys are supposed to be impartial, right?



Also, there is this:

https://gab.com/Artraven/posts/105714720761743853

Yes, the American political party sucks.  It's not whataboutism if you consider them parts of the same thing, right?


----------



## Iamapirate (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Well, if things goes Biden's way, possibly more than 80 million will get help, even for the people that didn't vote at all.
> 
> 
> Both the House and the Senate had bipartisan support.


Not really. Democrats only received the support of the squishy republicans that the republican base don't even like. Heck, state GOP parties are throwing out censures because their votes don't match with what their constituents would like.

The trial was not watched over by the Chief Justice, but long-time Democratic senator Patrick Leahy. That goes to show how much of a farce it is.

Democratic senators have enough smarts to know they didn't have the votes. This was a stunt. Twisting the knife one last time in the hopes that it tarnishes Drumpf enough so he cannot win in 24.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I wonder how many nights they'll spend sleeping in parking lots this year. Truly disgraceful.


> Most popular person to ever run for office.

> Needs a standing army his entire tenure in office.

Come on man!


----------



## urherenow (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> You guys criticizing DAY ONE covid relief when over the course of 12+ months trump only issues a total of 2000? A one time check of 1200 and a follow up of 600. Some of you are even from countries that have had continuous payments.
> 
> Its issues like this, that conservatives take up, where the hypocrisy makes it clear what their motivations are. Its not the good of the people, its not about the truth, or whats morally right, its just "im red team, and I dont like blue team"


You have no clue how any of this works, do you? The HOUSE CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS. As shoved in Trump's face throughout his entire administration. He asked for that money. For US. He would have approved it without blinking or taking a freaking breath. But the Democrats at each turn, kept throwing money in these bills for special interests. Sums earmarked for overseas. And giving us $600 of our own money back. You can blame Trump ZERO goddamn percent for that shit.

The "redirection" being spoken of for the wall is different, because POTUS DOES have some control over National Defense spending. OUT OF THE BUDGET PASSED BY THE HOUSE. And speaking of... OMG, another post above this defends Biden over what is legally plausible... while the lot of you liberals wouldn't shut up about Mexico paying for the wall? Really? If you EVER thought that was a real promise that could plausibly happen, you don't have 2 brain cells to rub together, and it's not even worth arguing with you over.

Oh, yea. And guess what? Impeachment is over. Again. Yes, Trump was a POS in many respects, especially this one, but like I said... if you thought this was going to land him a conviction, you're a fool. Trump needs to stop living rent-free in your heads, and we all need to get on with life.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

urherenow said:


> You have no clue how any of this works, do you? The HOUSE CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS. As shoved in Trump's face throughout his entire administration. He asked for that money. For US. He would have approved it without blinking or taking a freaking breath. But the Democrats at each turn, kept throwing money in these bills for special interests. Sums earmarked for overseas. And giving us $600 of our own money back. You can blame Trump ZERO goddamn percent for that shit.
> 
> The "redirection" being spoken of for the wall is different, because POTUS DOES have some control over National Defense spending. OUT OF THE BUDGET PASSED BY THE HOUSE. And speaking of... OMG, another post above this defends Biden over what is legally plausible... while the lot of you liberals wouldn't shut up about Mexico paying for the wall? Really? If you EVER thought that was a real promise that could plausibly happen, you don't have 2 brain cells to rub together, and it's not even worth arguing with you over.
> 
> Oh, yea. And guess what? Impeachment is over. Again. Yes, Trump was a POS in many respects, especially this one, but like I said... if you thought this was going to land him a conviction, you're a fool. Trump needs to stop living rent-free in your heads, and we all need to get on with life.


You wanna maybe read my post again and see if you can actually understand my arguement? Cause you're just reiterating my point of hypocrisy.

Fyi, I blame mitch mcconnell for lack of covid relief.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

Except he wasn't right about statehood. Making DC a state doesn't mean completely taking away the federal territory, just making it smaller.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> official verbal warning, please don't mention the 2K thing anymore, it's spammy. You can Val-win at another category. Next one's a warn.
> 
> Everybody happy now, I hope.


fine il do like Cnn and stop reminding people about it don't want to make Old man 80 million look bad and his fans


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> fine il do like Cnn and stop reminding people about it don't want to make Old man 80 million look bad and his fans


Why are you attempting to insult Biden by calling him old man 80 million, the approximate number of votes he won that beat Trump and was more votes than any candidate in American history has received? Biden's popular vote count was also approximately 81 million, not 80 million.

Calling the loser candidate, Trump, "old man 74 million" is an insult that makes a lot more sense. "Old man can never win the popular vote" or "old man two scoops of impeachment" are better though, in my opinion.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 14, 2021)

So I have not been paying attention.

Has the world, apparently prior to this a hellscape (with electricity, running water, ample food in the shops, and arguably one of the most peaceful times in history where people can get on getting on and pursue their own path in life), now if not sunshine and rainbows then with a clear path into it by dint of the changing tie colour on el presidente?

Or is it as ever just a bunch of old bastards bickering about how they are going to line their pockets whilst pretending to care/doing just enough [insert caring] (with varying qualities to their theatrical performance) to get elected next time?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> So I have not been paying attention.
> 
> Has the world, apparently prior to this a hellscape (with electricity, running water, ample food in the shops, and arguably one of the most peaceful times in history where people can get on getting on and pursue their own path in life), now if not sunshine and rainbows then with a clear path into it by dint of the changing tie colour on el presidente?
> 
> Or is it as ever just a bunch of old bastards bickering about how they are going to line their pockets whilst pretending to care/doing just enough [insert caring] (with varying qualities to their theatrical performance) to get elected next time?


Neither, though it's closer to the first one. Biden actually cares about getting the nation out of this mess. Trump only cares about himself, and that purified narcissism is WHY the mess Biden has to deal with is so massive compared to other nations.



Lacius said:


> Why are you attempting to insult Biden by calling him old man 80 million, the approximate number of votes he won that beat Trump and was more votes than any candidate in American history has received? Biden's popular vote count was also approximately 81 million, not 80 million.
> 
> Calling the loser candidate, Trump, "old man 74 million" is an insult that makes a lot more sense. "Old man can never win the popular vote" or "old man two scoops of impeachment" are better though, in my opinion.


Double Whammy, The Biggest Loser, Ebenezer Screwed, Covidiot, Moronavirus, Scandal-Man, Mar-Illegal, King Nothing, Insurrection Pills, Dunning-Clueless, Orange Julius, Humpty Trumpty, Ku Klux Klown, President Evil, MAGAlomaniac, Mini Mushroom...
I can do this all day!


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Neither, though it's closer to the first one. Biden actually cares about getting the nation out of this mess. Trump only cares about himself, and that purified narcissism is WHY the mess Biden has to deal with is so massive compared to other nations.


You truly still believe politicians actually care and are not all desperately self serving?

Anyway I am not sure what the particular mess is and how it can be laid at the feet of the (not so very powerful) position of US president.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> You truly still believe politicians actually care and are not all desperately self serving?
> 
> Anyway I am not sure what the particular mess is and how it can be laid at the feet of the (not so very powerful) position of US president.


The mess is just how badly Trump botched the CoVid response, resulting in us being a lot worse off than we would have been if he didn't do things like *POLITICIZE BASIC EASY SAFETY MEASURES.*


----------



## tabzer (Feb 14, 2021)

Lol, people cherry picking technicalities.  Which one looks and and acts like a fossil?  

What good is an impeachment?  It seems to only verify the notion that Trump is against the swamp; fueling his narrative.


----------



## Iamapirate (Feb 14, 2021)

Why are two impeachments more significant than the two acquittals?


----------



## smf (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> The mess is just how badly Trump botched the CoVid response, resulting in us being a lot worse off than we would have been if he didn't do things like *POLITICIZE BASIC EASY SAFETY MEASURES.*



But think of his businesses.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> Why are two impeachments more significant than the two acquittals?


Because no other President has done just as much shit as Trump has to warrant two impeachments.
The double impeachments, or rather the existence of the acts that warranted them, are proof that Trump absolutely should not be in any position of power.
And the double acquittals? They're proof that the Republican party is majorly made up of utter cowards that would rather let a tyrant and insurrectionist run free to campaign again another day than ever admit they were wrong.


----------



## smf (Feb 14, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It seems to only verify the notion that Trump is against the swamp; fueling his narrative.



Trump is the swamp. If people are dumb enough to think he's the good guy out of all of this then there is no hope for them.



Iamapirate said:


> Why are two impeachments more significant than the two acquittals?



Presidents get acquitted whether they are innocent or guilty. So acquittal is irrelevant.

Trump is the worst president ever, he tried to steal the election.

It's like 50 people broke into a bank and were seen taking money, then each of them demanded that the other 49 people were on the jury to decide if they were guilty & then during the trial the defense said that you can't convict him as he's no longer in the bank.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 14, 2021)

smf said:


> Trump is the swamp. If people are dumb enough to think he's the good guy out of all of this then there is no hope for them.


The conspiracy theory of conspiracy theories.  I don't have the inclination to say that you are wrong but there are people on this thread who would ridicule you, only if you said something like that about a democrat.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The conspiracy theory of conspiracy theories.  I don't have the inclination to say that you are wrong but there are people on this thread who would ridicule you, only if you said something like that about a democrat.


If Trump was a democrat, I'd loathe him with just as much vitriol for doing as much as he could to ruin our country for the sake of himself and himself only.
If Trump was a democrat, you'd probably turn on a pin and start hating him too.
Try bipartisan hatred, it's a lot more fun. People in your party are capable of doing stupid shit too! *VERY capable!*
On my side, you have people like Elizabeth Warren that bafflingly sided with the hedge funds and rich fuckers during the Stonks War, showing that they don't really have a grasp of who is and is not financially corrupt here.
On your side, you have literal neo-nazis, a House Rep that thinks the California wildfires were started by secret Jewish space-lasers and a former President that literally called all negative coverage of him "fake" and refused to admit his own election loss.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> The mess is just how badly Trump botched the CoVid response, resulting in us being a lot worse off than we would have been if he didn't do things like *POLITICIZE BASIC EASY SAFETY MEASURES.*


Remember when Trump was called a racist last january for halting travel from china to the US becuase of this weird new virus?

Remember? You probably called him racist then too.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

79 pages of making excuses for the most popular president that got more votes than obama


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Remember when Trump was called a racist last january for halting travel from china to the US becuase of this weird new virus?
> 
> Remember? You probably called him racist then too.


Hmm, I wonder why anyone would call him racist... Maybe because his platform, from the start, was founded on racism and xenophobia?


----------



## Iamapirate (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Because no other President has done just as much shit as Trump has to warrant two impeachments.
> The double impeachments, or rather the existence of the acts that warranted them, are proof that Trump absolutely should not be in any position of power.
> And the double acquittals? They're proof that the Republican party is majorly made up of utter cowards that would rather let a tyrant and insurrectionist run free to campaign again another day than ever admit they were wrong.


You can go the other way as well. You can say the claims made against Trump are overblown and vindictive because Democrats were mad they lost the election of 16.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> Trump is the swamp. If people are dumb enough to think he's the good guy out of all of this then there is no hope for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. Even if you think Trump is bad, calling him the worst is asinine and just goes to show you know little about American history. Hell, Trump followed Obama who is arguably worse depending on your perspective, and Bush who is certainly worse.

2. Bringing up concerns regarding election integrity is stealing an election?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> 79 pages of making excuses for the most popular president that got more votes than obama


79 pages of Valwinz repeatedly shitposting "2k" without actually reading any of the responses and having to receive an informal warning before stopping.


----------



## Iamapirate (Feb 14, 2021)

I'm starting to think Trump is the worst xenophobe/racist/fascist ever. Couldn't even get the wall done and couldn't coup the government he was already in control of!


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> You truly still believe politicians actually care and are not all desperately self serving?
> 
> Anyway I am not sure what the particular mess is and how it can be laid at the feet of the (not so very powerful) position of US president.


It takes a certain kind of privilege to not see the need for civil and political action in order to solve systemic issues. Many of these politicians do actually care.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> What good is an impeachment?  It seems to only verify the notion that Trump is against the swamp; fueling his narrative.


To make it clear that trying to overthrow the results of an election with false claims of voter fraud and instigating an armed insurrection are unacceptable behavior.


----------



## Iamapirate (Feb 14, 2021)

He literally told people to peacefully march to the Capitol.

Monster!


----------



## Esjay131 (Feb 14, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> He literally told people to peacefully march to the Capitol.
> 
> Monster!


Might want to tell his supporters that


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> He literally told people to peacefully march to the Capitol.
> 
> Monster!


He instigated an insurrection against the Capitol. He spent months spewing lies about widespread voter fraud, attempted to coerce state officials into arbitrarily changing election results, and attempted to use a mob attack on the Capitol as leverage to not certify the votes.

In response to pleas from the Capitol in the middle of the attack, he said, "I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are." We have videos of Trump enjoying watching the violence on TV when it was happening. When Trump was told Pence was in imminent danger in the middle of the mob attack, Trump tweeted attacks against Pence.

Please don't be disingenuous. Trump may have been acquitted because conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict, but don't confuse that with thinking Trump isn't guilty of what I just listed. Bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate agree.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It takes a certain kind of privilege to not see the need for civil and political action in order to solve systemic issues. Many of these politicians do actually care.



Are you back to this privilege lark?

I thought we already established that I thought it about as relevant and real as the bogeyman. If you seek to shame me then not going to work. If you seek to persuade me of some alternative understanding of causes, actions and reactions then doing the philosophical equivalent of saying Jupiter is in on the ascendant is also going to be equally unhelpful. At very best those that believe in the concept might consider me uncouth and pat you on the head saying good boy, which I would say is fairly pointless vs being able to make a convincing case or persuade me otherwise.

It would be nice if politicos did manage to take some action to solve a problem -- theoretically those without a vested interest in having to make all the money or figure out where their person (or maybe their family's next meal and maybe the meals for next year) were coming from could dispassionately allocate funds, time and talent to doing things that those purely concerned with monetary gain and social clout would find if not goes against their purposes then at least does not further them. The practical realities however see much of that pissed away on corruption, idiocy and the like, and the setups in place as well as basic human nature, biology, economics and physics mean that is all but inevitable. That changes very little with the colour of their tie either, both historically and presently (for as much as states rights is a joke to me then both parties have political strongholds that in many ways amount to a fiefdom all their own with almost total power). Most of the actions are automatic and done either way with marginal net differences, or occasionally making things worse when meddling to say "I helped".


----------



## urherenow (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> You wanna maybe read my post again and see if you can actually understand my arguement? Cause you're just reiterating my point of hypocrisy.
> 
> Fyi, I blame mitch mcconnell for lack of covid relief.


Then FYI, you still have no clue how this works. The HOUSE controls the purse strings. In this regard, the Senate and POTUS are nothing more than sanity checks. Mitch has zero to do with what the house puts on paper (except to vote it down), so If you could blame a single person, it’s Pelosi. Period. It was either pass the damn bill or shut down the government. That was the choice.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

someone call old man joe we need the army here Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1360883827212705792


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Significantly more, especially from (of course) police.
> Peaceful BLM protest? Fucking *gas* them so that the Almighty Donald can take a photo-op with a backwards, upside-down Bible.
> Violent insurrectionist riot? Eh, just let them waltz on in and *literally write on the walls of the Capitol dome IN THEIR OWN PISS AND SHIT.*


To be fair, 50+ members of the Secret Service have been wounded during the June protests in Washington and DC was on fire. Witnesses say that rioters were throwing rocks and *molotov cocktails* at law enforcement officers, the possibility of injury or death was very real.


KingVamp said:


> Except he wasn't right about statehood. Making DC a state doesn't mean completely taking away the federal territory, just making it smaller.


Half-truth. The 100-square mile seat of government, which is currently situated in the city of Washington, can move locations if needed and territory can be ceded or taken from neighbouring states, but it is not eligible for statehood. The lines on the map can change, the status cannot.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Then FYI, you still have no clue how this works. The HOUSE controls the purse strings. In this regard, the Senate and POTUS are nothing more than sanity checks. Mitch has zero to do with what the house puts on paper (except to vote it down), so If you could blame a single person, it’s Pelosi. Period. It was either pass the damn bill or shut down the government. That was the choice.


How is it Pelosi to blame when its mitch that sits on the bill for months on end or votes against it when it comes to vote? Here's the thing. With whatever special interest you feel were included in the original, it also gave more money to individual Americans. Are you so against social interest that doesnt pertain to you personally that you are willing to put you and I in greater hardship just to make sure "they" don't get any? Thats psychotic.

If you get enough money to get by at a regular frequency, what business is it of yours where the rest goes? At least the special interest were for noble causes. The Republicans kept sitting on those bills until we average Americans got less and they got their special interest through. Mostly bailouts for billionaires. In fact they got 637 billion dollars richer and you got 600 instead of 2k. Feel better?


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

The official story about 1/6 is that thousands of right wing lunatics converged to overthrow our democracy but they all accidentally forgot their guns at home that day.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The official story about 1/6 is that thousands of right wing lunatics converged to overthrow our democracy but they all accidentally forgot their guns at home that day.


You have a nack for pointing out the irrelevant. What does it matter if they had guns or not if they brought other weapons and still managed to kill people. You think maybe it would have been too difficult, or would have given them away, trying to get through airport gates, rally checkpoints, and capital checkpoints with firearms?


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> You have a nack for pointing out the irrelevant. What does it matter if they had guns or not if they brought other weapons and still managed to kill people. You think maybe it would have been too difficult, or would have given them away, trying to get through airport gates, rally checkpoints, and capital checkpoints with firearms?


he mom gonna go overthrow the most power nation in the planet keep my tendies warm


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> he mom gonna go overthrow the most power nation in the planet keep my tendies warm


Still using that fallacy that because they suck at insurrection they arent guilty of it. An idiot can try to rob a bank with a nerf gun, get laughed out of the bank, and still do 10 years. Id stop trying to use incompetence as a defence. Youre just adding embarrassment. No one here is claiming this group consisted of smart people.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Hmm, I wonder why anyone would call him racist... Maybe because his platform, from the start, was founded on racism and xenophobia?



You're deflecting. Was it racist for him to restrict travel from China when the virus was first blowing up? No. Yet he was called racist.

Was he right in what he did? Reminder Biden just stopped travel from Africa for the same thing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> He instigated an insurrection against the Capitol. He spent months spewing lies about widespread voter fraud, attempted to coerce state officials into arbitrarily changing election results, and attempted to use a mob attack on the Capitol as leverage to not certify the votes.
> 
> In response to pleas from the Capitol in the middle of the attack, he said, "I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are." We have videos of Trump enjoying watching the violence on TV when it was happening. When Trump was told Pence was in imminent danger in the middle of the mob attack, Trump tweeted attacks against Pence.
> 
> Please don't be disingenuous. Trump may have been acquitted because conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict, but don't confuse that with thinking Trump isn't guilty of what I just listed. Bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate agree.



2-0


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> You're deflecting. Was it racist for him to restrict travel from China when the virus was first blowing up? No. Yet he was called racist.
> 
> Was he right in what he did? Reminder Biden just stopped travel from Africa for the same thing.
> 
> ...


The only president impeached twice. The only president to lose the popular vote twice.

For comparison, Obama won the popular vote twice and was never impeached.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> You're deflecting. Was it racist for him to restrict travel from China when the virus was first blowing up? No. Yet he was called racist.
> 
> Was he right in what he did? Reminder Biden just stopped travel from Africa for the same thing.
> 
> ...


How am I deflecting?
When someone does and says racist things, and then does something that could be perceived as racist, it's a lot more likely that it IS racist than if the person was one that _*hadn't done racist shit prior.*_
Besides, Trump showed nigh-complete apathy for the nation regarding the pandemic at that point, so I highly doubt he actually did it out of a concern for health/safety.



Iamapirate said:


> You can go the other way as well. You can say the claims made against Trump are overblown and vindictive because Democrats were mad they lost the election of 16.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Excuse me, what Olympic-level mental gymnastics did you do to deem Obama anywhere near as bad as Trump, let alone worse?
Obama didn't do anything within an order of magnitude as bad as basically any of what Trump's done.
Heck, even Nixon, the go-to name to drop for "corrupt president", _*was both less corrupt and more competent!*_
Also... Trump didn't just "bring up concerns". He spent months lying about the results claiming that he won and it was somehow stolen from him (and he started doing so _*before the counting even fucking finished*_), TO THIS DAY refuses to admit that Biden's win was legitimate, and told his supporters things that amount to "bad man Joe stole my win, _*fight Congress *_to get it back for me plz thx".


----------



## smf (Feb 14, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> 1. Even if you think Trump is bad, calling him the worst is asinine and just goes to show you know little about American history. Hell, Trump followed Obama who is arguably worse depending on your perspective, and Bush who is certainly worse.



Which other president has cared as little for the people who didn't vote for him & caused division to meet his own ends?


----------



## rensenware (Feb 14, 2021)

I don't think you can reasonably call trump the worst president in history, though he's up there, because of presidents like Jackson, Buchanan, and Reagan, but relative to the norms of his time period imo he's the worst.


----------



## smf (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The official story about 1/6 is that thousands of right wing lunatics converged to overthrow our democracy but they all accidentally forgot their guns at home that day.



They were too busy looking for a noose for Mike Pence.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> You're deflecting. Was it racist for him to restrict travel from China when the virus was first blowing up? No. Yet he was called racist.



Maybe if he hadn't spent so much time trying convince everyone not to worry about covid 19 then people wouldn't question his motives for shutting down travel from China. He also doesn't have an excuse for all the racist shit pre-covid.



jupitteer said:


> I don't think you can reasonably call trump the worst president in history, though he's up there, because of presidents like Jackson, Buchanan, and Reagan, but relative to the norms of his time period imo he's the worst.



I don't think Reagan was as bad, even Jackson didn't dodge military service by paying a doctor off.

If you look back on past presidents and judge them by today's standards then he has some competition for worst, but that is like cancelling people because of a 10 year old tweet or facebook post. The fact he would still be in the running is a huge failure.



Plasmaster09 said:


> _*before the counting even fucking finished*_),



Before he does anything he claims it's rigged if he loses, anyone who believes him is dumb as fuck(*). Trump lies about things being rigged so much it would make me question if Biden actually came out and said that he, Bill Gates and the Jewish space laser guys had rigged the election and explained how they did it.

Trump is the boy who cried wolf.

(*) I feel sorry for you if you believe him, but it doesn't change it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

jupitteer said:


> I don't think you can reasonably call trump the worst president in history, though he's up there, because of presidents like Jackson, Buchanan, and Reagan, but relative to the norms of his time period imo he's the worst.


Reagan is up there at the pearly gates lowering property tax on ethereal estate and smiling.


Valwinz said:


> he mom gonna go overthrow the most power nation in the planet keep my tendies warm


Okay son, but be back before curfew and don't get in trouble or you're grounded, mister!


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Half-truth. The 100-square mile seat of government, which is currently situated in the city of Washington, can move locations if needed and territory can be ceded or taken from neighbouring states, but it is not eligible for statehood. The lines on the map can change, the status cannot.


I feel like this is all in semantics. So, to make it simple, people want to reduce the federal territory to make room for a new state called DC. AKA the Douglass Commonwealth.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> I feel like this is all in semantics. So, to make it simple, people want to reduce the federal territory to make room for a new state called DC. AKA the Douglass Commonwealth.


...and they can't because the territory would have to be returned to the states it originally belonged to while the minimum amount of space, the 100 square miles that *have* to be dedicated to the Capitol, are not eligible for statehood. Think of it as renting an apartment. Once the tenant moves out, the original owner of the property takes over. The house doesn't get sold again - it  already has an owner, it was simply inhabited by a third party temporarily on the basis of an agreement. This isn't even a "what if", there's historical precedent for this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Washington,_D.C.

In 1864 31 square miles of District of Columbia were returned to the state of Virginia due to retrocession. The remainder of the territory, in the event of shrinking DC, would go to Maryland.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 14, 2021)

smf said:


> I don't think Reagan was as bad, even Jackson didn't dodge military service by paying a doctor off.



Are we talking about Trump, or Biden now?

Like Trump, Biden got multiple medical deferments (more than Trump did) to stay out of Vietnam. Biden's medical claim was he had asthma. Biden was a football player, and lifeguard.

Not saying Trump didn't squirt out of the draft in the 60's. He did. 

But Biden did too.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> while the minimum amount of space, the 100 square miles that *have* to be dedicated to the Capitol,


Where do you see a minimum? 



Foxi4 said:


> ...and they can't because the territory would have to be returned to the states it originally belonged
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Washington,_D.C.
> 
> In 1864 31 square miles of District of Columbia were returned to the state of Virginia due to retrocession. The remainder of the territory, in the event of shrinking DC, would go to Maryland.


Where does it said that land must be retrocessed? Just because there was a retrocession of land, doesn't mean that land can't be turned into state instead. Maryland doesn't even want DC.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Where do you see a minimum?
> 
> Where does it said that land must be retrocessed? Just because there was a retrocession of land, doesn't mean that land can't be turned into state instead. Maryland doesn't even want DC.


What they want doesn't really matter. The size of DC was set in the 1790 Residence Act. The 10x10 square miles size is set in the Constitution, Article I § 8.17. I quote.


> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and Seat of Government.


I've mistakenly remembered it as a minimum, but it is in fact a maximum, and a sensible one. Tl;dr, the land was donated by Maryland and the size of the Seat of Government is set in the Constitution. If the space is vacated, it returns to Maryland whether Maryland wants it or not, barring some kind of extraordinary action by both the Federal and the State government. In complete theory you could reduce the size of the Seat of Government to just the general area of the White House and the Capitol, but a 10x10 miles square is already fairly small and I don't see a reason to shrink it any further. That land, whatever shape and location it might be at any given time, is de facto, constitutionally, ineligible for statehood.


----------



## rensenware (Feb 14, 2021)

i have a policy of completely avoiding reagan enjoyers, so i will take my leave goodbye


----------



## tabzer (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> If Trump was a democrat, I'd loathe him with just as much vitriol for doing as much as he could to ruin our country for the sake of himself and himself only.
> If Trump was a democrat, you'd probably turn on a pin and start hating him too.
> Try bipartisan hatred, it's a lot more fun. People in your party are capable of doing stupid shit too! *VERY capable!*
> On my side, you have people like Elizabeth Warren that bafflingly sided with the hedge funds and rich fuckers during the Stonks War, showing that they don't really have a grasp of who is and is not financially corrupt here.
> On your side, you have literal neo-nazis, a House Rep that thinks the California wildfires were started by secret Jewish space-lasers and a former President that literally called all negative coverage of him "fake" and refused to admit his own election loss.


You missed my point, completely.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> To make it clear that trying to overthrow the results of an election with false claims of voter fraud and instigating an armed insurrection are unacceptable behavior.



He won by a landslide.  Also:



It looks like your media instigated the "armed insurrection" with fake Trump footage.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

jupitteer said:


> i have a policy of completely avoiding reagan enjoyers, so i will take my leave goodbye


Reagan had a 52% approval rating and is universally revered among fiscal conservatives, you must be avoiding large swathes of people in your day-to-day. Don't worry, you might dislike him, but he winks at you from the skies above and makes sure your tax returns never get lost in the mail.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Reagan had a 52% approval rating


*HAD* being the key word here.  Not only did his mind turn to mush while he was still president, dude did a ton of illegal and super racist shit.  With the retrospective of time, nobody should view the man as a saint.  They're just nostalgic for the era of free-flowing coke and unchecked stock market gains.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Xzi said:


> They're just nostalgic for the era of *free-flowing coke* and *unchecked stock market gains*.


...what is the process for nominating a new saint, and how do I put in my vote?


----------



## Xzi (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> ...what is the process for nominating a new saint, and how do I put in my vote?


...For the few anyway.  For the masses it was free-flowing crack/police brutality and unchecked mass death overseas.  We're still living with the after-effects of "Reaganomics," aka corporate rule, but those aren't near as fun, even for the elites and yuppies.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 14, 2021)

3,589 Americans died from Covid yesterday while the President of the United States played Mario Kart. https://t.co/Rid8fd3pqJ— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) February 14, 2021


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What they want doesn't really matter. The size of DC was set in the 1790 Residence Act. The 10x10 square miles size is set in the Constitution, Article I § 8.17. I quote.
> 
> I've mistakenly remembered it as a minimum, but it is in fact a maximum, and a sensible one.


So, there is no minimum.



Foxi4 said:


> Tl;dr, the land was donated by Maryland and the size of the Seat of Government is set in the Constitution. If the space is vacated, it returns to Maryland whether Maryland wants it or not, barring some kind of extraordinary action by both the Federal and the State government. In complete theory you could reduce the size of the Seat of Government to just the general area of the White House and the Capitol, but a 10x10 miles square is already fairly small and I don't see a reason to shrink it any further. That land, whatever shape and location it might be at any given time, is de facto, constitutionally, ineligible for statehood.


Doesn't say anything about automatic retrocession and even if it did, Maryland already said they don't want DC. So, I don't know why they would suddenly change their mind, if automatic retrocession was actually a thing. Shrinking it further will give more people better representation. Seems like a good enough reason for me. Then it is a good thing that the people that are asking for statehood, aren't asking to completely remove the federal land.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/breannamorello/status/1360938789934419970


low effort post, meet low effort response
who the hell is supposed to be biden in that video? I'm sorry but I just don't see it.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> low effort post, meet low effort response
> who the hell is supposed to be biden in that video? I'm sorry but I just don't see it.


Should have been no response.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Should have been no response.


fair.

Well I am genuinely curious, since non of them looks like Biden, and the quality of the video is so low I'm questioning if it was taken on a 2008 phone, which in this day in age is really unrealistic.


----------



## smf (Feb 14, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Biden's medical claim was he had asthma. Biden was a football player, and lifeguard.



Both can be true. Did the doctor who diagnosed Biden's asthma rent offices from Biden's dad? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/us/politics/trump-vietnam-draft-exemption.html


----------



## Lacius (Feb 14, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You missed my point, completely.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Donald Trump lost both the popular vote and the electoral college in 2020. It wasn't even close.

Trump also lost the popular vote in 2016.


----------



## smf (Feb 14, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> low effort post, meet low effort response
> who the hell is supposed to be biden in that video? I'm sorry but I just don't see it.



Obviously Biden should be playing golf, not mario kart.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> He won by a landslide.



Your dictionary is broken, it has an incorrect definition of "won"


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> So, there is no minimum.
> 
> 
> Doesn't say anything about automatic retrocession and even if it did, Maryland already said they don't want DC. So, I don't know why they would suddenly change their mind, if automatic retrocession was actually a thing. Shrinking it further will give more people better representation. Seems like a good enough reason for me. Then it is a good thing that the people that are asking for statehood, aren't asking to completely remove the federal land.


My point was that regardless of how you organise the new border, not all of Washington is eligible to become a state. There will always be an assigned area for the seat of government because the constitution rightfully secures one. I never said that the borders can't move - they do move and have moved in the past. As for how automatic the process is, upon vacating a territory it de facto returns to its previous owner, so to speak. Whether Maryland wants it or not, it would be a whole separate matter to settle. The formation of a new state is no easy task, there's a number of U.S. territories that are yet to be recognised as states, and have been pursuing statehood for years. You have to create a whole new state government, new state-level law enforcement, codify state law, it's not something you just come up with on a whim. Is it possible? Sure, theoretically, as long as we're talking about a partial conversion, which is why I called your statement "half true". As it stands, District of Columbia is ineligible for statehood, my opinion has not changed. The legal framework for its existence is codified and the historical precedent in regards to land ownership is set. If the federal government wishes to vacate any territory, they would necessarily return it to whatever state has originally ceded it - it can't be no man's land until the citizens of Washington decide to do something about it, that's silly. You can't have the capitol of the country surrounded by a void.


----------



## smf (Feb 14, 2021)

Xzi said:


> *HAD* being the key word here.  Not only did his mind turn to mush while he was still president, dude did a ton of illegal and super racist shit.  With the retrospective of time, nobody should view the man as a saint.  They're just nostalgic for the era of free-flowing coke and unchecked stock market gains.



I find it hard to judge people for their past actions, when at the time everyone thought it was great.

Trump should have known, but either he was either diagnosably delusional or such a giant douche bag that he acted in a way that he knew was fundamentally wrong but didn't give a shit.



Foxi4 said:


> it can't be no man's land until the citizens of Washington decide to do something about it, that's silly. You can't have the capitol of the country surrounded by a void.



None of the problems are insummountable. It's kinda interesting when Trump wanted to do all amount of despicable shit & people said you can't do this or that, his supporters were "just watch us".

As soon as it's something you don't like, it's all "wahwahwah, it's so unfair you can't do that"


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

smf said:


> I find it hard to judge people for their past actions, when at the time everyone thought it was great.
> 
> Trump should have known, but either he was either diagnosably delusional or such a giant douche bag that he acted in a way that he knew was fundamentally wrong but didn't give a shit.
> 
> ...


Reagan is dubious, but Trump is unequivocally a complete and utter bag of dicks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

smf said:


> None of the problems are insummountable. It's kinda interesting when Trump wanted to do all amount of despicable shit & people said you can't do this or that, his supporters were "just watch us".
> 
> As soon as it's something you don't like, it's all "wahwahwah, it's so unfair you can't do that"


I don't have any particular issue with the general area becoming a state as long as DC stays independent. No one state should have an outsized influence on the rest of the union, and being the state that is also the seat of government and thus effectively in charge of federal law, as well as the military, is one surefire way to destabilise it. The electoral college already automatically rebalances the level of power each state has in general elections, so the number of states participating in the union is immaterial to me. I'm simply insisting that the 10x10 area surrounding the White House and the Capitol specifically cannot and should not become an individual state - it should be independent, neutral ground.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't have any particular issue with the general area becoming a state as long as DC stays independent. No one state should have an outsized influence on the rest of the union, and being the state that is also the seat of government and thus effectively in charge of federal law, as well as the military, is one surefire way to destabilise it. The electoral college already automatically rebalances the level of power each state has in general elections, so the number of states participating in the union is immaterial to me. I'm simply insisting that the 10x10 area surrounding the White House and the Capitol specifically cannot and should not become an individual state - it should be independent, neutral ground.


I'd say the best thing to do for this is a compromise- give it some of the powers a state has, whichever ones would be sufficient to prevent stuff like the Fraudulent Insurrection from happening again, but nothing that would give it an unfair power advantage.



tabzer said:


> He won by a landslide.


From a certain definition of "he", yes.
Biden not only trounced the treasonous trouser-snake that is Trump, he did so so powerfully that all the Trumpers that would have been excited for a tyrannical Round Two weren't the only ones receiving some solid blue clusters in their south.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I'd say the best thing to do for this is a compromise- give it some of the powers a state has, whichever ones would be sufficient to prevent stuff like the Fraudulent Insurrection from happening again, but nothing that would give it an unfair power advantage.


The compromise is following the constitution, the default law of the land. If you wish to change the constitution, you will need overwhelming support from other states, there's a pre-existing framework for submitting amendments. I am of the opinion that the capitol of the United States should be neutral ground where representatives from all states decide upon the policy that they will all follow, as well as deciding upon any and all military action. It should have zero power in isolation, it doesn't need a state government, it is the seat of *the* government, that's power enough, and that power is shared. The founders came up with a compromise already.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> it can't be no man's land until the citizens of Washington decide to do something about it, that's silly. You can't have the capitol of the country surrounded by a void.


Everything else aside, of course there wouldn't just be a void. lol  Only If and when statehood passes, will that part of the land will be given up. The bill already outlines what to do as things transition.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Everything else aside, of course there wouldn't just be a void. lol  Only If and when statehood passes, will that part of the land will be given up. The bill already outlines what to do as things transition.


The way I see it, any support for DC's statehood is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what the United States are. It's a union of otherwise independent states that agreed to work together and federalise under one federal government which happens to govern from an area that belongs to no state in particular. It is not a conventional setup, it's a federal republic - it's more similar to the European Union than it is to any other country in particular, except the EU doesn't have its own law enforcement or standing army, at least not yet.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 14, 2021)

smf said:


> I find it hard to judge people for their past actions, when at the time everyone thought it was great.


Nah, plenty of people knew what was happening was wrong, even at the time.  They just chose to ignore it because it didn't impact them directly, or worse, because they were profiting from America's decline.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The way I see it, any support for DC's statehood is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what the United States are. It's a union of otherwise independent states that agreed to work together and federalise under one federal government which happens to govern from an area that belongs to no state in particular. It is not a conventional setup, it's a federal republic - it's more similar to the European Union than it is to any other country in particular, except the EU doesn't have its own law enforcement or standing army, at least not yet.


If they were not leaving any room for federal land and was trying to gain power over the federal government, I would agree with you, but that is simply not the case. More people are just realizing that the land simply doesn't need to be that big and repurposing some that land for statehood will give people more representation.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> funny since cities were burned all summer of last year and those don't have standing armies there right now



stats? which cities were burned, how much was burned, and what % of protests were actually violent?


----------



## boots_n_cats (Feb 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It is not a conventional setup, it's a federal republic - it's more similar to the European Union than it is to any other country in particular



It's actually a fairly conventional setup in modern terms. Off the cuff, I would argue countries like Australia and Canada are very similar to the United States with largely independent provinces/states and both manage to provide equal representation and voting power to the residents of their federal capitols, with Australia's capital even being a distinct territory. Germany, Brazil, and Russia also function under similar models. The major differences are in the functioning of the executive branch (deligated



Foxi4 said:


> which happens to govern from an area that belongs to no state in particular.



The reasons for DC not being a state are largely historical and not particularly relevant today. DC not having representation in congress is hardly fundamental to the operation of the United States; the only practical difference we would see if tomorrow DC had congresspeople and senators is that 700k people would now have the same congressional representation that the 600k residents of Wyoming have. Hell, you could even carve out enclaves for the federal buildings, they did something similar with a strip mall when my hometown incorporated 20 years ago to avoid subjecting it to municipal taxes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 15, 2021)

boots_n_cats said:


> It's actually a fairly conventional setup in modern terms. Off the cuff, I would argue countries like Australia and Canada are very similar to the United States with largely independent provinces/states and both manage to provide equal representation and voting power to the residents of their federal capitols, with Australia's capital even being a distinct territory. Germany, Brazil, and Russia also function under similar models. The major differences are in the functioning of the executive branch (deligated
> 
> The reasons for DC not being a state are largely historical and not particularly relevant today. DC not having representation in congress is hardly fundamental to the operation of the United States; the only practical difference we would see if tomorrow DC had congresspeople and senators is that 700k people would now have the same congressional representation that the 600k residents of Wyoming have. Hell, you could even carve out enclaves for the federal buildings, they did something similar with a strip mall when my hometown incorporated 20 years ago to avoid subjecting it to municipal taxes.


I would be ameneble to shrinking the size of the capitol to the absolute minimum with nothing but federal property and zero citizens to speak of and returning or otherwise reclassifying the rest of the area. That solves the problem of representation - there's nobody to represent. I believe it's a far more fair solution that maintains the constitutional order and gives people the representation they reserve - win-win.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The compromise is following the constitution, the default law of the land. If you wish to change the constitution, you will need overwhelming support from other states, there's a pre-existing framework for submitting amendments. I am of the opinion that the capitol of the United States should be neutral ground where representatives from all states decide upon the policy that they will all follow, as well as deciding upon any and all military action. It should have zero power in isolation, it doesn't need a state government, it is the seat of *the* government, that's power enough, and that power is shared. The founders came up with a compromise already.


...I guess.
It's just kind of dumb that the seat of the national government doesn't have enough power to, you know, prevent itself from getting attacked by a mob of idiots and a negligent Prez.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 15, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ...I guess.
> It's just kind of dumb that the seat of the national government doesn't have enough power to, you know, prevent itself from getting attacked by a mob of idiots and a negligent Prez.


They had the power, they simply chose not to use it against the citizens in excess. There are secret service snipers all over the place, it's not uncommon to see someone blasted on the White House lawn for criminal trespass.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> They had the power, they simply chose not to use it against the citizens in excess. There are secret service snipers all over the place, it's not uncommon to see someone blasted on the White House lawn for criminal trespass.


They needed the National Guard, and Trump adamantly refused to send them.
If there were enough snipers and other defenders there to fend off the rioters, then those guys should be fired because they did _jack shit_ as far as I've heard.

like I distinctly remember hearing and/or watching video that amounted to the guards just... LETTING THE RIOTERS CASUALLY WALTZ ON THROUGH, at least for a decent chunk of it
like this is literally the definition of https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGuardsMustBeCrazy and it's not even remotely funny


----------



## wartutor (Feb 15, 2021)

Trump acquitted.....
Trump 2024

breaking news fox opinion piece correct @Lacius guess dems forgot to line their ducks in a row before firing the whole clip oops.

Again TRUMP 2024 FUX Liberals and the scum they rode in on.

Now they are saying end of March before our $2000. Man they are fast. Maybe shouldnt of waisted so much time stroking each other over Trump and their tds.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Trump acquitted.....
> Trump 2024
> 
> breaking news fox opinion piece correct @Lacius guess dems forgot to line their ducks in a row before firing the whole clip oops.
> ...


ok boomer


----------



## wartutor (Feb 15, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ... LETTING THE RIOTERS CASUALLY WALTZ ON THROUGH,


Isn't that what they have been doing for antifa/blm for this whole summer except they were rioting, burning shit down, and killing. Mostly in dc a few things got taken and ONE unarmed Trump supporter was killed by an "unnamed" (very fishy here) and some selfies were taken. Wow so much worse than cities burning where is the nation guard for all this? Trump wanted to send them in and democrats refused.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Isn't that what they have been doing for antifa/blm for this whole summer except they were rioting, burning shit down, and killing. Mostly in dc a few things got taken and ONE unarmed Trump supporter was killed by an "unnamed" (very fishy here) and some selfies were taken. Wow so much worse than cities burning where is the nation guard for all this? Trump wanted to send them in and democrats refused.


ok false equivalizer


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 15, 2021)

imao 
😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/YNPgmSr1kQ— Students For Trump (@TrumpStudents) February 15, 2021


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/breannamorello/status/1360938789934419970


Wish I could find my old post about how maga would suddenly care about covid..


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao
> https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1361159793394601984



Times Obama was impeached vs. times Trump was impeached: 0 and 2
Times Trump won the popular vote vs. times Obama won the popular vote: 0 and 2
You might want to avoid the term "0 and 2" when talking about Trump. It's pretty embarrassing for you and for him, particularly when Trump received bipartisan majorities to convict and was acquitted on the technicality that conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the senate. Republicans like Mitch McConnell also voted to acquit on the technicality that they incorrectly didn't think impeachment was constitutional constitutional after a president left office, not because they thought Trump wasn't guilty.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> Isn't that what they have been doing for antifa/blm for this whole summer except they were rioting, burning shit down, and killing. Mostly in dc a few things got taken and ONE unarmed Trump supporter was killed by an "unnamed" (very fishy here) and some selfies were taken. Wow so much worse than cities burning where is the nation guard for all this? Trump wanted to send them in and democrats refused.


BLM is a peaceful protest movement against systemic racism. The riots at the Capitol were, by design, an attempted insurrection against the United States stoked by false claims of voter fraud and instigated by Trump so he could use the riots as leverage to overturn the election. Don't be disingenuous.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> Trump acquitted.....
> Trump 2024
> 
> breaking news fox opinion piece correct @Lacius guess dems forgot to line their ducks in a row before firing the whole clip oops.
> ...


Nobody wanted to impeach Trump, particularly with the small chance of a conviction in the Senate, but Trump's actions were so deplorable that the precedent couldn't be set that those kinds of actions were acceptable and wouldn't result in consequences like impeachment. In other words, I'm sorry Trump sucks so bad.

Trump was acquitted because conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate. In reality, Trump received bipartisan majorities to convict, and many of the Republicans voted to acquit because they didn't think a president could be impeached after leaving office, not because they thought he wasn't guilty.

Trump is an embarrassment who lost the popular vote twice, is a one-term president, and got impeached twice. The fact that seven Republican senators voted for his conviction is also embarrassing. In other words, Trump was acquitted twice, but how many times was Obama acquitted? The answer: not applicable.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

I am witnessing such a strong faith here.  Good to see that the spirit dwells in @Lacius, the true believer.  Obviously he is the authority on what is embarrassing.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I am witnessing such a strong faith here.  Good to see that the spirit dwells in @Lacius, the true believer.  Obviously he is the authority on what is embarrassing.



Two popular vote losses
Two impeachments
Whining about fake voter fraud and instigating an insurrection instead of conceding his loss
About to face multiple criminal investigations/indictments
The facts speak for themselves.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The facts speak for themselves.



Oh leader, please tell me how to decipher this ironic statement.  Let us unite to hate Trump and silence all of the tyrants.  Amen.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Oh leader, please tell me how to decipher this ironic statement.  Let us unite to hate Trump and silence all of the tyrants.  Amen.


I don't think you know what irony is. Feel free to tag me when you've decided to post something of substance.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> BLM is a peaceful protest movement against systemic racism. The riots at the Capitol were, by design, an attempted insurrection against the United States stoked by false claims of voter fraud and instigated by Trump so he could use the riots as leverage to overturn the election. Don't be disingenuous.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


On impeachments vs acquittals.
Is a man not deemed innocent unless and until convicted? Being as this would presumably want to be held to criminal standards (sedition tending to be a serious affair rather than payment for work done or something) then 2/3 would also seem to be on the lower side -- criminal conviction these days needing to be unanimous for serious offences https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/20/politics/scotus-jury-verdict-criminal-trial/index.html .
I am also not quite sure what the unacceptable actions were. Loosely following the case and getting a nice timeline (and means, motive, opportunity) type assessment going on I would have struggled to get a discipline action going on in a job where social meeja is made hard to use, and if that somehow does rise to such levels then if things are going to be applied equally (and without regard for any kind of free speech notions) then there are going to be a lot of people from all over the political spectrum that are going to be waiting for that knock on the door (which for the sake of stating it would not be for me -- free speech and all that).
The whole case was a bit of a farce though -- for a room full of lawyers that was an awful show.

As far as BLM.
From where I sit there is black lives matter the notion, and black lives matter the organisation ( https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/ , and that is arguably a toned down version -- go through archives and their international efforts which seemingly fall under the greater umbrella and... yeah), and there are many parallels with other organisations and "movements" (anonymous the hacker collective, atheism vs Atheism+, any number of religious classifications). You can happily be for or against one or both of them, or think one or both (and subsets) misguided to varying degrees, and indeed given the prevailing notions of politics in the US (all men created equal, content of character rather than colour of skin, and all that) the organisation might be quite unpalatable as far as their aims, driving logic and the like. Failure to police their own or adequately distance themselves is also a charge that might be levelled. You could also subsume it into the notion of all lives matter, or a similar notion meaning much the same thing if that is too loaded a term for your taste, if you think their charges are not unique to black people if you wanted. I am not particularly seeing the rationales for any of it -- there are some arsehole police but it is a vanishingly small contingent and they usually get theirs before too long if that is going to be the rallying cry.

Capitol riots. That was the lamest insurrection in history if it was -- janitors clearing up on normal schedule and attendees that were not dead or arrested (which is most of them) could have quite happily had a marginally late dinner in a local bar/attend happy hour. Such an insurrection would barely have knocked over a small Caribbean island, never mind somewhere like the US where they had no military support, the government could have watched it all from actually the buildings of government themselves (never mind bunkers) and gone back to work the day after.
Whatever flavour of trespass, damage, theft and violence they might be guilty of then go secure convictions if you want -- do the crime and hey they might be time for it.

As far as systemic racism, which is to say the system under which those of a given race (or races) are oppressed by the law, law enforcement, by the services provided or supported by the government (education, healthcare, housing, financial support...), and otherwise ignored in non government institutions that might seek to perpetuate it or operate under the principles, I am not seeing it for the US. Now if you are poor that is a different matter, and indeed poverty might well not be an even split if you categorise by race and do the percentages. Whether that is the fault of a system, or better addressed by "you are black/[insert ethnicity/race] therefore" or "you are poor therefore" would be a separate discussion. I would favour the latter -- you can demonstrably be black and do all there is to do in society, indeed many do, poverty however does rather beget poverty and that is before personal choices are factored into things (teen pregnancy for example https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/teen-births.htm -- if twice the rate then you tend to expect problems there, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_13-508.pdf having tables on later pages but 13 is a good start. https://vittana.org/teen-pregnancy-and-poverty looks like it has some nice stats but I am up for a better source, and that is before considering the compounding effect of it possibly happening for a couple of generations now).
If the government sees that their black population is as a whole not having the best lot in life and seeks to improve it, a reasonable goal for a government to have, then 50 billion going and disappearing all 5 white supremacists that still remain vs 50 billion encouraging business, making for security, possibly juicing up education (though I would have further preferences there, especially as it pertains to the BLM demands for such things https://www.blacklivesmatteratschool.com/the-demands.html https://www.blacklivesmatteratschool.com/curriculum.html https://www.blacklivesmatteratschool.com/13-guiding-principles.html . I hope that is not a troll site but appears legit, even if it seems to fail to link back to things) then let us talk further -- such things tend to want to be rather surgical in nature as opening up a pork barrel vs teaching a man to fish...


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> As far as systemic racism, which is to say the system under which those of a given race (or races) are oppressed by the law, law enforcement, by the services provided or supported by the government (education, healthcare, housing, financial support...), and otherwise ignored in non government institutions that might seek to perpetuate it or operate under the principles, I am not seeing it for the US.


It takes a certain kind of privilege to not even see the systemic racism in the United States.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't think you know what irony is. Feel free to tag me when you've decided to post something of substance.



Please start thinking for me, because if facts speak for themselves, then I don't understand why you are talking.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Please start thinking for me, because if facts speak for themselves, then I don't understand why you are talking.


The facts don't literally speak for themselves. It's an idiom that means I can present the facts, and I don't even need to explain how they're embarrassing because it's so obvious. Instead of worrying about whether or not I'm trying to think for you, perhaps you should worry about thinking for yourself. This isn't the first time in recent memory that you've posted nonsense that contributes nothing of substance to the discourse.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The facts don't literally speak for themselves. It's an idiom that means I can present the facts, and I don't even need to explain how they're embarrassing because it's so obvious. Instead of worrying about whether or not I'm trying to think for you, perhaps you should worry about thinking for yourself. This isn't the first time in recent memory that you've posted nonsense that contributes nothing of substance to the discourse.



Well you are right about nonsense, but your reference to "the discourse" seems to be about keeping the conversation one sided.



Also:

https://gab.com/Artraven/posts/105714720761743853


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well you are right about nonsense, but your reference to "the discourse" seems to be about keeping the conversation one sided.



Evidence wasn't manipulated. The part of the video you claim was absent (it was actually referenced by the House impeachment managers) doesn't change the facts of the case, and bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate voted to convict Trump.

Also, great job at changing the subject from your embarrassing shitposts from earlier today and my responses to them. Kudos.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It takes a certain kind of privilege to not even see the systemic racism in the United States.


Did we not do this yesterday? https://gbatemp.net/threads/joe-bid...states-of-america.581277/page-80#post-9365511

But we could argue semantics and what I deem imaginary concepts. What might be easier is convince me there is such a thing as systemic racism presently active in the US, especially to such a degree that I need to consider it a priority or keep it in mind.

From where I sit and what I have seen having both observed things, lived there for months in various states talking to hundreds of people across the social strata, looked at stats, and generally contemplated life there
Folks of all ethnicities seem free to live their lives how they will, work, own businesses, own property, be shown in and create popular culture, not be taxed on the basis of, become players in big businesses, have actively enforced laws saying don't discriminate, do education (sometimes even be assisted into it), not have laws to the detriment of them, not have enforcement favour or disfavour, run for and attain political office of all stripes, do the whole military thing, ideas of discrimination (give or take "positive discrimination" in some instances) tend not to be pervasive in society, get assistance from the government and other institutions, have the law smack someone when they wronged them... and all in rates that would rather defy a 'only a token few are allowed through just so we have something to point at and say "not us, look at that"' type notion.

If I were to take a simple metric like population totals and classifications, various stats like poverty rate, income, education... then would it not mirror everything else? Sure. Do I care though? Does it need to be the same? If those that want it can generally achieve it then is that not all that was promised?

The idea that there is a large scale conscious or subconscious attempt to keep the non whiteys down (possibly while pulling all the good pure white skinned folks riding high, though that can be separate and still left to Darwin there -- still plenty of white folks in dire straights with an awful quality of life)... it is an awful attempt at it if so, and plenty of countries do it far better (middle east, Japan, China, various parts of Africa, Russia to various extents, the US itself a lifetime or more ago...).
I would also return to if I were to attempt to improve the lot in life of black people that pumping billions into hunting down the racists that might exist (above and beyond what they already are) vs encouraging proper sustainable long term growth, security and whatever else then what would I expect a better return on my investment for?


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Also, great job at changing the subject from your embarrassing shitposts from earlier today and my responses to them. Kudos.



Sorry it is embarrassing for you.  I posted this video earlier today, but you chose to ignore it while chasing low-hanging fruit.  Please tell me how I should respond in advance, next time, so I don't risk embarrassing you.  If your rebuttal to it is simply denial, coupled with an argument with something I've never said, then it just affirms that I should take even less effort in communicating seriously with you.  I mean, "the facts speak for themselves".


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Did we not do this yesterday? https://gbatemp.net/threads/joe-bid...states-of-america.581277/page-80#post-9365511
> 
> But we could argue semantics and what I deem imaginary concepts. What might be easier is convince me there is such a thing as systemic racism presently active in the US, especially to such a degree that I need to consider it a priority or keep it in mind.
> 
> ...


It's ridiculous, and from a place of privilege, to suggest that all politicians are self-serving. Many politicians from the Democratic side care deeply about issues of income inequality, human-caused connate change, LGBT issues, etc., for example. Many politicians from the Democratic side enter the world of politics from a place of civil rights activism, etc.

It's ridiculous, and from a place of privilege, to suggest (contrary to virtually all the facts) that  systemic racism does not exist in the United States. Your privilege is especially evident by you saying you personally "don't see" the systemic racism.

No amount of rambling is going to change the facts above, and to be candid, I'm fatigued and burnt out from educating privileged people about their privilege.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Sorry it is embarrassing for you.  I posted this video earlier today, but you chose to ignore it while chasing low-hanging fruit.  Please tell me how I should respond in advance, next time, so I don't risk embarrassing you.  If your rebuttal to it is simply denial, coupled with an argument with something I've never said, then it just affirms that I should take even less effort in communicating seriously with you.  I mean, "the facts speak for themselves".


I'm not obligated to respond to everything everyone posts, I'm not obligated to see everything everyone posts, and I'm definitely not obligated to watch every video everyone posts. I've also already responded to the asinine video. I'm not the one who should be embarrassed, and I'm not sure why you're suggesting I'm embarrassed. Try again.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's ridiculous, and from a place of privilege, to suggest that all politicians are self-serving. Many politicians from the Democratic side care deeply about issues of income inequality, human-caused connate change, LGBT issues, etc., for example. Many politicians from the Democratic side enter the world of politics from a place of civil rights activism, etc.
> 
> It's ridiculous, and from a place of privilege, to suggest (contrary to virtually all the facts) that  systemic racism does not exist in the United States. Your privilege is especially evident by you saying you personally "don't see" the systemic racism.
> 
> No amount of rambling is going to change the facts above, and to be candid, I'm fatigued and burnt out from educating privileged people about their privilege.


So your choice in debate is mere dismissal?

Amusingly I imagine we are actually very close in what would we like to see achieved. If you can't convince someone as close as I might be to you to follow along in your world view then what chance do you have of convincing someone else that might actually be further away in political alignment?

Good luck with furthering your goals I guess.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

Privileged man will tell you that your perspective is void, due to privilege, from parent's basement.

Also, trust the altruistic politicians. 



Lacius said:


> I'm not obligated to respond to everything everyone posts, I'm not obligated to see everything everyone posts, and I'm definitely not obligated to watch every video everyone posts. I've also already responded to the asinine video. I'm not the one who should be embarrassed, and I'm not sure why you're suggesting I'm embarrassed. Try again.



First part I notice is that you are arguing against a non-existent argument, as I pointed out the nature of your choice to chase low-hanging fruit.  I don't even assume that you "owe anyone" the "truth", let alone honest self-representation.  I already assume you are a shill, and I don't think you owe it to anyone to not be a shill.  (Maybe yourself, but then again, maybe you deserve it).  Second point, the first time I noticed you responding to the "asinine video" was in a way that just looks embarrassing for you (assuming you were capable of being self-conscious) as all you posted was "No." in response to an actual proof.  And "try again"?  I'm doing exactly what I want to do here.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 15, 2021)

The US is so racist that it give BLM millions of money and we still don't know what exactly they did with it 

BLM was a scam one of the biggest in recent memory


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> So your choice in debate is mere dismissal?
> 
> Amusingly I imagine we are actually very close in what would we like to see achieved. If you can't convince someone as close as I might be to you to follow along in your world view then what chance do you have of convincing someone else that might actually be further away in political alignment?
> 
> Good luck with furthering your goals I guess.


As I've said numerous times over the months (years?), when it comes to political threads, I don't respond to people's posts for the person I'm responding to; I respond to people's posts for all of the people watching the thread who might actually learn something. I understand very much that I'm unlikely to convince conservatives I respond to of anything, but I know for a fact I've convinced various lurkers who might have previously considered themselves to he conservatives.

Respectfully and frankly, your posts tend to ramble nonsensically off-topic, and I generally find a lot of them to be difficult to respond to. They're not very concise, and I have to weed through a lot of irrelevant asides to find what needs to be responded to.

In reality, people of color face far more instances of police violence than their white counterparts. There is a double standard in this country where white people can protest COVID restrictions while armed, and unarmed Black people and protest systemic racism only to be met with police violence. There is an economic divide between Black people and White people because of the history of slavery and institutionalized racism. The slave ancestors of Black people started at zero when slavery ended, while White people started with all the wealth that they used to educate the next generation and pass on to them as well. Institutionalized racism such as red lining and job discrimination created a disadvantage for Black people, and the economic effects of this can still be seen today. Studies repeatedly show job discrimination when sending in the exact same resumes and only changing the race or the name in a way that suggests a racial difference.

There is inarguably systemic racism in this country, and I'm fatigued from addressing it so often to people who irrationally want to deny it. I don't use the word "inarguable" lightly. Unlike other issues (impeachment, minimum wage, etc.) arguing against someone who flatly denies systemic racism exists is like arguing against someone who claims the Earth is flat. At a point, you realize you're just banging your head against the wall.

Candidly: You; your privilege; your stubbornness; your refusal to educate yourself; your ignorance; your rambling irrelevant posts; your pretentiousness; your high horse; and frankly, your racism can fuck off. You don't need to tell me I'm doing a bad job convincing you of my view. That's not my goal, and you're not that important.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Privileged man will tell you that your perspective is void, due to privilege, from parent's basement.
> 
> Also, trust the altruistic politicians.
> 
> ...


You complain that I don't read, watch, or respond to everything you post, but why should I read anything past "basement" when you're going to lob baseless personal attacks?

As concisely as possible, preferably in one sentence, what's the non-existent argument I'm arguing against?

An argument without substance or evidence can be dismissed without substance or evidence. You posted a video of Trump speaking that wasn't presented in its entirety at the impeachment. The entirety didn't change the facts, and parts of the video you claim were omitted were actually acknowledged and referenced. What more do you want?


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You complain that I don't read, watch, or respond to everything you post, but why should I read anything past "basement" when you're going to lob baseless personal attacks?



Frankly I'm having fun mocking your style of selective argument to keep things dumb.  I don't remember the last time I complained about something.  It's possible I did.

Seeing as you have a lot more free time than me and have dedicated years to hone your online persona "for everyone to witness", it really does seem like you contribute nothing to society.  So "wah wah" I guess.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Times Obama was impeached vs. times Trump was impeached: 0 and 2
> Times Trump won the popular vote vs. times Obama won the popular vote: 0 and 2
> You might want to avoid the term "0 and 2" when talking about Trump. It's pretty embarrassing for you and for him, particularly when Trump received bipartisan majorities to convict and was acquitted on the technicality that conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the senate. Republicans like Mitch McConnell also voted to acquit on the technicality that they incorrectly didn't think impeachment was constitutional constitutional after a president left office, not because they thought Trump wasn't guilty.
> 
> ...


Basis for Embarrassment shouldn't be who and who didn't get the popular vote.

Bernie Sanders didn't get the popular vote for both times Trump ran for president. Elizabeth Warren didn't get the popular vote. Bernie had to drop out. He couldn't even make it to the end, to the election semi finals, something Trump did.

Unless you thinks Bernies policies are horrible. Deserves to drop out, and is therefore an embarrassment.


I think impeachment is a better indicator for embarrassment.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Frankly I'm having fun mocking your style of selective argument to keep things dumb.  I don't remember the last time I complained about something.  It's possible I did.
> 
> Seeing as you have a lot more free time than me and have dedicated years to hone your online persona "for everyone to witness", it really does seem like you contribute nothing to society.  So "wah wah" I guess.


Did you really just resort to the desperate personal attack that I have no life and post too much? How embarrassing for you. You have a history of shitposting and trolling, so I'm also not sure how you can reasonably make any judgements about how other people are spending their time. We are all spending time on GBATemp, so I'm not sure how any of us can judge how we spend our time.

Not that it's any of your business, but I regularly help others and contribute to the various Nintendo subforums. I'm a Science teacher who teaches about 200 students, half in person and half virtually. I'm off work today for President's Day, I have weekends off, and I've had numerous snow days in the past week and a half with more likely to follow. I'd probably be off today even without the holiday.

What do you do with your life?


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I think impeachment is a better indicator for embarrassment



I think that is idealistic thinking, still.  Every impeachment in my history had always been politically motivated and on a downward spiral.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Basis for Embarrassment shouldn't be who and who didn't get the popular vote.
> 
> Bernie Sanders didn't get the popular vote for both times Trump ran for president. Elizabeth Warren didn't get the popular vote. Bernie had to drop out. He couldn't even make it to the end, to the election semi finals, something Trump did.
> 
> ...


I think both can be indicators for embarrassment. I'd argue being impeached twice is far more embarrassing then an election loss though.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> I think that is idealistic thinking, still.  Every impeachment in my history had always been politically motivated and on a downward spiral.


Bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate voted to convict Trump, and when you include the senators like McConnell who probably would have otherwise voted to convict if not for his misguided issues with the constitutionality of the impeachment. It was not politically motivated. It's hard (but not impossible) to argue it was politically motivated when it was after he left office.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I think both can be indicators for embarrassment. I'd argue being impeached twice is far more embarrassing then an election loss though.


They can be but it depends on context to. 

I've always been for the under dog that has good ideas. Sometimes the under dog doesn't win the popularity contest. Not because they are bad but because of certain circumstances, whether it's because they didn't advertise themselves well enough, or some other situation.

You are not always going to be number 1 winner. Someone with good ideas but fails to win the popular vote is not basis for embarrassment. Someone with bad ideas and looses the popular vote is basis for embarrassment.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

SG854 said:


> They can be but it depends on context to.
> 
> I've always been for the under dog that has good ideas. Sometimes the under dog doesn't win the popularity contest. Not because they are bad but because of certain circumstances, whether it's because they didn't advertise themselves well enough, or some other situation.
> 
> You are not always going to be number 1 winner. Someone with good ideas but fails to win the popular vote is not basis for embarrassment. Someone with bad ideas and looses the popular vote is basis for embarrassment.


To be fair, Trump is the only person to lose the popular vote twice in a presidential election. It's pretty embarrassing.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> To be fair, Trump is the only person to lose the popular vote twice in a presidential election. It's pretty embarrassing.


Ya, so did Bernie but I wouldn't call Bernie an embarrassing candidate. He had some interesting ideas. Or any of the other candidates that didn't win president.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Ya, so did Bernie but I wouldn't call Bernie an embarrassing candidate. He had some interesting ideas. Or any of the other candidates that didn't win president.


Bernie never ran in the general election.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Bernie never ran in the general election.


He couldn't even make it in the general election. Which should be an embarrassment. But I wouldn't call him an embarrassment.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 15, 2021)

Success for these people are not based on "embarrassment" holding them back.  I mean, the majority of "successful people" have experienced situations which should be embarrassing, by your standard, more than the typical individual tenfold, but they kept trying anyway until they succeeded.  It's because they learn to be shameless that they achieve a lucrative political career.

Also, the idea that politics is truly a bipartisan struggle where politicians are fighting for ideology is a fantasy, ignoring reality tv show applied science.

The whole Trump being impeached is embarrassing narrative is rather stupid considering that from the beginning he has posed himself as being against the self-serving machine--so things like impeachment will only fuel that narrative.  I'm saying this despite how stupid the actual impeachment was, which makes me suspect that Trump is apart of the puppet show.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

SG854 said:


> He couldn't even make it in the general election. Which should be an embarrassment. But I wouldn't call him an embarrassment.


I wouldn't say the primary elections and the general election are comparable. They don't even have comparable electorates. Biden is also one of many people to have run in a presidential primary and lost. Trump is the only person to ever lose the popular vote twice.


----------



## Ulieq (Feb 15, 2021)

1.  Remove Filibuster in Senate
2.  Make Washington DC a State (votes are there)
3.  Make Puerto Rico a Sate (votes are there)

Doing this would increase the Senate to 104, plus increase the house ( a rebalance would be nessssary).


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

Ulieq said:


> 1.  Remove Filibuster in Senate
> 2.  Make Washington DC a State (votes are there)
> 3.  Make Puerto Rico a Sate (votes are there)
> 
> Doing this would increase the Senate to 104, plus increase the house ( a rebalance would be nessssary).


These are a great alternative to abolishing the Senate entirely or making it a representative body.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I wouldn't say the primary elections and the general election are comparable. They don't even have comparable electorates. Biden is also one of many people to have run in a presidential primary and lost. Trump is the only person to ever lose the popular vote twice.


Primaries are a mess. It even led to Democrats creating super delegates because of it. It needs some amending.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Primaries are a mess. It even led to Democrats creating super delegates because of it. It needs some amending.


The primaries are a mess.

The Democratic primary should be by popular vote, there should be no caucuses, and states' primary elections should be within the same general timeframe (e.g. March-April). Superdelegates should be eliminated, but they're effectively gone already if a candidate gets a majority of delegates on the first round.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The primaries are a mess.
> 
> The Democratic primary should be by popular vote, there should be no caucuses, and states' primary elections should be within the same general timeframe (e.g. March-April). Superdelegates should be eliminated, but they're effectively gone already if a candidate gets a majority of delegates on the first round.


It's an unessecary complicated process. 

At least Bernie Sanders broke Super Delegates in 2016. Next step it to remove it like you said. And Amend the constitution.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

SG854 said:


> It's an unessecary complicated process.
> 
> At least Bernie Sanders broke Super Delegates in 2016. Next step it to remove it like you said. And Amend the constitution.


Amend the Constitution to do what, get rid of the Electoral College? I agree.

The Democratic Party has almost complete control over how they run their primary elections. They could choose tomorrow not to use delegates and do a popular vote system instead. If they're going to decry the Electoral College, they should show it.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 15, 2021)

Ulieq said:


> 1.  Remove Filibuster in Senate
> 2.  Make Washington DC a State (votes are there)
> 3.  Make Puerto Rico a Sate (votes are there)



Repeat after me
not happening


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

II





Lacius said:


> Amend the Constitution to do what, get rid of the Electoral College? I agree.
> 
> The Democratic Party has complete control over how they run their primary elections. They could choose tomorrow not to use delegates and do a popular vote system instead. If they're going to decry the Electoral College, they should show it.


I mean... the Electoral College exists because the Founders nearly pissed themselves at their newly-found democracy being _truly democratic_ and wanted to avoid all the decisions actually being made based on the will of the people, so trashing it is a pretty obvious thing to do.


Valwinz said:


> Repeat after me
> not happening


Well, the DC one isn't.
However, Puerto Rico absolutely deserves statehood, and the Republicans are likely to abuse the filibuster to kingdom come in order to wall Biden from doing anything.
(And a nice fringe benefit of PR statehood is that the Senate would actually total a multiple of three, so annoying two-thirds-required decisions are easier to figure out!)


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Repeat after me
> not happening


Any of these three could happen, even if others don't happen. There's also no convincing reason to be against any of these things.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 15, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> II
> I mean... the Electoral College exists because the Founders nearly pissed themselves at their newly-found democracy being _truly democratic_ and wanted to avoid all the decisions actually being made based on the will of the people, so trashing it is a pretty obvious thing to do.
> 
> Well, the DC one isn't.
> ...


Electoral College is a product of its time. When information had to be sent via horses. There was no instant messages passed online. You are judging based on your privileges of today. 

It's outdated in today's world and needs some changing.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 15, 2021)

Ulieq said:


> 2.  Make Washington DC a State (votes are there)
> 3.  Make Puerto Rico a Sate (votes are there)
> 
> Doing this would increase the Senate to 104


Just waiting for all the "New 52" jokes, if these get passed. 



Ulieq said:


> plus increase the house ( a rebalance would be nessssary).


I'm in favor of the Wyoming rule.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Just waiting for all the "New 52" jokes, if these get passed.
> 
> 
> I'm in favor of the Wyoming rule.


And the Senate should become a representative body or abolished entirely. Each state's number of senators should be based on its population.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 15, 2021)

Ulieq said:


> 1.  Remove Filibuster in Senate
> 2.  Make Washington DC a State (votes are there)
> 3.  Make Puerto Rico a Sate (votes are there)
> 
> Doing this would increase the Senate to 104, plus increase the house ( a rebalance would be nessssary).


dreams ...
 Puerto Rico needs to become a state. It was turned to a Tax Heaven in 80s/90s .. companies came in half assed. bought A WHOLE Bunch of land.. funneled a ridiculous amount of money. and and paid almost no taxes ... when the tax write-offs were over they just left instead of paying normal tax..... left the island destroyed with no jobs and most farm land bought up by nabisco mondelez for GMO Testing ...


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> And the Senate should become a representative body or abolished entirely. Each state's number of senators should be based on its population.


This would remove the point of the Senate.
However, considering the point of the Senate is to be a body representative of the states and not of their people, and said point is contradictory to the meaning of democracy and thus fucking stupid, I am excited at the prospect of this point removal.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> This would remove the point of the Senate.
> However, considering the point of the Senate is to be a body representative of the states and not of their people, and said point is contradictory to the meaning of democracy and thus fucking stupid, I am excited at the prospect of this point removal.


Actually, it would preserve federalism if we had the House close to what it is, and the Senate, whose members are elected by the statewide electorate. In other words, the Senate still makes sense if the Senators are elected by the whole state vs. just a congressional district, but it only makes sense if it's a representative body.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Actually, it would preserve federalism if we had the House close to what it is, and the Senate, whose members are elected by the statewide electorate. In other words, the Senate still makes sense if the Senators are elected by the whole state vs. just a congressional district, but it only makes sense if it's a representative body.


Huh. I hadn't thought of that.
Also, there should probably be a basic requirement of _being mentally sound _in order to be part of Congress.
Why the fuck that isn't already a thing I don't know, because the LAST people you should give power to are those that are actually downright insane.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 15, 2021)

I admit I can't find what congress would need to do to expand the house, but it will probably be more easier and convincing than trying to reduce senate seats.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> As I've said numerous times over the months (years?), when it comes to political threads, I don't respond to people's posts for the person I'm responding to; I respond to people's posts for all of the people watching the thread who might actually learn something. I understand very much that I'm unlikely to convince conservatives I respond to of anything, but I know for a fact I've convinced various lurkers who might have previously considered themselves to he conservatives.
> 
> Respectfully and frankly, your posts tend to ramble nonsensically off-topic, and I generally find a lot of them to be difficult to respond to. They're not very concise, and I have to weed through a lot of irrelevant asides to find what needs to be responded to.
> 
> ...



Complex topics require complex considerations, and have analogous actions that might indicate future events. If your lack of consideration for secondary impacts, costs and causes you to hyper focus and lurch from issue to issue then that is less than ideal from what I see, might even wander into the realm of sophistry. Show me the evidence, show me the rationale based on science, economics and the like is the default setting for me.
Arguing to the abstract is also where I often find myself, though I do enjoy a certain amount of devil's advocate if we end up a bit echo chambery, or one side or another is a bit weak or so not well represented. I suppose as an argumentative approach there are better options (there is a reason political ads of every stripe are so often appeal to emotion rather than rationality and devoid of hard data, same for adverts in general -- how many car or computer adverts deal in specifications rather than selling one on a lifestyle or aspiration).
It is also not the first time I have faced a charge of verbosity and a propensity for flowery language. There is a consideration that arguments are more than facts and figures and being able to persuade the man is useful, and while I would like to believe I consider how a person thinks (what their moral basis and moral logic, or general logic) in my approach to things I suppose my enjoyment of the art of language is a weakness. Maybe I will master it, or maybe I will doom myself to discussing with those also given to long form pondering.

On police violence. Is this unjustified violence? I am quite the fan of police action channels, raw and all sides of all spectrums. There are instances where "earning the hate" is the order of the day, though that is usually less in violence and more in procedure. I go through the list of people killed by police and the unjustified efforts are few and far between.
Armed protest? Because I was watching the Michigan stuff a few months ago. Press and local government railed against such rather than letting them skirt by.
I also watched the goings on in New York, Seattle and Portland. Nothing much doing there either despite ample justification to crack some skulls, and even less from the courts themselves.
Weak and ineffectual on all counts and all sides is how I would categorise the government counter protest efforts this last years and years prior.

Economic divide by dint of history. Certainly, some great history to study there as well. Not sure that counts as present systemic racism given much of it happened decades earlier. I would also be interested to see the magnitude of that -- it is generally held that wealth lasts but a few generations. Some also ponder the intact family thing (up to the 50s and all that) as that is often a greater predictor.
We are however back to wealth as the issue and not racism. Solve for education, opportunities and abilities to not get left behind and you solve far more issues than you ever might be putting two in the body and one in the head of the four or five people with a spicy flag in the garage, or canning any CEO or hiring manager you stick in an MRI and ask some questions about how they feel about black people that in turn answer poorly.
If it was a true and present issue (as opposed to a historical one) it would be born out in statistics (primary and secondary), in given instances (likely innumerable ones) and other forms of evidence. We can do it for any number of other things for physics, law, history, social debates, economics but so far nothing has been presented that we can dig into, and all the while I am looking at said list of things from the earlier posts wherein access to the larger culture, economic system, educational system, political office, business and whatever showcasing millions making it does rather sit there as a glaring counter. More can certainly be done, and some might even quite radical.


My privilege. If I have any it is barely above the level of noise vs other things that allowed me to get ahead. As a general concept I still find it dubious. However if it is one of your sacred cows I will leave it alone and we can discuss something of relevance.
My stubbornness. I would say my opinions are arrived at after long consideration of many laws of physics, economics, statistical analysis, psychology, political theory, legal theory and more besides. It is a technique that serves me very well in most other areas when it comes to designing systems, predicting outcomes, making things for people to use and the like, and a fail to see why it would not serve here either. To that end the onus would be on others where I misread the stats, why the stats presented are flawed, why the risk-reward analysis I might have done on a given topic might be flawed, where I might have fluffed some maths or need a more in depth understanding. It is however also a position I accord to others I am debating with and assume they performed a similar analysis, this despite evidence to the contrary on so many occasions.
My pretentiousness. I am just a guy having a giggle on the internet, on a topic that is comparable in seriousness to the quality of the latest EA sequel we otherwise end up discussing. If I went pop tomorrow or lived another 100 years then nobody would care or likely be terribly impacted by it, give or take butterfly effect. Same as likely everybody else here (I doubt there are many undercover movers and shakers, or future ones, perusing this). Make a charge that sticks next time.
My high horse. That is likely covered by other replies in to that paragraph.
My racism. Recall the but a couple of lines ago about making a charge that sticks. Proving ones purity is a hard task, though generally the burden is on the one making the claim so I shall await that. I will however say I find a laughable notion/charge against me and figure you have a better chance of making a case for me committing some space piracy than you do that one.


----------



## smf (Feb 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nah, plenty of people knew what was happening was wrong, even at the time.  They just chose to ignore it because it didn't impact them directly, or worse, because they were profiting from America's decline.



Also we didn't have the internet  so it was harder to know what people thought.



FAST6191 said:


> Complex topics require complex considerations, and have analogous actions that might indicate future events. If your lack of consideration for secondary impacts, costs and causes you to hyper focus and lurch from issue to issue then that is less than ideal from what I see, might even wander into the realm of sophistry. Show me the evidence, show me the rationale based on science, economics and the like is the default setting for me.



As long as it confirms your bias, otherwise it's fake news?

Trump has spent the last four years lurching from issue to issue without care for the truth.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

smf said:


> As long as it confirms your bias, otherwise it's fake news?


Not at all.
I am wrong quite frequently and need refinement in my approaches to things even more. Such things make life quite interesting and I seek them out.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 15, 2021)

I really do believe Biden peeps are living a fantasy with all this wishlist of stuff that wont happen


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> I really do believe Biden peeps are living a fantasy with all this wishlist of stuff that wont happen


There's a lot that probably won't happen, but there's also a lot that could happen. It was this time about four years ago when conservatives, emboldened by Trump, a Republican House, and Republican Senate, called Obamacare's survival a fantasy, for example. You don't know the future, and there are a lot of ways some of the Democrats' wishlist can be fulfilled.

For example, because of some Republican nonsense last year with regard to the budget, we actually get two filibuster-proof reconciliations this year, not just the one for COVID relief.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> Complex topics require complex considerations, and have analogous actions that might indicate future events. If your lack of consideration for secondary impacts, costs and causes you to hyper focus and lurch from issue to issue then that is less than ideal from what I see, might even wander into the realm of sophistry. Show me the evidence, show me the rationale based on science, economics and the like is the default setting for me.
> Arguing to the abstract is also where I often find myself, though I do enjoy a certain amount of devil's advocate if we end up a bit echo chambery, or one side or another is a bit weak or so not well represented. I suppose as an argumentative approach there are better options (there is a reason political ads of every stripe are so often appeal to emotion rather than rationality and devoid of hard data, same for adverts in general -- how many car or computer adverts deal in specifications rather than selling one on a lifestyle or aspiration).
> It is also not the first time I have faced a charge of verbosity and a propensity for flowery language. There is a consideration that arguments are more than facts and figures and being able to persuade the man is useful, and while I would like to believe I consider how a person thinks (what their moral basis and moral logic, or general logic) in my approach to things I suppose my enjoyment of the art of language is a weakness. Maybe I will master it, or maybe I will doom myself to discussing with those also given to long form pondering.
> 
> ...


To be respectful, I did read every word of your post. That being said, I've laid out the facts with regard to the systemic racism in this country, and I've highlighted what I believe to be some of the key things to know about it. I don't use the word "facts" lightly. Virtually every study on the topic comports with what I'm telling you, and I'm not going to stress out about your willful ignorance.

You said you're wrong quite frequently, and I appreciate the humility. Please tag me if/when you realize there was nothing factually incorrect about what I previously posted. Systemic racism exists in the United States, and there's no excuse other than willful ignorance to deny it.


----------



## smf (Feb 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> I really do believe Biden peeps are living a fantasy with all this wishlist of stuff that wont happen



Isn't that just the definition of wishes?

What is the downside?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

smf said:


> Isn't that just the definition of wishes?
> 
> What is the downside?


Wishing for things to happen gives the Trumpers shit to blab about ad nauseam as a way to claim the administration was a failure.
Ironically, the things they claim are successes for Trump are quite literally the results of major failures.
All the bragging about being 0-and-2 in terms of actually convicting Trump... neglects to mention that he's 2-and-0 for getting impeached in the first place, and that even HAVING to be acquitted more than once because of his vast piles of misdeeds is not a badge of honor.
Did he forget how score works in golf or something, despite spending the majority of his one-term catastrophe playing it instead of doing his job?
High number bad.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 15, 2021)

smf said:


> Isn't that just the definition of wishes?
> 
> What is the downside?


To be fair, if taken too far, you might start believing in things like the Q.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> To be fair, if taken too far, you might start believing in things like the Q.


Did somebody say my name?


----------



## smf (Feb 15, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> To be fair, if taken too far, you might start believing in things like the Q.



Wishing for Trump to be prosecuted for the crimes he definitely committed and making up crazy ideas about democrats eating babies and Trump being the person who will end it, are quite far apart. Don't you agree?

March 4th is going to be hilarious.

Trump has increased his hotel rates, like he did on January 5th/6th. Those maga idiots aren't going to fleece themselves.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Did somebody say my name?


Not going to lie, you lost me.



smf said:


> Wishing for Trump to be prosecuted for the crimes he definitely committed and making up crazy ideas about democrats eating babies and Trump being the person who will end it, are quite far apart. Don't you agree?


Yeah, I agree that's too far. lol


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> To be fair, if taken too far, you might start believing in things like the Q.





smf said:


> Wishing for Trump to be prosecuted for the crimes he definitely committed and making up crazy ideas about democrats eating babies and Trump being the person who will end it, are quite far apart. Don't you agree?





KingVamp said:


> Not going to lie, you lost me.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree that's too far. lol


"Q":


Spoiler










"The Q":


Spoiler


----------



## smf (Feb 15, 2021)

https://www.amazon.com/Eugenys-Donald-Trump-2020-Bullshit/dp/B083D7W5GB/

Twitter seems to have helped deliver "no more bullshit", 38 days and counting.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That being said, I've laid out the facts with regard to the systemic racism in this country, and I've highlighted what I believe to be some of the key things to know about it. I don't use the word "facts" lightly. Virtually every study on the topic comports with what I'm telling you, and I'm not going to stress out about your willful ignorance.
> 
> You said you're wrong quite frequently, and I appreciate the humility. Please tag me if/when you realize there was nothing factually incorrect about what I previously posted. Systemic racism exists in the United States, and there's no excuse other than willful ignorance to deny it.


You might be waiting a while.

I find the idea that there is some society wide push to keep people down by dint of skin colour in the present US to be a laughable one. The US does not have a racism problem from where I sit as much as a poverty problem.
It demonstrably existed at one point, points even within living memory. Some of them probably even having knock on effects you could look at.
Outcomes using various metrics for people do vary by race. Enough that I find myself truly concerned... less so. The would be anti poverty measures might well find themselves disproportionately favouring such but that is fine (go where the action is needed), and might even necessitate a more unique approach for such (for one back to that teenage/young pregnancy chart from earlier seems like a bigger problem there which might want to be addressed accordingly).
I am sure there is some CEO and/or politico somewhere that is shooting themselves in the foot by actively avoiding hiring people or whatever. Not even close to being some underlying culture of it within institutions, companies and the country at large. Express a sentiment like that and you will find your arse dragged by the courts and public at large.
Again access to culture, systems, education, jobs high and low, retirement, life by their own path, politics... all there and common enough to be utterly unremarkable "when one makes it", some even going out of their way to encourage or select for (which is about as close to systemic racism as one really gets there and in the end still ends up more often than not with "best man for the job" by virtue of economics being what it is. That or predatory lenders for the universities seeing that government backed money is a thing and thus could get a lot from them).

If I were advising a friend of [insert non white grouping] on whether they would want to live in the US then I would have no real concerns of them or their family (assuming they match) being the victims of racism, systemic or otherwise. Interesting approach to healthcare, lack of paid time off/general work culture, dubious food, sub par town planning in many places that necessitates vehicle ownership, the poverty thing, cost of education (quality vs expense... way out of whack with the rest of the world), family court situation, interesting tax setups, expensive internet, dubious intellectual property setup, generally litigious nature of society (occasionally I wonder if farting without informing a notary of your intent to do so is a good plan there) and then we get down to more local areas for housing costs, weather, taxes, cost of living and whatnot all being way higher on the list of reasons to consider before living there (and reasons I generally only go for a few months at a time every few years despite being able to move there tomorrow if I wanted, and probably enjoy a considerably higher standard of living than I do here). Granted most of that is more time on the west coast and New Mexico but I have done the others enough to reckon I can say, as have others I know well that spend lots of time on the east coast or places in the interior.
There are however plenty of countries on my list where I would tell them to think twice, even if my white as the driven snow self might be able to make it work there, many of which are otherwise first world countries or seriously developed ones.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> You might be waiting a while.
> 
> I find the idea that there is some society wide push to keep people down by dint of skin colour in the present US to be a laughable one. The US does not have a racism problem from where I sit as much as a poverty problem.
> It demonstrably existed at one point, points even within living memory. Some of them probably even having knock on effects you could look at.
> ...


A person is twice as likely to be below the poverty line if they're Black instead of White, and I've already listed numerous ways in which people of color have been disadvantaged historically (which affects the present) and today.


----------



## smf (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> I find the idea that there is some society wide push to keep people down by dint of skin colour in the present US to be a laughable one.



Its more subtle now, but there is still work to be done.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

smf said:


> Its more subtle now, but there is still work to be done.


the irony is that there's less a societal push to maintain the inequality and a societal apathy, ignorance and adamant refusal to FIX the inequality perpetrated by the few that deliberately create it as well as all the leftover inequality and bigotry from the past
read: people that willfully ignore the existence of white privilege (like @FAST6191 over here) _*are a large chunk of the problem*_, as their continued denial of the issue at fault allows it to persist


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

smf said:


> Its more subtle now, but there is still work to be done.


There is always work to be done.

However for it to be the last great struggle of the US, see whatever troubles it has and conclude "because racism", or see black friends go over there to live or holiday and say they have to play it differently to running around in the UK or much of Europe or Canada or Australia or New Zealand... wherein it is equally little more than a historical quirk. All that is a far bigger ask or leap of logic, take it on faith... type deal.

Again if the US has a problem is it not a racism one; it is a poverty one. Focus on solving poverty and you solve far more issues than imagining some moustache twirling politico or CEO or knuckle dragger with some interesting tattoos and ideas on how the world works and going after that.

If I try to apply "because racism" to problems it serves rather poorly as a predictor, seldom gets spat out as a factor during a regression analysis and otherwise ignores vast swathes of the population facing similar dubious living conditions and life outcomes, sometimes even those with the apparently "easy mode" trait of having white skin.

If irony is to be noted I would say it is those would be ones that seek to push the world forward allow themselves to be lulled into a perpetual state of outrage with no real direction (nor likely to be one, which is rather useful as you can defeat problems you get get to -- see also war on terror and arguments against that as a notion) over imagined racism by hidden cabals and paramilitaries in the shadows rather than going after the real problems and generally improving the lot in life of [insert skin colour] along the way if it is a concern. Doing so will however see someone's bank balance end up a few fractions of a percent lower and one can not cease the pursuit and worship of the almighty dollar.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> There is always work to be done.
> 
> However for it to be the last great struggle of the US, see whatever troubles it has and conclude "because racism", or see black friends go over there to live or holiday and say they have to play it differently to running around in the UK or much of Europe or Canada or Australia or New Zealand... wherein it is equally little more than a historical quirk. All that is a far bigger ask or leap of logic, take it on faith... type deal.
> 
> ...


dude
you don't understand
we get it, not all problems trace back to racism
that's kind of obvious by default
but you refuse to admit that ANY of the US's significant problems do, which is in itself part of one of said problems
systemic racism and white privilege still exist, and their deniers function as secondary spreaders that maintain them in perpetuity
admit it, accept it and stop trying to dodge things by throwing straw-men at us


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> There is always work to be done.
> 
> However for it to be the last great struggle of the US, see whatever troubles it has and conclude "because racism", or see black friends go over there to live or holiday and say they have to play it differently to running around in the UK or much of Europe or Canada or Australia or New Zealand... wherein it is equally little more than a historical quirk. All that is a far bigger ask or leap of logic, take it on faith... type deal.
> 
> ...


Lol at the disingenuous argument that it's either "it's all racism" or "there's no racism." Grow up.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Lol at the disingenuous argument that it's either "it's all racism" or "there's no racism." Grow up.


I am not sure where people are getting that from. I was not trying to present a binary or a strawman.

I just find the notion that racism is a clear and present danger and threat to equality in the US, and its dire need for eradication and always considering effects from that angle to a joke, a misdirection, a red herring on the path to actually making things better.
I am sure there are three or four racists out there somewhere. They however have no power and can be ignored just like you can ignore a flock of crows gobbling a crop the other side of the country somewhere can be ignored. I am sure someone's grandad met some real arseholes (or would be considered as such today), note the story and I will be happy to hear it.

The relentless desire to frame it that way, create the original sin of privilege, create such asinine constructions as must see the struggle (as opposed to the content of the character thing), colourism, the whole "black people can't be racist" (whether any here think it a useful construction or utter farce is largely irrelevant as it does seem to a widespread thing), making quotas for certain representation levels (be it politicos pushing for things, businesses being mandated to have, the rank stupidity of "if you have two equal candidates then pick whichever has less privilege", entertainment being soft powered or whatever else)... ridiculous at best and actively unhelpful at worst.
I am sure there are those with generational wealth (never mind most things tend to fizzle out fairly quickly, family businesses tend not to survive, financial instruments not survive major financial downturns that wander along every 50 or so years or be dispersed by family trees being ever expanding as well as inflation) are sitting pretty despite a lack of effort where those that started out with nothing a few hundred years ago still have little despite working hands to the bone. Plenty do however still seem to make it, and as far as barriers to it... most are individual rather than bashing head against a system that actively dislikes them (though the system will take advantage of them, amusingly enough rather equally at that -- military does not care and needs meat for the grinder which all bleeds red in the end, universities don't care and will take your money as it is not them that loses out when you can't make ends meet with your less than stellar education, jobs don't care as they calculate salaries and influence policy (can't drive house prices down) at the right pain point for an area that you can't escape or thrive and don't much care what colour your skin is as can all push a button quite happily...).


As a great problem or great legacy that I need to consider today when doing more than studying history. Hard to sell me there. I am back once more to rather cure poverty than spend equal efforts tackling racism if I am after results that make lives of people better.


----------



## wartutor (Feb 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Times Obama was impeached vs. times Trump was impeached: 0 and 2
> Times Trump won the popular vote vs. times Obama won the popular vote: 0 and 2
> You might want to avoid the term "0 and 2" when talking about Trump. It's pretty embarrassing for you and for him, particularly when Trump received bipartisan majorities to convict and was acquitted on the technicality that conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the senate. Republicans like Mitch McConnell also voted to acquit on the technicality that they incorrectly didn't think impeachment was constitutional constitutional after a president left office, not because they thought Trump wasn't guilty.



wow struck a cord Noone gives a crap how many times he was impeached compared to Obama except you and they could of impeached him 4 times and it would still be the same decision Acquitted. TRUMP 2024 GET SCARED NOW LIBS...



Lacius said:


> BLM is a peaceful protest movement against systemic racism. The riots at the Capitol were, by design, an attempted insurrection against the United States stoked by false claims of voter fraud and instigated by Trump so he could use the riots as leverage to overturn the election. Don't be disingenuous.



you forgot a word their "mostly" as in "mostly peaceful" isn't that what you brain washed liberals are suppost to say as city's are being burned to the ground by TERRORIST. Call them what you want but goto Portland and tell me how peaceful the protests are. I call bull shi*.



Lacius said:


> Nobody wanted to impeach Trump, particularly with the small chance of a conviction in the Senate, but Trump's actions were so deplorable that the precedent couldn't be set that those kinds of actions were acceptable and wouldn't result in consequences like impeachment. In other words, I'm sorry Trump sucks so bad.
> 
> Trump was acquitted because conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate. In reality, Trump received bipartisan majorities to convict, and many of the Republicans voted to acquit because they didn't think a president could be impeached after leaving office, not because they thought he wasn't guilty.
> 
> Trump is an embarrassment who lost the popular vote twice, is a one-term president, and got impeached twice. The fact that seven Republican senators voted for his conviction is also embarrassing. In other words, Trump was acquitted twice, but how many times was Obama acquitted? The answer: not applicable.


Noone wanted to impeach Trump. Damn democrats have been trying to do that since he first came Into office 2 times now both acquitted nothing but what democrats are good at wasting money. At least they are bad at paying for the votes they bought. Can't be charged for paying for votes if you never actually pay right.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> I am not sure where people are getting that from. I was not trying to present a binary or a strawman.
> 
> I just find the notion that racism is a clear and present danger and threat to equality in the US, and its dire need for eradication and always considering effects from that angle to a joke, a misdirection, a red herring on the path to actually making things better.
> I am sure there are three or four racists out there somewhere. They however have no power and can be ignored just like you can ignore a flock of crows gobbling a crop the other side of the country somewhere can be ignored. I am sure someone's grandad met some real arseholes (or would be considered as such today), note the story and I will be happy to hear it.
> ...


When you say things like, "see whatever troubles it has and conclude 'because racism,'" or, "Again if the US has a problem is it not a racism one; it is a poverty one," you're framing it as "I don't agree with you that it's all racism." Nobody is arguing that it's "all racism." Nobody is arguing that "poverty is not a problem." Nobody is arguing that having privilege and being overtly racist are the same thing. Nobody is arguing that having unconscious biases and being overtly racist are the same thing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> wow struck a cord Noone gives a crap how many times he was impeached compared to Obama except you and they could of 4 times and it would still be the same decision Acquitted. TRUMP 2024 GET SCARED NOW LIBS...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Trump is the only president to be impeached twice, and it's as significant as it is embarrassing. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for you and you don't want to hear it.

BLM as a movement is inherently peaceful. There is nothing about it that's systemically violent, and BLM did not instigate violence. It should also go without saying, but cities are not being burned to the ground. Turn off the Faux News.

Democrats are not paying for votes, and this is evidenced by the fact that most people will be receiving the $2,000, not just Democratic voters. It's less the purchase of votes than Republicans giving handouts to the rich through tax cuts.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> I am back once more to rather cure poverty than spend equal efforts tackling racism if I am after results that make lives of people better.


In a lot of respects, the venn diagram of "poverty" and "racism" is practically a flat circle.  If not for the Tulsa race massacre and black veterans being denied all their benefits, the modern face of poverty would look a lot different, and it wouldn't be so large an issue.

This is not something we can just dismiss as being only in the past, either.  Whenever the discussion of adding more social safety nets is brought up, the right-wing always opposes it on the grounds that "the other" might see some benefit from it.  Never mind that they might see some benefit themselves, by their calculations, it's always worth cutting off the nose to spite the face.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> In a lot of respects, the venn diagram of "poverty" and "racism" is practically a flat circle.  If not for the Tulsa race massacre and black veterans being denied all their benefits, the modern face of poverty would look a lot different, and it wouldn't be so large an issue.
> 
> This is not something we can just dismiss as being only in the past, either.  Whenever the discussion of adding more social safety nets is brought up, the right-wing always opposes it on the grounds that "the other" might see some benefit from it.  Never mind that they might see some benefit themselves, by their calculations, it's always worth cutting off the nose to spite the face.


In advance, before Fast can spout more of the same ignorant nonsense:
Going "but there are white people in poverty too" is not acknowledging the vast majority of two large issues in favor of misdirecting attention on to a small sector of one of them. Also known as textbook whataboutism.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> In a lot of respects, the venn diagram of "poverty" and "racism" is practically a flat circle.  If not for the Tulsa race massacre and black veterans being denied all their benefits, the modern face of poverty would look a lot different, and it wouldn't be so large an issue.
> 
> This is not something we can just dismiss as being only in the past, either.  Whenever the discussion of adding more social safety nets is brought up, the right-wing always opposes it on the grounds that "the other" might see some benefit from it.  Never mind that they might see some benefit themselves, by their calculations, it's always worth cutting off the nose to spite the face.





Plasmaster09 said:


> In advance, before Fast can spout more of the same ignorant nonsense:
> Going "but there are white people in poverty too" is not acknowledging the vast majority of two large issues in favor of misdirecting attention on to a small sector of one of them. Also known as textbook whataboutism.


@FAST6191
If you acknowledge that people of color were oppressed in the past, then you should acknowledge that creates economic disparities in the present. If a Black family cannot get a mortgage to buy a home, for example, that hinders their ability to build equity to leave to the next generation in the form of a college education, an inheritance, a security net, etc. A lot of White families have these privileges that Black families do not. That doesn't necessarily mean the White family did anything wrong.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 15, 2021)

Ooh. Might even get my own hate thread/"shouldn't be on staff" thread at this rate. Been waiting years for that one.

We seem to be getting nowhere fast with this one. Not sure where things are heading either.

Racism = generally a bad plan unless you are fighting a war against others or living in tribes rather than mass society. Both for huggy feely reasons and because useful people are generally in shorter supply than you might like so ignoring/neglecting a segment of the population (which can demonstrably function at high levels) is bad from an economics perspective too so those that rise above tend to flourish.

The issue here seems to come in what we would view as the extent of it present within the US today, actively influencing the economy and systems created as a result of it or governing it, and thus whether to use it (or indeed the goal of the eradication of it) as a lens by which to contemplate things. Or whether it is largely a marginal issue and historical quirk. There may be some lingering effects you can go wide or narrow to showcase, long term finance and life outcomes as a function of generational concepts is fascinating subject actually. I would still question whether that needs to be a lens by which to consider things today -- historical inference is fun and often useful but treating the problem you face today is probably the better plan (can even use your historical analysis to see about not allowing it to happen tomorrow).
Seemingly also whether one flavour of politico is more apt to do something about it or whether when in office "you play the game of politics or politics plays you" means most of them are more concerned with the next election and funding their campaigns rather than getting work done.

Even if I thought it a problem of great magnitude in the modern US (the culture, the companies, the legal code, the enforced aspects of the legal code... all speaking to "yeah maybe not" when it comes to going "ew darkies" as a policy in anything other than personal friendships, and probably still want to keep that to yourself) then I would likely still be in favour of curing poverty -- cholera is bad news so you can develop high end medicine or you can stop shitting in your water supply, the latter tending to be cheaper and more effective in the long run. Also solves the issues for those that are otherwise troubled that might not fall under the simplistic umbrella of race (and racism), and spares you the bother of sorting those doing well (charity and aid being best used on those that need it).

I still find the idea of privilege in the modern world a ridiculous notion to try to frame things around, much less try to actively suppress in myself* if I happen to have got some somewhere along the line or elevate others to enjoying the glorious heights of (most of which amount you -- you still gonna have to get some skills which we will maybe give you the rudiments of, pay your dues, deal with arseholes and stupid people, and work until you are functionally useless, hope you die quickly after that to not cost this fund much money). Still not even close to anything more than noting it as a notion some others seem to contemplate much like I note religious ceremonies or beliefs. The idea of it being some obvious and self evident truth... laughable, hope those that believe in it see the error of their ways.

*I was watching some video the other day and the guy (that had managed to cultivate a bit of an audience) was all "yeah when I started I did consider that my spot (on an infinite platform) could have gone to a woman or a person of colour" which was ridiculous in the extreme. Always compete on merits from where I sit.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 15, 2021)

I'd say just let the DOJ take a wack at trump i bet it will be more success than impeachment (for one legal proceedings is a lot more unbiased than the senate (Jury will be thrown out if they show bias like on fb on premeditation to aquitt or convict trump and even the verdict could be if discovered too late in the process (Mistrial) the thing is with so many convictions pending his arrest and detainment needs to be granted no bail (I'm sure any judge would agree with me), he's an iminate flight risk with the money and planes to skip town i doubt jjust forfiture of his passport would do nothing considering he owns the plane


----------



## smf (Feb 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Again if the US has a problem is it not a racism one; it is a poverty one.



Can't it have both? Can't they be related?

It would appear that the problem with poverty is there is a large chunk of people don't like the idea of helping those who don't "deserve it", with each person having their own definition of what that is based on their own prejudice.



FAST6191 said:


> I still find the idea of privilege in the modern world a ridiculous notion to try to frame things around,



Because you have it. It's like breathing, you only think about it when it's not there.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 15, 2021)

shifting to biden I know he has his hands full with covid right now,but his promise on SSI reform i feel is a big priority as it stands now i can only work 1-2 hours a week so I'm not penalized (As I'm taking Cert courses while living on my own and paying rent via SSI/wavers it's tough trust me one i get a few certs i should be well prepared to get off ssi and have an actual job


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> Can't it have both? Can't they be related?
> 
> It would appear that the problem with poverty is there is a large chunk of people don't like the idea of helping those who don't "deserve it", with each person having their own definition of what that is based on their own prejudice.



It could, and it could. Don't see it in this instance beyond some fairly tenuous links that are generally lost in noise and otherwise surmountable. Net results could be better but not enough that I wail and gnash my teeth over the grim spectre that is racism.

Maybe. The thing about solving poverty (preferably by a means that allows those to worry less about the lower rungs of Maslow's pyramid outside of them going camping in the woods, and in a somewhat sustainable way) is it is not really concerned with race beyond any particular issues that are medically resulting from it.

As far as me having it. Does seem to be an original sin that I am born with and can't escape if I listen to people professing the good word. I should flagellate myself and consider my good fortune for the general world and poor fortune for the metaphysical that sees me need to take action on the matter I guess (wonder if there is some kind of Pascal's wager for privilege). Theoretically it might be possible to determine the exact level (check it if you care to use the parlance) I am carrying around at any one time and in turn transfer it to another being that might lack some, or see past its rose tinted haze to see the true world in all its horrible darkness (a darkness I am somewhat ironically called blind to).


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> I'd say just let the DOJ take a wack at trump i bet it will be more success than impeachment (for one legal proceedings is a lot more unbiased than the senate (Jury will be thrown out if they show bias like on fb on premeditation to aquitt or convict trump and even the verdict could be if discovered too late in the process (Mistrial) the thing is with so many convictions pending his arrest and detainment needs to be granted no bail (I'm sure any judge would agree with me), he's an iminate flight risk with the money and planes to skip town i doubt jjust forfiture of his passport would do nothing considering he owns the plane


Trump has so much debt about to come due that I'm not sure it would be accurate to describe him as having money.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Trump has so much debt about to come due that I'm not sure it would be accurate to describe him as having money.


He hit a P-Switch at birth and its duration is about to end.



FAST6191 said:


> It could, and it could. Don't see it in this instance beyond some fairly tenuous links that are generally lost in noise and otherwise surmountable. Net results could be better but not enough that I wail and gnash my teeth over the grim spectre that is racism.
> 
> Maybe. The thing about solving poverty (preferably by a means that allows those to worry less about the lower rungs of Maslow's pyramid outside of them going camping in the woods, and in a somewhat sustainable way) is it is not really concerned with race beyond any particular issues that are medically resulting from it.
> 
> As far as me having it. Does seem to be an original sin that I am born with and can't escape if I listen to people professing the good word. I should flagellate myself and consider my good fortune for the general world and poor fortune for the metaphysical that sees me need to take action on the matter I guess (wonder if there is some kind of Pascal's wager for privilege). Theoretically it might be possible to determine the exact level (check it if you care to use the parlance) I am carrying around at any one time and in turn transfer it to another being that might lack some, or see past its rose tinted haze to see the true world in all its horrible darkness (a darkness I am somewhat ironically called blind to).


The pile of strawmen you've thrown our way is so vast that finding a needle in it would be a Herculean effort.
All we're saying is that systemic racism (and by extension white privilege) are major problems.
We're not asking you to ignore any other major problems.
We're asking you to accept that this is one, and stop complaining about the laughably small amount of effort it takes to _*RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS A THING THAT EXISTS AND SHOULDN'T, *_and that your prior ignorance of it was likely due to having said privilege yourself.
It's as simple as "ok yeah that's a problem, I'll try to take it into account when looking at a situation that might involve it".
The sheer amount of willful ignorance, deliberate denial, strawmen and distraction you've displayed rather than accept that a problem exists and that internal bias may have prevented you from noticing it is a BAFFLING new level of stubborn. (And considering how obstinate I can get at times, that's saying a lot.)


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 16, 2021)

Ulieq said:


> 1.  Remove Filibuster in Senate
> 2.  Make Washington DC a State (votes are there)
> 3.  Make Puerto Rico a Sate (votes are there)
> 
> Doing this would increase the Senate to 104, plus increase the house ( a rebalance would be nessssary).




4. Come up with Final Solution to the Conservative Question.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> 4. Come up with Final Solution to the Conservative Question.


Well, that escalated uncomfortably quickly. It's hard to remember so many people in this thread, but at this point I'm assuming you're a Trumper trying to straw-man us into looking stupid.

Though there is a significantly less dark solution here: education. People are substantially less likely to believe baseless nonsense if they've received prior education that in some way disproves said nonsense!


----------



## Delerious (Feb 16, 2021)

Huh... I see this thread is still going strong and that it's turned into another "right vs left" thread.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> The pile of strawmen you've thrown our way is so vast that finding a needle in it would be a Herculean effort.
> All we're saying is that systemic racism (and by extension white privilege) are major problems.
> We're not asking you to ignore any other major problems.
> We're asking you to accept that this is one, and stop complaining about the laughably small amount of effort it takes to _*RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS A THING THAT EXISTS AND SHOULDN'T, *_and that your prior ignorance of it was likely due to having said privilege yourself.
> ...


You keep using terms like strawmen but I am not sure we follow the same definitions there, or at least I am in no way aiming to set them up. Don't know if this is some kind of dismissal tactic.

You can see whatever problems are out there as major problems; "tragedy is I cut my finger, comedy is you fall down a well and die" and all that.

As far as "if I were in charge and actually aiming to make things better" then tackling racism is so far down on the list it barely ranks, and likely cured by happy accident as part of my would be solution. I reckon I can also make a convincing argument for doing that from an economical, pragmatic and generally good deed perspective too. Further than that if I were to wave a magic wand and all racial supremacists vanish or change their ways, and all laws and institutional policies that actively, tacitly or otherwise by dint of their construction keep people of races down within the US... would barely tweak the needle in terms of life outcomes, poverty rates, job application success, education outcomes and whatever other metrics. 50 and beyond years ago, far different game. Today, largely a solved issue there. The whole "started out with nothing and still got most of it left" thing being somewhat more prevalent as some function of history, would also be solved by solving poverty as a general concept but also seemingly a largely solved or solvable issue even within the present framework and demonstrably is for many many many people (social mobility is very much a thing many enjoy). Could be faster, could be more targetted, could be more efficient/less wasteful, would be nicer to be more sustainable/self funding (give or take the pathological desire for no US government program to actually earn money and idea that simple handouts are a good plan in a lot of cases), could identify problems sooner... but so could everything.

If thinking in terms of privilege helps you frame your ideas, possibly create some of that wonderful guilt at being alive to in turn flagellate yourself silly, then so it goes. From where I sit it is an imaginary concept, a mental focus, a muse, and not a very good one. Using it would frame problems poorly, have minimal predictive or explanatory power and also ignore vast swathes of other data that also exists within the same frame. If you operate within it then you are likely to draw poor outcomes, dismiss useful people, make your life generally worse, possibly make the lives of those that have done no ill deeds worse, and all for little benefit to you or others.
To attempt to browbeat someone into thinking it the way of the world and no less real than the idea of something like supply and demand sits about as well as doing the same for any random religion you care to pick. That it is invisible to all but the most virtuous or that make the... if you like Greek philosophy then Sisyphean effort to believe in it (always be checking, and if you think you comprehend it then you probably haven't, and all that) further drawing parallels to religious thinking from where I sit.
At one point in history it might have had more merit, and does in various places in the world at present. As far as something useful that I would care to adopt and get others to adopt as a mindset... not even close and indeed falling into active opposition.

Will continue if you want but we still seem to be getting nowhere.

To that end

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/
That lists currently active house bills. What do people think of the things there?

The big ones for many
H.R. 127
An alteration to the firearms ownership and registration laws. Quite a considerable upheaval in a few ways as well, arguably with an aim towards restriction rather than reconsidering things.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr127



> (3)
> 
> Database
> (A)
> ...


Age is quite a jump over what it is right now
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/minimum-age-gun-sales-and-transfers
Section 6 also notes the need for fairly frequent renewal. It does also say accessible to members of the public for the would be database.
Bullets covered later. Not allowed anything larger than a 50 cal it seems.

H.R. 1
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr1
Fairly serious alterations to voting registration, voting, campaign finance and more besides.

It also reckons the so called Green act https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr848/text is popular. It deals with credits/incentives provided by the government for various renewable fuel sources, though different to a few places in the world.

Afraid I will leave you to find your own summaries or read the whole thing if you want. Do bear in mind summaries might be biased in various different ways so primary sources (which you have there) is good stuff, as is actually getting into the wording rather than providing the summary.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

I love the concern trolling in regards to Trump. A quick reality check tells me that not one of you will ever be as rich as Trump will be when he's "poor".


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Well, that escalated uncomfortably quickly. It's hard to remember so many people in this thread, but at this point I'm assuming you're a Trumper trying to straw-man us into looking stupid.
> 
> Though there is a significantly less dark solution here: education. People are substantially less likely to believe baseless nonsense if they've received prior education that in some way disproves said nonsense!




"Trumper"? No, but I'm sure most of you extremists (which you are, from my perspective anyway, you just don't know it) think so. Trump's a narcissistic shithead, and not a special one. But I've seen a lot of Presidents come and go (I'm 53yo) and every one leaving behind a bigger hole in the ground instead of making any improvements, so I wanted him to get a fair shake at causing a little ruckus. Neither the entrenched Democrats or establishment Republicans ever gave him a chance to really enact his slate of ideas, the biggest one for me being infrastructure investment.  But we still saw a period of unemployment lowering across all demographics, fuel supply independence, progress against being raped in trade by China and progress towards a lasting peace in the Middle East, and government getting out of the way of free enterprise and the American peoples' right to pursue happiness from 2017-2020 as we have never seen before in my lifetime. Then, 2020 was a shitshow. Everyone in government performed poorly, don't try to tell me any different. And the rest of us huddled in our homes and kvetched over how they weren't doing it right. So yes, I thought Trump was still the better choice last fall, but here we are now. I hope Biden improves this country for all Americans, but I expect it is much more likely we're back to the 'normal' that I know, i.e. par for the course US politics as it has been since the 60's. Not good, but the machine obviously wants it that way.

In Japan there's an old saying, "the nail that sticks up shall be hammered down." If the last 4 years hasn't shown you how true that is, then you're incapable of learning.

And BTW, I've had quite sufficient education and life experience to form cogent, informed opinions, thank you.

When I see people willing to throw out parts of the Constitution, radically change how elections are conducted to make audit and verification impossible, pack the Supreme Court, impose economic and social punishment on anyone who expresses dissent, all to seize power and silence opposition and make sure it stays that way, I know what type movement I'm looking at.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> When I see people willing to throw out parts of the Constitution, radically change how elections are conducted to make audit and verification impossible, pack the Supreme Court, impose economic and social punishment on anyone who expresses dissent, all to seize power and silence opposition and make sure it stays that way, I know what type movement I'm looking at.


Let's run through this list of bullshit.
1) "Throw out" and "amend" are very different things. The Constitution was made amendable from the start so that things could be changed or fixed when necessary.
2) What? How would "change things so that popular vote actually matters" do either of those things?
3) Since when did we try to pack the Supreme Court? We certainly didn't cram in an extra member a month before a general election, against reason, our own previous objections to a lesser case thereof and the _dying wishes of their predecessor, _did we?
4) We're not "imposing" anything. If someone performs actions, they suffer the consequences of those actions. Be an asshole? Congrats, a lot less people will like you or want to buy your shit.
5) "All to seize power and silence opposition"? *What the fuck has even IMPLIED that is the goal here?*
You've proven you are in fact a Trumper, and one of the worse ones to boot.
Also... Extremists? What? Nobody on this thread is all that extremely left, and I'm pretty moderate. Trump and his goons are just so off-the-scale batshit crazy that basically everything seems extremely left in comparison.
Not everything vaguely opposed to your political views is some sinister takeover attempt by lunatics with Orwellian intent.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Let's run through this list of bullshit.
> 1) "Throw out" and "amend" are very different things. The Constitution was made amendable from the start so that things could be changed or fixed when necessary.
> 2) What? How would "change things so that popular vote actually matters" do either of those things?
> 3) Since when did we try to pack the Supreme Court? We certainly didn't cram in an extra member a month before a general election, against reason, our own previous objections to a lesser case thereof and the _dying wishes of their predecessor, _did we?
> ...



sure, ok.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I love the concern trolling in regards to Trump. A quick reality check tells me that not one of you will ever be as rich as Trump will be when he's "poor".


Looking for someone to give me a small loan of 1,400 dollars


smf said:


> Can't it have both? Can't they be related?
> 
> It would appear that the problem with poverty is there is a large chunk of people don't like the idea of helping those who don't "deserve it", with each person having their own definition of what that is based on their own prejudice.
> 
> ...


The UK is racist did you fix your racism issue yet ?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> sure, ok.


The term "extreme left" lost its meaning as of late, not so much because it's any less extreme, but because anything right of Obama is now considered fascism. In fact, every now and then I hear murmurs that even good old Barack wasn't woke enough to meet today's standards. They can't see the lack of any tolerance for opposing points of view because leftism is not a system of political thought, it's a religion. If you're conservative, you're not wrong - you are evil. Your point of view isn't different, it's malicious. You're not a discussion companion, you're an enemy. Trying to reason with anyone when these are the terms of engagement is a wasted effort.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The term "extreme left" lost its meaning as of late, not so much because it's any less extreme, but because anything right of Obama is now considered fascism. In fact, every now and then I hear murmurs that even good old Barack wasn't woke enough to meet today's standards. They can't see the lack of any tolerance for opposing points of view because leftism is not a system of political thought, it's a religion. If you're conservative, you're not wrong - you are evil. Your point of view isn't different, it's malicious. You're not a discussion companion, you're an enemy. Trying to reason with anyone when these are the terms of engagement is a wasted effort.


Projecting much?
I'm fine discussing with Republicans.
However, Trump and his truckload of lies are something I simply cannot stand, and the constant and irrational defense thereof borders on a personality cult.

also wow "leftism is a religion and they think everything right of obama is fascist" is probably the shittiest take I've seen this *month*


----------



## MurraySkull (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Projecting much?
> I'm fine discussing with Republicans.
> However, Trump and his truckload of lies are something I simply cannot stand, and the constant and irrational defense thereof borders on a personality cult.
> 
> also wow "leftism is a religion and they think everything right of obama is fascist" is probably the shittiest take I've seen this *month*


What lies?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

MurraySkull said:


> What lies?


Too many to list on my own, but here's a handy article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...04b69a-5c1d-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html
Literal tens of thousands of falsehoods.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Too many to list on my own, but here's a handy article.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...04b69a-5c1d-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html
> Literal tens of thousands of falsehoods.



https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...ump-untruths-is-about-25-fake-news-2019-04-29

That's about it when it was 10,000.  I think the question is more about how you were hurt by one of Trump's "lies".

I'll start.  He didn't drain the swamp.  Hillary isn't in jail.  Terrible show.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 16, 2021)

"Leftism is a religion." Because we didn't just have Trump people attack the Capitol based on lies and wanted to do things like hang members of their own party.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> "Leftism is a religion." Because we didn't just have Trump people attack the Capitol based on lies and wanted to do things like hang members of their own party.




The lie is that Trump people attacked the capitol.  If you watched his unedited videos, you can see that it was the media trying to stir violence and not Trump.  The people who paid more attention to the media were more apt to do something like that than those who actually listened to Trump.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...ump-untruths-is-about-25-fake-news-2019-04-29
> 
> That's about it when it was 10,000.  I think the question is more about how you were hurt by one of Trump's "lies".
> 
> I'll start.  He didn't drain the swamp.  Hillary isn't in jail.  Terrible show.


If you extrapolate that same percentage, you're still left with around 22,500 lies in the span of one term.
If Trump was Pinocchio, his nose would be in another galaxy by now.


tabzer said:


> The lie is that Trump people attacked the capitol.  If you watched his unedited videos, you can see that it was the media trying to stir violence and not Trump.  The people who paid more attention to the media were more apt to do something like that than those who actually listened to Trump.


Excuse me, what?
Trump told his supporters the election was stolen and that _they have to fight like hell to "fix" it._
The Capitol riot was a mob of Trumpnuts, plenty of which said after the fact that *they joined the riot because Trump told them to.*


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> If you extrapolate that same percentage, you're still left with around 22,500 lies in the span of one term.
> If Trump was Pinocchio, his nose would be in another galaxy by now.



You caught the low hanging fruit, now tell us about how you counted on one of Trump's promises and were let down.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You caught the low hanging fruit, now tell us about how you counted on one of Trump's promises and were let down.


"It'll go away like a miracle"


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> "It'll go away like a miracle"



Yeah, I'm waiting on that too.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yeah, I'm waiting on that too.


"I'll release my new amazing healthcare plan in 2 weeks"


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Excuse me, what?
> Trump told his supporters the election was stolen and that _they have to fight like hell to "fix" it._
> The Capitol riot was a mob of Trumpnuts, plenty of which said after the fact that *they joined the riot because Trump told them to.*



Obviously you didn't have the attention span to watch this simple video.  He literally says "in the primaries".  This is exactly what I mean by the media instigating it.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Obviously you didn't have the attention span to watch this simple video.  He literally says "in the primaries".  This is exactly what I mean by the media instigating it.



"We will end deployment to the middle east. It has been a complete and total mess"


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> "I'll release my new amazing healthcare plan in 2 weeks"



I didn't care about that one.  The hydroxychloroquine fiasco is interesting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> "We will end deployment to the middle east. It has been a complete and total mess"



It makes it look suspect, like he is apart of the swamp, and handing off to a wartime democratic term.  Republicans start the wars, and Democrats just make sure they last forever.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I didn't care about that one.  The hydroxychloroquine fiasco is interesting.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I'm just naming the promises I was let down by


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> As far as me having it. Does seem to be an original sin that I am born with and can't escape if I listen to people professing the good word. I should flagellate myself and consider my good fortune for the general world and poor fortune for the metaphysical that sees me need to take action on the matter I guess (wonder if there is some kind of Pascal's wager for privilege).



I see the issue here, nobody is asking you specifically to do anything with your privilege other than accept that it exists, not to judge people who don't have it as lazy/unworthy/etc & not cling onto it with your dying breath.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Obviously you didn't have the attention span to watch this simple video.  He literally says "in the primaries".  This is exactly what I mean by the media instigating it.



Trump talks about fighting multiple times. This is the relevant part of the speech that isn't cherry picked by you:


> And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
> 
> Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.
> 
> ...


Trump instigated the riot against the Capitol, both with his speech and with his dangerous rhetoric about voter fraud leading up to the riot. In the middle of the violence, he responded to please for help from congress people by saying "they must care more about voter fraud than you" and attempted to use the violent mob as leverage to overturn the election results. There is video of Trump watching the violence, while it's happening, enthusiastically and gleefully. After he was told Pence was in immediate danger, Trump stoked the mob some more and tweeted attacks against Pence. Trump did not immediately condemn the violence after it was nearly over, instead calling them patriots and saying they should remember this day for the rest of their lives.

These are the facts, there was no deceptive video manipulation, and bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted to impeach and convict Trump respectfully. If it hadn't been for the fact that many Republican senators hid behind ridiculous questions of constitutionality, they might have even voted successfully to convict Trump. McConnell himself suggested Trump was guilty but voted to acquit on that technicality.

History is not going to remember Trump and the events at the Capitol kindly, and it's going to be embarrassing for you when you land on the wrong side of it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> You caught the low hanging fruit, now tell us about how you counted on one of Trump's promises and were let down.


When you cry about low hanging fruit, which you've done repeatedly recently, you're essentially saying, "You demolished my piss poor argument, and I don't like that." In other words, if you don't want us responding to low hanging fruit, don't present us with such low hanging fruit. Calling it low hanging fruit is irrelevant to whether or not your argument was ridiculous and deserving of a response.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I love the concern trolling in regards to Trump. A quick reality check tells me that not one of you will ever be as rich as Trump will be when he's "poor".



He also inherited more money than all of us combined & lost more money than all of us combined, what is your point?



Valwinz said:


> The UK is racist did you fix your racism issue yet ?



I'm only responsible for my own actions, the uk got screwed by Bannon and some other awful people and that is going to take a while to fix.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I love the concern trolling in regards to Trump. A quick reality check tells me that not one of you will ever be as rich as Trump will be when he's "poor".


A quick reality check tells me that not one of us will ever have as much debt as Trump.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> When you cry about low hanging fruit



I usually give low hanging fruit for the intention of it being grabbed.  I wasn't crying or complaining.  That's a fact.  Apparently you fantasize about being a bully.
Does that mean I demolished your piss poor argument and you do not like that?




Lacius said:


> There is video of Trump watching the violence, while it's happening, enthusiastically and gleefully. After he was told Pence was in immediate danger, Trump stoked the mob some more and tweeted attacks against Pence. Trump did not immediately condemn the violence after it was nearly over, instead calling them patriots and saying they should remember this day for the rest of their lives.



Post the proof please.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Obviously you didn't have the attention span to watch this simple video.  He literally says "in the primaries".  This is exactly what I mean by the media instigating it.




Another one of your moronic videos. The guy who made is even sells "Arrest Cuomo" shirts. Do you have any unbiased sources, EVER? Do I need to point you in the direction of all of the times Trump, the White House, and Fox News posted completely manipulated media to attack dems during the last 4 years? Hypocrite much? Because, you know, obviously you didn't have the attention span to watch.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Another one of your moronic videos. The guy who made is even sells "Arrest Cuomo" shirts.



When you learn to differentiate between facts and ad hominins, then I will respect you accordingly.



D34DL1N3R said:


> Do I need to point you in the direction of all of the times Trump, the White House, and Fox News posted completely manipulated media to attack dems during the last 4 years? Hypocrite much?



If it pleases you, then do so by all means.  The topic is specifically about the claim Trump telling people to mount a limp insurrection.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> When you learn to differentiate between facts and ad hominins, then I will respect you accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> If it pleases you, then do so by all means.  The topic is specifically about the claim Trump telling people to mount a limp insurrection.


First off, ad hominem*. If you're going to throw around logical terms simply as weapons to chuck at an argument, at least bother to spell them correctly.
Second off, that isn't an ad hominem attack. The fact that the same guy sells "Arrest Cuomo" shirts gives a _very _clear idea of his political affiliation.


tabzer said:


> I usually give low hanging fruit for the intention of it being grabbed.  I wasn't crying or complaining.  That's a fact.  Apparently you fantasize about being a bully.
> Does that mean I demolished your piss poor argument and you do not like that?


No, it means your argument was piss poor to begin with.
Oh, and thanks for stating that you deliberately give low hanging fruit. You've just admitted that a decent chunk of your statements on this thread and its predecessor were nothing but _baiting!_


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I usually give low hanging fruit for the intention of it being grabbed.  I wasn't crying or complaining.  That's a fact.  Apparently you fantasize about being a bully.
> Does that mean I demolished your piss poor argument and you do not like that?
> 
> 
> ...


Are you saying you intentionally make what you acknowledge to be bad arguments? That's the only way your statement of "I usually give low hanging fruit for the intention of it being grabbed" makes sense. At least twice now, you've condemned someone for going after low hanging fruit.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I "fantasize about being a bully." I don't.

As for your proof:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...nger-when-tweeting-attack-capitol-riot-2021-2
https://people.com/politics/trump-s...s-continues-to-falsely-claim-stolen-election/


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> When you learn to differentiate between facts and ad hominins, then I will respect you accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> If it pleases you, then do so by all means.  The topic is specifically about the claim Trump telling people to mount a limp insurrection.


It's not an ad hominem to point out bias. The argument wasn't "X sells these shirts, so he is wrong." The argument was "X sells these shirts, so he is biased." Ironically, what you just did is called the fallacy fallacy.

Trump instigated the insurrection via his months of harmful rhetoric about voter fraud and via his speech to the mob. He also literally orchestrated the mob attack on the Capitol, getting the permits to be there, etc. They were all part of his plan to use them as leverage to overturn the election, regardless of how far they actually went. This was all his fault. They were all a part of his attempted coup.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> First off, ad hominem*. If you're going to throw around logical terms simply as weapons to chuck at an argument, at least bother to spell them correctly.



First, sorry about that.  For some reason the auto-correct chose that for me.  It's not correct, as you say.



Plasmaster09 said:


> Second off, that isn't an ad hominem attack. The fact that the same guy sells "Arrest Cuomo" shirts gives a _very _clear idea of his political affiliation.



Second, it is.  He is criticizing the publisher instead of tackling the source.




Plasmaster09 said:


> No, it means your argument was piss poor to begin with.



No.   The meaning behind that low hanging fruit was to bait you into revealing that you aren't personally invested or betrayed by "Trump's lies".  I stated a fact, and you said that the fact doesn't matter--and the reasoning is easily deducible by anyone.  I, for one, am disappointed with Trump--but for reasons that are  at least a little bit genuine.



Plasmaster09 said:


> Oh, and thanks for stating that you deliberately give low hanging fruit. You've just admitted that a decent chunk of your statements on this thread and its predecessor were nothing but _baiting!_



Well, the bait is usually coupled with something else.  I don't often post nothing but bait, but sometimes I do when I feel that the discourse has reached satirical levels.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> When you learn to differentiate between facts and ad hominins, then I will respect you accordingly.



When you learn use sources that arent from far right fruit-fucking-cakes, POSSIBLY I will have a very small smidgen of respect for you. But I highly doubt it. You're not worth my respect, at all. Period.



> If it pleases you, then do so by all means.  The topic is specifically about the claim Trump telling people to mount a limp insurrection.



More proof of your constant hypocrisy. The topic is actually SPECIFICALLY "Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America". Your video wasn't even "specifically about the claim Trump telling people to mount a limp insurrection", it was about claims that dems manipulated info during the hearing, so I'm not so sure YOU even know what you're talking about. My reply to that was that you're a hypocrite telling people they werent paying attention because the right has been doing it for the last 4 years.. INCLUDING at the very same hearing that you're posting videos about. So regardless if I was off topic for the main topic, I was still very much on topic in relation to your video.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> First, sorry about that.  For some reason the auto-correct chose that for me.  It's not correct, as you say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you know something is low hanging fruit, you probably shouldn't be posting it. It's completely reasonable for someone to post a response to a bad point or argument. If I made a long post with substantive information but made a single quip that includes a logical fallacy, for example, you wouldn't be wrong to respond just to that logical fallacy, whether or not I put it there intentionally.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> First, sorry about that.  For some reason the auto-correct chose that for me.  It's not correct, as you say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Second one: he's making clear that the publisher is fundamentally biased and thus would themselves cherry-pick 'evidence' to use against Dems. Considering the guy's entire channel is cherry-picked bullshit used to make fun of Dems, this isn't wrong.
Third and fourth: I absolutely am invested in Trump's lies- or rather, horrified at the amount of people that still follow him blindly regardless of how many times he backstabs them for personal gain. Taking your shitty bait doesn't change that, and all it shows is that you're too busy baiting and trolling to bother with a legitimate argument.
Stop baiting. That's it. No more bait on this thread.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not an ad hominem to point out bias.



It's ad hominem to dismiss the substance because of whatever he claims about the character posting it.  It's an angle.  The guy who posted it is biased.  But what he posted is proof that Trump's quotes are being manipulated with the intention of provoking violence.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's ad hominem to dismiss the substance because of whatever he claims about the character posting it.  It's an angle.  The guy who posted it is biased.  But what he posted is proof that Trump's quotes are being manipulated with the intention of provoking violence.


No, it really isn't.
If I have a bag of shit, and cover the top with some straw or something, that does not mean that there is no shit in the bag.
Anyone that bothers smelling the thing or looking through the thin layer of dogwhistles straw will still immediately notice the large quantities of incitement of violence shit in this rhetoric bag.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you know something is low hanging fruit, you probably shouldn't be posting it. It's completely reasonable for someone to post a response to a bad point or argument. If I made a long post with substantive information but made a single quip that includes a logical fallacy, for example, you wouldn't be wrong to respond just to that logical fallacy, whether or not I put it there intentionally.



I'm not saying that it is wrong.  I have done that too.



Plasmaster09 said:


> No, it really isn't.


You are right in a way, because the poster didn't make the argument.  He "re-tweeted" the argument.  If the poster was making the argument, but some jerk decided that the evidence was useless because of the guy's political affiliation, then lol--what are you disputing?




Plasmaster09 said:


> If I have a bag of shit, and cover the top with some straw or something, that does not mean that there is no shit in the bag.
> Anyone that bothers smelling the thing or looking through the thin layer of dogwhistles straw will still immediately notice the large quantities of incitement of violence shit in this rhetoric bag.



So you are saying that the fact that Trump specifically said "how" to "fight" is irrelevant because he said "fight"?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's ad hominem to dismiss the substance because of whatever he claims about the character posting it.  It's an angle.  The guy who posted it is biased.  But what he posted is proof that Trump's quotes are being manipulated with the intention of provoking violence.


It's not an ad hominem to acknowledge bias and not look at the allegedly biased source because of the alleged bias. It's only an ad hominem if he's saying an argument is wrong because of the bias of the source, but he didn't do that.

It is a fallacy fallacy to say an argument is wrong because there's a logical fallacy, particularly when there isn't actually a fallacy.

Also, the video does not show any manipulation of what was presented during the impeachment.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> I'm not saying that it is wrong.  I have done that too.
> 
> 
> You are right in a way, because the poster didn't make the argument.  He "re-tweeted" the argument.  If the poster was making the argument, but some jerk decided that the evidence was useless because of the guy's political affiliation, then lol--what are you disputing?
> ...


If you're not saying it's wrong to go after what you call "low hanging fruit" then stop whining about it and using it as a deflection.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not an ad hominem to acknowledge bias and not look at the allegedly biased source because of the alleged bias.



That specifically is a form of ad hominem.  A neutral party would look at the evidence, with the understanding that it could be slanted due to the publisher's interest, and then find out how.  A skeptic would consider the presence of bias, and still investigate, even without being prompted to do so.  Someone who is afraid of losing something, due to their bias, would try to encourage others to ignore the source.




Lacius said:


> Also, the video does not show any manipulation of what was presented during the impeachment.



It demonstrated how Trump's words were purposely edited with the intention of creating violence.  I can't say that the videos that it shows that were doctored were the same videos that were presented in the case.  Maybe they were.  It's more pertinent to the fact that people here are still quoting those exact moments without the understanding that there was more to it, as @Plasmaster09 had demonstrated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> If you're not saying it's wrong to go after what you call "low hanging fruit" then stop whining about it and using it as a deflection.



Point out where I whined.  I was glad, bully.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Point out where I whined.  I was glad, bully.


This one sentence perfectly sums up your entire argument. You're a bait-happy troll eager to throw low hanging fruit our way, blame us for it when we tear it to shreds, practically piss yourself whining when we call you out on it and then have the audacity to call us bullies for doing so.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Projecting much?
> I'm fine discussing with Republicans.
> However, Trump and his truckload of lies are something I simply cannot stand, and the constant and irrational defense thereof borders on a personality cult.
> 
> also wow "leftism is a religion and they think everything right of obama is fascist" is probably the shittiest take I've seen this *month*


It's 100% a religion, the left-wing has replaced God with government and now worship it. Whatever ails you, government is the answer, it should probably take care of it. Everything right of Obama *is* considered fascist - there are full-on op eds about how Obama was a conservative in disguise because he supported public healthcare options or immigration reform, lest we forget who *actually* started building physical barriers at the border, or increased deportations and detentions to an 11. Obama's positions are inadequate for the modern political left, they're "republican talking points" now. We're well into the universal healthcare only and open borders territory now. The Overton Window has shifted in terms of policy and previously common sense positions are now called authoritarian. Supporting those common sense positions makes you a fascist. That's the vibe I'm getting from the modern left - discourse is dead, everybody just calls right-wingers "nazis" while the right-wingers respond in kind by calling left-wingers socialists/communists. It's kind of sad that establishing any form of dialogue in which the goal would be finding a golden mean instead of expecting either side to capitulate is basically impossible, I haven't seen the two sides come to any kind of actual compromise in years.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That specifically is a form of ad hominem.  A neutral party would look at the evidence, with the understanding that it could be slanted due to the publisher's interest, and then find out how.  A skeptic would consider the presence of bias, and still investigate, even without being prompted to do so.  Someone who is afraid of losing something, due to their bias, would try to encourage others to ignore the source.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What you think neutral parties should or shouldn't be doing is irrelevant to whether or not it's a logical fallacy. If it's anything other than "the argument is wrong because X," it's not an ad hominem, by definition.

Trump's words were not purposefully edited for any purpose. Trump is to blame for the violence. I've already explained how we know this.

Virtually every time you complained about people addressing your low hanging fruit was you whining about it.



Foxi4 said:


> It's 100% a religion, the left-wing has replaced God with government and now worship it. Whatever ails you, government is the answer, it should probably take care of it. Everything right of Obama *is* considered fascist - there are full-on op eds about how Obama was a conservative in disguise because he supported public healthcare options or immigration reform, lest we forget who *actually* started building physical barriers at the border, or increased deportations and detentions to an 11. Obama's positions are inadequate for the modern political left, they're "republican talking points" now. We're well into the universal healthcare only and open borders territory now. The Overton Window has shifted in terms of policy and previously common sense positions are now called authoritarian. Supporting those common sense positions makes you a fascist. That's the vibe I'm getting from the modern left - discourse is dead, everybody just calls right-wingers "nazis" while the right-wingers respond in kind by calling left-wingers socialists/communists. It's kind of sad that establishing any form of dialogue in which the goal would be finding a golden mean instead of expecting either side to capitulate is basically impossible, I haven't seen the two sides come to any kind of actual compromise in years.


You don't know what a religion is, or you don't know what it means to be a liberal, progressive, etc. Virtually everything you listed here as a description of how "leftists" feel is not how I feel, for example. Don't be a disingenuous asshole.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You don't know what a religion is, or you don't know what it means to be a liberal, progressive, etc. Virtually everything you listed here as a description of how "leftists" feel is not how I feel, for example. Don't be a disingenuous asshole.


I was unaware that you feel anything at all, to be fair. It's obviously a generalisation, the vibe I get from the political left at large, which I've specified as my own. I still have productive conversations with those who aren't too far gone, but they're few and far between.

I am also incapable of not being an asshole. You don't have to respond, nobody is forcing you, you choose to do so.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's obviously a generalisation, the vibe I get from the political left at large, which I've specified as my own.


Your overgeneralization is made-up nonsense. You should probably learn that your gut feeling isn't actually indicative of the truth of the matter.

If you want to talk about blind devotion to political ideology and Donald Trump, as well as the conspiratorial, dogmatic, and faith-based thinking shared by a lot of people on the political right (the right-wing is inherently socially conservative and religiously dogmatic in the United States, after all), we can talk about American conservatism if you want.



Foxi4 said:


> I am also incapable of not being an asshole.


The fact that you think that's okay is a problem. I hope you know that.



Foxi4 said:


> You don't have to respond, nobody is forcing you, you choose to do so.


And nobody is forcing you to be a disingenuous asshole, but here we are. I also didn't claim to regret responding to you. I'm not sure why you're acting like it's my fault you're an asshole.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I was unaware that you feel anything at all, to be fair. It's obviously a generalisation, the vibe I get from the political left at large, which I've specified as my own. I still have productive conversations with those who aren't too far gone, but they're few and far between.
> 
> I am also incapable of not being an asshole. You don't have to respond, nobody is forcing you, you choose to do so.


I still have productive conversations with those who aren't too far down the alt-right rabbit hole, but they're few and far between.
Pity, I thought you were one of those few... but then you came up with the worst takes this side of Q or Greene.
(No rhyme intended.)


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The fact that you think that's okay is a problem. I hope you know that.


Never been anything other than an advantage to me, I'm quite happy the way I am, thank you.


Plasmaster09 said:


> I still have productive conversations with those who aren't too far down the alt-right rabbit hole, but they're few and far between.
> Pity, I thought you were one of those few... but then you came up with the worst takes this side of Q or Greene.
> (No rhyme intended.)


Didn't need to wait long for an example.

"Obama's policy prescriptions are considered republican talking points nowadays."
"Wow, you're a Q-anon freak."

Couldn't plan this any better if I tried. The line to the pearl store grows ever longer as the clutching intensifies.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Never been anything other than an advantage to me, I'm quite happy the way I am, thank you.
> Didn't need to wait long for an example.
> 
> "Obama's policy prescriptions are considered republican talking points nowadays."
> ...


A person who is happy being a disingenuous asshole, a person who is uninterested in self-improvement, is probably a person who can't be trusted to look at things objectively nor admit to being wrong.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Never been anything other than an advantage to me, I'm quite happy the way I am, thank you.
> Didn't need to wait long for an example.
> 
> "Obama's policy prescriptions are considered republican talking points nowadays."
> ...


No, I'm referring to "they view everything right of Obama as fascist" and "they've become a religion". That shit's just nuts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A person who is happy being a disingenuous asshole, a person who is uninterested in self-improvement, is probably a person who can't be trusted to look at things objectively nor admit to being wrong.


Oh, trust me, I am in constant pursuit of new and inventive ways to be a more effective asshole - I've been on a path of self-improvement since the day I was born and take much pride in it. What I'm uninterested in is getting life advice from complete strangers online who, for all intents and purposes, should mind their own business rather than point out what they perceive as a character flaw. I didn't ask you for advice.


Plasmaster09 said:


> No, I'm referring to "they view everything right of Obama as fascist" and "they've become a religion". That shit's just nuts.


There's a prevailing sentiment that Republicans at large, or conservatives in general, are fascists. This sentiment has now reached new heights in recent history as now even libertarians, who de facto dislike the federal government, are considered to be "authoritarian", which is the antithesis of their being.

Regarding the comment on the government being a religion, people do expect it to solve all of their life's issues. There's an expectation that the government should give people prescriptions on how to live their lives, especially in times of the pandemic, and prop them up for some reason. We have about 97 new permutations of the word "justice" and the federal government is supposed to pursue all of them simultaneously - justice doesn't need an adjective put in front of it, and yet here we are. Couple that with debt forgiveness, from student loans all the way to medical treatment cost forgiveness and it's, slowly but surely, starting to resemble a nanny state that's intended to tend to your every need. I can understand the argument for debt forgiveness - the government bails out Wall Street all day, let's get a bag too. I simply think the conclusion is wrong - perhaps the government *shouldn't* bail out anyone. It's not the government's business, and neither is social engineering.

The government is indeed worshipped - just look at popular headlines in recent memory. We had a literal "Idoguration" in January with people fawning over *the first dog of the United States*, there are paper hearts on the White House lawn covered in platitudes as if a middle-aged single woman with 9 cats lived there, and people are cheering. I know about these two events, but I *don't* know what the government's timeline for COVID relief is - that's a problem.

I'm not entirely sure how to better explain to you that the cult of personality issue isn't limited to MAGA. If you didn't like what you saw on the right for the last 4-5 years, don't fall for the same thing happening on the left today. Then again, we're discussing it a bit late - a good couple of presidencies late.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, trust me, I am in constant pursuit of new and inventive ways to be a more effective asshole - I've been on a path of self-improvement since the day I was born and take much pride in it.


Wanting to be more of an asshole is not self improvement, and the fact that you think that's okay is a problem. I hope you know that.



Foxi4 said:


> What I'm uninterested in is getting life advice from complete strangers online who, for all intents and purposes, should mind their own business rather than point out what they perceive as a character flaw.


Being an asshole, wanting to be an asshole, and wanting to become more of an asshole, are character flaws. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for you. If you're truly uninterested though, "you don't have to respond, nobody is forcing you, you choose to do so."



Foxi4 said:


> There's a prevailing sentiment that Republicans at large, or conservatives in general, are fascists.


Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, and that's where Donald Trump took the Republican Party. I'm sorry of that's inconvenient for you.

I'm not saying all conservatives are fascists, but Donald Trump absolutely displayed fascist tendencies, and anyone who supports him and his fascism is complicit.

And before you respond, I don't use the word "fascism" lightly. If you're goal is to argue that Donald Trump didn't exhibit fascism, you're probably not going to like where the conversation inevitably goes, although I doubt you'll ever concede anything.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Regarding the comment on the government being a religion, people do expect it to solve all of their life's issues. There's an expectation that the government should give people prescriptions on how to live their lives, especially in times of the pandemic, and prop them up for some reason. have about 97 new permutations of the word "justice" and the federal government is supposed to pursue all of them simultaneously - justice doesn't need an adjective put in front of it, and yet here we are. Couple that with debt forgiveness, from student loans all the way to medical treatment cost forgiveness and it's, slowly but surely, starting to resemble a nanny state that's intended to tend to your every need. I can understand the argument for debt forgiveness - the government bails out Wall Street all day, let's get a bag too. I simply think the conclusion is wrong - perhaps the government *shouldn't* bail out anyone. It's not the government's business, and neither is social engineering.


The government serves the people, as it IS (or at least should be) the people or a representation of what they want.
If the government can prevent people from drowning in student loans or medical debt without risking collapsing in debt itself, there are zero good reasons for it not to do so.
"Nanny state" is basically just a conservative snarl word for "the government spends time and effort helping everyone, and as I don't need said help myself and have no sense of socioeconomic empathy, I'm going to automatically believe said time and effort is a pointless waste and not a step in the right direction."


Foxi4 said:


> There's a prevailing sentiment that Republicans at large, or conservatives in general, are fascists. This sentiment has now reached new heights in recent history as now even libertarians, who de facto dislike the federal government, are considered to be "authoritarian", which is the antithesis of their being.


I don't know where you got that general of a statement, but that's not what we think.
Conservatives in general have economic and societal ideas that boil down to selfishness, but not to fascism.
However, Trump's tendency to:
-lie his ass off and basically claim he's the best at X, for _many_ values of X
-immediately label anything remotely negative of him as "fake news"
-systematically fire and/or lash out at anyone that says something he doesn't like or disobeys him at any point, including his own Vice President for not doing something he _did not have the legal power to do_
-hold numerous personal rallies that boil down to him spouting vacuous statements and receiving cheers from a mindless crowd
-do whatever he can to keep himself in power, up to and including indefinitely lying about having won the election
pegs him as having ambitions of egocentric dictatorship a la Kim Jong-Un, as well as:
-his repeated insistence that he would only accept election results if he won
-keeping that promise for once and refusing to accept the results of the 2020 election, as mentioned above
-trying to strong-arm officials into handing him votes that did not exist
-getting his base to try to demand entry to where votes are counted because of his baseless fraud claims
-inflaming his base with rhetoric of how they must fight to "stop the steal" and doing everything short of outright saying "shoot up Congress for me, will ya?"
-watching as his stark-raving-mad followers stormed the Capitol, tweeting a verbal attack on his VP when staff told him said VP was at risk of being attacked by the rioting mob, and refusing to send help or denounce the attacks for _days_
all boils down to him and his armed mob of idiots demanding access to the counting of votes and the reversal of a rightful election victory because _he didn't personally like the results, _and if that isn't practically the definition of fascism then I don't know what is.
Republicans in general aren't fascists. Conservatives in general aren't fascists.
Trumpers in general are either fascists or complicit in Trumpian fascism thereof.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 16, 2021)

Moderators Gone Wild: Election Edition

Watch as someone who is supposed to moderate a massive gaming forum loses credibility and standing as they spout shit takes like, "It's 100% a religion, the left-wing has replaced God with government and now worship it."
Or other classics such as, "... people fawning over *the first dog of the United States*, there are paper hearts on the White House lawn."

This 4 DVD set and more can be yours for the low, low price of losing your sanity while reading their garbage.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 16, 2021)

Just because people don't want to bow down to corporate overlords, doesn't mean those people treat government as a religion.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Feb 16, 2021)

damn I was wondering why this thread was still relevant until I read it XD


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 16, 2021)

Shame on Biden playing Mario kart while people are dying 
Since Joe Biden took office, 79,000 Americans have died from Covid-19. Think about that. That is 26.5 9/11s, or 6 world trade centers coming down every single day of Joe Biden's presidency. This is shameful. We cannot look away. pic.twitter.com/5tLcAVMmJC— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 16, 2021


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Feb 16, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Shame on Biden playing Mario kart while people are dying
> https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1361690349698097152


I have a hard time believing he won that race.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Shame on Biden playing Mario kart while people are dying
> https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1361690349698097152


How quickly we forget that many of the COVID-19 deaths this year and last year were avoidable and the fault of Donald Trump's absolutely horrendous response to the pandemic. Fortunately though, things are approving thanks in large part to the Biden administration. Thank you for bring this up so we could acknowledge this.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 16, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> I have a hard time believing he won that race.


people have a hard time believing he beat Obama in votes so...


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> I have a hard time believing he won that race.


Didn't you read the headline? Biden played as Luigi, and Luigi is the best.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> How quickly we forget that many of the COVID-19 deaths this year and last year were avoidable and the fault of Donald Trump's absolutely horrendous response to the pandemic. Fortunately though, things are approving thanks in large part to the Biden administration. Thank you for bring this up so we could acknowledge this.


it's sad that our president is playing Mario Kart while 79,000 have die


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> people have a hard time believing he beat Obama in votes so...


Considering a growing population and an increase in voter turnout from 58% in 2008 to 67% in 2020, it's not hard to believe Joe Biden received more votes than Obama ever did. Donald Trump was just that awful compared to McCain and Romney. Thank you for bringing it to our attention just how disastrous Donald Trump was for both the country and the Republican Party.



Valwinz said:


> it's sad that our president is playing Mario Kart while 79,000 have die


A single game of Mario Kart with his child-aged granddaughter is different than, for example, the nearly 300 golf visits Donald Trump (many of which during the deadliest time in US history thanks to Trump's awful pandemic response). I am going to assume you were not being disingenuous, so thank you again for once again bringing Donald Trump's failures to our attention.

Biden has been working very hard on his pandemic response, despite the lone Mario Kart game he played with his granddaughter. Thank you for also bringing to our attention that Biden is both an effective president and an awesome grandfather.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 16, 2021)

He has blood on his hands
Updated this morning. pic.twitter.com/mlTKYEorOq— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) February 16, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> He has blood on his hands
> https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1361708676747321353


Remember that Biden started with a staggering amount of COVID-19 infections in this country thanks in large part to Trump's disastrous pandemic response. When you consider where Biden started, it's amazing how far we have come in the right direction. Thank you for bringing Biden's actual leadership on this to our attention.

It's like when conservatives blamed Obama for job losses that occurred early in his presidency that were the result of the Bush recession. Thanks for bringing this failure in reasoning to our attention as well.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Remember that Biden started with a staggering amount of COVID-19 infections in this country thanks in large part to Trump's disastrous pandemic response. When you consider where Biden started, it's amazing how far we have come in the right direction. Thank you for bringing Biden's actual leadership on this to our attention.
> 
> It's like when conservatives blamed Obama for job losses that occurred early in his presidency that were the result of the Bush recession. Thanks for bringing this failure in reasoning to our attention as well.


Gotta love the 180-degree pivot from, "COVID iSN't ReAl, hOAx!" to "lOOk aT hOW MaNY PeoPLe hAVe DiED unDer BidEN's WAtCh!" that these folks take.
The behavior is transparent and pathetic.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 16, 2021)

Didn't you know? Biden isn't allowed to do literally anything for himself, while cleaning someone else mess.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 16, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Didn't you know? Biden isn't allowed to do literally anything for himself, while cleaning someone else mess.


Biden defense force ASSEMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden defense force ASSEMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It's not like I will defend Biden under any circumstance. Fuck him for playing as Luigi instead of letting his granddaughter play as Luigi. You might be asking, "But Lacius, who says his granddaughter wanted to play as Luigi?" Everyone wants to play as Luigi.

Jokes aside, your fake outrage and criticisms of Biden here are just pathetic. I suggest you read my posts for why.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not like I will defend Biden under any circumstance. Fuck him for playing as Luigi instead of letting his granddaughter play as Luigi. You might be asking, "But Lacius, who says his granddaughter wanted to play as Luigi?" Everyone wants to play as Luigi.
> 
> Jokes aside, your fake outrage and criticisms of Biden here are just pathetic. I suggest you read my posts for why.


I've always preferred Yoshi, but yes, Biden's behavior in this instance in unacceptable.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> I've always preferred Yoshi, but yes, Biden's behavior in this instance in unacceptable.


Your disdain for Luigi is unacceptable.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 16, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden defense force ASSEMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Only when he needs be defended. There are things to criticism him for, but this ain't it.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> I've always preferred Yoshi, but yes, Biden's behavior in this instance in unacceptable.



Is it? Then was Trumps golf playing unacceptable?

The covid deaths happening now had their fate sealed when Trump was still president. Just the amount of time to go from catching covid, to becoming ill, to dieing takes longer than since Biden was inaugurated.

But don't let that spoil some meme posting drooling idiot.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> Is it? Then was Trumps golf playing unacceptable?
> 
> The covid deaths happening now had their fate sealed when Trump was still president.


Chill out and read.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> Chill out and read.



I'm chilled, I'm not the one freaking out and pissing myself over blaming deaths that happened since the inauguration on Biden & saying he shouldn't do anything fun.

I'm pretty sure that if Biden hadn't played mario kart then the same number of people would have died.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> I'm chilled, I'm not the one freaking out and pissing myself over blaming deaths that happened since the inauguration on Biden & saying he shouldn't do anything fun.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that if Biden hadn't played mario kart then the same number of people would have died.


Dude, READ. I never actually blamed him for anything. Shit like this is why Valwinz and those other fucks so easily needle us. Fucking relax and READ THE POSTS INSTEAD OF MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> I've always preferred Yoshi, but yes, *Biden's behavior in this instance in unacceptable*.





Arecaidian Fox said:


> Dude, READ. I never actually blamed him for anything. Shit like this is why Valwinz and those other fucks so easily needle us. Fucking relax and READ THE POSTS INSTEAD OF MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.



?


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> ?


It is sarcasm.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> It is sarcasm.



We're playing the "my posts don't mean what I write" game?


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> We're playing the "my posts don't mean what I write game"?


Oh my fucking gods above. It was about fucking Mario Kart. Jesus fucking tapdancing Christ.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> Oh my fucking gods above. It was about fucking Mario Kart. Jesus fucking tapdancing Christ.



You're not clearly making your point, why do you care about Biden's Mario Kart game?

And Chill.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> You're not clearly making your point, why do you care about Biden's Mario Kart game?


I don't. I'm also at a total loss as to why you're even making this a thing. Have fun.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> You're not clearly making your point, why do you care about Biden's Mario Kart game?
> 
> And Chill.


dude it was just a joke, the "unacceptable behavior" being picking Luigi instead of letting his granddaughter do so
it was literally a complete and utter meme
*this is why braindead trolls can get a rise out of us so easily*


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> Oh i need to add. Show me one of these cities that have been burned to the ground. I hear so much about them but never seen it.


Source(s): dude trust me


----------



## AncientBoi (Feb 16, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Source(s): dude trust me



So true, I've lived through 2 of our Riots here In LA.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

biden: continuing corporate fleecing of american wealth
americans: mArIo KaRt



Valwinz said:


> Biden defense force ASSEMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


for my next trick i'll say that trump is a dumbfuck, and when anyone responds, i will immediately respond with
Trump defense force ASSEMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

owned
too easy
next time give it your a game


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 16, 2021)

Why did Biden overturn Trump's EO on cheap insulin? Prices are going through the roof and it's kinda life or death. If Trump did that it would be "he is murdering diabetics" but Biden, no problem.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

JustJay said:


> Why did Biden overturn Trump's EO on cheap insulin? Prices are going through the roof and it's kinda life or death. If Trump did that it would be "he is murdering diabetics" but Biden, no problem.


Here's a cool article talking about this issue.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________





go my simps



Bellonye said:


> I think there will always be controversial situations.


how could you say something so controversial, yet so brave


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Here's a cool article talking about this issue.
> 
> View attachment 246881
> go my simps
> ...



Da fuq does who like your post have to do with the question I asked?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

JustJay said:


> Why did Biden overturn Trump's EO on cheap insulin? Prices are going through the roof and it's kinda life or death. If Trump did that it would be "he is murdering diabetics" but Biden, no problem.


Trump didn't lower insulin prices, and Biden didn't raise them.
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...ured-biden-mark-walker-fact-check/6740566002/

In reality, Biden's health care plans would lower the costs of insulin, as would more progressive plans like those from Sanders and Warren.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Darth Meteos said:


> Here's a cool article talking about this issue.
> 
> View attachment 246881
> go my simps
> ...


Worse, we just linked to the same article.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

JustJay said:


> Da fuq does who like your post have to do with the question I asked?


It has nothing to do with it
I made the meme, but I have a policy of always starting messages with actual content
that message has three sections

EDIT: I have made a line that separates the sections
I admit, it was a little difficult to tell


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

JustJay said:


> Da fuq does who like your post have to do with the question I asked?


Read something for once in your miserable life. Two people just handed a link to you, so it's even easier.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Read something for once in your miserable life. Two people just handed a link to you, so it's even easier.


fuck, hook in, mate
isn't justjay new to this thread?
i don't think we should go nuclear on him, he might be good-faith


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2021)

That's the problem with Valwinz he's arguing not listening. When you give him Information, instead of actually properly reading it, he's mostly focused on how he can turn it around to support his biases, looking for exploites in wording rather then rationally think about the overall information. He's tunneled visioned himself to try to win. He's a lost cause.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Bellonye said:


> I think there will always be controversial situations.


>Joined: Today
>Hops into this thread with a completely vacuous statement


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

SG854 said:


> That's the problem with Valwinz he's arguing not listening. When you give him Information, instead of actually properly reading it, he's mostly focused on how he can turn it around to support his biases, looking for exploites in wording rather then rationally think about the overall information. He's tunneled visioned himself to try to win. He's a lost cause.


if you laugh at it, one of two things will happen

it will go away
it will be the subject of fun
i consider this an absolute win
look at the disingenuity
ain't it somethin'?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> fuck, hook in, mate
> isn't justjay new to this thread?
> i don't think we should go nuclear on him, he might be good-faith


He's not good-faith.



Darth Meteos said:


> Here's a cool article talking about this issue.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> ...


I fixed your photo.


Spoiler







Everyone wants to choose Luigi.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> >Joined: Today
> >Hops into this thread with a completely vacuous statement


i've seen this kind of thing
they go into a hot zone where people are slingin' insults and they say something innocuous to generate a flame
then you can screencap it and be like "look, leftists attack you just for saying that controversial things will exist, who's intolerant now, pc police, cancel culture, triggered, sjw, attack helicopter"



Lacius said:


> I fixed your photo.


mamma mia


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i've seen this kind of thing
> they go into a hot zone where people are slingin' insults and they say something innocuous to generate a flame
> then you can screencap it and be like "look, leftists attack you just for saying that controversial things will exist, who's intolerant now, pc police, cancel culture, triggered, sjw, attack helicopter"
> 
> ...


betcha ten nonexistent bucks they're also a side burner of one of the hardcore trumpers already active on this thread


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 16, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> it's sad that our president is playing Mario Kart while 79,000 have die



It's sad pointing the finger at the guy who has been in office less than a month.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> betcha ten nonexistent bucks they're also a side burner of one of the hardcore trumpers already active on this thread


does it matter? people can say whatever they like, but you bet your ass i'll respond to it if it's dumb as fuck



D34DL1N3R said:


> It's sad pointing the finger at the guy who has been in office less than a month.


frankly pointing the finger at the president is kind of silly
trump wasn't to blame for the coronavirus, but he made himself culpable when he downplayed it and did not implement effective strategies to combat it
biden inherited the office when the problem had already gone runaway, only the vaccine or a strict lockdown will save america now
kinda like removing an arsonist then yelling at the firefighter that the building is still burning


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> Moderators Gone Wild: Election Edition
> 
> Watch as someone who is supposed to moderate a massive gaming forum loses credibility and standing as they spout shit takes like, "It's 100% a religion, the left-wing has replaced God with government and now worship it."
> Or other classics such as, "... people fawning over *the first dog of the United States*, there are paper hearts on the White House lawn."
> ...


I was unaware that being a devout follower of left-wing ideology was a pre-requisite to moderating a "massive gaming forum", I'll be sure to burn an effigy at the altar to attone for my sin of wrong-think. You're a couple decades late to "correct" me, but I'm sure I can be re-educated.


BlazeMasterBM said:


> I have a hard time believing he won that race.


Maybe they let him win.

OH SNAP!


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I was unaware that being a devout follower of left-wing ideology was a pre-requisite to moderating a "massive gaming forum", I'll be sure to burn an effigy at the altar to attone for my sin of wrong-think.


wow, deflection, obfuscation, and victim cult shit all in one message
remarkable


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I was unaware that being a devout follower of left-wing ideology was a pre-requisite to moderating a "massive gaming forum"



It's not that, it's because you're just really not that bright. As can also be seen in other areas of the forums.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I was unaware that being a devout follower of left-wing ideology was a pre-requisite to moderating a "massive gaming forum", I'll be sure to burn an effigy at the altar to attone for my sin of wrong-think. You're a couple decades late to "correct" me, but I'm sure I can be re-educated.
> Maybe they let him win.
> 
> OH SNAP!


Nobody said you had to be left-wing to be a moderator. I'm sure it makes you very happy to know you are once again being a disingenuous asshole.

I'm honestly not sure you should be moderating anything, not because of your politics, but because of your apparent illiteracy.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> It's not that, it's because you're just really not that bright. As can also be seen in other areas of the forums.


oh i'm sorry, i didn't know i needed to sign up for the church of scientology to be bright, i'll be sure to give all my money to lord xenu to _attone_ for my sin of wrong-think



Lacius said:


> Nobody said you had to be left-wing to be a moderator. I'm sure it makes you very happy to know you are once again being a disingenuous asshole.
> 
> I'm honestly not sure you should be moderating anything, not because of your politics, but because of your apparent illiteracy.


being a disingenuous asshole? that's new information. i suppose you're saying that i have to go to nasa, train to be a pilot, log 40,000 hours of flight time and get a phd in astrophysics to attone for my sin of wrong-think


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

If all you're interested in doing is attacking my character, you're welcome to have at it - my inbox is always ready and waiting. This isn't a referendum on me, it's a thread about Joe Biden. I suggest sticking to the topic at hand - you won't hurt my fee-fees either way, but you are derailing the discussion, which I don't look kindly upon.

As a side note, all of the enlightened individuals here are having a huff and puff about what is most likely a bot account which I'm too busy investigating right now to play with you guys in the sandbox. Guess you didn't pick up on that.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> oh i'm sorry, i didn't know i needed to sign up for the church of scientology to be bright, i'll be sure to give all my money to lord xenu to _attone_ for my sin of wrong-think
> 
> 
> being a disingenuous asshole? that's new information. i suppose you're saying that i have to go to nasa, train to be a pilot, log 40,000 hours of flight time and get a phd in astrophysics to attone for my sin of wrong-think


That was a good Foxi4 impression.



Foxi4 said:


> If all you're interested in doing is attacking my character, you're welcome to have at it - my inbox is always ready and waiting. This isn't a referendum on me, it's a thread about Joe Biden. I suggest sticking to the topic at hand - you won't hurt my fee-fees either way, but you are derailing the discussion, which I don't look kindly upon.


Lol at being the first to bring up the off topic idea of having to have left wing politics to be a moderator here before condemning others for going off topic.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If all you're interested in doing is attacking my character, you're welcome to have at it - my inbox is always ready and waiting.


attacking your character is a waste of my time and yours
we're attacking your positions, keep up



Foxi4 said:


> This isn't a referendum in me, it's a thread about Joe Biden. I suggest sticking to the topic at hand - you won't hurt my fee-fees either way, but you are derailing the discussion, which I don't look kindly upon.


Joe Biden's position on the left-wing is that they should shut the fuck up and be happy with whatever scraps fall from the elites' tables
your position is that the left-wing is a religion/cult of lies
i think we should all have a discussion about the juxtaposition of Joe Biden's position and yours

to start, i rather think that the left-wing is interested in increasing the living standards of the average american through welfare and infrastructure programs
this doesn't gel with Joe Biden's position on the left-wing, or yours
i feel that's a bit strange, and i wanna know if you've ever opened a book
i think Joe Biden is just lying, but you seem to actually believe what you say

Joe Biden


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Lol at being the first to bring up the off topic idea of having to have left wing politics to be a moderator here before condemning others for going off topic.


Discussing the left's gradual decline into the extreme based on their level of support towards specific policies as viewed through the lens of the last three presidencies is perfectly on-topic, and hardly raises an eyebrow.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If all you're interested in doing is attacking my character, you're welcome to have at it - my inbox is always ready and waiting. This isn't a referendum on me, it's a thread about Joe Biden. I suggest sticking to the topic at hand - you won't hurt my fee-fees either way, but you are derailing the discussion, which I don't look kindly upon.
> 
> As a side note, all of the enlightened individuals here are having a huff and puff about what is most likely a bot account which I'm too busy investigating right now to play with you guys in the sandbox. Guess you didn't pick up on that.


You've spent the last couple-few pages derailing the discussion with outlandish claims attacking the character of an entire political party, without even a slight drop of evidence to suggest any of what you're saying. You turned this into a referendum about you by spouting baseless nonsense about how being left-wing has become a religion, essentially just because of the fact that we expect the government to do what governments really should be doing by default- helping the people under them.
_You_ turned this discussion into us watching you sit on a throne of straw-men and delusion, wondering how on earth you remain a global moderator, as you aimlessly toss increasingly extreme comparisons at us in hopes that something will stick.


Foxi4 said:


> Discussing the left's gradual decline into the extreme based on their level of support towards specific policies as viewed through the lens of the last three presidencies is perfectly on-topic, and hardly raises an eyebrow.


"The left's gradual decline into the extreme" is like Sisyphus's boulder claiming he's running away from it as it slips from his grasp and rolls all the way down.
We haven't budged an inch, but when Trump grips the Republican Party and pulls all who are willing further and further right, nearly everything seems extremely left in comparison.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Discussing the left's gradual decline into the extreme based on their level of support towards specific policies as viewed through the lens of the last three presidencies is perfectly on-topic, and hardly raises an eyebrow.


give me an example
you just said


Foxi4 said:


> Discussing the left's gradual decline into the extreme based on their level of support towards *specific policies* as viewed through the lens of the last three presidencies is perfectly on-topic


what specific policies

EDIT: and while you're at it


Foxi4 said:


> Discussing the left's gradual *decline into the extreme*


explain that, too
what do you mean
what decline, in what way


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Discussing the left's gradual decline into the extreme based on their level of support towards specific policies as viewed through the lens of the last three presidencies is perfectly on-topic, and hardly raises an eyebrow.


Once again, you're going off-topic. I wasn't at all addressing your broad and misguided claims about the political left, which would arguably be on topic.


Foxi4 said:


> I was unaware that being a devout follower of left-wing ideology was a pre-requisite to moderating a "massive gaming forum"


Please don't waste my time debating something that nobody brought up. Nobody said you have to have left leaning politics to moderate a forum. You were called out on your disingenuous posts, and your rebuttal is further evidence. Thank you.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Once again, you're going off-topic. I wasn't at all addressing your broad and misguided claims about the political left, which would arguably be on topic.
> 
> Please don't waste my time debating something that nobody brought up. Nobody said you have to have left leaning politics to moderate a forum. You were called out on your disingenuous posts, and your rebuttal is further evidence. Thank you.


I swear, this thread's predecessor and itself combined from start to current finish reads like a two-part tragicomedy where Foxi, the most powerful figure in the room, slowly but surely slips into insanity.
Start: Vaguely moderate, ignorant but possibly good-faith, doesn't spout crazed nonsense.
Now: "The left is a fuckin cult and I'll prove it by saying it over and over and then I'll blame y'all for derailing things".


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Once again, you're going off-topic. I wasn't at all addressing your broad and misguided claims about the political left, which would arguably be on topic.


dunno, man
kinda seems foxi is just making hyperbolic statements, because that's all right-wing media on the news and youtube ever does
just like the simulations


----------



## Kilim (Feb 16, 2021)

id like to remind everyone in here defending any political action by any politician that they do not give a shit about you or the country, the only thing they care about is satisfying their constituents and lobbyists so they get more money

stop defending these people its gross


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> dunno, man
> kinda seems foxi is just making hyperbolic statements, because that's all right-wing media on the news and youtube ever does
> just like the simulations


gotta love how the worst they're capable of saying about a prominent Republican is "I may not personally like their [X] but it's better than [insert extremely hyperbolic and inaccurate description of their Democrat opponent] (that is, until they say something Trump doesn't like, at which point they are and always were an eeeeeeeeeeeeevil leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeftist) but a Democrat, or literally the entirety of the American political left-wing for that matter, could _sneeze_ at the wrong angle and suddenly they're some kind of cultist lunatic


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Kilim said:


> id like to remind everyone in here defending any political action by any politician that they do not give a shit about you or the country, the only thing they care about is satisfying their constituents and lobbyists so they get more money


fucking based

EDIT: I will say, though, that political ideology is not bound to any politician, political party or movement. In discussing ideology, you can have reasonable arguments.
In discussing politicians, you're wasting your time if they aren't a Justice Dem or Bernie Sanders, people with no friends



Plasmaster09 said:


> gotta love how the worst they're capable of saying about a prominent Republican is "I may not personally like their [X] but it's better than [insert extremely hyperbolic and inaccurate description of their Democrat opponent] (that is, until they say something Trump doesn't like, at which point they are and always were an eeeeeeeeeeeeevil leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeftist) but a Democrat, or literally the entirety of the American political left-wing for that matter, could _sneeze_ at the wrong angle and suddenly they're some kind of cultist lunatic


i prefer to articulate it like this


----------



## omgcat (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I swear, this thread's predecessor and itself combined from start to current finish reads like a two-part tragicomedy where Foxi, the most powerful figure in the room, slowly but surely slips into insanity.
> Start: Vaguely moderate, ignorant but possibly good-faith, doesn't spout crazed nonsense.
> Now: "The left is a fuckin cult and I'll prove it by saying it over and over and then I'll blame y'all for derailing things".


You think he'll start crying about being cancelled next?

But more on topic, texas sure is quiet about wanting to secede during their historic blackout of their totally autonomous electric grid. Good thing biden isn't a total piece of shit and will get timely aid for texas instead of sitting there and doing fuck all like trump with the california fires.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

omgcat said:


> You think he'll start crying about being cancelled next?


muh freedom of speech



omgcat said:


> But more on topic, texas sure is quiet about wanting to secede during their historic blackout of their totally autonomous electric grid. Good thing biden isn't a total piece of shit and will get timely aid for texas instead of sitting there and doing fuck all like trump with the california fires.


trump would have helped texas
he ditched california because his base hates california almost as much as he does
but texas is good ol' murica


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

omgcat said:


> You think he'll start crying about being cancelled next?
> 
> But more on topic, texas sure is quiet about wanting to secede during their historic blackout of their totally autonomous electric grid. Good thing biden isn't a total piece of shit and will get timely aid for texas instead of sitting there and doing fuck all like trump with the california fires.


Make sure you phrase it just like that. Put people's lives in danger, and the conservatives don't care, but cancel them, and they will go crazy. Well, except when they apply their own cancel culture and censure Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. Hm. I guess conservatives are just hypocrites. Nevermind.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2021)

Leftist are evil. One day a leftist left the toilet seat up at a McDonald's restroom and I fell in.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Hm. I guess conservatives are just hypocrites. Nevermind.


i must say, i'm shocked
the idea of a republican compromising their beliefs for political power is unthinkable


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Discussing the left's gradual decline into the extreme based on their level of support towards specific policies as viewed through the lens of the last three presidencies is perfectly on-topic, and hardly raises an eyebrow.



That comes across as quite butt hurt.



Lacius said:


> Make sure you phrase it just like that. Put people's lives in danger, and the conservatives don't care, but cancel them, and they will go crazy. Well, except when they apply their own cancel culture and censure Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. Hm. I guess conservatives are just hypocrites. Nevermind.



It shouldn't be a surprise, republicans are sociopathic. If they had any insight into their personality then they would realise why their opinion is wrong.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> That comes across as quite butt hurt.


1+1=2


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> 1+1=2


No it cannot be,
It, it's it's.
*logic *
the worst possible enemy


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> No it cannot be,
> It, it's it's.
> *logic *
> the worst possible enemy


Republicans care about math. Well, except when a Republican is president and they control the deficit. Sorry, nevermind.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Republicans care about math. Well, except when a Republican is president and they control the deficit. Sorry, nevermind.


Republicans care about science. 

It snows so global warning isn't real.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Republicans care about science.
> 
> It snows so global warning isn't real.


If global warming's real, then why is it cold outside? Checkmate, snowflakes


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Republicans care about science.
> 
> It snows so global warning isn't real.


I was never more convinced of anything in my life when James Inhofe brought that snowball onto the floor of the Senate. Such a deliberative body. Truly the place where intelligent discourse occurs. It must be preserved.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Scott_pilgrim said:


> If global warming's real, then why is it cold outside? Checkmate, libtards


If systemic racism exists, then why haven't I seen it?

Also, you missed a great opportunity to say "checkmate, snowflakes."


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> If global warming's real, then why is it cold outside? Checkmate, _*lizards*_


There corrected it for you. It's all the illuminati.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Also, you missed a great opportunity to say "checkmate, snowflakes


Wdym? That's what it says


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Wdym? That's what it says


Hey, only the conservatives are allowed to gaslight.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Hey, only the conservatives are allowed to gaslight.


We are allowed to gaslight. We were always allowed to gaslight. We were always at war with Eastasia. Jake Angeli was always an antifa plant. There is no war in Ba Sing Se.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Hey, only the conservatives are allowed to gaslight.


They was a reason for invading middle eastern countries. They needed all that GASlight they can obtain to own libtards like you.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Make sure you phrase it just like that. Put people's lives in danger, and the conservatives don't care, but cancel them, and they will go crazy. Well, except when they apply their own cancel culture and censure Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. Hm. I guess conservatives are just hypocrites. Nevermind.


Is Trump a religion?


Lacius said:


> Republicans care about math.


Only when giving the rich even more tax cuts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> give me an example
> you just said
> 
> what specific policies
> ...


I already gave you two - public healthcare options and immigration policy. When Barack Obama took office, his idea of policing the border was continuing with the previous programs of erecting physical barriers in the form of fencing (128 additional miles were constructed, if I recall). This idea had wide-spread support among Democrats, including big names like Schumer and Feinstein who supported the act. This position has reversed completely under Trump. The same can be said about other policies surrounding immigration - President Obama is the president of DACA, but he was also keen on deportation. Approximately 2.5 million people were removed from the country between 2009 and 2015 via immigration orders. This idea, again, has completely reversed - now the talking point on the left is "Abolish ICE", which is an extreme position.

The same can be said about law enforcement. President Joe Biden started his career as the "tough on crime" mastermind behind the 1994 Crime Bill. In fact, it was one of his crowning achievements, it was created with input from minority community leaders who were concerned about a drug epidemic in their neighbourhoods. Both positions are reversed also - we regularly hear calls to "defund the police" and the prevailing opinion among Americans is that perhaps legalisation of some, at least "soft" drugs is in fact the answer here. Defunding the police is an extreme position - Michigan learned that first-hand as they recently "refunded" the police due to a sudden spike in violent crime. Legalisation I can roll with - I'm all for people being responsible for their own choices, even those that are self-destructive.

In terms of healthcare, President Obama advertised ACA by saying that "you can keep your doctor", it was created with both a public and a private sector in mind - private for those who can afford it, public for those who cannot. This is not adequate anymore - the core concept behind Medicare for All is a universal, public healthcare system for all citizens with the private option pushed to the side and concerned with elective surgeries, if not obliterated altogether, depending on which plan of some of the 2020 primary frontrunners you look at.

Just a few months ago Joe Biden happily proclaimed that he owns "a shotgun" (even though he doesn't know how to use it as I distinctly remember him saying that one should blast potential home invaders through a closed door or discharge firearms into the air indiscriminately to scare intruders, both being highly irresponsible) and isn't interested in attacking the 2nd Amendment. Come to find out, the administration is working on *another* "assault weapons ban". Oh, and who did Joe want to put in charge of gun control? Beto O'Rouruke, the man who gleefully supported gun *confiscation* from the debate stage. That's another reversal, in my mind. Nevermind the fact that these new policy prescriptions concern rifles - the least-used weapon in terms of homicide. The single type of firearm responsible for the majority of deaths on American streets is the handgun, but the administration won't tackle those as anything short of a national arms registry would be inadequate in tracking each and every one - there's simply far too many, so the good old AR will be the scapegoat du jour instead, at least for now.

These are just some examples, but there are plenty, really. Of course not all of those new positions are bad - in fact, I support some of them, to an extent. Some of them can also be explained by the nature of progressivism - it "progresses" with no clear end goal, however there's a line between what is a sensible measure and what is an extreme one. You can, in fact, progress "too far" and forget what exactly you were trying to fix in the first place.

I'm quite happy to support my positions as long as the discussion is civil and to-the-point. My point, in case the hyperbole was too difficult to digest, is that the increased reliance of government and obsessing over personality instead of substance is detrimental to political discourse. Jumping up in arms at the first sign of criticism is cult-like behaviour to me, or government worship. That might be a rough term to some, but that doesn't affect any of the key takeaways.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This position has reversed completely under Trump.



So you're saying Trump copied Obama and is upset that he didn't get the same response?

There are some differences in the policy and there are differences in the execution of the policy. If Trump wasn't so in need of reassurance all the time that he goes to rallies getting people to shout his catchphrases back at him, then he probably would have had it easier.

But this whole brash attitude just rubs people up the wrong way, it's self sabotaging. Unfortunately he thinks it's some kind of killer move. But it only works against stupid people.

Trump trying to steal an election by lying about fraud is the last straw, in whatever way possible the man has to basically not exist any more. It's his own fault, he asked for it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> So you're saying Trump copied Obama and is upset that he didn't get the same response?
> 
> There are some differences in the policy and there are differences in the execution of the policy. If Trump wasn't so in need of reassurance all the time that he goes to rallies getting people to shout his catchphrases back at him, then he probably would have had it easier.
> 
> But this whole brash attitude just rubs people up the wrong way, it's self sabotaging. Unfortunately he thinks it's some kind of killer move. But it only works against stupid people.


We're not talking about Trump here - Trump is not in office. This entire exchange started because I made a claim that the policies on the left side of the aisle are increasingly slipping and that, had he ran today on the same program, someone like Barack Obama wouldn't be considered a left-wing starlet, but rather a moderate Republican, and I see those kinds of opinion pieces pop up in major publications nowadays. I also said that progressives treat their ideologues as idols who can do no wrong and require 24/7 worship so as to prevent them from being "smeared" online, and pointed out that the increased reliance on government guidance or support in all walks of life looks like a religion, *to me*. That caused quite a stir and I was asked to clarify which policies exactly I meant, so I provided some more context on what has changed on the left in the last 10-20 years - quite a lot, actually. I don't necessarily expect that to be productive, but I always aim to please - I wouldn't offer rides on my back otherwise.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 16, 2021)

https://mobile.twitter.com/FordJohnathan5/status/1361793995605704707
Rudy Giuliani is no longer working for Donald Trump as his personal attorney. According to Jason Miller he was fired by Trump.
... so.. Rudy and Trump broke up??


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We're not talking about Trump here - Trump is not in office. This entire exchange started because I made a claim that the policies on the left side of the aisle are increasingly slipping and that, had he ran today on the same program, someone like Barack Obama wouldn't be considered a left-wing starlet, but rather a moderate Republican, and I see those kinds of opinion pieces pop up in major publications nowadays. I also said that progressives treat their ideologues as idols who can do no wrong and require 24/7 worship so as to prevent them from being "smeared" online, and pointed out that the increased reliance on government guidance or support in all walks of life looks like a religion, *to me*. That caused quite a stir and I was asked to clarify which policies exactly I meant, so I provided some more context on what has changed on the left in the last 10-20 years - quite a lot, actually. I don't necessarily expect that to be productive, but I always aim to please - I wouldn't offer rides on my back otherwise.


First of all, people change stances on things. That... happens. It's not like Biden made a promise to always have X opinion on X part of gun control, for example. The difference between right-wing hypocrisy and left-wing "hypocrisy" is that we acknowledge the change, rather than gaslight or retcon ourselves into having always had that opinion because it fits that of the current major Republican.
Second of all, 24/7 worship? Tell that to the guy that held so many rallies they bordered on nothing but encouragement sessions.


Foxi4 said:


> I'm quite happy to support my positions as long as the discussion is civil and to-the-point. My point, in case the hyperbole was too difficult to digest, is that the increased reliance of government and obsessing over personality instead of substance is detrimental to political discourse. Jumping up in arms at the first sign of criticism is cult-like behaviour to me, or government worship. That might be a rough term to some, but that doesn't affect any of the key takeaways.


You do realize that the reason we reacted the way we did _is because you jumped straight to calling our political affiliation a fanatical religion, _right? Had you kept the hyperbole away and made statements that could be seen as vaguely sane, you wouldn't have provoked such a reaction and kept yourself spiraling into "they're a cult lol" by way of your own unnecessarily extreme claims.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We're not talking about Trump here - Trump is not in office.


... Hey this is GBATEMP .. not the Senate...lolol Trump does not get a free pass because he got kicked out... he still claims to control the Republican Party.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> First of all, people change stances on things. That... happens. It's not like Biden made a promise to always have X opinion on X part of gun control, for example. The difference between right-wing hypocrisy and left-wing "hypocrisy" is that we acknowledge the change, rather than gaslight or retcon ourselves into having always had that opinion because it fits that of the current major Republican.
> Second of all, 24/7 worship? Tell that to the guy that held so many rallies they bordered on nothing but encouragement sessions.
> 
> You do realize that the reason we reacted the way we did _is because you jumped straight to calling our political affiliation a fanatical religion, _right? Had you kept the hyperbole away and made statements that could be seen as vaguely sane, you wouldn't have provoked such a reaction and kept yourself spiraling into "they're a cult lol" by way of your own unnecessarily extreme claims.


Perhaps it could've been avoided if I used different language, but my way was more entertaining - it certainly got everyone mobilised. Every forum needs a bad guy, and I revel in it, so it's a match made in heaven to me. Trump certainly had a cult of personality surrounding him, but he didn't invent it - it's been an on-going trend for a long, long time. I sincerely hope "idogurations" don't become a tradition or I just might chew my arm off. This is equally a problem on the side of supporters as it is on the side of the media - here's Joe Biden with his dog, here's Joe Biden's wife turning the WH lawn into a weird display of menopause, here's Joe Biden playing Mario Kart. Do you like him yet? Please like him, we need you to like him. Maybe I got used to the media *hating* the president and picking apart every single thing he said both yesterday and 20 years ago. I might miss it, actually. Feet, fire, you know the drill. I don't like it when politicians are propped up as false idols.


djpannda said:


> ... Hey this is GBATEMP .. not the Senate...lolol Trump does not get a free pass because he got kicked out... he still claims to control the Republican Party.


The reason why I said that is not because I'm shielding for Trump, but rather because I was referring to the specific time-frame when the change of attitudes took place. With that said, I'm also confident that Trump played a role in shifting those attitudes since he was so universally hated on the left - "Trump is evil, therefore everything Trump stands for must also be evil and must be dismantled" would be the mode of thinking here.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps it could've been avoided if I used different language, but my way was more entertaining - it certainly got everyone mobilised. Every forum needs a bad guy, and I revel in it, so it's a match made in heaven to me. Trump certainly had a cult of personality surrounding him, but he didn't invent it - it's been an on-going trend for a long, long time. I sincerely hope "idogurations" don't become a tradition or I just might chew my arm off. This is equally a problem on the side of supporters as it is on the side of the media - here's Joe Biden with his dog, Here's Joe Biden's wife turning the WH lawn into a weird display of menopause, here's Joe Biden playing Mario Kart. Do you like him yet? Please like him, we need you to like him. Maybe I got used to the media *hating* the president and picking apart every single thing he said both yesterday and 20 years ago. I might miss it, actually. Feet, fire, you know the drill. I don't like it when politicians are propped up as false idols.
> The reason why I said that is not because I'm shielding for Trump, but rather because I was referring to the specific time-frame when the change of attitudes took place. With that said, I'm also confident that Trump played a role in shifting those attitudes since he was so universally hated on the left - "Trump is evil, therefore everything Trump stands for must also be evil and must be dismantled" would be the mode of thinking here.


Biden doing these little things isn't being propped up as a false idol, it's him _being a person that doesn't live and breathe politics 24/7._
Important note, though: he still spends a lot more time with said politics and with actually doing his job than with these little bits, unlike Trump, who IIRC spent _more time golfing than he did doing actual President stuff._


----------



## djpannda (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump is evil, therefore everything Trump stands for must also be evil and must be dismantled


....your mouth to God’s ears


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Biden doing these little things isn't being propped up as a false idol, it's him _being a person that doesn't live and breathe politics 24/7._
> Important note, though: he still spends a lot more time with said politics and with actually doing his job than with these little bits, unlike Trump, who IIRC spent _more time golfing than he did doing actual President stuff._


Joe Biden is not your friend. Joe Biden is a politician just like any other, a career politician at that. He's not doing "these things" because "he's a person" - he's doing them because the media will be extatic to tell you all about them and run his PR for him. You might consider that cynical, but I don't like to humanise politicians and I don't care or want to hear about what they do in their personal lives. They're not literal reptilian to me, in Alex Jonesian parlance, but they certainly are scaly. All I expect from them and all I want to hear about is what they're working on, or not working on when they should've - they're servants, not celebrities or "idols". The curtsey displays do not fill me with glee, they make me want to barf. Each to their own though, I guess.


djpannda said:


> ....your mouth to God’s ears


Looks better with the quotation marks around it, but I never claimed that Trump wasn't a villain - he was. He was my favourite villain in a while, too.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We're not talking about Trump here - Trump is not in office. This entire exchange started because I made a claim that the policies on the left side of the aisle are increasingly slipping and that, had he ran today on the same program, someone like Barack Obama wouldn't be considered a left-wing starlet, but rather a moderate Republican, and I see those kinds of opinion pieces pop up in major publications nowadays. I also said that progressives treat their ideologues as idols who can do no wrong and require 24/7 worship so as to prevent them from being "smeared" online, and pointed out that the increased reliance on government guidance or support in all walks of life looks like a religion, *to me*. That caused quite a stir and I was asked to clarify which policies exactly I meant, so I provided some more context on what has changed on the left in the last 10-20 years - quite a lot, actually. I don't necessarily expect that to be productive, but I always aim to please - I wouldn't offer rides on my back otherwise.



The America doesn't have a left, that isn't news. But you mentioned Trump....



Foxi4 said:


> He was my favourite villain in a while, too.



Hybristophilia.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

smf said:


> Hybristophilia.


I wouldn't go that far.  He had his flaws, but he did forward some of my goals during his term as President, and he did it at a maximum level of funny to me, which are two big positives as far as I'm concerned. I already clarified what I meant - the precise time frame. To rephrase, the Democrats have supported strict immigration policies until Trump did - it's not that they considered his policies too harsh, rather they completely flipped their own upside-down. Again, some of it can be explained by progressivism doing what it does, but not all of it, not when the policy flips a full 180 degrees rather than evolving slowly over time. I have a distinct feeling that the visceral hatered of Trump had a direct effect on the policy pursued by his opposition. Just a feeling, but I'd love to see a paper made about It, I think it'd be an interesting read.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I wouldn't go that far.  He had his flaws, but he did forward some of my goals during his term as President, and he did it at a maximum level of funny to me, which are two big positives as far as I'm concerned. I already clarified what I meant - the precise time frame. To rephrase, the Democrats have supported strict immigration policies until Trump did - it's not that they considered his policies too harsh, rather they completely flipped their own upside-down. Again, some of it can be explained by progressivism doing what it does, but not all of it, not when the policy flips a full 180 degrees rather than evolving slowly over time. I have a distinct feeling that the visceral hatered of Trump had a direct effect on the policy pursued by his opposition. Just a feeling, but I'd love to see a paper made about It, I think it'd be an interesting read.


Thing is, there's a difference between hypocrisy and not wanting to be attached to something bad.
When Trump ran his entire campaign on racism and xenophobia, and then started pushing strict immigration policies that were blatantly done _out of racism and xenophobia, _of course Democrats would oppose it. And if they opposed it while also pushing it for significantly better reasons, vast mobs of shitheads would pile on them for alleged hypocrisy.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Either you complain about us doing the same things we call you out for doing for worse reasons, or you complain about us calling you out for something we USED to do.


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> and he did it at a maximum level of funny to me, which are two big positives as far as I'm concerned.



I guess trolling is something you enjoy in real life too?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I wouldn't go that far.  He had his flaws, but he did forward some of my goals during his term as President, and he did it at a maximum level of funny to me, which are two big positives as far as I'm concerned. I already clarified what I meant - the precise time frame. To rephrase, the Democrats have supported strict immigration policies until Trump did - it's not that they considered his policies too harsh, rather they completely flipped their own upside-down. Again, some of it can be explained by progressivism doing what it does, but not all of it, not when the policy flips a full 180 degrees rather than evolving slowly over time. I have a distinct feeling that the visceral hatered of Trump had a direct effect on the policy pursued by his opposition. Just a feeling, but I'd love to see a paper made about It, I think it'd be an interesting read.


Nothing says "maximum funny" like 476,000 COVID-19 deaths; forcibly separating young children from their parents at the border with no real plan to reunite them; and the shredding of our democratic norms through, among other things, the solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 election and claims of voter fraud.


Spoiler


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nothing says "maximum funny" like 476,000 COVID-19 deaths; forcibly separating young children from their parents at the border with no real plan to reunite them; and the shredding of our democratic norms through, among other things, the solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 election and claims of voter fraud.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Man I'm literally dying of laughter it's so damn funny, it's almost as funny as the war in the middle east


----------



## smf (Feb 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nothing says "maximum funny" like 476,000 COVID-19 deaths; forcibly separating young children from their parents at the border with no real plan to reunite them; and the shredding of our democratic norms through, among other things, the solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 election and claims of voter fraud.



Yeah, I really don't understand how someone as abhorrent as Trump can be fetishised.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 16, 2021)

djpannda said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/FordJohnathan5/status/1361793995605704707
> Rudy Giuliani is no longer working for Donald Trump as his personal attorney. According to Jason Miller he was fired by Trump.
> ... so.. Rudy and Trump broke up??
> View attachment 246921


I seem to have missed this one, and it is rather interesting. I'm not surprised Trump is cutting him off given Rudy's legal predicament right now - he may have gilded the lily a little too much.


Foxi4 said:


> (...) Van Der Veen's performance is worth every penny - he's been phenomenal. I have a feeling I know who's going to be Trump's favourite lawyer going forward


I wonder if my prediction is going to turn out correct.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I seem to have missed this one, and it is rather interesting. I'm not surprised Trump is cutting him off given Rudy's legal predicament right now - he may have gilded the lily a little too much.
> I wonder if my prediction is going to turn out correct.


Considering Trump's track record of his old Apprentice catchphrase being spammed more than an evangelical Christian homophobe spams the DARVO argument, I have a feeling that "Trump's current favorite lawyer" isn't exactly a very difficult contest.
Also, I am familiar with the idiom, but in the context of Trump (who, as previously discussed, is a beacon of purified narcissism), "gilding the lily" sounds like some kind of rich man's masturbation euphemism. Especially since he's absolutely the kind of man to waste countless dollars to do so in the most extravagant way possible.

...Holy shit, I really said that WITHOUT remembering ol' Rudolph the Red-Faced Dumbass's PRIOR controversy. You know, the one where he got caught gilding _his_ lily to some woman on recording because of a Borat prank?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Considering Trump's track record of his old Apprentice catchphrase being spammed more than an evangelical Christian homophobe spams the DARVO argument, I have a feeling that "Trump's current favorite lawyer" isn't exactly a very difficult contest.
> Also, I am familiar with the idiom, but in the context of Trump (who, as previously discussed, is a beacon of purified narcissism), "gilding the lily" sounds like some kind of rich man's masturbation euphemism. Especially since he's absolutely the kind of man to waste countless dollars to do so in the most extravagant way possible.


I believe in that case the phrase would be "polishing a mushroom", if certain reports are to be believed.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I believe in that case the phrase would be "polishing a mushroom", if certain reports are to be believed.


Ah yes, the Daniels Pamphlet.
Which also contained a devastating blow to his, erm, fortitude. ("The worst 90 seconds of [her] life". Note the number.)
That whole deal was certainly America's _funniest_ sex scandal, I must say.
(And I honestly don't know how I didn't find out about that until recently. You'd think a verbal obliteration of the President like that would gain more traction.)
Betcha it's a Mini Mushroom!


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You know I do
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one and only thing I enjoy about Biden... his quotes are more laughable than Bush junior. I thought that clown was bad, but Biden put him to shame.




I really don't think he meant to say that. It was just the Alzheimer's.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

DCarnage said:


> I really don't think he meant to say that. It was just the Alzheimer's.


I legitimately can't tell what point you're making here, but... people flub things all the time. Heck, Trump's probably done it more than Biden when it comes to the past few years. Biden's missteps are just verbal rather than text.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nothing says "maximum funny" like 476,000 COVID-19 "related" deaths
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



IMO less people on this earth = better. Yes, I can be included, I don't gaf.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

DCarnage said:


> IMO less people on this earth = better. Yes, I can be included, I don't gaf.


You're not wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump's obstinacy and negligence regarding the pandemic resulted in it becoming an overly lengthened catastrophe (we're already on year two of our three week pandemic) that resulted in nothing but the losses of hundreds of thousands of lives that he could have prevented by being _fucking rational._


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> You're not wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump's obstinacy and negligence regarding the pandemic resulted in it becoming an overly lengthened catastrophe (we're already on year two of our three week pandemic) that resulted in nothing but the losses of hundreds of thousands of lives that he could have prevented by being _fucking rational._



Who knows, maybe he's in support of depopulation and eugenics like Bill Gates or maybe he didn't want to be called racist when he tried to shut down travel from "Chyna lol".


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

DCarnage said:


> Who knows, maybe he's in support of depopulation and eugenics like Bill Gates or maybe he didn't want to be called racist when he tried to shut down travel from "Chyna lol".


Adding in the "he's an irresponsible, selfish bag of dicks" option I implied, that makes three awful possibilities.
Either he's bad, he's bad or he's bad.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

DCarnage said:


> IMO less people on this earth = better. Yes, I can be included, I don't gaf.


Are you arguing that these deaths are a good thing?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

DCarnage said:


> IMO less people on this earth = better. Yes, I can be included, I don't gaf.


That's the single edgiest comment in this thread yet, and that's coming from me.  I suppose extreme opinions come in all shapes and sizes. Please, substantiate. I'd love to hear what's the motivation behind that. My crystal ball tells me "overpopulation is bad for the planet", open gate number 3, I'm hoping to win the cruise.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's the single edgiest comment in this thread yet, and that's coming from me.  I suppose extreme opinions come in all shapes and sizes. Please, substantiate. I'd love to hear what's the motivation behind that. My crystal ball tells me "overpopulation is bad for the planet", open gate number 3, I'm hoping to win the cruise.


Technically speaking, less people would result in substantially less damage to the planet.
However, HAVING X large quantity of people and then losing them to something that could have been avoided and/or diminished with simple sane behavior is not in any way good.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 17, 2021)

imao poor Biden more people watching Trump.  that's 80 million Joe for ya 
大統領の日ということで、トランプさんとバイデンさんの人気を比較トランプさん113万回再生バイデンさん7.5万回再生トランプさん高評価8.7万バイデンさん低評価1.5万トランプさんコメント6200件バイデンさんコメントオフ pic.twitter.com/rS6fIfso84— すずぽん🔥YouTube『勝手に言いたい放題」 (@suzupon_youtube) February 16, 2021


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> "overpopulation is bad for the planet"



Bing bong, naw I had a few drinks and thought riling up Lacius' and Plasmaster09's echo chamber would be fun.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao poor Biden more people watching Trump.  that's 80 million Joe for ya
> https://twitter.com/suzupon_neet/status/1361592150966722560


Competence is boring. Train-wrecks on the other hand...


DCarnage said:


> Bing bong, naw I had a few drinks and thought riling up Lacius' and Plasmaster09's echo chamber would be fun.


So you hopped into the thread for the sole purpose of trolling people, also solely because you disagreed with their ideas and thus considered the _novel concept _of multiple people disagreeing with you in unison a form of echo chamber.
Such absolutely delightful contribution.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao poor Biden more people watching Trump.  that's 80 million Joe for ya


In all fairness, watching Joe is fascinating, he has great stories and great flubs. I don't mean it ironically either, his story about kids climbing his hairy legs had me in stitches, and his mumbling makes it all even better. Comedy being my chief life pursuit, if this presidency doesn't pan out well for America, it will at least be funny, which is all I could really hope for.


DCarnage said:


> Bing bong, naw I had a few drinks and thought riling up Lacius' and Plasmaster09's echo chamber would be fun.


Dang it, I was counting my chickes before they hatched. No surprise cruise for me this year, but I'll get it right next time.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2021)

Trolling, no. I fully believe in what I said. Less people = better. I do laugh at your Trump derangement syndrome. He's out, do you not have anything better to talk about?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, watching Joe is fascinating, he has great stories and great flubs. I don't mean it ironically either, his story about kids climbing his hairy legs had me in stitches, and his mumbling makes it all even better. Comedy being my chief life pursuit, if this presidency doesn't pan out well for America, it will at least be funny, which is all I could really hope for.
> Dang it, I was counting my chickes before they hatched. No surprise cruise for me thus year, but I'll get it right next time.


Fair point. Plus, for those that don't like full-blown cringe comedy, Biden's comedy of small errors is a nice substitution. I'm not a fan of it myself (something to do with how I process things and empathy and whatnot results in it being downright painful to watch), but Trump is such a human catastrophe that he crosses the line twice over and becomes funny again- but I can see why Biden would be amusing to watch.


DCarnage said:


> Trolling, no. I fully believe in what I said. Less people = better. I do laugh at your Trump derangement syndrome. He's out, do you not have anything better to talk about?


Ah yes, TDS. A Trumper's favorite snarl word for when they've run out of 'arguments'. Just because Trump is out doesn't mean he's done or that we're done with him- I personally am not done with him until he's rotting in jail or has at least been prevented from running for any government position. Plus, we have to acknowledge the shameful past and use it to move forward- oh wait, Trump didn't want to do that either considering his 1776 Commission plan to forcibly re-whitewash history.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2021)

C'mon, use big words to be condescending to others.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

DCarnage said:


> C'mon, use big words to be condescending to others.


At your sarcastic behest, I'll use small words for once.
Your argument is pointless, your ideas are braindead, your trolling is pathetic and your efforts to distract me are just plain stupid.
There. Was the vocab simple enough?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

Now, now, kids - keep it clean in here, no fighting. I can ignore rides on Papa Foxi's back (although I do plan on sending receipts, I did say it's $5), I can't ignore members slinging insults - no need for that. Same with trolling - one cheeky quip once in a while to add some levity? Fine. Just don't make it a habit. Let's cut this one short before it turns into a fight.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 17, 2021)

DCarnage said:


> Trolling, no. I fully believe in what I said. Less people = better. I do laugh at your Trump derangement syndrome. He's out, do you not have anything better to talk about?



TDS. An insult so lame it makes themselves sound bad. lol. Morons can't even get an insult right. Edit: Just like the "Grandpa/Sleepy Joe" lines, when he's less than 4 yrs older than Trump. Smfh.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Now, now, kids - keep it clean in here, no fighting. I can ignore rides on Papa Foxi's back (although I do plan on sending receipts, I did say it's $5), I can't ignore members slinging insults - no need for that. Same with trolling - one cheeky quip once in a while to add some levity? Fine. Just don't make it a habit. Let's cut this one short before it turns into a fight.


Just thought of a cheeky quip (or more accurately, a cheeky descriptor of Trump): Voter Freud.


Spoiler



Inverted Oedipus complex ("I'd fuck my daughter if she wasn't my daughter") plus a knack for projecting.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 17, 2021)

Trump took everything about the border, including ICE, and made it worse. On top of trying to get rid of DACA. As for "open borders", I haven't seen any actual movement for this. In fact, the times I seen that statement the most, is from the people complaining about it. Not that it matters. Anything short of actually making an union like the EU, it is not going to happen.

ACA would have been a full on public option, if it didn't get blocked. Not that I don't see a problem of wanting better healthcare.

The whole country is slowly reversing their thoughts on the war on drugs. This isn't a bad thing either. While "defund the police" is a bad phase, no matter what people actually mean by that, reform needs to happen.

As for guns, not every gun owner is the same. Some want better gun laws for example.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Trump took everything about the border, including ICE, and made it worse. On top of trying to get rid of DACA. As for "open borders", I haven't seen any actual movement for this. In fact, the times I seen that statement the most, is from the people complaining about it. Not that it matters. Anything short of actually making an union like the EU, it is not going to happen.
> 
> ACA would have been a full on public option, if it didn't get blocked. Not that I don't see a problem of wanting better healthcare.
> 
> ...


I'd say defunding the police isn't a good option... in the _long-term._
Perhaps "reform the police" would be a better way to put it. Employ far greater requirements to actually become a police officer (as of now, you aren't required to have spent as time training as you do to become a _barber_ IIRC, which is just not okay), emphasize non-violent conflict resolution more, and until said reform has been shown to work, _don't provide them with as much funding and weapons._
It's like a child having their allowance revoked until they learn to use it better because the thing they used it for was crack cocaine.

On an unrelated note:
Me, in a pattern of getting annoyed at the troll-of-the-week but simultaneously invigorated since this thread is somehow the most genuinely worthwhile and fruitful political discussion I've had in a while:


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Trump took everything about the border, including ICE, and made it worse. On top of trying to get rid of DACA. As for "open borders", I haven't seen any actual movement for this. In fact, the times I seen that statement the most, is from the people complaining about it. Not that it matters. Anything short of actually making an union like the EU, it is not going to happen.
> 
> ACA would have been a full on public option, if it didn't get blocked. Not that I don't see a problem of wanting better healthcare.
> 
> ...


I'm quite happy with widespread decriminalisation of drug possession, in fact, I can see it as a potential economic boom on the horizon, and the stock market agrees given the sheer amount of "weed stonks" available these days and their year-to-year performance. I think legal drugs subject to FDA approval would not only reduce the levels of gang violence, which is often linked with back alley drug deals going sideways, it would also make the whole thing safer for users. Laced drugs are not uncommon since the number one priority for the average dealer is to have large volume of cheap and  highly addictive drugs - safety is on the back burner. We've learned this lesson during prohibition and immediately forgot. People are going to indulge in these kinds of vices regardless, the best thing a government can do is ensure that it's safe without leaving a void ready to be filled in by organised crime.

In terms of gun control, there are certain regulations that I would like to see implemented and others that should be rescinded - far too many to even list without a dedicated thread just about gun control. There's a lot of focus put on the tool and not a lot on the person holding it. Progressively gimping the hammer doesn't fix the problem of guys running around bludgeoning people, you're only hurting the ones who don't and just need to hammer some nails in.

In regards to the border, some degree of physical barriers in areas that border patrol can't monitor effectively makes perfect sense - illegal immigration shouldn't be the default mode of entering the country for the "downtrodden". On the flip side, I think that getting citizenship the legal way should be fairly simple and straightforward, and right now it's not - it can take years to get it done, in no small part due to poor communication between the US and its neighbours. Deportation I won't even touch with a long stick - it's always rough regardless of how you do it, but the way I see it, actions have consequences - entering the country illegally is, as the name implies, illegal. I don't see why we should forget that part.

In terms of police reform, I don't think defunding the police is the answer - more proactive policing is. The number of police officers shouldn't decrease, it should increase, but at the same time there's no reason why they should be getting increasingly large amounts of military-grade gear. It's another chestnut with no clear answers in sight.

In terms of universal healthcare, I'm not a fan - I should know, I've lived under two of those systems and I'm yet to decide which one was worse. I see the merit in a limited public option for those who simply can't afford the alternative, but overall I'm leaning towards a free market solution occasionally refunding some treatments as opposed to the opposite - a heavily regulated public option with occasional private elective procedures. I don't think the current setup can be "fixed" or reformed, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch. A lot of the issues don't start at the hospital's threshold, they start in the insurance companies which operate at ridiculous profit margins without offering competitive service. If I were to reform things, I'd start with regulating them, not healthcare providers.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

DCarnage said:


> I really don't think he meant to say that. It was just the Alzheimer's.



The past 4 years have not been nice to this dude (coincidentally while Trump was in office). Perhaps he is not getting his "fix".


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The past 4 years have not been nice to this dude (coincidentally while Trump was in office). Perhaps he is not getting his "fix".
> 
> View attachment 246959
> 
> View attachment 246960


If I had to spend four years watching in abject horror as a narcissistic clown-manchild tore down everything my former boss and campaign partner spent his term doing, I'd probably look like an "After" photo as well.


Foxi4 said:


> I'm quite happy with widespread decriminalisation of drug possession, in fact, I can see it as a potential economic boom on the horizon, and the stock market agrees given the sheer amount of "weed stonks" available these days and their year-to-year performance. I think legal drugs subject to FDA approval would not only reduce the levels of gang violence, which is often linked with back alley drug deals going sideways, it would also make the whole thing safer for users. Laced drugs are not uncommon since the number one priority for the average dealer is to have large volume of cheap and  highly addictive drugs - safety is on the back burner. We've learned this lesson during prohibition and immediately forgot. People are going to indulge in these kinds of vices regardless, the best thing a government can do is ensure that it's safe without leaving a void ready to be filled in by organised crime.
> 
> In terms of gun control, there are certain regulations that I would like to see implemented and others that should be rescinded - far too many to even list without a dedicated thread just about gun control. There's a lot of focus put on the tool and not a lot on the person holding it. Progressively gimping the hammer doesn't fix the problem of guys running around bludgeoning people, you're only hurting the ones who don't and just need to hammer some nails in.
> 
> ...


So, here's my POV on this. There's actually a lot to glean here as well as plenty of points I can find common ground with (or at least understand the logic behind), so I'm just going to comment and state my point rather than systematically tearing it down.
Drugs: Yeah, not wrong. Drug use is going to happen regardless, because of whichever elements from the list of [rebellious urges, idiocy, peer pressure] happen to be available at the moment. Basically all attempts at preventing it, including both the War on Drugs and its remnants in things like the DARE/LEAD program, have failed miserably- so the only real solution is to make sure that the drugs that inevitably get used are as close to harmless as possible.
Guns: Fair. Personal defense is sometimes necessary, and pretty much the only situation in which nobody would need a gun for self-defense is one in which we've already hit optimal or even utopian 'murica, which is nigh impossible due to various flaws inherent with humanity. Preventing general use of weaponry is IMO essentially a band-aid, in that it's a lot easier to pass and handle than it would be to systematically set up some sort of good-faith or mental-soundness requirement.
Walls: Also fair. Illegal immigration shouldn't happen nearly as much as it does- but legal immigration also shouldn't require nearly as much hoop-jumping. The best-case scenario would be one where illegal immigration is nigh nonexistent... because legal immigration is so quick and easy that there's no reason. It's similar to the "allow safe and controlled drugs instead of unsafe and unknown ones" thing mentioned above, but less tied to irrepressible vice and more to human rights.
Cops: Also also fair. (Huh, turns out there's a lot we agree upon. Considering neither of us are all that extreme at the end of the day, I guess this is some kind of corollary to the horseshoe effect.) Defunding the police would be yet another band-aid, as a way of preventing mass law-enforcement bullshittery while the reforming is going on. However, there's probably better band-aids.
Lives: Hm. I don't really know what to say. On one hand, American healthcare is a crumbling disaster, and really does warrant being rebuilt from the ground up. On the other hand, _if it is plausible to accomplish _(which it likely is, considering the other countries that have pulled it off), universal healthcare ain't that bad. This is the one point where we can agree to disagree- it's my firm opinion that survival shouldn't come with microtransactions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> If I had to spend four years watching in abject horror as a narcissistic clown-manchild tore down everything my former boss and campaign partner spent his term doing, I'd probably look like an "After" photo as well.


In all fairness, when you reach a certain age, you start deteriorating faster. Not only that, presidents always look harrowed after a campaign, worse yet after a full term - I swear, it ages a person by 10-20 years. Apparently it's a well-known effect of being in positions of power and extreme responsibility - heavy weighs the crown.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 17, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> TDS. An insult so lame it makes themselves sound bad. lol. Morons can't even get an insult right. Edit: Just like the "Grandpa/Sleepy Joe" lines, when he's less than 4 yrs older than Trump. Smfh.



You can be 25 but act like an old man


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 17, 2021)

SG854 said:


> You can be 25 but act like an old man



You can be 21 and act like a 5 year old.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 17, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You can be 21 and act like a 5 year old.


Yes

Or be Trump and act like a 5 year old.


Trump is the child, Biden is the Old Man


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

So... The presidential town hall. That sure was something.


> Asked about his call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, President Biden said that the US *"must speak up on human rights"* and that there will *"be repercussions for China"* over human rights abuses.
> 
> "*There will be repercussions* for China and [Xi Jinping] knows that," Biden said
> 
> ...


Now, I must admit, I have no idea what his actual position is based on that snippet. Here's what I gathered:

There will be repercussions and Xi knows this
These repercussions will come about by means of the US asserting a dominant position in the UN etc.
China's activity in Hong Kong, Taiwan and in regards to Uyghur muslims is contrary to basic human rights
This is okay because different countries have different cultural norms and thus... different... human rights...?
This is a bad thing... so we're not going to talk about it...?
Joe Biden shouldn't be talking about China in short TV segments.
I partially agree. Joe Biden shouldn't be talking about his policy in regards to China, he should have someone write it down somewhere on his behalf, because that word salad just dismissed mass genocide and concentration camps with a hand wave. A quick primer, the Chinese government thought it prudent to limit births among Uyghur muslims by deploying forced sterilisation and abortion, in addition to routinely rounding them up in "re-education camps". We're not going to talk about that though because, as the biggest superpower on the planet, we must instead assert our position in the UN and... provide a good example... by not committing ethnic cleansing? Am I getting that right?


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 17, 2021)

can't believe i went away right before actual responses started rolling out
and now there's a small novel built up, fuck

trump vs mcconnell, kill kill kill
take him out
orange man hero


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, when you reach a certain age, you start deteriorating faster. Not only that, presidents always look harrowed after a campaign, worse yet after a full term - I swear, it ages a person by 10-20 years. Apparently it's a well-known effect of being in positions of power and extreme responsibility - heavy weighs the crown.
> 
> View attachment 246968


Weirdly enough, Trump left the position looking basically the same as when he entered it- likely due to the fact that he pretty much doesn't even know the meaning of responsibility in the first place and refuses to hold any.


Foxi4 said:


> So... The presidential town hall. That sure was something.
> Now, I must admit, I have no idea what his actual position is based on that snippet. Here's what I gathered:
> 
> There will be repercussions and Xi knows this
> ...


I... hmm. I agree that he really shouldn't have said it like this, because I'm having trouble figuring out what he means either.
However, I do have a hypothesis: Biden is, as any sane human would be, sick of China's despicable bullshit, and plans to provide consequences for it. However, said consequences are less "alrighty, _it's war o'clock_" and more "sorry, we don't deal with you anymore for what you've done", which would basically put a dent in China's overall economy. Yes, I really am suggesting that his plan is to basically cancel China. I think it's pretty stupid, but as long as his idea is to actually give China serious consequences for all the horrible shit they've done, I'm all for it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Weirdly enough, Trump left the position looking basically the same as when he entered it- likely due to the fact that he pretty much doesn't even know the meaning of responsibility in the first place and refuses to hold any.
> 
> I... hmm. I agree that he really shouldn't have said it like this, because I'm having trouble figuring out what he means either.
> However, I do have a hypothesis: Biden is, as any sane human would be, sick of China's despicable bullshit, and plans to provide consequences for it. However, said consequences are less "alrighty, _it's war o'clock_" and more "sorry, we don't deal with you anymore for what you've done", which would basically put a dent in China's overall economy. Yes, I really am suggesting that his plan is to basically cancel China. I think it's pretty stupid, but as long as his idea is to actually give China serious consequences for all the horrible shit they've done, I'm all for it.


At this stage the United Nations is a bit of a joke. The purpose of the organisation is to maintain peace and enforce its own charter among the member states. China, along with any other state in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should either have their membership and/or its benefits suspended/revoked - we're putting foxes in charge of the hen house. I mean, for God's sake, China's on the Human Rights Council. The United States should probably *say* something about that, that's not a "forceful change". I see what you mean, but I don't like the way he phrased this.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 17, 2021)

ahahahahaha
omg 😭 pic.twitter.com/Dd2zi1xwoo— low tier troll account. (@faketitojohnsON) February 17, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> ahahahahaha
> https://twitter.com/faketitojohnsON/status/1361885097935450113


It's disappointing, but it's not because he doesn't want to. He doesn't think he can with an executive order, and he might be right. I'd still at least try, but again, he probably can't do it via executive order. He also still plans on using an executive order to forgive some debt.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's disappointing, but it's not because he doesn't want to. He doesn't think he can with an executive order, and he might be right. I'd still at least try, but again, he probably can't do it via executive order. He also still plans on using an executive order to forgive some debt.



Why is it disappointing. Why is debt through ones own choices being 'forgiven' am I allowed to rack up $15,000 in gambling debts and have it forgiven. No that would be my own stupid decisions and I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it. Imagine voluntarily attending elite institutions and expecting it to be free, or even worse, expecting people who chose to work hard to pay off your debt. Liberal privilege at its finest.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> At this stage the United Nations is a bit of a joke. The purpose of the organisation is to maintain peace and enforce its own charter among the member states. China, along with any other state in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should either have their membership and/or its benefits suspended/revoked - we're putting foxes in charge of the hen house. I mean, for God's sake, China's on the Human Rights Council. The United States should probably *say* something about that, that's not a "forceful change". I see what you mean, but I don't like the way he phrased this.


Believe me, I don't like how he phrased it either.
Problem is, no matter how objectively and bipartisan-visibly _*awful*_ China is, if even the UN can't tell them to cut the crap then any given individual nation (like the US) can't exactly stop them without risking a flat out war.
Pity, but the best we can do is to say something about that- which it does at least seem like Biden plans to do (or at least SOMETHING to draw attention to how fucked up China's shit is and that they need to stop).


shamzie said:


> Why is it disappointing. Why is debt through ones own choices being 'forgiven' am I allowed to rack up $15,000 in gambling debts and have it forgiven. No that would be my own stupid decisions and I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it. Imagine voluntarily attending elite institutions and expecting it to be free, or even worse, expecting people who chose to work hard to pay off your debt. Liberal privilege at its finest.


_Going to college_ isn't an "elite institution". If you can seriously argue that having a full college education without going into debt for life is an elite institution, that's a _problem._ This kind of snobby, apathetic garbage take reminds me of something I once read:
"Repeat after me.
Must not be operated for profit:
1) Healthcare.
2) Prisons.
3) Education.
Operation for profit and thus abuse of these corresponds one-to-one with violating "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in that order."
Student loans aren't gambling debts, they're scummy, exploitative fees attached to the *basic human right* that is education for the sole purpose of squeezing the life and money out of innocent students.
The fact that having to take out a huge loan just to get a good education is even a thing that happens to people is already an atrocity.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Why is it disappointing. Why is debt through ones own choices being 'forgiven' am I allowed to rack up $15,000 in gambling debts and have it forgiven. No that would be my own stupid decisions and I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it. Imagine voluntarily attending elite institutions and expecting it to be free, or even worse, expecting people who chose to work hard to pay off your debt. Liberal privilege at its finest.


Forgiving student loan debt is moral and will stimulate the economy. There's no reason not to do it.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Why is it disappointing. Why is debt through ones own choices being 'forgiven' am I allowed to rack up $15,000 in gambling debts and have it forgiven. No that would be my own stupid decisions and I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it. Imagine voluntarily attending elite institutions and expecting it to be free, or even worse, expecting people who chose to work hard to pay off your debt. Liberal privilege at its finest.


yah just Image you had a Horrible accident by no fault of your own and have no insurance . the hospital bills you a half a million dollars ... or worse refused to preform the surgery because they claim your stable.. and you need to pay 25% up front before they see you...
oh. wait your from England you don't have that problem .... please keep taking about *Socialist Liberal privilege*


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Forgiving student loan debt is moral and will stimulate the economy. There's no reason not to do it.



 Not getting yourself into debt and expecting to be bailed out is the moral thing to do. Willingly getting yourself into debt and expecting to not pay anything back is nothing but pure privilege.




djpannda said:


> yah just Image you had a Horrible accident by no fault of your own and have no insurance . the hospital bills you a half a million dollars ... or worse refused to preform the surgery because they claim your stable.. and you need to pay 25% up front before they see you...
> oh. wait your from England you don't have that problem .... please keep taking about *Socialist Liberal privilege*



Wtf are you even blathering on about. What's an accident got to do with willfully getting yourself into debt via universities or colleges. There's loads of people in debt in England through university. The NHS is nationalised not socialist/liberal. It's free AT THE POINT OF USE. Don't speak on things you know nothing about.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Not getting yourself into debt and expecting to be bailed out is the moral thing to do. Willingly getting yourself into debt and expecting to not pay anything back is nothing but pure privilege.


Erm, what?
Plenty of people don't have a fucking choice.
It's either go into student loan debt or *don't get a full education.*
Everyone deserves a full education. This is not an opinion. Education is a basic fucking human right, and locking it behind a paywall is an atrocity.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Erm, what?
> Plenty of people don't have a fucking choice.
> It's either go into student loan debt or *don't get a full education.*
> Everyone deserves a full education. This is not an opinion. Education is a basic fucking human right, and locking it behind a paywall is an atrocity.



Everybody deserves an education. You get one too the age of 18. If you want further education you pay for it. I don't pay for it, you pay for it.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Not getting yourself into debt and expecting to be bailed out is the moral thing to do. Willingly getting yourself into debt and expecting to not pay anything back is nothing but pure privilege.





shamzie said:


> Everybody deserves an education. You get one too the age of 18. If you want further education you pay for it. I don't pay for it, you pay for it.


enjoying Universal Healthcare, while saying  Socialist Liberal programs are bad... that is the definition of *"Pure Privilege"*


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Everybody deserves an education. You get one too the age of 18. If you want further education you pay for it. I don't pay for it, you pay for it.


What you mean by "further education" is just... the remainder of a full education. Due to still being a basic human right, it should not require payment, let alone enough to warrant taking out a loan. End of story.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

djpannda said:


> enjoying Universal Healthcare, while saying  Socialist Liberal programs are bad... that is the definition of *"Pure Privilege"*



It's not universal healthcare. It's free at the point of use. I don't understand what you're struggling to understand. There's also private healthcare companies available. We're all taxed for this. I'm not taxed to pay for somebody VOLUNTARILY attending a university. They're choosing to get themselves into debt. Why are you comparing a hospital to a university. Your argument is weak. Why stop there? Lets just make everything free (obviously It's not free, what you mean is charge the rich more)


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> It's not universal healthcare. It's free at the point of use. I don't understand what you're struggling to understand. There's also private healthcare companies available. We're all taxed for this. I'm not taxed to pay for somebody VOLUNTARILY attending a university. They're choosing to get themselves into debt. Why are you comparing a hospital to a university. Your argument is weak. Why stop there? Lets just make everything free (obviously It's not free, what you mean is charge the rich more)


oh ..you are claiming that its ok for you to have it but not anyone else??? ..


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> It's not universal healthcare. It's free at the point of use. I don't understand what you're struggling to understand. There's also private healthcare companies available. We're all taxed for this. I'm not taxed to pay for somebody VOLUNTARILY attending a university. They're choosing to get themselves into debt. Why are you comparing a hospital to a university. Your argument is weak. Why stop there? Lets just make everything free (obviously It's not free, what you mean is charge the rich more)


first off, you keep acting like going to a university is something that actually makes sense to lock behind wealth
it does not
wealth should not determine access to education
ngl the US should switch to Finland's system- ban all for-profit education entirely
it's shown to have succeeded wonderfully, mostly because the rich are forced to actually help fund public schools so that their kids get a good education
second off, charging the rich more is a good thing
WHO THE FUCK ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO CHARGE


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> It's not universal healthcare. It's free at the point of use.


you do know Universal Healthcare means that Basic care is not charged... it does not mean everything is covered... just the Basics like ...stuff to keep you alive.....


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

djpannda said:


> oh ..you are claiming that its ok for you to have it but not anyone else??? ..



I'm beginning to think you can't read. ITS NOT FREE. There's plenty of things you can do as an American I can't do but you're just being purposefully facetious at this point. If you want socialised healthcare there's plenty of countries you're welcome to move to who fulfill this. It's not free though, come to England, start paying your national insurance.

Again you conflated two issues which have absolutely no bearing on each other. One is voluntary debt, the other is life saving (free at the point of use) you're comparing somebody getting life saving treatment in an emergency to GOING TO UNIVERSITY FOR $10,000 and expecting to pay nothing. CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE. Also you're American, you won the birth lottery, stop talking down to a lowly non American pleb with all your American privilege. CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE.




Plasmaster09 said:


> first off, you keep acting like going to a university is something that actually makes sense to lock behind wealth
> it does not
> wealth should not determine access to education
> ngl the US should switch to Finland's system- ban all for-profit education entirely
> ...



You're welcome to break the system, you're obviously educated yourself. Why don't you dedicate the remainder of your time and effort into doing online classes until you can open a class irl after the Pandemic. Your time and effort is free though, I look forward to attending your classes and paying nothing.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> I'm beginning to think you can't read. ITS NOT FREE. There's plenty of things you can do as an American I can't do but you're just being purposefully facetious at this point. If you want socialised healthcare there's plenty of countries you're welcome to move to who fulfill this. It's not free though, come to England, start paying your national insurance.
> 
> Again you conflated two issues which have absolutely no bearing on each other. One is voluntary debt, the other is life saving (free at the point of use) you're comparing somebody getting life saving treatment in an emergency to GOING TO UNIVERSITY FOR $10,000 and expecting to pay nothing. CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE. Also you're American, you won the birth lottery, stop talking down to a lowly non american pleb with all your American privilege. CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE.


>going to university for $10,000
that is the problem though
the only reason student loans exist is so that the fucked-up education system can claim it's giving everyone access to itself while really just draining shittons of money from people and preventing them from having a decent life after higher education... all because they were given free rein to ramp prices up that high in the first place
we need the finnish system
as long as basic higher education costs exorbitant amounts of money, greedy universities will be able to drain students' money with no real consequences and lock out anyone that DOESN'T want to go into nigh-life-debt



shamzie said:


> You're welcome to break the system, you're obviously educated yourself. Why don't you dedicate the remainder of your time and effort into doing online classes until you can open a class irl after the Pandemic. Your time and effort is free though, I look forward to attending your classes and paying nothing.


you do understand how government funding works, right?
non-profit public schooling isn't funded by random parents, it's funded with tax dollars
students should not have to pay to have a basic full education, and if for-profit education is banned, they won't have to
finland did amazingly with it, the only things stopping the US from doing so are a) greed and b) petty and apathetic dickery from people like you that think people deserve to suffer for not being born rich enough

america's education system is such a botched mess that the only real solution is to completely invert it into the finnish system I mentioned
read about it here: https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...gnoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
tl;dr (still a paragraph but whatever): finland was once in a position where their school system desperately needed a reboot
instead of excellence, they focused on equity
instead of competition, they focused on cooperation
the result was a school system in which everyone is given equal-opportunity education, schools are made healthy, physically and mentally safe environments devoid of over-competitive stress, schools don't jerk themselves off to standardized test scores because _there are none, _public schools are given the funding they deserve due to being literally the only option, teachers and administrators are actually given the recognition and pay they deserve as well as the responsibility it warrants...
and the result of all of this?
ironically, despite a lack of focus on academic excellence, that turned out to be a thing that the finnish system just kind of _passively generated_ because EVERYONE was given the tools and environment necessary to achieve it _at their own pace and of their own volition_


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> I'm beginning to think you can't read. ITS NOT FREE. There's plenty of things you can do as an American I can't do but you're just being purposefully facetious at this point. If you want socialised healthcare there's plenty of countries you're welcome to move to who fulfill this. It's not free though, come to England, start paying your national insurance.
> 
> Again you conflated two issues which have absolutely no bearing on each other. One is voluntary debt, the other is life saving (free at the point of use) you're comparing somebody getting life saving treatment in an emergency to GOING TO UNIVERSITY FOR $10,000 and expecting to pay nothing. CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE. Also you're American, you won the birth lottery, stop talking down to a lowly non american pleb with all your american privilege. CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE.


 .   socialist Liberal programs for you are ok  ..but not for anyone else...
Its funny you squirming  trying to demonize your own country's Liberal programs that you enjoy..
Universal Healthcare is not free in any country in the world... Taxes and Government Budget pay for it. .. *You know This *yet you want to Continue to portray the American Conservative narrative that Demonizes programs for Common people.. all while enjoying the same programs


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

djpannda said:


> .   socialist Liberal programs for you are ok  ..but not for anyone else...
> Its funny you squirming  trying to demonize your own country's Liberal programs that you enjoy..
> Universal Healthcare is not free in any country in the world... Taxes and Government Budget pay for it. .. *You know This *yet you want to Continue to portray the American Conservative narrative that Demonizes programs for Common people.. all while enjoying the same programs



It's nationalised, not socialised. Am I okay paying for national insurance so people don't die? Yes. Am I okay being taxed so children can get an education upto the age of 16. Yes. Am I okay to pay for you to go to college and university at 18 or older? No, get a job and pay for it yourself. Nothing you say surprises me. "I DESERVE FREE EDUCATION EVEN THOUGH IM AN ADULT" Not once have you assessed this point. All you do is change the subject to health care. Healthcare and University isn't the same thing so im not surprised you strawman this to try and act like you've got a decent argument when you don't. If you wanted UHC you'd move to the UK. Start paying your National Insurance. You have the ability to do so. You'd STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR UNIVERSITY THOUGH. Hopefully now you realise your argument is stupid asf at best.

Just went to Mcdonalds, imagine my shock when I had to pay. Here I was thinking I lived in a socialised utopia, I deserve food, I need to eat to live, why is this basic necessity not free. shocked I was.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> It's nationalised, not socialised. Am I okay paying for national insurance so people don't die? Yes.


....oh you Agee with socialist programs as long as I call it Nationalized?..cool I guess the world needs Nationalized Healthcare .. *but you know for everyone in the world...*....


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> america's education system is such a botched mess that the only real solution is to completely invert it into the finnish system I mentioned
> read about it here: https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...gnoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
> tl;dr (still a paragraph but whatever): finland was once in a position where their school system desperately needed a reboot
> instead of excellence, they focused on equity
> ...



Glad you mentioned Finland. Finland Isn't America. Finland has a population of 5,500,000. America has a population of 328,000,000

Finland=America. No.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47496326

This Finland? The Finland who's government resigned over their failed healthcare reforms?

Or maybe you mean the Finland that trialed Universal Basic Income for 2 years and scrapped it because they couldn't afford it. Yeah Finland is great.



djpannda said:


> ....oh you Agee with socialist programs as long as I call it Nationalized?..cool I guess the world needs Nationalized Healthcare .. *but you know for everyone in the world...*....



You're blind thick or both. I agree with nationalised healthcare so people don't die. I don't agree with you voluntarily being a jobless lazy clown who gets himself into thousands and thousands of debt and then expect tax payers to foot the bill. Get a job pay for your own shit.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Not getting yourself into debt and expecting to be bailed out is the moral thing to do. Willingly getting yourself into debt and expecting to not pay anything back is nothing but pure privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think I said anything about people getting into debt and expecting to be bailed out, nor did I say anything about people willingly getting into debt and expecting to not pay anything back. Please try again without being disingenuous. Thank you.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Glad you mentioned Finland. Finland Isn't America. Finland has a population of 5,500,000. America has a population of 328,000,000
> 
> Finland=America. No.
> 
> ...


The article I linked straight up says that Finland may have noticeable differences from America, but notes that the similarities between the two mean that the plan would still likely work.
Oh, wait. You probably didn't bother reading it.
Also... you really don't understand, do you?
The people buried in student loan debt aren't "jobless lazy clowns", that's just shitty victim-blaming. They're just as hard-working as everyone else, but aren't lucky enough to have had enough wealth naturally to obtain what people in other countries get for free as they rightly should.
It makes no sense that someone should have to either drown in debt or overwork themselves before they turn twenty in order to afford higher education.
People shouldn't HAVE to get themselves into thousands of dollars in debt in the first place for a basic human right.
Student loan debts deserve to be forgiven because student loans shouldn't exist in the first place because *basic education SHOULD NOT COST A FUCKING CENT.*


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> The article I linked straight up says that Finland may have noticeable differences from America, but notes that the similarities between the two mean that the plan would still likely work.
> Oh, wait. You probably didn't bother reading it.
> Also... you really don't understand, do you?
> People shouldn't HAVE to get themselves into thousands of dollars in debt in the first place for a basic human right.
> Student loan debts deserve to be forgiven because student loans shouldn't exist in the first place because *basic education SHOULD NOT COST A FUCKING CENT.*



You're given a fucking basic education too the age of 18. What you really mean is "GIVE ME FREE STUFF FOREVER"


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> You're given a fucking basic education too the age of 18. What you really mean is "GIVE ME FREE STUFF FOREVER"


That's not what I said and you know it- you're just throwing straw-men at my argument in hopes something sticks. It won't.
I assume your Swiss-cheese sentence was meant to say "*until* the age of 18", in which case... that isn't enough. College, university, whatever... That. Should. Be. Free.
Nobody stays in college forever.
I'm not asking for forever.
I am asking for a basic human right to be freely provided as it should.
Not 75% of it, not "all of it minus the last chunk", *all of it.*
Education is a right, not a privilege. Check your fucking privilege and accept that everyone deserves to have it as a right.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> That's not what I said and you know it- you're just throwing straw-men at my argument in hopes something sticks. It won't.
> I assume your Swiss-cheese sentence was meant to say "*until* the age of 18", in which case... that isn't enough. College, university, whatever... That. Should. Be. Free.
> Nobody stays in college forever.
> I'm not asking for forever.
> ...



If being educated from 5-18 isn't enough then that's you and your countries problem. Because being educated to 16 is enough in the UK, 16 is enough in Europe. 15 is enough in India, so maybe you're the problem. You're given a free education upto the age you become an adult at 18.

80year old Jimmy who's worked his whole life is happy to pay for your child to get educated upto the age of 18 and join society as any rational person is. 80year old Jimmy might start to feel aggrieved if your child chooses to stay in education and Jimmy is on the hook for it though. Why should Jimmy pay for another adult to carry on getting educated. He's already paid for the last 10 years.  You're educated, you're given your right. If you want further education you're welcome to pay for it, don't put your wants on somebody else. Jimmy's worked his whole life but is on the hook for your lazy son, fuck no. Everything you suggest is the height of selfishness.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> If being educated from 5-18 isn't enough then that's you and your countries problem. Because being educated to 16 is enough in the UK, 16 is enough in Europe. 15 is enough in India, so maybe you're the problem. You're given a free education upto the age you become an adult at 18.
> 
> 80year old Jimmy who's worked his whole life is happy to pay for your child to get educated upto the age of 18 and join society as any rational person is. 80year old Jimmy might start to feel aggrieved if your child chooses to stay in education and Jimmy is on the hook for it though. Why should Jimmy pay for another adult to carry on getting educated. He's already paid for the last 10 years.  You're educated, you're given your right. If you want further education you're welcome to pay for it, don't put your wants on somebody else. Jimmy's worked his whole life but is on the hook for your lazy son, fuck no. Everything you suggest is the height of selfishness.


You're suggesting people drown in possibly lifelong debt for basic higher education, and blaming them for it and calling them lazy instead of showing the slightest microscopic shred of empathy, all because you don't want a single cent of your money going into helping someone else achieve a basic human right to its fullest extent. That's practically the _*DEFINITION *_of selfishness.
In your horribly distorted analogy, Jimmy probably wouldn't care. You know why? Because he doesn't know or care where each individual cent of his tax dollars go to begin with. Heck, he'd probably be happy that the money goes into helping those that desperately need it instead of something less worthwhile, like a massive oil pipeline that would wreak massive havoc on the climate.
And as I've said, the best solution isn't even just waiving student loan debts.
The best solution is obliterating the avaricious, for-profit atrocity of a school system that creates them in the first place.
There, no more student loan debts to get "selfishly" forgiven. In fact, no more student loan debts, no more student loans... *no more scummy, paywalled private education!*
But no. You don't want that either, even though the one nation that's had the balls and the morals to try it has succeeded with flying colors.
You want people to take what they've got and suffer.
You want the rich to stay rich and the poor to go fuck themselves into flipping burgers or something.
You want basic human rights to remain absent from the lower class, because otherwise one of your precious, freshly-pinched pennies might go to helping another human being that won't pay you back for it later.
You want a nation where everyone is for themselves, but you lack the rational thinking to realize that you would be completely and utterly fucked in that nation, quite possibly MORE than the rest of us- because if you're too lazy to have a grain of altruism, you're too lazy to succeed in a world devoid thereof.
People needing help or money to obtain things as simple as higher education is not lazy, nor is it selfish.
People like you, who would deliberately refuse to lift a finger to HELP them when they are in need of it, and instead engage in victim-blaming, mockery and general derision of those in desperate need of assistance while you jack yourself off over that pile of should-be-rights you got LUCKY enough to be able to afford... are the purest form of selfish.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> So, here's my POV on this. There's actually a lot to glean here as well as plenty of points I can find common ground with (or at least understand the logic behind), so I'm just going to comment and state my point rather than systematically tearing it down. (Huh, turns out there's a lot we agree upon. Considering neither of us are all that extreme at the end of the day, I guess this is some kind of corollary to the horseshoe effect.)


Better than him randomly saying things such as "leftism is a religion".



Plasmaster09 said:


> Lives: Hm. I don't really know what to say. On one hand, American healthcare is a crumbling disaster, and really does warrant being rebuilt from the ground up. On the other hand, _if it is plausible to accomplish _(which it likely is, considering the other countries that have pulled it off), universal healthcare ain't that bad. This is the one point where we can agree to disagree- it's my firm opinion that survival shouldn't come with microtransactions.


Yeah, having everyone covered will always beat being overly expensive and still not covering everyone.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> If being educated from 5-18 isn't enough then that's you and your countries problem. Because being educated to 16 is enough in the UK, 16 is enough in Europe. 15 is enough in India, so maybe you're the problem. You're given a free education upto the age you become an adult at 18.
> 
> 80year old Jimmy who's worked his whole life is happy to pay for your child to get educated upto the age of 18 and join society as any rational person is. 80year old Jimmy might start to feel aggrieved if your child chooses to stay in education and Jimmy is on the hook for it though. Why should Jimmy pay for another adult to carry on getting educated. He's already paid for the last 10 years.  You're educated, you're given your right. If you want further education you're welcome to pay for it, don't put your wants on somebody else. Jimmy's worked his whole life but is on the hook for your lazy son, fuck no. Everything you suggest is the height of selfishness.


There's literally no good argument against increased access to education and having a more educated society.

Debt forgiveness would allow people to build equity and stimulate the economy. It's also the moral thing to do.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> You're blind thick








..yup Thank God for National Health System.. otherwise I would not able to get Glasses...


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's disappointing, but it's not because he doesn't want to. He doesn't think he can with an executive order, and he might be right. I'd still at least try, but again, he probably can't do it via executive order. He also still plans on using an executive order to forgive some debt.



Question is, if he thinks he doesn't have the authority to cancel $50k of everyone's student loan debt by executive order, why does he think he can cancel $10k?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Question is, if he thinks he doesn't have the authority to cancel $50k of everyone's student loan debt by executive order, why does he think he can cancel $10k?


Because there exist a marginal fraction of people who are too fucking greedy to let him do $50k but are somehow just barely rational enough to allow $10k.
Honestly, he should just cancel $_*literally all of it altogether,*_ but Shamzie's demonstrated wonderfully that there exist too many self-serving, irrational and overall greed-oriented dickbags for Biden to do that without them pulling another insurrection.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 17, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Yes
> 
> Or be Trump and act like a 5 year old.
> 
> ...



That is the same comparison I was making. Trump being the BARELY younger 21 yr old, but acting far more childish.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Question is, if he thinks he doesn't have the authority to cancel $50k of everyone's student loan debt by executive order, why does he think he can cancel $10k?


I haven't heard a satisfactory answer from him or anyone else on that.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

First off... nothing is ever free. Someone is losing money, and someone is making money. Taxpayers are already paying for the "free" education up to the 12th grade. The problem is that money is wasted on poor education standards... which could be changed, but the powers that be prefer to keep dumbing down the education they provide.

And the problem with wiping 10k debt off of student loans, is that the 10k (times who knows how many) is going to end up costing more than 10k per person. You have to consider interest for borrowing the 10k for each individual and costs for implementing the process. The corporation of the United States is already well beyond broke thanks to the "Federal" reserve system, which is not in the slightest bit Federal.

The is no such thing as FREE education or health care... only higher taxes. And those taxes are without representation. Most of those taxes go into paying the Federal Reserve their interest, while only fractions go for what they are meant to go for.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> First off... nothing is ever free. Someone is losing money, and someone is making money. Taxpayers are already paying for the "free" education up to the 12th grade. The problem is that money is wasted on poor education standards... which could be changed, but the powers that be prefer to keep dumbing down the education they provide.
> 
> And the problem with wiping 10k debt off of student loans, is that the 10k (times who knows how many) is going to end up costing more than 10k per person. You have to consider interest for borrowing the 10k for each individual and costs for implementing the process. The corporation of the United States is already well beyond broke thanks to the "Federal" reserve system, which is not in the slightest bit Federal.
> 
> The is no such thing as FREE education or health care... only higher taxes. And those taxes are without representation. Most of those taxes go into paying the Federal Reserve their interest, while only fractions go for what they are meant to go for.


I mean
since taxpayers are already paying
why can't more of the tax money be used to ensure _effectively free or at least __affordable_ education and healthcare for all, and less of the tax money be used for things that don't deserve it?
besides, the best solution isn't wiping 10k off student loans.
it's wiping student loans off of education.
in fact, it's wiping _fees_ off of education.
if tax money is going to go into forgiving student loan debt, why not go whole hog and use that tax money to fund the schools in the first place while *preventing them from charging the students a cent?*


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

The only way for us as a country to wipe out debt would be to turn away from the petro dollar the the worldwide federal reserve system. If we go back to the gold standard and rid our system of the corrupt/illegal/blood money, then we can start talking debt forgiveness. As long as the game is continued to be rigged, we will not win.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The only way for us as a country to wipe out debt would be to turn away from the petro dollar the the worldwide federal reserve system. If we go back to the gold standard and rid our system of the corrupt/illegal/blood money, then we can start talking debt forgiveness. As long as the game is continued to be rigged, we will not win.


...What?
You don't need the gold standard to forgive debt.
All you need to forgive student loan debt is a) properly reallocated funds and b) Congress doing the forgiving and telling the scumbags profitizing education to go fuck themselves.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I mean
> since taxpayers are already paying
> why can't more of the tax money be used to ensure _effectively free or at least __affordable_ education and healthcare for all, and less of the tax money be used for things that don't deserve it?
> besides, the best solution isn't wiping 10k off student loans.
> ...



The problem lies in the schooling system. And yes, it also lies in the wasted money on frivolous things that the money should not be spent on. But if the schooling system would actually attempt to increase our children's education standards instead of diminishing them, we would be better off. But the problem is the powers that be do not want an educated society.

And yes, the best solution is a better education, and to get rid of the corrupt banking systems we are all slaves to. But we will not see any major debt relief as long as our bloated government (which is no longer by the people, nor for the people) is given back to the citizens and stripped away from the corporate elites and world wide bankers.

I remember very young thinking the education we were receiving in public school was laughable. Most would agree that it is trash. It would be great to clean it up, but how can we?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Plasmaster09 said:


> ...What?
> You don't need the gold standard to forgive debt.
> All you need to forgive student loan debt is a) properly reallocated funds and b) Congress doing the forgiving and telling the scumbags profitizing education to go fuck themselves.



The problem is most politicians do not give one flying fuck about you or me. They are only concerned with their power, and their families power (guess what, all their kids get the best of the best private schooling). They are not about the cut their pensions so our children can compete against their children. They are not about to go and tell the corrupt banks to go fuck themselves either. They will continue to put money where it shouldn't be, while the rest of us argue over crumbs. It has been that way for as long as any of us in this thread have been alivel and while the wool is continued to be pulled over our eyes, most of us will never see the truth.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The problem lies in the schooling system. And yes, it also lies in the wasted money on frivolous things that the money should not be spent on. But if the schooling system would actually attempt to increase our children's education standards instead of diminishing them, we would be better off. But the problem is the powers that be do not want an educated society.
> 
> And yes, the best solution is a better education, and to get rid of the corrupt banking systems we are all slaves to. But we will not see any major debt relief as long as our bloated government (which is no longer by the people, nor for the people) is given back to the citizens and stripped away from the corporate elites and world wide bankers.
> 
> ...


you were on the right track but then you needed to turn everything into a persecution-complex conspiracy


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> you were on the right track but then you needed to turn everything into a persecution-complex conspiracy



I have some questions for you.

1) When was the federal reserve system created?

2) Who opposed the federal reserve system?

3) What happened to those individuals?

4) Who was President at the time the federal reserve system came to be?

5) What was his opinion of the system after he instated it?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Answers:

1) 1913

2) Benjamin Guggenheim, Isador Strauss, John Astor

3) All three died when the Titanic sunk

4) Woodrow Wilson 

5) 





> I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I have some questions for you.
> 
> 1) When was the federal reserve system created?
> 
> ...


I have a couple for you.

1) Why is any of this relevant to the core topic at hand, which is just student loan debts and not the convoluted system that may or may not serve as a small or large obstacle to one possible solution thereof?

2) Why must you turn nearly everything into some conspiracy where They, The Guys In Charge, The Powers That Be, etc. are opposed to whatever you want at the moment and thus everything non-positive within the government must be their Complex Malicious Machinations (TM) at work to oppose your ideologies specifically?

oh and 3) *Did you seriously just insinuate that the sinking of the Titanic was a fucking government conspiracy?*


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> you were on the right track but then you needed to turn everything into a persecution-complex conspiracy


They're always so close to the truth


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I have a couple for you.
> 
> 1) Why is any of this relevant to the core topic at hand, which is just student loan debts and not the convoluted system that may or may not serve as a small or large obstacle to one possible solution thereof?
> 
> ...



1) It is very relevant when you are looking at who is control of the money, and the who debt is ultimately paid to. Who is going to profit and lose the most when it comes to the education of US citizens?

2) What is theoretical about it, when the history and documentation is there, although hidden to most as it was intended to be?

3) No... I simply stated facts about what happened to the main opponents of the Federal Reserve system... which again, is NOT a government organization. It is a private company... and I assume most are at least educated enough to guess which family owns and runs it. It would not be the first or last time something like this coincidentally happens in history either.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> 1) It is very relevant when you are looking at who is control of the money, and the who debt is ultimately paid to.Who is going to profit and lose the most when it comes to the education of US citizens.
> 
> 2) What is theoretical about it, when the history and documentation is there, although hidden to most as it was intended to be?
> 
> 3) No... I simply stated facts about what happened to the main opponents of the Federal Reserve system... which again, is NOT a government organization. It is a private company... and I assume most are at least educated enough to guess which family owns and runs it.


1) No, not really. It's tangential details you insisted on bringing in so that you could self-victimize more.
2) It's entirely theoretical. Corruption exists, but massive networked conspiracies conveniently opposed to what you specifically want... don't.
3) You seem to have a tendency to state individual things, blatantly suggest something and then motte-and-bailey away when you're challenged on it. You seriously insinuated the Titanic was sunk because the opponents of the Federal Reserve were all on it (or that they were put on it with intent to sink them with the ship), which is one of the dumbest "old past event X was a conspiracy" suggestions I've heard in a while.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> 1) No, not really. It's tangential details you insisted on bringing in so that you could self-victimize more.
> 2) It's entirely theoretical. Corruption exists, but massive networked conspiracies conveniently opposed to what you specifically want... don't.
> 3) You seem to have a tendency to state individual things, blatantly suggest something and then motte-and-bailey away when you're challenged on it. You seriously insinuated the Titanic was sunk because the opponents of the Federal Reserve were all on it (or that they were put on it with intent to sink them with the ship), which is one of the dumbest "old past event X was a conspiracy" suggestions I've heard in a while.



Let's leave it as this. I do not like to tell people what to think. I simply give them my opinions, or what I have heard, or ask questions. It's up to the reader to decide for them selves what to make of it.

Did I say the three people who just happened to have enough power to oppose a private banking owning America  were murdered in an attempt to make way? Or did I simply state the facts of the matter and let you come to that conclusion yourself?

I am smart enough to know I cannot change anyone. That is up to the individual themself to peruse their own truths... or lies.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Let's leave it as this. I do not like to tell people what to think. I simply give them my opinions, or what I have heard, or ask questions. It's up to the reader to decide for them selves what to make of it.
> 
> Did I say the three people who just happened to have enough power to oppose a private banking owning America  were murdered in an attempt to make way? Or did I simply state the facts of the matter and let you come to that conclusion yourself?
> 
> I am smart enough to know I cannot change anyone. That is up to the individual themself to peruse their own truths... or lies.


dude, that's a lie and you know it
you're using standard "I'm not saying [stupid bullshit], I'm 'giving you the facts'" tactics, which just amounts to saying stupid bullshit but with just enough deniability to SEEM like you aren't saying stupid bullshit from the perspective of someone with two brain cells
this isn't a conservative talk show, it's a public forum
it's not the place for vacuous statements meaninglessly tied together into unfathomably stupid conspiracies


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, that's a lie and you know it
> you're using standard "I'm not saying [stupid bullshit], I'm 'giving you the facts'" tactics, which just amounts to saying stupid bullshit but with just enough deniability to SEEM like you aren't saying stupid bullshit from the perspective of someone with two brain cells
> this isn't a conservative talk show, it's a public forum
> it's not the place for vacuous statements meaninglessly tied together into unfathomably stupid conspiracies



You opinions are you own and not mine. I am free to continue to say whatever I want, and so are you. I draw the line at trying to force my opinions on others though. This conversation would be a lot more healthy if other's respected other's rights to free thought. It is nothing to be scared of... it might sting at first, but we can get over it.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You opinions are you own and not mine. I am free to continue to say whatever I want, and so are you. I draw the line at trying to force my opinions on others though. This conversation would be a lot more healthy if other's respected other's rights to free thought. It is nothing to be scared of... it might sting at first, but we can get over it.


dude, you're spouting conspiracies and then lying about it
there's opinions and then there's _not admitting that you're saying what you're saying because said opinions are a) peddled as fact, which gives others free rein to absolutely shred them if they're incorrect, and b) *really fucking stupid*_


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

Executive orders in first 10 days: Biden = 42. Trump = 6.

DiCtaTor.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> dude, you're spouting conspiracies and then lying about it
> there's opinions and then there's _not admitting that you're saying what you're saying because said opinions are a) peddled as fact, which gives others free rein to absolutely shred them if they're incorrect, and b) *really fucking stupid*_



I respect your right to an individual opinion. And if other's care to try and disprove this facts I have laid out, I welcome that. What is do not respect is bashing. Pointing out a coincidence is a lot different that stating a conspiracy with little to no evidence.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Executive orders in first 10 days: Biden = 42. Trump = 6.
> 
> DiCtaTor.


It's the content of those orders that matters, not the quantity.  Besides, Trump spent most of his first ten days golfing, along with a quarter of his presidency overall.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Executive orders in first 10 days: Biden = 42. Trump = 6.
> 
> DiCtaTor.


well it takes a lot of work to fix 4 years and a failed Insurrection,...
Thats funny.. Trump's work for 4 year was undone in 10 days... well to be fair Trump did not really do anything..expect..to allow White Nationalism to Grow


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Executive orders in first 10 days: Biden = 42. Trump = 6.
> 
> DiCtaTor.


Trump issued 220 executive orders throughout his presidency, and Biden is currently at 30 so far. Many of Biden's executive orders are also just undoing Trump's. Thank you for bringing this stupid argument about Biden's executive orders to our attention.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Executive orders in first 10 days: Biden = 42. Trump = 6.
> 
> DiCtaTor.



It's called "busy-work". He should a page out of Trump's playbook and hit the golf course, because more business gets done on the golf course than in the office. Call it a hunch, but I do not think we will see Biden doing much else besides sitting behind a desk.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It's called "busy-work". He should a page out of Trump's playbook and hit the golf course, because more business gets done on the golf course than in the office. Call it a hunch, but I do not think we will see Biden doing much else besides sitting behind a desk.


You're not serious.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You're not serious.


I am seriously not believing the hype. Give it time, and we will see what these executive orders actually amount to.

In the mean time, watching Biden is even more funnier than watch Bush Jr. Who would have thought?

*“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”*


----------



## djpannda (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You're not serious.


I think he is.....
lol his argument is literally, Biden is going to be behind a desk working rather then golfing....


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

djpannda said:


> I think he is.....
> lol his argument is literally, Biden is going to be behind a desk working rather then golfing....



So close.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It's called "busy-work". He should a page out of Trump's playbook and hit the golf course, because more business gets done on the golf course than in the office.


LMAO, if by "business" you mean Trump schmoozing with corporate big-wigs to get more donations for his personal account, then sure.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Trump issued 220 executive orders throughout his presidency, and Biden is currently at 30 so far. Many of Biden's executive orders are also just undoing Trump's. Thank you for bringing this stupid argument about Biden's executive orders to our attention.



Trump signs executive orders = LiTeRaL DiCtAtOr

Biden signs 7x more executive orders = Hero.

Liberal privilege.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Xzi said:


> LMAO, if by "business" you mean Trump schmoozing with corporate big-wigs to get more donations for his personal account, then sure.



I meant in the grand scheme of things, but yeah, sure, something like that.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Trump signs executive orders = LiTeRaL DiCtAtOr
> 
> Biden signs 7x more executive orders = Hero.
> 
> Liberal privilege.


There's no serious argument that undoing the former President's orders is dictatorship. Biden also hasn't approached Trump's executive order number, and Biden is working within the bounds of what one can do with an executive order.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tthousand said:


> I am seriously not believing the hype. Give it time, and we will see what these executive orders actually amount to.
> 
> In the mean time, watching Biden is even more funnier than watch Bush Jr. Who would have thought?
> 
> *“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”*


You can't honestly be arguing that Biden would be more productive on a golf course than behind a desk merely because Trump spent a lot of time golfing. You're being satirical.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's no serious argument that undoing the former President's orders is dictatorship. Biden also hasn't approached Trump's executive order number, and Biden is working within the bounds of what one can do with an executive order.



Very true. Trump set a precedent opening the door to the next President with quite a challenge to out do his number. 220 in 4 years, while he 2 predecessors each had under 300 with a full 8 year term.

Cannot complain about the number of Biden's EO's without taking into account the sheer number Trump had.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 17, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Trump signs executive orders = LiTeRaL DiCtAtOr
> 
> Biden signs 7x more executive orders = Hero.
> 
> Liberal privilege.


Trump signs authoritarian executive orders, many of which weren't binding to begin with = gets called an authoritarian.

Biden signs orders repealing all those authoritarian orders = 60%+ approve.

Conservative victimhood complex.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You can't honestly be arguing that Biden would be more productive on a golf course than behind a desk merely because Trump spent a lot of time golfing. You're being satirical.



I would hate to prejudge his game. But yeah, get out of the office and mingle a little bit. Go talk with the world leaders. Do something... the whole entire world is watching, and it's been pretty boring so far (and that is an understatement).

I mean FUCK, Trump is still the number one show on the world stage. WTF?!?!


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

I am yet to see one person adequately explain why student debt forgiveness is something we should pursue, regardless of whether we're talking about $10K or $50K. I see college and university education as a business transaction - you pay a service provider, the educational institution, $X and expect that your investment into yourself will provide you a better chance at finding employment and earning a higher wage/salary. Assuming that happens, you now have disposable income to pay off your debt. If that *doesn't* happen, you've made a poor business decision. Debt forgiveness does enable society at large to gain a higher education, yes - in all the unproductive areas. People who require urgent debt forgiveness don't have a degree in STEM, they have degrees in areas that are not highly sought after by employers, which is precisely why they're having difficulties paying them off. I'm not saying that such majors shouldn't exist - pursue a degree in aboriginal dance theory if that's your goal in life, but that's not a sensible investment, it's entertainment, in the same way as learning how to crochet, or other such hobbies, is entertainment. If anything, I could see a substantial benefit in extending scholarship programs for the poor who are talented, but lack the funding to fully spread their wings. What I don't want to see is wasting tax money on bailing out an army of failed "artists" who, mistakenly, thought that there was a market for paintings painted using Campbell's soup.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I would hate to prejudge his game. But yeah, get out of the office and mingle a little bit. Go talk with the world leaders. Do something... the whole entire world is watching, and it's been pretty boring so far (and that is an understatement).
> 
> I mean FUCK, Trump is still the number one show on the world stage. WTF?!?!


Boring is good when compared to a dumpster fire.

Trump isn't even a show anymore. He left the White House a loser, and the only thing I saw about him today was the demolition of his tower.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am yet to see one person adequately explain why student debt forgiveness is something we should pursue, regardless of whether we're talking about $10K or $50K. I see college and university education as a business transaction - you pay a service provider, the educational institution, $X and expect that your investment into yourself will provide you a better chance at finding employment and earning a higher wage/salary. Assuming that happens, you now have disposable income to pay off your debt. If that *doesn't* happen, you've made a poor business decision. Debt forgiveness does enable society at large to gain a higher education, yes - in all the unproductive areas. People who require urgent debt forgiveness don't have a degree in STEM, they have degrees in areas that are not highly sought after by employers, which is precisely why they're having difficulties paying them off. I'm not saying that such majors shouldn't exist - pursue a degree in aboriginal dance theory if that's your goal in life, but that's not a sensible investment, it's entertainment, in the same way as learning how to crochet, or other such hobbies, is entertainment. If anything, I could see a substantial benefit in extending scholarship programs for the poor who are talented, but lack the funding to fully spread their wings. What I don't want to see is wasting tax money on bailing out an army of failed "artists" who, mistakenly, thought that there was a market for paintings painted using Campbell's soup.


thing is that college and university education shouldn't even BE a transaction in the first place
there's no good reason why it can't be available as a right, considering it's an often-necessary extension of a basic human right as is


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I am seriously not believing the hype. Give it time, and we will see what these executive orders actually amount to.
> 
> In the mean time, watching Biden is even more funnier than watch Bush Jr. Who would have thought?
> 
> *“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”*



I liked the 'put food on your family' one better.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I liked the 'put food on your family' one better.


At least his verbal flaw is making innocent word flubs and not feeling the need to call himself the best at everything or berating anyone that dares disobey him.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am yet to see one person adequately explain why student debt forgiveness is something we should pursue, regardless of whether we're talking about $10K or $50K.



This is the European showing through. Try hundreds of thousands. American education costs are off the rails.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 17, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> This is the European showing through. Try hundreds of thousands. American education costs are off the rails.


I was referring to the two proposals discussed during the town hall event - 10K that Biden was happy with and 50K that he thought was too much.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I was referring to the two proposals discussed during the town hall event - 10K that Biden was happy with and 50K that he thought was too much.


In that respect, you're not wrong.
10k and 50k aren't really good numbers to pursue... because they're nowhere near enough.
Student loan debts shouldn't even exist, because college and university shouldn't be so greedily run that you have to either be lucky enough to be rich enough from the start, have several full time jobs before you turn twenty or sell your soul's worth in money just to afford the last quarter of what is ostensibly a fundamental human right.
And before you say anything else about the people drowning in student loan debt being lazy or something: that entire argument is a combination of the just-world fallacy, gratuitous victim-blaming and a profound lack of empathy. If they actually were too lazy to pay off their ludicrous amount of debt, they would be too lazy to bother DOING college or uni in the first place and deem it not worth the cost or effort.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I was referring to the two proposals discussed during the town hall event - 10K that Biden was happy with and 50K that he thought was too much.


Aw. I hadn't seen that. But yeah, they need to quadruple those numbers at least.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Boring is good when compared to a dumpster fire.
> 
> Trump isn't even a show anymore. He left the White House a loser, and the only thing I saw about him today was the demolition of his tower.



In my local papers website today, 4 trump article and 2 biden articles. And there is a reason why trump was vilified  by msm. Ill share that soon...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> I liked the 'put food on your family' one better.


 my favorite so far...

Biden: I dont even know what I'm signing.
Harris: just sign it.
Biden signs.
Biden: give that to the president

Honorable mentions:
"Poor kids are just as smart as white kids"
"I like kids better than people"
"You ain't black if you dont vote for biden"
And who can forget the classic, "I dont need you to get me elected"


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 18, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In my local papers website today, 4 trump article and 2 biden articles. And there is a reason why trump was vilified  by msm. Ill share that soon...
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


first of all, why must EVERYTHING be a "[mainstream media/big tech/the powers that be/other conspiracy scapegoat] is against me wah" thing
second of all, the "don't even know what I'm signing" is a quotemine, we've discussed this before, that ain't what he said


----------



## tthousand (Feb 18, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> first of all, why must EVERYTHING be a "[mainstream media/big tech/the powers that be/other conspiracy scapegoat] is against me wah" thing
> second of all, the "don't even know what I'm signing" is a quotemine, we've discussed this before, that ain't what he said



It is what it is dude.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 18, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It is what it is dude.


vacuous, evasive and incorrect (what it is is not what you claim it is)
sums up most of what you've said so far on this thread along with it


----------



## tthousand (Feb 18, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> vacuous, evasive and incorrect (what it is is not what you claim it is)
> sums up most of what you've said so far on this thread along with it


 YAWN. Impressive river 

Still waiting for my points to be dispelled with actual facts instead of ignorant ranting and/or incessant whining.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 18, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I am seriously not believing the hype. Give it time, and we will see what these executive orders actually amount to.
> 
> In the mean time, watching Biden is even more funnier than watch Bush Jr. Who would have thought?
> 
> *“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”*



There was nothing fun about watching Bush Jr.  Trump was a relief, to me, because he killed less people.  It's a terrible thing that my satisfaction is based on how little someone kills.  When can we flip the script and make it about how much life and prosperity is benefited, instead?

We are stuck on old technology, dreaming about the fatigue of nature.  Everything already exists for us to have all the energy we need without the concern.  We could draw energy from the Earth, and instead, be concerned with an ice age.  Wait...  Now I think about it, that was a concern rather recently.  I hate everybody here.  You are the problem.  Trump should have been the clear sign that what you had wasn't working.  If you would acknowledge your disgusting privilege and stop consuming, the rest of the world would be better off.  Isn't that right?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 18, 2021)

tthousand said:


> In my local papers website today, 4 trump article and 2 biden articles. And there is a reason why trump was vilified  by msm. Ill share that soon...
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


The "I don't know what I'm signing" thing was proved a long time ago to be made-up nonsense. It didn't happen.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> There was nothing fun about watching Bush Jr.  Trump was a relief, to me, because he killed less people.


Approximately 280,000 people died as a result of the Iraq War, but approximately 480,000 Americans alone have died in large part because of Trump's awful response to COVID-19.

Also, since you're apparently a prescriptivist, it's "fewer people," not "less people."


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 18, 2021)

tthousand said:


> YAWN. Impressive river
> 
> Still waiting for my points to be dispelled with actual facts instead of ignorant ranting and/or incessant whining.


You haven't made any points. You've cited individual factoids that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, connected them in the dumbest way possible, REFUSED TO ADMIT YOU WERE THE ONE MAKING SAID CONNECTIONS _BECAUSE OF HOW FUCKING STUPID THEY ARE, _and have still not actually provided any evidence of the connection.
You have not made an argument, let alone any actual points therein.
Make one or fuck off.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 18, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> In that respect, you're not wrong.
> 10k and 50k aren't really good numbers to pursue... because they're nowhere near enough.
> Student loan debts shouldn't even exist, because college and university shouldn't be so greedily run that you have to either be lucky enough to be rich enough from the start, have several full time jobs before you turn twenty or sell your soul's worth in money just to afford the last quarter of what is ostensibly a fundamental human right.
> And before you say anything else about the people drowning in student loan debt being lazy or something: that entire argument is a combination of the just-world fallacy, gratuitous victim-blaming and a profound lack of empathy. If they actually were too lazy to pay off their ludicrous amount of debt, they would be too lazy to bother DOING college or uni in the first place and deem it not worth the cost or effort.



Some would say the reasons such places cost so much is because the loans are government backed.

Allow anybody through your doors and be sure that you will be paid, as opposed to allowing those that meet higher standards and stand a chance of paying it back afterwards off their own back and you have to actually compete. Be sure you are getting paid and you can provide a 4 year holiday* (not sure why Americans do 4 years for a basic bachelors the rest of the world knocks out in three, or actually I am but I will sideline that one for now) that you issue a worthless bit of paper. I am equally not a fan of the coddled approach of US universities -- most other places it is almost a job you pay to attend and treated much the same way. The "free and safe to explore ourselves" bit that the US seems to go in for is almost antithetical to anything I would have seen elsewhere, and also the polar opposite of what your schoolmates would be experiencing if they joined the big world of work (and if said universities are the best and brightest, most capable and whatnot then... yeah).
A sign of a healthy society is that you can afford to have people take higher education in whatever esoteric area of history, social science or other thing that is not "I fix you/your thing or design/build you a better one or grow your food" but at the same time there is a balance. If only the most academically gifted, determined or maybe financially well off can take a course for which the economy as a whole has maybe 300 openings a year then so it goes.

*if your facilities above and beyond what are needed to teach a course are more than a gym, swimming pool, sports hall/meeting room you can hire out for a club,library and maybe something you can repurpose from extant equipment (a university I went to had a flight training option for some of its courses, you could hire out the training simulator for fun, just like my mate that works in the chroming shop can pay to use that on the off time for his stuff, or my mate that works in an office can book the meeting room for a book club) then you have probably gone wrong somewhere.


I don't necessarily know that university grade education need to be within the mandatory/necessary realm either. Makes sense to have it as an area of specialisation for those looking to play academic, researcher or high end skills. Other stuff seems way better served by skills training, apprenticeships and the like with maybe a day release to hit books if needs be. Some of it seems plain ridiculous -- why I need a degree in hotel management as opposed to having someone do front desk, move to shift lead eventually, interface between departments, then maybe second in command and on from there I do not know. It might also take a bit of a societal shift, though as I have been around to witness the "no degree, no advancement" shift in things that worked fine for decades before without it, and increasing dismissal of degrees in industry in more recent times still, then that seems within reason.


Now there are issues. Pay off some school types in high schools (guidance counsellors in US parlance, careers advisor in UK) with kick backs (which is just the beginning of their shady recruitment efforts) and whatnot to say university is the only way, and then get some probably 17 year old** to effectively agree to masses in loans when they can't even tell me what compound interest is (never mind contemplate the effects of the government being the guarantor). That is the conditions for a predatory setup if I have ever seen such a thing.

**one the US says is barely fit to drive, scarcely able to see a lot of films, in finance terms would probably struggle to get a $5000 car loan, probably can't drive a lorry, can't run for various forms of political office, can't join various flavours of military, police, possibly can't drink (granted I think 21 is ridiculous but different discussion), and if universities are to be believed are so underdeveloped in mind that they might be irrecoverably harmed if they hear certain words or concepts during the next few years whilst under their remit and thus need to be shielded from them.


Now as said predatory setup has been running for some number of years now you have many caught up within it, and potentially more pouring in. This would seem like something that wants to be solved.
I would immediately start with maybe "no new guaranteed loans issued" (possibly allow those that started to complete) or maybe cap it at something low like $15k per year (most of the rest of the world, often with even less land to play with and better standards of living/higher costs of living seems to crank out people just as, or sometimes more, skilled than the US manages for less than that).
Probably push trades and apprenticeships -- blank slate is a fairly silly thing, some people are not capable or maybe not inclined towards that (some people just do better with their hands). As it stands plenty are opting out of university in favour of such things as they see the debts of others, and the monies afforded by trades. Certifications is a fun one and I don't want to gate off too many jobs which is what often happens when certifications become too heavily considered (technically speaking if the factory down the road had a big specialist high voltage transformer blow up they might well come running to me, pay me an awful lot of money to design them a new one and later see to its fitting and test it before commissioning, and still have their insurance/investors/whatever consider it a bargain at twice the price, if however I wanted to replace the socket behind the computer I am typing this on with a fancy USB socket then legally speaking I would need to hire an electrician who maybe did a 2 week course and got his name on a register somewhere. This sort of thing is a relatively new development but one I see replicated with similar timelines all over the world)
Make recruitment for universities a hard one -- the kickbacks probably want to go for one, don't know specifics (whether you go for tobacco advertising levels of hard or something less I don't know) beyond that but harder.
If a softer approach is needed for something then maybe consider placement rates (not an easy thing -- plenty of physics peeps wind up programming computers for financial firms and what that might count as gets tricky) or professional pass rates (your law degree does not see X% people pass relevant exams to actually be a lawyer within 2 years...).
Maybe mandate a minimum funding from research percentage -- if industry is paying you for research or you are writing the proposals that gain the grants then surely you are doing something right.

Now what to do with those already caught in the vortex... that is hard. Assuming you care to solve the problem for them as the government (not necessarily a popular position -- "you dug the hole" is not without reason or standing, plenty of lost generations as it were already out there). Reneging on being a guarantor is not a great look as a government and when you have already given the whole pie away (we pay 100% and will handle enforcement...) it leaves you in a really weak position to negotiate. You can try a strongarm approach or veiled threat (we might just be crazy enough, or you could take 80% and call it a day) but when universities are already going pop because they over extended themselves (granted not in any way that particularly matters -- tenure, pointless roles (assistant director of diversity earning $100k P.A. is probably not a useful expense/providing a good ROI), nonsense sports/entertainment facilities...) then might not get many biters if they have factored in payback rates. Could possibly fire up the money printer and offer cash now to buy the debts (assuming you care to have your citizens in debt to you) at a lower rate than might be expected, something that might even attract the finance firms that likely own the debts (doubt universities hold more than they are required to). Wind in a nice little jobs corp, public/national service type deal that might both pay someone and reduce the burden beyond that (possibly also whilst doing the experience or further training) and you start getting somewhere. Wiping it out (never mind what you do about people that did manage to pay it back, though "tough shit, thanks for being a good citizen" is likely where that would head) likely being the last of the options, and a terrible one.

The education lobby is also horrifically powerful within political spheres -- https://www.investopedia.com/investing/which-industry-spends-most-lobbying-antm-so/ and that is before you consider that there are education unions of all flavours in every town and state and general public support when "it is for the future of your children". All of which I would bet everything on having its full force used should you stop their pork barrel with the government backed loans as it stands today.

The Finland and other Nordic countries model wherein various flavours of private education are really difficult, if not impossible. Interesting model with some interesting results. Don't know how well it would scale or apply within the US though. Have some government run stuff by all means but I don't know that I would deny the option for private to exist -- there will always be something niche, something someone can afford to do better (even if it is because new equipment is that much better than those stuck with old stuff), and people going to do workarounds -- I already have informal clubs with nice toys and arrangements with companies to train people in ways I might struggle to do.

As far as education as a right. The sensible country educates, or facilitates an environment in which, everybody has as much as they can reasonably afford to do so -- the rise of automation means skilled people are the only ones that get ahead. Whether I quite get to classifying it as a right in certain senses... harder. Find a citizen/business/entity denying education and come down on them like a tonne of bricks, beyond that gets more variable.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> "fewer people," not "less people."



Thanks.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> As far as education as a right. The sensible country educates, or facilitates an environment in which, everybody has as much as they can reasonably afford to do so -- the rise of automation means skilled people are the only ones that get ahead. Whether I quite get to classifying it as a right in certain senses... harder. Find a citizen/business/entity denying education and come down on them like a tonne of bricks, beyond that gets more variable.


Due to a successful and decently wealthy (and by decently wealthy, I mean "not living check to check") life often being dependent on experience and degrees that can only be obtained through full college or university education, said full education itself is currently almost always a requirement to a certain "pursuit of happiness" that the Declaration of Independence states as an *inalienable right.*
As long as a majority of decent- or well-paying occupations hold college or uni as an effective requirement, they should by all reason be considered a right.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 19, 2021)

another L for the Biden people 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/colinkalmbacher/status/1362537940325437452


----------



## SG854 (Feb 19, 2021)

WTF Biden why reject the $50,000 Student Loan Debt?

Congress is more then happy to approve of pointless wars that cost thousands of dollars and thousands of lives. But student loan debt forgiveness, whoa hold on, thats too fuckin far.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> another L for the Biden people
> https://twitter.com/colinkalmbacher/status/1362537940325437452


So, Obama 2.0 rather than Biden 1.0. I can live with that.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> So, Obama 2.0 rather than Biden 1.0. I can live with that.


It's also factually incorrect.
Although some do view it as not a big enough step (the quote is legitimate), he didn't completely abandon his promise and the guidelines he pushed out today are at least a small step in the intended direction.
Tl;dr: said guidelines effectively limit ICE arrests to immigrants that have already committed felonies and been detained thereof, or something along those lines. Basically it's a lot harder for them to toss people in jail or deport them for comically minor shit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Due to a successful and decently wealthy (and by decently wealthy, I mean "not living check to check") life often being dependent on experience and degrees that can only be obtained through full college or university education, said full education itself is currently almost always a requirement to a certain "pursuit of happiness" that the Declaration of Independence states as an *inalienable right.*
> As long as a majority of decent- or well-paying occupations hold college or uni as an effective requirement, they should by all reason be considered a right.


To be fair, the right to pursue something doesn't entail the government paying for it. People are made happy by a lot of things the government probably shouldn't pick the tab up for. Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't entail the government issuing you one for free...

...as dope as that'd would be. 


Plasmaster09 said:


> It's also factually incorrect.
> Although some do view it as not a big enough step (the quote is legitimate), he didn't completely abandon his promise and the guidelines he pushed out today are at least a small step in the intended direction.
> Tl;dr: said guidelines effectively limit ICE arrests to immigrants that have already committed felonies and been detained thereof, or something along those lines. Basically it's a lot harder for them to toss people in jail or deport them for comically minor shit.


I don't know, man - "priority for immediate deportation" based on nothing besides date of entry seems like a departure from his previous declarations.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 19, 2021)

"Not everybody in the community - in the Hispanic and the African American community, particularly in re', uh uh, rural areas that are distant, and/or inner city districts - know how to use - uh, know how to get online." - Biden



Foxi4 said:


> So, Obama 2.0 rather than Biden 1.0. I can live with that.



Or rather Banker Bot v28.0


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Feb 19, 2021)

Noooooooooo this isn't what I voted for!!!


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't entail the government issuing you one for free...
> 
> ...as dope as that'd would be.


Does that mean Switzerland is a better country than the US?


----------



## g00s3y (Feb 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Does that mean Switzerland is a better country than the US?



Lots of countries are. It's only the dumb who truly think "MURICA NUMBER 1"


----------



## tabzer (Feb 19, 2021)

g00s3y said:


> Lots of countries are. It's only the dumb who truly think "MURICA NUMBER 1"



Reminds me of 



Obviously many people know this.  MAGA was an attempt at a revival and KAGA was premature.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> View attachment 247243
> Noooooooooo this isn't what I voted for!!!


congrats, you've managed to deliberately and blatantly misinterpret every single shred of what he's promised so that you have some excuse to blame him for literally everything



Foxi4 said:


> To be fair, the right to pursue something doesn't entail the government paying for it. People are made happy by a lot of things the government probably shouldn't pick the tab up for. Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't entail the government issuing you one for free...
> 
> ...as dope as that'd would be.
> I don't know, man - "priority for immediate deportation" based on nothing besides date of entry seems like a departure from his previous declarations.


The right to pursue something, and thus the right to said something, might not need to entail the government paying for it.
However, it should NOT entail the _pursuer_ paying for it, because that defeats the purpose and makes it no longer a right, but a privilege locked behind wealth.
Also, it's not based on date of entry AFAIK. The priority is to those that have done things (iirc either major felony or known active gang membership) that warrant being considered as legitimately dangerous.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Due to a successful and decently wealthy (and by decently wealthy, I mean "not living check to check") life often being dependent on experience and degrees that can only be obtained through full college or university education, said full education itself is currently almost always a requirement to a certain "pursuit of happiness" that the Declaration of Independence states as an *inalienable right.*
> As long as a majority of decent- or well-paying occupations hold college or uni as an effective requirement, they should by all reason be considered a right.



That is quite the contrivance.

First of all there are plenty of well paying trades ( https://toptrade.school/highest-paying-careers/ https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/highest-paying-trade-jobs https://www.construct-ed.com/construction-jobs-list/ . https://www.uslearning.net/cost-of-living-by-state.html detailing cost of living, including a nice chart on wage to own a house. Outside of CA and NY you are probably OK with the two* person household there) that don't really care about a degree, and things that have historically been taught on the job even if some HR moron decided they now need one. Indeed I reckon I can teach programmers on the job, certainly have had a few do the self taught thing and computing in general has various certs as recognised concepts.
Would that not also open up the door to governments dictating which degrees are worth it? Degree in fashion design tends not to pay that well so...

*if such things are a metric then do we get to contemplate the fantasy 50s thing wherein single salary would often do it and set that as a baseline if we are making fairly arbitrary moves. We also have https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-savings-account-balance/ to contemplate in this.
Paycheque to paycheque, despite being somewhat arbitrary, is one thing. There are also those that might only be able to skip three, indeed that might even form the basis of a decent chunk of middle class.

Secondary to that is if companies and whatnot do still want people with bits of paper then they will either pay for it (any number offer do this and come work for us for 5 years type deals) or relax requirements. I am not necessarily a great fan of the former as they tend to lock people in -- I am seeing it with mechanics now (the idea that you need to be brand specific is one I never heard before about 5 years ago), and all the various sponsored courses from Dell, Google et al tend to be rather that company centric so might want some push there (most medic and engineering and science courses in the UK have to be overseen by their respective councils and are more generalist by their very nature. That sort of thing works for me).

I would also return to the idea that the costs are ridiculously high because they can get away with charging them -- everywhere else in the world manages just fine to crank out people that do all the same things*, also do a fine line in research, and often in places where you can't just have 40 acres of flat ground somewhere near a city be magically made available to build such a thing and generally would have to pay the staff more.

*nowhere is clamouring for US educated peeps and likewise the US is not clamouring for those educated elsewhere beyond general shortages. Most places have reciprocal standards as well so those can wander any which way and pick up where they left off or maybe have to do a very short conversion course. That would speak to generally similar standards and qualities of output.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> I would also return to the idea that the costs are ridiculously high because they can get away with charging them -- everywhere else in the world manages just fine to crank out people that do all the same things*, also do a fine line in research, and often in places where you can't just have 40 acres of flat ground somewhere near a city be magically made available to build such a thing and generally would have to pay the staff more.
> 
> *nowhere is clamouring for US educated peeps and likewise the US is not clamouring for those educated elsewhere beyond general shortages. Most places have reciprocal standards as well so those can wander any which way and pick up where they left off or maybe have to do a very short conversion course. That would speak to generally similar standards and qualities of output.


Yeah, this is the main reason it's so fucked up.
IIRC (probably a bit off, correct me if and about how I'm wrong) it amounts to:
tl;dr: Boomers basically got education on the gov's dime, but that meant the schools could ramp up prices to unfathomably greedy amounts and said gov would still fund them... but when that changed, the prices didn't.


tthousand said:


> "Not everybody in the community - in the Hispanic and the African American community, particularly in re', uh uh, rural areas that are distant, and/or inner city districts - know how to use - uh, know how to get online." - Biden


You people do realize that Biden's infamous gaffes and flubs... are likely due to his stutter, which he's struggled with since childhood? (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/)
Which is to say, a literal neurological disability? (No, I'm serious. Stuttering isn't just the r-r-repeating bits when you're nervous thing, it's also an actual serious disability that can basically be described as a glitch in the processes related to speech and has more effects than just simple, no-meaning-changed repeating. Basically imagine if your own vocal cords and speech processes fought against you as actively as the Republican Congress minority is fighting against Biden's every breath.)
Now combine that with the sheer amount of stress and responsibility placed on the President, as well as just how often he has to give entire speeches on live television.
Suddenly, using Biden's gaffes as a common trick to paint him as irresponsible or unfit goes from mocking someone for their age and trying to use their slip-ups to portray them as mentally unstable (already pretty messed up) to mocking someone for their _disability_ and trying to use *that* to portray them as mentally unstable (which, if I really have to say this, is absolutely fucking horrible and is on par with a particularly vicious school bully trying to slander his victim to the rest of the school).
It may be funny, I will admit... but using it as a primary tactic to paint him in a negative light is unacceptable.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> congrats, you've managed to deliberately and blatantly misinterpret every single shred of what he's promised so that you have some excuse to blame him for literally everything
> 
> 
> The right to pursue something, and thus the right to said something, might not need to entail the government paying for it.
> ...


I disagree with your definition of a pursuit. A pursuit is a process - you designate a goal X and, in order to achieve it, you put Z into it - this usually means an investment of time, effort and money. This is applicable to any pursuit, including a pursuit of happiness. What you're describing is the nonsensical "positive rights" definition - rights are negative. For instance, your right to free speech doesn't mean that the government will put you in a position wherein you can effectively exercise it, like a news anchor spot - that right means it won't get in your way of exercising it. Your right to bear arms doesn't mean that you'll get a free gun, it means that you will not be prohibited from owning one. Your pursuit of happiness is not something the government is supposed to enable, it's something it's not allowed to impede. Moreover, any life pursuit does not come with a guarantee of success, otherwise it wouldn't be a pursuit, or even a right - it would be an entitlement.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> congrats, you've managed to deliberately and blatantly misinterpret every single shred of what he's promised so that you have some excuse to blame him for literally everything
> 
> 
> The right to pursue something, and thus the right to said something, might not need to entail the government paying for it.
> ...


Have you any proof everything in that image is misrepresented? Proof?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I disagree with your definition of a pursuit. A pursuit is a process - you designate a goal X and, in order to achieve it, you put Z into it - this usually means an investment of time, effort and money. This is applicable to any pursuit, including a pursuit of happiness. What you're describing is the nonsensical "positive rights" definition - rights are negative. For instance, your right to free speech doesn't mean that the government will put you in a position wherein you can effectively exercise it, like a news anchor spot - that right means it won't get in your way of exercising it. Your right to bear arms doesn't mean that you'll get a free gun, it means that you will not be prohibited from owning one. Your pursuit of happiness is not something the government is supposed to enable, it's something it's not allowed to impede. Moreover, any life pursuit does not come with a guarantee of success, otherwise it wouldn't be a pursuit, or even a right - it would be an entitlement.


Technically speaking, due to government funding cuts to education at various levels being the primary cause of the batshit insane fees causing this entire problem (by forcing schools to dig deeper and deeper into students' wallets), the government _is_ by proxy impeding people's access to college education. This is basically the only case where by not directly enabling it, the government IS impeding it. "Not part of the solution -> part of the problem" applies to education funding.


Purple_Shyguy said:


> Have you any proof everything in that image is misrepresented? Proof?


Have you any proof for the claims made in said image?
You posted it, you prove it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Technically speaking, due to government funding cuts to education at various levels being the primary cause of the batshit insane fees causing this entire problem (by forcing schools to dig deeper and deeper into students' wallets), the government _is_ by proxy impeding people's access to college education. This is basically the only case where by not directly enabling it, the government IS impeding it. "Not part of the solution -> part of the problem" applies to education funding.


I would argue that by funding private education institutions the government created the problem in the first place - student loans with a cap that's sky high means a school can also charge sky high since everybody is spending virtual money, until it's not virtual a few years down the line. The value proposition here went out of whack and the former students were left holding the bag. The way government-backed student loans work in the UK is that if after graduating you are unable to find a job that gives you X income in return, the school has failed in its obligation to provide you marketable education, which is a failure to render service, and the debt is forfeit (to be more specific, your post-graduate student loan is subject to a write-off if you have failed to find employment that generates an income of £27,295 within 30 years of graduating, Plan 1 loans are written off after 25 years). It's not the best solution, but it's better than wholesale debt forgiveness. Schools must be incentivised to provide education that sells, otherwise they will teach nonsense to maximise profit and minimise expenses, like every business does. That's not cruel, that's sensible. Alternatively, pending government review, some majors should be government-backed while others should not. This changes all the time due to market forces deciding demand, so it would be up to the department of education to decide. It's a complicated subject with no one primary cause of chaos, saying that "lack of funding" is the root cause is too broad.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I would argue that by funding private education institutions the government created the problem in the first place - student loans with a cap that's sky high means a school can also charge sky high since everybody is spending virtual money, until it's not virtual a few years down the line. The value proposition here went out of whack and the former students were left holding the bag. The way government-backed student loans work in the UK is that, if after graduating you are unable to find a job that gives you X income in return, the school has failed in its obligation to provide you marketable education, which is a failure to render service, and the debt is forfeit (to be more specific, your post-graduate student loan is subject to a write-off if you have failed to find employment that generates an income of £27,295 within 30 years of graduating, Plan 1 loans are written off after 25 years). It's not the best solution, but it's better than wholesale debt forgiveness. Schools must be incentivised to provide education that sells, otherwise they will teach nonsense to maximise profit and minimise expenses, like every business does. That's not cruel, that's sensible. Alternatively, pending government review, some majors should be government-backed while others should not. This changes all the time due to market forces deciding demand, so it would be up to the department of education to decide. It's a complicated subject with no one primary cause of chaos, saying that "lack of funding" is the root cause is too broad.


Fair point.
But either way, the overall cause is at some point or points in this sequence of events:
-Gov't shoves so much funding up private schools' asses that the students at the time (iirc Boomers considering the timing, which would explain the general Boomer consensus on student loans being one of ignorance and entitlement) basically didn't have to pay a cent
-Said private schools become reliant on that high level of funding, with the gov't basically being their life support
-Funding cuts result in them either decreasing quality, shrinking or clamping down on students' wallets for as long as possible, *and of course they pick the latter*
The fault lies both with the government and with the institutions- the former for funding the latter so hard they became reliant and then Lucy's Footballing a ton of it away, and the latter with picking the greediest possible solution (and in effect prioritizing maintaining their prior conditions over, you know, any of their non-filthy-rich students plausibly NOT BEING BURIED IN LIFE DEBT).
And yeah, the UK debt forfeit thing you mentioned seems like a good thing to implement in some fashion and proportion (though IDK from the wording if you mean "if you find a job that pays X per year by then" or "if you manage to make X total income by then", because the latter seems like a pretty damn low number to reach). Though, adjusting for 'Murica's batshit economy aside, I must say: 30 years is an awful long time to be drowning in student loan debt. Let's (low-quality-approximately) say that John Smith graduates at age 20. By the time he escapes from the pits of debt, he's 50. He's already past the average median age almost everywhere, and is probably going to have an awfully difficult time picking up a successful and well-paying job _now_ if he couldn't before.
I'd say that if a similar system were to be implemented here, I'd lower that quite a bit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Fair point.
> But either way, the overall cause is at some point or points in this sequence of events:
> -Gov't shoves so much funding up private schools' asses that the students at the time (iirc Boomers considering the timing, which would explain the general Boomer consensus on student loans being one of ignorance and entitlement) basically didn't have to pay a cent
> -Said private schools become reliant on that high level of funding, with the gov't basically being their life support
> ...


We're talking about annual income here. With inflation in mind and over the course of 30 years it is plausible that you could reach this level of income in the absence of a degree, which means it was worthless and the money was wasted. Moreover, if that's your level of income after spending your "best years" in an educational institution, it's fair to say that paying monthly installments on the debt is not feasible for you - at that point you're presumably in your late 40's/early 50's and have to support a family, at least statistically. Even just the income bar alone is good - you don't pay until you earn enough to cover living expenses, that way people with student loans hanging over their heads don't have to worry about them *until* they generate income that enables them to pay. That makes the difference between paying a loan off, just a little bit later down the line, or not paying it off at all. Ideally a financial institution would like to see the debt paid rather than not paid - banks are going to be around for much longer than the student will, so the time frame when they're paid off is of lesser importance.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We're talking about annual income here. With inflation in mind and over the course of 30 years it is plausible that you could reach this level of income in the absence of a degree, which means it was worthless and the money was wasted. Moreover, if that's your level of income after spending your "best years" in an educational institution, it's fair to say that paying monthly installments on the debt is not feasible for you - at thst point you're presumably in your late 40's/early 50's and have to support a family, at least statistically. Even just the income bar alone is good - you don't pay until you earn enough to cover living expenses, that way people with student loans hanging over their heads don't have to worry about them *untip* they generate income. That makes a difference between paying a loan off, just a little bit later down the line, or not paying it off at all. Ideally a financial institution would like to see the debt paid rather than not paid - banks are going to be around for much longer than the student will, so the time frame when they're paid off is of lesser importance.


So yeah, far too long and far too easy.
The bar should be set high enough that it's statistically not feasible for someone to achieve the level of income required to keep the student loan debt legitimate without any degree.
System's good in terms of the idea, basically useless in terms of the numbers.
_insert "rookie numbers" meme joke thing here but 100% serious_


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> So yeah, far too long and far too easy.
> The bar should be set high enough that it's statistically not feasible for someone to achieve the level of income required to keep the student loan debt legitimate without any degree.
> System's good in terms of the idea, basically useless in terms of the numbers.
> _insert "rookie numbers" meme joke thing here but 100% serious_


I don't agree. If you're making approximately 30K a year, which is double the full-time national minimum wage in the country, it is perfectly feasible for you to dedicate a hundred or two on paying off a debt per month. If you're not making that and you've made an earnest effort in finding well-paid employment, the service you received was inadequate - you were sold a degree that you can't monetise, so the university sold you a lemon and the money they charged you was charged in bad faith. You don't have to pay anything at all until you reach the payment threshold, so the debt is not holding you back and it may as well not exist at all.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't agree. If you're making approximately 30K a year, which is double the full-time national minimum wage in the country, it is perfectly feasible for you to dedicate a hundred or two on paying off a debt per month. If you're not making that and you've made an earnest effort in finding well-paid employment, the service you received was inadequate - you were sold a degree that you can't monetise, so the university sold you a lemon and the money they charged you was charged in bad faith. You don't have to pay anything at all until you reach the payment threshold, so the debt is not holding you back and it may as well not exist at all.


I mean...
if you're given THIRTY YEARS, and the best paying job you can find is low enough that you could have plausibly gotten something as good as it WITHOUT college and thus student loans...
Isn't that also a sign that the education was inadequate? Shouldn't that also make the debt forfeit, since the 'service' did jack all?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I mean...
> if you're given THIRTY YEARS, and the best paying job you can find is low enough that you could have plausibly gotten something as good as it WITHOUT college and thus student loans...
> Isn't that also a sign that the education was inadequate? Shouldn't that also make the debt forfeit, since the 'service' did jack all?


No matter what level you set, there will always be a point on the axis where you cross between plausible and implausible. In a vacuum you could theoretically start a business with no degree at all and make income far in excess of that number. On the flip side, you could also get a degree and make significantly less. We're interested in the latter situation, and *double* of what the government considers to be the bare minimum seems appropriate to me. £30K is no chump change - that's $42K and puts you in the middle class earnings range. It's certainly a lot of money for someone who, presumably, needed assistance in getting a degree in the first place.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> No matter what level you set, there will always be a point on the axis where you cross between plausible and implausible. In a vacuum you could theoretically start a business with no degree at all and make income far in excess of that number. On the flip side, you could also get a degree and make significantly less. We're interested in the latter situation, and *double* of what the government considers to be the bare minimum seems appropriate to me. £30K is no chump change - that's $42K and puts you in the middle class earnings range. It's certainly a lot of money for someone who, presumably, needed assistance in getting a degree in the first place.


Fair.
Now if only we could have this, a modified version, debt forgiveness, free public education exclusively a la Finland or _*literally anything implemented whatsoever *_to fix, improve or at least band-aid our shitty education system!


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Fair.
> Now if only we could have this, a modified version, debt forgiveness, free public education exclusively a la Finland or _*literally anything implemented whatsoever *_to fix, improve or at least band-aid our shitty education system!


I honestly think that higher education is not something that each and every person needs - that's a lie universities and colleges sell people in order to hook them on the tuition hook. It's a pursuit one can choose, but not one that is absolutely necessary to lead a fulfilling life, not in the era of the Internet where anyone can learn anything at any time. If we're talking strictly about earnings, a lot of people find more luck learning a trade or engaging in entrepreneurship instead of spending what are objectively their best years learning things that may or may not be useful to them in the future. "Getting a degree" shouldn't be a de facto default part of one's career, it's entirely elective and based on the career one has chosen to pursue. As such, I don't lump it together with basic education every citizen receives free of charge, education that's considered to be necessary to function in society. I can see the allure, but I disagree when it comes to the supposed benefits. Should the government help in those pursuits? Perhaps, but not in a way that outright funds fool's errands. It's an investment, and as long as the investment operates under fair rules for both parties, it is fair.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I honestly think that higher education is not something that each and every person needs - that's a lie universities and colleges sell people in order to hook them on the tuition hook. It's a pursuit one can choose, but not one that is absolutely necessary to lead a fulfilling life, not in the era of the Internet where anyone can learn anything at any time. If we're talking strictly about earnings, a lot of people find more luck learning a trade or engaging in entrepreneurship instead of spending what are objectively their best years learning things that may or may not be useful to them in the future. "Getting a degree" shouldn't be a de facto default part of one's career, it's entirely elective and based on the career one has chosen to pursue. As such, I don't lump it together with basic education every citizen receives free of charge, education that's considered to be necessary to function in society. I can see the allure, but I disagree when it comes to the supposed benefits. Should the government help in those pursuits? Perhaps, but not in a way that outright funds fool's errands. It's an investment, and as long as the investment operates under fair rules for both parties, it is fair.


Let's go down the plausible paths here.
Higher ed 'overvalued' and unnecessary: figure out some way to value it at what it's worth (this would be extraordinarily complicated, but you could always make it so that this only applies to the batshit-insane-expensive ones and thus incentivize them to just lower tuition to a reasonable amount to bypass the paperwork), then make some finite quantity * "whatever this system determines the education is worth in the end" the maximum they can charge. If higher ed isn't going to help people succeed to X degree (no pun intended), it certainly shouldn't be able to charge them much more than X equivalent amount.
Higher ed worthwhile: _Make it affordable, for fucks sake._
If it's as important as I'd hazard it being (or rather, as I hazarded it being coming into this argument), it shouldn't be locked behind a paywall that would make EA blush. And if it isn't, then the current tuition fees at a lot of places are basically an outright scam.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Let's go down the plausible paths here.
> Higher ed 'overvalued' and unnecessary: figure out some way to value it at what it's worth (this would be extraordinarily complicated, but you could always make it so that this only applies to the batshit-insane-expensive ones and thus incentivize them to just lower tuition to a reasonable amount to bypass the paperwork), then make some finite quantity * "whatever this system determines the education is worth in the end" the maximum they can charge. If higher ed isn't going to help people succeed to X degree (no pun intended), it certainly shouldn't be able to charge them much more than X equivalent amount.
> Higher ed worthwhile: _Make it affordable, for fucks sake._
> If it's as important as I'd hazard it being (or rather, as I hazarded it being coming into this argument), it shouldn't be locked behind a paywall that would make EA blush. And if it isn't, then the current tuition fees at a lot of places are basically an outright scam.


Out of all of that I'm only concerned with the value proposition. If the cost of university surpasses the probable gains from the investment then it is a stupid investment in America, regardless of the educational factor. Schools are charging too much without providing value in return - that's what needs to be addressed, in my opinion. Either tuition fees need to go down or the value of a degree needs to increase. As a side note, a value of a degree partially increases with scarcity. I have to reiterate, not everyone needs to have a degree, or even wants one in the first place - it's elective. Multifaceted problem right here, possibly going beyond the scope of the thread that is strictly dedicated to Biden, so I'll roll it back a bit to the proposal. He wants to forgive 10K's worth of debt per individual - that pays some of it, not all of it. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that incentivises schools to charge more - by precisely 10K. Give it 10 years and you'll end up where you've started. If I, as a service provider, knew that the government is going to foot X% of the bill regardless of results, I'm immediately raising prices. I might be an asshole for doing that, but that's free money sitting there on the table.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Out of all of that I'm only concerned with the value proposition. If the cost of university surpasses the probable gains from the investment then it is a stupid investment in America, regardless of the educational factor. Schools are charging too much without providing value in return - that's what needs to be addressed, in my opinion. Either tuition fees need to go down or the value of a degree needs to increase. As a side note, a value if a degree partially increases with scarcity. I have to reiterate, not everyone needs to have a degree, or even wants one in the first place - it's elective. Multifaceted problem right here, possibly going beyond the scope of the thread that is strictly dedicated to Biden, so I'll roll it back a bit to the proposal. He wants to forgive 10K's worth of debt per individual - that pays some of it, not all of it. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that incentivises schools to charge more - by precisely 10K. Give it 10 years and you'll end up where you've started. If I, as a service provider, knew that the government is going to foot X% of the bill regardless of results, I'm immediately raising prices. I might be an asshole for doing that, but that's free money sitting there on the table.


yeah
tbh that last "I might be an asshole for that, but free money" describes almost every money-related problem in America: greedy fucks do bad thing, bad thing bad
capping things off (trying not to go off topic but I might as well at least _amend_ what my two cents on this are before we move along), the solution here isn't really even absolute debt forgiveness, or even complete and utter college tuition coverage by the government
that's amazing, but it wouldn't solve the problem because colleges could just ramp up the prices to clinically insane amounts which is the very thing that got us into this mess
the solution is a mix of a student-loan limit like you mentioned the UK has, combined with the government actually capping the amount they're allowed to charge relative to what they provide (which is something that should probably be applied elsewhere as well- but a Biden thread definitely isn't the place for me to rant about the price of glasses)
anyway back to the main topic
heehoo old man is old and tries good thing but sometimes fails kinda sorta


----------



## notimp (Feb 19, 2021)

When you both are finished to go through ever more formal patterns of speech to address each other, you might notice the - "exeptionalism" that both of you are demanding, nowadays is found not in universities, but in summer schools, and international meetups or exchange programs, and thats also what international corporations are selecting for these days. You get in contact with them there. You get to talk. You get to be groomed.

You can see your entire university education as an entry cost towards that. And if you never have realized that, before your formal education is over - well, its your fault really. Why havent you informed yourselves on how your future employers select nowadays?

The 'value of your education' is this right now. At least in europe. The Bolognia system produced a bunch of young people struggling against insignificance - becoming more and more cut-throat and conformistic in the process.

When they are at the point, where they are finally at the paid industry events, or the preselectors - they are showing their finest facebook selves, promoting selfcensored behavior - even in base level political discussions, only to have a chance at being considered for an advanced career.

That all the system apparently was spun up to produce. So more competition at the academical level (you now get a degree for only investing two and a half years), and then preselecting for most ruthless, most conformist, most driven, most popular... and of course high IQ and willing to put it to work for international corporations of renown. The best people you usually also dont find in startup scenes. (Heck, you didnt even find Steve Jobs there...)


That parents were willing to pay more, and didnt tell their children what was required of them currently, hardly was the universities fault.


None of the current outcome is seen as a problem. Give the SJWs some low paying jobs, where they can tell the world, that each individuals self image is a problem, and that the corporation they work with has morals (for that plus in consumer loyalty), and all the 'higher degree' folks (but not really), have a place in life.

You brought more risk into the university education market, by not preselecting earlier. Was that the fault of universities?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> yeah
> tbh that last "I might be an asshole for that, but free money" describes almost every money-related problem in America: greedy fucks do bad thing, bad thing bad
> capping things off (trying not to go off topic but I might as well at least _amend_ what my two cents on this are before we move along), the solution here isn't really even absolute debt forgiveness, or even complete and utter college tuition coverage by the government
> that's amazing, but it wouldn't solve the problem because colleges could just ramp up the prices to clinically insane amounts which is the very thing that got us into this mess
> ...


Is it greed? Your cost as a student just fell, I don't see why there shouldn't be an equal but opposite reaction on the other side. Nothing changes for me as the provider, I simply have an opportunity to maximise profit, and it would be foolish not to do that. If you see a dollar on the ground, you pick it up. That's not greed, that's an opportunity. I would criticise anyone for *not* picking it up, in fact - somebody's going to, make sure that somebody is you.


----------



## notimp (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Is it greed? Your cost as a student just fell, I don't see why there shouldn't be an equal but opposite reaction on the other side. Nothing changes for me as the provider, I simply have an opportunity to maximise profit, and it would be foolish not to do that. If you see a dollar on the ground, you pick it up. That's not greed, that's an opportunity. I would criticise anyone for *not* picking it up, in fact - somebody's going to, make sure that somebody is you.


Then you'd have no problem in the current higher education system. Its still preselecting for future job opportunities at those outside activities - with the most popular preselection indicator being 'being driven' and 'searching for opportunity'. All systems are set up to lap you up, as one such individual.

Its more the other ones that run into problems later down the line.

(People not making the cut, in our parents generation would get the higher administrational jobs, or job in politics, but those jobs are dying out. First because of 'lean state', now because of automation. So you have to invent SJW jobs at corporations for those folks. (Roughly )  Those jobs arent particularly well paying - but then - no jobs are. edit: Oh, and we need more climate change consultants! In all kinds of fields! Ever thought about trying out for one of those jobs, as someone with a higher (but not really) education?

Jobs in skilled crafts and trades are at high demand with a generation of boomers, that want to live the rest of their lives in relative luxury - those boomers are dying out, and they left fewer children. Who went through three crisis/recessions starting from when they first entered the job market. Somehow I dont see that much demand for artisanry in their lives.. Well despite, when you tell them, that there is always demand, for that - because those arent the jobs likely to be replaced by automation.

But Boomers still will hang around for another 20 years or so - and they are spending...)


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Is it greed? Your cost as a student just fell, I don't see why there shouldn't be an equal but opposite reaction on the other side. Nothing changes for me as the provider, I simply have an opportunity to maximise profit, and it would be foolish not to do that. If you see a dollar on the ground, you pick it up. That's not greed, that's an opportunity. I would criticise anyone for *not* picking it up, in fact - somebody's going to, make sure that somebody is you.


"Your cost as a student just fell, so I should _raise it back up_ and create the same problem all over again because I'd rather keep a serious economic problem afloat than back down to something vaguely reasonable" is not only greed but basically what led to this in the first place, and that's why the solution I suggested is to *prevent* them from picking up (or should I say, re-stealing, since the dollar in question wasn't picked up off the ground as much as it was pickPOCKETED from a guy walking nearby) the dollar.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "Your cost as a student just fell, so I should _raise it back up_ and create the same problem all over again because I'd rather keep a serious economic problem afloat than back down to something vaguely reasonable" is not only greed but basically what led to this in the first place, and that's why the solution I suggested is to *prevent* them from picking up (or should I say, re-stealing, since the dollar in question wasn't picked up off the ground as much as it was pickPOCKETED from a guy walking nearby) the dollar.


There is zero reason not to raise your price if you know your customer can afford it. Greed is a selfish desire to accumulate, business is exchanging goods or services for money. If customers have a bag of free money all of a sudden, it makes perfect sense to charge more, particularly if the free money drove demand up (which it likely did) while your supply remained the same. You now have an army of students with 10K that they didn't have before and want to spend it - it's your raison d'etre to give them the opportunity to spend it.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There is zero reason not to raise your price if you know your customer can afford it. Greed is a selfish desire to accumulate, business is exchanging goods or services for money. If customers have a bag of free money all of a sudden, it makes perfect sense to charge more, particularly if the free money drove demand up (which it likely did) while your supply remained the same. You now have an army of students with 10K that they didn't have before and want to spend it - it's your raison d'etre to give them the opportunity to spend it.


That is a big part of economics, limited resources, printing more money isn't going to magically make more good and services available. With more money at the customers disposal and limited resources available, customers will use that extra money to try to outbid each other and to try to obtain that limited resource over the other person. 

So prices go up because people pay for those prices hoping to obtain that item in limited stock,  and with more money available at their disposal they can easily pay for those higher prices. Services are also a limited resource. A person time and education is a limited resource.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There is zero reason not to raise your price if you know your customer can afford it. Greed is a selfish desire to accumulate, business is exchanging goods or services for money. If customers have a bag of free money all of a sudden, it makes perfect sense to charge more, particularly if the free money drove demand up (which it likely did) while your supply remained the same. You now have an army of students with 10K that they didn't have before and want to spend it - it's your raison d'etre to give them the opportunity to spend it.


Either way... the fact that they're almost definitely going to do exactly this (because they don't realize that _*them charging as much as they do is the problem and that they can't avoid it by charging MORE, *_or they're so actually greedy as to willfully ignore it) is why the solution is to make it so that they legally _can't_ do so.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 19, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Either way... the fact that they're almost definitely going to do exactly this (because they don't realize that _*them charging as much as they do is the problem and that they can't avoid it by charging MORE, *_or they're so actually greedy as to willfully ignore it) is why the solution is to make it so that they legally _can't_ do so.


I don't see how draconian price and wage controls are somehow going to allow them to expand in order to meet demand without raising cost. You have an opportunity to get the point of view of someone quite familiar with methods of separating people from their money in consensual transactions, so I'll give you my take. Facing government-imposed tuition controls, I would immediately raise ancillary costs. I don't have to charge you more for the service, I can charge *a little bit more* for all the add-ons, like a room on campus or other optional fees. *Something* has to generate revenue to account for new students who suddenly appeared once they were given a promise of 10K they won't have to pay, money that they didn't have before that now enables them to pursue a degree they otherwise wouldn't pursue. It's just the way it is. From where I'm sitting, cost of higher education is, in large part, caused by handing out student loans willy-nilly. It does increase the universality, but it decreases value and increases cost. All things in balance, like most things in nature. The alternative to all that are public universities wherein you *can* set prices, but those too need to compete for educators whom you have to pay a competitive wage, otherwise they'll just teach in the private sector. If you want to handle this problem, you have to firmly grasp the valve that's spitting out free money and make sure it doesn't spit out *more* in response to debt forgiveness. Without increased loans you don't have an increased amount of money to spend. The institution will always charge as much as it can feasibly charge, you have to control that number.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't see how draconian price and wage controls are somehow going to allow them to expand in order to meet demand without raising cost. You have an opportunity to get the point of view of someone quite familiar with methods of separating people from their money in consensual transactions, so I'll give you my take. Facing government-imposed tuition controls, I would immediately raise ancillary costs. I don't have to charge you more for the service, I can charge *a little bit more* for all the add-ons, like a room on campus or other optional fees. *Something* has to generate revenue to account for new students who suddenly appeared once they were given a promise of 10K they won't have to pay, money that they didn't have before that now enables them to pursue a degree they otherwise wouldn't pursue. It's just the way it is. From where I'm sitting, cost of higher education is, in large part, caused by handing out student loans willy-nilly. If does increase the universality, but it decreases value and increases cost. All things in balance, like most things in nature. The alternative to all that are public universities wherein you *can* set prices, but those too need to compete for educators whom you have to pay a competitive wage, otherwise they'll just teach in the private sector.


Can't there be some balance, though?
"Max fees (probably accounting for the sidestepping with ancillary costs, because that ruins the point) are X proportional to Y, and the government covers Z (Z being either a flat amount or a percentage, as the need may be) of it."
Basically balance the thing that caused the problem but could also help to solve it (by patching up its weakness) with the thing that could be sidestepped (with the same patch-up).


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Can't there be some balance, though?
> "Max fees (probably accounting for the sidestepping with ancillary costs, because that ruins the point) are X proportional to Y, and the government covers Z (Z being either a flat amount or a percentage, as the need may be) of it."
> Basically balance the thing that caused the problem but could also help to solve it (by patching up its weakness) with the thing that could be sidestepped (with the same patch-up).


I've added a possible remedy in an edit. If you ensure that the bank can't loan out 10K more based on the 10K forgiveness, you limit the disposable income of the student and prevent an overcharge based on surplus capital. You're still forgiving 10K, but the student has the same amount in-hand that's disposable, anything beyond that is their personal money which they will naturally be less keen on spending.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I've added a possible remedy in an edit. If you ensure that the bank can't loan out 10K more based on the 10K forgiveness, you limit the disposable income of the student and prevent an overcharge based on surplus capital. You're still forgiving 10K, but the student has the same amount in-hand that's disposable, anything beyond that is their personal money which they will naturally be less keen on spending.


...Huh, I hadn't thought of that.
Then again, I'm a teenager, not an economist, businessman or anything remotely finance-or-economy-related, so I'm not exactly surprised there's a likely-better and painfully-obvious solution I'd missed.
Stopping the issue of disgusting student loan debts... by literally just limiting how much they're allowed to _loan._ Ironically, wouldn't this also solve the other part of the problem since the institutions are now incentivized to lower fees down to a loanable amount? If so (and arguably even if not, because it still generally solves the issue of student loans so large they're practically some kind of eldritch pact), that's a great idea!


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ...Huh, I hadn't thought of that.
> Then again, I'm a teenager, not an economist, businessman or anything remotely finance-or-economy-related, so I'm not exactly surprised there's a likely-better and painfully-obvious solution I'd missed.
> Stopping the issue of disgusting student loan debts... by literally just limiting how much they're allowed to _loan._ Ironically, wouldn't this also solve the other part of the problem since the institutions are now incentivized to lower fees down to a loanable amount? If so (and arguably even if not, because it still generally solves the issue of student loans so large they're practically some kind of eldritch pact), that's a great idea!


The problem would need a multi-pronged approach, but it logically makes sense to me. A business can only charge you what you're willing to spend - the cap they face is however much money you have versus how much you want what they offer. If you make loans more universal while reducing their dollar size, universities would have to adjust pricing because they want that money, and they want to fill seats in. There are two possible outcomes - the prices go down and they remain packed *or* the prices go up and they become *more* elitist by only catering to the extremely wealthy. The former is easier because you have more students with more bags, the latter is harder because you have fewer extremely wealthy individuals who can pay out of pocket, but you can cut other costs. No way to tell how it'd go, it depends on the administrators and how committed they are to their mission of educating the public. There are ethical administrators, there are unethical administrators.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The problem would need a multi-pronged approach, but it logically makes sense to me. A business can only charge you what you're willing to spend - the cap they face is however much money you have versus how much you want what they offer. If you make loans more universal while reducing their dollar size, universities would have to adjust pricing because they want that money, and they want to fill seats in. There are two possible outcomes - the prices go down and they remain packed *or* the prices go up and they become *more* elitist by only catering to the extremely wealthy. The former is easier because you have more students with more bags, the latter is harder because you have fewer extremely wealthy individuals who can pay out of pocket, but you can cut other costs. No way to tell how it'd go, it depends on the administrators and how committed they are to their mission of educating the public. There are ethical administrators, there are unethical administrators.


Maybe avoid the "elitism route" by _also_ implementing a proportional cap on fees?
Like:
Maximum loan amount is X
Maximum _fee_ is A*X (with A being a number above 1, probably below 2 but that might be too low idk)
Maximum fees for [various standard additional accommodations] are B*X, C*X, etc. with B, C, etc. being, of course, *far, far smaller than A*
Therefore, the overall absolute maximum they can charge is (A + B + C...)*X
Alternatively, to avoid the hassle of evaluating every single accommodation, have three proportionals instead. X is still the max loan, A*X is still the max fee, but B*X is the max that all the extras combined can cost and C*X is the max that any individual extra can cost.
A bit convoluted, but I think (with the tiny fraction of brain cells that actively care about this kind of $tuff) that this would cover the loopholes...?


----------



## tabzer (Feb 20, 2021)

Just some "armed insurrection" footage.



If you don't want to watch this because google is biased, I wouldn't blame you.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 20, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Just some "armed insurrection" footage.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to watch this because google is biased, I wouldn't blame you.



literally all that proves is that the capitol police are corrupt and/or complicit in the riot
of course they didn't use violence against the guards that would proceed to casually let them in
they didn't need to


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Maybe avoid the "elitism route" by _also_ implementing a proportional cap on fees?



You seem worried about elitism as you deem it, and frankly I am not sure you can ever stop it, and likewise I am not sure in your scenario it even makes sense to worry about it and instead leave the market to take care of it itself -- rich people tend not to have very large families enough to go full nepotism (though it is very much a thing) and that will leave companies crying out for trained people and thus someone paring things back to give them an education (basic office building, 10 lecturers, 10 assistants, 5 admins) and 3 years x 300 students paying 10k a piece so 9 million before taxes just from that alone... I can do something with that in almost any field and, workshops aside, scales pretty well if going lower. Paid to do research and a few inevitable tax breaks/funds on top of that...

Back onto elitism, and also where the various Nordic models will come short.
I alluded to some stuff I did earlier but go with an example.
I mostly do work for a handful of businessmen (build things, fix things, deal with standards when they want to import/export). One of his kids just got let out of a decent university with what would on paper be similar to what I have/do. He gave him a task or three within that and when the... difference in output quality became apparent I got a call. I did some stuff, and also called up the machine shop (who realised who it was, as in "you know the client 10 of big jobs this year I was point on?") and they suddenly had a free apprentice, a favour from me, and also proceeded to "give him an education" (no school like the old school and all that).
6 months later we are done and he toddles off to an interview. The classic old when the hills were young guy they keep around, and sort of person that if I am going head to head with I am up all night for weeks making sure there is absolutely no avenue of attack or weakness on my part, he actually managed to handle by virtue of the efforts of myself and the machine shop where before... no hope of that one.
Potential is still considered (the 19 year old said machine shop had found around a similar timeframe and had the potential realised, and realised in the other meaning of the term in the years since) but for my client's that sort of thing would not have happened anywhere near as quickly or decisively as what happened had the business type not opened up the wallet to spot that one (cost was equally not all that much to him -- think "semi fancy car for graduation" or "here is your house downpayment" and you might even be too high depending upon where that 20% down is). You are never going to stop that one, never going to stop the "can take an unpaid internship" set, daddy's and daddy's friends that you have personal numbers for will drive some business/contacts our way... type deals and frankly I am not sure you would want to.

At the same time I also had to query the nature of the education (I also collect old books, most of what we taught, and said kid came back a couple of years later (having seen several more rounds of recruits, even getting volunteered to shepherd a few) to say "I get it now" (old school methods are not noted as being easy on the would be recipient), was fairly common and arguably would have been known anyway as back when you tended not to be lectured to before you were time served in the lesser fields) but that is a different debate*.

*or maybe not. Law school graduation vs bar pass rate, architecture school vs architecture reality, medic school vs medic reality...
Plenty of businesses will also be ignoring degrees from various schools as it stands today both "elite" and "we don't care about community college", and plenty more will have "can you do the job?" as a bigger concern.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 20, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> You seem worried about elitism as you deem it, and frankly I am not sure you can ever stop it, and likewise I am not sure in your scenario it even makes sense to worry about it and instead leave the market to take care of it itself -- rich people tend not to have very large families enough to go full nepotism (though it is very much a thing) and that will leave companies crying out for trained people and thus someone paring things back to give them an education (basic office building, 10 lecturers, 10 assistants, 5 admins) and 3 years x 300 students paying 10k a piece so 9 million before taxes just from that alone... I can do something with that in almost any field and, workshops aside, scales pretty well if going lower. Paid to do research and a few inevitable tax breaks/funds on top of that...
> 
> Back onto elitism, and also where the various Nordic models will come short.
> I alluded to some stuff I did earlier but go with an example.
> ...


dude I was talking about the "college institutions becoming more elitist" possibility _that Foxi mentioned_


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 20, 2021)

The reason why I mentioned it is because setting tuition to be prohibitively expensive, far beyond what a bank would be willing to/allowed to lend (via government backing - privately they can lend however much they want) would, in effect, restrict a lot of students from applying while keeping the same cash flow. I think what FAST meant was that it was an unlikely scenario, and he's right. In regards to price controls, I am completely against any - everyone should be allowed to charge however much they want for their goods/services and the market will decide how much the product is actually worth. There's room for Fiats, priced sensibly and giving customers good value for money, and there's room for Lamborghinis, prohibitively expensive and with outstanding theoretical top speed that you *never* get to utilise on the road, making the number on the dashboard just a status symbol. Ultimately universities will figure out how to maintain the same or similar cashflow regardless of what you do on the governmental end, what you do have control over is whether people will be in a position to face those fees or not.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The reason why I mentioned it is because setting tuition to be prohibitively expensive, far beyond what a bank would be willing to/allowed to lend (via government backing - privately they can lend however much they want) would, in effect, restrict a lot of students from applying while keeping the same cash flow. I think what FAST meant was that it was an unlikely scenario, and he's right. In regards to price controls, I am completely against any - everyone should be allowed to charge however much they want for their goods/services and the market will decide how much the product is actually worth. There's room for Fiats, priced sensibly and giving customers good value for money, and there's room for Lamborghinis, prohibitively expensive and with outstanding theoretical top speed that you *never* get to utilise on the road, making the number on the dashboard just a status symbol. Ultimately universities will figure out how to maintain the same or similar cashflow regardless of what you do on the governmental end, what you do have control over is whether people will be in a position to face those fees or not.


I guess.
Besides, they can't realistically all go straight up in terms of pricing- they'll naturally want to undercut each other as well to avoid losing potential students to another uni with the same or better education but cheaper (or just "one that's closer to reasonably affordable").


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I guess.
> Besides, they can't realistically all go straight up in terms of pricing- they'll naturally want to undercut each other as well to avoid losing potential students to another uni with the same or better education but cheaper (or just "one that's closer to reasonably affordable").


Of course they will. They can be competitive in price if you let them, or better yet, put them in a position where they must be competitive. That's precisely why throwing money at them is not the answer - the more free money they get the less incentivised they are to compete for money that isn't free.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course they will. They can be competitive in price if you let them, or better yet, put them in a position where they must be competitive. That's precisely why throwing money at them is not the answer - the more free money they get the less incentivised they are to compete for money that isn't free.


Should I report this for trolling?

Universities, that compete for being allowed to enlist students?

Just because the moderator doesnt want to acknowledge, that the problem was created by boomers literally shifting society by optimising for this?



> Here’s how I like to explain the outcome of matriculating:
> 
> If you send a dozen kids off to college,
> 
> ...


edit: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-per...to-university-in-the-United-States-of-America

So the selection criteria for companies changed. They now only select high achievers and well connected people and put the rest into what some people would call 'BS jobs'.

The problem is not, that its not fair that you gave people those ideas of becoming something - they all had a chance - and they would have opted for university education, just for the chance of it.

This is not a problem of universities, if there is a demand increase - why should you not try to give more people a higher education?

Not their fault, that the economy went full automation at the same time, and that thanks to digitization and AI this mainly meant slashing white color administerial jobs.

Foxi just wants to push the idea, that market principals will solve the problem they created - by going the Hunger games route.

Thats what he always demands.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 20, 2021)

notimp said:


> Should I report this for trolling?
> 
> Universities, that compete for being allowed to enlist students?
> 
> ...


Since major change in the right direction (i.e. the Finnish system, which is the complete antithesis of our fucked up excuse for an education system and seems to be a shining example of how to do education _right_) is nigh impossible for now, we might as well exploit capitalist greed by making simple moves that force them to do what is right (not strangle students with life debt basically) in order to make the most money.
It's still horrible, but it's the best way of handling our awful system without upending it.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Since major change in the right direction (i.e. the Finnish system, which is the complete antithesis of our fucked up excuse for an education system and seems to be a shining example of how to do education _right_) is nigh impossible for now, we might as well exploit capitalist greed by making simple moves that force them to do what is right (not strangle students with life debt basically) in order to make the most money.
> It's still horrible, but it's the best way of handling our awful system without upending it.


Also what Foxi4 might be neglecting is, that there already is high competition over jobs deemed 'desireable'. In fact so much so - that the selection outcome is, to be totally conformist, fake enthusiastic, driven for no logical reason, ... and that you have an immense fear over "saying the wrong thing" - because it could upend your career choices. Not to even begin to talk about how your facebook profile needs to be managed...


Let me tell you another tale I whitnessed in Alpbach (young future leaders, high achievers, bla bla) - a young girl, in the fashionably labled 'black ball pit' (an artist project - of course), openly told a college in the 'political correctness - session', that she is so happy, that she is under likeminded people, because now - finally - she would be able to speak freely. And by that she meant praising the benefits of political correctness culture.

The pressures are immense.

But those are the criteria that people get preselected for. Degree alone, is worth nothing. (In several of the more 'popular fields'.) Connections help, presentation helps. Being motivated helps. So does being malleable.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 20, 2021)

Imagine thinking that education is not a business and universities are not competing to get the best and brightest in their seats every year. Students are *in limited supply*, people only have so many children, only so many of them are gifted, and out of that subset of a subset only so many apply. The education system is just as much a part of the market as any other human endeavour aimed at generating an income. If you don't think it's aimed at generating an income, visit a university.

*EDIT*: To illustrate, Yale University's endowments are valued at approx. $30.3 billion. In the 2019-2020 fiscal year the university made $4.2 billion in operating revenue, significantly less than their expenses. The excess was invested into the school's portfolio - they're famously invested in Google, Amazon, Facebook, LinkedIn, and have been investing in emerging technologies for decades. Their stock portfolio generates 93% returns and is the university's major source of income, the returns are accounting for 34% of their net revenues. You're welcome to check their public financial statements.

Y'know. Education.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Feb 20, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Technically speaking, due to government funding cuts to education at various levels being the primary cause of the batshit insane fees causing this entire problem (by forcing schools to dig deeper and deeper into students' wallets), the government _is_ by proxy impeding people's access to college education. This is basically the only case where by not directly enabling it, the government IS impeding it. "Not part of the solution -> part of the problem" applies to education funding.
> 
> Have you any proof for the claims made in said image?
> You posted it, you prove it.



Direct quotes arent proof? Also, youre claiming its false YOU prove it, *snip*.

This isnt what I voted for hes letting us down!


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 20, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> This isnt what I voted for hes letting us down!


Looks at flag.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 20, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Direct quotes arent proof? Also, youre claiming its false YOU prove it, *snip*.
> 
> This isnt what I voted for hes letting us down!


You claimed his promises were false.
That is the original claim being made.
It is your job to prove it because that is how the burden of proof works.
End of story.
The only quote there that even has a shred of possible validity is the 2k thing, and even that's just a large mess of semantic interpretation.


Foxi4 said:


> Imagine thinking that education is not a business and universities are not competing to get the best and brightest in their seats every year. Students are *in limited supply*, people only have so many children, only so many of them are gifted, and out of that subset of a subset only so many apply. The education system is just as much a part of the market as any other human endeavour aimed at generating an income. If you don't think it's aimed at generating an income, visit a university.
> 
> *EDIT*: To illustrate, Yale University's endowments are valued at approx. $30.3 billion. In the 2019-2020 fiscal year the university made $4.2 billion in operating revenue, significantly less than their expenses. The excess was invested into the school's portfolio - they're famously invested in Google, Amazon, Facebook, LinkedIn, and have been investing in emerging technologies for decades. Their stock portfolio generates 93% returns and is the university's major source of income, the returns are accounting for 34% of their net revenues. You're welcome to check their public financial statements.
> 
> Y'know. Education.


Funny thing is, Finland has THAT problem covered too!
An interesting consequence of a system that values cooperation and schools being safe, healthy and well-funded environments where students can grow and learn at their own pace... is that it practically produces droves of star students without even trying!
(The article I posted a few pages ago on said system noted that, despite it explicitly NOT being the goal, Finland's new system resulted in shockingly good performance from an absurdly high amount of students. Probably because it encourages working together instead of obsessing over being "the best _one_ in XYZ".)


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 21, 2021)

Biden has to be one of the biggest racist I ever seen 
I just spit out my water pic.twitter.com/GL5F3phxG0— Ashley St. Clair (@stclairashley) February 20, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden has to be one of the biggest racist I ever seen
> https://twitter.com/stclairashley/status/1363224533759574016


Biden is referring to this article. Thank you for bringing this idiotic suggestion that Biden's remarks were racist to our attention. I await your next post where you will undoubtedly admit that you were espousing fake outrage and you concede that it wasn't indicative of the reality of the situation. Thanks again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/world/us-coronavirus-vaccine-minorities.html


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden has to be one of the biggest racist I ever seen
> https://twitter.com/stclairashley/status/1363224533759574016


As Lacius just mentioned, Biden was referring to a legitimate article (and just stumbled a bit on the wording).
This boils down to, once again, mocking him for a verbal flub.


Plasmaster09 said:


> You people do realize that Biden's infamous gaffes and flubs... are likely due to his stutter, which he's struggled with since childhood? (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/)
> Which is to say, a literal neurological disability? (No, I'm serious. Stuttering isn't just the r-r-repeating bits when you're nervous thing, it's also an actual serious disability that can basically be described as a glitch in the processes related to speech and has more effects than just simple, no-meaning-changed repeating. Basically imagine if your own vocal cords and speech processes fought against you as actively as the Republican Congress minority is fighting against Biden's every breath.)
> Now combine that with the sheer amount of stress and responsibility placed on the President, as well as just how often he has to give entire speeches on live television.
> Suddenly, using Biden's gaffes as a common trick to paint him as irresponsible or unfit goes from mocking someone for their age and trying to use their slip-ups to portray them as mentally unstable (already pretty messed up) to mocking someone for their _disability_ and trying to use *that* to portray them as mentally unstable (which, if I really have to say this, is absolutely fucking horrible and is on par with a particularly vicious school bully trying to slander his victim to the rest of the school).
> It may be funny, I will admit... but using it as a primary tactic to paint him in a negative light is unacceptable.


Boy, do my past words come in handy right about now.
For future, any use of simple wording slips or other verbal gaffes as sole (as in, with no other evidence alongside them) points to discredit Biden and either falsely accuse him of negatives or imply he's unfit to be President purely based off of them should be taken as what it is: a baseless accusation attempting to smear someone for their *disability.*
They're funny, but using them as a solitary 'argument' (likely because you've run out of actual arguments) is not only an ad hominem attack, but one tantamount to school-level bullying.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 21, 2021)

The issue, which is usually the issue when it comes to..."disagreements" like this, is one of perspective and goals. If you view students as product and consumer (and switch between the two as convenient), and your goal is profit (either directly or indirectly), then yes. of course you're going to see universities as businesses. and you're going to try and min/max the risk/profit while squeezing as much out of your product while minimizing the actual amount of effort put in. As funding on the federal and state level have continued to plumit over the years, it's not been possible for universities to continue to be bastions of progress and research. They've had to cut corners, teach only the "more profitable" courses and degrees, and lean far more heavily on students/connections to be the income support.

If you view education as a place where humanity develops and codifies knowledge, to pass on the understanding of those who came before, to be a safe place to develop ideas and concepts, to test various hypothesis, disprove age-old myths and legends, to ignite passions and to nurture mature thinking in anyone who desires to learn...well, then, the state of higher education (and primary) in both funding and how it's presented in US politics is sad, pathetic, and barbaric.

If your perspective is only the strongest or most-privileged survive, then I think you need to reevaluate your ethics


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 21, 2021)

osaka35 said:


> The issue, which is usually the issue when it comes to..."disagreements" like this, is one of perspective and goals. If you view students as product and consumer (and switch between the two as convenient), and your goal is profit (either directly or indirectly), then yes. of course you're going to see universities as businesses. and you're going to try and min/max the risk/profit while squeezing as much out of your product while minimizing the actual amount of effort put in. As funding on the federal and state level have continued to plumit over the years, it's not been possible for universities to continue to be bastions of progress and research. They've had to cut corners, teach only the "more profitable" courses and degrees, and lean far more heavily on students/connections to be the income support.
> 
> If you view education as a place where humanity develops and codifies knowledge, to pass on the understanding of those who came before, to be a safe place to develop ideas and concepts, to test various hypothesis, disprove age-old myths and legends, to ignite passions and to nurture mature thinking in anyone who desires to learn...well, then, the state of higher education (and primary) in both funding and how it's presented in US politics is sad, pathetic, and barbaric.
> 
> If your perspective is only the strongest or most-privileged survive, then I think you need to reevaluate your ethics


"The way things are being handled is logical. A horrible storm of soulless atrocities putting human minds and the success possible in human lives at stake for the sake of pinching pennies, but still *logical*."


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 21, 2021)

Biden defence fore defending his constant actual racism


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden defence fore defending his constant actual racism


As stated previously, you're deliberately misinterpreting what he said.
All of this combined, you're:
-trolling
-baiting
-bordering on spamming if you say this same point again
-being disingenuous
-using indirect ad hominem attacks on both us and Biden
-overall being as obnoxious as possible to hide your lack of a real argument


----------



## tabzer (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Biden is referring to this article. Thank you for bringing this idiotic suggestion that Biden's remarks were racist to our attention. I await your next post where you will undoubtedly admit that you were espousing fake outrage and you concede that it wasn't indicative of the reality of the situation. Thanks again.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/world/us-coronavirus-vaccine-minorities.html



Being unable to connect to the internet is the bottom rung and has nothing to do with being a minority.  Transportation issues and crappy facilities are a more connected with income inequality than to do with racial matters.  Language barriers shouldn't exist because of, at least, the internet. 

I didn't read the full article because it wants me to log in.  But, if it's racist, then people who uphold it as an authority are racist; right?


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Does that mean Switzerland is a better country than the US?


Of course


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2021)

osaka35 said:


> The issue, which is usually the issue when it comes to..."disagreements" like this, is one of perspective and goals. If you view students as product and consumer (and switch between the two as convenient), and your goal is profit (either directly or indirectly), then yes. of course you're going to see universities as businesses. and you're going to try and min/max the risk/profit while squeezing as much out of your product while minimizing the actual amount of effort put in. As funding on the federal and state level have continued to plumit over the years, it's not been possible for universities to continue to be bastions of progress and research. They've had to cut corners, teach only the "more profitable" courses and degrees, and lean far more heavily on students/connections to be the income support.
> 
> If you view education as a place where humanity develops and codifies knowledge, to pass on the understanding of those who came before, to be a safe place to develop ideas and concepts, to test various hypothesis, disprove age-old myths and legends, to ignite passions and to nurture mature thinking in anyone who desires to learn...well, then, the state of higher education (and primary) in both funding and how it's presented in US politics is sad, pathetic, and barbaric.
> 
> If your perspective is only the strongest or most-privileged survive, then I think you need to reevaluate your ethics


False dichotomy. Describing people who don't share your view on how certain things should be organised as somehow ethically deficient is part of the problem.


Plasmaster09 said:


> Funny thing is, Finland has THAT problem covered too!
> An interesting consequence of a system that values cooperation and schools being safe, healthy and well-funded environments where students can grow and learn at their own pace... is that it practically produces droves of star students without even trying!
> (The article I posted a few pages ago on said system noted that, despite it explicitly NOT being the goal, Finland's new system resulted in shockingly good performance from an absurdly high amount of students. Probably because it encourages working together instead of obsessing over being "the best _one_ in XYZ".)


I have several problems with this, but I'll limit myself to two of the major ones. Firstly, Finland's population is exceedingly homogenous - the students are all from very similar households, and as such have very similar educational needs. While Finnish students are actually studying, American students are deliberating on the finer points of math being racist. I wish that was a joke, but I've seen a number of papers to that effect in recent memory, all of them rather odd given the fact that math is purely logic-based and doesn't leave much room to cultural interpretation. Secondly, this is not how you win the Olympics or land on the moon. Success is born from exceptionalism, not a sea of mediocrity. I have no qualms with pairing good students with underperforming students as long as the end result is pulling underperforming people up as opposed to cutting the overperforming ones at the hamstrings, however I can't help but think that perhaps those who *are* overperforming should simply progress to fulfil their potential faster instead of wasting time in classes that do not provide them with a measurable benefit - educating is the paid profession of the educator, not fellow students.


----------



## notimp (Feb 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I have several problems with this, but I'll limit myself to two of the major ones. Firstly, Finland's population is exceedingly homogenous - while Finnish students are actually studying, American students are deliberating on the finer points of math being racist.


You misunderstood that as well.

The SJW movement was a network to promote pushing yourself up the carreer ladder, in large parts. You followed a completely misguided internal logic of 'whos oppressed most, should be highest in hirarchy'. You deplattformed other people, you filled your facebook channel with 'I'm socially caring' news - 2/3 of which were directed at caring for microminorities.

You had corporate america embrace it - because that (showing you cared for diversity) promised more consumer stickyness - which is promoted by industrial giant figureheads, as the main venue for revenue growth for Fortune 500 companies. Only in that vain, you also made it 'important in society'.

Both corporations, and political entities LOVED it, because it meant, business as usual - in terms of major societal costs -- it simply was the response to 'no future growth markets' so make up something that industry likes.

Maybe in some fields, it let to lessening the paying gap between minorities, but even there - that wasnt that large to begin with (mostly showed up along education based metrics, so if you got the 'additional qualifications' aftermarket more diverse - good, otherwise no impact).

So everybody loved it. Its regenerating the same 'values' that boomers instilled - so no large scale social change at all. More diverse friends on facebook. More opportunities for token personal - everyone feeling better, thats it.

So in that sense - from the point of view of established companies, and entities its a win/win/win.


You literally managed to channel all of the youths anger and resentment over things not working into an internal culture, where they learned to shut up, or be character assassinated, and something that resulted in no additional cost for governments, and only marketing related costs for corporation, they were planning on spending anyway.

It was genius.
-

Also on the concept of 'left liberal arts' colleges in general. You want them, you want to keep them, because they are your 'developing grounds' for new societal concepts, that you can fall back on, when the next mob is in the streets, demanding change that is not "we'll let the market handle it". In theory. In practice, this generation largely destroyed debate culture, just to promote its own networks to get up top.

As a consequence, the 'impact' of that ideology - is far less visible, than many people would have imagined in the first place. Because with most proponents of the movement having learned to selfcensor themselves like champs, and others off the stage, they fit in wonderfully into whatever corporate culture they were moving up into. They just adopted. That was what they trained for their whole lives. And if their workspace was more diverse - they had everything they wanted.


On the positive side - more minorities got identification figures, they can look up at - just that that will not change large amounts of them being platformed into new job fields (education here still is the deciding factor, not race - ). Maybe in two generations this will lead to less discrimination, based on prejudices, as people are trying to replicate their own work environments. But for the larger parts of millenials or Gen Z - they are not even feeling that change.

On the positive side, more diversity should also lead to more innovation, just by the mere fact, that more people are thinking with more diverse consumer groups in minds - currently I dont see that happening so much (its more a better PR, so higher consumer loyalty, so more concentration outcome from where I'm looking at this), but again, this might very much be the case a few years from now. More diversity, on its own is championed as raising innovation.
--

In case you want to go all in on the dichotomy between "innovation leaders" (lets say technological innovation), and people "only looking at social issues". The fact still remains, that all future growth the US has to look forward to is either automated, or export related. Your future growth markets are mexico and india. So you'd need a bunch of people telling others to care more about social topics in country anyhow - which is why companies are hiring them as well, just minimum wage level (from where they are paying off their student debts), so why hate on those people. In the eyes of corporations, they 'didnt make the cut' anyhow - and internal growth is over. Heck if you are in the industries most people in this forum usually are pointing at for future technological development - all you did was to automate, put people into behavioral skinner boxes, subscription schemes, or predictive behavioral models. And the point of those are - to get as many people outside of your country also into those as possible - so that they can become profitable in the first place. For that you are preventing foreign countries to tax your tech companies, and are all worried about 'intellectual property theft' and 'cyber security', because you are sitting on monopolies - and try to shape the world after largely micropayment based systems once more - just at a very large scale. edit: Sorry, I forgot the great societal progress that was Uber and Taskrabbit.

And with that I'm not even looking at the migration away from california, which you predominantly caused.

The next future market isnt tech anymore, its biotech - so thats where your Wallstreet honchos, are putting most of their attention towards currently. If you see that as a future growth market for well paying jobs 'internally' - I wouldnt know what those would look like. Genetical engineering pedicure? And most of the output of that goes directly into industrial production - more automated than ever.

If you are talking about real societal development - all of the individual parts in an iPhone were inventions that came straight out of public grants. Those initiatives are no where to be seen. The closest analogue is "we are going to mars" - now championed by your private sector, and the impact of that currently is attracting more students to those sectors. Maybe.


So what would you do differently and why? You'd have more people 'just get a job' - (so no higher education that leads nowhere), with far less good jobs out there (generation barista, also look at the economy) than in your parents generation, then wait for them noticing. And have a revolt on your hand.

The entire premise, that you get far too few qualified individuals as an output of your education system is false. The quota of people you need for those positions has probably not changed, or decreased in the past 20 years (how many people does google employ, vs. how many people does it serve?), at the same time attendance to university has increased. And social mobility has fallen in the US longterm (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/1/251 - roughly,no good jobs).

This is a recipe for internal revolutions, if you dont pacify your population with 'shift priorities' BS, which has to come - exactly from the people only deliberating "on the finer points of math being racist".

If they arent saving your ass this time around...

Thats btw not my opinion, but the one that Larry Fink is selling to all financial investors for the past three years.

edit: src: https://socialpurpose.ca/larry-fink-social-purpose/


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Being unable to connect to the internet is the bottom rung and has nothing to do with being a minority.  Transportation issues and crappy facilities are a more connected with income inequality than to do with racial matters.  Language barriers shouldn't exist because of, at least, the internet.
> 
> I didn't read the full article because it wants me to log in.  But, if it's racist, then people who uphold it as an authority are racist; right?


These are some of the hurdles Black and Latinx people are facing that their White counterparts are not:

Websites that are English only, when a lot of Latinx people only speak Spanish.
Systemic income inequality that disproportionately affects Black and Latinx people, exacerbated by the pandemic, which can make it a decision between the trip to get vaccinated, paying for groceries, paying the phone bill, etc.
The same income inequality issues above have cut some people off from the internet.
Older Americans, particularly older Black and Latinx Americans, don't know how to use technology as well as their White counterparts. Due to the aforementioned income inequality issues, there was a delay in generational access to technology compared to White people.
Websites asking for social security numbers affect vaccine registration for illegal immigrants.
Websites asking for health insurance information affect people without health insurance, and they are disproportionately Black and Latinx.
Joe Biden has repeatedly said racial equity is at the center of his response to the coronavirus pandemic, due to the systemic racism these communities face and the fact that the virus is disproportionately affecting these communities. The idea that Joe Biden is somehow racist for his remarks is just stupid. Joe Biden isn't "upholding" these systemic issues. He's trying to fix them.

Frankly, I don't really care if you think other variables contribute to poverty, and I don't necessarily disagree with you; the fact of the matter is that income inequality clearly and demonstrably exists, and to argue that it doesn't is foolish. We can talk about why it exists, but it flatly exists.

I also don't give a damn if you think language barriers shouldn't exist because "internet." They exist, and I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Biden defence fore defending his constant actual racism


Communities of color demonstrably have a more difficult time getting vaccine registrations. See my previous post for details. Your attempts at trolling are just sad at this point.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> These are some of the hurdles Black and Latinx people are facing that their White counterparts are not:
> 
> Websites that are English only, when a lot of Latinx people only speak Spanish.
> Systemic income inequality that disproportionately affects Black and Latinx people, exacerbated by the pandemic, which can make it a decision between the trip to get vaccinated, paying for groceries, paying the phone bill, etc.
> ...



Income inequality, education, and legal status are not racially dependent.  If these issues can be addressed on an individual level, systematic changes can be adapted to scalable solutions--reaching more people despite their race.



Lacius said:


> I also don't give a damn if you think language barriers shouldn't exist because "internet." They exist, and I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for you.



Sorry, the point that I was trying to make is that because of the internet, people have accessibility to translation tools that they would be without if they were doing things strictly by paper.  The lack of language support on government/hospital sites are concerning, but it seemed like the original suggestion was contrary to the point that I was making.  "they face obstacles like language and technology barriers"


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Income inequality, education, and legal status are not racially dependent.  If these issues can be addressed on an individual level, systematic changes can be adapted to scalable solutions--reaching more people despite their race.


Regardless, there are still issues of systemic racism that contribute to the racial income inequality, etc. that I mentioned above.



tabzer said:


> Sorry, the point that I was trying to make is that because of the internet, people have accessibility to translation tools that they would be without if they were doing things strictly by paper.  The lack of language support on government/hospital sites are concerning, but it seemed like the original suggestion was contrary to the point that I was making.  "they face obstacles like language and technology barriers"


Language barriers are one issue they're facing. Technology issues are another issue they're facing.

*Snip*


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 21, 2021)

there are many issues in higher education. to fix them, we have to agree that there is a problem, at which level a problem happens, at which level a solution would happen, what that solution would look like, how we do the thing, and how we measure its success.  just listing the problems can be tough enough.



Foxi4 said:


> False dichotomy. Describing people who don't share your view on how certain things should be organised as somehow ethically deficient is part of the problem.


they're not the only two perspectives, but they are antithetical ideas. to have such differect conceptual frameworks and refuse to see how one impacts the other? of course this issue has ethical implications. of course it's an ethical issue. this is usually the divide that has to be bridged: the ethical imperative and the resource limitations tying our hands. but it's important to, at minimim, admit that it should be bridged. 

many of the limitations are of our own creation and could be more easily fixed with a refocused goal. though this much is true for many, many "hot-button" issues in politics. basically, it boils down to this: if you see education just as training, then you do not understand the concept of education.


----------



## Kurt91 (Feb 21, 2021)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to argue against the English-only Internet Pages complaint as well, at least as far as it applies to Spanish/English. Translating between Spanish and English is one of the easiest conversions that a machine-translation can make, or at the very least, it's a hell of a lot easier than other languages. (Have you ever tried to machine-translate Japanese and get something that makes sense? There's a reason "Translation Aggregator" exists to run Japanese through 8 different machine-translation websites at once, and even then it's still up to the user to try and piece together what the most likely meaning is.)

Unless something's changed since the last time I've used it, Google Chrome has a handy little feature where you simple right-click on a page and hit "Translate Web Page", and in about 30 seconds it translates just about every single piece of text on the page that isn't an image. I happen to be a big fan of a comic called "Life with HipsterGirl and GamerGirl", and while the comic itself has an English version, the artist's website is entirely in Spanish, and if I want to read any of the discussions around the latest comic, I have to use the translate tool on Google Chrome. It converts between those two languages perfectly fine.

As far as not knowing how to use technology in specific, you're telling me that most of those grandparents don't have grandchildren who are more than capable of (begrudgingly, I'll admit) trying to explain how to use their new smart-phone? Yes, there are a few cases where there's no younger family members to teach them, but it's one of those things where all you have to do is ask. I'm sure that they've got at least one friend or acquaintance who can explain the basics as well as how to use Google to look up what they don't know, just like the rest of use. It's not an issue of not being able, it's an issue of being too stubborn to ask for help in 99% of these cases.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> These are some of the hurdles Black and Latinx people are facing that their White counterparts are not:
> 
> Websites that are English only, when a lot of Latinx people only speak Spanish.
> Systemic income inequality that disproportionately affects Black and Latinx people, exacerbated by the pandemic, which can make it a decision between the trip to get vaccinated, paying for groceries, paying the phone bill, etc.
> ...


1. not all white people speak enlish native, they've got the excact same problem to deal with, not racism
2. if your job isn't paying off, stop wasting your time on that job!
3. see above.
4. that's still an issue these people create for themselves, dive into the info, seek help, stop the blaming.
5. yes, then get to the first point where you can register, if you keep walking against a wall, maybe you need a better map.
6. allright i give you that one, but then again: if the place you live and work can't get your bills payed, then move on and stop complaining.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

JaapDaniels said:


> 1. not all white people speak enlish native, they've got the excact same problem to deal with, not racism
> 2. if your job isn't paying off, stop wasting your time on that job!
> 3. see above.
> 4. that's still an issue these people create for themselves, dive into the info, seek help, stop the blaming.
> ...



The proportion of Lantix people who don't speak English is a lot higher than the proportion of White people who don't speak English.
You seem to be discounting the effects of systemic racism in this country as they pertain to income inequality. It takes a certain level of privilege to respond to this systemic racism by saying "oh, just get a better job dummy."
You seem to be discounting the effects of systemic racism in this country as they pertain to technological savviness. It takes a certain level of privilege to respond to this systemic racism by saying "oh, just do better dummy."
Regardless of how you feel about what people could or should be doing, the fact remains that the factors I've listed have contributed to a disparity in vaccination registrations based on race. Your post is embarrassingly dimwitted, and you're not helping anything by denying systemic race issues and saying "do better." If I were you, I'd delete my post. It's borderline racist. I'm completely at a loss for what you were trying to accomplish with it.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The proportion of Lantix people who don't speak English is a lot higher than the proportion of White people who don't speak English.
> You seem to be discounting the effects of systemic racism in this country as they pertain to income inequality. It takes a certain level of privilege to respond to this systemic racism by saying "oh, just get a better job dummy."
> You seem to be discounting the effects of systemic racism in this country as they pertain to technological savviness. It takes a certain level of privilege to respond to this systemic racism by saying "oh, just do better dummy."
> Regardless of how you feel about what people could or should be doing, the fact remains that the factors I've listed have contributed to a disparity in vaccination registrations based on race. Your post is embarrassingly dimwitted, and you're not helping anything by denying systemic race issues and saying "do better." If I were you, I'd delete my post. It's borderline racist. I'm completely at a loss for what you were trying to accomplish with it.


1. yes and like anyone coming to a foreign country it's in thier best interest to seek help getting to understand local language. if you can't or do so it's not racism, it's lazyness.
2. that level isn't given at birth it's been given by working towards.
3. see 2.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 21, 2021)

JaapDaniels said:


> 1. yes and like anyone coming to a foreign country it's in thier best interest to seek help getting to understand local language. if you can't or do so it's not racism, it's lazyness.
> 2. that level isn't given at birth it's been given by working towards.
> 3. see 2.


1) Learning a new language is surprisingly difficult. Also, shitty victim blaming. Stop.
2) A substantial amount of it is given at birth, whether through wealth or simple genetics due to systemic bigotry. Denialism. Stop.
3) See 2. *Stop.*


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

JaapDaniels said:


> 1. yes and like anyone coming to a foreign country it's in thier best interest to seek help getting to understand local language. if you can't or do so it's not racism, it's lazyness.
> 2. that level isn't given at birth it's been given by working towards.
> 3. see 2.


A significant population in this country speaks Spanish, and if the goal is to get people vaccinated, that should be considered. The fact that it isn't being considered in some places is disproportionately affecting the Latinx community. It sounds to me like you're arguing only for the sake of the arguing, and you're not going a good job at it.

Whether or not something happens at birth doesn't discount the fact that systemic racism exists. People who are LGBT aren't met with homophobia at birth, for example, but that doesn't mean homophobia doesn't exist. Systemic racism exists. It's societal, not biological. Good job. Why are you posting?


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Feb 21, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Man I'm literally dying of laughter it's so damn funny, it's almost as funny as the war in the middle east


though that will still be going on no matter what lol. Whether it's Trump, Biden, Obama, or anyone in office. Not saying I support it


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 21, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> though that will still be going on no matter what lol. Whether it's Trump, Biden, Obama, or anyone in office. Not saying I support it


yeah though Biden has at least decided to pull back from part of it (the invasion of Yemen)


----------



## smf (Feb 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course they will. They can be competitive in price if you let them, or better yet, put them in a position where they must be competitive. That's precisely why throwing money at them is not the answer - the more free money they get the less incentivised they are to compete for money that isn't free.



Success driven payments, based on future earnings.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Feb 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> 1) Learning a new language is surprisingly difficult. Also, shitty victim blaming. Stop.
> 2) A substantial amount of it is given at birth, whether through wealth or simple genetics due to systemic bigotry. Denialism. Stop.
> 3) See 2. *Stop.*


i've learned about 5 languages by now, none given by birth.
you learn by reading, talking with and so on,mine now ar dutch, english german at good level. spanish and italian to a certain level i can get my stuff when i need it, i can even get to basic small talk.
you and everyone else can learn a language, age nor roots should be any reason you can't it's difficult, yes.
so is everything in this world.
nothing ever is given, it takes practise, will and time.
here in the netherlands i help when someone struggles with the local language, and they do get there step by step, everyone if they wanna, but i won't help anyone who lives here for more then 5 years not trying to learn the basics of my language.
i don't think it's right to change a country for those who don't do thier homework.
if you want it, you get help to get to the level needed to get everythin. if you don't want to invest in the local language, don't be surpriced if things will not work your way.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The proportion of Lantix people who don't speak English is a lot higher than the proportion of White people who don't speak English.
> You seem to be discounting the effects of systemic racism in this country as they pertain to income inequality. It takes a certain level of privilege to respond to this systemic racism by saying "oh, just get a better job dummy."
> You seem to be discounting the effects of systemic racism in this country as they pertain to technological savviness. It takes a certain level of privilege to respond to this systemic racism by saying "oh, just do better dummy."
> Regardless of how you feel about what people could or should be doing, the fact remains that the factors I've listed have contributed to a disparity in vaccination registrations based on race. Your post is embarrassingly dimwitted, and you're not helping anything by denying systemic race issues and saying "do better." If I were you, I'd delete my post. It's borderline racist. I'm completely at a loss for what you were trying to accomplish with it.



Why do you insist on saying Latinx when even Latino's and Latina's dont say this, infact they hate this. Their language has Male and Female words. All you're doing is reinforcing that you actually don't care or know anything about them. If you did, you'd refer to them correctly. It always amuses me because If I didn't 'use someone's preferred pronoun's' you'd be the first too cry but here you are, purposefully ignoring what they themselves prefer because you're disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst.

Anyway i believe the rest of your points was 'the internet is racist' white privilege, systemic racism, racism racism etc and third point was racism? cool.

I must admit it's crazy to see the Biden defence force jump in too save him every time he says something racist though. Like the 94 crime bill wasn't enough. If Trump had  said half of what Biden has you'd all be screeching like the rabid dog's you are but because It's Biden you're twisting yourself inside out to find ways to defend his blatant racism. Liberal privilege is real folks.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 21, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Why do you insist on saying Latinx when even Latino's and Latina's dont say this, infact they hate this. Their language has Male and Female words. All you're doing is reinforcing that you actually don't care or know anything about them. If you did, you'd refer to them correctly. It always amuses me because If I didn't 'use someone's preferred pronoun's' you'd be the first too cry but here you are, purposefully ignoring what they themselves prefer because you're disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst.
> 
> Anyway i believe the rest of your points was 'the internet is racist' white privilege, systemic racism, racism racism etc and third point was racism? cool.
> 
> I must admit it's crazy to see the Biden defence force jump in too save him every time he says something racist though. Like the 94 crime bill wasn't enough. If Trump had  said half of what Biden has you'd all be screeching like the rabid dog's you are but because It's Biden you're twisting yourself inside out to find ways to defend his blatant racism. Liberal privilege is real folks.




It's ok that Biden said something racist, @shamzie, because someone else said it first, in some article. He was just repeating it.

Biden has a tendency for that.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 21, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> It's ok that Biden said something racist, @shamzie, because someone else said it first, in some article. He was just repeating it.
> 
> Biden has a tendency for that.



...you all yell "racist!" at Biden when he literally just cites an article, but have no problem with Trump's campaign being built on racism and xenophobia (mostly towards Mexicans for whatever reason)?
really?
y'all are hypocrites.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Why do you insist on saying Latinx when even Latino's and Latina's dont say this, infact they hate this. Their language has Male and Female words. All you're doing is reinforcing that you actually don't care or know anything about them. If you did, you'd refer to them correctly. It always amuses me because If I didn't 'use someone's preferred pronoun's' you'd be the first too cry but here you are, purposefully ignoring what they themselves prefer because you're disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst.
> 
> Anyway i believe the rest of your points was 'the internet is racist' white privilege, systemic racism, racism racism etc and third point was racism? cool.
> 
> I must admit it's crazy to see the Biden defence force jump in too save him every time he says something racist though. Like the 94 crime bill wasn't enough. If Trump had  said half of what Biden has you'd all be screeching like the rabid dog's you are but because It's Biden you're twisting yourself inside out to find ways to defend his blatant racism. Liberal privilege is real folks.


Latinx = latino and latina
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 21, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> ...you all yell "racist!" at Biden when he literally just cites an article, but have no problem with Trump's campaign being built on racism and xenophobia (mostly towards Mexicans for whatever reason)?
> really?
> y'all are hypocrites.



Why don't you ask Black or Latin people if what he said was racist. lol as if.


Lacius said:


> Latinx = latino and latina



No, Latinx = White people pushing their agenda on a community that doesn't want it. THEY don't say it, spanish words have genders. Respect them. LOL jk of course you won't.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Why don't you ask Black or Latin people if what he said was racist. lol as if.
> 
> 
> No, Latinx = White people pushing their agenda on a community that doesn't want it. THEY don't say it, spanish words have genders. Respect them. LOL jk of course you won't.


I'm not pushing an agenda. People who speak Spanish don't say a lot of things I say. I speak English.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2021)

osaka35 said:


> they're not the only two perspectives, but they are antithetical ideas. to have such differect conceptual frameworks and refuse to see how one impacts the other? of course this issue has ethical implications. of course it's an ethical issue. this is usually the divide that has to be bridged: the ethical imperative and the resource limitations tying our hands. but it's important to, at minimim, admit that it should be bridged.
> 
> many of the limitations are of our own creation and could be more easily fixed with a refocused goal. though this much is true for many, many "hot-button" issues in politics. basically, it boils down to this: if you see education just as training, then you do not understand the concept of education.


That's fair, as long as you're open to the idea that perhaps there's a different explanation besides "well, I guess they're just evil".


Lacius said:


> Latinx = latino and latina
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx


"The term was first seen online around 2004. It has later been used in social media *by activists, students, and academics* who seek to advocate for individuals living on the borderlines of gender identity. *Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves*, and that *only 2 to 3 percent* use _Latinx_. A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that 23% of U.S. adults who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino were aware of the term _Latinx_, and that of those, 65% *said it should not be used to describe their ethnic group*."

Sounds forced to me, but alright.


smf said:


> Success driven payments, based on future earnings.


Not a bad shout. Incentives paid based on results are a better solution than advance payments.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 21, 2021)

Biden destroying texas with green energy bs 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/DJcalligraphy/status/1363509018950463488

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> Latinx = latino and latina
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx


Latino here stop using that dumb word nobody here likes it


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden destroying texas with green energy bs


If you read the letter, the Biden administration granted the request from Texas to increase power. They didn't block it. The only BS here is your post.

Green energy/green energy standards had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in Texas.



Valwinz said:


> Latino here stop using that dumb word nobody here likes it


I didn't say you weren't Latino. Latinx refers to Latinos and Latinas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx

Frankly, I'm uninterested in having a semantic argument about whether I should use "Latinx" or "Latino/Latina." They mean literally the same thing in English.



Foxi4 said:


> "The term was first seen online around 2004. It has later been used in social media *by activists, students, and academics* who seek to advocate for individuals living on the borderlines of gender identity. *Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that most prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves*, and that *only 2 to 3 percent* use _Latinx_.


I'm not Latino/Latina/Latinx.

As I said above, I'm uninterested in having a semantic argument about whether I should use "Latinx" or "Latino/Latina." They mean literally the same thing in English.

Edit: Also, you don't need to respond to my posts unless it's as a moderator. If I could, you'd be blocked.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> As I said above, I'm uninterested in having a semantic argument about whether I should use "Latinx" or "Latino/Latina." They mean literally the same thing in English.
> 
> Edit: Also, you don't need to respond to my posts unless it's as a moderator. If I could, you'd be blocked.


The prevailing consensus is that we should call people what *they* want to be called, not what you think is the correct term, or so I was told. Latinx is an English neologism, a construct that's alien to the Latino community. Using a term they've rejected is patronising, and a form of English imperialism. They know what they want to be called better than you do, and if they fancied the term themselves, they would've adopted it. They haven't.

I'll also respond to whatever I fancy responding to, you can choose to ignore it by scrolling away.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> As I said above, I'm uninterested in having a semantic argument about whether I should use "Latinx" or "Latino/Latina." They mean literally the same thing in English.



And you accuse me of using terms and phrasing that sees people running for the dictionary.

But still. Convince me, or others here, of the merits of using such a term. Seems like a weird and pointless construction from where I sit that has no real adoption, unlikely to see any, and scarcely any basis for its existence even then (and that even if I accepted the premise that "gendered language bad").

That or we can dodge another pointless aside.

Not sure what else has happened in the last few days. Nothing of great merit, though again colour of the tie or nature of the man at the helm of the el presidente matters little when it gets down to it.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Not sure what else has happened in the last few days. Nothing of great merit, though again colour of the tie or nature of the man at the helm of the el presidente matters little when it gets down to it.


So far, Biden is doing _almost_ everything he said he'd be doing in his first hundred days.  He broke his promise on the deportation moratorium, but his administration is still working on immigration reform, including a path to citizenship.  Partial credit there I guess.

Bottom line: it doesn't take much to upstage Trump's presidency.  A pet rock could probably do it, especially when it comes to matters that require a show of empathy or solidarity.  Makes Valwinz's attempts at concern trolling even funnier.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> So far, Biden is doing _almost_ everything he said he'd be doing in his first hundred days.  He broke his promise on the deportation moratorium, but his administration is still working on immigration reform, including a path to citizenship.  Partial credit there I guess.
> 
> Bottom line: it doesn't take much to upstage Trump's presidency.  A pet rock could probably do it, especially when it comes to matters that require a show of empathy or solidarity.  Makes Valwinz's attempts at concern trolling even funnier.


Was Trump's presidency such a horror show?
From where I sit
Most local power did what it did regardless, as it generally always does.
Most federal power did bugger all beyond what was already codified and in place as everything is so closely matched and is a system designed to move at a glacial pace with minimal changes.
Most things that happened in the US would have happened during the previous 4 years, and 4 years before that, and 4 years before that...
For the most part there was law and order, same as there almost ever was at this point, generally people could get on with their lives, there were ups, there were downs, some suffered, some had a boon, a few pet projects got a token look in, a few pet projects of prior efforts got snubbed.
This will probably be much of the same, mainly as everything is much of the same.

It would have been nice for one side or another to have a strong leader with some principles and power to do something at least but that rarely happens, and amounts to less even when the appearance of such things is in place.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The prevailing consensus is that we should call people what *they* want to be called, not what you think is the correct term, or so I was told.


A Latino person who wants to be called a Latino should be called a Latino. A Latina person who wants to be called a Latina should be called a Latina. A Latinx person who wants to be called Latinx should be called Latinx. I never claimed "Latinx" was "the correct term," so please fuck off you disingenuous piece of shit. I know that sounds harsh, but it hopefully got your attention: The reason I don't want you responding to my posts is because you repeatedly put words into people's mouths, and then I have to waste my time correcting the record to make sure people don't think I said something I didn't.

Latinx is a shorthand for Latino/Latina, and debating the use of the word "Latinx" is both a deflection from my original points about vaccine distribution, and it's tantamount to arguing the merits of using "LGBT" instead of "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender." I don't really care about arguing about acronyms, abbreviations, etc. In reality, the word "Latinx" is used broadly, particularly among members of the Latinx community in my age group and those around me. While plenty of people in the Latinx community prefer the use of "Latino," it's not an especially controversial term, and the use of the word "Latinx" is increasing. There are also very specific grammar rules in Spanish that don't exist in English, and the use of "Latinx" is probably most analogous to people in the Latinx community using the word "americanos" to describe Americans. I'm not outraged by the use of the word "americanos," and the outrage exhibited in this thread about the word "Latinx" is fake outrage.



Foxi4 said:


> Latinx is an English neologism, a construct that's alien to the Latino community.


It's not alien to the community, particularly among the younger generations.



Foxi4 said:


> Using a term they've rejected is patronising


It's not rejected by the community, particularly among the younger generations.



Foxi4 said:


> and a form of English imperialism.


The use of the English language is not a form of English imperialism. I am an English-speaker.



Foxi4 said:


> They know what they want to be called better than you do, and if they fancied the term themselves, they would've adopted it. They haven't.


Plenty of people in the Latinx community have adopted, embraced, and/or accepted the use of the word.



Foxi4 said:


> I'll also respond to whatever I fancy responding to, you can choose to ignore it by scrolling away.


You were okay with this when I made the same request in October. What has changed? Is this an example of your self-proclaimed endeavor to become more of an asshole? Do you really think it is not improper to reject my request?



FAST6191 said:


> And you accuse me of using terms and phrasing that sees people running for the dictionary.


I never once "accused you of using terms and phrasing that sees people run for the dictionary."



FAST6191 said:


> But still. Convince me, or others here, of the merits of using such a term. Seems like a weird and pointless construction from where I sit that has no real adoption, unlikely to see any, and scarcely any basis for its existence even then (and that even if I accepted the premise that "gendered language bad").


See my points above. The debate here in this thread about the word "Latinx" is about as substantive as a hypothetical debate about using "Latino/Latina" instead of "Latino and Latina," since people are using "Latinx" to mean literally the same thing.



FAST6191 said:


> Was Trump's presidency such a horror show?


Nearly half a million people are dead as a direct result of the former president's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He forcibly separated children from their parents at the border with the explicit intention of creating trauma as a deterrent, all with no real plan to reunite children with their parents. He attempted to extort a foreign power into meddling in the 2020 election. He irreparably chipped away at American democracy by peddling lies about voter fraud in an attempt to overthrow the election result. He instigated a violent attack against the Capitol, and regardless of whether you think he actually instigated the violent attack or whether you think it was constitutional to impeach him, he used that attack as leverage to overturn the election results.

Yes, Trump's presidency was a horror show. I didn't even get to all of the highlights.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A Latino person who wants to be called a Latino should be called a Latino. A Latina person who wants to be called a Latina should be called a Latina. A Latinx person who wants to be called Latinx should be called Latinx. I never claimed "Latinx" was "the correct term," so please fuck off you disingenuous piece of shit. I know that sounds harsh, but it hopefully got your attention: The reason I don't want you responding to my posts is because you repeatedly put words into people's mouths, and then I have to waste my time correcting the record to make sure people don't think I said something I didn't.
> 
> Latinx is a shorthand for Latino/Latina, and debating the use of the word "Latinx" is both a deflection from my original points about vaccine distribution, and it's tantamount to arguing the merits of using "LGBT" instead of "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender." I don't really care about arguing about acronyms, abbreviations, etc. In reality, the word "Latinx" is used broadly, particularly among members of the Latinx community in my age group and those around me. While plenty of people in the Latinx community prefer the use of "Latino," it's not an especially controversial term, and the use of the word "Latinx" is increasing. There are also very specific grammar rules in Spanish that don't exist in English, and the use of "Latinx" is probably most analogous to people in the Latinx community using the word "americanos" to describe Americans. I'm not outraged by the use of the word "americanos," and the outrage exhibited in this thread about the word "Latinx" is fake outrage.
> 
> ...


Ooh getting spicy, or spicy for high tea at least (nothing close to anything like attention grabbing but my world is my world so eh). Still find it amusing you seem to harbour such a dislike of my approach to the world when in many ways, certainly all that really count, we are so similar in many regards in goals and desired outcomes.

Running off to find a dictionary was a paraphrasing. Issues with my choice of phrasing, point construction and whatnot were brought up though and that fell in line with that.

Even assuming it is the case and people think it a useful term do I care about the youth?

Still seems like a silly term when Latino and Latina seem to cover all use cases. That being Latina if you somehow need to refer to a woman and Latino for man and all non specific cases. Play it as you will. Maybe it will be adopted.



Lacius said:


> Nearly half a million people are dead as a direct result of the former president's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He forcibly separated children from their parents at the border with the explicit intention of creating trauma as a deterrent, all with no real plan to reunite children with their parents. He attempted to extort a foreign power into meddling in the 2020 election. He irreparably chipped away at American democracy by peddling lies about voter fraud in an attempt to overthrow the election result. He instigated a violent attack against the Capitol, and regardless of whether you think he actually instigated the violent attack or whether you think it was constitutional to impeach him, he used that attack as leverage to overturn the election results.
> 
> Yes, Trump's presidency was a horror show. I didn't even get to all of the highlights.


That seems like a statement that needs qualification.
Everywhere I look in the world seems to have been caught on the back foot, if not by China's inaction then by complacency. Likewise I am not sure what actions he could really have taken or not taken that local government (which I am sure all have hospitals and universities with infectious disease specialists that can say do it or don't, this one is nothing to sneeze at/run for the hills) could not have replicated or was shown to have replicated.

I have no problems with border separation. Just as when daddy held up a payday loan place and had to go away, or just as when my dad decided to stick around to see us finish school before going globe trotting, then I fail to see the issue with separation in illegal border crossings.

I missed the foreign power thing there and I would like to believe I follow stuff on that one. Going to need an elaboration.

Voter fraud, disenfranchisement, systemic failures (spoiler effect, zoning/districting/gerrymandering, electoral college, false advertisements, primarying...) and whatnot gets thrown around at all points by all parties, sometimes it is even true. Basically political noise at this point.

I am not seeing the violent attack on the capitol bit being instigated. That is quite the claim.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The use of the English language is not a form of English imperialism. I am an English-speaker.
> 
> Plenty of people in the Latinx community have adopted, embraced, and/or accepted the use of the word.
> 
> You were okay with this when I made the same request in October. What has changed? Is this an example of your self-proclaimed endeavor to become more of an asshole? Do you really think it is not improper to reject my request?


Not "plenty", 2%. In fact, it seems that the majority of Latinios/Hispanics aren't even aware of the term, and those who are overwhelmingly reject it - not according to me, but according to Pew Research. Imposing a word on a community from on-high because you think it's more appropriate than the gendered equivalents is linguistic imperialism, the gender-neutral term is the same as the masculine one - Latino. Latina is strictly feminine. You seem to acknowledge that the gendered terms are acceptable, so this is indeed a non-issue. This is also not the whole story about the request you made in October, since you bring it up. Weird, but I'll bite. You specifically said that you're not planning to respond to my posts and would prefer to be contacted only in regards to moderation - it seems that plans have changed for both of us. As I said in October, "alright" - if you treat it so personally, I can do that, although it is pretty silly. The issue of your use of the term was brought up by shamzie, not you or me, and I had something to add to that exchange, which is my right.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Not "plenty", 2%. In fact, it seems that the majority of Latinios/Hispanics aren't even aware of the term, and those who are overwhelmingly reject it - not according to me, but according to Pew Research. Imposing a word on a community from on-high because you think it's more appropriate than the gendered equivalents is linguistic imperialism, but you seem to acknowledge that the gendered alternatives are acceptable, so this is indeed a non-issue. This is also not the whole story about the request you made in October, since you bring it up. Weird, but I'll bite. You specifically said that you're not planning to respond to my posts and would prefer to be contacted only in regards to moderation - it seems that plans have changed for both of us. As I said in October, "alright" - if you treat it so personally, I can do that, although it is pretty silly. The issue of your use of the term was brought up by shamzie, not you, and I had something to add to that exchange, which is my right.


From the same poll, it's a lot more than that 2-3% who use the term who think it *should* be used. 13% of those who have heard it also use it, and 33% of those who have heard it think it should be used. The numbers increase as the age group decreases. When it comes to the questions about what they use and what should be used, they were also given a choice *between* options. The results of the poll don't contradict anything I've said, and they don't suggest any sort of outrage against the term. Anecdotally, I sent out a mass text to my Latinx friends, and the unanimous answer I got was "Latinx."

Once again, you're being disingenuous. The issue isn't whether or not you should respond to a topic in the thread. The issue is whether you should respond directly to my posts and mischaracterize my words. If you physically cannot control yourself from responding to my posts, then I just won't post on this site anymore. Honestly, good riddance to the toxicity in this community.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Once again, you're being disingenuous. The issue isn't whether or not you should respond to a topic in the thread. The issue is whether you should respond directly to my posts and mischaracterize my words. If you physically cannot control yourself from responding to my posts, then I just won't post on this site anymore. Honestly, good riddance to the toxicity in this community.


I don't think that will be necessary. Have fun.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Was Trump's presidency such a horror show?


It was basically one long con with the objective of stealing as many taxpayer dollars as possible and chipping away at as many of our constitutional rights as possible, so yes.  Week after week we had to deal with a new crisis of the Trump administration's own making, and then when it came time to deal with an external crisis (COVID), they were 100% fucking clueless.  Actually, "clueless" is giving them too much credit considering they were actively making things worse by politicizing every aspect of the virus.  400K dead Americans without firing a single shot: Putin definitely got everything he could've wanted and more out of that investment.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't think that will be necessary. Have fun.


Or, hear me out: you could stop needlessly deflecting and white-knighting over a one-letter vague gender difference for a group none of us are part of AFAIK, and actually tackle our arguments head-on.


FAST6191 said:


> Ooh getting spicy, or spicy for high tea at least (nothing close to anything like attention grabbing but my world is my world so eh). Still find it amusing you seem to harbour such a dislike of my approach to the world when in many ways, certainly all that really count, we are so similar in many regards in goals and desired outcomes.
> 
> Running off to find a dictionary was a paraphrasing. Issues with my choice of phrasing, point construction and whatnot were brought up though and that fell in line with that.
> 
> ...


Pandemic response: Trump refused to take basically any action unless it was too late, politicized mask-wearing, touted unproven and possibly dangerous remedies, _*KEPT POLITICIZING MASK-WEARING *_(resulting in likely being the primary cause of the large quantity of mask-denying, selfish, stubborn plague-spreading dumbfucks ruining the safety of everyone around them)... yeah.
Just under 500k people have died of the coronavirus in the US. It may have caught the whole world unawares, but thing is: 1) Trump knew how serious things were in early February, and we have him ON RECORDING deliberately downplaying it and planning to do so (source: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/9111...ess-of-the-coronavirus-early-on-new-book-says), and 2) he did basically everything he could to AVOID a proper response.
Trump. Made. This. Pandemic. Worse. On. Purpose.
Border separation: Seriously? Small children being separated from their families at the border? Regardless of party lines, that's just plain fucked up... _*and that's before you consider the concentration-camp-level-awful conditions the kids were put in. *_I am not using a shred of hyperbole there- the camps really were that horrible.
Foreign power: Trump tried to strongman Ukraine into digging up dirt on Biden and family. That's basically it.
Voter fraud: Erm, "it happens from both sides" isn't an excuse here. Trump lost, BADLY (so badly that it turned Georgia blue), and then proceeded to _*actively deny it and claim he won for *__*months.*_ If he hadn't lied his ass off about voter fraud, things would've likely proceeded smoothly, and more importantly...
The insurrection: It wouldn't have happened if not for Trump whining like the sore loser he is and actively *refusing to admit defeat in the fucking presidential election.* He claimed it was 'stolen' from him (despite every argument they proposed to back that getting absolutely shattered when it actually came to court, as the claims held no water), told his supporters to "stop the steal" and that _they would have to "fight like hell" in order to "stop" said "steal". _The key here is that unlike the out-of-context blip clips used to (badly) defend his statements during the impeachment trial, Trump actively told his supporters to fight for him to basically cheat him the election victory. He even said he'd be there with them trying to 'stop the steal' (though he wasn't, due to his other primary trait beyond greed and narcissism being cowardice), and OUTRIGHT REFUSED TO SEND THE NATIONAL GUARD. And then there's the matter of the other call, the one where he responds to basically "sir, your base is trying a coup and they want to lynch the VP, FUCKING DO SOMETHING" with "I guess they care more about the truth of the election than you do, huh?".
Yeah.


----------



## rensenware (Feb 22, 2021)

latinx is cringe idc


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 22, 2021)

jupitteer said:


> latinx is cringe idc



Woah be careful, they have democrat privilege. It doesn't matter If what they're saying is wrong, It doesn't matter if the people they're talking for reject and hate the term, they have democrat privilege. It's a kin to them going upto a black person and saying "what do you mean you're not a victim, im trying to help you here" you can't tell them anything. They'll never concede a point, they'll double down. OBVIOUSLY the Latino's and Latina's are wrong, they just dont know that yet.

In before "BLM:ACAB, They/Them  White Saviour  is typing...


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

hey..lookie ...
BREAKING: Former President Donald Trump is dealt a massive loss as the Supreme Court clears the way for a New York prosecutor to obtain his tax returns https://t.co/VEn90TRkmE— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 22, 2021

lets see who Trump owed 500million to?


----------



## Cryoraptor (Feb 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Lantix people who don't speak English is a lot higher than the proportion of White people


Latino and white aren't mutually exclusive. Latino is a cultural term independent of race. You can have white, black and native latinos, although most are a mix to some degree.

On the topic of language, immigrants should learn English. It would be rightfully considered rude and disrespectful if I moved to, say, France, didn't learn French and expected every native I encountered to be able to speak intelligible English, so why not the other way around? I don't care what language you speak in your own house, you can speak Swahili for all I care, but it should be a reasonable standard to expect immigrants to learn the native language of the country they are moving to. Saying that websites and such should be bilingual and available in Spanish, not to mention using buzz-terms like 'communities of colour' (as if latino and/or things like Mexican is a race when it's not), and claiming something as silly as 'old black people are disadvantaged because they understand technology less' (which is also kind of patronising, don't you think?) is just pandering for progressive points. I know people like you don't seriously believe things like this, you are just collecting progressive points because it's down with the kids to say things like this. Well, let me tell you something: This kind of thing isn't cool, it's just annoying and edgy, and terms like 'people of colour' and saying that old black and latino people are dumber than old white people (I'm not taking it out of context, that essentially _is _what you're saying) is just patronising. Yes, there are leftovers from the segregation era, this kind of thing takes time to heal, but patronising the affected people isn't helping anything. Reinventing something as utterly irrelevant as terminology and speech does not do anything for actual blacks and latinos who are stuck in poor neighbourhoods, and just marks you out as the kind of person who wants progressive points and is terrified of offending someone.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Plasmaster09 said:


> Learning a new language is surprisingly difficult


No shit, moving to a new country is difficult. It's part of the process.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> From the same poll, it's a lot more than that 2-3% who use the term who think it *should* be used. 13% of those who have heard it also use it, and 33% of those who have heard it think it should be used. The numbers increase as the age group decreases. When it comes to the questions about what they use and what should be used, they were also given a choice *between* options. The results of the poll don't contradict anything I've said, and they don't suggest any sort of outrage against the term. Anecdotally, I sent out a mass text to my Latinx friends, and the unanimous answer I got was "Latinx."
> 
> Once again, you're being disingenuous. The issue isn't whether or not you should respond to a topic in the thread. The issue is whether you should respond directly to my posts and mischaracterize my words. If you physically cannot control yourself from responding to my posts, then I just won't post on this site anymore. Honestly, good riddance to the toxicity in this community.


You've literally been told by a latino that it's a retard SJW term that actual latinos don't use, like person of colour for black people. Stop doubling down and admit fault. You use buzzwords to get woke points. You're doing exactly what Jeremy Cortard does with the working class: You're trying to tell blacks and latinos what they should say and what is good for them, when really you have no idea what those groups actually want or need.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> Latino and white aren't mutually exclusive. Latino is a cultural term independent of race. You can have white, black and native latinos, although most are a mix to some degree.
> 
> On the topic of language, immigrants should learn English. It would be rightfully considered rude and disrespectful if I moved to, say, France, didn't learn French and expected every native I encountered to be able to speak intelligible English, so why not the other way around? I don't care what language you speak in your own house, you can speak Swahili for all I care, but it should be a reasonable standard to expect immigrants to learn the native language of the country they are moving to. Saying that websites and such should be bilingual and available in Spanish, not to mention using buzz-terms like 'communities of colour' (as if latino and/or things like Mexican is a race when it's not), and claiming something as silly as 'old black people are disadvantaged because they understand technology less' (which is also kind of patronising, don't you think?) is just pandering for progressive points. I know people like you don't seriously believe things like this, you are just collecting progressive points because it's down with the kids to say things like this. Well, let me tell you something: This kind of thing isn't cool, it's just annoying and edgy, and terms like 'people of colour' and saying that old black and latino people are dumber than old white people (I'm not taking it out of context, that essentially _is _what you're saying) is just patronising. Yes, there are leftovers from the segregation era, this kind of thing takes time to heal, but patronising the affected people isn't helping anything. Reinventing something as utterly irrelevant as terminology and speech does not do anything for actual blacks and latinos who are stuck in poor neighbourhoods, and just marks you out as the kind of person who wants progressive points and is terrified of offending someone.
> 
> ...


okay clearly this has devolved into an insult lobbing ragefest (like dude you went on a paragraph long rant accusing Lacius of just pandering for progressive points... when really he's just _not pandering to anyone, which includes you, me, shamzie and everyone else in this thread_)
this is a tangential argument nobody will ever win because you'll keep spamming pathos and accusing us of not believing what we're saying, and we won't put up with it
reminds me of a line from _Hamilton_
"Can we get back to politics? Please? Yo."


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> okay clearly this has devolved into an insult lobbing ragefest (like dude you went on a paragraph long rant accusing Lacius of just pandering for progressive points... when really he's just _not pandering to anyone, which includes you, me, shamzie and everyone else in this thread_)
> this is a tangential argument nobody will ever win because you'll keep spamming pathos and accusing us of not believing what we're saying, and we won't put up with it
> reminds me of a line from _Hamilton_
> "Can we get back to politics? Please? Yo."



Or you could respect their language and their community who have wholeheartedly rejected the term Latinx. Don't expect me to respect your pronouns when you so easily dismiss their wishes. Funny how it's "white knighting over a one letter vague gender difference" when it doesn't directly affect you but If i use the wrong pronouns or say anything you actually care about all hell breaks loose. You're wrong. Own it and move on.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Or you could respect their language and their community who have wholeheartedly rejected the term Latinx. Don't expect me to respect your pronouns when you so easily dismiss their wishes. Funny how it's "white knighting over a one letter vague gender difference" when it doesn't directly affect you but If i use the wrong pronouns or say anything you actually care about all hell breaks loose. You're wrong. Own it and move on.


I'm happy to call individuals how they want to be called, but you can't really say the community *as a whole *rejects it... when that is literally not the case.
Oh, and by the way: pronouns are ENTIRELY an individual thing, so not respecting pronouns is just being a dick to specific individuals and has nothing to do with the 'will of the community', so fuck off. Simple as that.
This entire thing was you a) shoving the conversation down an irrelevant tangent and b) proving how hypocritically bigoted you can be.
Own it, *respect pronouns,* and move on.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Or you could respect their language and their community who have wholeheartedly rejected the term Latinx. Don't expect me to respect your pronouns when you so easily dismiss their wishes. Funny how it's "white knighting over a one letter vague gender difference" when it doesn't directly affect you but If i use the wrong pronouns or say anything you actually care about all hell breaks loose. You're wrong. Own it and move on.


the sad part is chances are you have no clue what Minority communities in another county want or deal with... its just sounds like your   mad that the you have to learn new words ....


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> the sad part is chances are you have no clue what Minority communities in another county want or deal with... its just sounds like your   mad that the you have to learn new words ....


honestly it is kinda sad
because we all know shamzie doesn't give two fucks about the whims of other people, especially those that are (_gasp!_) different from him in major ways
he's just latching onto this as an excuse to justify his bigotry
problem is, there is no excuse
his argument, when you remove all the ad hominem attacks, exaggeration and deliberate misinterpretation, amounts to "you're trying too hard to be accepting and just being cringy"
but thing is, it's far better to try too hard than to actively refuse to try at all
and shamzie refuses to try at all


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> the sad part is chances are you have no clue what Minority communities in another county want or deal with... its just sounds like your   mad that the you have to learn new words ....



1. It's not a word, 2 I don't have too learn it. 3, they're also in your country. So much ignorance in such a short space but you never surprise me.



Plasmaster09 said:


> honestly it is kinda sad
> because we all know shamzie doesn't give two fucks about the whims of other people, especially those that are (_gasp!_) different from him in major ways
> he's just latching onto this as an excuse to justify his bigotry
> problem is, there is no excuse
> ...



You've been told many times in this thread alone that the Latino community reject the term. There's also lots of proof through surveys. Oh no my bad, the White saviours of the Democratic party know best. I didn't expect you to admit you're wrong I expected you too double down, which you happily did because you're incapable of ever admitting you're wrong and conceding a point, despite the overwhelming evidence against your narrative and being told by Latino's IN THIS THREAD, but you know best.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

shamzie said:


> You've been told many times in this thread alone that the Latino community reject the term. There's also lots of proof through surveys. Oh no my bad, the White saviours of the Democratic party know best. I didn't expect you to admit you're wrong I expected you too double down, which you happily did because you're incapable of ever admitting you're wrong and conceding a point, despite the overwhelming evidence against your narrative and being told by Latino's IN THIS THREAD, but you know best.


alrighty
I'll go with male-default (Latino as gender neutral)
*if you stop being such an arrogant asshole, cease using this argument as an excuse and respect people's pronouns*
oh and cut the trolly crap too
your phrasing is like 50% ragebait, 40% trolling and 10% actual argument
the 10% argument is actually solid for once but the other 90% needs to go


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> alrighty
> I'll go with male-default (Latino as gender neutral)
> *if you stop being such an arrogant asshole, cease using this argument as an excuse and respect people's pronouns*
> oh and cut the trolly crap too


 
Not trolling, stop clambering for progressive points and when told you're wrong doubling down. Cool.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Not trolling, stop clambering for progressive points and when told you're wrong doubling down. Cool.


I stopped with the Latinx thing. That's over, that point is dead.
Oh, and you absolutely are trolling, let's go through the points.


shamzie said:


> 1. It's not a word, 2 I don't have too learn it. 3, they're also in your country. So much ignorance in such a short space but you never surprise me.
> 
> 
> 
> You've been told many times in this thread alone that the Latino community reject the term. There's also lots of proof through surveys. Oh no my bad, the White saviours of the Democratic party know best. I didn't expect you to admit you're wrong I expected you too double down, which you happily did because you're incapable of ever admitting you're wrong and conceding a point, despite the overwhelming evidence against your narrative and being told by Latino's IN THIS THREAD, but you know best.


"*Oh no my bad, the White saviours of the Democratic party know best.* I didn't expect you to admit you're wrong I expected you too double down, *which you happily did because you're incapable of ever admitting you're wrong and conceding a point,* despite the overwhelming evidence against your narrative and being told by Latino's IN THIS THREAD, *but you know best.*"
All of this. Everything in bold in that quote is blatant trolling.
_Cut it out._
Oh, and the "stop clambering for progressive points" is bullshit as previously established. There are no "progressive points", the only 'reward' for being decent and trying to be acceptive when possible (albeit with occasional missteps, which are NOT excuses to attack the entire concept) is getting mobbed en masse by linguistic Luddites that insist on no progress being made _even for those that *do* want it._
I'm not progressive because it's rewarding (it really isn't), I'm progressive because I'd rather put in effort to be a decent human being with the risk of occasionally going too far than sit on a throne of laziness and bigotry refusing to put in ANY effort.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2021)

I think everyone had their say at this point, @Plasmaster09 is right, let's not engage in a mud-flinging contest. It's fair to say that no new information was added throughout the last page of the conversation - the statistics are out there, how one chooses to interpret the numbers is up to them, be it generously or conservatively. We should probably move on to the next subject on the agenda, whatever that may be.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I think everyone had their say at this point, @Plasmaster09 is right, let's not engage in a mud-flinging contest. It's fair to say that no new information was added throughout the last page of the conversation - the statistics are out there, how one chooses to interpret the numbers is up to them, be it generously or conservatively. We should probably move on to the next subject on the agenda, whatever that may be.


Coincidentally enough, the first relevant 'next subject' I can think of is the hopefully-upcoming Equality Act (tl;dr for anyone still unaware, it's basically going to amend the Civil Rights Act to properly protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination), and Biden's recent speech thereof.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...introduction-of-the-equality-act-in-congress/
Of course, as you'd expect, there's the occasional outlet here or there pissing themselves over it with arguments tl;dring to either "once LGBTQ+ people have actual full rights, you'll be 'mistreated' for discriminating against them" as if discrimination is just fine and dandy, or even more bizarrely and somehow from an alleged POV of feminism, "giving them rights will harm ours" (?!?!). (I'm not referring to anyone in this thread, I'm referring to one or two articles I've seen on it, as well as the fact that said articles seem to consist mostly of extreme hyperbole and very little of actual explanation on why it's in any way bad.)

like what?
protecting LGBTQ+ people from discrimination isn't going to magically open up holes protecting _other_ groups from discrimination
that's not how any of that works
and if you're unwilling to let other groups have the same anti-discrimination protections you do because that would entail letting some of them _be defined as within your group _(read: TERFs/FARTs being pissy about it because it would involve trans people actually being defined as the gender they identify as, which they're mad about for various reasons, all of which hold zero water), that is entirely your bigotry and your problem.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> How am I deflecting?
> When someone does and says racist things, and then does something that could be perceived as racist, it's a lot more likely that it IS racist


You mean like... “If you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black”?
Or bussing will turn schools into “a jungle. A racial jungle”?

voting against the civil rights act? Voting against desegregation?

You Democrats kill me. Forever thinking you’re on the right side of racism. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_republican.html


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 22, 2021)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/AverageAPoliti2/status/1363872719767437312


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

urherenow said:


> You mean like... “If you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black”?
> Or bussing will turn schools into “a jungle. A racial jungle”?
> 
> You Democrats kill me. Forever thinking you’re on the right side of racism. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_republican.html


Genetic fallacy.
The parties changed a LOT since then, and after Nixon's Southern-strategy shenanigans they basically swapped entirely.


Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/AverageAPoliti2/status/1363872719767437312


"I'm e-eager to hear."
Nice try.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Genetic fallacy.
> The parties changed a LOT since then, and after Nixon's Southern-strategy shenanigans they basically swapped entirely.
> 
> "I'm e-eager to hear."
> Nice try.


Yea... the party flip lie that you swallow just like you swallow the Republicans are the racist ones. How about looking at what ACTUALLY happened at the exact moment this was supposed to have taken place? Most of the civil rights “no” votes were Democrats. A bunch of southern states that were Blue, saw this, and had a fleeting moment of clarity, voting the Democrats the hell out. In Congress? A grand total of 1 Democrat switched sides to join the Republican Party. There’s your “flip”.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Genetic fallacy.
> The parties changed a LOT since then, and after Nixon's Southern-strategy shenanigans they basically swapped entirely.
> 
> "I'm e-eager to hear."
> Nice try.


turn on the captions at 15:31


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> turn on the captions at 15:31



soo sad....when people project Their own insecurities on inequality and and being sexuality inferior off a messed up caption


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> soo sad....when people project Their own insecurities on inequality and and being sexuality inferior off a messed up caption


So are people's ears mess up too? or  i guess is ok when Joe is a racist literally says the N-word


----------



## Nynrah (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Or, hear me out: you could stop needlessly deflecting and white-knighting over a one-letter vague gender difference for a group none of us are part of AFAIK, and actually tackle our arguments head-on.
> Pandemic response: Trump refused to take basically any action unless it was too late, politicized mask-wearing, touted unproven and possibly dangerous remedies, KEPT POLITICIZING MASK-WEARING (resulting in likely being the primary cause of the large quantity of mask-denying, selfish, stubborn plague-spreading dumbfucks ruining the safety of everyone around them)... yeah.
> Just under 500k people have died of the coronavirus in the US. It may have caught the whole world unawares, but thing is: 1) Trump knew how serious things were in early February, and we have him ON RECORDING deliberately downplaying it and planning to do so (source: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/9111...ess-of-the-coronavirus-early-on-new-book-says), and 2) he did basically everything he could to AVOID a proper response.
> Trump. Made. This. Pandemic. Worse. On. Purpose.
> ...


There are so many falsehoods in there that I couldn't ignore this. Honestly, one can only come to believe all of this by taking over what 'news' channels like CNN feeds you without doing your own research. 

1) Masks are not effective. In fact, it's even bad for your health to use the same cloth mask for prolonged periods of time like most people do. Just because Fauci or the opposition says something doesn't makes it true.

2) That 500k death toll claim is ridiculous. Do you even know how covid cases and deaths are diagnosed or the statistical hijinx that are pulled? One of the most absurd examples I know of is a Croatian man dying because he falls of a ladder, but he's counted as a covid victim because "covid caused him to get dizzy and fall". First off, the flu is reported to practically have vanished (for 95%). In the Netherlands for example the absense of deaths due to flu and other causes balances out the reported covid deaths, meaning there's no legitimate cause for acting as if more people died than normally; the amount of deaths is within the range of what's normal across the last years. It's no different for the USA. And you also can't just say take the CNN (or whatever channel you watch) death ticker as if that number represents the absolute severity of the matter. There's a major difference between dying BECAUSE OF or dying WITH covid. Speaking in terms of the big picture, most people who don't survive it are old or have comorbidities. Those are the same people who are just as likely to not survive something like a influenza (and no, influenza isn't an innocent virus and that's considering the current state of affairs where have flu jabs (a vaccine)), noro or rinovirus infection. And on top of that there's the unreliability of the PCR tests that much policy is based on. Even the WHO is now (too late) admitting that the number of false positives is too high.

3) When the former President issued a travel ban on China everybody was pissed that he took action because it was allegedly xenophobic and the likes of Pelosi even encouraged mass gatherings in response. I can also write a lot of stuff in a book, but that doesn't makes it true, even if I'm feeding you the words you want to hear. Besides, that guy took an awful long time before coming out with his 'breaking news'. It reeks of self-interest. As for trying to downplay things, I'd take that over intentionally frightening people. Fear is a bad advisor. Things like showing a Chinese guy dropping dead on the street (turned out to be a heart failure), or rows of coffings with covid victims in Italy (turned out those pictures also showed up in articles from years prior, except the coffins contained refugees who died crossing the Mediterranean sea) or death/infection tickers without giving any nuance or context to the numbers. Mortality is the most fragile point of the human psyche, which is why you normally approach such topics with more sensitivity, but this time they threw all of that out of the window and opted to select the most nasty and terrifying choice of words they could come up with. One year later we know that covid's mortality rate is close to flu-range mortality (0.16% vs covid's 0.23% to cite the Netherlands' case), but a disproportionate amount of fear has been instilled in people by marketing the virus as a killer virus that belongs in the same street as ebola. People who live in the tropes and deal with diseases that are beyond question much nastier and deadlier than anything we face are much more sober than how we're responding to covid en masse. So yes, I'd actually appreciate a leader who doesn't wants to frighten his people.

4) Claiming Trump tried to worsen the 'pandemic' (it's only a pandemic because the WHO adjusted the criteria of when something's a pandemic) and get people killed on purpose? That's just hilarious. If anything, a claim like that would be more at home with the Democrat who pushed for and imposed lockdowns. Lockdowns are not proven to be effective, but the collateral damage is catastrophic on so many fronts (financial, sociological, psychological, etc.) and it exceeds any imagined gains. Even the WHO is saying that lockdowns aren't meant to be used like that. Places like Sweden, Japan an Florida are examples that show that you aren't off worse without lockdowns compared to places like Ney York and California, but Democrats and ,Democrat governors in particular, imposed draconian lockdowns regardlessly. It doesn't gets closer to worsening things on purpose than that.

5) Do you even know anything about how things work when it comes to the border? I'm not going to claim things are perfect, but anyone who works at border patrol can tell you that things aren't as cut and dry as news channels are having you believe. Human smuggling and child smuggling is a big problem at the southern border and there's such a thing as "fake families" . Doing nothing out of the goodness of our hearts is also not an option. It's not like Trump invented this policy, he upped the ante with the whole zero-tolerance stuff. Just the media outrage wasn't as present in years prior doesn't means the situation was fine and dandy at the border beforehand - it just didn't warrant TV time.

6) Trump was well within his rights to ask Ukrain to look into Biden's actions. Biden's son was on the board of Burisma (with zero experience in that particular sector). The company which was under investigation, which included Hunter Biden himself. Joe Biden even bragged on camera that he (sucessfully) threatened to withold a billion dollars of aid if Ukrain didn't fire the prosecutor. This isn't up for debate, he bragged about it ON CAMERA. That's called corruption and there's no legimate reason to not investigate it. Doing so isn't strongarming a country to dig up dirt on someone. Besides, Biden hadn't even announced he was going to run for presidency back then, so the notion of Trump trying to eliminate a political opponent doesn't holds up either.

7) There are legimate concerns about the election. Unsollicited voting by mail is logically more prone to fraud because the chain of custody is longer and contains more weak links where things can go wrong. There is plenty of evidence of fraud. There are more people who have reported under oath that misconduct took place (running same ballots multiple tie through the machine, barring Republican pollwatchers from doing their jobs, etc.). In some cases there was even video footage supporting this (Georgia...). You also can't explain to me with a straight face why Biden, who hardly even campaigned, did worse than Hillary everywhere except for the exact places that actually mattered thanks to the counting of votes stopping and dumps of ballots coming in almost exclusively for Biden. A statistical anomaly can happen, but every exact right spot at the exact same time? That's fishy at the very least. Proper audits were never conducted. Just recounting votes serves no purpose if you don't do things like signature verification; I recall that during Bush v Gore every ballot was scrutinized meticulously, didn't happen this time. And not to mention the unconstitutional election rule changes in the swing states. That's beyond debate, but you and likeminded folks conveniently gloss over that. The swing states changed their election rules without going through the state legislature and following proper procedure as they pushed for mail-in-voting and removing as many integrity measures as possible (e.g. signature verification). That's in violation of theie state constitutions and by proxy the constitution IIRC. The fact of the matter is that the courts, even SCOTUS, refused to rule on the merits and dismissed the cases on procedural grounds such as standing and being "too late". If you can't make your case, you can't present your evidence. Getting dismissed on procedural grounds does not equal your arguments getting shattered. That's a fallacy. Officially there's no answer given to the question of whether the election was stolen and the Biden camp and supporters should have welcomed proper investigation the case coming before a judge if only to prove their point once and for all. If the case was judged on the merits, then no room for debate on the matter anymore, but that didn't happen and so people can rightly believe that the election was straight from a banana republic.

8) Ah, there it is, the insurrection! I find it funny how people can act like this was the worst thing ever. On footage you see barriers being removed to let people in. Instead of storming the building you them walking inside, even following the path like a bunch of tourists. Most people who were in Washington did not invade the Capitol. Your rhetoric about Trump inciting people to "fight for him" is dishonest. News outlets as well as the Democrats during the impeachment trial have used doctored footage where they didn't show the entire clip. He clearly instructed people to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard". No sane person person who listened to the entire speech can claim in his/her honest mind that Trump incited people to violently storm the Capitol. Even in terms of the timeline it doesn't makes sense, because he was still giving his speech when people started entering the building. And considering what has been reported and the footage I've seen there's no doubt in my mind that there were Antifa and BLM fellows present there to shake things up in a bad way. And if you want to talk about 'inciting' rhetoric, let's remember how many Democrats have been using similar and even worse rhetoric over the last year. That's ranging from things like telling people to get in the faces of representatives to encouriging the BLM riots (which were objectively worse in damage, deaths and intensity than what happened at the Capitol) and the hateful "make them pay!" rhetoric towards Trump supporters. The Trump defense team presented a nice montage of Democrats in their own words violating the same standards they tried to impose on Trump, which is highly hypocritical. If you think Trump went to far, then you are obligated to also feel the same about many Democrats. Last, but no least, let's not pretend this was a unique event. I recall how the Capitol also got invaded by people during the Kavanaugh confirmations with people banging loudly on the doors in intimidating fashion.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> So are people's ears mess up too? or  i guess is ok when Joe is a racist literally says the N-word


lols its like white and gold / black and blue dress garbage a couple of years ago... People wanted to see the white and gold dress  although the dress is blue... but in this case ..you know people are soo used to 4 year of racism, it feels weird  when the President isn't being racist


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> lols its like white and gold / black and blue dress garbage a couple of years ago... People wanted to see the white and gold dress  although the dress is blue... but in this case ..you know people are soo used to 4 year of racism, it feels where to when the President isn't being racist


You got it the wrong way around, they wanted to see a blue dress even though it was white and gold


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 22, 2021)

Nynrah said:


> Masks are not effective.


You invalidated your entire post with 4 words.


----------



## leon315 (Feb 22, 2021)

I saw ex administration Trump blamed China for every mess;
Now we have Biden blames Windstrom for Blackout in Texas.

Very creative indeed, LMAFO.

If Trump won the election, i bet 100% he would blames Chyna for stealing the electricity FROM TEXAS muahahahhaha


----------



## Nynrah (Feb 22, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> You invalidated your entire post with 4 words.


Not really.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> You invalidated your entire post with 4 words.


what are you talking about  @Nynrah.. knows the Truth.!!! Surgical mask are a dangerous and don't work...
I mean if they worked, Then wouldn't Dr and Nurse would be wearing Mask for the last 100 year.. I mean what the heck do Dr and Scientist who have studied Diseases and Virus Their whole Lives with Multimillion $ equipment know.
My uncle Bob has worked for Construction and he states mask   do not work and never wore them...  he states his *chronic lung disease has nothing to do with Asbestos*


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

Nynrah said:


> There are so many falsehoods in there that I couldn't ignore this. Honestly, one can only come to believe all of this by taking over what 'news' channels like CNN feeds you without doing your own research.
> 
> 1) Masks are not effective. In fact, it's even bad for your health to use the same cloth mask for prolonged periods of time like most people do. Just because Fauci or the opposition says something doesn't makes it true.
> 
> ...


Let's pick through this absolute mess one point at a time.

1) Masks work. This has been proven time and again. Also, by "prolonged periods of time", either you mean for more than a few hours a day (and surgeons don't seem to suffer from wearing the things for hours and hours on end for an operation, so grow up) or you mean wearing the same mask regularly (in which case, _*just clean the damn thing from time to time*_). If you're so utterly brainwashed you would believe some random crazies over actual health professionals and just general reason, please do actual, legitimate research before returning to this thread and spewing more *dangerous* misinformation.

2) Currently, the US COVID-19 death toll is roughly 500k. (And don't you dare blame the last month's on Biden, because there is absolutely zero feasible way for him to have magically prevented those in the span of a month. That's Trump's leftovers.) Statistically speaking, the former President is likely directly responsible for approximately 40-50% of said deaths due to his intentional negligence and active spreading of harmful misinformation.

3) Thing is, it actually is significantly worse than the flu, and Trump's months-long refusal to admit that is why we're doing so badly compared to other nations. The mortality rate may be slightly better, but it spreads like wildfire, we basically just STARTED pushing out vaccines (meaning it had a year-long head start) and it seems to flip the bird to the basic concept of post-case antibodies. Trump deciding to prioritize short-term PR over long-term health and safety is why so many people died of the coronavirus, and "leading by fear" (or rather, leading by safety and sanity) would have likely resulted in a lot less deaths.

4) What? Lockdowns at this point are sort of like a class of students being stuck on silent lunch ad infinitum because the shithead in the corner won't shut up. We all have to do them because every time you REFUSE to is another time we're all potentially in danger. It's significantly better to be 'too' cautious than to be not cautious enough and end up spreading the virus.

5) Morally speaking, even if your unjustified, unproven, racially biased and frankly ridiculous fears are so correct that the number of malicious cases ("child smuggling" and that shit) are *equal *to the number of non-malicious ones, it's still kinda fucked up to chuck kids in places with conditions so bad they can only sanely be considered _concentration camps_ because there's a coin-flip chance of them possibly being in here for bad reasons that we don't know about. That's if it's 50/50, which it absolutely is not. 

6) WHAT?! How the fuck does Trump have any justification whatsoever for _*asking a foreign power to dig up dirt on his opponent?!*_ You would've flipped your shit in five directions if Biden did the same for Trump!

7) Please provide sources for this brick of nonsense. Every single time Trump and team's unproven fraud claims were brought to court (bar ONE out of SIXTY), they have been shown to be just that- unproven.

8) This is roughly one ton of hypocrisy. First off, the guards letting them in is not a sign of peace (considering they had no business being there and were carrying actual weaponry), it's a sign of which guards need to be fired. A "peaceful protest" wouldn't have carried pipe bombs and had presumably-traitorous staff on the inside _*tear out panic buttons beforehand. *_Also, our clips of Trump telling his supporters to fight like hell to "stop the steal" are (according to you) doctored, but your clips of Democrats literally just saying the word "fight" taken completely out of context... aren't? What the fuck? Also, there is absolutely zero evidence of antifa (which is, need I remind you all, NOT AN ACTUAL ORGANIZATION TO BEGIN WITH) or BLM counter-protestors- the only example provided turned out to be the alt-right extremist Jake Angeli, who actually took getting called antifa an insult (despite antifa just being short for "anti-fascist", implying he literally is fascist...). Also, in terms of your various false equivalencies regarding BLM protests, there's an important difference. BLM protests and "making [racist officials and policemen responsible for racially disproportionate deaths] pay" were about systemic bigotry, a general issue. Trump's sore-loser rhetoric surrounded his continued denial of the legitimate results of the presidential election, which he refused to admit for months, and he instructed his protestors to "fight like hell" _*to change the election results.*_ There's also the matter of that other call we have of him, which amounts to him responding to "President, your base is attempting a coup and they're seriously trying to lynch the VP, do something!" with "I guess [the insurrectionists] _care more about the integrity of the election than you, huh?_".

You have zero excuse to defend Trump for all he's done.
Please seek psychological help.


----------



## Nynrah (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> what are you talking about  @Nynrah.. knows the Truth.!!! Surgical mask are a dangerous and don't work...
> I mean if they worked, Then wouldn't Dr and Nurse would be wearing Mask for the last 100 year.. I mean what the heck do Dr and Scientist who have studied Diseases and Virus Their whole Lives with Multimillion $ equipment know.
> My uncle Bob has worked for Construction and he states mask   do not work and never wore them...  he states his *chronic lung disease has nothing to do with Asbestos*


I was talking about cloth masks...


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

Nynrah said:


> I was talking about cloth masks...


You said, and I quote, "Masks are not effective".
This statement is demonstrably false, and even if it applied solely to cloth masks, that too is false (they're significantly more effective than NO mask- just somewhat less effective than actual surgical masks).
Cease spreading misinformation.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

Nynrah said:


> I was talking about cloth masks...


I see you can ride a bike


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2021)

There's a lot of junk science surrounding masks and people don't account for all of the factors. The way WHO describes it is that they have "plausible mechanistic effectiveness". What they mean by that is, given optimal operating procedure, they provide a degree of protection against pathogens and particulate, which is what they're designed to do. The degree of protection depends on what you wear and how you wear it. The big concern with COVID is exchange of bodily fluids, and your breath does carry droplets. Any physical barrier will redirect airflow from your air passages, but you want to avoid wearing what's effectively a wet sponge on your face. The better the mask is the better it stops moisture from your own mouth from shooting out at someone else *and* prevents you from breathing in moisture and particulate from your surrounding area. There is some truth in saying that, once saturated, a face mask becomes a breeding ground for pathogens that you're wearing on your face. This is precisely why you shouldn't reuse masks repeatedly, or at least you shouldn't do it often. I personally have a rotation of several masks which I keep clean and only wear when I know they're dry to maximise their protective qualities. With that said, the system only "works" if others also follow the same precautions, so real life performance remains to be determined. I don't think enough time has passed to draw accurate conclusions - COVID isn't when we started looking into face mask effectiveness, it's something that's been researched with a variety of airborne diseases. The very least you can say about them is that they stop you from breathing directly at other people's faces, which logically should reduce the spread of pathogens. There's no reason *not* to wear them unless you have a serious respiratory issue already, for instance asthma. Yes, they're annoying - it's been a year and my nose has been rubbed raw many a times. I can live with that, it's a minor inconvenience. Now, if we could *not* spread misinformation in the middle of a pandemic, that'd be great. If you post a claim that's contrary to the scientific consensus, please support it with an actual study, otherwise it's conspiratorial junk.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you read the letter, the Biden administration granted the request from Texas to increase power. They didn't block it. The only BS here is your post.



Well, not exactly from what I've been reading from Texans on twitter. The gist being that ERCOT was asking to bring decommissioned plants back online temporarily to meet power grid needs until the emergency was over. DOE granted the request, provided they could keep the plants operating within current EPA  guidelines (unlikely, since that's why they were closed) or else sell the resulting power at $1500 / MWh, which is 6000% the standard rate.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I've been reading from Texans on twitter .


....Texans on twitter.. "America's trusted source"


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ....Texans on twitter.. "America's trusted source"



They're the people affected. So I looked into what they were saying, because I too had given the letter a cursory reading and thought, "looks like DOE actually granted the request."

So I went back and read the full letter, all 4 pages, and that is exactly what it says. The $1500/MWh price for any power produced as a result of deviating from EPA emissions regs is on page 3 of the letter.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> They're the people affected.
> 
> So then I went back and read the full letter, all 4 pages, and that is exactly what it says. The $1500/MWh price for any power produced as a result of deviating from EPA emissions regs is on page 3 of the letter.


it issue is that you are crediting random "Texans from twitter" with Understanding the Complex Emergency Orders. (no name no link, not even a screenshot)
I raised the issue of Texas ERCOT Gouging Citizens last week because they were not fed. regulated. Regulation is needed otherwise the $80 monthly bill just because $3000 ...


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> it issue is that you are crediting random "Texans from twitter" with Understanding the Complex Emergency Orders. (no name no link, not even a screenshot)
> I raised the issue of Texas ERCOT Gouging Citizens last week because they were not fed. regulated. Regulation is needed otherwise the $80 monthly bill just because $3000 ...



The comments I read prompted me to re-read the letter, to look beyond simply concluding that the request was "granted." If you want to get technical about "sources" then the sources are the DOE letter itself, and me reading it. I invite you to do the same. Page 3.

DOE gave ERCOT a Catch-22. Either run the old plants within current EPA emissions regs (impossible since they've not been retrofitted for it), or else sell the resulting power at $1500/MWh, a rate which would bankrupt providers and customers, and at which no neighboring state would buy either.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Coincidentally enough, the first relevant 'next subject' I can think of is the hopefully-upcoming Equality Act (tl;dr for anyone still unaware, it's basically going to amend the Civil Rights Act to properly protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination),



Do they not already have this?
Generally seems you would have already been in for a world of hurt, both legally and socially, if you were all
"ew no gays, can't work here/live here/shop here"
"ew no tran nies, can't work here/live here/shop here"
and that has been the case for quite a few years now.
Or is this some kind of federal level clarification?

I read
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/02/10322166/equality-act-biden-lgbtq-protection-details and the PDF there. Seems a few states (I am guessing members of the "does not touch water or Canada" set) are missing things at state level. Oh well, minor clarification for a few places and if playing with federal law (which can be distinct from state) then not the worst thing.

Some of it seems dubious -- charging women more than men at dry cleaners was specifically cited in that. I thought it was generally understood that whatever frilly 50 sections thing many women opt for was harder than a simple shirt you shove on a mannequin and steam (or indeed maybe even a special steam mannequin). That is to say an entirely different service -- want to use my CNC machine to make a part and fair enough here are the keys to the workshop, ask me to manually do things to get it all going on and different service entirely.
Car repair was also cited. Generally car repair places (and car stealerships in general) will try to charge you as much as they think you will pay, usually relative to your skills* and manner of dress/signs of wealth, with all kinds of nice pressure things to boot (there are "honest" ones but it is a rarity and they don't usually last as long as those that can undercut others because they are making it somewhere where). I don't doubt women as a whole will generally come off worse for it (biologically speaking they are less interested in technical things, represent a tiny fraction of trades and STEM, high pressure sales tactics don't work as well when if it went down you would not be a smear on the floor and likely be risky enough to pause before someone throwing the first haymaker) but enforcement of that seems mightily hard to do. This is before the "your brakes are not below the limit but getting there, might want to replace them now" response that for many men is "meh, gotta die sometime" (or on the flip side be more likely to appreciate a "well they are in there anyway" type concept) where women tend to be more risk averse as a population and likely to spring for it.
*personally I do all I can to appear clueless and if they take the bait them flip the script after they have already hung themselves as it were. Little more enjoyable than watching sales morons squirm.

The hairdresser one is an interesting one. There was that interesting case the other month/year with the waxing service as well and I am not sure what the outcome of that really wants to be -- different skill and whatever else.

To that end much of this seems nebulous and unenforceable which is the most dubious kind of law. That or the document is trying to sell things harder and overstating the perks.

Also seeing "nightclubs that do not serve food" in their little PDF. I eagerly await the first lawsuits to come because the bouncers let all the scantily clad ladies inside before others, let said ladies in for free (or for a little flash of underwear as was the case the last couple of times I had the misfortune of being dragged to a nightclub), tried to ensure parity inside or the like and get caught mentioning that on a hidden camera.

Curious to see how the taxi example will play out as well. The ridesharing stuff deliberately incentivise long trips and high demand in high demand locations. Waiting would then be a less a fact of "ew darkies" and more "all these yuppies leaving the nightclub and wanting a lift back to the 'burbs is going to earn me a fortune so I am going there". Couple that with the general "I don't go south of the river" nature of a lot of taxis and personal preference in things there.

Conversion therapy ban is a tricky one. On the one hand yeah never seen any evidence of it reliably working (which is the principle sticking point for me) and demonstrably has some quite negative outcomes but at the same time that would also mean all quasi medical practices of dubious merit also are up for outlawing. While I laugh at faith healing, crystals, chiropody, homeopathy and related concepts to such things I don't necessarily know that I want to disallow people being morons by force of law. I also wonder what the end runs around such things will be as the "drag the bad kids out to the desert and make them stack rocks" things are probably still A-OK and yeah.

Might have to go find the bill proper. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text seems to be an older version but elsewhere it was mentioned as being reintroduced I will roll with it for now.

"“(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."
Will we have to come back in 5 years to deal with the absolute affront that not including pansexuality in there is? Though more seriously the lack of asexuality could be a fun one in this.
Orientation being bundled in with sex is also linguistically clunky (I mean is it not true that gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation), though probably in a manner that makes it subject to an interpretation.

" Failure to bar peremptory challenges based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual" (think in jury selection, witness questions and the like). I don't necessarily know that I would want to outlaw it as it could pertain to the matter at hand or impartiality, though at the same time blank slate. Hard one there and I also don't know how well it would survive a challenge.

Seems foster care and adoption would also be mandated to not take note of status here. Wonder if it will come before or after the supreme court decision which has a case in the final stages ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia-pennsylvania/ ) and what might go there.

"(17) Numerous studies demonstrate that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women, are economically disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with other groups of people. For example, older women in same-sex couples have twice the poverty rate of older different-sex couples."
While generally a do nothing/feel good statement in this I am going to wonder there. If women generally earn less (usually by choice rather than wages lower because you have tits) and arguably spend more ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/126029/Consumers-Spending-January-Last.aspx ) then I do have to note simple maths in this. A lot of the older gay male couples I know have some of the best toys as well.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> The comments I read prompted me to re-read the letter, to look beyond simply concluding that the request was "granted." If you want to get technical about "sources" then the sources are the DOE letter itself, and me reading it. I invite you to do the same. Page 3.
> 
> DOE gave ERCOT a Catch-22. Either run the old plants within current EPA emissions regs (impossible since they've not been retrofitted for it), or else sell the resulting power at $1500/MWh, a rate which would bankrupt providers and customers, and at which no neighboring state would buy either.


my issue is not what the DOE letter states...and its not follow the EPA or sell it at $1500/NWH...its follow the Fed regulation that everyone else Does ( in fact if ERCOT did it from the start it would be a non issue at all).. or not received federal help..( on rules and regulations that ERCOT and Texas did to themselves).. 

its the issue "Radom people on the internet" Is not a source


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Do they not already have this?
> Generally seems you would have already been in for a world of hurt, both legally and socially, if you were all
> "ew no gays, can't work here/live here/shop here"
> "ew no tran nies, can't work here/live here/shop here"
> ...


Well, they don't have it enshrined into law yet. And as long as it isn't enshrined into law, there will still be numerous cases like the infamous homophobic baker where people will be discriminated against for being LGBTQ+.
Also, when the legal and social "world of hurt" happens, swarms of people flock to side with the offending bigots and cry "cancel culture" as if giving an insulting name to "the consequences of one's decidedly awful actions" makes it any less justified.



FAST6191 said:


> I don't doubt women as a whole will generally come off worse for it (biologically speaking they are less interested in technical things, represent a tiny fraction of trades and STEM, high pressure sales tactics don't work as well when if it went down you would not be a smear on the floor and likely be risky enough to pause before someone throwing the first haymaker) but enforcement of that seems mightily hard to do. This is before the "your brakes are not below the limit but getting there, might want to replace them now" response that for many men is "meh, gotta die sometime" (or on the flip side be more likely to appreciate a "well they are in there anyway" type concept) where women tend to be more risk averse as a population and likely to spring for it.


Oh god, not this argument again. "Biologically speaking", women being less interested in field XYZ isn't them being less interested, it's them naturally gravitating elsewhere due to field XYZ having basically been locked off from them for a decent portion of history. The bullshit of our past, if you will.



FAST6191 said:


> Conversion therapy ban is a tricky one. On the one hand yeah never seen any evidence of it reliably working (which is the principle sticking point for me) and demonstrably has some quite negative outcomes but at the same time that would also mean all quasi medical practices of dubious merit also are up for outlawing. While I laugh at faith healing, crystals, chiropody, homeopathy and related concepts to such things I don't necessarily know that I want to disallow people being morons by force of law. I also wonder what the end runs around such things will be as the "drag the bad kids out to the desert and make them stack rocks" things are probably still A-OK and yeah.


People being morons is fine. People being HARMFUL morons (as is also the case with mask-deniers, antivaxxers, etc., albeit for different reasons) is absolutely not. Conversion therapy's best outcome is tantamount to brainwashing, to say nothing of all the other possible outcomes. If a person is LGBTQ+ in some form, it is not their job to change that, nor is it anyone else's RIGHT to try to change them. It is others' job to _fucking accept them as they are._ And to be honest, considering all the other pseudoscience nonsense ranges from "side effects may include: loss of money" to "side effects may include: getting brought to the hospital because you chugged a 'remedy' made of literal poison", I wouldn't exactly oppose their banning.



FAST6191 said:


> "“(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."
> Will we have to come back in 5 years to deal with the absolute affront that not including pansexuality in there is? Though more seriously the lack of asexuality could be a fun one in this.
> Orientation being bundled in with sex is also linguistically clunky (I mean is it not true that gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation), though probably in a manner that makes it subject to an interpretation.
> 
> ...


They'll probably have to account for pan and ace shortly after passing it, I bet. Then again, there haven't exactly been cases of people being refused service or occupation due to being asexual (mostly because there's literally no way to tell if someone is asexual unless they or someone that knows them... _tells you_), and pansexuality likely falls under bisexuality as far as soon-to-be-unlawful discrimination thereof is concerned.
Also, the gender wage-gap isn't by choice. How the fuck would it be by *choice?!* Though a crude generalization, "wages lower because tits" is arguably closer to the truth- women tend to end up paid less than men for the same jobs, and this isn't exactly helped by work culture treating one's wage like a personal detail to keep secret from most people at all costs.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> my issue is not what the DOE letter states...and its not follow the EPA or sell it at $1500/NWH...its follow the Fed regulation that everyone else Does ( in fact if ERCOT did it from the start it would be a non issue at all).. or not received federal help..( on rules and regulations that ERCOT and Texas did to themselves)..
> 
> its the issue "Radom people on the internet" Is not a source



Like I said, the source is the DOE letter itself. I only looked more carefully because I saw some people online disputing Biden-shills who were disagreeing with the tweet posted here a few pages back. After I read carefully the conditions under which DOE had "granted" ERCOT's request, I saw it was like telling someone they could have a brand new car for free, if they could jump clear over it lengthwise in one hop from a standing start at the front bumper.

If you read the letter and think it says something different, explain.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Like I said, the source is the DOE letter itself. I only looked more carefully because I saw some people online disputing Biden-shills who were disagreeing with the tweet posted here a few pages back. After I read carefully the conditions under which DOE had "granted" ERCOT's request, I saw it was like telling someone they could have a brand new car for free, if they could jump clear over it lengthwise in one hop from a standing start at the front bumper.
> 
> If you read the letter and think it says something different, explain.


Lolol your a shill.. I understand and agree with your Assessment of the Emergency order. Period.
.. but “Texans from twitter” is not a valid source.

ERCOT SHOULD BE AT RISK FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE REGULATION STANDARD THAT THE REST OF COUNTRY DOES.
You don’t have to accept the free new car.. especially when you spent your money on hookers and blackjack instead of fixing your own car..


----------



## Nynrah (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Let's pick through this absolute mess one point at a time.
> 
> 1) Masks work. This has been proven time and again. Also, by "prolonged periods of time", either you mean for more than a few hours a day (and surgeons don't seem to suffer from wearing the things for hours and hours on end for an operation, so grow up) or you mean wearing the same mask regularly (in which case, _*just clean the damn thing from time to time*_). If you're so utterly brainwashed you would believe some random crazies over actual health professionals and just general reason, please do actual, legitimate research before returning to this thread and spewing more *dangerous* misinformation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Lolol your a shill.. I understand and agree with your Assessment of the Emergency order. Period.
> .. but “Texans from twitter” is not a valid source.
> 
> ERCOT SHOULD BE AT RISK FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE REGULATION STANDARD THAT THE REST OF COUNTRY DOES.
> You don’t have to accept the free new car.. especially when you spent your money on hookers and blackjack instead of fixing your own car..



The thing is, I didn't depend on the Texans on twitter to tell me what the letter said. I read their counterargument to the people saying (as someone also said here) that the letter actually granted ERCOT's request, then I went back and re-read the letter in its entirety, to confirm who was correct. And while DOE may have technically "granted" ERCOT's request, as a practical matter the conditions they put on it amounted to an effective denial.

I don't know specifics about ERCOT emissions standards, whether they comport with EPA / DOE regulations under normal circumstances. I have no reason to be on top of such a thing in my daily life. But they're obviously under some degree of federal regulatory control or they wouldn't have been requesting that DOE grant them a temporary waiver during this emergency. And DOE's response was no help, to ERCOT or to the people of Texas.


----------



## Nynrah (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> You said, and I quote, "Masks are not effective".
> This statement is demonstrably false, and even if it applied solely to cloth masks, that too is false (they're significantly more effective than NO mask- just somewhat less effective than actual surgical masks).
> Cease spreading misinformation.


You must feel very smug on having caught me there, do you want a cookie? When people talk about masks here in general it's about non-medical masks. Again, spare me your sanctimonious attitude.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 22, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Well, they don't have it enshrined into law yet. And as long as it isn't enshrined into law, there will still be numerous cases like the infamous homophobic baker where people will be discriminated against for being LGBTQ+.
> Also, when the legal and social "world of hurt" happens, swarms of people flock to side with the offending bigots and cry "cancel culture" as if giving an insulting name to "the consequences of one's decidedly awful actions" makes it any less justified.
> 
> 
> ...



The baker thing I still don't think as clear cut as you want to have it there. The "not entitled to my action" concept is persuasive.

And yes biology is a thing. Babies show preferences in toys long before they internalise misogyny (they tend not to have language by the points it is measurable). Strength and size are generally an advantage in the trades and guess where you find that. Do you want to bet on what sex prefers comfort more than the other? I am sure "know your place/role" robbed us of some fantastic women builders/scientists/engineers throughout history and crying shame really. To ignore the effects of biology in disproportionately favouring people to have skills in relevant fields... nuts.

On conversion therapy. Brainwashing, as in the best case, is fine. No real difference to being hypnotised to be more assertive, confident... or whatever other nonsense they hire life coaches for, even if it is as effective (which is to say it is not).
"If a person is LGBTQ+ in some form, it is not their job to change that, nor is it anyone else's RIGHT to try to change them"
Except it quite literally would be their job (would have thought it in the definition). Right to try... no but someone could ask to have it attempted for them. I get asked plenty of things that "physics says no" but they can still ask.

On antivaxxers. I would have to say "my body, my rules" does have to apply even if you are being a moron still. Sucks but if we are going to the free society then toleration of morons at some level gets to happen.

On asexuality. If this is supposed to be the mighty law passing for the ages (there are a few types of law, that, sort a very specific problem now and probably have to be changed later or expanded to cover the whole set and useless) then that would appear to be an oversight. Given the dubious logic of the rest then I would also ponder if "single income means you can't afford as much house" is a thing they might bring up even if it is silly/obvious.

Pay gap (which is a different notion to wage gap) is very much a choice. Take time off to have kids, can't be arsed to compete with those putting in 100 hours a week/all the overtime, can't be bothered to take the hard projects and whatnot, do huggy feely courses rather than hard graft fields, and you fall behind. I am all for it (work-life balance for me says you can keep your work and you are a fool if you go all in for it -- work to live, don't live to work) but in the end the results are what they are. Every time I go drilling down into things here then "because tits" is not a factor. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/th...der-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ serves as a nice intro for that one.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

Nynrah said:


> You must feel very smug on having caught me there, do you want a cookie? When people talk about masks here in general it's about non-medical masks. Again, spare me your sanctimonious attitude.


If your giving out reparations for your misinformation ...I would like a cookie too ..


----------



## Nynrah (Feb 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> If your giving out reparations for your misinformation ...I would like a cookie too ..


You do realize that was a sarcastic remark, do you?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 22, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> The baker thing I still don't think as clear cut as you want to have it there. The "not entitled to my action" concept is persuasive.
> 
> And yes biology is a thing. Babies show preferences in toys long before they internalise misogyny (they tend not to have language by the points it is measurable). Strength and size are generally an advantage in the trades and guess where you find that. Do you want to bet on what sex prefers comfort more than the other? I am sure "know your place/role" robbed us of some fantastic women builders/scientists/engineers throughout history and crying shame really. To ignore the effects of biology in disproportionately favouring people to have skills in relevant fields... nuts.
> 
> ...


Biology is a thing (I'd have to be crazy to deny it having ANY role in things), but its role has been significantly overstated, and the role of "know your place" bigotry and the laws that historically reinforced it have been significantly _under_stated.

As for conversion therapy... whew.
First off, "their job" as in the job of the LGBTQ+ person. Someone should not have to change who they fundamentally are in terms of a characteristic that, as far as we know, is biological... just because some bigoted prick in the family says so.
Also, there's a significant difference between life coaching and conversion therapy. (Wow, that was an actual sentence that _I actually had to say._) Life coaching is typically done with the consent of the recipient, has the end goal of giving someone a positive psychological trait rather than fundamentally changing who they are mentally, hasn't been shown to have significant harmful side-effects AFAIK and isn't done out of bigotry. None of these are true for conversion therapy.
In addition, as the evidence mounts further and further that X part of LGBTQ+ is innate and genetic, conversion therapy goes from "an unsavory version of life coaching" to "trying to brainwash someone into becoming something *they neurologically are not and never will be regardless of conversion therapy*".

In terms of antivaxxers, they aren't just endangering themselves. They're also endangering everyone else around them, from slightly increasing the risks to even those who are vaccinated to potentially fatally endangering those with actual serious conditions that make the vaccine too unsafe to risk. They are putting the lives of _other people_ at risk out of selfishness and willful ignorance, and such actions should be outlawed. The flaw with the "my body, my choice" argument is that it completely ignores the fact that not getting vaccinated affects everyone around them.

In terms of asexuality, I agree, it's a notable oversight. However, it's also one that makes a small enough difference that it would be fine if they passed it how it is and amended it later with that in mind.


----------



## AmandaRose (Feb 22, 2021)

Just when you think Americans couldn't be any more crazy we now have Americans claiming the snow that fell in Texas was fake 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ow-conspiracy-theory-tiktok-b1805616.html?amp


----------



## djpannda (Feb 22, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Just when you think Americans couldn't be more crazy we now have Americans claiming the snow that fell in Texas was fake
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ow-conspiracy-theory-tiktok-b1805616.html?amp


wait you mean it was not the Jewish Lazers?


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 22, 2021)

I would not lean as much into social conditioning/historical stuff.
As it stands today most STEM subjects and apprenticeships are tripping over themselves to get women in for reasons I have never quite figured out (build it and whoever wants to come, and can make the grade, can come being how I would roll) and yet it is not equal in terms of gender by a long shot despite general attendance to higher education even skewing towards women at this point. That would appear to be a strong revealed preference there. Equally looking at the Nordic set so beloved of a few pages ago then they tend to provide one of the starkest examples of the freer (whilst still being nice to live in) the more people lean into what might be deemed traditional gender roles, 
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...nder-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/
Also that is without debating the extremes in things like IQ distributions, though even not at the extremes it still has an effect https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx . 

On antivax. That is an argument. Not sure it reaches the realm of can actively enforce anything as much as deny access to schools or whatever else. Sucks but it is what it is.

On conversion therapy. I think we had a mismatch on what persons we were talking about. As far as best outcomes, efficacy... yeah "magic crystals" at least have the placebo effect so are probably more effective in the grand scheme of things. Any actual plausible conversion is probably some serious neural and maybe genetic reprogramming away (years out is a hard guess but pending someone having some real fun with something like CRISPR then I would not be surprised to hear a century, though there are some things that could hasten it if they happen and in theory they could happen tomorrow). The question was whether I would deny the opportunity to run such things by force of law, and that is before we contemplate actions within them (boring lecture vs actual torturous action being a rather large gulf). The parental question for your minor charges is also something of a hard one -- for as much as religion is a bunch of nonsense I would say the ability to raise your child in one (and not have the state come in and say oi) is a right I am not inclined to step on to readily, even if outcomes would be nice. Hopefully whatever ones are sent to things end up at those "actually it is just a nice camp but your parents need not know that and can think we are attempting conversion" type places.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 23, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Just when you think Americans couldn't be any more crazy we now have Americans claiming the snow that fell in Texas was fake
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ow-conspiracy-theory-tiktok-b1805616.html?amp




There are no outer boundaries to insanity.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Feb 23, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Just when you think Americans couldn't be any more crazy we now have Americans claiming the snow that fell in Texas was fake
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ow-conspiracy-theory-tiktok-b1805616.html?amp



Snow is socialist propaganda


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 23, 2021)

Biden's failure of lack of early policy wins ruins the chances of a "voot bloo no mater whoo" movement saving the Democrats in the 2024 Election.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden's failure of lack of early policy wins ruins the chances of a "voot bloo no mater whoo" movement saving the Democrats in the 2024 Election.



That's insinuating that voting matters.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 24, 2021)

Biden defense force assembleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/RealAPolitics/status/1364673145865699330


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden defense force assembleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
> https://twitter.com/RealAPolitics/status/1364673145865699330





Real American Politics
@RealAPolitics
·
14m
Bruh






Cameron Lopez
@DoorKnockPol
Replying to
@RealAPolitics
Biden had nothing to do with cancelling it, the operation never even got off the ground anyways, pretty far down in the story.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

read the last sentence here I'll enlarge it for you too  Biden had nothing to do with cancelling it, the operation never even got off the ground anyways, pretty far down in the story.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 24, 2021)

R E A D B E T W E E N T H E L I N E S

"*A *senior ICE official said _the Biden administration had nothing to do with that decision_. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, *the official said they had not heard about the operation*, but that *it was possible that career staffers had planned it and set it aside while awaiting new instructions from the Biden team*."

So 1 guy says Biden had nothing to do with it, and he did not even know about the operation to begin with. So what the fuck does he know? Where do they find these guys LOL


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 24, 2021)

tthousand said:


> R E A D B E T W E E N T H E L I N E S
> 
> "*A *senior ICE official said _the Biden administration had nothing to do with that decision_. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, *the official said they had not heard about the operation*, but that *it was possible that career staffers had planned it and set it aside while awaiting new instructions from the Biden team*."
> 
> So 1 guy says Biden had nothing to do with it, and he did not even know about the operation to begin with. So what the fuck does he know? Where do they find these guys LOL


...And what the fuck do the guys claiming Biden was directly responsible for canceling it know?
Besides, I can know that someone didn't do something without knowing what that something is, as long as I know what they HAVE done.
It's like being asked if I bought oranges, not knowing what an orange is but recognizing every single item I bought as something else that I know (i.e. _not an orange_).


----------



## tthousand (Feb 24, 2021)

The "guys"1 claiming Biden canceling it point you, the reader, to view the official document asking Biden to reserve the cancellation, which is signed by 18 attorney generals of different states2.

1 https://humanevents.com/2021/02/24/...rgeted-sex-offenders-living-in-u-s-illegally/
2 https://abcnews4.com/news/local/ag-...n-of-ice-operation-on-convicted-sex-offenders


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The "guys"1 claiming Biden canceling it point you, the reader, to view the official document asking Biden to reserve the cancellation, which is signed by 18 attorney generals of different states2.
> 
> 1 https://humanevents.com/2021/02/24/...rgeted-sex-offenders-living-in-u-s-illegally/
> 2 https://abcnews4.com/news/local/ag-...n-of-ice-operation-on-convicted-sex-offenders


He'd remove a lot more sex offenders from positions of power in one fell swoop by just abolishing ICE altogether.  They spent most of the last four years diddling kids in cages.  They aren't the appropriate government agency to be handling these operations.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> He'd remove a lot more sex offenders from positions of power in one fell swoop by just abolishing ICE altogether.  They spent most of the last four years diddling kids in cages.  They aren't the appropriate government agency to be handling these operations.



Is this just a feeling, or do you care to share any actual reports? Fine with me either way, just curious as to where you are getting you view from.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Is this just a feeling, or do you care to share any actual reports? Fine with me either way, just curious as to where you are getting you view from.


Literally thousands of reports have been filed with the ACLU in the last few years accusing ICE officers of everything up to and including rape.  When people like Steven Miller are put in charge, that type of thing is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Literally thousands of reports have been filed with the ACLU in the last few years accusing ICE officers of everything up to and including rape.  When people like Steven Miller are put in charge, that type of thing is a feature, not a bug.



Accusations are not proof. Any actual proof? Remember when you spent weeks saying SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE everytime someone claimed election fraud, yeah same thing.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Accusations are not proof. Any actual proof? Remember when you spent weeks saying SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE everytime someone claimed election fraud, yeah same thing.


There is no oversight in most ICE detention facilities.  They were given the means not only to commit the crimes, but also to escape any consequences for them.  Obviously the election is not a good parallel, since there were multiple Democrats and Republicans in every room where votes were counted.  Plenty of oversight.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Plenty of oversight.



And plenty of disputes.


----------



## tthousand (Feb 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Literally thousands of reports have been filed with the ACLU in the last few years accusing ICE officers of everything up to and including rape.  When people like Steven Miller are put in charge, that type of thing is a feature, not a bug.



I am not seeing any mention of major child sexual assault like you claimed. Seems like an assumption to me. The fact is the child detainee facilities are actually there to separate abducted children, keeping them from being trafficked further. Of course, that can be abused given the right circumstances, such as UN intervening.



Xzi said:


> There is no oversight in most ICE detention facilities.  They were given the means not only to commit the crimes, but also to escape any consequences for them.  Obviously the election is not a good parallel, since there were multiple Democrats and Republicans in every room where votes were counted.  Plenty of oversight.



The were thousands of signed depositions stating the opposite was true. Sure, where it didn't matter, those places were probably fair. But in the battlegrounds, there was plenty of wrong doing it would seem.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> And plenty of disputes.


Over individual ballots?  It's not like there are hanging chads to contend with.  It's fucking counting one-by-one, even the vast majority of Republicans should be (and were) capable of that.  "We don't like the result" is not a legitimate dispute to the result.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 25, 2021)

IMAO
House Democrats ask Biden to give up sole power to launch nuclear bomb https://t.co/elIrQGDWki pic.twitter.com/fgZhXmDEep— New York Post (@nypost) February 25, 2021


----------



## tthousand (Feb 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> IMAO
> https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1364933777676529665



Ahh, now I see why they ran such a weak candidate. It gives them the opportunity to steal power from the President and place it where it does not belong. 

I wonder how long before they get together and call for Joe's complete removal from office so Harris and Pelosi can step up.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 25, 2021)

"US leadership has been sorely missed over the past, uh, past years" -CANADA!!!


----------



## tabzer (Feb 26, 2021)

From the producers who brought you "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo".


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 26, 2021)

Just over one month in office and we're seeing bombs fall on other countries before those stimulus checks fall into our bank accounts.
BREAKING: U.S. military carries out airstrike in Syria against facilities used by Iranian-backed militia, defense official tells @NBCNews, marking the first military response from the Biden admin. after a series of rocket attacks on U.S. targets in Iraq.— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 26, 2021


----------



## tabzer (Feb 26, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Just over one month in office and we're seeing bombs fall on other countries



Must be a breath of fresh air to the people who hated Trump so much.


----------



## gene0915 (Feb 26, 2021)

Want to see a bunch of Trump supporting fascists cry? Check this out: https://www.dailywire.com/news/high...den-administration-for-abandoning-her-lawsuit

Somebody needs to inform these front holes that THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES! This scientific fact has been verified by Facebook and Snopes!

Maybe these .......females........ should spend less time in the court system and more time in the gym, training, if they want to win? And trans athletes have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to use the women's showers and locker rooms! The very notion of "two different sexes" is repugnant, white privilege, racist garbage!


----------



## tabzer (Feb 26, 2021)

@gene0915 so vulgar, yet I can recognize art when I see it.  I haven't been paying attention, is Daily Wire pre-approved hearsay?


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 26, 2021)

gene0915 said:


> Want to see a bunch of Trump supporting fascists cry? Check this out: https://www.dailywire.com/news/high...den-administration-for-abandoning-her-lawsuit
> 
> Somebody needs to inform these front holes that THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES! This scientific fact has been verified by Facebook and Snopes!
> 
> Maybe these .......females........ should spend less time in the court system and more time in the gym, training, if they want to win? And trans athletes have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to use the women's showers and locker rooms! The very notion of "two different sexes" is repugnant, white privilege, racist garbage!


>THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES!

lol dude stop


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 26, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Everybody deserves an education. You get one too the age of 18. If you want further education you pay for it. I don't pay for it, you pay for it.


what kind of backwards logic is this? if you put a paywall behind something, that implies that it is not something to deserve. So no, you don't support that everyone deserves an education.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

actually, you know what no we are going here now. So there's a thing called inflexible items, and flexible items. (there's a better name for this) People who need insulin, you know. TO FUCKING LIVE is a inflexible item. That person no matter what, has to pay for it. Which company bs and the "Free market" realizes this. and so starts raising the prices astronomically because they know they can get away with it. Don't believe me? Why do you think the Texans are getting bills up the fucking ass? Because when the winter snap hit, the companies realized the electric bill had become inflexible it had become something they NEEDED TO FUCKING LIVE.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Capitalism inherently goes against people's interest, you know the interest to live?! Yeah so perhaps we really should be pushing for the actual real issues in this country. Such as the healthcare system, getting housing out of the fucking market, since ya know. We have a lot of empty space of homes, and a lot of homeless people?! Or you know, people LITERATELY FUCKING DYING BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD THE MEDICINE THEY NEED?!
Or the fact that despite our population size, our incarceration rates are up the fucking ass. And that's because slave labor is a thing. Yeah you know that 1.25 pay you get in a prison for whatever the fuck the prison decides to make you do? Yeah that. Perhaps idk. Maybe the prison system and how it's done should be reconsidered heavily. If people are getting back into the system(prison), a system that is supposed to deter them away from it (being put back into prison) means something is heavily fucking wrong, which it has been.
Oh and no this isn't some problem with the design of this system, because that's how it's intended. You get practically fucking slaves to do shit, and then get paid off that (to the owner of the prison)
maybe I've just stated the unspoken obvious that no one really wants to speak about, or it's been obvious. Idk, I've been pretty peeved about the fact people are fucking dying because they cannot get the medicine they need.
Also, weak ass biden walking back on 15.00 dollars an hour already. Just like what he said to investors "nothing will effectively change"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Just over one month in office and we're seeing bombs fall on other countries before those stimulus checks fall into our bank accounts.


day late on that actually. I got my stimulus on the 24th.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 26, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> day late on that actually. I got my stimulus on the 24th.



you got the one approve under Trump not the one that Biden Promise


----------



## tabzer (Feb 26, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> day late on that actually. I got my stimulus on the 24th.



Lol, can't tell the difference between Trump and Biden?


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 26, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> snip



Cries about capitalism. Lives in country with capitalism = opinion irrelevant.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 26, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Cries about capitalism. Lives in country with capitalism = opinion irrelevant.


Mad about Americans wanting change. claims to lives from across the pond = opinion irrelevant


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 26, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Mad about Americans wanting change. claims to lives from across the pond = opinion irrelevant



Because one person speaks for 328m. What a stupid take but nothing you say surprises me. If he wants change he can move. Think before you type.


----------



## djpannda (Feb 26, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Because one person speaks for 328m. What a stupid take but nothing you say surprises me. If he wants change he can move. Think before you type.


what? your a joke mate'.. the Hypocrisy is strong with you..(claim someones opinion is irrelevant when his opinion is even more Irrelevant)


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 26, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Cries about capitalism. Lives in country with capitalism = opinion irrelevant.


I dont see the logic.. are people in North Korea not suppose to complain about living in a dictatorship? Or people in China not supposed to complain about living in totalitarian communism? Or people in Europe can't complain about heavily socialized policy?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> I dont see the logic.. are people in North Korea not suppose to complain about living in a dictatorship? Or people in China not supposed to complain about living in totalitarian communism? Or people in Europe can't complain about heavily socialized policy?


Nobody in North Korea complains about anything, it is the best Korea thanks to glorious leader.

What the heck are you doing? Do you want your rations or not? You shut your mouth, you!


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 26, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Cries about capitalism. Lives in country with capitalism = opinion irrelevant.


that is a really retarded argument. That's also just like saying (insert, job or school) you cannot criticize it because you're in (insert job or school) that's circular reasoning, and it goes nowhere fast.

also the fact that is your response and have nothing to counter the healthcare issues, the housing issues, and incarceration I ask you to try harder next time and give an actual refusal.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> China not supposed to complain about living in totalitarian communism


China isn't totalitarian communism technically speaking, they have private businesses/private sector, huawei is an example. if it was actual communism the social credit thing wouldn't exist, also wages wouldn't still exist, and wouldn't ceo's exist. Communism generally means that it is a CLASSLESS society and stateless (no government or rather weak state/government). Which clearly china still has classes (poor rich, etc) They are closer to Totalitarian capitalists. There is a owner class (the CEO) and the working class (people below) it's just that with china if the government wants something from a business they can outright force them to do it.
China's bs seriously can go to hell, you shouldn't disappear over speaking out


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 26, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> that is a really retarded argument. That's also just like saying (insert, job or school) you cannot criticize it because you're in (insert job or school) that's circular reasoning, and it goes nowhere fast.
> 
> also the fact that is your response and have nothing to counter the healthcare issues, the housing issues, and incarceration I ask you to try harder next time and give an actual refusal.
> 
> ...


I know, but they've claimed the name communism, even if thats not really what they are. You're right, Its hardly communist, thats why a added totalitarian which i think is fair.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 26, 2021)

odd how the Biden kids dont seen to mention their president bombing nations again


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 26, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> I know, but they've claimed the name communism, even if thats not really what they are. You're right, Its hardly communist, thats why a added totalitarian which i think is fair.


I get that, but...
A lot of people are calling it communist when it really isn't. It be best to call the kettle it's actual color so it doesn't do more damage. If you saw a neo-nazi you really shouldn't let them rebrand themselves as white chauvinist. (proud-boys tried this) it gives an air of deniability and confuses the conversation. In this example you would still call them a nazi, or racist and so on. Call it on it's actual real name, not what they want the name to be.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 26, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> I dont see the logic.. are people in North Korea not suppose to complain about living in a dictatorship? Or people in China not supposed to complain about living in totalitarian communism? Or people in Europe can't complain about heavily socialized policy?



Are people in China or North Korea as free as people in the United States? Or are people who live in the United States free to critique the government and all It's forms and then move to somewhere they prefer. The answer is no, the logic wasn't hard.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2021)

China only introduced certain elements of capitalism into their economy because they were starving and the giant's clay legs were starting to chip. They saw what happened to the U.S.S.R. and took necessary action. Large swathes of "private" Chinese companies have strong governmental backing, many are either partially owned by the state or have state actors on their boards of directors effectively calling the shots. The whole system is built for cheap manufacture under sub-human conditions, all with free shipping subsidised by the state, purely to undercut western industry. China is a totalitarian state, if we're being generous, and its pseudo-capitalist economy is weaponised. That's neither here nor there though.

*EDIT*: Just to demonstrate the point, there were 98 Chinese companies on Fortune's 2015 Global 500 list, out of which only 22 were actually private. Honestly, I'm skeptical even in regards to those 22 - I suspect some level of state involvement if they're this big, at the very least surveillance, at worst literal spies in the higher echelons of company structure. They have a dedicated government body called SASAC which exists specifically to appoint CEO's and make decisions on large investments. It's as close as you can get to the state controlling the means of production in a modern economy.

https://fortune.com/2015/07/22/china-global-500-government-owned/


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 26, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Or are people who live in the United States free to critique the government and all It's forms and then move to somewhere they prefer.


again failing to refute the argument that people are dying because they cannot get the healthcare they need. Or the housing problem, or incarceration. I'd really hate to be that annoying Karen who keeps bringing up a point you keep ignoring.
Moving on, failing to understand that capitalism does not mean freedom is a significant problem here. I am limited by my wage, due to the owner class, my pay is astronomically lower than it should be, my labor is being exploited. That is a inherit property of capitalism, exploitation. If the capitalist/owner class actually paid the workers what they were worth, they wouldn't make profit, they would go even. So there's a heavy conflict of interest, the worker who wants to be paid what they are actually worth, and the owner who wants to pay them as little as possible. Idk what generation, or what you status is, maybe your lucky and not living on razor thin margins. But for gen Z and Millennials, the American dream was stepped on the neck and mutilated. Collage is a debt sentence for life, our pay is far worse than it should be and Economic mobility has fallen through the roof. And part of the problem is if your poor, it's not really an easy option to move. and, going somewhere else doesn't magically fix the problem, and even then reaching the point to move has been pretty damn nullified


----------



## rensenware (Feb 26, 2021)

What China is is pretty easily defined as state capitalism.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 26, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Are people in China or North Korea as free as people in the United States? Or are people who live in the United States free to critique the government and all It's forms and then move to somewhere they prefer. The answer is no, the logic wasn't hard.


No, there is no logic.

"are people who live in the United States free to critique the government and all It's forms"

Yes. End of story

Citizens of the US are in control of the government, not the other way around. We left Europe just so we could do that. Bitching about the system is what America is founded on.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> No, there is no logic.
> 
> "are people who live in the United States free to critique the government and all It's forms"
> 
> ...


Well, that's only part of the story. America is primarily founded upon tax avoidance. You hated the king enough to leave Britain, but you haven't proclaimed independence until the tea supply was threatened.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 26, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, that's only part of the story. America is primarily founded upon tax avoidance. You hated the king enough to leave Britain, but you haven't proclaimed independence until the tea supply was threatened.


Well, 'taxation without representation'. We prefer coffee anyway lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2021)

WeedZ said:


> Well, 'taxation without representation'. We prefer coffee anyway lol.


Every revolution needs a lofty slogan, but... I think we all know what it was really about.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 26, 2021)

wow biden is an actual pile of shit
who could have guessed


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 27, 2021)

A mod modded a mod? OP, please nerf.


Yes, capitalism has problems, but I don't think it is going away anytime soon. May always have some form of capitalism, unless resources become easily attainable and infinite. Still, letting it go off the rails isn't the answer either. Reforms need to happen.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 27, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> I get that, but...
> A lot of people are calling it communist when it really isn't. It be best to call the kettle it's actual color so it doesn't do more damage. If you saw a neo-nazi you really shouldn't let them rebrand themselves as white chauvinist. (proud-boys tried this) it gives an air of deniability and confuses the conversation. In this example you would still call them a nazi, or racist and so on. Call it on it's actual real name, not what they want the name to be.




Wait a minute. Neo-Nazi's, as you call them, bear little resemblance or commonality with the Nazi Party that controlled Germany from 1933-45. The punks who get that label these days are trash racist morons with little to no ideological understanding of Hitler et al's Nationalist Socialism. But you're still gonna call them Nazis, because you don't want to let them get out of being called Nazis?

But Communist China, because there are some distinctions you can make in recent developments/deviations from an economic structure that could be called truly communist ... you want people to correct themselves and stop using the word 'communist' to refer to them, even if they still use it themselves?

Actually what I found most interesting was that your description of why China isn't really communist ... "There is a owner class (the CEO) and the working class (people below) it's just that with china if the government wants something from a business they can outright force them to do it." ... now _that_ sounds like Nazis!!! And they've even got ethnic-based slave labor camps!


Anyway, guess what I'm trying to say is both the Republican and Democrat hoi polloi are a little too prone to throw the words "Nazi" and "Communist" around these days, without much appreciation for the gravity of the label. Hanging these names on Proud Boys or Antifa street rabble is ridiculous.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 27, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Wait a minute. Neo-Nazi's, as you call them, bear little resemblance or commonality with the Nazi Party that controlled Germany from 1933-45. The punks who get that label these days are trash racist morons with little to no ideological understanding of Hitler et al's Nationalist Socialism. But you're still gonna call them Nazis, because you don't want to let them get out of being called Nazis?
> 
> But Communist China, because there are some distinctions you can make in recent developments/deviations from an economic structure that could be called truly communist ... you want people to correct themselves and stop using the word 'communist' to refer to them, even if they still use it themselves?
> 
> ...


What is there to understand? "National Socialism" was just a bullshit name slapped on what is objectively ethnofascism- an ideology that these racist morons certainly grasp.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 27, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> But Communist China, because there are some distinctions you can make in recent developments/deviations


That's not very recent, china's been state capitalist since 1990, many people have realized that there is enough of a change that it is no longer remotely communist.(which you clearly didn't want to respond to), in my explanation I do explain that communism means stateless and classless (unless your going for Stalinism, aka strong state but classless, aka what the USSR was.Which I'm no fan of either. Needs to be democratic, get the dictators out pls) The fact there is classes renders it immediately void of being communist.
There's a point when one thing becomes another.


Hanafuda said:


> Anyway, guess what I'm trying to say is both the Republican and Democrat hoi polloi are a little too prone to throw the words "Nazi" and "Communist" around these days, without much appreciation for the gravity of the label. Hanging these names on Proud Boys or Antifa street rabble is ridiculous.


Proud boys yes, many of the members actually do tick the check box, and or have actively stated they are Neo-Nazi's on parlor. Antifa? Oh yeah no that's bs. Nazi's and Anti fascists(antifa full name) are at fundamental odds against each other. Nazi's generally speaking support fascism. And I can pretty much prove that  proudboys are neo-nazi's and also therefore support fascism (they go since Proud boys where there at the insurrection along with many other alt-right groups and stormed the building. Part of fascism is supporting a ultra nationalistic authoritarian, this means a dictatorship)
Meanwhile antifa generally speaking are on the anarchist side of political ideologies, so when a authoritarian or a group of people is threatening to put a authoritarian in place (or systematic oppression of a group of individuals, and that's because fascism ends up being self destructive as there has to be a in group and out group for it to work, which means a shrinking pool of people they have to marginalize) Antifa or anti fascists get really riled up, since that goes 100% against their political compass.
In other words, antifa/anti fascists don't show up until there is a fascist around or someone supporting a fascist ideology. It's a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 27, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> ....



Just FWIW I wasn't suggesting Antifa had anything to do with Nazis, if that's what you thought I meant. I know about Antifaschistische Aktion in the 30's, I know the two flags on the Antifa flag mean socialists and communists together, etc. Just like a lot of leftists are calling Proud Boys "Nazis", people on the right are calling Antifa "Communists," probably in-part due to that historical alignment with the USSR. And Antifa in the US today does even call itself a Marxist-aligned movement. But I agree with you, they're really more anarchist. Real Marxists are fine with the authoritarian governmental boot, as long as its their boot.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 27, 2021)

Bombing Back Better


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 27, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Just FWIW I wasn't suggesting Antifa had anything to do with Nazis, if that's what you thought I meant. I know about Antifaschistische Aktion in the 30's, I know the two flags on the Antifa flag mean socialists and communists together, etc. Just like a lot of leftists are calling Proud Boys "Nazis", people on the right are calling Antifa "Communists," probably in-part due to that historical alignment with the USSR. And Antifa in the US today does even call itself a Marxist-aligned movement. But I agree with you, they're really more anarchist. Real Marxists are fine with the authoritarian governmental boot, as long as its their boot.


I mean... you're half right.
On one hand, yeah. If anything, they're anarchist.
On the other hand, there isn't really a "they" in the present day. It's not an organization so much as it is an ideology, and the closest thing there is to an antifa organization nowadays that's actually linked to the stuff it's blamed for is just "the subset of anti-fascists that are willing to actually use force".


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 27, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I mean... you're half right.
> On one hand, yeah. If anything, they're anarchist.
> On the other hand, there isn't really a "they" in the present day. It's not an organization so much as it is an ideology, and the closest thing there is to an antifa organization nowadays that's actually linked to the stuff it's blamed for is just "the subset of anti-fascists that are willing to actually use force".



If there wasn't an organization, they wouldn't show up at the same place, same time, ready to fuck shit up. All it takes for an organization to stay organized today is a text chatgroup. But if that's the subset you're speaking of, then yeah I get that.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 27, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> If there wasn't an organization, they wouldn't show up at the same place, same time, ready to fuck shit up. All it takes for an organization to stay organized today is a text chatgroup. But if that's the subset you're speaking of, then yeah I get that.


there's a difference between a group chat and a full blown organization
also... _have there even been any proven instances of them showing up synchronized to 'fuck shit up'? because I'd love to hear about them._


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 28, 2021)

If Biden wont give people the 2k he promises there is no way he will give people 10k
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1365815905435996162


----------



## Xzi (Feb 28, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> If Biden wont give people the 2k he promises there is no way he will give people 10k
> https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1365815905435996162


Now watch Gosar vote against his own amendment.  It's happened plenty of times before, and Republicans never hold their own accountable for it.  All flash, no substance.

Even $1,400 checks didn't receive a single Republican vote in the House, and they won't receive a single Republican vote in the Senate, either.  That's despite the fact that roughly 75% of voters approve of the COVID relief bill.  "Just fucking die already peasants" seems to be the prevailing thought process of Republican leadership these days.


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 28, 2021)

pic.twitter.com/gYP1HcRJhO— Tim Pool (@Timcast) February 27, 2021


----------



## Xzi (Feb 28, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1365742391328702466


Inaccurate meme, he pressed both buttons.  Also, complaining about any president playing their part in the military industrial complex is like complaining that water is wet.  That's just the unfortunate reality of the situation, as long as somebody is making money the bombs will keep dropping.  Trump was no better, and he had us on a direct path to war with Iran.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Inaccurate meme, he pressed both buttons.  Also, complaining about any president playing their part in the military industrial complex is like complaining that water is wet.  That's just the unfortunate reality of the situation, as long as somebody is making money the bombs will keep dropping.  Trump was no better, and he had us on a direct path to war with Iran.


ironically, despite the Iraq War vote that Republicans love to spam as an excuse to discredit Biden, he seems to be doing pretty well in comparison to the general president-do-bad-naughty-fighty-things standard
he pulled _out _of the shit regarding Yemen, a smart move I legit would not have expected from him if I was using the genetic fallacy as much as a lot of others have


----------



## Valwinz (Feb 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Inaccurate meme, he pressed both buttons.  Also, complaining about any president playing their part in the military industrial complex is like complaining that water is wet.  That's just the unfortunate reality of the situation, as long as somebody is making money the bombs will keep dropping.  Trump was no better, and he had us on a direct path to war with Iran.


Show me the 2k where did he give the 2k?

I love the Biden kids happy about bombing other countries war is good again


----------



## Xzi (Feb 28, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Show me the 2k where did he give the 2k?


It's already passed the House, now it's on to the Senate where, as I already said, it won't receive a single Republican vote in its favor.



Valwinz said:


> I love the Biden kids happy about bombing other countries war is good again


I'm not a Biden supporter, I'm just laying out the grim reality for you.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties are capitalist parties, thus both are beholden to the stock market and military industrial complex.  There aren't a lot of realistic options for fixing that now that it's been an entrenched part of our society for more than fifty years.  Either we amend the Constitution, elect a Socialist president (and Socialist members of Congress), or we revolt.  As far as I can tell, you're a staunch neocon who would be in favor of none of these things, and thus you're not actually in favor of fixing the problem.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 28, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Show me the 2k where did he give the 2k?


Didn't Foxi have to warn you for spamming that left and right?


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's already passed the House, now it's on to the Senate where, as I already said, it won't receive a single Republican vote in its favor.
> 
> I'm not a Biden supporter, I'm just laying out the grim reality for you.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties are capitalist parties, thus both are beholden to the stock market and military industrial complex.  There aren't a lot of realistic options for fixing that now that it's been an entrenched part of our society for more than fifty years.  Either we amend the Constitution, elect a Socialist president (and Socialist members of Congress), or we revolt.  As far as I can tell, you're a staunch neocon who would be in favor of none of these things, and thus you're not actually in favor of fixing the problem.


Politicians have a nasty tendency of taking a piece of bacon and placing it on top of a pile of cow dung. Once someone points out that, as pleasant as bacon is, it's also on a pile of bullshit and rather unappetising, they cry foul that the evil opposition is once again keeping the bacon away from the public. A common strategy in both sides of the aisle, to be fair.

In regards to bombs dropping before the checks, I don't think there's a single Republican who actually minds terrorists getting bombed - good. There is a problem in regards to hypocrisy, however.

I seem to remember Trump's administration ramming a cruise missile up General Soleimani's bottom in retaliation for Iran's numerous strikes on U.S. military personnel, along with his numerous crimes against humanity. The entire political left was up in arms as if it was the end of the world since Soleimani happened to be killed in Iraq, a sovereign country.

As it so happens, Biden's strikes in Syria are retaliatory as well, in direct retaliation to attacks against U.S. personnel by Iran-backed militants. Attacks in Iraq. Not Syria, Syria being a sovereign country. See the problem here?

To be fair though, Trump's bombing actually killed a relevant figure - a general directly in charge of orchestrating attacks. Biden's strike was an empty gesture of blowing up an abandoned facility, killing whole one terrorist. Good job. Then again, there are conflicting reports regarding the body count, as there often are. If they did just get the one lonely janitor, that was the most expensive assassination of an irrelevant figure in recent memory.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 28, 2021)

yep i'm with Xzi on this republicans want the middle/lower class to die off via starvation/covid even their own base (who are f*cking tools at this point for re election only) one the strongest (or rather richest in this case) will survive


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 28, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> yep i'm with Xzi on this republicans want the middle/lower class to die off via starvation/covid even their own base (who are f*cking tools at this point for re election only) one the strongest (or rather richest in this case) will survive


I hope you realise that this position is a straight up conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 28, 2021)

wait, are the people here really upset that Biden listened to his generals and war advisers, and then sent a letter to congress explaining what and why he did it, but are not upset that Trump striked and killed Qasem Soleimani against the advice of his war advisers and never explained himself?

The hypocrisy is fucking insane here. also any complaint about gridlock in congress is full of shit. *it has been 4 weeks since Biden started his term,* 2 weeks were held up in congress because McConnell tied shit up with a bunch of procedural non-sense that is normally rubber stamped. 1 week was spent on the second impeachment trials, which the GOP made an absolute mockery of. and the most recent week was spent on Biden admin cabinet picks. let me repeat that for you dense fucks, Biden doesn't even have his full cabinet picked yet, it has been 4 weeks, the covid bill just passed the house and is on its way to the senate. fucking grow up.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I hope you realise that this position is a straight up conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.



doesn't stop you guys from raving on about baseless shit like "the elections were stolen" or pizzagate, or "covid is a hoax, it's not that bad".


----------



## Xzi (Feb 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> As it so happens, Biden's strikes in Syria are retaliatory as well, in direct retaliation to attacks against U.S. personnel by Iran-backed militants. Attacks in Iraq. Not Syria, Syria being a sovereign country. See the problem here?
> 
> To be fair though, Trump's bombing actually killed a relevant figure - a general directly in charge of orchestrating attacks. Biden's strike was an empty gesture of blowing up an abandoned facility, killing whole one terrorist. Good job. Then again, there are conflicting reports regarding the body count, as there often are. If they did just get the one lonely janitor, that was the most expensive assassination of an irrelevant figure in recent memory.


Context is also important here: Trump was fine with starting an all-out war with Iran, you'd have to be prior to targeting someone so high-profile.  Biden was only looking to fire warning shots, as he's soon going to be back at the negotiation table with Iran to discuss a new nuclear treaty.



Foxi4 said:


> I hope you realise that this position is a straight up conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.


Texas would like a word.  Of course, that's just the latest and most blatant example of Republicans leaving the "little people" to fend for themselves in a crisis, it's obviously not the only example.  How Ted Cruz reacted to a three-day freeze is exactly how you can expect most Republicans to react to worsening natural disasters across the country as a result of climate change.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Feb 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Context is also important here: Trump was fine with starting an all-out war with Iran, you'd have to be prior to targeting someone so high-profile.  Biden was only looking to fire warning shots, as he's soon going to be back at the negotiation table with Iran to discuss a new nuclear treaty.
> 
> 
> Texas would like a word.  Of course, that's just the latest and most blatant example of Republicans leaving the "little people" to fend for themselves in a crisis, it's obviously not the only example.  How Ted Cruz reacted to a three-day freeze is exactly how you can expect most Republicans to react to worsening natural disasters across the country as a result of climate change.


Texas? Try "the entire fucking nation since the pandemic started". We've discussed time and time again how Trump willfully refused to actually treat the coronavirus as seriously as it needed to be treated, and that really should be enough evidence of "the far right is built off of extraordinary selfishness" for almost anyone.
Not for Trump supporters though I guess... :/


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 28, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Texas? Try "the entire fucking nation since the pandemic started". We've discussed time and time again how Trump willfully refused to actually treat the coronavirus as seriously as it needed to be treated, and that really should be enough evidence of "the far right is built off of extraordinary selfishness" for almost anyone.
> Not for Trump supporters though I guess... :/


That's interesting. When Trump was still president, his "lack of a plan" was delivering approx. 1 million vaccinations per day by the end of his term.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-dose-a-day-goal-sets-a-bar-that-s-nearly-met

Biden recently boasted that as of February 25th 50 million doses were administered.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/25/joe-biden-coronavirus-50m-vaccine-doses

Now, I'm not a math major, but he's been in office since January 6th. That's 50 days between when he took office and February 25th, not "37" as he mentioned in his speech. Not only did distribution not ramp up significantly at all since Trump, he very well may be falling behind given the upward trend we saw before - I'd have to see how the growth curve looks like to determine that. He's not "weeks ahead of schedule", regardless of how many times he says that he is.

The "100 million doses in 100 days" was not a lofty goal - the country was on track to reach that number in that time frame *before* he even took office, and the accelerating number of vaccinations per day is within expected parameters.


Xzi said:


> Context is also important here: Trump was fine with starting an all-out war with Iran, you'd have to be prior to targeting someone so high-profile.  Biden was only looking to fire warning shots, as he's soon going to be back at the negotiation table with Iran to discuss a new nuclear treaty.
> 
> Texas would like a word.  Of course, that's just the latest and most blatant example of Republicans leaving the "little people" to fend for themselves in a crisis, it's obviously not the only example.  How Ted Cruz reacted to a three-day freeze is exactly how you can expect most Republicans to react to worsening natural disasters across the country as a result of climate change.


Biden authorised the strike on foreign soil without congressional approval. You can claim that Trump "wanted a war" with Iran until the cows come home, what you're not accounting for is political theater. At the end of the day, Trump is the *only* president who *didn't* start a new conflict since Carter, if I recall correctly. In fact, he was advocating for the withdrawl of forces from areas where they have no business being. Meanwhile, Biden is more than happy to sign another deal with Iran for a vague promise that they "won't develop nuclear arms" when they're actively funding terrorism in the region, with the express intention of killing American troops. If you don't see the warning signs of the U.S. becoming the world's policeman again like in the "good old days", I don't know what to tell you.

The record so far is very clear to me - the "new COVID plan" is no more effective than the one that was already in place, bombs are still dropping in the Middle East on sovereign soil, still no COVID relief in sight (since that well is poisoned as usual) and the children are back in the cages since, as it turns out, there *is* a crisis at the border, who knew.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...dfd58c-7533-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html

At least he doesn't Tweet though, it's important that Biden never installs the app, am I right?


----------



## rensenware (Feb 28, 2021)

omgcat said:


> wait, are the people here really upset that Biden listened to his generals and war advisers, and then sent a letter to congress explaining what and why he did it, but are not upset that Trump striked and killed Qasem Soleimani against the advice of his war advisers and never explained himself?
> 
> The hypocrisy is fucking insane here. also any complaint about gridlock in congress is full of shit. *it has been 4 weeks since Biden started his term,* 2 weeks were held up in congress because McConnell tied shit up with a bunch of procedural non-sense that is normally rubber stamped. 1 week was spent on the second impeachment trials, which the GOP made an absolute mockery of. and the most recent week was spent on Biden admin cabinet picks. let me repeat that for you dense fucks, Biden doesn't even have his full cabinet picked yet, it has been 4 weeks, the covid bill just passed the house and is on its way to the senate. fucking grow up.
> 
> ...


"are people really upset we bombed a foreign country we have no reason to be in???????????????????" headass


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 28, 2021)

jupitteer said:


> "are people really upset we bombed a foreign country we have no reason to be in???????????????????" headass


Hey, 15 days to flatten the Kurds. 100 drone strikes in a 100 days, what could go wrong.

For the record, I *personally* don't mind terrorist dens getting blasted, I'm merely pointing out that big crowds here seemed to be against that for the last four years, and they seem to be changing their tune now that their guy is in. All I want is consistency.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 28, 2021)

remember folks red was always bad even before trump trump just made it 100X worse and we're still feeling the after effects what i fear the most is the SOTU address coming up after Jan 6th I always worried about it even the Mayor of DC said their were "credable threats" of another attack during that time (it's worse cause people are actually carrying out these attacks or show more willingness too after trump left the WH)


----------



## Xzi (Feb 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Biden authorised the strike on foreign soil without congressional approval.


Is that relevant?  I don't remember Trump asking Congress' permission for the Soleimani assassination either.



Foxi4 said:


> You can claim that Trump "wanted a war" with Iran until the cows come home, what you're not accounting for is political theater.


That was not theater.  Both Russia and Israel wanted the US to be their proxy in a war with Iran, and Trump would've been more than happy to oblige in his second term when there would be nothing left for him to lose from it.  The only reason war profiteering wasn't his first priority is because he was already conning so many rubes out of their money here at home.  And that well may still not have run dry yet, I guess we'll see in 2024.



Foxi4 said:


> Meanwhile, Biden is more than happy to sign another deal with Iran for a vague promise that they "won't develop nuclear arms" when they're actively funding terrorism in the region, with the express intention of killing American troops.


There was nothing vague about the previous treaty, the US and its allies had full access to frequent inspections.  Dropping bombs on them wouldn't stop their nuclear program, if anything it would make them commit even more resources to it and be more inclined to utilize those nuclear weapons once they've been developed.  So I'm not sure what you think the alternative is here.



Foxi4 said:


> The record so far is very clear to me - the "new COVID plan" is no more effective than the one that was already in place


There was no plan in place previously.  The federal government under Trump was actually a hindrance to quick distribution of the vaccine, that much was obvious.  He immediately lost what little interest he had in his duties as president once he lost the election.



Foxi4 said:


> still no COVID relief in sight (since that well is poisoned as usual)


Huh?  The COVID relief package already passed the House, we're just waiting for the inevitable passage of it through reconciliation in the Senate.



Foxi4 said:


> the children are back in the cages since, as it turns out, there *is* a crisis at the border, who knew.


He's not moving to reform immigration policy as quickly as I'd like, but the policies of mandatory family separations at the border and criminalization of asylum seekers have already been overturned by executive order.  And while immigrants need to be housed _somewhere_ while being processed through CBP, there's no reason to make those facilities as inhumane as possible like Trump did.  New facilities are being built with showers, beds, all the basic necessities that immigrants were denied over the last four years.



Foxi4 said:


> At least he doesn't Tweet though, it's important that Biden never installs the app, am I right?


At least he doesn't try to set government policy via Tweet at 3 AM after snorting a line of Xanax, you mean.  That does help to keep the nation's collective blood pressure under control.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Is that relevant?  I don't remember Trump asking Congress' permission for the Soleimani assassination either.


It is, because it makes the two moves nearly identical. You were outraged by one, but you're excusing the other.


> That was not theater.  Both Russia and Israel wanted the US to be their proxy in a war with Iran, and Trump would've been more than happy to oblige in his second term when there would be nothing left for him to lose from it.  The only reason war profiteering wasn't his first priority is because he was already conning so many rubes out of their money here at home.  And that well may still not have run dry yet, I guess we'll see in 2024.


Russia is a giant on clay legs with a GDP the size of Texas. The country is in no way capable of undermining the position of the United States, and pretending otherwise is the Red Scare nearly a century too late. Soleimani was responsible for far more egregious crimes than the bunch of militants Biden blasted, I have zero sympathy for him or the Iranian regime, but there needs to be a consistent standard here. If you put Trump's feet to the fire over an unauthorised strike on a literal war criminal, you should be outraged now as well.


> There was nothing vague about the previous treaty, the US and its allies had full access to frequent inspections.  Dropping bombs on them wouldn't stop their nuclear program, if anything it would make them commit even more resources to it and be more inclined to utilize those nuclear weapons once they've been developed.  So I'm not sure what you think the alternative is here.


If you actually believe that the treaty was effective in any shape or form then there's really nothing to discuss. Me, I don't negotiate with terrorists, but if you prefer American troops to be killed using American money as opposed to Iranian money then go ahead, give them more dollars based on empty promises.


> There was no plan in place previously.  The federal government under Trump was actually a hindrance to quick distribution of the vaccine, that much was obvious.  He immediately lost what little interest he had in his duties as president once he lost the election.


Total nonsense that was already denied by Faucci himself.

EDIT: Out of plain curiosity I checked the graph, courtesy of Our World in Data, and as I expected, Biden's new plan did not cause a sudden increase in vaccinations - the number grows following pretty much the same trajectory as under Trump, with significant dips in late January and mid-February, possibly due to poor weather.




 


> Huh?  The COVID relief package already passed the House, we're just waiting for the inevitable passage of it through reconciliation in the Senate.


The package is full of pointless spending including causes in no way related to the pandemic. I will not be surprised if Republicans cause a huge stink over it, although admittedly, the Democrats control both houses, so it has a good chance of being approved in the Senate. It only took two months.


> He's not moving to reform immigration policy as quickly as I'd like, but the policies of mandatory family separations at the border and criminalization of asylum seekers have already been overturned by executive order.  And while immigrants need to be housed _somewhere_ while being processed through CBP, there's no reason to make those facilities as inhumane as possible like Trump did.  New facilities are being built with showers, beds, all the basic necessities that immigrants were denied over the last four years.


Correction, facilities they were denied for the last 12 years, since those detention centers were established under Obama's and Biden's watch.


> At least he doesn't try to set government policy via Tweet at 3 AM after snorting a line of Xanax, you mean.  That does help to keep the nation's collective blood pressure under control.


Sadly.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It does, because it makes the two moves nearly identical. You were outraged by one, but you're excusing the other.


I'm not excusing anything, just pointing out the differences in motive.  As I already explained to Valwinz, the bombs will continue to fall as long as every president we elect is a staunch capitalist beholden to the military-industrial complex.  With that as a baseline, all we can compare them on is how many new wars they start or don't start.



Foxi4 said:


> Russia is a giant on clay legs with a GDP the size of Texas. The country is in no way capable of undermining the position of the United States


Under Trump our stance on Russia was whatever Putin wanted it to be.  The same is true of Israel and Netanyahu, as well as Saudi Arabia and their royal family.  They all had strings firmly attached to the presidency, which is why Trump was _still_ asking about his authorization to bomb Iran even after losing the 2020 election.



Foxi4 said:


> If you actually believe that the treaty was effective in any shape or form then there's really nothing to discuss. Me, I don't negotiate with terrorists


Tsk tsk, deeming an entire nation of individuals "terrorists" just because some of their leadership is attempting to develop nuclear weapons?  Or perhaps it's because you think the US' religious extremists are somehow morally superior to religious extremists in the Middle East?  Either way, a bit of your neocon is shining through the cracks.



Foxi4 said:


> Total nonsense that was already denied by Faucci himself.


More specifically, Fauci called the Trump administration's plan for a vaccine rollout "vague."  That's the closest you're gonna get to a career CDC doctor saying they were fucking clueless.



Foxi4 said:


> The package is full of pointless spending including causes in no way related to the pandemic.


Well we already tried throwing trillions at corporate welfare last year.  For some odd reason, that didn't make the pandemic immediately and completely disappear.  



Foxi4 said:


> Correction, facilities they were denied for the last 12 years, since those detention centers were established under Obama's and Biden's watch.


That's fair, though the Obama administration didn't have a policy of family separation, and the influx of immigrants coming from South America during the Trump administration required the construction of additional facilities.  Those facilities were left as bare-bones as possible, with nothing but concrete floors to sleep on surrounded by steel fencing.  Hell, they even went to court to argue that immigrant children didn't need showers, soap, or toothpaste.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'm not excusing anything, just pointing out the differences in motive.  As I already explained to Valwinz, the bombs will continue to fall as long as every president we elect is a staunch capitalist beholden to the military-industrial complex.  With that as a baseline, all we can compare them on is how many new wars they start or don't start.
> 
> Under Trump our stance on Russia was whatever Putin wanted it to be.  The same is true of Israel and Netanyahu, as well as Saudi Arabia and their royal family.  They all had strings firmly attached to the presidency, which is why Trump was _still_ asking about his authorization to bomb Iran even after losing the 2020 election.
> 
> ...


Who's doing the negotiations - "entire nations" or the governments in power? The United States are not giving hand-outs to the Iranian citizens, who I'm sure are good people - they're giving it to the Iranian government, the Ayatollah to be specific. The Iranian people aren't crowdfunding terrorism, the Iranian government is funding it, and destabilising the Middle East in the process. By handing money to the Iranian government as part of a "nuclear deal", you are in effect funding terrorism in the Middle East, terrorism that is primarily aimed against your own people. That's not "neocon", that's 2+2=4.

"Corporate welfare" isn't supposed to stop the virus, it's supposed to prevent businesses from shutting their doors permanently and leave large swathes of the population unemployed after their state governments prohibited them from operating. Funding a bunch of new museums is not a COVID relief priority, and yet somehow it's in there - that money should go towards keeping businesses that cannot open right now afloat. There's a bunch of other nonsense in there as well, which you're welcome to look up in your own time.

If we're talking about Faucci's words, he said specifically that "Biden is not starting from scratch" and he laughed at the notion that "there was no plan", it was a developing situation, and it develops still.

Not much to add in regards to your other points - I was simply told that improving border security wasn't a priority until it was after January 6th. You seem to be consistent in terms of military interventions, so I have no issues with that - you stand for something, consistently, which is good.


----------



## smf (Mar 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> EDIT: Out of plain curiosity I checked the graph, courtesy of Our World in Data, and as I expected, Biden's new plan did not cause a sudden increase in vaccinations - the number grows following pretty much the same trajectory as under Trump, with significant dips in late January and mid-February, possibly due to poor weather.



What do you mean "as I expected"? It sounds passive aggressive. As if you're telling us something that only you could know.

The time it would have made a difference was 6 months ago, but there was a grossly incompetent president in the Whitehouse at the time. The roll out is not great and is in spite of Donald Trump.

So yeah, as everyone expected.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Mar 1, 2021)

This conversation proves one thing:

We need a 3rd party to win this time....


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 1, 2021)

smf said:


> What do you mean "as I expected"? It sounds passive aggressive. As if you're telling us something that only you could know.
> 
> The time it would have made a difference was 6 months ago, but there was a grossly incompetent president in the Whitehouse at the time. The roll out is not great and is in spite of Donald Trump.
> 
> So yeah, as everyone expected.


I meant precisely what I said - I expected the graph to look a certain way, I looked it up and the trend looks exactly as I anticipated it would. How you choose to interpret that is up to you.

You'll also have to define some parameters on what constitutes a bad roll-out. 20% of Americans are either fully or partially immunised now, that's pretty quick considering vaccinations started in December.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Who's doing the negotiations - "entire nations" or the governments in power? The United States are not giving hand-outs to the Iranian citizens, who I'm sure are good people - they're giving it to the Iranian government, the Ayatollah to be specific. The Iranian people aren't crowdfunding terrorism, the Iranian government is funding it, and destabilising the Middle East in the process. By handing money to the Iranian government as part of a "nuclear deal", you are in effect funding terrorism in the Middle East, terrorism that is primarily aimed against your own people. That's not "neocon", that's 2+2=4.


This is all awfully presumptuous of you.  Until a new treaty is established, we won't know what the US is willing to give in exchange.  As far as the treaty Obama established goes, we only ever returned to Iran their own funds which were frozen by the US.  We essentially got what we wanted for free, but Trump wasn't smart enough to understand that.  Or perhaps he was, and his desire to spite Obama simply overruled his desire to follow diplomatic best practices.



Foxi4 said:


> "Corporate welfare" isn't supposed to stop the virus, it's supposed to prevent businesses from shutting their doors permanently and leave large swathes of the population unemployed after their state governments prohibited them from operating. Funding a bunch of new museums is not a COVID relief priority, and yet somehow it's in there - that money should go towards keeping businesses that cannot open right now afloat. There's a bunch of other nonsense in there as well, which you're welcome to look up in your own time.


Wal-Mart and the like were never in any real danger of shutting their doors permanently, and Republican-proposed relief efforts thus far have provided little to no support for small businesses.  Biden's relief package _does_ include funds for small businesses, as well as a whole lot of money to re-open schools safely and to assist in the vaccine rollout.  I'm not opposed to a few new museums either, as I'm sure my tax dollars have gone to much worse endeavors.



Foxi4 said:


> Not much to add in regards to your other points - I was simply told that improving border security wasn't a priority until it was after January 6th. You seem to be consistent in terms of military interventions, so I have no issues with that - you stand for something, consistently, which is good.


I wouldn't say I'm opposed to military intervention under any and every circumstance, but the last time the US was in the right for entering into a foreign conflict was probably WW2.  So it's been a hot minute.


----------



## smf (Mar 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I meant precisely what I said - I expected the graph to look a certain way, I looked it up and the trend looks exactly as I anticipated it would. How you choose to interpret that is up to you.



It seems I interpreted it exactly as the posturing you intended.

As vaccine rollout schemes take longer to implement than Biden has been in power then it would be obvious that there would be little change and why there is little change. So no disingenuous arguments please.



Foxi4 said:


> You'll also have to define some parameters on what constitutes a bad roll-out. 20% of Americans are either fully or partially immunised now, that's pretty quick considering vaccinations started in December.



Slower than the UK.



Xzi said:


> but the last time the US was in the right for entering into a foreign conflict was probably WW2.  So it's been a hot minute.



They were late to that party as well because they didn't want to get involved, Japan forced their hand. I'm sure in their version of the movie they are the good guys, but it's not so clear to me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> This is all awfully presumptuous of you.  Until a new treaty is established, we won't know what the US is willing to give in exchange.  As far as the treaty Obama established goes, we only ever returned to Iran their own funds which were frozen by the US.  We essentially got what we wanted for free, but Trump wasn't smart enough to understand that.  Or perhaps he was, and his desire to spite Obama simply overruled his desire to follow diplomatic best practices.


Money they shouldn't have received regardless, not for as long as they're involved in destabilising the region and funding terrorism. It's worth noting that the deal also included interest on the frozen assets, so no, it wasn't just the money that was frozen, the figure was well in excess of the original amount.


smf said:


> Slower than the UK.


That's a weird parameter. As far as vaccinations per 100 are concerned, both countries are at the top of the list. Israel (1st), UAE (2nd), UK (3rd) and the US (4th) are leading the charge in terms of global vaccine roll-out, nations in the European Union are lagging far behind. The admirable performance of the US in this regard can be attribited in no small part to Trump's administration which laid the groundwork for a speedy vaccination scheme.




They're doing pretty well in spite of "having no plan", as Biden's administration likes to falsely claim. Not sure how fast you want them to distribute it. My point of contention wasn't slow distribution, rather it was the fact that Biden's new plan isn't any better in terms of results in a way that could be statistically measurable when you look at the results. It's literally a straight line.


----------



## smf (Mar 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's literally a straight line.



If you hold a ruler up to your screen between january 1st and january 25th & compare it to now, then it's nothing like a straight line. Biden released vaccine that was being hoarded by Trump and ordered more, which hasn't been delivered yet.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n246

_President Joe Biden announced on 26 January that he had purchased 200 million more doses of the two authorised vaccines_

_The Biden administration said that beginning next week it would increase by 16% the supply of vaccines distributed to states, tribes, and territories from 8.6 million doses per week to a minimum of 10 million doses, allowing more people to get vaccinated sooner than previously anticipated. It said that it would maintain this as a minimum supply level for the next three weeks *with the supply expected to increase in late March*. The recipient states, tribes, and territories will now get three weeks’ notice of what deliveries to expect, instead of the previous one week, to improve planning._


It seems his plan is going as well as expected bearing in mind what he inherited from the idiot president. It would be impossible to turn round the disaster of the last four years in less than four months.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 1, 2021)

smf said:


> If you hold a ruler up to your screen between january 1st and january 25th & compare it to now, then it's nothing like a straight line. Biden released vaccine that was being hoarded by Trump and ordered more, which hasn't been delivered yet.


I already did, in the earlier post. There are no significant dips or spikes until the two I mentioned, only standard variability. There's no significant curvature to speak of, the graph follows an established trend. For the record, the reason why you don't see one is because you can't - vaccine distribution is, and was, in large part up to the individual states which have their own procedures based on guidance received. Case in point, if you want to talk about vaccine hoarding, look no further than New York, where Cuomo botched this so hard they had to dispose of expired doses altogether since the state chose to strictly adhere to a queue, at the threat of hefty fines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/nyregion/new-york-vaccine-guidelines.html

Talk about a bipolar governor - first he introduces a $1M dollar fine and threatens revoking licenses for what he calls "vaccine fraud", as in vaccinating an individual who is not yet eligible to receive a dose, then he introduces *another* fine of $100k to hospitals that fail to use up their supply in time, and threatens to cut off future supply. In other words, you can only vaccinate people from the list, but if not enough people from the list show up, you're responsible for the spoiled supply, even though you can't vaccinate people who are not on the list and request a jab. You have to throw your excess away and pay for it. Good job.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/28/gov-cuomo-ag-to-probe-vaccine-fraud-vows-1m-fines/
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-covid-vaccine-hospitals-fine-doses-andrew-cuomo-2021-1

If this guy somehow keeps his seat after his cavalcade of blunders, there's no hope for the state.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 1, 2021)

smf said:


> They were late to that party as well because they didn't want to get involved, Japan forced their hand. I'm sure in their version of the movie they are the good guys, but it's not so clear to me.



What a dumb and uncultured thing to say.  You act like Japan isn't allowed onto the internet and that you have no way of verifying your racist assumptions before spouting them.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> What a dumb and uncultured thing to say.  You act like Japan isn't allowed onto the internet and that you have no way of verifying your racist assumptions before spouting them.


This has nothing to do with anything.
It's one giant ad hominem attack with a side of deliberate misinterpretation and some whataboutism drizzle on top.


----------



## smf (Mar 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You act like Japan isn't allowed onto the internet



No, I acted like Japan attacked pearl harbor. Which they did.

I don't hold a grudge against Japan though.



Foxi4 said:


> There's no significant curvature to speak of



Your ruler is bent. Clearly the increase has been small, because Trump didn't order enough vaccine and Biden's order hasn't come through yet. If it had continued at the same rate as under Trump, they would be behind Chile.

If you aren't even going to accept basic facts then why do you bother?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 1, 2021)

smf said:


> Your ruler is bent. Clearly the increase has been small, because Trump didn't order enough vaccine and Biden's order hasn't come through yet. If it had continued at the same rate as under Trump, they would be behind Chile.
> 
> If you aren't even going to accept basic facts then why do you bother?


I'm not going to treat minor fluctuations that are still on-track of the trend as relevant data. Looking at the beginning of the roll-out in December I can see the exact same angle as I'm seeing now. Even if we assume that distribution briefly slowed down, it picked up again quickly - no thanks to Biden, mind, as his "changes" wouldn't have any effect on the distribution chain that quickly. The only statistically significant dips on the graph occurred under Biden, those are the "basic facts" I can see. If you're not willing to accept them, why bother indeed.


----------



## smf (Mar 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The only statistically significant dips on the graph occurred under Biden, those are the "basic facts" I can see. If you're not willing to accept them, why bother indeed.



Well Trumps couldn't dip as he was so slow vaccinating people. If you drive at 10mph for an hour but don't stop, compared to 60mph but stop for ten minutes then you're still further ahead.

It's funny how hard you're trying to ignore that clear upward trend, to the amount you'd expect when looking at what Joe Biden planned.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 1, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> This has nothing to do with anything.
> It's one giant ad hominem attack with a side of deliberate misinterpretation and some whataboutism drizzle on top.



So, are you saying what he saying isn't racist, or that it's okay because you appreciate the majority of what he says?



smf said:


> No, I acted like Japan attacked pearl harbor. Which they did.





smf said:


> I'm sure in their version of the movie they are the good guys,


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> So, are you saying what he saying isn't racist, or that it's okay because you appreciate the majority of what he says?


I'm saying that your statement didn't contribute anything to the discussion, and only served as a cheap and blatant attempt to discredit him by claiming bigotry instead of actually providing evidence for your side or against his.
Now either actually contribute to the discussion (i.e. make an actual point and then prove it) or just don't say anything.


----------



## smf (Mar 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> So, are you saying what he saying isn't racist, or that it's okay because you appreciate the majority of what he says?



_I'm sure in their version of the movie they are the good guys,_

This comment was about America, what is your point?
What exactly do you think I said was racist?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 1, 2021)

smf said:


> _I'm sure in their version of the movie they are the good guys,_
> 
> This comment was about America, do you enjoy making yourself look silly?


It's also correct, as we're basically incapable of admitting how incompetent and devoid of heroism we usually are in major media.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 2, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> I'm saying that your statement didn't contribute anything to the discussion, and only served as a cheap and blatant attempt to discredit him by claiming bigotry instead of actually providing evidence for your side or against his.
> Now either actually contribute to the discussion (i.e. make an actual point and then prove it) or just don't say anything.



Incorrect.  I'm not discrediting him.  Even a racist can have a good argument/contribution.  Most people are racist.  If I had a problem with something else that he said, I would address it.  By addressing racism, I am contributing. 



smf said:


> _I'm sure in their version of the movie they are the good guys,_
> 
> This comment was about America, what is your point?
> What exactly do you think I said was racist?



"Their" = "Japanese".  The insinuation is that Japanese has rewritten a movie plot to affirm moral authority in the context of war, despite the fact that you can watch and see the Japanese version yourself without making such an absurd (ie racist) notion.  Also, there is further insinuation that everything about how America acts in regards to WW2 (or maybe war in general?) was morally correct, while opposition defaults morally inferior.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Incorrect.  I'm not discrediting him.  Even a racist can have a good argument/contribution.  Most people are racist.  If I had a problem with something else that he said, I would address it.  By addressing racism, I am contributing.
> 
> 
> 
> "Their" = "Japanese".  The insinuation is that Japanese has rewritten a movie plot to affirm moral authority in the context of war, despite the fact that you can watch and see the Japanese version yourself without making such an absurd (ie racist) notion.  Also, there is further insinuation that everything about how America acts in regards to WW2 (or maybe war in general?) was morally correct, while opposition defaults morally inferior.


1) No, you really aren't contributing. Just accusing him of racism doesn't actually do anything, it just implies his viewpoint is invalid in some way without providing a drop of evidence or even making an actual argument thereof to prove it.
2) I'm fairly certain he knows what he said significantly more than you do, Tabzer. Check your ego.


----------



## smf (Mar 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> "Their" = "Japanese".



I've said it before, I'll say it again. Their = American.

_*They* were late to that party as well because they didn't want to get involved, Japan forced their hand. I'm sure in *their* version of the movie they are the good guys, but it's not so clear to me._

If that is the point you want to argue over, then you truly are a troll and should be kicked off this site permanently.



Foxi4 said:


> The insinuation is that Japanese has rewritten a movie plot to affirm moral authority in the context of war,



Other than being about the wrong country, America has played fast and loose with the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1580479/the-biggest-factual-inaccuracies-in-7-classic-war-movies
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/11-most-truly-inaccurate-war-films.html


----------



## urherenow (Mar 2, 2021)

djpannda said:


> My uncle Bob has worked for Construction and he states mask   do not work and never wore them...  he states his *chronic lung disease has nothing to do with Asbestos*


to be fair, the masks we are talking about are absolutely useless against asbestos. You seriously need to be using at least a half-face respirator with a 3 micron filter, to be protected from that stuff. As someone not only with a 7232 NEC, but also taught the school, I do know what I'm talking about here.

But back on track: I think the latest shows that a single mask is only 50~60% effective. It is now recommended to double-mask because that picks up protection to the tune of 90%. I can say (from the inside) that Xerox corporation is requiring all employees to wear 3-ply N95 masks at a minimum, to be allowed entry to a Xerox facility or a customer facility. Not only is there science behind these decisions, but this science is ongoing and evolving. For someone to say masks are totally ineffective is just plain dumb. They are, in fact, the reason for the severe downtick in influenza cases this season.

Not sure many people in this crowd have been vaccinated yet. I have. And I still don't leave the house without a mask. At this point, it's not even to protect me. It's to protect YOU. And, of course, my wife, who won't get a turn at the vaccine until April...


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 2, 2021)

urherenow said:


> At this point, it's not even to protect me. It's to protect YOU. And, of course, my wife, who won't get a turn at the vaccine until April...


I mean
you're right
masks aren't meant to protect the wearer
they're meant to protect others FROM the wearer
the idea is that if everyone or at least almost everyone wears them, everyone or at least almost everyone will have significantly less chances of getting the virus


smf said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again. Their = American.


I agree with you and I previously agreed with you but I'm honestly confused at how you managed to _quote the wrong person for the statement_


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 2, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> masks aren't meant to protect the wearer
> they're meant to protect others FROM the wearer


Masks are meant to mitigate both receiving and spreading of infectious particles, to the benefit of both the wearer and those around the wearer.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2021)

smf said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again. Their = American.
> 
> _*They* were late to that party as well because they didn't want to get involved, Japan forced their hand. I'm sure in *their* version of the movie they are the good guys, but it's not so clear to me._
> 
> ...


I think you might be responding to the wrong person.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I think you might be responding to the wrong person.


yeah I don't understand how he even managed to do that by accident
then again I also don't understand how tabzer managed to convince himself that he knows what smf is saying better than smf does so uh
_shrug_


----------



## smf (Mar 2, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> yeah I don't understand how he even managed to do that by accident



Hmm, not sure. If tabzer changes into Foxi4 again then maybe it's a sign of Q


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2021)

smf said:


> Hmm, not sure. If tabzer changes into Foxi4 again then maybe it's a sign of Q


Trust the plan.


----------



## smf (Mar 2, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> Masks are meant to mitigate both receiving and spreading of infectious particles, to the benefit of both the wearer and those around the wearer.



To a degree. You wearing a mask around people not wearing a mask will have much less of an effect than if everyone is wearing a mask.

If someone not wearing a mask is leaving covid hanging in the air and you walk through it, then it's on you and you take it home & transfer it via touch. The mask doesn't help much at this point.

It's like having a threesome and using the same condom with multiple partners, it will stop them catching something from you but your partners will still be at risk.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 2, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> Masks are meant to mitigate both receiving and spreading of infectious particles, to the benefit of both the wearer and those around the wearer.



Too much isolation from antigens and the 'herd' immune response will suffer though. I'm hoping we haven't done this for so long that once we stop wearing the masks around each other in public, people will respond poorly to common colds, minor flu strains that wouldn't have caused a problem before.

Anyway, Texas just rescinded all Covid-19 related restrictions, so I guess there's finally light at the end of the tunnel whether anybody likes it / wants it or not.


----------



## smf (Mar 2, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Too much isolation from antigens and the 'herd' immune response will suffer though.



Not enough and the hospitals can't deal with the fallout.

Do you fit brakes and seat belts to cars, or do you just let people be lucky?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 2, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Too much isolation from antigens and the 'herd' immune response will suffer though. I'm hoping we haven't done this for so long that once we stop wearing the masks around each other in public, people will respond poorly to common colds, minor flu strains that wouldn't have caused a problem before.


Nah, a year or two wearing masks doesn't magically make a healthy person immunocompromised.  Asian cultures have been wearing masks for decades just to prevent the spread of the flu and common cold, and at times to filter out air pollution.



Hanafuda said:


> Anyway, Texas just rescinded all Covid-19 related restrictions, so I guess there's finally light at the end of the tunnel whether anybody likes it / wants it or not.


Let's be honest: almost nobody was following the guidelines in Texas to begin with, or throughout this entire pandemic.  Their hospitals have been at maximum capacity for months now, and we're probably gonna see another spike in hospitalizations and infections within the next few days, resulting from their time without electricity or water.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nah, a year or two wearing masks doesn't magically make a healthy person immunocompromised.  Asian cultures have been wearing masks for decades just to prevent the spread of the flu and common cold, and at times to filter out air pollution.



The practice in Japan, before Covid at least, was to wear a mask after you got sick. Not to keep yourself from getting sick. And yes, some people in the city will wear one while walking in the subway underground and on the street during rush hour traffic. I lived there for two years, never saw it practiced that all healthy people would wear masks in public as a preventative.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 2, 2021)

*Snip*


----------



## Xzi (Mar 2, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> The practice in Japan, before Covid at least, was to wear a mask after you got sick.


Right, that's what I meant.  The result is the same either way, fewer germs and viruses flying around.  It's not a necessity to catch each year's unique strain of the cold or flu in order to have some level of immune system protection from them.



tthousand said:


> View attachment 249620​


"It's not that I'm incapable of understanding basic math, science, and reason, I just _think differently_, so all that stuff is irrelevant."


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Right, that's what I meant.  The result is the same either way, fewer germs and viruses flying around.  It's not a necessity to catch each year's unique strain of the cold or flu in order to have some level of immune system protection from them.
> 
> 
> "It's not that I'm incapable of understanding basic math, science, and reason, I just _think differently_, so all that stuff is irrelevant."


They're just built different


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "It's not that I'm incapable of understanding basic math, science, and reason, I just _think differently_, so all that stuff is irrelevant."


This fosters the wrong kind of mindset. As I've once mentioned before, science is an exercise of repeatedly being wrong until you're not. Let's not forget that just last year there was "no evidence of human-to-human transmission" and every news outlet was banging the "it's just a flu, bro" drum. It's *good* to offer contrasting opinions and constantly have challengers to the status quo, not just in science but in all walks of life - that's how progress is made. Of course those challenges must also be substantiated, but the idea of "trusting the science" with religious devotion is contrary to its core tenants. "Trust, but verify" is a more appropriate approach.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This fosters the wrong kind of mindset. As I've once mentioned before, science is an exercise of repeatedly being wrong until you're not. Let's not forget that just last year there was "no evidence of human-to-human transmission" and every news outlet was banging the "it's just a flu, bro" drum. It's *good* to offer contrasting opinions and constantly have challengers to the status quo, not just in science but in all walks of life - that's how progress is made. Of course those challenges must also be substantiated, but the idea of "trusting the science" with religious devotion is contrary to its core tenants. "Trust, but verify" is a more appropriate approach.


Well, yes. It's just that what he was saying was referring not to "trust but verify" but to what is undeniably a batshit insane conspiracy theory. (Have you SEEN the Q 'roadmap'? They believe five thousand absurdities, yet can't wrap their head around an election NOT being rigged!)


----------



## tthousand (Mar 2, 2021)

It is my personal opinion that no one in this thread has ever, or possibly will ever, see a free and fair election in the United States. As far back as I can remember, there has always been some form of corruption or another being reported.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Well, yes. It's just that what he was saying was referring not to "trust but verify" but to what is undeniably a batshit insane conspiracy theory. (Have you SEEN the Q 'roadmap'? They believe five thousand absurdities, yet can't wrap their head around an election NOT being rigged!)


Q is so funny.  I was merely pointing out that @Xzi's response to non-conformity is incorrect. Non-conformity, in and out of itself, isn't a bad thing. There are extremes on both sides.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 2, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It is my personal opinion that no one in this thread has ever, or possibly will ever, see a free and fair election in the United States. As far back as I can remember, there has always been some form of corruption or another being reported.


"It is my personal opinion that [demonstrably incorrect statement peddled as fact]. [continues peddling it as fact]."


Foxi4 said:


> Q is so funny.  I was merely pointing out that @Xzi's response to non-conformity is incorrect. Non-conformity, in and out of itself, isn't a bad thing. There are extremes on both sides.


Yeah. Non-conformity is generally a good thing tbh, it's just that some things stretch beyond reasonable doubt.
And yeah, Q is so ridiculous it's funny. It's the perfect example of "fractal wrongness"- not only is it nigh infinitely wrong, you can zoom in at any major portion of it and find a worldview _*exactly as wrong as the entire thing! *_You'd think in such a vast web of theories at least SOME of them would be correct, but... a stopped clock ain't right twice a day when it's stopped at 25:-iπ QM.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> "Trust, but verify" is a more appropriate approach.


I agree.  The issue is that most modern conspiracy theorists choose to neither trust nor verify.  Within that group you see a whole lot of contrarianism just for the sake of being contrarian, a lot of blatantly partisan propaganda, and a lot of snowflakes who want to imagine they're special for holding completely nonsensical beliefs and opinions.  Things were a lot more fun when conspiracy theorists at least _tried_ to connect the dots and make things _slightly_ believable for critical thinkers.  Now all you gotta do to get thousands of upvotes/likes within those communities is take a few buzzwords and throw 'em in a blender.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I agree.  The issue is that most modern conspiracy theorists choose to neither trust nor verify.  Within that group you see a whole lot of contrarianism just for the sake of being contrarian, a lot of blatantly partisan propaganda, and a lot of snowflakes who want to imagine they're special for holding completely nonsensical beliefs and opinions.  Things were a lot more fun when conspiracy theorists at least _tried_ to connect the dots and make things _slightly_ believable for critical thinkers.  Now all you gotta do to get thousands of upvotes/likes within those communities is take a few buzzwords and throw 'em in a blender.


yeah
or at least have some partisan balancing so that all of the "both sides are equally wrong" garbage holds any water
like why aren't there any funky-ass conspiracies about Trump...
...oh wait, we don't need those because the things he's literally been proven to have said and done are already absurd enough
the only way to make a conspiracy theory about Trump as proportionally batcrap insane as the ones about Hillary, Biden, etc. would be to claim something like him being part of some kind of alien baby-assimilation nonsense trying to overthrow our world and sell it to Borg-like hostile invaders for a wedge of cheese


----------



## tthousand (Mar 2, 2021)

"Some things will never change" 
- _Lesane Parish Crooks_ a.k.a. _Tupac Amaru Shakur_ a.k.a. _Makaveli_



"In remembrance of September 11th
Flashback to September 7th
When 2Pac was murdered in Vegas
He said it, he predicted his own death, let us never forget it
Should we ever live to regret it
Like the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated in broad day
By the crazed lunatic with a gun
Who just happened to work on the same block
In the library book depository
Where the President would go for a little Friday stroll
Shots fired from the grassy knoll
But they don't know, or do they?"
- _Marshall Bruce Mathers III _a.k.a. _Eminem_ a.k.a. _Slim Shady_


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 3, 2021)

tthousand said:


> "Some things will never change"
> - _Lesane Parish Crooks_ a.k.a. _Tupac Amaru Shakur_ a.k.a. _Makaveli_
> 
> 
> ...



first off who the hell bothers referring to rappers by _three different names at once_
second off... please stop using random shit to justify braindead conspiracy nonsense
just because Bob "Not A Fucking Expert" Bobson wrote a sonnet on how everything is corrupt and bad doesn't actually provide a shred of evidence in favor of anything


----------



## Xzi (Mar 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> first off who the hell bothers referring to rappers by _three different names at once_
> second off... please stop using random shit to justify braindead conspiracy nonsense
> just because Bob "Not A Fucking Expert" Bobson wrote a sonnet on how everything is corrupt and bad doesn't actually provide a shred of evidence in favor of anything


I was just pleasantly surprised to see a rightie quoting Tupac, Kennedy, and Eminem, even if he's not really understanding the meaning behind their words.

"He turned the power to the have-nots...and then came the SHOT!"


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I was just pleasantly surprised to see a rightie quoting Tupac, Kennedy, and Eminem, even if he's not really understanding the meaning behind their words.
> 
> "He turned the power to the have-nots...and then came the SHOT!"



no, I wasn't criticizing you liking the post, considering I didn't know the context behind you liking it and don't really like getting in people's face about something that small
but yeah it's kinda rare for someone that far down the far right rabbit hole to quote someone that ISN'T a right wing talking head tbh


----------



## tthousand (Mar 3, 2021)

I have been listening to rap music since before you guys were even a thought... so its easy to see why I believe the government is corrupt. I'm not left, I'm not right... I suppose I am mostly in the middle. As far as I am concerned, this whole Q Anon movement might be a deep state psyop. I just think it is unjust to label people, including people who have different views. As I have stated before, I had my own thoughts about what might and might not be well before Q came into play. I really have not followed the Q Anon movement. The fact that some people now are starting to look into these theories more just speaks to the volume of people possibly waking up.

My main point in the JFK video was to point out JFK was talking about deep state conspiracy back in those days, which is why the opposition was possibly silenced. It's not a stretch to think the deep state has only grown more powerful since then, seeing as they are mostly unchecked.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 3, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I have been listening to rap music since before you guys were even a thought... so its easy to see why I believe the government is corrupt. I'm not left, I'm not right... I suppose I am mostly in the middle. As far as I am concerned, this whole Q Anon movement might be a deep state psyop. I just think it is unjust to label people, including people who have different views. As I have stated before, I had my own thoughts about what might and might not be well before Q came into play. I really have not followed the Q Anon movement. The fact that some people now are starting to look into these theories more just speaks to the volume of people possibly waking up.
> 
> My main point in the JFK video was to point out JFK was talking about deep state conspiracy back in those days, which is why the opposition was possibly silenced. It's not a stretch to think the deep state has only grown more powerful since then, seeing as they are mostly unchecked.


honestly this level of persecution-complex "there must be a Deep State on my ass" weirdness has spread so virulently that I've decided to coin the term "deepflake" for it
you need to feel special or justified, so you fool yourself into thinking there's some great corrupt puppeteer power behind the scenes silently turning things against you despite nothing of the sort existing


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 3, 2021)

Thanks Biden 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1366934960037363713


----------



## tabzer (Mar 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> it just implies his viewpoint is invalid in some way without providing a drop of evidence



I don't agree with that type of thinking.  As I have already said, I haven't disagreed, generally, with what he has written.  Did I not make it clear?  



smf said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again. Their = American.
> 
> _*They* were late to that party as well because they didn't want to get involved, Japan forced their hand. I'm sure in *their* version of the movie they are the good guys, but it's not so clear to me._



I apologize for the misunderstanding.  I was convinced you were talking about American movies being re-written.  It sounds like, now, you are referring to history as the movie.  I don't know how most people see it, but my understanding is that Americans are generally taught about "the Axis of evil" and that America played the role of the good guys and saved the world from Nazis.  In almost all of their WW2 era war movies (or most war movies) America is heroic.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> honestly this level of persecution-complex "there must be a Deep State on my ass" weirdness has spread so virulently that I've decided to coin the term "deepflake" for it
> you need to feel special or justified, so you fool yourself into thinking there's some great corrupt puppeteer power behind the scenes silently turning things against you despite nothing of the sort existing



No one is telling you to believe anything other than what you want to believe. I suggest you show the same respect. What is it you fear so greatly? Or do you just feel powerless in your own reality that you must try to enforce your truths on to others? 

I would love to see how you talk without the screen between you and me. I assume it would humble you rather quickly. I gave up that immature internet bullying back when AOL was still a thing. Its just not your time I suppose...

As for you assuming I believe the deep state is after me... I don't know where you get your head filled with such grandiose thoughts. The deepstate and/or government feel the same way about me as they do about you... they don't give a fuck about us.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 3, 2021)

Find the fraud. Link


----------



## smf (Mar 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't know how most people see it, but my understanding is that Americans are generally taught about "the Axis of evil" and that America played the role of the good guys and saved the world from Nazis.  In almost all of their WW2 era war movies (or most war movies) America is heroic.



It's very rare for a country to depict themselves as the bad guy, instead they cover up their misdeeds and show all the flaws in the opposition.

The Nazi's were objectively bad, but that isn't why America joined the war.



tthousand said:


> The deepstate and/or government feel the same way about me as they do about you... they don't give a fuck about us.



It's hard for something that doesn't exist as a homgenous group to give a fuck about individuals.

What you consider "deep state" is just people doing their own thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

Ironically invoking "deep state" is just a way of conning the little people.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 3, 2021)

imao 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1367169066964836355


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao
> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1367169066964836355


That's not a sign of there not being firearms (considering we know for a fact there were), it's a sign of them doing a really shitty job and refusing to confiscate any.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> That's not a sign of there not being firearms (considering we know for a fact there were), it's a sign of them doing a really shitty job and refusing to confiscate any.


is not good to lie and I trust the FBI over you


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> is not good to lie and I trust the FBI over you


I'm not lying.
In addition, as the post you showed states, they did not say that there WERE no weapons.
The official only said there were none confiscated to their knowledge, which could mean one of two other things:
1) There were weapons, but they were not confiscated.
2) There were weapons confiscated, but the official didn't know about it.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao
> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1367169066964836355


FFS, they disarmed two pipe bombs and found a truck full of guns and napalm at the scene.  Do you have the memory of a goldfish?  That's a rhetorical question BTW, I know you do because that's the only way a Puerto Rican could possibly justify supporting the modern Republican party.  The Klan isn't about to give you preferential treatment, no matter how much you suck up to 'em.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> FFS, they disarmed two pipe bombs and found a truck full of guns and napalm at the scene.  Do you have the memory of a goldfish?  That's a rhetorical question BTW, I know you do because that's the only way a Puerto Rican could possibly justify supporting the modern Republican party.  The Klan isn't about to give you preferential treatment, no matter how much you suck up to 'em.


Technically speaking, they might not have confiscated them.
However, that would entirely be because of police incompetence and/or deliberate negligence, which would mean that by admitting no weapons had been confiscated, the official was inadvertently admitting that the police themselves were accomplices.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 3, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Technically speaking, they might not have confiscated them.
> However, that would entirely be because of police incompetence and/or deliberate negligence, which would mean that by admitting no weapons had been confiscated, the official was inadvertently admitting that the police themselves were accomplices.


Somehow I doubt "disclose.tv" is a reliable source of information or news anyway.  Or "Breaking911" for that matter.


----------



## smf (Mar 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao
> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1367169066964836355



What did she say they were armed with? You don't have to be armed with guns.

It depends on why you have something, not what it was. You could be armed with a lectern.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-lectern-police-arrest-adam-christian-johnson


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 3, 2021)

smf said:


> What did she say they were armed with? You don't have to be armed with guns.


quick before the narrative gets destroy

ima hahahaah


----------



## smf (Mar 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> quick before the narrative gets destroy
> 
> ima hahahaah



Armed with lies in their heads about a stolen election and lies that Trump is some kind of saviour.

Arms is not just guns.

There were definitely things used as weapons there.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Armed with lies in their heads about a stolen election and lies that Trump is some kind of saviour.
> 
> Arms is not just guns.
> 
> There were definitely things used as weapons there.


And pipe bombs.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 4, 2021)

Didn't they use a blue lives matter flag as a weapon against a cop?


----------



## smf (Mar 4, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Didn't they use a blue lives matter flag as a weapon against a cop?



Yes they did. It's a weapon, they were armed.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...-law-enforcement-with-blue-lives-matter-flags


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 4, 2021)

smf said:


> Yes they did. It's a weapon, they were armed.
> 
> https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...-law-enforcement-with-blue-lives-matter-flags


Not exactly surprised, considering Trumpers don't seem to know the meaning of hypocrisy. They also seem to have, as mentioned prior, the memory of a goldfish.
What have they been drinking, milk of _amnesia?_ Probably, considering its high irony content!


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 4, 2021)

well since mod dems forced bidens hand and he lowered the ceiling for those checks I just hope they hop on board now (whiny bitches) mod dems shouldn't be in office their republicans in sheep skin


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

After receiving feedback from this thread, I did some research on wikipedia and snopes, and came to the conclusion there is no hidden information from the public. It is my new belief that the general population is able to access any and all information that is available. Our United States government is truly for the people and by the people, and the various media and journalists share nothing but the 100% truth with us.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> After receiving feedback from this thread, I did some research on wikipedia and snopes, and came to the conclusion there is no hidden information from the public. It is my new belief that the general population is able to access any and all information that is available. Our United States government is truly for the people and by the people, and the various media and journalists share nothing but the 100% truth with us.


"You may have debunked all of my bullshit claims, but that's just because the government is hiding stuff from us"


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> After receiving feedback from this thread, I did some research on wikipedia and snopes, and came to the conclusion there is no hidden information from the public. It is my new belief that the general population is able to access any and all information that is available. Our United States government is truly for the people and by the people, and the various media and journalists share nothing but the 100% truth with us.


PHEW, That was a closed one! 





We did it ya'll !!!


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> After receiving feedback from this thread, I did some research on wikipedia and snopes, and came to the conclusion there is no hidden information from the public. It is my new belief that the general population is able to access any and all information that is available. Our United States government is truly for the people and by the people, and the various media and journalists share nothing but the 100% truth with us.


Careful with that. That is dangerously close to critical thinking which the New York times tells me is not the done thing
https://archive.vn/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html
https://archive.vn/9VBwI


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Careful with that. That is dangerously close to critical thinking which the New York times tells me is not the done thing
> https://archive.vn/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html
> https://archive.vn/9VBwI



I would normally take that with a grain of salt, but I threw all my remaining salt out. No I will sit back with the rest of my peers and wait for the governments of the world to save us all from ourselves with their truly amazing plan...

https://sdgs.un.org/

They really screwed the pooch last year, but sometimes you just gotta have faith... at least while it's still legal. Or am I not allowed to say that? This freedom of speech thing gets tricky when you don't know EXACTLY what your are allowed to say and not to say... because "the feels" and all. I think you Biden Boys might have some more left to teach the world about your righteous ways.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I would normally take that with a grain of salt, but I threw all my remaining salt out. No I will sit back with the rest of my peers and wait for the governments of the world to save us all from ourselves with their truly amazing plan...


oh Thank god. 
I was getting worried that Fascist, White Supremacist and Religious nuts banded together to recreate jihad..


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> oh Thank god.
> I was getting worried that Fascist, White Supremacist and Religious nuts banded together to recreate jihad..



I don't know why anyone would want to rise up against a government that they feel is out of control. I mean, I know my forefathers had a good reason and all... but today, things are so different... right?


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I don't know why anyone would want to rise up against a government that they feel is out of control. I mean, I know my forefathers had a good reason and all... but today, things are so different... right?


 yea  some people are mad that government giving equal rights to minorities

Why does it also seem like Fascist, White Supremacist and Religious nuts banded together when
1.When they allowed non land owner to vote
2.Slaves were Freed.
3. Women suffrage
4. Civil rights act ( which stated Minorities  are equals)
5. When people stated interracial mixing
NOW
6. Giving lgbtq+ rights too


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> yea  some people are mad that government giving equal rights to minorities
> 
> Why does it also seem like Fascist, White Supremacist and Religious nuts banded together when
> 1.When they allowed non land owner to vote
> ...



Yeah, I get that. Not that I understand the mentality behind it, but I can see why people who are given so much freedom in thought might react adversely to things they themselves do not understand or agree with. 

Just like it's hard for me to understand the mentality of someone who does not want others how to tell them how to live, think, feel or love... but then attack other's for having their own beliefs which in no way affect them in anyway, except for maybe hurting their feelings. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I don't know why anyone would want to rise up against a government that they feel is out of control. I mean, I know my forefathers had a good reason and all... but today, things are so different... right?


oh yea.. things are different from my Forefathers......
1.slaves
2. Treat minorities with respect. 
3. don't kill native populations 
just to name a few

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tthousand said:


> Just like it's hard for me to understand the mentality of someone who does not want others how to tell them how to live, think, feel or love... _*but then attack other's for having their own beliefs which in no way affect them in anyway,*_ .


Amen!! just like












how bout we start with them...


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> oh yea.. things are different from my Forefathers......
> 1.slaves
> 2. Treat minorities with respect.
> 3. don't kill native populations
> just to name a few



Things were most certainly different back then, not just in America, but the whole world. Like 2pac said though, "Some things never change."
1. There's probably more slavery today than there was back in those, even here in a America where people are still bought and sold to this day. 
2. Nowadays, nobody gets treated with respect. We're all talked down to and treated like we are dumb.
3. The killing doesn't stop either. China, abortions, etc...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



djpannda said:


> how bout we start with them...


 Yeah, sure, attack those people all day, if they are actively attacking you. But that is not who I was referring to.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> 1. There's probably more slavery today than there was back in those, even here in a America where people are still bought and sold to this day.
> .


I know right... I mean just because other people did. then that mean American is justified right thats how that works
...oh and to make sure these are not glossed over







Man they sure love them Flags.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tthousand said:


> Yeah, sure, attack those people all day, *if they are actively attacking you.*


*wow, lolol*


 so basicly Racism is allowed as long as your not the one being lynched.....
I pretty sure thats the reason the klan survived so long ...People turning a blind eye..


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> I know right... I mean just because other people did. then that mean American is justified right thats how that works



What it means is that America stepped up and changed the world. They said enough, and ended it. Then as time went by, it slowly crept back in.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> What it means is that America stepped up and changed the world. They said enough, and ended it. Then as time went by, it slowly crept back in.


yup and thats we people needs to speak up against Supremacy because it "slowly Crepts up"... The world has changed and its never going back. People need to get used to it. its never going o be Leave it to Beaver 50s any more... You can not pretend Minorities don't exist !!


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> *wow, lolol*
> 
> 
> so basicly Racism is allowed as long as your not the one being lynched.....
> I pretty sure thats the reason the klan survived so long ...People turning a blind eye..



If you want to hate someone, go right on ahead, it's your right to do so. When you start attacking others though, or forcing your opinions on others, that is where the line is drawn. And that goes for both sides.

But yeah, if you want to be a hating miserable little piece of shit, by all means, be my guest. But if you want other people to respect your right to your own beliefs, you better damn well do the same.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> so basicly Racism is allowed as long as your not the one being lynched.....
> I pretty sure thats the reason the klan survived so long ...People turning a blind eye..


Almost as though "I may not like what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is the governing principle.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If you want to hate someone, go right on ahead, it's your right to do so. When you start attacking others though, or forcing your opinions on others, that is where the line is drawn. And that goes for both sides.


 ..I usually Draw the line when people call for the "Master Race" and its not "PC" 
Nice to know people having a hard time coloring ...


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ..I usually Draw the line when people call for the "Master Race" and its not "PC"
> Nice to know people having a hard time coloring ...



Do you. Draw your lines where ever you want, as long as you don't cross my line... otherwise you are inviting me to come over and fuck your lines up. And vice versa.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Do you. Draw your lines where ever you want, as long as you don't cross my line... otherwise you are inviting me to come over and fuck your lines up. And vice versa.


Wait Where'nt you the one who Created a new (NON-BURNER) account just to comment on this Thread? lol


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Wait Where'nt you the one who Created a new (NON-BURNER) account just to comment on this Thread? lol



Is that not allowed? I must have missed the post where it said I am not allowed to speak my mind. Perhaps you can point it out to me.

I've been visiting this site since you joined, it just took me a little longer to join myself.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

"as long as you don't cross my line... otherwise you are inviting me to come over and fuck your lines up."


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> "as long as you don't cross my line... otherwise you are inviting me to come over and fuck your lines up."


I get it. Some of you have very touchy lines, and get you all worked up in a tizzy very quickly. And when you see my taking carefree steps over those lines, your minds lose it. We will see how close I get before your really show your last lines. In the mean time, I'm still having fun, smiling. Because remember, those are your lines, and not mine. I am inviting you to come test me. I have nothing to fear.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I get it. Some of you have very touchy lines, and get you all worked up in a tizzy very quickly. And when you see my taking carefree steps over those lines, your minds lose it. We will see how close I get before your really show your last lines. In the mean time, I'm still having fun, smiling. Because remember, those are your lines, and not mine. I am inviting you to come test me. I have nothing to fear.


* "as long as you don't cross my line... otherwise you are inviting me to come over and fuck your lines up"*

funny to see words working like Boomerangs!


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> * "as long as you don't cross my line... otherwise you are inviting me to come over and fuck your lines up"*
> 
> funny to see words working like Boomerangs!


*and vice versa.

Don't forget the vice versa. Very important part you are leaving out there.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> *and vice versa.
> 
> Don't forget the vice versa. Very important part you are leaving out there.



"I get it. Some of you have very touchy lines, and get you all worked up in a tizzy very quickly."


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> "I get it. Some of you have very touchy lines, and get you all worked up in a tizzy very quickly."


 Funny because it's true...


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Funny because it's true...


I know right, People tend to lose their cool, when others point out their hypocrisy





tthousand said:


> Do you. Draw your lines where ever you want, as long as you don't cross my line... otherwise you are inviting me to come over and fuck your lines up. And vice versa.





tthousand said:


> And when you see my taking carefree steps over those lines, your minds lose it. We will see how close I get before your really show your last lines.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

oh and that's only in like a 30 mins span .lol life must be sanctimonious


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> I know right, People tend to lose their cool, when others point out their hypocrisy
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> oh and that's only in like a 30 mins span .lol life must be sanctimonious



I see you have a hard time understanding the simple logic I am trying to portray, which makes sense... because I have to try hard to pull any logic out of what you are saying.

Honestly, I am having a great time, and I would be having an even better time if I thought you guys might be able to keep your cool.

It reminds me of a song actually...


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


>



yo thats not cool.....you have to open the window and take a shower after I visit you.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> yo thats not cool.....you have to open the window and take a shower after I visit you.



LOL. You could almost be a politician the way you say something and it could almost be taken two ways. Seriously man, that was funny though.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 5, 2021)

and you can marry your cousin and the way you talk.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 5, 2021)

Is that you Panda? *Sniff Sniff*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

... anyways, back to the subject. Saw this today and it makes me shake my head in disbelief. This has got to be a joke, but it's not funny (sorta like a @djpannda post)



Pelosi must really like the taste of Bide'n's colon. Way to sell it Nance.

Poor Bide'n at the end there though... such a sad Joe.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 6, 2021)

Biden the liar 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1368080319216295938


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 7, 2021)

Meanwhile republicans wouldn't have passed this bill at all.


----------



## Luke94 (Mar 7, 2021)

I guess he unfortunetely is too old so he won't live long enough. I heard Donald Trump's son called him a pedophile.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 7, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Meanwhile republicans wouldn't have passed this bill at all.


>Biden lie but we still win guys 

Imao ahhahaah


----------



## Xzi (Mar 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> >Biden lie but we still win guys


Oh no guys, Biden lied.  Only 3,678,544 more lies to go to catch Trump's record.

Apparently you'd prefer to watch more people die and be evicted, but sorry, any relief package is a win for the country right now.  This had the support of 75% of voters, including nearly half of Republican voters.  It's not the "gotcha" you think it is.  Grow up.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Oh no guys, Biden lied.  Only 3,678,544 more lies to go to catch Trump's record.
> 
> Apparently you'd prefer to watch more people die and be evicted, but sorry, any relief package is a win for the country right now.  This had the support of 75% of voters, including nearly half of Republican voters.  It's not the "gotcha" you think it is.  Grow up.


PEOPLE DIE?

People are dying under Biden since day one he lie lie lie and I'm loving seen the mental gymnastics to excuse this liar

No wonder they won't let him do interviews imao

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1368084832954314754


----------



## omgcat (Mar 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> PEOPLE DIE?
> 
> People are dying under Biden since day one he lie lie lie and I'm loving seen the mental gymnastics to excuse this liar
> 
> No wonder they won't let him do interviews imao



won't let him do interviews? he already had a town hall, multiple press meetings, fuck he took questions yesterday. please remove your head from your ass. the senate covid bill passed 50-49 with 1 republican not voting no because a family member died and he had to leave. lets be clear, the republicans did fucking nothing but sit there and waste time. whats that people are struggling and need help ASAP? oh better force the reading of 600+ page bill for no reason. fuck right off with your pages of bullshit, you're not impressing anyone. the official death count comparison is now 123K during Biden's term coming out of the highest death rate from the holidays due to 4 week average time to death from covid, but it still pales in comparison to trumps 400k during his term.

if you want a comparison you can check the 7 day average for trumps term and biden's term so far:

trump:




biden:



the vaccine roll-out has been lightning fast under Biden and competent people. him brokering a deal for 200 million more doses was huge, and so is him brokering a deal between Merck and J&J to have enough vaccines for everyone who wants them to get them by may.

fuck off.

my wife got her first dose of the pfizer vaccine today as a healthcare worker, she couldn't do that under trump.


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 7, 2021)

omgcat said:


> won't let him do interviews? he already had a town hall, multiple press meetings, fuck he took questions yesterday. please remove your head from your ass. the senate covid bill passed 50-49 with 1 republican not voting no because a family member died and he had to leave. lets be clear, the republicans did fucking nothing but sit there and waste time. whats that people are struggling and need help ASAP? oh better force the reading of 600+ page bill for no reason. fuck right off with your pages of bullshit, you're not impressing anyone. the official death count comparison is now 123K during Biden's term coming out of the highest death rate from the holidays due to 4 week average time to death from covid, but it still pales in comparison to trumps 400k during his term.
> 
> 
> my wife got her first dose of the pfizer vaccine today as a healthcare worker, she couldn't do that under trump.


If you wern't aware, all of congress has been doing nothing since august of last year when people needed help and were struggling back then and unemployment insurance expired, they dont care about you. As long as they are safe, well fed, and pockets lined they are fine with letting you suffer, all while blaming the people in the different color jersey for all your problems, all they want is your vote to stay in power.

and your wife was eligible for the vaccine as soon as rollout started in dec being in group 1a (obviously demand and quantity issues will cause delays)
I was eligible to get the vaccine in early jan being in group 1b, my father too but mismanagement in nyc, and their terrible vaccine appointment system which was online only, plagued with technical issues (crashing, bugs, ect) delayed that for months.
You are blaming trump for something he had nothing to do with and giving biden credit for it also which he had nothing to do with. Your local government is the one screwing stuff up, not the person sitting in the white house, no matter who they are or what party you or they affiliate with.


----------



## omgcat (Mar 7, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> If you wern't aware, all of congress has been doing nothing since august of last year when people needed help and were struggling back then and unemployment insurance expired, they dont care about you. As long as they are safe, well fed, and pockets lined they are fine with letting you suffer, all while blaming the people in the different color jersey for all your problems, all they want is your vote to stay in power.
> 
> and your wife was eligible for the vaccine as soon as rollout started in dec being in group 1a (obviously demand and quantity issues will cause delays)
> I was eligible to get the vaccine in early jan being in group 1b, my father too but mismanagement in nyc, and their terrible vaccine appointment system which was online only, plagued with technical issues (crashing, bugs, ect) delayed that for months.
> You are blaming trump for something he had nothing to do with and giving biden credit for it also which he had nothing to do with. Your local government is the one screwing stuff up, not the person sitting in the white house, no matter who they are or what party you or they affiliate with.



who had the majority in congress since before the election? oh thats right, the republicans. remember the time trump fucked us by not ordering enough vaccines which delayed the vaccine roll out by a bunch? remember when trump delayed signing the second covid stimulus and fucked a good chunk of people on UI because of the lapse in benefits? congress was delayed because the republicans kept fucking with the aid bill, and then trump refused to sign the damn thing for days letting UI lapse for millions of people. while those people got their benefits in the end, it caused MONTHS of delays.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 7, 2021)

omgcat said:


> who had the majority in congress since before the election? oh thats right, the republicans. remember the time trump fucked us by not ordering enough vaccines which delayed the vaccine roll out by a bunch? remember when trump delayed signing the second covid stimulus and fucked a good chunk of people on UI because of the lapse in benefits? congress was delayed because the republicans kept fucking with the aid bill, and then trump refused to sign the damn thing for days letting UI lapse for millions of people. while those people got their benefits in the end, it caused MONTHS of delays.



Let us not forget the House was/is Democrat controlled. And ultimately they were responsible for the initial second covid relief package. I remember Peosli admitting on camera that she delayed the bill as part of a political game. I remember Trump called the bill out for being full of uneeded expenses. I remember Trump asking that the frivolous spending be cut down and that the people receive $2000 instead of $600. I remember Trump allowing the bill to pass even though he was unsatisfied because he thought even that chump change would help the American families.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 7, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Let us not forget the House was/is Democrat controlled. And ultimately they were responsible for the initial second covid relief package. I remember Peosli admitting on camera that she delayed the bill as part of a political game. I remember Trump called the bill out for being full of uneeded expenses. I remember Trump asking that the frivolous spending be cut down and that the people receive $2000 instead of $600. I remember Trump allowing the bill to pass even though he was unsatisfied because he thought even that chump change would help the American families.


Yes, I too remember Trump saying a lot of stuff, and then contradicting himself not long after.  And the "unneeded expenses" he and Republicans refer to is money that doesn't go straight to corporations.  This bill passed 50-49 in the Senate, with one Republican absent.  Disregard what they say, watch how they vote.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yes, I too remember Trump saying a lot of stuff, and then contradicting himself not long after.  And the "unneeded expenses" he and Republicans refer to is money that doesn't go straight to corporations.  This bill passed 50-49 in the Senate, with one Republican absent.  Disregard what they say, watch how they vote.



I think you might not know what you are talking about. Here is exactly what he said about the 2nd covid package.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I think you might not know what you are talking about. Here is exactly what he said about the 2nd covid package.



The fact of the matter is that the House Democrats would have passed a $2,000 COVID-19 relief package if the Republicans in the Senate (and Trump, who said nothing about $2,000 until after the $600 package had already passed the House and Senate) had agreed to it.

Please don't act like the relief package would have been more at the end of Trump's presidency if only the Democrats had wanted more. Republicans were the limiters.

Meanwhile, the current relief package received zero Republican votes and would have been dead from a Republican filibuster if not for reconciliation. The Democrats are to thank, not the Republicans.


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 7, 2021)

omgcat said:


> who had the majority in congress since before the election? oh thats right, the republicans. remember the time trump fucked us by not ordering enough vaccines which delayed the vaccine roll out by a bunch? remember when trump delayed signing the second covid stimulus and fucked a good chunk of people on UI because of the lapse in benefits? congress was delayed because the republicans kept fucking with the aid bill, and then trump refused to sign the damn thing for days letting UI lapse for millions of people. while those people got their benefits in the end, it caused MONTHS of delays.


the democrats had the majority in the house after the midterm election, not the republicans
That deal was offered in july while it was undergoing phase 1 trials, the vaccine was not proven to be safe or effective at the time. There were also 6 different companies that the govt was equally invested in. That being said I do think it was a mistake not to secure those in the case it was proven to safe and effective. Another fact is those extra vaccines were slated for delivery starting sometime during* Q2 2021*, it would have had 0 effect on current vaccine deployment.
And nancy pelosi was the main problem in not getting any relief bill passed, even cnn's wolf blizter called her out on it, because she didnt want to give trump "a win" before the election


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The fact of the matter is that the House Democrats would have passed a $2,000 COVID-19 relief package if the Republicans in the Senate *(and Trump, who said nothing about $2,000 until after the $600 package had already passed the House and Senate)* had agreed to it.



Uhhh .. not exactly. And this was reported by WaPo on December 17. Everyone knew where Trump stood, Senate Republicans wouldn't go for it, and nobody was surprised when he came out the day after they passed the $600/person bill (Dec 20) and took a big shit on it.

From December 17
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/

From December 18
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apparently-trump-wants-2-000-194403812.html


----------



## Xzi (Mar 7, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I think you might not know what you are talking about. Here is exactly what he said about the 2nd covid package.



Dude could say whatever the fuck he wanted to because Mitch McConnell was his safety valve.  The Senate was a graveyard of thousands of bills that never even got a vote over the last four years.  It was just an overly-complicated, roundabout method of lying.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Uhhh .. not exactly. And this was reported by WaPo on December 17. Everyone knew where Trump stood, Senate Republicans wouldn't go for it, and nobody was surprised when he came out the day after they passed the $600/person bill (Dec 20) and took a big shit on it.
> 
> From December 17
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/
> ...


These articles don't contradict anything I said. The former president never said anything about $2,000 checks, nor did he attempt to negotiate for $2,000 checks, regardless of what he was communicating privately with aides.

What happened was he waited for the bill to pass the House and Senate before he ever brought up $2,000, and he waited until then to threaten to not sign the bill into law without $2,000. Almost a week later, he signed it into law anyway. It was a level of fecklessness on display that we all came to expect from the former president.

Regardless, it's the Republican Party that limited it to $600, and it's the Republican Party that unanimously voted against another relief package.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 7, 2021)

Idiots For Biden
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1368400944476651523


----------



## Xzi (Mar 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Idiots For Biden
> https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1368400944476651523


Well at least we can agree that Evangelicals are idiots.


----------



## omgcat (Mar 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Well at least we can agree that Evangelicals are idiots.




Seriously, fuck the talibangelists.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 7, 2021)

1) the $1400 ain't helping shit. We need a better plan if we are to keep millions of Americans from losing everything thanks to the government shut down of freedom. When the banks come asking for their money, 1400 just ain't gonna cut it. But, its not like I dont see utterly stupid shit everyday in our current society.

2) personally, I do not think it is right for tax payers to pay for murder. Now all of us will have blood on our hands. The bottom line is most women aren't getting abortions because they were raped, but instead are using it as a form of birth control. From the many people I know who got abortions, none of those human lifes were the fault of anyone else other than the mother. But I am just speaking from personal experience. If you want to get into Roe v Wade, well the simple fact of the the matter was that whole case was based on a lie.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 7, 2021)

Biden lie my wallet cried 
17M Americans ineligible for stimulus payments, reduced payment amount and narrowed cutoff leaves critics fuming - https://t.co/on8dNpg0o2 #OANN pic.twitter.com/nZfKKDLtFt— One America News (@OANN) March 7, 2021


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> These articles don't contradict anything I said. The former president never said anything about $2,000 checks, nor did he attempt to negotiate for $2,000 checks, regardless of what he was communicating privately with aides.
> 
> What happened was he waited for the bill to pass the House and Senate before he ever brought up $2,000, and he waited until then to threaten to not sign the bill into law without $2,000. Almost a week later, he signed it into law anyway. It was a level of fecklessness on display that we all came to expect from the former president.
> 
> Regardless, it's the Republican Party that limited it to $600, and it's the Republican Party that unanimously voted against another relief package.




That's why I said, "not exactly," and that "everyone knew where Trump stood." He apparently did have contact with Congressional Republicans to urge a larger relief package, but they rejected his requests saying it would explode the negotiations. They were probably right, but if it got out to the Washington Post and Yahoo Finance to report it, days before the final vote on the bill, then it wasn't a secret - not to those who were going to vote on it. I understand what you're saying that he didn't get out in public and stump for it, but it's not accurate to claim he did nothing about it until after Congress voted. And it was a deal made in and passed by Congress, which means Democrats agreed to it too.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 7, 2021)

tthousand said:


> 1) the $1400 ain't helping shit. We need a better plan if we are to keep millions of Americans from losing everything thanks to the government shut down of freedom. When the banks come asking for their money, 1400 just ain't gonna cut it. But, its not like I dont see utterly stupid shit everyday in our current society.


I agree, but getting just that passed, and even with limitations on it, was like pulling teeth for both Republicans and moderate Democrats.  Anything more, especially the idea of monthly payments, they'll decry as "socialism."  That doesn't mean we'll stop trying though, and Bernie is not gonna drop the $15/minimum wage debate, either.



tthousand said:


> personally, I do not think it is right for tax payers to pay for murder. Now all of us will have blood on our hands. The bottom line is most women aren't getting abortions because they were raped, but instead are using it as a form of birth control.


Ridiculous.  This is like saying we all have blood on our hands from every patient that has been lost by an American doctor.  Concern yourself with your own sexual and reproductive choices, not those of others.  You aren't 16th century French royalty or some shit.



tthousand said:


> From the many people I know who got abortions, none of those human lifes were the fault of anyone else other than the mother.


LMAO yeah, dudes _never_ get too drunk or horny and make mistakes that they later regret.  Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I agree, but getting just that passed, and even with limitations on it, was like pulling teeth for both Republicans and moderate Democrats.  Anything more, especially the idea of monthly payments, they'll decry as "socialism."  That doesn't mean we'll stop trying though, and Bernie is not gonna drop the $15/minimum wage debate, either.
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.  This is like saying we all have blood on our hands from every patient that has been lost by an American doctor.  Concern yourself with your own sexual and reproductive choices, not those of others.  You aren't 16th century French royalty or some shit.
> ...


the worst part about a world where any changes that remove paywalls on literal existence are called socialism as a snarl word... is that it ruins any possibility of getting remotely close to ACTUAL socialism

also, considering the guy he's supported, I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that tthousand is in favor of forcing personal demands onto women's bodies for little reason other than need of sexist control


----------



## tthousand (Mar 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I agree, but getting just that passed, and even with limitations on it, was like pulling teeth for both Republicans and moderate Democrats.  Anything more, especially the idea of monthly payments, they'll decry as "socialism."  That doesn't mean we'll stop trying though, and Bernie is not gonna drop the $15/minimum wage debate, either.
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.  This is like saying we all have blood on our hands from every patient that has been lost by an American doctor.  Concern yourself with your own sexual and reproductive choices, not those of others.  You aren't 16th century French royalty or some shit.
> ...



Learn how to read. Notice how I said, "the people I know"?

And when your tax dollars are going to pay for murder, and you are fine with that, then yeah, the blood is in your hands.

And furthermore, unless you have a child, what the fuck do you know? 

Its okay...I would not expect you guys to know the first thing about women.

...

It is really no surprise that Biden is all for killing babies in a world where nothing move but the money. There is a huge market in dead fetuses.

...

And on the subject of covid relief. The government should find a way to give people what they basically stole from them so they dont end up on the streets... but again, where is the profit in that?

...

Speaking of the Chinese virus... I can only assume many Americans are naive enough to think it was just an accident that was released into the wild. These are the 2020's, where the new game is biological warfare, cyber warfare, and psychological warfare. But sure... its just coincidence China had enough time to scrub the scene clean before it could be looked into futher.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 7, 2021)

tthousand said:


> There is a huge market in dead fetuses.


Yep, I have one for a snack every afternoon.  

Seriously though, this is Rupert Murdoch-style propaganda cranked up to the max.  I thought you were supposedly a "free thinker," not a Fox News boomer.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> That's why I said, "not exactly," and that "everyone knew where Trump stood." He apparently did have contact with Congressional Republicans to urge a larger relief package, but they rejected his requests saying it would explode the negotiations. They were probably right, but if it got out to the Washington Post and Yahoo Finance to report it, days before the final vote on the bill, then it wasn't a secret - not to those who were going to vote on it. I understand what you're saying that he didn't get out in public and stump for it, but it's not accurate to claim he did nothing about it until after Congress voted. And it was a deal made in and passed by Congress, which means Democrats agreed to it too.


As I already said:

Regardless, it's the Republican Party that limited it to $600, and it's the Republican Party that unanimously voted against another relief package.



tthousand said:


> Learn how to read. Notice how I said, "the people I know"?
> 
> And when your tax dollars are going to pay for murder, and you are fine with that, then yeah, the blood is in your hands.
> 
> ...



Abortion is not murder. It's the termination of a pregnancy.
Embryos are not babies.
Fetuses are not babies.
It is already against the law for tax dollars to go to abortion.
There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was human-made in a laboratory and released on purpose.
Considering the United States makes up about 4% of the world population but about 25% of COVID-19 deaths, the absolutely terrible handling of the pandemic by the federal government and the previous administration, and the fact that a good number of conservative boneheads in this country refuse to wear masks and get vaccinated, it should really be called the American Virus.



Valwinz said:


> Biden lie my wallet cried
> https://twitter.com/OANN/status/1368415479631470597


Do you not qualify for the $1,400?



tthousand said:


> 1) the $1400 ain't helping shit. We need a better plan if we are to keep millions of Americans from losing everything thanks to the government shut down of freedom. When the banks come asking for their money, 1400 just ain't gonna cut it. But, its not like I dont see utterly stupid shit everyday in our current society.
> 
> 2) personally, I do not think it is right for tax payers to pay for murder. Now all of us will have blood on our hands. The bottom line is most women aren't getting abortions because they were raped, but instead are using it as a form of birth control. From the many people I know who got abortions, none of those human lifes were the fault of anyone else other than the mother. But I am just speaking from personal experience. If you want to get into Roe v Wade, well the simple fact of the the matter was that whole case was based on a lie.


The relief bill has a lot more than the $1,400 stimulus checks (which should have been higher). It extends unemployment, dramatically increases the child tax credit, etc.

There is no reason why abortion should be illegal, regardless of whether or not a woman became pregnant as a result of nonconsensual sex, and Roe v. Wade was not "based on a lie."


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It is already against the law for tax dollars to go to abortion.


 
 The Hyde Amendment seem to not have made it. Is there another law about this?


----------



## tabzer (Mar 8, 2021)

Abortion is killing of human life.  That's legal in some forms, like in places where death penalty is allowed--so it being "not murder" is a political/statist position.  Dehumanizing the life is just a necessary step in that process.  Morally and conventionally it is a different story.  Saying there is no reason for abortion to be illegal makes it sound recreational.

As for taxes, the "the money was never yours" argument is a popular rationalization.  However, if everyone felt more accountable for how the money was used, maybe we'd be in a better condition.

As for pointing fingers over Covid, why does Cuomo not get an honorable mention?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 8, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Abortion is killing of human life.  That's legal in some forms, like in places where death penalty is allowed--so it being "not murder" is a political/statist position.  Dehumanizing the life is just a necessary step in that process.  Morally and conventionally it is a different story.  Saying there is no reason for abortion to be illegal makes it sound recreational.
> 
> As for taxes, the "the money was never yours" argument is a popular rationalization.  However, if everyone felt more accountable for how the money was used, maybe we'd be in a better condition.
> 
> As for pointing fingers over Covid, why does Cuomo not get an honorable mention?


For the *last* time, abortion is not murder. This is not a position, this is a fact. Spamming appeal to emotion in order to mudsling anyone that dares believe in (gasp!) _women's right of choice over their own fucking bodies_ is not going to work here, and I strongly suggest you find a proper argument. And "statist"? Really? You've bent yourself so far backwards and out of arguments you resort to the world's dumbest ancap libertarian _snarl word_ in an attempt to imply we're in some way bad without having to actually say jack shit?
Oh, and of course the part about COVID-19 where you literally bring up pointing fingers (because apparently calling out the man that deliberately neglected to respond to it properly for months upon months is finger-pointing) is pure whataboutism, because you're incapable of seeing the vast gap between a man that tries really badly to clean up a pile of shit on the floor... and the man that intentionally shat on the floor in the first place.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 8, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> The Hyde Amendment seem to not have made it. Is there another law about this?


 I don't think that guy knows what he is talking about, because he is unable to provide any damning evidence on this talking points. The fact of the matter is the government gets it's money from the people, and definitely spends money on terminating lives that we as a people do not collectively agree should be terminated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Plasmaster09 said:


> For the *last* time, abortion is not murder. This is not a position, this is a fact. Spamming appeal to emotion in order to mudsling anyone that dares believe in (gasp!) _women's right of choice over their own fucking bodies_ is not going to work here, and I strongly suggest you find a proper argument. And "statist"? Really? You've bent yourself so far backwards and out of arguments you resort to the world's dumbest ancap libertarian _snarl word_ in an attempt to imply we're in some way bad without having to actually say jack shit?
> Oh, and of course the part about COVID-19 where you literally bring up pointing fingers (because apparently calling out the man that deliberately neglected to respond to it properly for months upon months is finger-pointing) is pure whataboutism, because you're incapable of seeing the vast gap between a man that tries really badly to clean up a pile of shit on the floor... and the man that intentionally shat on the floor in the first place.



What would you call terminating life then? They should call it what is actually is, not a woman's right to choose, but rather a woman's right to terminate life. While I do agree there are certainly circumstances where abortion should be allowed, such as when the mother or child's life is at risk, or when the woman has been forced to conceive; the fact of the matter is that these reasons are a hugely small minority. As I stated previously, the only time in my life I have seen someone get an abortion is as a form of birth control.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I don't think that guy knows what he is talking about, because he is unable to provide any damning evidence on this talking points. The fact of the matter is the government gets it's money from the people, and definitely spends money on terminating lives that we as a people do not collectively agree should be terminated.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


"Terminating life" is a weird way to put "someone choosing to avoid irreparable damage from something they didn't intend, don't want and _*should not be forced to have*_". It _is_ a woman's right to choose, and no false morals in the universe should prevent a woman from deciding if they do or do not wish to bear a child- and subsequently whether they *will or not.*
If you're going to keep playing this shitty, shitty card, I'm going to play one I once saw.
If abortion is so horrific, why not go a different path and simply prevent the """"""""child"""""""" from existing unintentionally in the first place? Vasectomies are reversible, have every man get one before the age of 18. When he's deemed emotionally and psychologically fit to be a father, it's undone, and it's promptly redone at any indication of the contrary.
Controlling people's bodies doesn't sound so nice anymore when it's _men's_ bodies, doesn't it?


----------



## tthousand (Mar 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "Terminating life" is a weird way to put "someone choosing to avoid irreparable damage from something they didn't intend, don't want and _*should not be forced to have*_". It _is_ a woman's right to choose, and no false morals in the universe should prevent a woman from deciding if they do or do not wish to bear a child- and subsequently whether they *will or not.*
> If you're going to keep playing this shitty, shitty card, I'm going to play one I once saw.
> If abortion is so horrific, why not go a different path and simply prevent the """"""""child"""""""" from existing unintentionally in the first place? Vasectomies are reversible, have every man get one before the age of 18. When he's deemed emotionally and psychologically fit to be a father, it's undone, and it's promptly redone at any indication of the contrary.
> Controlling people's bodies doesn't sound so nice anymore when it's _men's_ bodies, doesn't it?



I actually like that idea, in a form. Perhaps it would be good for convicted rapists, or fathers who are involved with abortions. Like if the father is willing to go through with the first abortion, then he must agree to vasectomy. 

Like I said, I can agree with abortion to a certain degree. But there are those out there that would argue it is acceptable to "terminate the life" up to 7 days after the mother has already given birth. That is murder, simple and plain. The ethics need to be ironed out, because these are living organisms.

Again, like I said, when you have a baby and watch that baby grow and communicate with you while it is in the mothers womb, there is no doubt that is a living, intelligent human being.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Like I said, I can agree with abortion to a certain degree. But there are those out there that would argue it is acceptable to "terminate the life" up to 7 days after the mother has already given birth.


I haven't seen anyone say anything like this and I doubt there's a big push for this.

Most abortions don't seem to even get pass the first trimester.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I actually like that idea, in a form. Perhaps it would be good for convicted rapists, or fathers who are involved with abortions. Like if the father is willing to go through with the first abortion, then he must agree to vasectomy.
> 
> Like I said, I can agree with abortion to a certain degree. But there are those out there that would argue it is acceptable to "terminate the life" up to 7 days after the mother has already given birth. That is murder, simple and plain. The ethics need to be ironed out, because these are living organisms.
> 
> Again, like I said, when you have a baby and watch that baby grow and communicate with you while it is in the mothers womb, there is no doubt that is a living, intelligent human being.


Ironically, having the aforementioned idea be a reactive measure rather than a preventative one basically just makes it a way-too-late version of abortion itself, which would likely only end up punishing the careless and not, you know, actually preventing a woman from having damage done to her body, life or lifestyle due to having a child she didn't intend to and sometimes didn't even consent to the unintentional creation of in the first place (i.e. rape). Having it be a _preventative_ measure like I mentioned, on the other hand, would completely erase the problem.

In terms of, well, terms, I really doubt there's anyone major that seriously advocates for _post-birth abortion, _which is LITERAL murder regardless of definition. The general consensus at this point is that whenever the point in time is that a fetus gains actual sentience and could be scientifically and morally considered a human being is, it's definitely before it's born (that probably shouldn't be something anyone should ever really have to explain) _but also certainly not as close to conception as most pro-lifers would imply.
_
But yeah, um... the concept of "post-birth termination" you're claiming people argue is one that nobody in their right mind would even think to suggest, and is a strawman plain and simple. It's as absurd a position as claiming all abortion, even mere days after conception if possible, is murder. (I pray nobody on this thread takes that side for real...)



KingVamp said:


> I haven't seen anyone say anything like this and I doubt there's a big push for this.
> 
> Most abortions don't seem to even get pass the first trimester.


yeah a lot of the whole "abortion is murder" thing comes from people that don't quite get that the late-term abortions they love to generalize as the entire thing... are an incredibly small fraction
heck, I'm pretty sure that by the time it's late enough into the term that only a dystopian psychopath would label it as anything other than a child, _it's almost as risky to try to abort it at that point as it would be to NOT_
almost all abortions are first trimester, and a large chunk are done because the would-be-but-also-shouldn't-be-child is either the result of rape, would potentially harm or kill the mother in the process of being born or would basically have the mother's life crash and burn as she struggles to take care of an unintended kid
considering there's a decent amount of overlap between these categories, sometimes all three

the funny thing about the abortion debate is the extraordinary gap between the extremes of both sides in terms of... just how extreme they are

pro-choice strawman dystopia: that one obscure philip k. dick story "the pre-persons", which goes so far off its rocker (_up to age twelve? REALLY?_) that nobody could possibly take that level of viewpoint IRL
pro-life strawman dystopia: the handmaid's tale, which is basically just if the classic "almost all of humanity loses the ability to reproduce" dystopia was taken advantage of by a bunch of deeply sexist Religious-Right wingnuts

like in no timeline could I actually imagine something like the pre-persons happening- by the time it can _fucking communicate, _it's clearly a sentient human being
even if I were to assume the people in charge were all some batcrap insane flavor of extreme strawman altleft and handwaved them being brainwashed into thinking like strawmen, there is no sequence of events I could think of that would lead to a nation's leaders declaring people as nonsentient until age twelve and thus legal to murder, _and the population as a whole accepting it_ (that and the fact that under such a law, the nation wouldn't last more than a decade or two before it disintegrated due to, well, being able to off their offspring for over a decade after birth resulting in a chronic loss of population)
but I could honestly see something reminiscent of the handmaid's tale if a national birth crisis occurred and a group of extreme right-wing christians took the reins


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Vasectomies are reversible


They're not, really. Attempts can be made but are not reliable at making men fertile again.


----------



## Kurt91 (Mar 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Oh, and of course the part about COVID-19 where you literally bring up pointing fingers (because apparently calling out the man that deliberately neglected to respond to it properly for months upon months is finger-pointing) is pure whataboutism, because you're incapable of seeing the vast gap between a man that tries really badly to clean up a pile of shit on the floor... and the man that intentionally shat on the floor in the first place.



First of all, I apologize for the quality of the link. I read the full article, but couldn't find a way to link the full thing because they want a subscription and apparently my reading of the full article was the only 'freebie' I was going to get. I tried using the Wayback Machine to see if I could get around it, and it cuts off at the same point as the official site. I'm posting the Wayback link in case anybody else can get the full article or can quote it into the thread for further discussion for me.

https://web.archive.org/web/2021030...ndents/the-sound-and-the-fury-of-andrew-cuomo

From reading this, I don't think the guy's "trying really badly to clean up a pile of shit" as much as "shitting just as much". I'm not the original person who brought it up, but I kind of have a similar sentiment and want to ask the same question. So, again, why is this guy seemingly getting the all-clear instead of more people being upset about his actions?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 8, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> They're not, really. Attempts can be made but are not reliable at making men fertile again.


Either way, the idea behind quoting that idea was less trying to find an actual third solution (though if it was reliable, it'd be the perfect compromise... except for what I'm about to explain) and more about showing that a situation that would seemingly serve as the perfect answer to both sides really serves to show the motivations behind one. Had tthousand reacted as adversely to the suggestion as most other heavy pro-lifers, it would've shown that it was less about saving life (since this would've prevented the problem entirely due to the life not _happening in the first place_) and more about controlling the bodies of women (since this would've swapped the halves and actually placed the responsibility on men).



Kurt91 said:


> First of all, I apologize for the quality of the link. I read the full article, but couldn't find a way to link the full thing because they want a subscription and apparently my reading of the full article was the only 'freebie' I was going to get. I tried using the Wayback Machine to see if I could get around it, and it cuts off at the same point as the official site. I'm posting the Wayback link in case anybody else can get the full article or can quote it into the thread for further discussion for me.
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/2021030...ndents/the-sound-and-the-fury-of-andrew-cuomo
> 
> From reading this, I don't think the guy's "trying really badly to clean up a pile of shit" as much as "shitting just as much". I'm not the original person who brought it up, but I kind of have a similar sentiment and want to ask the same question. So, again, why is this guy seemingly getting the all-clear instead of more people being upset about his actions?


He isn't getting the all-clear though. _Both sides_ are unfathomably pissed at him for his actions, and that even includes me personally.
However, there is an important distinction between Cuomo's actions and Trump's. Not only one of situation, but one of intensity.
Cuomo was handled a pile of shit covering every inch of the nation and practically centered around NY, and his response to it was abysmal and frankly despicable in some aspects.
Trump, on the other hand, was handled the _possibility_ of a pile of shit, knowledge of how to prevent or at least minimize it, and the power to do so... and actively refused, even contributing to the shit's spread with things like politicizing basic safety measures, pinning the blame on other nations in the midst of his own major negligence, downplaying the danger of the virus repeatedly, _LYING ABOUT HIS OWN TREATMENT WHEN HE INEVITABLY CAUGHT THE VIRUS FROM HIS OWN INEPTITUDE IN ORDER TO DOWNPLAY IT FURTHER..._ yeah.
Cuomo was given a bad situation and ways to help get out of it, and he massively fucked it up in many ways- some accidental, some not. However, he didn't deliberately worsen the conditions _themselves._
Trump was given clear warning of a bad situation and ways to avoid it completely or at least diminish it, and chose to make it as worse as he plausibly could instead.
Cuomo looked at the pile of shit on the floor, walked over to the part he was supposed to clean and stabbed it with a spork instead of cleaning it up.
Trump shat on the floor in the first place.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 8, 2021)

well now it seems I'm getting a check another time and i still won't stop looking for a job either sooner or later SSI will dry up (and it's faster than anticipated) though as i said many times before SSI reform (from a working stand point) needs to happen and i hope within these 4-8 years it can be done once covid is behind us


----------



## tabzer (Mar 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> For the *last* time, abortion is not murder. This is not a position, this is a fact. Spamming appeal to emotion in order to mudsling anyone that dares believe in (gasp!) _women's right of choice over their own fucking bodies_ is not going to work here, and I strongly suggest you find a proper argument. And "statist"? Really? You've bent yourself so far backwards and out of arguments you resort to the world's dumbest ancap libertarian _snarl word_ in an attempt to imply we're in some way bad without having to actually say jack shit?
> Oh, and of course the part about COVID-19 where you literally bring up pointing fingers (because apparently calling out the man that deliberately neglected to respond to it properly for months upon months is finger-pointing) is pure whataboutism, because you're incapable of seeing the vast gap between a man that tries really badly to clean up a pile of shit on the floor... and the man that intentionally shat on the floor in the first place.



I delineated the difference between murder and killing in my post.  The strawman you offered doesn't progress the discussion. Pregnancy is an extension of human life.  Killing it is murder in respect to cultures who respect the sanctity of that life.  The claim that is not murder doesn't respect such culture, and defaults on the state's definition.  So yes, it is a statist position.  Be outraged if you want. 

With the how you paint those who are responsible for perpetuating the Covid casualties, it's hard to take your opinion as fact when make claims of the intentions of the actors. Whataboutism is just a deflection from the point that contributions have been made from every level of government, and it's ugly to argue against one corrupt party in the defense of another.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I delineated the difference between murder and killing in my post.  The strawman you offered doesn't progress the discussion. Pregnancy is an extension of human life.  Killing it is murder in respect to cultures who respect the sanctity of that life.  The claim that is not murder doesn't respect such culture, and defaults on the state's definition.  So yes, it is a statist position.  Be outraged if you want.
> 
> With the how you paint those who are responsible for perpetuating the Covid casualties, it's hard to take your opinion as fact when make claims of the intentions of the actors. Whataboutism is just a deflection from the point that contributions have been made from every level of government, and it's ugly to argue against one corrupt party in the defense of another.


"Statist" is a snarl word used by right-wing ancaps (the kind that dress up their anarcho-capitalism as libertarianism because "everyone should get to be horrible greedy fucks if they have the power and the money to" doesn't sound very nice when stated outright) to accuse someone of basically licking the boots of _the concept of a state or "the" state_, and carries zero legitimate meaning. Please refrain from using it as an ad hominem attack (which is, funnily enough, the only possible use of it, as it's an accusatory term with no real definition), because all it serves to do is make your argument look like it's held together with twigs and string instead of logic and reasoning.
Also, you keep using terms like "killing" and phrasing like "respect the sanctity" as if it being killing is even clearly defined (killing requires it being defined as a fully living being, which is debatable depending on timing) and as if that debatably-life objectively HAS any sanctity (which is also extremely debatable), as well as playing the tone argument and the accusatory of intent SIMULTANEOUSLY (I'm not outraged, I'm just honestly disappointed that you couldn't bother to bring an argument to the table without fact-guised opinions and meaningless accusations), which is frankly impressive in terms of sheer fallacy count. As for strawmen... please kindly point me to mine. Considering that any form of prevention of pregnancy entirely (most likely by placing the responsibility on men, because realistically how else are you going to do it?) similar to the "undo it when they're ready" example I mentioned would likely draw cries of dystopian suppression from the religious right-wing, there's nothing to suggest the pro-life movement's motive is legitimately just the alleged sanctity of life- especially considering both its complete disregard for the potential death *of the mother in the process of the birth *(one of the most common reasons for abortion) and its bafflingly large overlap with the seemingly antithetical anti-vax movement. (You'd think it'd be impossible to be simultaneously pro-life and pro-_plague, _but here we are.)

Then there's the matter of COVID-19. Cuomo _doesn't _get a pass, and I've made that clear.
However, Trump gets far, far less of a pass due to his actions both having been proven as intentional and destructive negligence and the sheer scope thereof.
Trying to deflect blame away from Trump for getting us into this disaster in the first place and onto Cuomo for doing an awful job cleaning up his portion of it is whataboutism, and stating it is so is not a deflection itself. Both parties (or rather, part of one party and the vast majority of the other) may be at fault, but there is a vast gap in intensity between the faults in question. One man failed miserably and perhaps despicably at helping repair his *state, *the other deliberately put his entire *country* at risk because he'd rather have some short-term PR than, you know, NOT INDIRECTLY CAUSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AVOIDABLE DEATHS.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "Statist" is a snarl word used by right-wing ancaps (the kind that dress up their anarcho-capitalism as libertarianism because "everyone should get to be horrible greedy fucks if they have the power and the money to" doesn't sound very nice when stated outright) to accuse someone of basically licking the boots of _the concept of a state or "the" state_, and carries zero legitimate meaning. Please refrain from using it as an ad hominem attack (which is, funnily enough, the only possible use of it, as it's an accusatory term with no real definition), because all it serves to do is make your argument look like it's held together with twigs and string instead of logic and reasoning.
> Also, you keep using terms like "killing" and phrasing like "respect the sanctity" as if it being killing is even clearly defined (killing requires it being defined as a fully living being, which is debatable depending on timing) and as if that debatably-life objectively HAS any sanctity (which is also extremely debatable), as well as playing the tone argument and the accusatory of intent SIMULTANEOUSLY (I'm not outraged, I'm just honestly disappointed that you couldn't bother to bring an argument to the table without fact-guised opinions and meaningless accusations), which is frankly impressive in terms of sheer fallacy count. As for strawmen... please kindly point me to mine. Considering that any form of prevention of pregnancy entirely (most likely by placing the responsibility on men, because realistically how else are you going to do it?) similar to the "undo it when they're ready" example I mentioned would likely draw cries of dystopian suppression from the religious right-wing, there's nothing to suggest the pro-life movement's motive is legitimately just the alleged sanctity of life- especially considering both its complete disregard for the potential death *of the mother in the process of the birth *(one of the most common reasons for abortion) and its bafflingly large overlap with the seemingly antithetical anti-vax movement. (You'd think it'd be impossible to be simultaneously pro-life and pro-_plague, _but here we are.)



Strawman _and_ pearl clutching.  Whenever you want to stop writing your own dictionary and refer to a real one, maybe you can make a logical understanding of what I said, and of the context in which it was said.



Plasmaster09 said:


> Then there's the matter of COVID-19. Cuomo _doesn't _get a pass, and I've made that clear.



After I drew attention to the point.  Pointing out what Cuomo has done doesn't change what Trump has done.   Unless the accusation against Trump was something that Cuomo was actually responsible for.  I'm sure that's not the case.  /s


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Strawman _and_ pearl clutching.  Whenever you want to stop writing your own dictionary and refer to a real one, maybe you can make a logical understanding of what I said, and of the context in which it was said.
> 
> 
> 
> After I drew attention to the point.  Pointing out what Cuomo has done doesn't change what Trump has done.   Unless the accusation against Trump was something that Cuomo was actually responsible for.  I'm sure that's not the case.  /s


Logical? Most of your points were various forms of "this culture values X, so it should be taken as fact or given priority over basic bodily liberty", which isn't even a single fallacy so much as it's a Chewbacca Defense. If you believe that fetuses are children and their existence is sacred, and thus oppose abortions, then don't have a fucking abortion. Otherwise, stay a mile away from the rights other people have on *their* bodies. The separation of church and state is something I should not have to make clear- the beliefs of one religion or culture should have absolutely zero bearing over the basic liberties and rights of anyone outside said religion or culture. Oh, and the remainder of your points are either ad-hominem attacks (pearl-clutching? *Really?* You're actually going so far as to accuse me of _pearl-clutching _because I dare suggest that a woman should have rights over her own womb?) or snarl words, a close cousin thereof (for the last time, "statist" is a meaningless accusatory that serves no purpose other than to mudsling the opponent, and its use will be taken only as a sign of lack of a better argument).

And as for Trump and Cuomo... How is it so hard to understand that Trump is the reason the US has been so far up shit creek this past year in regards to COVID-19? Cuomo's actions were his own fault, but the magnitude of the situation he was thrust into in the first place was almost entirely due to Trump's frankly inexcusable negligence. Trying to pin the _entirety_ of the blame on Cuomo for failing to clean up his part of the nationwide disaster Trump left in his wake is, once again, the definition of whataboutism.
Cuomo did a bad, we get it. However, this does not mean Cuomo is quite AS at fault as Trump (let alone more), it definitely doesn't mean the _parties _are equally at fault (that's just the balance fallacy- there exists such thing as a lesser evil, or rather in this case an innumerably greater evil in the form of Trump) and it *certainly* does not under any circumstances mean Trump shouldn't still be held accountable for his actions.

Cut the crap. The ad hominem attacks, the deflection, the meaningless accusations, the snarl words, the reverse tone argument (aka the Snowflake Accusation), the various other fallacies... all of it. Come back with a legitimate argument, and I assure you I'll listen. But in the meantime... cut the crap, _end of story._


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> For the *last* time, abortion is not murder. This is not a position, this is a fact.




I think it's an opinion, FWIW. It might have some legal backing, but it's fuzzy law. In some jurisdictions (38 states in the USA), if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with 2 counts of murder. Cause her to miscarry, you can be charged with 1 count. Probably gets pleaded down to manslaughter, but it's still, by law, an illegal taking of a human life. The only things that make the taking of that life in a 'legal abortion' any different is the consent of the pregnant woman, and the medical license held by the practitioner performing the procedure. But the resulting death is the same.

When does an unborn child become a human being, with rights?


FWIW I support legal abortion, with limits. Like any other "right", there are reasonable limits. Yes? So when you spout absolutes like that, I think it's fair to examine the details. It's not enough to say "almost all abortions are first trimester and very few are 'late-term'" .. if those late-term abortions are being performed on viable babies that could survive outside the womb, then that would mean you're willing to excuse some murder, for the sake of keeping the 'legal window' for abortion as open as possible.

So again, when specifically does a child in the womb, become a human being? Is it not until the head is delivered? The feet? Is it not until it is heard to cry throughout the castle?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 9, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> When does an unborn child become a human being, with rights?
> 
> 
> FWIW I support legal abortion, with limits. Like any other "right", there are reasonable limits. Yes? So when you spout absolutes like that, I think it's fair to examine the details. It's not enough to say "almost all abortions are first trimester and very few are 'late-term'" .. if those late-term abortions are being performed on viable babies that could survive outside the womb, then that would mean you're willing to excuse some murder, for the sake of keeping the 'legal window' for abortion as open as possible.
> ...


The point during pregnancy at which a fetus is considered a human being is a nebulous topic nobody can seem to agree on, and we haven't quite yet figured it out scientifically. (Mostly because what sentience itself even is is just as weird and nebulous a point, and investigation into THAT mess requires delving into both politics _and philosophy _*and neuroscience.*) All we realistically know is that at the very start it's just a bundle of cells (definitively nonhuman) and that at the very end it's literally a human baby (human by definition), but where the middle lies is basically unanswerable currently.

However, you have to consider another variable here: the mother. A definitively, 100% guaranteed human being, who would only get an abortion if the would-be child in question is either unwanted (which would likely result in a pretty rough life for both mother and child), implausible for the would-be mother to care for (which would, barring a miracle, DEFINITELY result in a pretty rough life for both at _best_) or could potentially result in irreparable bodily damage or even *death* to the mother in the process (which, if the possibility of an abortion would be one early-term enough for the fetus's humanity to be ambiguous, would amount to killing a person for the possibility of a new one).

Believe me, if there was some third solution where these problems could be solved without abortion (some sort of biomechanical contraption to safely carry otherwise unsafe-to-the-mother fetuses to term combined with a reliable government-funded from-birth adoption program to take care of the children resulting from this, or the far simpler but also far more likely to cause cries of dystopia option that is restricting the ability of men to get women pregnant in the first place until they prove themselves responsible), I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I'm not pro-choice because I believe that the existence of a fetus is worthless or something abhorrently apathetic like that (I don't, to the point that I practically gagged mentally halfway through typing that), I'm pro-choice because I believe that people having rights over what and sorta-kinda-who goes in and out of their own bodies (and more importantly, the ability to prevent themselves from dying, suffering serious bodily damage or having their life basically crumble in front of them simply by exercising those rights) is more important than something with a sentient and possibly-if-you-believe-in-that-too-ensouled existence dependent on the viewer's cultural and religious beliefs.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> The point during pregnancy at which a fetus is considered a human being is a nebulous topic nobody can seem to agree on, and we haven't quite yet figured it out scientifically. (Mostly because what sentience itself even is is just as weird and nebulous a point, and investigation into THAT mess requires delving into both politics _and philosophy _*and neuroscience.*) All we realistically know is that at the very start it's just a bundle of cells (definitively nonhuman) and that at the very end it's literally a human baby (human by definition), but where the middle lies is basically unanswerable currently.
> However, you have to consider another variable here: the mother. A definitively, 100% guaranteed human being, who would only get an abortion if the would-be child in question is either unwanted (which would likely result in a pretty rough life for both mother and child), implausible for the would-be mother to care for (which would, barring a miracle, DEFINITELY result in a pretty rough life for both at _best_) or could potentially result in irreparable bodily damage or even *death* to the mother in the process (which, if the possibility of an abortion would be one early-term enough for the fetus's humanity to be ambiguous, would amount to killing a person for the possibility of a new one).
> Believe me, if there was some third solution where these problems could be solved without abortion (some sort of biomechanical contraption to safely carry otherwise unsafe-to-the-mother fetuses to term combined with a reliable government-funded from-birth adoption program to take care of the children resulting from this, or the far simpler but also far more likely to cause cries of dystopia option that is restricting the ability of men to get women pregnant in the first place until they prove themselves responsible), I'd take it in a heartbeat. I'm not pro-choice because I believe that the existence of a fetus is worthless or something abhorrently apathetic like that (I don't, to the point that I practically gagged mentally halfway through typing that), I'm pro-choice because I believe that people having rights over what and sorta-kinda-who goes in and out of their own bodies (and more importantly, the ability to prevent themselves from dying, suffering serious bodily damage or having their life basically crumble in front of them simply by exercising those rights) is more important than something with a sentient and possibly-if-you-believe-in-that-too-ensouled existence dependent on the viewer's cultural and religious beliefs.




Ok well you discussed it at least. So then, do you support abortion on demand at any time prior to birth?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 9, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Ok well you discussed it at least. So then, do you support abortion on demand at any time prior to birth?


Depends on context.

If it's early enough into term that the abortion could be done safely and the sentience line hasn't been definitively fully muddled yet, then yes.

If the would-be child is the result of rape or serious carelessness and would leave the would-be mother with basically a shattered life, then also yes. (Only exception here that I can think of is some bizarre case in which the mother would end up dying _whether or not_ the fetus is aborted, and even then that just leads into another debate as to whether a life starting with and consisting primarily of grief and suffering is better or worse than no life at all.)

If it's one of those incredibly poorly timed scenarios where it would end up happening really, really late into term (and the mother wouldn't die or suffer abnormal and irreparable damage from the birth)... yeah no.

An odd exception can be generated for any scenario by figuring out a strange enough hypothetical, but in general there is a place I draw the line- the simplest way to phrase it is that by the time the only consequence of carrying it to term is short-term pain and a pinch of sunk cost fallacy, it might as well be done. However, I also don't feel like imposing my personal drawn line upon others, nor do I feel like anyone should have the right to do so. Hence sticking to a purely pro-choice viewpoint until a true compromise may be made possible by future technologies or organizations- not just for the beliefs I hold, but out of respect for the beliefs others may hold as well.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Logical? Most of your points were various forms of "this culture values X, so it should be taken as fact or given priority over basic bodily liberty"



Incorrect.  I took a look at absolute statements and considered the context of their validity.  If you hate that "statist" is a word, or even that it is directly relevant to the foundation of said absolute statement, then that seems like a you problem.  I don't envy those who have to make hard choices and I am not telling them what they can or cannot do.  It is also pretty natural for people to feel guilty about things outside of their control.  Calling a bundle of cells "non-human" is abjective in function, and only seems to serve the function of making abortion more acceptable.



Plasmaster09 said:


> Trying to pin the _entirety_ of the blame on Cuomo for failing to clean up his part of the nationwide disaster Trump left in his wake is, once again, the definition of whataboutism.



You are delusional if you think that's what's being suggested.

But you are scapegoating Trump for Cuomo's part of the responsibility anyway.  "Cuomo was wrong, but it's Trump's fault."


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Incorrect.  I took a look at absolute statements and considered the context of their validity.  If you hate that "statist" is a word, or even that it is directly relevant to the foundation of said absolute statement, then that seems like a you problem.  I don't envy those who have to make hard choices and I am not telling them what they can or cannot do.  It is also pretty natural for people to feel guilty about things outside of their control.  Calling a bundle of cells "non-human" is abjective in function, and only seems to serve the function of making abortion more acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On second search, you're right and wrong. Statist is, in fact, a word. However, it's almost never used in a way remotely accurate to its proper meaning (its actual definition implies strong enough power residing in the state that it essentially means diet authoritarianism, while in practice it's basically just become a blanket snarl word used by ancap libertarians as a quick ad hominem to slap on anything they don't like), and you're misusing it yourself by describing being heavily pro-choice as statist. In addition, your "absolute statements" were, as I mentioned, mostly pertaining to individual cultures or religious beliefs. And as should really not have to be explained in America, the (intended-to-be) land of freedom and personal rights, individual cultures and religions can _*go fuck themselves *_when it comes to the basic rights of anyone outside their group.

And when it comes to Cuomo, that's not even what I said. I said that Cuomo's part was his fault, but that Cuomo's part also wouldn't even really _exist_ if not for Trump's deliberate mishandling of things.
Technically speaking, Cuomo's part is BOTH of their faults.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> describing being heavily pro-choice as statist



Check again.  Ascribing the definition of murder based on what kind of death (killing) is legal is statist, and skirts the argument of what it is morally or culturally revered--bolstering the definition used by the state and to the disenfranchisement of others.  Universal and absolute claims that "abortion is not murder" is exclusive to the territory.




Plasmaster09 said:


> And when it comes to Cuomo, that's not even what I said. I said that Cuomo's part was his fault, but that Cuomo's part also wouldn't even really _exist_ if not for Trump's deliberate mishandling of things.



But that _is_ what you are saying.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Check again.  Ascribing the definition of murder based on what kind of death (killing) is legal is statist, and skirts the argument of what it is morally or culturally revered--bolstering the definition used by the state and to the disenfranchisement of others.  Universal and absolute claims that "abortion is not murder" is exclusive to the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or, get this: maybe I don't give two shits about the state's wishes and it's actually my own viewpoint? Shocking, I know.

No, it really isn't. You sure love to claim you know more about what people say than they do, but you don't. I fully attributed Cuomo's actions as his own fault, but *that does not excuse Trump one single fucking drop from causing the entire situation in the first place.*


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 9, 2021)

I'm still busy tinkling on the republicans. Or specifically tRuMp.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 9, 2021)

Biden is the most popular president in American history


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 9, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden is the most popular president in American history



Right. Popular. Got It   but pssst. uh Ex-president tRUMP. he LOST, remember. Just a heads up. just a friendly gesture, you know.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 9, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden is the most popular president in American history


81million think so...


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 9, 2021)

djpannda said:


> 81million think so...
> View attachment 250795


Yes he is more popular than obama
Biden cant name the people that work for him, He does not know where he is. he barely get views but he is the most popular president in history


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 9, 2021)

LoL, and trump is trying to make another bid for the presidency. GOP just said kudos. kcuF tRuMp!


----------



## djpannda (Mar 9, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Yes he is more popular than obama
> Biden cant name the people that work for him, He does not know where he is. he barely get views but he is the most popular president in history


"views" This isn't fuckink TikTok..


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 9, 2021)

LoL. See Valwinz you keep flip flopping your side. I hate Fence Walkers.


----------



## Kurt91 (Mar 9, 2021)

djpannda said:


> 81million think so...
> View attachment 250795


Quick question - Shouldn't those percentages add up to 100%? 51.3 + 46.9 = 98.2, not 100. Why are the numbers off?


----------



## djpannda (Mar 9, 2021)

Kurt91 said:


> Quick question - Shouldn't those percentages add up to 100%? 51.3 + 46.9 = 98.2, not 100. Why are the numbers off?


Sorry I forget the thread is full of  "Elvis is alive believers" ..so I have to s-p-e-l-l things out


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 9, 2021)

imao
President Biden ignores shouted questions from reporters about whether there is a crisis at the border. His staff shoos them away. pic.twitter.com/La8TCfAetf— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 9, 2021


----------



## Kurt91 (Mar 9, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Sorry I forget the thread is full of  "Elvis is alive believers" ..so I have to s-p-e-l-l things out
> View attachment 250848


I wasn't arguing your original post, it was a legitimate question. Your clarification picture included other votes as a third color, but they weren't mentioned at all in the original. You'd think that they'd at least have a small orange portion of the chart or something to represent other votes.

Sorry I had an actual question, for Christ's sake.


----------



## gene0915 (Mar 9, 2021)

When is President Trump going to stop putting unaccompanied immigrant children in cages like animals? WHEN?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migran...custody-past-legal-limit/?ftag=CNM-00-10aac3a


----------



## Xzi (Mar 9, 2021)

gene0915 said:


> When is President Trump going to stop putting unaccompanied immigrant children in cages like animals? WHEN?
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migran...custody-past-legal-limit/?ftag=CNM-00-10aac3a


You make light of it, but the vast majority of these children are indeed unaccompanied now because of the Trump administration's family separation policy.  They either deported (and then lost track of) the parents, or the parents were killed in Mexico while waiting for their asylum claim to be processed.  Finding new homes for all these now-parentless children is not going to be an easy or quick process.  Most likely, we'll still be cleaning up messes that Trump left behind ten years from now.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 9, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Or, get this: maybe I don't give two shits about the state's wishes and it's actually my own viewpoint? Shocking, I know.
> 
> No, it really isn't. You sure love to claim you know more about what people say than they do, but you don't. I fully attributed Cuomo's actions as his own fault, but *that does not excuse Trump one single fucking drop from causing the entire situation in the first place.*


Stating opinions as facts?  Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Stating opinions as facts?  Why am I not surprised?


No, I've been stating both as what they are- and clearly distinguishing between them. Abortion being murder, or anything along those lines, is purely an opinion- and people's rights to believe *and act* otherwise falling under freedom of religion and belief itself is not.


----------



## omgcat (Mar 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Abortion is killing of human life.  That's legal in some forms, like in places where death penalty is allowed--so it being "not murder" is a political/statist position.  Dehumanizing the life is just a necessary step in that process.  Morally and conventionally it is a different story.  Saying there is no reason for abortion to be illegal makes it sound recreational.
> 
> As for taxes, the "the money was never yours" argument is a popular rationalization.  However, if everyone felt more accountable for how the money was used, maybe we'd be in a better condition.
> 
> As for pointing fingers over Covid, why does Cuomo not get an honorable mention?



lol Cuomo is fucked.


----------



## gene0915 (Mar 10, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You make light of it, but the vast majority of these children are indeed unaccompanied now because of the Trump administration's family separation policy.  They either deported (and then lost track of) the parents, or the parents were killed in Mexico while waiting for their asylum claim to be processed.  Finding new homes for all these now-parentless children is not going to be an easy or quick process.  Most likely, we'll still be cleaning up messes that Trump left behind ten years from now.



And thank God that no such program was ever used during the Obama administration!!!!!!111

And how DARE a country try and secure their borders??????????? Is this Nazi Germany???????? So what if people illegally cross into the USA. We should let them all in without COVID testing -OR- criminal background checks. Every. Last. One! And give them all a free education, free healthcare, free unemployment benefits. I mean, just because we have tens of millions of American citizens drawing unemployment due to a lack of jobs from automation and downsizing, there is NO REASON why we shouldn't open our borders to everyone in Mexico! I'm 100% positives tens of  millions of illegal immigrants from all over the globe will be a net positive on our way of life in America! Just think of all the neurosurgeons, nuclear physicists, chemical engineers and Nobel prize winning inventors that we could get from from Honduras alone!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

I agree, Biden (one of the smartest and most intellectually sharp presidents in American history.....who received the most votes of any president in America history) will be cleaning up the mess from Trump for decades to come!!!!!!1111


----------



## tabzer (Mar 10, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> No, I've been stating both as what they are- and clearly distinguishing between them. Abortion being murder, or anything along those lines, is purely an opinion- and people's rights to believe *and act* otherwise falling under freedom of religion and belief itself is not.



"Abortion is not murder" was presented as a fact.  It is a fact if presented from a statist legal framework.  Otherwise it's an opinion.  If you know what you mean, but how you say it makes it appear as something else, then it's natural for people to misunderstand your intention.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> lol Cuomo is fucked.


I'd be surprised if he actually resigns or is forced out.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 10, 2021)

gene0915 said:


> And thank God that no such program was ever used during the Obama administration!!!!!!111


Correct, the policy of mandatory family separation was only in place during the Trump administration.  Occasionally unaccompanied minors would be picked up while crossing the border, but nothing like the influx we're seeing now.



gene0915 said:


> And how DARE a country try and secure their borders???????????


Institutional cruelty and dehumanization of immigrants are not necessary components in securing our borders.



tabzer said:


> I'd be surprised if he actually resigns or is forced out.


Dems hold their own accountable, sometimes even for no reason at all (Al Franken).  Cuomo is 100% done.  If only Republicans held their own to the same standard, or any standard at all for that matter.


----------



## RandomUser (Mar 10, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> there's nothing to suggest the pro-life movement's motive is legitimately just the alleged sanctity of life- especially considering both its complete disregard for the potential death *of the mother in the process of the birth *(one of the most common reasons for abortion) and its bafflingly large overlap with the seemingly antithetical anti-vax movement. (You'd think it'd be impossible to be simultaneously pro-life and pro-_plague, _but here we are.)


I'm not sure how this topic went to abortion, I'd like to point out that:
Caesarean section could save both the mother's and the baby's life during birth. Sometimes it is planned when a mother wants a biological child and have pregnancy complications.

Back on topic, I'm wondering what of that $200 increase for All Social Security Beneficiaries? Or did they get it yet?


----------



## djpannda (Mar 10, 2021)

After 2020 fraud claims, Donald Trump requests mail ballot


Wait I thought Mail in Ballots are bad...why Does Trump keep requesting one?
oh I get it, Trump believes anyone darker then Orange. Should not vote. Thats why Republicans are passing voter Suppression bills allover the Country targeting Minorities.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 10, 2021)

Biden's Stimulus: Adds a $5,500 dollar debt to every American man, Woman and Child.

$1,400 = What you get out of it. (might end up being less if you do not meet certain criteria, and/or you might not even be able to get is like many people who still have not received their last $600)
$1,067 = Bail out blue states such as CA and NY
$177 = Bail out Union pension plans
$750 = Extend unemployment benefits  (pay people more to sit home then they could actually go out and make working)
$34 = Museums and Native American language preservation
$393 = K-12
$122 = Colleges and Universities
$58 = Public Health Organizations including Planned Parenthood
$128 = Transportation Grants including Amtrak
$49 = Agriculture
$30 = Foreign aid
$1,279 = Various progressive priorities

Seems to me like this is more about control than helping...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Biden reminds me of Ray Zalinsky, " I make car parts for the American working man, because that's what I am, and that's who I care about... The truth is I make car parts for the American working man because I am a hell of a salesman and he doesn't know any better."


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Biden's Stimulus: Adds a $5,500 dollar debt to every American man, Woman and Child.
> 
> $1,400 = What you get out of it. (might end up being less if you do not meet certain criteria, and/or you might not even be able to get is like many people who still have not received their last $600)
> $1,067 = Bail out blue states such as CA and NY
> ...


Let's see here.
$1,400: What you get out of it. The "last $600" already came, and it came first- that was the fraction Trump was willing to send out as a PR move.
$1,067: Upon further inspection, this seems to just be bailing out states. In general. _All of them._
$750: Extending unemployment benefits- i.e. paying people that _*can't find a well-paying job*_ more so that they can fucking survive. The apathy and victim-blaming complex within the Republican party is just incredible, and the fact you can't mention unemployment or something of the sort without accusing those basically just trying to survive of being lazy just proves that.
$34: Museums and cultural preservation.
$515: Education.
$58: Public health.
$128: Transportation. Insert obligatory Amtrak Joe meme here.
$49: Agriculture.
$30: Foreign aid.
$1,279: What does "various progressive priorities" even mean? You're clearly trying to use "progressive" as a snarl word, but with zero context it's really not going to work.
_None_ of these moves seem to be about control or partisanship. And here's a reminder: none of that is coming directly out of the average man's pockets. You frame it as a debt on the working man when a) it isn't, that's literally not how this works and b) even if it is, if the only way to solve our nation's problems is to make everyone chip in then *so fucking be it.*


----------



## tthousand (Mar 10, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Let's see here.
> $1,400: What you get out of it. The "last $600" already came, and it came first- that was the fraction Trump was willing to send out as a PR move.
> $1,067: Upon further inspection, this seems to just be bailing out states. In general. _All of them._
> $750: Extending unemployment benefits- i.e. paying people that _*can't find a well-paying job*_ more so that they can fucking survive. The apathy and victim-blaming complex within the Republican party is just incredible, and the fact you can't mention unemployment or something of the sort without accusing those basically just trying to survive of being lazy just proves that.
> ...



Why would anyone want to get off unemployment when they are making far more money than they could if they were actually working? It's the opposite of incentive.

This whole latest stimulus has been completely framed to be partizan. Looking at the past stimulus-es last year, there was wide spread support on both sides of isle. Except for perhaps the last one and this one.

Their should definitely be something done, but I do not have any faith that our government is going to fix this. They already have trillions of dollars allocated that they are doing nothing with, when it could be going towards helping people and business pay their rents and mortgages, which they have been having trouble doing since the government came in and told them they are no longer allowed to support themselves financially.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The reality is both sides are guilty of always tacking on useless shit that should have nothing to do with the bills.

It's like getting served a steaming pile of crap with a nice juicy piece of bacon on top. Sure, the bacon looks good, so you figure why not... I just won't eat the crap. Well, if you want the bacon, you have to eat the crap too... unless you leave the table. And let's be honest, no one is leaving the table. Where else would they go?


----------



## Kurt91 (Mar 10, 2021)

So, my family is suspecting that the stimulus money is coming directly out of our taxes. My mother has done taxes for both most people in my family as well as for commercial businesses in the past. She was doing taxes a week or so ago, and found that both her as well as my grandparents are getting $0 for tax refund, even though they haven't done anything different and every previous year they've always gotten at least $1000 at minimum. Personally, I'm getting something, but only because I haven't gotten any of the previous stimulus payments at any point.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Mar 10, 2021)

Kurt91 said:


> So, my family is suspecting that the stimulus money is coming directly out of our taxes.


the stimulus _is_ coming out of your taxes
that's what taxes are for, paying for the government to do things


----------



## Kurt91 (Mar 10, 2021)

I wasn't sure. I figured that they'd stagger the amount taken out of taxes over time, so there'd still be a tax refund for people who needed it, they'd just take back a percentage of it so it would pay everything out over time. Taking it all at once just makes it an advance on the tax refund, which isn't quite as helpful.


----------



## Iamapirate (Mar 10, 2021)

djpannda said:


> After 2020 fraud claims, Donald Trump requests mail ballot
> 
> 
> Wait I thought Mail in Ballots are bad...why Does Trump keep requesting one?
> oh I get it, Trump believes anyone darker then Orange. Should not vote. Thats why Republicans are passing voter Suppression bills allover the Country targeting Minorities.


The argument wasn't necessarily against mail-in ballots, but millions of *unsolicited* ballots being sent and cast in an unprecedented way due to the pandemic.

Kinda hard to say muh voter suppression when minorities are always a big voting base and Trump himself received the highest share of that vote for a Republican since Nixon.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 10, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> The argument wasn't necessarily against mail-in ballots, but millions of *unsolicited* ballots being sent and cast in an unprecedented way due to the pandemic.
> 
> Kinda hard to say muh voter suppression when minorities are always a big voting base and Trump himself received the highest share of that vote for a Republican since Nixon.


really "unsolicited" ballots??
 because most of the 253 republican bills are to restrict who and how they can request ballets.
 Republicans trying to approved
1.no-excuse absentee Ballots ( so the sick and elderly are forced to wait 2 hours covid lines)
2. stop Automatic Voter registering  when you get/renew your Driver License ( why do you want less Americans to vote)
3 Voter purgers (so if you did not vote in the last 4 years, you get kicked out of the system and have to jump thru hoops)
4. limit voting locations (funny its only in minorities communities)
5. Mail in ballots be notarized with additional IDs
6 My fav. additional ID proving you are a citizen at the time of voting. (which the extremely dumb as if you registered to vote you already provided proof of citizenship and SSN.
don't forget that non of these bills actually address voter fraud or punishments for voter fraud...so AZ stated

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.


https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-voting-bills-tracker-2021

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And let’s not forget most Republans state that the “fraud” happened at the organization/ government level not the voter level.. yet all the restrictions are placed on the voters? Seems like they don’t want to address fraud more then just stoping people from voting


----------



## smf (Mar 10, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Seems like they don’t want to address fraud more then just stoping people from voting



Yeah, the republicans are scared of losing again. Really scared. They don't care what the majority want.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Iamapirate said:


> Kinda hard to say muh voter suppression when minorities are always a big voting base and Trump himself received the highest share of that vote for a Republican since Nixon.



Highest share for a republican, but not the highest share in this election. So if you take the minorities out then Trump would win even though his vote reduced.

Always a big voting base under the current rules, the rules are changing. It's like saying we are going to cut your legs off because you don't need them as you're able to walk.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 10, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Why would anyone want to get off unemployment when they are making far more money than they could if they were actually working? It's the opposite of incentive.
> 
> This whole latest stimulus has been completely framed to be partizan. Looking at the past stimulus-es last year, there was wide spread support on both sides of isle. Except for perhaps the last one and this one.
> 
> ...


Thing is, jobs paying such an unlivably low amount that people would prefer unemployment *is a problem in itself.* Unemployment checks should be enough to live on, and jobs should be a worthwhile amount more.

And as for partisanship... it's a _classic _Republican tactic to stonewall anything Democratic, regardless of actual policies, in order to make us look bad. The stimulus plan is only partisan in regards to the fact that Republicans avoid it like the plague... but they primarily do so _because it's Democratic, not because it's something they legitimately dislike. _It's basically the only reason we still have to compromise with you so often- because shitty tactics like that let an ideological minority boss everyone else around.

Oh, and as for the bacon-and-crap thing... Currently, we aren't even ALLOWED at any of the good tables, because _a certain someone ordered the crap for the rest of us in the first place and they don't want us ordering it anywhere else before we have ours here!_


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 11, 2021)

with geogia ad other states new bills limiting the mail scam is over for dems in 2022


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> with geogia ad other states new bills limiting the mail scam is over for dems in 2022


Translation: With certain states, drunk with wingnuttery, implementing blatant and highly antidemocratic voter suppression laws, Democrats are fucked because the Republicans will likely be able to cheat the system.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Translation: With certain states, drunk with wingnuttery, implementing blatant and highly antidemocratic voter suppression laws, Democrats are fucked because the Republicans will likely be able to cheat the system.


whats wrong with asking for Voting ID ?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> whats wrong with asking for Voting ID ?


The specifics and the intent behind it- like other seemingly innocuous methods, it's intended not to actually prevent voter fraud but to shut out various heavily-blue minority groups that have trouble obtaining certification XYZ for one reason or another. This shit's been done in the past, and now they're trying to shut down a method that is not only almost devoid of this kind of voter-suppression bullshit but also AVOIDS HAVING TO ACT IN PERSON IN PUBLIC _*DURING A PANDEMIC.*_


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 11, 2021)

Thanks Biden Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1369700334428434436


----------



## tabzer (Mar 11, 2021)

I would think that if voter ID is supposed to help prevent fraud, then more efforts should, instead, be made to expose the said fraud.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I would think that if voter ID is supposed to help prevent fraud, then more efforts should, instead, be made to expose the said fraud.


Efforts have been made to expose fraud that does not exist.
As everyone with more than three brain cells expected, none of them found any conclusive evidence of widespread voter fraud.
And thing is, your argument would be sound... if that was what they actually wanted voter ID laws for. But they don't.
They (or at least most of them by now) know the whole voter fraud thing is a crock of shit, and they just need to suppress enough minorities that they can get away with suppressing in order to fake a red wave in a couple years.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Efforts have been made to expose fraud that does not exist.
> As everyone with more than three brain cells expected, none of them found any conclusive evidence of widespread voter fraud.
> And thing is, your argument would be sound... if that was what they actually wanted voter ID laws for. But they don't.
> They (or at least most of them by now) know the whole voter fraud thing is a crock of shit, and they just need to suppress enough minorities that they can get away with suppressing in order to fake a red wave in a couple years.



Or the uniparty just wants to keep their admin access over "democracy" and are just setting the stage for a narrative to continue the power creep.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2021)

It really takes an American to logic their way into thinking that the government shouldn't require an ID if you want to participate in the democratic process. The average Liberal voter actually thinks that their peers are too poor, too stupid or too lazy to go to the DMV and acquire a piece of plastic that's required to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or drive a motor vehicle, which is a sad state of affairs. It's bigotry of low expectations - I fully believe that the elderly and minorities are capable of completing the arduous task of "filling out a form". You don't even need to "show up in person" to verify your ID either, we have this thing called cameras that are perfectly capable of taking a picture of your ID that you can then upload and send wherever it is required. The idea that I need ID to verify my identity on Boomerbook, but in theory I could show up at a voting booth and cast a vote without one is so colossally stupid that I can't adequately comment on it. Every single state in the union should issue *free* ID's to their constituents which would in turn make them eligible vote and use the state's various public resources and services. I cannot imagine a single genuine reason why one would oppose Voter ID besides purposefully enabling voting for those who aren't and shouldn't be eligible to do so.


----------



## smf (Mar 11, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It really takes an American to logic their way into thinking that the government shouldn't require an ID if you want to participate in the democratic process.



It depends on what you mean by "ID".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws

If you mean you need to have paid for some expensive piece of ID, then that is going to exclude some people. If that ID is also produced by the government and they can delay issuing the ID to people based on their race or background ahead of an election then it's clearly going to lead to interfering with the election.

You're assuming that the voters are the ones most likely to commit fraud, but there is more evidence that Trump tried to interfere with voting. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-states-election-funding-mail-in-ballot-plans

So sure, come up with a way that doesn't disadvantage anyone and you can remove the statistically insignificant amount of voting fraud. But what the republicans are doing is like blasting yourself in the face with a shotgun to get rid of acne. Sure the acne is gone, but it's on the wall with the rest of your face.

The next thing they'll say is that to make sure there is no election fraud they won't bother holding an election.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2021)

smf said:


> It depends on what you mean by "ID".
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws
> 
> ...


By ID I mean a piece of plastic issued by the government that contains adequate security features and enables a government official to identify you, ideally issued for free upon reaching whatever age the state considers to be "mature enough" to participate, which is the standard in the rest of the civilised world. I'm not interested in any conspiracy theories regarding how it would "exclude some voters", and I'm going to call them that because that's what they are.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 11, 2021)

Government is a "necessary" conspiracy.  Don't forget your roots.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 11, 2021)

AHAHAHAH
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1370027968668467208


----------



## djpannda (Mar 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> AHAHAHAH
> https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1370027968668467208


...I can see you don't live in the Hood. Cops stopped visit bad neighborhoods since the 80s.... Thats why some people don't call cops it takes 3 hours for them to drive 5 blocks.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 11, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ...I can see you don't live in the Hood. Cops stopped visit bad neighborhoods since the 80s.... Thats why some people don't call cops it takes 3 hours for them to drive 5 blocks.


Defending Bidens America

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1370030714176102401


----------



## djpannda (Mar 11, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> By ID I mean a piece of plastic issued by the government that contains adequate security features and enables a government official to identify you, ideally issued for free upon reaching whatever age the state considers to be "mature enough" to participate, which is the standard in the rest of the civilised world. I'm not interested in any conspiracy theories regarding how it would "exclude some voters", and I'm going to call them that because that's what they are.


oh  you mean like....*a Driver/State ID.*. we already have that...when Republicans say "voter ID" they refer to additional ID, that purposely imposes hurdles that low Income/Minorities people don't have time for and give up ( additional long form Birth Cert, proof of utilities under your name (when some apartments include utilities). Bank statements when some low income people work for cash. Multiple visits for the 1. to apply 2. fingerprint. 3. photo. 4 pick/ wait 3 weeks for it to be mailed.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Defending Bidens America
> 
> https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1370030714176102401


lol love the fact you retweeting Radom people


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2021)

djpannda said:


> oh  you mean like....*a Driver/State ID.*. we already have that...when Republicans say "voter ID" they refer to additional ID, that purposely imposes hurdles that low Income/Minorities people don't have time for and give up ( additional long form Birth Cert, proof of utilities under your name (when some apartments include utilities). Bank statements when some low income people work for cash. Multiple visits for the 1. to apply 2. fingerprint. 3. photo. 4 pick/ wait 3 weeks for it to be mailed.
> 
> lol love the fact you retweeting Radom people


In many states you are not required to be a citizen in order to obtain a driver's license.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_licenses_for_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

Moreover, driver's licenses are available to people who are not eligible to vote, including felons. Using a driver's license alone would be ineffective in its current per-state implementation, it would have to be a federal document. It also excludes those who do not drive from participating in the election. With that being said, a driver's license would be a good start - it's something as opposed to nothing.

I don't buy the excuses - if you're unwilling to sort out something as simple as an ID, you shouldn't be voting. I still remember when I got my EAA ID - I had my 18th birthday, I had my picture taken, took the photo to the city hall, plopped down $15 or so and in a few weeks I had my ID, valid for years to come. I only had to replace it recently, last year, I think.

They should ID voters before ballots are cast - driver's license, ID card, passport, it doesn't matter as long as it's secure. There's zero reason not to besides mental gymnastics in opposition to make-believe obstacles.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 11, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In many states you are not required to be a citizen in order to obtain a driver's license.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_licenses_for_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...


The issue is you are overestimating American Bureaucracy.When I needed a State level certification, I had 3 different visits ( to apply finger printer and then photo, as they stated photo and fingerprint were different departments and I needed separate appointments for each.   Every unnecessary hurdle disenfranchises thousands of citizens to vote.
Plus  yea. You don't need to be a citizen to get a driver license but this question is included in most Driver license form/renewal " are you a US citizen?". and its not an optional question. Plus as any Cop would tell you your driver license is connected to a national database showing history/citizenship/aliases /crimes. It would be easy to connected voter registration to the national data base . and the fact that multiple states (mine) already requested driver license to register to vote to verify.
Proving your citizen, 4 different times is insulting. especially when Most of those "requirements" are placed on minorities.
In 2016, out of everyone what was requested to proof citizenship while voting, 80% were Minorities
Those "Measure" were not for White America.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...y-minority-voters-have-a-lower-voter-turnout/


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2021)

djpannda said:


> The issue is you are overestimating American Bureaucracy.When I needed a State level certification, I had 3 different visits ( to apply finger printer and then photo, as they stated photo and fingerprint were different departments and I needed separate appointments for each.   Every unnecessary hurdle disenfranchises thousands of citizens to vote.
> Plus  yea. You don't need to be a citizen to get a driver license but this question is included in most Driver license form/renewal " are you a US citizen?". and its not an optional question. Plus as any Cop would tell you your driver license is connected to a national database showing history/citizenship/aliases /crimes. It would be easy to connected voter registration to the national data base . and the fact that multiple states (mine) already requested driver license to register to vote to verify.
> Proving your citizen, 4 different times is insulting. especially when Most of those "requirements" are placed on minorities.
> In 2016, out of everyone what was requested to proof citizenship while voting, 80% were Minorities
> ...


Oh, I am not overestimating anything. The government sucks and everything it touches is immediately inefficient and crap, but that issue isn't unique to the states.


----------



## Kurt91 (Mar 11, 2021)

I had to go get my passport replaced back on Tuesday. Admittedly, my sister helped me with a lot of the work like filling out forms and getting a money order to pay for it (Don't know why they don't take cash for that particular fee), but other than a birth certificate and photocopy of my State ID (I don't have a driver's license), that's all they really wanted. Rode the bus to the Post Office with all my stuff in an envelope, got my picture taken for the passport, and was in and out in about 25-30 minutes. Just have to wait a week or two for the passport to be made and mailed to me along with getting my birth certificate back. (Don't know why they needed to keep the official one instead of the photocopy I had with me, but they took the original and said it'll be mailed back with my new passport.)

To be completely fair regarding the experience, I live in a fairly small college town (Look up "Eastern Washington University" to get an idea) instead of a big city. My sister helped me with the process, like I said earlier. Yes, I had to wait for my turn to enter the lobby, since they had a 3-people-at-once rule because of COVID. Other than that, like I said, it was fairly quick and painless, at around 25-30 minutes. I had more trouble with the bus ride to get to my appointment because I forgot my ID back at the dorm building the first time around, and since I'd never been to the post office before, I didn't see it and missed my stop and had to backtrack a couple blocks on-foot.

Still, I'd imagine if a Driver's License or State ID isn't good enough to act as Voter ID, getting a Voter ID would be a similar or identical process to getting a passport, right?


----------



## djpannda (Mar 11, 2021)

We can Word it any way we can but 
These restriction are not for the legality of the votes but as Republicans stated  "quality of votes"

 Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1370077390282616836
P.S. Quality usually means areas where minorities don't vote.


----------



## smf (Mar 11, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> By ID I mean a piece of plastic issued by the government that contains adequate security features and enables a government official to identify you, ideally issued for free upon reaching whatever age the state considers to be "mature enough" to participate, which is the standard in the rest of the civilised world.



How do you deal with people fraudulently obtaining ID?



Foxi4 said:


> I'm not interested in any conspiracy theories regarding how it would "exclude some voters", and I'm going to call them that because that's what they are.



How surprising, of course you'll entertain the conspiracy theories that it's actually worth the effort to make these changes, but you won't entertain the facts of the negative effects. Because things you don't like are conspiracy theories.



djpannda said:


> We can Word it any way we can but
> These restriction are not for the legality of the votes but as Republicans stated  "quality of votes"



Weird, if they improve the quality of votes then the republicans will NEVER get voted in again.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It really takes an American to logic their way into thinking that the government shouldn't require an ID if you want to participate in the democratic process.


Don't the vast majority of European countries (and other first-world countries) have universal mail-in voting?  That's by far the most common sense method of dealing with millions of ballots.  Besides, all your information is verified when you register to vote in the US, there's no reason to require ID every time you show up to vote as well, that's just another layer of pointless bureaucracy/red tape.


----------



## smf (Mar 11, 2021)

djpannda said:


> oh  you mean like....*a Driver/State ID.*. we already have that...when Republicans say "voter ID" they refer to additional ID,



Or facial recognition....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/technology/facial-recognition-race-artificial-intelligence.html

*Facial Recognition Is Accurate, if You’re a White Guy*


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 11, 2021)

smf said:


> How do you deal with people fraudulently obtaining ID?


You put them in prison for fraud. Forging ID's is a felony, and making a fake one that would pass the rather stringent modern security checks is no small feat - pretty much impossible to nail for a counterfeiter.


> How surprising, of course you'll entertain the conspiracy theories that it's actually worth the effort to make these changes, but you won't entertain the facts of the negative effects. Because things you don't like are conspiracy theories.


Failing to implement basic security measures present around the world that improve the integrity of the democratic process on the basis of completely imaginary outcomes because of a deeply-held belief that a cabal of politicians wants brown people to stop voting is the definition of a conspiracy theory. I'm not sure who's more racist here - the people who expect voters to have some pretty basic competence in regards to filling out a form or the camp that maintains they're presumably too stupid to do so. Asking for ID is not a high bar.


Xzi said:


> Don't the vast majority of European countries (and other first-world countries) have universal mail-in voting?  That's by far the most common sense method of dealing with millions of ballots.  Besides, all your information is verified when you register to vote in the US, there's no reason to require ID every time you show up to vote as well, that's just another layer of pointless bureaucracy/red tape.


Only upon request in the countries I've lived in, I would have to check how it looks like across the continent. Unsolicited ballots are most definitely unprecedented - in the UK I have to register to vote each year, but nobody's forcing me *or* facilitating anything - I have to choose to vote and enact the effort (which I don't since pretty much all the parties suck in one way or another and I can't support any of them). In regards to identity checks during registration, that's insufficient in my estimation - identification should be checked when the ballot is cast to prevent any third-parties from casting a ballot on your behalf without authorisation. Not only that, people don't always update their registration - according to Pew Research, there are 1.8 million dead voters registered nationally, and another 3 million voters registered in multiple states. Again, asking for photo ID is not a high bar, it's actually pretty darn basic. You need one to drive, you need one to buy a drink in a bar, you need one to buy a pack of cigarettes, but you know when you don't need one? When you're voting for the most powerful person on the planet who will be in charge of a nuclear superpower for the next 4 years. For an outsider like myself your entire process is completely asinine.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Again, asking for photo ID is not a high bar, it's actually pretty darn basic. You need one to drive, you need one to buy a drink in a bar, you need one to buy a pack of cigarettes, but you know when you don't need one? When you're voting for the most powerful person on the planet who will be in charge of a nuclear superpower for the next 4 years. For an outsider like myself your entire process is completely asinine.


It would be a bigger priority if we actually had a problem with wide-scale voter fraud.  Even as far back as two or three decades ago the numbers have remained fairly consistent, we get roughly 10-20 cases of verified voter fraud each election cycle.  When you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist there's usually an ulterior motive involved, and Republicans have definitely done their research on who voter ID laws are most likely to impact, and where they live.

I'd be a little less cynical if Republicans were also making a big push to guard against election fraud, but I haven't heard a peep from them in that regard.  This isn't about ensuring elections remain free and fair, it's about ensuring the minority party still has a path to victory no matter how unpopular their platform and ideas become.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'd be a little less cynical if Republicans were also making a big push to guard against election fraud, but I haven't heard a peep from them in that regard.



Someone has been plugging their ears for the past decade.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Someone has been plugging their ears for the past decade.


Again you're thinking about voter fraud, they've been pretending that's a much bigger problem than it actually is for as long as I can remember.  Meanwhile, election fraud was committed as recently as 2016 in Georgia, and the people responsible received little more than a slap on the wrist.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Ok, I see the point of your separating them as two different issues.  Do you think overall election integrity needs to be improved from a standpoint of fraud, or that the situation, as it is, is negligible?  Curious.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Ok, I see the point of your separating them as two different issues.  Do you think overall election integrity needs to be improved from a standpoint of fraud, or that the situation, as it is, is negligible?  Curious.


The system could be better protected against election fraud, as those in power know its ins and outs best, and therefore they best know its vulnerabilities and how to exploit them.  From a voters' perspective it's mostly fine, though if we aren't going to set universal mail-in voting as the standard, we need to at least make election day a federal holiday.  The fact that it isn't already continues to be a huge detriment to working class voters.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 12, 2021)

buhahahha
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/TheSent62943446/status/1370179714837450755


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> buhahahha
> https://twitter.com/TheSent62943446/status/1370179714837450755



Those are just bots.  Besides 9,000 isn't that impressive for a president anyway.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Those are just bots.  Besides 9,000 isn't that impressive for a president anyway.


What you meant to say is, "besides, Youtube views don't matter in the least for a president anyway."  Though I suppose it wouldn't surprise me if Trump supporters were to nominate PewDiePie in the future.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> What you meant to say is, "besides, Youtube views don't matter in the least for a president anyway."  Though I suppose it wouldn't surprise me if Trump supporters were to nominate PewDiePie in the future.



No.  I'm saying that he isn't popular and the views that he does get on youtube are due to bots--and "winning" a faked election.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> No.  I'm saying that he isn't popular and the views that he does get on youtube are due to bots and "winning" a fake election.


Yeah that's just idiocy.  Registered Democrats have outnumbered registered Republicans for quite some time, it's only a matter of getting them all to turn out.  Trump's handling of the pandemic was an easy path to high voter turnout.

Not to mention he killed off enough GOP voters in Georgia to turn the state blue.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah that's just idiocy.  Registered Democrats have outnumbered registered Republicans for quite some time, it's only a matter of getting them all to turn out.  Trump's handling of the pandemic was an easy path to high voter turnout.
> 
> Not to mention he killed off enough GOP voters in Georgia to turn the state blue.



What turned out, supposedly, were a stack of papers


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> What turned out, supposedly, were a stack of papers


Again, idiocy.  Lines were massive on election day, even despite a record number of people voting by mail.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Again, idiocy.  Lines were massive on election day, even despite a record number of people voting by mail.


In here I thought "stack of papers" meant money.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lines were massive on election day



Lines were massive on election on day--which were offset by massive stacks of paper--your so-called "turn out".



KingVamp said:


> In here I thought "stack of papers" meant money.



Double entendre.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Lines were massive on election on day--which were offset by massive stacks of paper--your so-called "turn out".


Idiocy thrice if you think in-person turnout was 100% Republican or mail-in ballots were 100% Democrat.  Losing one election is no excuse to start advocating for voter suppression.  And if elections were rigged, Trump never would've won the first time around.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Idiocy thrice if you think in-person turnout was 100% Republican or mail-in ballots were 100% Democrat. Losing one election is no excuse to start advocating for voter suppression. And if elections were rigged, Trump never would've won the first time around.



Yes, you've inferred that I'm an idiot three times now.  The first was because you disagree with my belief.  The second and the third were simply because you do not like the fact that the "turn out" of stacks of paper invalidated actual turnout.  You are inserting percentages and attacking that.  That's commonly known as a strawman in simplistic form.  I'm a messenger.

As far as "Trump never would've won the first time around," there are two points of fault.  First, the most popular, is that those implementing the methods of cheating underestimated the outcome of a Trump vote, and couldn't quite get away without giving themselves away.  (Hence mail in ballots for next time).  Second, my personal favorite, that Trump is apart of the show (I'm cynical).


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yes, you've inferred that I'm an idiot three times now. The first was because you disagree with my belief. The second and the third were simply because you do not like the fact that the "turn out" of stacks of paper invalidated actual turnout.


All three times were because you made demonstrably false statements, and because I expect you knew better but chose to play the fool anyway.  Whining about the election won't change its permanently-documented results.  Mail-in ballots aren't anything new, and they aren't going away any time soon either.  God forbid Republicans actually participate in our democracy by encouraging higher voter turnout, it's much easier to undermine democracy with underhanded voter suppression tactics, am I right?


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> All three times were because you made demonstrably false statements, and because I expect you knew better but chose to play the fool anyway.



Nope.  You may believe that but you have certainly not demonstrated it.  It seems like you want me to trust something that is outside of my reach.  Like a deity.   That's only about the first point.  The second two points are all about your disagreement with the fact that stacks of paper determined the outcome of the election--a claim which is demonstrably true.   It sucks for the narrative of a free and fair democracy, I get that.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The second two points are all about your disagreement with the fact that stacks of paper determined the outcome of the election--a claim which is demonstrably true. It sucks for the narrative of a free and fair democracy, I get that.


How so?  If anything, universal mail-in voting ensures a more free and fair democracy.  There is no data showing voter fraud occurs at a higher rate through mail.  You simply don't like the fact that it makes voting more accessible because that doesn't benefit your party of choice.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> How so?  If anything, universal mail-in voting ensures a more free and fair democracy.  There is no data showing voter fraud occurs at a higher rate through mail.  You simply don't like the fact that it makes voting more accessible because that doesn't benefit your party of choice.



Ideally it would, but it's a vulnerability in practice.  Care to respond to the  pertinent points that are the core of the conversation?  I could pretend it never happened, if that's what you prefer.

No data?  What's your source of "no data"?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Ideally it would, but it's a vulnerability in practice.  Care to respond to the  pertinent points that are the core of the conversation?  I could pretend it never happened, if that's what you prefer.


I don't know what points you're talking about.  That mail-in ballots may have tipped the 2020 election to Biden?  Sure, I'll concede that.  Higher voter turnout benefits Democrats regardless of what form it takes, and the reason is that the Republican platform is stuck in the 18th century.  Hard to deal with a pandemic when you're living in a largely pre-scientific era, I suppose.



tabzer said:


> No data? What's your source of "no data"?


I said "no data showing that voter fraud occurs at a higher rate through mail."  Or put another way, "the data shows roughly the same frequency of voter fraud through mail as in-person voter fraud."

I'm not sure why I even continue to discuss this with you.  It's hard to take Republicans complaining about voter fraud seriously when Trump literally told his supporters to vote twice in 2020.  Just another example of "rules for thee, not for me."


----------



## tabzer (Mar 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I don't know what points you're talking about. That mail-in ballots may have tipped the 2020 election to Biden? Sure, I'll concede that



Okay, then that's two points of me not actually being an idiot.  I'll take that.



Xzi said:


> Higher voter turnout benefits Democrats regardless of what form it takes, and the reason is that the Republican platform is stuck in the 18th century. Hard to deal with a pandemic when you're living in a largely pre-scientific era, I suppose.



It's strangely ironic that "the survival of the fittest" has turned into "the survival of the pussycats".  Care to shed some insight?  It's off topic, but It's interesting.



Xzi said:


> I said "no data showing that voter fraud occurs at a higher rate through mail." Or put another way, "the data shows roughly the same frequency of voter fraud through mail as in-person voter fraud."



Okay, so propaganda provided by "Wapo"  suggests that it's a non-issue.  You should have led with that.

As for the first point of "me being an idiot", I will respectfully acknowledge the right of you, in your own capacity, to perceive things in however they are most comfortable with your conscience.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Okay, then that's two points of me not being actually being an idiot. I'll take that.


Nah, it's still idiotic to believe all mail-in ballots are fraudulent, as you've implied multiple times.



tabzer said:


> It's strangely ironic that "the survival of the fittest" has turned into "the survival of the pussycats". Care to shed some insight? It's off topic, but It's interesting.


It's not that complicated: Republicans made themselves into a small-tent party by excluding anyone who isn't a straight, white, Christian male (and their wives).  Which allowed Democrats to seize the opportunity to become a big-tent party, welcoming of everybody else.  That diversity can be both a strength and a weakness at different times and in different circumstances, but a wannabe-dictator like Trump heading up the other party is an easy shortcut to Democratic unification.



tabzer said:


> Okay, so propaganda provided by "Wapo" suggests that it's a non-issue. You should have led with that.


Had you bothered to look, you'd know the data used in the article is from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC).  This "propaganda" also doesn't include data on the 2020 election, only 2016 and 2018.  But yes, I assumed there would be no legitimate academic or journalistic source which would be acceptable by your standards.


----------



## smf (Mar 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You put them in prison for fraud.



You misunderstand, I'm talking about the people who successfully obtain fake ID.

Because it's impossible to identify everyone.

This is one of those "the tighter your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" deals.

They know this, they aren't doing this because of voter fraud. It's to try to exclude people they don't want to vote.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 12, 2021)

just another day on Biden America 
Imagine if a version of the Capitol riot were happening … every night — for 8 months straight, but was somehow not being reported in the major media. That’s basically what’s been happening in Portland. pic.twitter.com/2ncpivdVbO— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 12, 2021


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> just another day on Biden America
> https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1370341728566251522


"Not being reported in the major media."

> Posts Fox News screengrab


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 13, 2021)

the Jan 6 lie
Bogus excuse to cover for the fact they have so little evidence for their big conspiracy theories. https://t.co/rEdynhPWoa— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) March 13, 2021


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 14, 2021)

Joe mama lmao


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 14, 2021)

BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/ElderBartleby/status/1367940491078156288


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 14, 2021)

Your sincere political views are no match for my dozen layers of irony


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN
> https://twitter.com/ElderBartleby/status/1367940491078156288


and now your regressing to shitposting what are you, two? btw i hope this turns the red tide in 2022 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/...l-media-report-intv-acfc-full-episode-vpx.cnn

a full list of tweets by the GOP Senators who tried to overturn the election


----------



## omgcat (Mar 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN
> https://twitter.com/ElderBartleby/status/1367940491078156288



sorry for your Biden Derangement Syndrome bud, hope it gets better.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 15, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> and now your regressing to shitposting what are you, two? btw i hope this turns the red tide in 2022
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/...l-media-report-intv-acfc-full-episode-vpx.cnn
> 
> a full list of tweets by the GOP Senators who tried to overturn the election





chrisrlink said:


> and now your regressing to shitposting what are you, two? btw i hope this turns the red tide in 2022
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/...l-media-report-intv-acfc-full-episode-vpx.cnn
> 
> a full list of tweets by the GOP Senators who tried to overturn the election


Like them dems have tried to do the in the past o no what a crime 

Buahahahahahahhaahah

also kids in cages


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2021)

The Washington Post lied, by the way. Again.






They are saying they 'misquoted' Trump. Misquoting is when you print "whistle" when the person really said, "whilst he." This is not misquoting. It's just lying. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...thy-correction-to-story-on-trump-georgia-call
https://www.mediaite.com/news/washi...election-officials-misquoted-trumps-comments/


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 16, 2021)

Once again he was right
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/TrumpJew2/status/1371842069434617873


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 17, 2021)

and @Valwinz is one of the reasons why i hate this subforum


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 17, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> and @Valwinz is one of the reasons why i hate this subforum


Kids in cages


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Kids in cages


funny how you only even acknowledge this when Biden opens _one_ facility, likely under far better conditions (considering it's pretty damn hard to have WORSE conditions than those places had under Trump), after ignoring Trump maintaining multiple at the worst plausible conditions he could get away with for years
the hypocrisy is astounding


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> funny how you only even acknowledge this when Biden opens _one_ facility, likely under far better conditions (considering it's pretty damn hard to have WORSE conditions than those places had under Trump), after ignoring Trump maintaining multiple at the worst plausible conditions he could get away with for years
> the hypocrisy is astounding


I mean, that doesn't change the fact that biden is keeping kids in cages


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> funny how you only even acknowledge this when Biden opens _one_ facility, likely under far better conditions (considering it's pretty damn hard to have WORSE conditions than those places had under Trump), after ignoring Trump maintaining multiple at the worst plausible conditions he could get away with for years
> the hypocrisy is astounding


Kids still in cages


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 17, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> funny how you only even acknowledge this when Biden opens _one_ facility, likely under far better conditions (considering it's pretty damn hard to have WORSE conditions than those places had under Trump), after ignoring Trump maintaining multiple at the worst plausible conditions he could get away with for years
> the hypocrisy is astounding


Not to mention, intentionally separating families.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Kids still in cages


Which is indefensible, but the fact the previous president started it is still fucking trash. I did hear that Biden might pass something that wouldn't keep them in cages, but it likely would be neutered by the GOP in the senate through the filibuster. Regardless the fact it's still continuing is garbage

Correction: previous president made it worse, but still regardless it's trash (obama started that. which regardless no matter what that's trash.)


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 17, 2021)

Honestly, I'm not sure what they are going to do, if they just give them all amnesty, people would be mad about that too.


monkeyman4412 said:


> Which is indefensible, but the fact the previous president started it is still fucking trash. I did hear that Biden might pass something that wouldn't keep them in cages, but it likely would be neutered by the GOP in the senate through the filibuster. Regardless the fact it's still continuing is garbage


To be fair, the previous president didn't start it all, he just made it worse.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 17, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I mean, that doesn't change the fact that biden is keeping kids in cages




+1

729%
https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas...-of-unaccompanied-children-at-southern-border
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-children-detained-in-overcrowded-conditions/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/13/us/border-detention-conditions/index.html

3x the level seen last year
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/15/us/border-migrant-children-texas.html
https://apnews.com/article/immigrat...atrols-texas-9b959d739d59f03dd5873927171f2e29


----------



## tabzer (Mar 18, 2021)

Can anyone comment on these poor special effects?  Why is there an effort to fake Biden being outside?


----------



## tthousand (Mar 18, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Can anyone comment on these poor special effects?  Why is there an effort to fake Biden being outside?





Looks legit to me. As for the booms, it does not appear that they were faked to me. Also, it's neat to note it actually looks like he is riding on AF1 now. 

It doesn't change the fact that the guy is complete joke though. No state of the union address, no press events. 

Lastly, I found this video which reminds me of how the younger generation tends to see the Bide'n administration. (Spoiler: VP President Harris said "They are stupid")


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 18, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Trump supporters in cages


fixed,
that would be a dream come true for me honestly i hate how free speech protects hate speech I mean look at the spikes in hate crimes against asians still happening because in todays world hate speech seems to always trigger hate crimes in some form or fashion


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 18, 2021)

did anyone just see this?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/kamala-harris-residence-arrest/index.html 

I'd say slap a conspiracy to assassinate a political official to the damn charges he wasn't doing sight seeing you know


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Mar 18, 2021)

Q: "Do you think Putin's a killer?

BIDEN: "I do."

Q: "So what price must he pay?"

BIDEN: "The price he's gonna pay will, you'll see shortly. I'm not gonna, there's, by the way, we outta be able, that old, that tried expression walk and chew gum at the same time."

https://twitter.com/magaizzyy/status/1372353887492005888?s=19


----------



## Xzi (Mar 18, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Q: "Do you think Putin's a killer?
> 
> BIDEN: "I do."
> 
> ...


Biden always gotta throw some dumb folksy expression at the end of most sentences.  Thank god he doesn't cower like a whipped puppy whenever Putin is in the room or his name is mentioned like Trump did, though.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 18, 2021)

Love Biden dementia getting into wars


----------



## Xzi (Mar 18, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Love Biden dementia getting into wars


We're not gonna go to war with Russia you derp.  We're just gonna hack them back at an undisclosed time and on an undisclosed scale.  Give 'em a taste of their own medicine and maybe seize some of Putin's trillions of dollars in the process.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 18, 2021)

Xzi said:


> We're not gonna go to war with Russia you derp.  We're just gonna hack them back at an undisclosed time and on an undisclosed scale.  Give 'em a taste of their own medicine and maybe seize some of Putin's trillions of dollars in the process.


imao Dementia defense force is here war have started for less


----------



## Xzi (Mar 18, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao Dementia defense force is here war have started for less


LMAO Putin's bitchboizz are here, Russia already hacked our government while Trump was in office and he did nothing about it, Biden's just on cleanup duty.  Russia remains a failed state, they cannot start a war with the US without launching a nuke and causing mutually assured annihilation.  That's why Putin sticks to poisoning/torturing people in other countries, tactics picked up from being ex-KGB.

Meanwhile, if we wanted to start a war with Russia, we already would have.  They've all but annexed Ukraine already.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Mar 18, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Biden always gotta throw some dumb folksy expression at the end of most sentences.  Thank god he doesn't cower like a whipped puppy whenever Putin is in the room or his name is mentioned like Trump did, though.


He literally just cowered from a face to face meeting with Putin.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Can anyone comment on these poor special effects?  Why is there an effort to fake Biden being outside?


This is fake conspiracy nonsense that has already been debunked.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 19, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> He literally just cowered from a face to face meeting with Putin.


How is rejecting a meeting with an adversary whom you've deemed a "killer" the same thing as cowering from him?  Trump never would've dared to accuse Putin of any crime, let alone murder.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This is fake conspiracy nonsense that has already been debunked.


The way his hands move in front of the booms makes it look really fake.  Thanks for contributing nothing worthwhile.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 19, 2021)

Dementia Biden so far 
Biden foreign policy #ICYMI:🇷🇺 Putin mocks Biden with live debate challenge Biden is too 'busy' for🇨🇳 China says US no longer can negotiate from position of 'strength'🇲🇽 Biden begs Mexico to help stop migrants after reversing Trump policyBang up job. Can't wait for Day 59!— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) March 19, 2021


----------



## Xzi (Mar 19, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Dementia Biden so far
> https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1372776866117951491


So far all Biden has done domestically and abroad is clean up some of Trump's messes and pass a massive COVID relief bill.  I know you're in a big damn hurry to nominate some vapid reality TV star like Snooki for president in 2024, but you need to calm the fuck down.  There will be plenty of time to levy legitimate criticism at Biden in the meantime, you don't need to cry wolf over every little thing.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Mar 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I would think that if voter ID is supposed to help prevent fraud, then more efforts should, instead, be made to expose the said fraud.


agonizing stupidity



smf said:


> How do you deal with people fraudulently obtaining ID?


you don't, it's a non-issue



tabzer said:


> Ok, I see the point of your separating them as two different issues.  Do you think overall election integrity needs to be improved from a standpoint of fraud, or that the situation, as it is, is negligible?  Curious.


negligible
this is a matter of fact



tabzer said:


> It's strangely ironic that "the survival of the fittest" has turned into "the survival of the pussycats".  Care to shed some insight?  It's off topic, but It's interesting.


survival of the fittest was and is not the way to run a civilized society
it is the way animals conduct themselves, we became self-aware an awfully long time ago
co-operation beats survival of the fittest 100% of the time



monkeyman4412 said:


> Which is indefensible, but


Indefensible BUT


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 19, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Indefensible BUT


If you read the whole thing and know my speech.
It's not a defense. I was mostly pointing out trump made it worse. (originally and wrongfully thinking its started with him.)
Biden shouldn't be doing it in the first place. This is supported by the fact I followed up in the same message with the following:
"Regardless the fact it's still continuing is garbage"
I use but as means to tie two thoughts together, it's technically not correct, but that's how I think and speak. (mental disabilities. Autism specifically)


----------



## tabzer (Mar 19, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> agonizing stupidity



Which part?  If you can read it, it's insinuating that the whole thing is lip service not really intending to make a difference in anything.  It's only meant to appeal to votership. 



Darth Meteos said:


> negligible
> this is a matter of fact



Opinion. 



Darth Meteos said:


> survival of the fittest was and is not the way to run a civilized society
> it is the way animals conduct themselves, we became self-aware an awfully long time ago
> co-operation beats survival of the fittest 100% of the time



Many animals and insects "co-operate".  Being an intellectual animal doesn't separate you from the rest of nature.



monkeyman4412 said:


> If you read the whole thing and know my speech.
> It's not a defense. I was mostly pointing out trump made it worse. (originally and wrongfully thinking its stated with him.)
> Biden shouldn't be doing it in the first place. This is supported by the fact I followed up in the same message with the following:
> "Regardless the fact it's still continuing is garbage"
> I use but as means to tie two thoughts together, it's technically not correct, but that's how I think and speak. (mental disabilities. Autism specifically)



@Plasmaster09 we need you!  Shout,"whataboutism!", like it means something!


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nah, it's still idiotic to believe all mail-in ballots are fraudulent, as you've implied multiple times.


Alright smart ass, explain this:
I have many family members and friends living in the US, all of them Cuban refugees that don't have citizenship and some don't even have any sort of ID. They are not LEGALLY allowed to vote under any circumstance under any democracy (they could't vote in the US, or Spain, or anywhere else that has a decent democracy). Yet ALL of them received mail in ballots in THEIR name.
How is that not voter fraud? Please enlighten me, cause in any decent democracy that would be voter fraud, but it seems in the US it's just "a vulnerability in the voting system", so if it's not ILEGAL, then it is (in the best case) ALEGAL.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The way his hands move in front of the booms makes it look really fake.  Thanks for contributing nothing worthwhile.


I contributed a lot more than you when I acknowledged your post was debunked bullshit. I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient for you.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-green-screen/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Acid_Snake said:


> Alright smart ass, explain this:
> I have many family members and friends living in the US, all of them Cuban refugees that don't have citizenship and some don't even have any sort of ID. They are not LEGALLY allowed to vote under any circumstance under any democracy (they could't vote in the US, or Spain, or anywhere else that has a decent democracy). Yet ALL of them received mail in ballots in THEIR name.
> How is that not voter fraud? Please enlighten me, cause in any decent democracy that would be voter fraud, but it seems in the US it's just "a vulnerability in the voting system", so if it's not ILEGAL, then it is (in the best case) ALEGAL.


Whether or not someone received a mail ballot by mistake is irrelevant to whether or not someone successfully voted by mail (and it was counted) when they shouldn't have.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I contributed a lot more than you when I acknowledged your post was debunked bullshit. I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient for you.



Well, you just did with a reference to a more insightful analysis.  Let's not pretend that your words alone are a godsend.

What I posted was sketchy in appearance and needed something more than...just you.



Lacius said:


> by mistake


----------



## Louse (Mar 19, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Alright smart ass, explain this:
> I have many family members and friends living in the US, all of them Cuban refugees that don't have citizenship and some don't even have any sort of ID. They are not LEGALLY allowed to vote under any circumstance under any democracy (they could't vote in the US, or Spain, or anywhere else that has a decent democracy). Yet ALL of them received mail in ballots in THEIR name.
> How is that not voter fraud? Please enlighten me, cause in any decent democracy that would be voter fraud, but it seems in the US it's just "a vulnerability in the voting system", so if it's not ILEGAL, then it is (in the best case) ALEGAL.


shouldnt we worry about making them citizens first before lockin' em up? cause they like, live here and contribute to the economy and stuff


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Biden always gotta throw some dumb folksy expression at the end of most sentences.  *Thank god he doesn't cower like a whipped puppy whenever Putin is in the room *or his name is mentioned like Trump did, though.




So he's gonna accept Putin's debate challenge then?


----------



## Louse (Mar 19, 2021)

old men, running the world. a new age


----------



## Seliph (Mar 19, 2021)

God I wanna see Biden debate Putin so badly it would be hilarious


----------



## Louse (Mar 19, 2021)

Seliph said:


> God I wanna see Biden debate Putin so badly it would be hilarious


b - ''The people come first*!"
p - ''no''


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 19, 2021)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rs-smoked-pot-told-past-highs-overlooked.html


----------



## Seliph (Mar 19, 2021)

lol


----------



## djpannda (Mar 19, 2021)

Seliph said:


> lol


lol to be fair the first article clearly states "some" .0001% is "some"


----------



## Seliph (Mar 19, 2021)

djpannda said:


> lol to be fair the first article clearly states "some" .0001% is "some"


True true


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> , you don't need to cry wolf over every little thing.



The irony of a Trump hater saying this.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



The man doesn't know what day of the week it is. Doesn't know if he's the president or not.
Literally can't form coherent sentences. 
Can't answer direct questions from the media or his handlers will be in full panic mode.
Can't walk up a flight of stairs on his own.

Biden won't make it to 2022 as president.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 19, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> The irony of a Trump hater saying this.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Man you "people" are scared shitless of Harris 
....
cant wait for President Harris...


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Mar 19, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Man you "people" are scared shitless of Harris
> ....
> cant wait for President Harris...



How did you get that from what I said? Also, nice of you to admit Biden is literally unfit for office. At least you're honest.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 19, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> How did you get that from what I said? Also, nice of you to admit Biden is literally unfit for office. At least you're honest.


Yup. a Female President ..
a BLACK Female President ..
The Nightmare of hooded Americans,


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Mar 19, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Yup. a Female President ..
> a BLACK Female President ..
> The Nightmare of hooded Americans,


Is Kamala even Black? What is this weird cope.
Reminder the left cried and bitches about cops for 6 months. Refund the police and ACAB right? Now a cop is going to be president.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 19, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Is Kamala even Black? What is this weird cope.
> Reminder the left cried and bitches about cops for 6 months. Refund the police and ACAB right? Now a cop is going to be president.


you right!!
Harris is black and Eastern Asian.

Man, must make the Aryan blood boil !


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Mar 19, 2021)

The Hill on Twitter: "President Joe Biden trips climbing the stairs to Air Force 1 https://t.co/x8UD7q0a48" / Twitter





Anyone over the age of 60 should not serve in a federal positon.


----------



## Louse (Mar 19, 2021)

everyone still sucks, imma be president


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 19, 2021)

im going to go out on a limb and say the media will barely cover this yet couldnt stop talking about trump walking down a ramp slowly


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well, you just did with a reference to a more insightful analysis.  Let's not pretend that your words alone are a godsend.
> 
> What I posted was sketchy in appearance and needed something more than...just you.


Your post was utter bullshit that should embarrass you, regardless of whether or not my post was accompanied by a link.


----------



## Louse (Mar 19, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> im going to go out on a limb and say the media will barely cover this yet couldnt stop talking about trump walking down a ramp slowly


why cant the media represent the parties as equally old/out-of-touch/bad


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 19, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> im going to go out on a limb and say the media will barely cover this yet couldnt stop talking about trump walking down a ramp slowly




American media will cover it below the fold and quickly smother it down the memory hole.

The media in other countries will spotlight it.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 19, 2021)

Seliph said:


> lol


Someone was paid to write "it's lit" under the headline

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



0xFFFFFFFF said:


> why cant the media represent the parties as equally old/out-of-touch/bad


"But..but trump did it worse, so that makes it ok"


----------



## Louse (Mar 19, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> American media will cover it below the fold and quickly smother it down the memory hole.
> 
> The media in other countries will spotlight it.


making fun of america is and has always been the peak of comedy in all the non-american countries, and that should tell you all you need to know


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 19, 2021)

THIS DUDE HAS OUR NUKE CODES
Biden: 'Putin on the Ritz' pic.twitter.com/RMRyqsflbn— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) March 19, 2021


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Mar 19, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> why cant the media represent the parties as equally old/out-of-touch/bad



They do. It depends on which media source a person chooses to listen to.



Valwinz said:


> THIS DUDE HAS OUR NUKE CODES



Perhaps check some of the older posts before you post your bullshit. It will prevent you from making yourself look like a complete idiot again.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 19, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> THIS DUDE HAS OUR NUKE CODES
> https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1372952915086807046


@POTUS 46🇺🇸 hasn't done anything inhumane by missing a step and falling, Even President 38th, President Ford once fall down the Airforce steps...... Let's not be malicious against it. PERIOD pic.twitter.com/aF5BLU0Wdu— Lunathi Kilani-Matomela 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 (@lunietoolz) March 19, 2021

yea thats weird.. The Presidents after the "I'm not  a Crook " ones tend to slip.. 

Might be cuz of all the shit the last one left.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 19, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Figures. Nothing original to say. Just copy/paste. Didn't know this was an image board. Already bored with you, kiddo.


We have a President who actually just fell "up" the stairs.


----------



## Louse (Mar 19, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> We have a President who actually just fell "up" the stairs.


Have you ever _tried _walking up stairs?


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Mar 19, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> We have a President who actually just fell "up" the stairs.



And? What exactly is your point here? A guy tripped going up some stairs. So you've never had that happen to yourself and/or have never seen or even heard of it happening to someone? Seriously, what is your point? A guy tripped. And....... is there something more you wanted to add. Or....?

Edit: I mean. For the record, we had a president who didn't know how to close a fucking umbrella. So, yeah. I'll be waiting for what exactly your point was.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Many animals and insects "co-operate". Being an intellectual animal doesn't separate you from the rest of nature.


that's absurd naturalism to the highest degree. There's no need for survival of the fittest when the human species can create solutions to the most basic problems. And even then, studies show that if there was a caged mouse, and another mouse nearby. Not only would that nearby mouse try to get that mouse out, but also share any food to the caged mouse if they have it on them.
So no survival of the fittest is no way to run a society.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 19, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> And? What exactly is your point here? A guy tripped going up some stairs. So you've never had that happen to yourself and/or have never seen or even heard of it happening to someone? Seriously, what is your point? A guy tripped. And....... is there something more you wanted to add. Or....?
> 
> Edit: I mean. For the record, we had a president who didn't know how to close a fucking umbrella. So, yeah. I'll be waiting for what exactly your point was.


is a L day for Biden voters
joe el no! pic.twitter.com/XYdwX4xRd6— Kaleb (@KalebPrime) March 19, 2021


----------



## Darth Meteos (Mar 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Opinion.


alright, sir
let us see your evidence
show me the voter fraud that is not under the definition of negligible



tabzer said:


> Many animals and insects "co-operate".  Being an intellectual animal doesn't separate you from the rest of nature.


It absolutely does. Nature has us crack women over the head to use them as captive brood mares. We are above base instincts at this point. We have such abundance that we can apportion resources to all at this point. Doing so is a no-brainer.
Self-awareness brings empathy, something that does not factor into our instincts. It is not a weakness, it is our greatest strength.

*Snip*


----------



## Xzi (Mar 19, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Alright smart ass, explain this:
> I have many family members and friends living in the US, all of them Cuban refugees that don't have citizenship and some don't even have any sort of ID. They are not LEGALLY allowed to vote under any circumstance under any democracy (they could't vote in the US, or Spain, or anywhere else that has a decent democracy). Yet ALL of them received mail in ballots in THEIR name.
> How is that not voter fraud? Please enlighten me, cause in any decent democracy that would be voter fraud, but it seems in the US it's just "a vulnerability in the voting system", so if it's not ILEGAL, then it is (in the best case) ALEGAL.


Assuming you're telling the truth, more likely than not they received provisional ballots, which aren't guaranteed to be counted toward the official totals.



Hanafuda said:


> So he's gonna accept Putin's debate challenge then?


Debate about what?  The fact that Putin poisoned Navalny?  We fucking know he did.  There's no reason to give him another platform to lie his ass off for an hour.  Same deal on the subject of COVID.  There's absolutely nothing to be gained by the US or Biden through "debating" Putin.  We're already at the retaliation stage, so we'll let that do the talking.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2021)

@Valwinz If you're going to post links to Twitter (which are permissable by the way - we have this feature for a reason, they're not "just images"), you have to provide some sort of your own commentary - even one line is fine, but make an effort. If you don't and you're just memeing, they're heading straight into the bin. Next one will be a warn, don't instigate arguments.

Everybody else - next time I catch someone reporting a post *while* they're also replying to it and continuing the trash fire, I'll warn them too for good measure. You *know* you're getting trolled and you take the bait? Good job, you've just generated a bigger workload for me, and I'm a rather lazy guy. Your responses are no less off-topic than the original bait, they'll get trashed too.

Don't y'all worry, I have the appropriate tools to teach everybody a lesson if you don't start behaving in the sandbox.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 19, 2021)

In other news, the education secretary is cancelling student loans again.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Mar 19, 2021)

Giving an opinion that isn't tickling Joe bidens balls is an offense apparently.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> In other news, the education secretary is cancelling student loans again.


In all fairness, there's a tax hike coming up, so *someone* is paying those loans off, just under the guise of higher taxation. I bet Americans can't wait to pay for the mistakes of thousands of 20-somethings who picked majors that only enable them to acquire the prestigious position of "professionally homeless". That's neither here nor there though.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 19, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Giving an opinion that isn't tickling Joe bidens balls is an offense apparently.


Nah, legitimate criticism is fine, presidents are not meant to be deified like rock stars or cult leaders.  The problem comes when you're really reaching for any excuse to blast him just because you know the last guy was a fucking dumpster fire, and you're in a hurry to extinguish the remaining embers so that people can begin the process of forgetting.  Well sorry, but Trump's presidency isn't about to be memory-holed, and neither are the 500K dead Americans forever attached to it.


----------



## BeastMode6 (Mar 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nah, legitimate criticism is fine, presidents are not meant to be deified like rock stars or cult leaders.


Absolutely, I try to remain skeptical of all of them. It's the reason I can't stand "vote blue no matter who" or the trump movement. People should support ideas and policy positions. Instead, we get blind figure worship like Trump and Qanon. Politics in this country is so screwed its almost not even worth talking about anymore.


----------



## Glyptofane (Mar 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> We're not gonna go to war with Russia you derp.  We're just gonna hack them back at an undisclosed time and on an undisclosed scale.  Give 'em a taste of their own medicine and maybe seize some of Putin's trillions of dollars in the process.


Maybe not directly, but it's certainly set up as if to remain a possibility. The nonsense situation in Syria is like a twisted up triad of hot, cold, and proxy wars all at once. It seems to be a war between Israel and Iran within Syria at the heart of it, although Turkey's position may be legitimately against Syria itself. The US is there on behalf of Israel, Russia on behalf of Iran/Syria, but it's so far largely cold as far as any direct conflict between US/Israel and Russia goes. The whole thing is of course very stupid and very much instigated by Israel.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 19, 2021)

Glyptofane said:


> Maybe not directly, but it's certainly set up as if to remain a possibility. The nonsense situation in Syria is like a twisted up triad of hot, cold, and proxy wars all at once. It seems to be a war between Israel and Iran within Syria at the heart of it, although Turkey's position may be legitimately against Syria itself. The US is there on behalf of Israel, Russia on behalf of Iran/Syria, but it's so far largely cold as far as any direct conflict between US/Israel and Russia goes. The whole thing is of course very stupid and very much instigated by Israel.


I'd say Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Russia all stand to gain in different ways from the US starting a war with Iran.  Thankfully I don't see Biden taking that bait, so they're gonna have to wait at least four more years for their little proxy war.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Your post was utter bullshit that should embarrass you, regardless of whether or not my post was accompanied by a link.


Don't bully me.  You are wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Don't bully me.  You are wrong.


It's not bullying to point out when your post, like many of your posts, is conspiratorial drivel. Stop and ask yourself "is this information true?" before posting next time, and you won't misinterpret rightful condemnations as attacks.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 19, 2021)

Your posts are utter bullshit that should embarrass you.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 19, 2021)

Here is a follow up on more fraud. Link


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Your posts are utter bullshit that should embarrass you.


I'm not the one who regularly posts unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense that has repeatedly been debunked.

Your post wasn't as clever as you think it was.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not the one who regularly posts unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense that has repeatedly been debunked.
> 
> Your post wasn't as clever as you think it was.



It wasn't supposed to be clever.  It was a genuine "wtf".

Thank you for the %10 of your post that was actual contribution.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 20, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Assuming you're telling the truth, more likely than not they received provisional ballots, which aren't guaranteed to be counted toward the official totals.


Assuming you are correct and those ballots didn't get counted (which is weird considering the huge ammount of voter turn in that has never happened before), it still doesn't change the fact that an election like this one has never been done like this in any known and sane democracy. This didn't happen even in the civil war. It's fishy at best, and any sane democracy would have repeated the elections with this sort of fraudulent mail in ballots invalidated in favor of how it has always been done before (requiring the person to register and issue a formal petition for mail in voting rather than sending ballots to every living being, including pets).

Anyways, since you don't believe me with the idea of inmigrants receiving ballots when they shouldn't be able to vote, here's a video of a widely known Cuban youtuber who received a ballot (and his wife too), despite not having nationality (warning, it's in Spanish):


Here's another video (in English) explaining why this method of mail in voting has never been done before and why it shouldn't have been allowed:

Please check the comments, it's not just one or two people, but many having received illegal ballots for dead family members and even pets.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Assuming you are correct and those ballots didn't get counted (which is weird considering the huge ammount of voter turn in that has never happened before), it still doesn't change the fact that an election like this one has never been done like this in any known and sane democracy. This didn't happen even in the civil war. It's fishy at best, and any sane democracy would have repeated the elections with this sort of fraudulent mail in ballots invalidated in favor of how it has always been done before (requiring the person to register and issue a formal petition for mail in voting rather than sending ballots to every living being, including pets).
> 
> Anyways, since you don't believe me with the idea of inmigrants receiving ballots when they shouldn't be able to vote, here's a video of a widely known Cuban youtuber who received a ballot (and his wife too), despite not having nationality (warning, it's in Spanish):
> 
> ...



Receiving mail ballots isn't the same thing as successfully casting mail-in votes and having them counted.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Receiving mail ballots isn't the same thing as successfully casting mail-in votes and having them counted.


You just copy pasted the same thing the other guy said, you added nothing new. As I said, even if only valid ballots were counted (which I highly doubt), it still doesn't change the fact that ballots were sent ILLEGALLY, making the entire election completely different from what has been done until now in every democracy and very different from the entire history of US elections, stinking of fraud and raising valid concern.
If you can spend 4 years talking about Russian intervention in the elections (WITHOUT any evidence or reason), you should also be critical of this election, otherwise you're just a hypocrict and you don't really care about democracy, you just want your lord and savior to win no matter what (which is the total opposite of a democracy).


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> You just copy pasted the same thing the other guy said, you added nothing new. As I said, even if only valid ballots were counted (which I highly doubt), it still doesn't change the fact that ballots were sent ILLEGALLY, making the entire election completely different from what has been done until now in every democracy and very different from the entire history of US elections, stinking of fraud and raising valid concern.
> If you can spend 4 years talking about Russian intervention in the elections (WITHOUT any evidence or reason), you should also be critical of this election, otherwise you're just a hypocrict and you don't really care about democracy, you just want your lord and savior to win no matter what (which is the total opposite of a democracy).


Russia demonstrably interfered in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections

There are safeguards in place to prevent mail-in ballots from unregistered voters from being counted. You act as though people who vote by mail don't have to input various pieces of information proving their identities as lawfully registered voters. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and there's no evidence any significant amount of mail-in votes from unregistered voters were counted. Feel free to come back when you find some. Ballots allegedly arriving in some people's mailboxes by mistake isn't it.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Russia demonstrably interfered in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections


Do you even read your own sources? To quote from the wikipedia article you just linked:

"The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates."

One thing is Putin pulling his strings and propaganda machine to try to favor a candidate of a foreign country (yes, he does this, he does it to everyone, and so does your goverment, get over it), and a totally different story is to say that Trump's campaign was directly tied to Russia's intervention, which has absolutely no proof whatsoever.



Lacius said:


> There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and there's no evidence any significant amount of mail-in votes from unregistered voters were counted.


There's also no evidence of Trump using Russian to win the elections (he didn't, it was useless, Hilary wasn't going to win and you know it). However, Russian intervention happened, and illegally sending ballots to people with no checks in place also happened, we just don't have proof of neither Trump nor Biden having anything to do with it, and quite frankly you'll never find it, and if anything all this just shows that the elections are weak and needs some big time revisioning and reinforcement, but I guess you don't want that because this time around it was your feudal lord who won the election so you're happy now and won't talk about election issues anymore unless the opposing feudal lord wins.
I stand by my point, you don't give two sh*ts about democracy or fair elections, you just want your lord to win and at whatever cost (burning cities down, censoring opposing views in media, insulting and calling names to anyone who dares question your views or dares to have their own view of life...)


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Do you even read your own sources? To quote from the wikipedia article you just linked:
> 
> "The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates."
> 
> ...


As I already said, Russia demonstrably meddled in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Whether or not Trump colluded with Russia is irrelevant to the fact that you were wrong when you said they didn't.

I'll talk about widespread election fraud when there's evidence of widespread election fraud. Everything up until now has been unsubstantiated, or worse, debunked.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You act as though people who vote by mail don't have to input various pieces of information proving their identities as lawfully registered voters.


Ummm... you don't. Once a ballot is received in the mail, the only thing you need to do is fill in the bubbles and sign the cover sheet. I've been voting absentee for decades, how about you?


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Ummm... you don't. Once a ballot is received in the mail, the only thing you need to do is fill in the bubbles and sign the cover sheet. I've been voting absentee for decades, how about you?


If you don't mind me asking, in which state are you registered to vote?


----------



## urherenow (Mar 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you don't mind me asking, in which state are you registered to vote?


Florida. 

Spent 24 years in the military, voting absentee the whole time. Been in Japan the last couple of years since retiring, still voting absentee.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Mar 20, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Please check the comments, it's not just one or two people, but many having received illegal ballots for dead family members and even pets.



That's hilarious. "Please read YouTube comment section for factual proof of fraud". Lmfao. Are you fucking serious?


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Florida.
> 
> Spent 24 years in the military, voting absentee the whole time. Been in Japan the last couple of years since retiring, still voting absentee.


Florida only sends ballots to those who request them, a ballot request requires providing information that proves you're legally registered to vote there, the signature on the ballot is matched with the registration of the person who requested it, and the ballot or envelope has a security bar code that identifies it as belonging to the person who successfully requested it. There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Florida or anywhere else, and there are security measures in place to prevent it.

It should also be noted Trump won Florida.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Florida only sends ballots to those who request them, a ballot request requires providing information that proves you're legally registered to vote there, the signature on the ballot is matched with the registration of the person who requested it, and the ballot or envelope has a security bar code that identifies it as belonging to the person who successfully requested it. There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Florida or anywhere else, and there are security measures in place to prevent it.
> 
> It should also be noted Trump won Florida.


Yep. He won Florida (barely). And you pointed out all of the measures, such as not sending millions of unsolicited ballots. That wasn't the case everywhere. And you can stop parroting the same shit on every post, which is the same shit leftist media regurgitates over and over. Hundreds and hundreds of "fact checks" on Snopes and the like that point out voter fraud, ballots being thrown in the trash, and marking memes about these cases as false, because the meme would say something like 65,000 envelopes, but the person in the case was only charged for 17,000... BS numbers but I Can't be bothered to look them all up (again) and provide all of the readily available links to someone who has so clearly made up their mind.

And do note that if unsolicited ballots would have been sent, none of the measures Florida does for validation work. At all. Again, I only sign a cover sheet after voting.

Oh, and just look at Google now. a Quick search for "charged with throwing ballots in the trash" brings up results that are front-loaded with a few super small cases (100, down to 1) that are dated October and November. Funny how these didn't appear in searches during or even immediately after the election, right? So how many votes have to be interfered with to cause you concern? What is the magic number to call it "widespread" because those several small cases that appear easily now, cover a few different states... New Jersey, Pittsburg Pennsylvania , Kentucky, etc...

Forget pulling hairs and the use of "wide-spread" and just concede that there WAS interference and fraud, and it WAS a result of the mail-in voting that was done. Every vote counts, right?


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Yep. He won Florida (barely). And you pointed out all of the measures, such as not sending millions of unsolicited ballots. That wasn't the case everywhere. And you can stop parroting the same shit on every post, which is the same shit leftist media regurgitates over and over. Hundreds and hundreds of "fact checks" on Snopes and the like that point out voter fraud, ballots being thrown in the trash, and marking memes about these cases as false, because the meme would say something like 65,000 envelopes, but the person in the case was only charged for 17,000... BS numbers but I Can't be bothered to look them all up (again) and provide all of the readily available links to someone who has so clearly made up their mind.
> 
> And do note that if unsolicited ballots would have been sent, none of the measures Florida does for validation work. At all. Again, I only sign a cover sheet after voting.
> 
> ...


If there's evidence of widespread voter fraud, please present it.

There were some isolated instances of fraud, but there weren't many (last I checked, something like 24 were referred for criminal prosecution in Georgia, for example), many were pro-Trump, they have no bearing on whether or not mail-in voting is secure (it is), and they have no bearing on who won the election (Biden won). In short, a few isolated instances of voter fraud are inconsequential. I never made the argument that fraud doesn't happen.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There were some isolated instances of fraud, but there weren't many


With that there's nothing left to say. Every vote counts... unless your guy wins?

Have fun with that.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2021)

urherenow said:


> With that there's nothing left to say. Every vote counts... unless your guy wins?
> 
> Have fun with that.


Every vote should count. I wholeheartedly condemn voter fraud. For that reason, I also wholeheartedly condemn the electoral college. Please do not put words in my mouth. It's desperate.

However, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and there's no evidence for any more voter fraud in 2020 than in any other year. Biden won the election, fair and square.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 20, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> it still doesn't change the fact that an election like this one has never been done like this in any known and sane democracy.


Lol, mail-in voting is probably the most common method among first-world countries.  Hell, even a number of states have been doing universal mail-in ballots since about the year 2000.  And the military was using mail-in ballots even before that.

Then the question becomes: are you really against mail-in ballots, or are you just against more people having access to voting in general?  I'd be fine with dropping mail-in ballots almost entirely, *IF* we make election day a federal holiday.  Otherwise, fighting against mail-in ballots is just another roundabout method of suppressing and disenfranchising voters.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 20, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'd be fine with dropping mail-in ballots almost entirely, *IF* we make election day a federal holiday.


Why not both?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 20, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Why not both?


No reason we shouldn't have both, but given that Republicans are now dead-set on reducing/eliminating mail-in voting, I was speaking more from a standpoint of negotiation.

Hopefully Dems do enough over the next four years to strengthen voting rights and expand access, because Republicans started pushing more gerrymandering and disenfranchising tactics as soon as the election was over.  Especially on the state level.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 20, 2021)

Xzi said:


> No reason we shouldn't have both, but given that Republicans are now dead-set on reducing/eliminating mail-in voting, I was speaking more from a standpoint of negotiation.
> 
> Hopefully Dems do enough over the next four years to strengthen voting rights and expand access, because Republicans started pushing more gerrymandering and disenfranchising tactics as soon as the election was over.  Especially on the state level.


gerrymandering shouldn't be legal in the first place (but it's saddly is) just because rep are at a disadvantage statically  doesn't mean they can move the goal post in their favor if it wasn't for the SCOTUS being red practicly I would say biden should EO a Gerrymandering ban on/by both parties and urge all states to do the same


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> However, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and there's no evidence for any more voter fraud in 2020 than in any other year. Biden won the election, fair and square.



The first sentence does not prove the second, but in practical terms it does settle it. It's not worth debating at this point, and that's not why I'm replying. But you've dropped that phrase like a bomb throughout this thread and I've been watching Democrats use it like a shield since November (modified to add 'widespread' once some evidence did turn up): "there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud." 

So let's just qualify that with another true statement: an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> The first sentence does not prove the second, but in practical terms it does settle it. It's not worth debating at this point, and that's not why I'm replying. But you've dropped that phrase like a bomb throughout this thread and I've been watching Democrats use it like a shield since November (modified to add 'widespread' once some evidence did turn up): "there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud."
> 
> So let's just qualify that with another true statement: an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


In every way widespread voter fraud in 2020 can be reasonably debunked, it has been debunked. Regardless, it is ridiculous to believe a claim, like widespread voter fraud, until there is evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Please do not act like widespread voter fraud is anything other than debunked conspiratorial nonsense. Thank you.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 21, 2021)




----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> In every way widespread voter fraud in 2020 can be reasonably debunked, it has been debunked. Regardless, it is ridiculous to believe a claim, like widespread voter fraud, until there is evidence of widespread voter fraud.
> 
> Please do not act like widespread voter fraud is anything other than debunked conspiratorial nonsense. Thank you.




My concerns are with respect to the election laws that were changed by executive branch action in a number of States without legislative involvement or approval. That's a little different from "voter fraud." More like "rigging in daylight." But, it's done and even if someone has the balls to say those changes were unconstitutional and illegal (as a Michigan judge did a few days ago wrt: the Secretary of State there) there's no going back and fixing what was done.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> My concerns are with respect to the election laws that were changed by executive branch action in a number of States without legislative involvement or approval. That's a little different from "voter fraud." More like "rigging in daylight." But, it's done and even if someone has the balls to say those changes were unconstitutional and illegal (as a Michigan judge did a few days ago wrt: the Secretary of State there) there's no going back and fixing what was done.


Making voting accessible in a pandemic, whether or not you think it was done legally or constitutionally, is not rigging nor fraud. Questions of constitutionality are a separate issue.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 21, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> My concerns are with respect to the election laws that were changed by executive branch action in a number of States without legislative involvement or approval.


Big shocker, any state legislature that was split evenly or controlled by Rs decided to sandbag the process of approving much-needed changes in the year of COVID.



Hanafuda said:


> That's a little different from "voter fraud." More like "rigging in daylight."


You're right, they rigged it in broad daylight by getting more people to vote for them and support their policies/platforms.  What a novel concept.  /s

Seriously though, Dems' GOTV efforts were much stronger than Republicans' voter suppression efforts this time around, that's all it came down to.  Mail-in ballots helped, but many states already had them, and there's no guarantee Biden would've lost even without expanded access to them.  Trump's piss-poor handling of the coronavirus was more than enough to drive record turnout all on its own.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Every vote should count. I wholeheartedly condemn voter fraud. For that reason, I also wholeheartedly condemn the electoral college. Please do not put words in my mouth. It's desperate.
> 
> However, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and there's no evidence for any more voter fraud in 2020 than in any other year. Biden won the election, fair and square.


again, define widespread. Numbers? Area? How about the entire country? https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 21, 2021)

urherenow said:


> again, define widespread. Numbers? Area? How about the entire country? https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud


https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election
How about we listen to our very own goverment for that one chief.
"The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result."
this statement was made back on November 12th. If your going to push baseless conspiracy of a "entire country" the burden of proof is really going to be on you.
Because not only would you have to go prove that there was widespread voter fraud. Proving somehow the very agency that is supposed to look into election integrity is somehow wrong.
But even then. the numbers on that you just provided, STILL wouldn't overturn the election!
biden won by 7,060,140 votes. Not a thousand. 7 MILLION. Which probably would be a bit less considering gerrymandering (because electoral collage is garbage)
While that website you just linked, is claiming that there is 1,317 proven cases. That is FAR from widespread considering the total amount of votes was 155,506,056 for both candidates, and that "fraud" number (I put in air quotes since there is no sources for where this number was pulled from)
no where near enough to be a table turner.
(oh and this is also assuming that those 1,317 cases all voted democrat.Which by the power of probability is astronomically unreal.)
to put this in perspective.
 if we took both primary parties and pretended that was somehow of all the people that voted. (this is exuding third parties) and figured out the rate of fraud or total votes divided by "fraud" it would be 0.000008469123543330042% of them being fraudulent.


yeah, that's astronomically tiny, and it would be even smaller considering third parties and written in ballets.
Perhaps maybe do the math next time. And maybe bring a clown nose while your at it.
this has been long debunked.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lol, mail-in voting is probably the most common method among first-world countries.  Hell, even a number of states have been doing universal mail-in ballots since about the year 2000.  And the military was using mail-in ballots even before that.
> 
> Then the question becomes: are you really against mail-in ballots, or are you just against more people having access to voting in general?  I'd be fine with dropping mail-in ballots almost entirely, *IF* we make election day a federal holiday.  Otherwise, fighting against mail-in ballots is just another roundabout method of suppressing and disenfranchising voters.


I'm more and more convinced that democracts can't read or comprehend anything AT ALL.
I never said mail-in voting is bad or that it's not done in other democracies. I'm pointing out the fact that in any decent democracy with mail-in voting you have to REGISTER to obtain your mail-in ballot, totally different from just seding ballots to everyone you know regardless of their legal status or registration.



D34DL1N3R said:


> That's hilarious. "Please read YouTube comment section for factual proof of fraud". Lmfao. Are you fucking serious?


As much serious as Biden is when dropping bombs. Since when in a democracy listening to people's comments is bad? Oh right, you people don't want democracy, you just want to always win.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> As I already said, Russia demonstrably meddled in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Whether or not Trump colluded with Russia is irrelevant to the fact that you were wrong when you said they didn't.


Yeah, this proves you democracts have the reading comprehension of a potato. To quote myself:


Acid_Snake said:


> One thing is Putin pulling his strings and propaganda machine to try to favor a candidate of a foreign country (yes, he does this, he does it to everyone, and so does your goverment, get over it)


When did I deny Russian intervention again?

Also, using your own logic: Whether or not mail-in ballots were filtered and unregistered users were dropped is irrelevant to the fact that mail-in ballots were sent en-mass to unregistered and ilegal voters without any check in place.This would never happen in a healthy democracy.
Now I want to see what mental gymnastics you come up with against your own logic.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 21, 2021)

The person you are responding to dismisses all evidence as evidence because he is using the word evidence to mean "definite proof" (ie "you can't prove it!") and not in the way it has colloquially been used for beyond the past decade (red flags on red flags and causes for suspicion and doubt).  They also believe that a person is an idiot for not believing in the propagandist narrative even if they are %100 correct in their assessment.

tldr: understanding is not an interest.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Mar 21, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> I'm more and more convinced that democracts can't read or comprehend anything AT ALL.
> I never said mail-in voting is bad or that it's not done in other democracies. I'm pointing out the fact that in any decent democracy with mail-in voting you have to REGISTER to obtain your mail-in ballot, totally different from just seding ballots to everyone you know regardless of their legal status or registration.



Blah blah blah blah blah says the guy using YouTube videos and comments section as their evidence and proof. "OH LOOK!!!! Some completely random guy on YouTube said he received unsolicited ballots!!! MUST BE FACTS!!!!"

Get back to everyone once it's approaching 7 some million fraudulent votes found. Until then, your rants and claims are absolutely pointless. I mean, what is the point of deplorables continuing on with this fraud thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. You guys have anything else to try stealing the election back in your favor? Because I'll tell you this now, it's not going to work. Is voter fraud wrong regardless of how little or how much there was? 100%. Absolutely. Should it be looked into and prevented from happening? Yup. But these continual claims of fraud to the point of the election being stolen are factless and pointless. Give it up already. You're all accomplishing NOTHING.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 21, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Blah blah blah blah blah says the guy using YouTube videos and comments section as their evidence and proof. "OH LOOK!!!! Some completely random guy on YouTube said he received unsolicited ballots!!! MUST BE FACTS!!!!"


Blah blah blah blah blah says the guy using Wikipedia articles and comments section as their evidence and proof. "OH LOOK!!!! Some completely random guy on gbatemp said there's no such thing as unsolicited ballots!!! MUST BE FACTS!!!!"



D34DL1N3R said:


> Get back to everyone once it's approaching 7 some million fraudulent votes found. Until then, your rants and claims are absolutely pointless. I mean, what is the point of deplorables continuing on with this fraud thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. You guys have anything else to try stealing the election back in your favor? Because I'll tell you this now, it's not going to work. Is voter fraud wrong regardless of how little or how much there was? 100%. Absolutely. Should it be looked into and prevented from happening? Yup. But these continual claims of fraud to the point of the election being stolen are factless and pointless. Give it up already. You're all accomplishing NOTHING.


Get back to everyone once it's approaching 7 some million Russian-interfered votes found. Until then, your rants and claims are absolutely pointless. I mean, what is the point of deplorables continuing on with this Russian intervention thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. You guys have anything else to try stealing the election back in your favor? Because I'll tell you this now, it's not going to work. Is Russian intervention wrong regardless of how little or how much there was? 100%. Absolutely. Should it be looked into and prevented from happening? Yup. But these continual claims of Russian intervention to the point of the election being stolen are factless and pointless. Give it up already. You're all accomplishing NOTHING.


And this is why everyone says all you democrats are the biggest hypocrites ever.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2021)

urherenow said:


> again, define widespread. Numbers? Area? How about the entire country? https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud


Widespread means "found or distributed over a large area or number of people." If it doesn't even come close to tipping the election (<99.9992% of votes, for example), it's not widespread by any reasonable definition of the word.

The Heritage Foundation database undermines any case that widespread voter fraud is a real thing, so thank you. In fact, my <99.9992% number comes from if we assume everything the conservative Heritage Foundation reports is true.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/heritage-fraud-database-assessment

There is no evidence at all for widespread voter fraud, and in any way widespread fraud could have reasonably been debunked, it has been debunked.



Acid_Snake said:


> I'm more and more convinced that democracts can't read or comprehend anything AT ALL.
> I never said mail-in voting is bad or that it's not done in other democracies. I'm pointing out the fact that in any decent democracy with mail-in voting you have to REGISTER to obtain your mail-in ballot, totally different from just seding ballots to everyone you know regardless of their legal status or registration.
> 
> 
> ...


First, this "Democrats can't read" hyperbole only makes you look hostile and desperate, but I suppose it's easy for us to be calm, cool, and collected when we have the facts on our side.

You argued there was no evidence for Russian meddling in the 2016 election. You were factually wrong.


Acid_Snake said:


> If you can spend 4 years talking about Russian intervention in the elections (WITHOUT any evidence or reason)



As for your ramblings about mail-in votes, please come back when you can provide any evidence for mail-in voter fraud. Telling me someone had a ballot who shouldn't have had a ballot doesn't demonstrate anybody voted illegally, let alone that any illegal voting happened on a widespread level that could have potentially tipped the election.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> The person you are responding to dismisses all evidence as evidence because he is using the word evidence to mean "definite proof" (ie "you can't prove it!") and not in the way it has colloquially been used for beyond the past decade (red flags on red flags and causes for suspicion and doubt).  They also believe that a person is an idiot for not believing in the propagandist narrative even if they are %100 correct in their assessment.
> 
> tldr: understanding is not an interest.


I'm not asking for absolute proof. I'm asking for evidence that demonstrates a claim. I don't appear to be the one who doesn't understand the difference.

I didn't say a person is an idiot for not believing a specific narrative. I didn't even say a person was an idiot for having idiotic beliefs. I said it is idiotic, by definition, to believe a claim despite no evidence or sound reason to think that claim is true. Are you telling me it's reasonable to hold a position that's unreasonable?


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> First, this "Democrats can't read" hyperbole only makes you look hostile and desperate, but I suppose it's easy for us to be calm, cool, and collected when we have the facts on our side.


Yeah because democrats don't burn down whole cities, cancel everyone on social media, force their ideals into mainstream media and culture, insult everyone else with names like "racist", "sexist", "homophobe" while at the same time pushing the idea that if you are "white", "male" and/or "heterosexual" you are , by default, an oppressor and an evil that needs to be purged.
Sure thing buddy, you guys are the prime example of "calm", "peaceful" and "tolerant".



Lacius said:


> You argued there was no evidence for Russian meddling in the 2016 election. You were factually wrong.


Is it so hard to read what I have wrote? Or are you just trying to force words that I never said to push your view?
What is it exactly that you don't understand from this quote of mine
"One thing is Putin pulling his strings and propaganda machine to try to favor a candidate of a foreign country (*yes, he does this, he does it to everyone*, and so does your goverment, get over it)"

Oh right, you, purposedly omitted this and refrained from replaying to this because you know it makes your message wrong, and there's no such thing as being "wrong" when it comes to you people. Anything that goes against your imaginary world must be ignored and/or removed from existence.

To make it simple for you: I NEVER said that Russians didn't interfere, as a matter of FACT I said that they do (and they do it to lots other countries, and your contry also does it to lots others). What I DID say is that there's no LINK between RUSSIA and TRUMP.

Do I really need to highlight parts of my message so you can understand it better? That just shows lack of reading comprehension to me. Either that or you are willingly ignoring the parts of my message that go against your flawed points.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Yeah because democrats don't burn down whole cities, cancel everyone on social media, force their ideals into mainstream media and culture, insult everyone else with names like "racist", "sexist", "homophobe" while at the same time pushing the idea that if you are "white", "male" and/or "heterosexual" you are , by default, an oppressor and an evil that needs to be purged.
> Sure thing buddy, you guys are the prime example of "calm", "peaceful" and "tolerant".
> 
> 
> ...


The actions of others, whoever they are or whatever they've done, don't change anything about what I've said about your behavior vs. mine. I suggest to take a step and cool off before coming back to post a response. This "Democrats can't read" hyperbole and this "Democrats want to purge anyone who is white, male, or heterosexual" nonsense does nothing to serve your interests. Respectfully, it only serves to embarrass yourself.

Your statements agreeing Russian meddling took place came after my correction of your factually wrong statement that there's no evidence of Russian meddling, so I will take that as a concession on your part. Thank you.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The actions of others, whoever they are or whatever they've done, don't change anything about what I've said about your behavior vs. mine. I suggest to take a step and cool off before coming back to post a response. This "Democrats can't read" hyperbole and this "Democrats want to purge anyone who is white, male, or heterosexual" nonsense does nothing to serve your interests. Respectfully, it only serves to embarrass yourself.


Alright I take it back, you're right that it was too aggressive.



Lacius said:


> Your statements agreeing Russian meddling took place came after my correction of your factually wrong statement that there's no evidence of Russian meddling, so I will take that as a concession on your part. Thank you.


No you are not respossible for my statements, I am, and I already know about Russian propaganda way before even knowing this thread existed, so don't try to put on a medal that you don't deserve. The Russians intervening in other countries is cold war knowledge, not exactly rocket science, the only thing new here is that it actually intervened in the US, and it's not exactly an accomplishment in today's social media world where anyone with decent followers can influence on elections (except right wings who usually get cancelled, but that's another topic).


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Alright I take it back, you're right that it was too aggressive.
> 
> 
> No you are not respossible for my statements, I am, and I already know about Russian propaganda way before even knowing this thread existed, so don't try to put on a medal that you don't deserve. The Russians intervening in other countries is cold war knowledge, not exactly rocket science, the only thing new here is that it actually intervened in the US, and it's not exactly an accomplishment in today's social media world where anyone with decent followers can influence on elections (except right wings who usually get cancelled, but that's another topic).


You argued there was no evidence of Russian election meddling. You were objectively and provably mistaken. Anything else you believed but kept from us in that moment is irrelevant.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You argued there was no evidence of Russian election meddling. You were objectively and provably mistaken. Anything else you believed but kept from us in that moment is irrelevant.


You still saying this when it's not true, I said there's no evidence of Trump having anything to do with Russian interference (and even then I'm not saying he didn't, I actually do believe that he did, but there's no way to actually prove it, for now).

And at the same time, I'm not even saying Biden won ilegally (tbh it was easy for him to win if you look at how Trump acted for the most part of 2020), I'm just saying that many irregularities existed and one of them was the fact that mail-in ballots were sent out without any sort of registration or control (even IF control was later made when actually counting the ballots).

In summary: BOTH things expose issues with the democratic elections in the US and BOTH must be mitigated as much as possible so they BOTH don't happen again. BUT, while I do think they both had a big share of influence, I also think they didn't really changed the outcome of either elections, just made that outcome more "certain", which is not a good sign of a healthy democracy.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> You still saying this when it's not true, I said there's no evidence of Trump having anything to do with Russian interference


I don't remember you mentioning Trump in your first post, and I don't remember mentioning Trump in my response to your post, so please don't move the goalposts. It's desperate. Thank you.



Acid_Snake said:


> In summary: BOTH things expose issues with the democratic elections in the US and BOTH must be mitigated as much as possible so they BOTH don't happen again. BUT, while I do think they both had a big share of influence, I also think they didn't really changed the outcome of either elections, just made that outcome more "certain", which is not a good sign of a healthy democracy.


There's no evidence the 2020 election, including mail-in voting, was anything other than fair and secure. We already have mitigations against voter fraud in place.

I like that you are a proponent of mitigating against foreign election interference. I wish Trump and the Republicans felt the same way.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Mar 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence the 2020 election, including mail-in voting, was anything other than fair and secure.


There's evidence of many irregularities, enough to cause for alarm and work on improving. There's a difference between attempting fraud and succeeding, hopefully the US has a good enough system such that most frauds did not succeed. As I said, the elected president is most likely legal, but attempts were made at securing the election results, and that needs to be mitigated.
The simple fact that ballots were sent without verification to all the population regardless of their ability to vote is already an opened door for fraud, even if most of it doesn't succeed, it still gives it a chance, a much higher chance than before, and that must be stopped.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> There's evidence of many irregularities, enough to cause for alarm and work on improving. There's a difference between attempting fraud and succeeding, hopefully the US has a good enough system such that most frauds did not succeed. As I said, the elected president is most likely legal, but attempts were made at securing the election results, and that needs to be mitigated.
> The simple fact that ballots were sent without verification to all the population regardless of their ability to vote is already an opened door for fraud, even if most of it doesn't succeed, it still gives it a chance, a much higher chance than before, and that must be stopped.


Using your own conservation resource for data, there have been 1,317 instances of voter fraud. I originally thought this was out of the 2020 presidential election, but this is actually all of the known voter fraud going as far back as 1993 in some cases. Of these 1,317 instances of voter fraud, 1,134 resulted in criminal convictions. I'm not sure what you want. These numbers demonstrate the elections are safe and secure (1,317 instances of voter fraud country-wide over nearly 30 years is ridiculously small), they demonstrate mitigation strategies work, and they demonstrate that people are caught and prosecuted appropriately. I really don't know what more you want.

I do not see how any reasonable person can look at the resource you provided and unironically say "this is cause for alarm."


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Mar 21, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Blah blah blah blah blah says the guy using Wikipedia articles and comments section as their evidence and proof. "OH LOOK!!!! Some completely random guy on gbatemp said there's no such thing as unsolicited ballots!!! MUST BE FACTS!!!!"
> 
> 
> Get back to everyone once it's approaching 7 some million Russian-interfered votes found. Until then, your rants and claims are absolutely pointless. I mean, what is the point of deplorables continuing on with this Russian intervention thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. You guys have anything else to try stealing the election back in your favor? Because I'll tell you this now, it's not going to work. Is Russian intervention wrong regardless of how little or how much there was? 100%. Absolutely. Should it be looked into and prevented from happening? Yup. But these continual claims of Russian intervention to the point of the election being stolen are factless and pointless. Give it up already. You're all accomplishing NOTHING.
> ...



I see what you did there. I can't even say good effort.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 21, 2021)




----------



## Xzi (Mar 21, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> I'm pointing out the fact that in any decent democracy with mail-in voting you have to REGISTER to obtain your mail-in ballot


That's uhh...also how it works in the US.  You don't receive a ballot by mail unless you're registered and request it.  If you go to try to vote in person without registering, they'll either give you a provisional ballot or just give you the boot.  A number of states have same-day registration, but far from all of them.


----------



## Seliph (Mar 21, 2021)

Bugsnax


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's uhh...also how it works in the US.  You don't receive a ballot by mail unless you're registered and request it.  If you go to try to vote in person without registering, they'll either give you a provisional ballot or just give you the boot.  A number of states have same-day registration, but far from all of them.


Even automatic registration would still look for information regarding someone's citizenship.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 21, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


>



this is why i want to leave the US grant it every country is corrupt to some degree but the US under republican control especially with Trump could make Nazi Germany look like childs play


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Using your own conservation resource for data, there have been 1,317 instances of voter fraud. I originally thought this was out of the 2020 presidential election, but this is actually all of the known voter fraud going as far back as 1993 in some cases. Of these 1,317 instances of voter fraud, 1,134 resulted in criminal convictions. I'm not sure what you want. These numbers demonstrate the elections are safe and secure (1,317 instances of voter fraud country-wide over nearly 30 years is ridiculously small), they demonstrate mitigation strategies work, and they demonstrate that people are caught and prosecuted appropriately. I really don't know what more you want.
> 
> I do not see how any reasonable person can look at the resource you provided and unironically say "this is cause for alarm."


yeah and i bet  can guess if we could open up those indictments/votes that were fraudulant the majority would be for republican candidates


----------



## Lacius (Mar 22, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> yeah and i bet  can guess if we could open up those indictments/votes that were fraudulant the majority would be for republican candidates


That seems to be the trend in some states, yes.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 22, 2021)

Biden is trying to move immigrants to hotels instead.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 22, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election
> How about we listen to our very own goverment for that one chief.
> "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result."
> this statement was made back on November 12th. If your going to push baseless conspiracy of a "entire country" the burden of proof is really going to be on you.
> ...


Again, perspective. I never once said any of this would overturn the election or make Trump magically win. Not once. But you are assuming that over 1,300 cases means just 1,300 votes? You didn't read a damn thing. Lacius at least seems to have glanced over it...

There are cases involving ballots in the hundreds. I'm sure I've seen a couple in the thousands but never bothered to bookmark them, so I can't be bothered to find them right now. There were ballots in the trash in pretty much every state, and NOT JUST REPUBLICAN BALLOTS. Some were not even filled out (never made it to the recipients). I don't know if anything on the outside of those ballots would indicate R or D, but that's not my point at all. Most States did not know how to handle this, and it was a problem. Failure to acknowledge THIS (not the results of the election) means you don't know how to think for yourself. You only know how to parrot media outlets that say shit you agree with.

https://abc7.com/santa-monica-mail-ballots-trash-in/6884527/
https://abc7.com/ballot-misprint-voting-problems-la-county-dean-logan/6825210/

This right here is like 2 problems in 1 story: https://www.ttnews.com/articles/usps-says-thousands-mail-ballots-may-have-gone-missing

(I'm seriously not going to link every story posted. I just watch the darn news myself as it comes out.)

And still, sending out unsolicited ballots is a problem. People APPLYING for absentee ballots with the required proof of identity and voter registration, is ok, and a godsend for many.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 22, 2021)

It would seem that voter fraud is a widespread issue, and not constrained to a single area of control.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 22, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Again, perspective. I never once said any of this would overturn the election or make Trump magically win. Not once. But you are assuming that over 1,300 cases means just 1,300 votes? You didn't read a damn thing. Lacius at least seems to have glanced over it...
> 
> There are cases involving ballots in the hundreds. I'm sure I've seen a couple in the thousands but never bothered to bookmark them, so I can't be bothered to find them right now. There were ballots in the trash in pretty much every state, and NOT JUST REPUBLICAN BALLOTS. Some were not even filled out (never made it to the recipients). I don't know if anything on the outside of those ballots would indicate R or D, but that's not my point at all. Most States did not know how to handle this, and it was a problem. Failure to acknowledge THIS (not the results of the election) means you don't know how to think for yourself. You only know how to parrot media outlets that say shit you agree with.
> 
> ...


meanwhile conveniently glancing over the fact the part of the government that checks for election integrity was secure.
https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election

_WASHINGTON – The members of Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Assistant Director Bob Kolasky, U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair Benjamin Hovland, National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) President Maggie Toulouse Oliver, National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) President Lori Augino, and Escambia County (Florida) Supervisor of Elections David Stafford – and the members of the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) – Chair Brian Hancock (Unisyn Voting Solutions), Vice Chair Sam Derheimer (Hart InterCivic), Chris Wlaschin (Election Systems & Software), Ericka Haas (Electronic Registration Information Center), and Maria Bianchi (Democracy Works) - released the following statement:


“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result. "_


urherenow said:


> again, define widespread. Numbers? Area? How about the entire country?


Along while implying the website you linked was every single one. You got ran into a corner and tried to move the goal post. Makes you look really desperate.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> This right here is like 2 problems in 1 story:


Further more https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-of-swing-state-ballots-may-have-gone-missing
(same story)
That was a result of De joy being put in place and fucking up the USPS. Which would of not happened other wise if it wasn't for Trump trying to actively meddle in that specific area.
As for the trashed ballots. Not 100% sure. In some places it was spoiled ballots. (Oklahoma)


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Mar 23, 2021)

Even Trump's own defense team knows that this whole "election interference" nonsense is bs.

It is funny to me that she called her audience idiots, though.


----------



## omgcat (Mar 23, 2021)

god, some of the people here who were pushing the smartmatic/dominion tampering schtick got fucked hard.

*Sidney Powell Argues Her Dominion Defamation Lawsuit Be Tossed Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her*


so much for releasing the kraken right?

 for the record, fox news used the same argument in court.

*You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers*

*you guys are getting baited hard*


----------



## djpannda (Mar 23, 2021)

omgcat said:


> god, some of the people here who were pushing the smartmatic/dominion tampering schtick got fucked hard.
> 
> *Sidney Powell Argues Her Dominion Defamation Lawsuit Be Tossed Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her*
> 
> ...


Next excuse:: No, she playing the long game to take advantage of the legal system..lol own the libs


----------



## omgcat (Mar 23, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Next excuse:: No, she playing the long game to take advantage of the legal system..lol own the libs




Getting her ass disbarred to own the libs!

Nice!


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 23, 2021)

omgcat said:


> god, some of the people here who were pushing the smartmatic/dominion tampering schtick got fucked hard.
> http:// https://www.forbes.com/site...ble-person-would-believe-her/?sh=ce3995d1dadf
> 
> 
> for the record, fox news used the same argument in court.


This excuse needs to be stopped. Shouldn't be able to continue to be purposely misleading in professions like this, let alone with unreasonable people. At the very at least, there should be disclaimers.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 23, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Along while implying the website you linked was every single one. You got ran into a corner and tried to move the goal post. Makes you look really desperate.



Not even sure what you mean by "every single one", OR "moving the goalpost". The list on that website is just an example. One of a large number of examples. Google much? Again, there are "fact checks" on left-leaning snopes that admit ballot tampering while calling memes false because the memes happened to use higher numbers than, and get this... THE ACTUAL CASES (cases cited in the articles). Cases not covered on that web page.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Further more https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-of-swing-state-ballots-may-have-gone-missing
> (same story)
> That was a result of De joy being put in place and fucking up the USPS. Which would of not happened other wise if it wasn't for Trump trying to actively meddle in that specific area.
> As for the trashed ballots. Not 100% sure. In some places it was spoiled ballots. (Oklahoma)


umm... the list on that site goes back to WAY before Trump was president. Care to try again? It's you who sounds desperate, and too damn lazy to even read what you're commenting on.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 23, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> This excuse needs to be stopped. Shouldn't be able to continue to be purposely misleading in professions like this, let alone with unreasonable people. At the very at least, there should be disclaimers.


Here’s the difference.. when Fox News used the “no reasonable person would believe what we say” defense, they stated their show was entertainment only.. just a comedy show.
Sidney Powell can’t use that as a lawyer, Makes you a “officer of the court” and filing  legal arguments in a court of law, Make you liable for perjury.. she can’t go to the Judge “Can’t sue me because that was my comedy act”


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 23, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Here’s the difference.. when Fox News used the “no reasonable person would believe what we say” defense, they stated their show was entertainment only.. just a comedy show.


My point was, does the show itself have any disclaimers about being entertainment only?


----------



## djpannda (Mar 23, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> My point was, does the show itself have any disclaimers about being entertainment only?


No the FCC is only good for stopping naughty words and nipples.....not lies.

“ A spokesperson for the FCC told us that, “We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment.”


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 23, 2021)

djpannda said:


> No the FCC is only good for stopping naughty words and nipples.....not lies.
> 
> “ A spokesperson for the FCC told us that, “We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment.”
> View attachment 253603


You shouldn't be able to act like a news channel/segment then say "lol not actually news" without telling your viewers.

Apparently, purposely spreading false information is against the FCC. Link

I get not wanting the government to get too involved, but clearly something has to change.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 23, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> You shouldn't be able to act like a news channel/segment" then say "lol not actually news" without telling your viewers.
> 
> Apparently, purposely spreading false information is against the FCC. Link
> 
> I get not wanting the government to get too involved, but clearly something has to change.



We have to be careful on how to have to deal with Censorship.. but at the every least it should not be allowed as a Defense in a Court of Law

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



djpannda said:


> Next excuse:: No, she playing the long game to take advantage of the legal system..lol own the libs


..so Reddit r/Republican have already started  banning people who state she was lying bout voter fraud and saying  its just a "legal Strategy " defense


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 23, 2021)

urherenow said:


> The list on that website is just an example.


suuureee


urherenow said:


> again, define widespread. Numbers? Area? How about the entire country? https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud



So let me get this straight. you make a giant ass claim, but then... don't back it up.
Really nice job right there.
So the link you provided wasn't supposed to prove your statement of "widespread voter fraud" but instead was supposed to say
"Well fraud happens"
Again, your trying to move the goal post here. you just went from
"there is widespread voter fraud, here's my proof"
to
"Oh my proof was just a sample. And I never treated my statement as the end all be all"
Oh and let's not forget that many court cases had been held about widespread fraud. And every single one ruled that there wasn't.
Why the fuck do you think these people who said there was fraud is rappidly back tracking because the company involved in making the voting machines is suing them for their damaging statement. Because it aint real chief.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 23, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> suuureee
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight. you make a giant ass claim, but then... don't back it up.
> ...


 the best is that Heritage states there have been only 1,317 cases of voter fraud since 1979......
2020 -158.4 million people voted..... 1,000 cases in 41 years is pathetic!


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 23, 2021)

djpannda said:


> the best is that Heritage states there have been only 1,317 cases of voter fraud since 1979......
> 2020 -158.4 million people voted..... 1,000 cases in 41 years is pathetic!


That's disappointing, America should be #1 in everything


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 24, 2021)

omgcat said:


> god, some of the people here who were pushing the smartmatic/dominion tampering schtick got fucked hard.
> 
> *Sidney Powell Argues Her Dominion Defamation Lawsuit Be Tossed Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her*
> 
> ...



What, because fucking Buzzfeed and other outlets took things out of context according to her based lawyer?


HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 24, 2021)

People voted for this wow
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1374805707069984770


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 24, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> What, because fucking Buzzfeed and other outlets took things out of context according to her based lawyer?
> 
> 
> HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT
> ...



Don't just copy/paste something like that here without reference. Link the source please.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> People voted for this wow


IKR, it's almost like the last guy lowered the bar so much that a Chia Pet would've beaten him in the 2020 election.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> IKR, it's almost like the last guy lowered the bar so much that a Chia Pet would've beaten him in the 2020 election.



Or, this whole thread is a circle jerk like r/atheism and the entirety of Reddit.


----------



## Louse (Mar 24, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Or, this whole thread is a circle jerk like r/atheism and the entirety of Reddit.


What is it supposed to have been, an _8chan_ circlejerk?


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 24, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> What is it supposed to have been, an _8chan_ circlejerk?



Maybe those involved could, oh, IDK, provide a more balanced view of the Trump presidency as opposed to just happening to fail to mention him doing a better job with the border than the dementia patient in chief, him negotiating historic peace deals between Israel and her enemies since the days of the Old Testament, and how he did a better job at standing up for the US than Biden did. 

Or have you not noticed Russia and China planting their flags on the moon after sensing weakness from Biden, or Biden backing down from Putin's livestream debate challenge? Not to mention him having trouble going up stairs? How about him referring to Kamala Harris as president on more than one occasion?

You guys, what with you not working any real jobs, should be able to look these claims up and find evidence of what I'm talking about with all the time you clearly have on your hands. I don't say stuff like this unless I've seen convincing evidence, and if you don't want to do any basic research, this is just a circlejerk thread of people who have about as much self-awareness as Chris Chan, WingsOfRedemption, DarkSydePhil, LowTierGod, Etika (who screwed himself when he posted porn on his YT channel), etc..


----------



## Louse (Mar 24, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Etika (who screwed himself when he posted porn on his YT channel), etc..


you wanna brawl, mate?



Silent_Gunner said:


> Or have you not noticed Russia and China planting their flags on the moon after sensing weakness from Biden, or Biden backing down from Putin's livestream debate challenge? Not to mention him having trouble going up stairs? How about him referring to Kamala Harris as president on more than one occasion?


Yeah, he sucks. They both suck big peepee. However, at the very least Biden is, well, he isn't much of anything. That's kind of why people who disliked Trump (whether for policy or his conduct) picked him. It's not like a third-party's ever gonna win.

Hopefully Biden trips into a canyon and Harris get a seat at the table. I'll take anything over another old cis-het white guy.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 24, 2021)

Love Biden shitting on Kalama for the crisis at the border 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1374847829659807750


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Or, this whole thread is a circle jerk like r/atheism and the entirety of Reddit.


Nah most of this thread is tabloid-level bullshit and Facebook boomer memes posted by Trump supporters.  That's the problem with having only one major political party that has substantive policy platforms and proposals, there's nothing much to discuss.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nah most of this thread is tabloid-level bullshit and Facebook boomer memes posted by Trump supporters.  That's the problem with having only one major political party that has substantive policy platforms and proposals, there's nothing much to discuss.



I didn't know you had a sense of humor.  Usually all of your posts come off as edgy and self-enamoring.  Forgive me for not noticing how much you are willing to sacrifice.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I didn't know you had a sense of humor.  Usually all of your posts come off as edgy and self-enamoring.  Forgive me for not noticing how much you are willing to sacrifice.


No humor, I've seriously been waiting on that Republican healthcare plan to be unveiled since 2008.  I'm sure it'll be a doozy with all this time they've been given to work on it.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> Hopefully Biden trips into a canyon and Harris get a seat at the table. I'll take anything over another old cis-het white guy.



Democracy in the US seemed to reach it's visual peak at the disappointment with Obama.  The "race" between Clinton and Trump should have been a clear indication that America was gunning for the downward spiral.  The "conspiracy theorist" in me believes that it has been the plan for Kamala to become president, but the people as a whole are destined for continual and graduating disappointment.  "Nothing can be worse than Trump!" is being met with an answer.  And when people say "Nothing can be worse than Biden!"  they will be answered with another, further disappointing result.




Xzi said:


> I've seriously been waiting on that Republican healthcare plan to be unveiled since 2008.



I thought the curtain came down on it.  Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Republican's take on healthcare "let's stop paying for the leeches and pay our own bills"?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The "conspiracy theorist" in me believes that it has been the plan for Kamala to become president


That's not a conspiracy theory, Biden made it clear from the start he wasn't going to run for a second term.  There's still no guarantee Kamala will win the primary or the general race in 2024, though.



tabzer said:


> "Nothing can be worse than Trump!" is being met with an answer.


Is that answer 55% to 60% approval ratings?  It's much too early for the general public to have buyers' remorse with Biden.  Maybe if he kills 500K Americans and declares himself leader of the Proud Boys that might start to change.



tabzer said:


> I thought the curtain came down on it. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Republican's take on healthcare "let's stop paying for the leeches and pay our own bills"?


There is no Republican healthcare plan, aside from "private insurance company profits go brrrrr" anyway.  They've presented no alternatives to Obamacare, aka Romneycare, because fixing the issues with it would cost them money.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 25, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> you wanna brawl, mate?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he sucks. They both suck big peepee. However, at the very least Biden is, well, he isn't much of anything. That's kind of why people who disliked Trump (whether for policy or his conduct) picked him. It's not like a third-party's ever gonna win.
> ...



Congratulations! You have been exposed as being someone with an attachment to a human being who isn't God, and who's exploits won't even go down as being something comparable to Zeus, Icarus, or even Buddha. Not to mention, as being racist. Not reverse racist, just racist.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's not a conspiracy theory, Biden made it clear from the start he wasn't going to run for a second term. There's still no guarantee Kamala will win the primary or the general race in 2024, though.



You should exercise the right hemisphere of your brain.  The running "theory" is that Kamala will end up president when Biden falls out during the first term.  And even as people will feel their suffering is increasing, they will still buy into the media's constant accolades of her (or remain silenced), and continue to be sedated enough when the automatic election machine gets her in for another term.  Elections are dead.  It's a propaganda race.



Xzi said:


> There is no Republican healthcare plan, aside from "private insurance company profits go brrrrr" anyway. They've presented no alternatives to Obamacare, aka Romneycare, because fixing the issues with it would cost them money.



You seem to be overlooking the fact that Obama mandated it into law that everyone has to be on an insurance plan.  Providing people with the option of not being forced to rely on and comply with a centralized government is the alternative that everybody, anybody who isn't pro-autocracy and maybe believes in the fruits of their labor, desires.  Private insurance companies benefit far more by getting forced clientele from the government vs allowing people to have actual freedom on the matter.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You should exercise the right hemisphere of your brain. The running "theory" is that Kamala will end up president when Biden falls out during the first term. And even as people will feel their suffering is increasing, they will still buy into the media's constant accolades, and continue to not revolt when the automatic election machine gets her in for another term. Elections are dead. It's a propaganda race.


You should stop being such a douchebag.  That's not a "theory" so much as it is a generalized guess based on Biden's perceived health.  If it happens, it happens.  That's what a vice president is for.  She'd still be up for re-election in 2024, and she'd be judged for her own actions, not Biden's.  So she would have incentive to make peoples' lives better, even if only in small ways.  I have my own grudges against Harris, but we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it.



tabzer said:


> You seem to be overlooking the fact that Obama mandated it into law that everyone has to be on an insurance plan.


I know he did.  Like I said, Obamacare is Romneycare, it was a "compromise."  A dumb one, but I think it was Lieberman or some other DINO that prevented passage of a single-payer system, which is what Obama originally wanted.



tabzer said:


> Private insurance companies benefit far more by getting forced clientele from the government vs allowing people to have actual freedom on the matter.


The current markets are comprised _entirely _of private insurers and we're still getting fucked in the ass on pricing.  We have no public (government-run) option in the US for healthcare.  Adding one would force private insurers to lower prices in response to new competition.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You should stop being such a douchebag. That's not a "theory" so much as it is a generalized guess based on Biden's perceived health. If it happens, it happens.



Well jeez.  If you weren't being so obstinate in trying to ignore the "elephant in the room" then maybe we could have something genuine.



Xzi said:


> The current markets are comprised _entirely _of private insurers and we're still getting fucked in the ass on pricing. We have no public (government-run) option in the US for healthcare. Adding one would force private insurers to lower prices in response to new competition.



Insurance balloons the respected-care pricing the same way student loans balloon tuition and educational fees.  You sure that you want more government "help" ie reinforcement?


----------



## Seliph (Mar 25, 2021)

"Oh boy what interesting discourse is going on in the Biden thread today?"


----------



## Louse (Mar 25, 2021)

what i miss


Silent_Gunner said:


> Congratulations! You have been exposed as being someone with an attachment to a human being who isn't God, and who's exploits won't even go down as being something comparable to Zeus, Icarus, or even Buddha. Not to mention, as being racist. Not reverse racist, just racist.



oh.


tabzer said:


> Well jeez.  If you weren't being so obstinate in trying to ignore the "elephant in the room" then maybe we could have something genuine.
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance balloons the respected-care pricing the same way student loans balloon tuition and educational fees.  You sure that you want more government "help" ie reinforcement?


oooh.


Xzi said:


> douchebag. do do-d-douchebag. dodododo douchebag


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 25, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> It's not like a third-party's ever gonna win.


Hopefully RCV or approval voting helps change that.


Silent_Gunner said:


> Congratulations! You have been exposed as being someone with an attachment to a human being who isn't God


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Insurance balloons the respected-care pricing the same way student loans balloon tuition and educational fees. You sure that you want more government "help" ie reinforcement?


Indeed I do, Medicare is run far more efficiently than any private insurer, so we should just have Medicare-for-all.  Cut out all the leeches and middlemen, like you were saying before.  While we're at it, just cancel all student debt and regulate pricing for textbooks and the like, there's a lot of scamming going on in higher education.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 25, 2021)

Well, if Biden gets his way, free community college might happen.


----------



## AmandaRose (Mar 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Indeed I do, Medicare is run far more efficiently than any private insurer, so we should just have Medicare-for-all.  Cut out all the leeches and middlemen, like you were saying before.  While we're at it, just cancel all student debt and regulate pricing for textbooks and the like, there's a lot of scamming going on in higher education.


I always wondered why so many Americans came to Scotland to do higher education. Then I found out the costs of such things in America aparently the advantage cost of college for the 2017–2018 school year was $20,770 for public schools (in-state) and *$46,950* for nonprofit private schools,  compare that to the cost here in Scotland and it's no bloody wonder a shit load of Americans come here.

What is that cost you ask here in Scotland well its a huge fuck all as all levels of education are totally free.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

Once Medicare is established, it is established on whatever is considered the "status-quo".  After that, there is a a stagnation in medical progress as the incentive to develop is removed.  All of those private insurers will do what they can to cater to medicare's definition of standard treatment, and reinforce the existence of all illnesses currently present for the future generations to come.

Also, you want to cancel student loan debt, a service that the government provided in response to people akin to your thinking that the government should intervene in the first place?  Just say free money for everyone.

Sure, you can cancel student loan debt, but how will you cancel modern illness created by the same kind of approach you have to healthcare?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Once Medicare is established, it is established on whatever is considered the "status-quo". After that, there is a a stagnation in medical progress as the incentive to develop is removed. All of those private insurers will do what they can to cater to medicare's definition of standard treatment, and reinforce the existence of all illnesses currently present for the future generations to come.


So you're saying the free market wouldn't simply improvise, adapt, and overcome?  

Private insurers would be fine, there will always be rich people who can afford their shit and/or those who want to pay more to feel special.  The quality of care here has never been extraordinary unless you have "fuck you" money.



tabzer said:


> Also, you want to cancel student loan debt, a service that the government provided in response to people akin to your thinking that the government should intervene in the first place? Just say free money for everyone.


I don't see why not, we gave out trillions in free money to corporations under Trump.  Also, we're going on a year and a half of pandemic.  If anything our government short-changed us on that compared to any other first-world nation.



tabzer said:


> Sure, you can cancel student loan debt, but how will you cancel modern illness created by the same kind of approach you have to healthcare?


The modern illness is American work culture.  Japanese work culture is even worse by several degrees, but that's a different matter.  Giving people more time to spend with their friends, family, and loved ones, and more time/disposable income to vacation, isn't going to cause some mystery "illness."


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> So you're saying the free market wouldn't simply improvise, adapt, and overcome?



When the government decides the market, there is no free market.  Everyone adapts to the government's decree, and will do their best to maximize the benefits of it, underneath.



Xzi said:


> The modern illness is American work culture. Japanese work culture is even worse by several degrees, but that's a different matter. Giving people more time to spend with their friends, family, and loved ones, and more time/disposable income to vacation, isn't going to cause some mystery "illness."



If you read it wrong, then maybe it is my fault.  When medical progress has been stagnated, it is my interpretation that modern illness shouldn't be modern, but long gone.  Of course, it's possible that you might actually get a "brand new" illness that prevents people from seeing each other. 



Xzi said:


> I don't see why not, we gave out trillions in free money to corporations under Trump. Also, we're going on a year and a half of pandemic. If anything our government short-changed us on that compared to any other first-world nation.



It has always been the role of the government to benefit itself, and those who are participating in it.  Suggesting that it is a fault or an unexpected outcome, while comparing it to other governments (unlisted) that somehow are doing a better job isn't actually providing insight.


AIn't that right @Darth Meteos


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> I always wondered why so many Americans came to Scotland to do higher education. Then I found out the costs of such things in America aparently the advantage cost of college for the 2017–2018 school year was $20,770 for public schools (in-state) and *$46,950* for nonprofit private schools,  compare that to the cost here in Scotland and it's no bloody wonder a shit load of Americans come here.
> 
> What is that cost you ask here in Scotland well its a huge fuck all as all levels of education are totally free.



I'm going to say something that you might not like, seeing that you are a nationalist for the great nation of Scotland.  But where is the prestige?  Degrees are marketed like brand names, and I have never heard of anyone with a degree from Scotland doing anything impressive.  This is an invitation to prove me wrong, and I hope that you do.  I want to have faith in humanity.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> When the government decides the market, there is no free market. Everyone adapts to the government's decree, and will do their best to maximize the benefits of it, underneath.


That's like saying the government "decides" the package delivery market.  No, they're just one part of it, along with UPS, DHL, FedEx, and a number of others.  If a company can't adapt its pricing/quality of service to match the competition in some way, then it fails, that's how the free market is meant to work.  Which means you can still charge much more than the public option, but your quality of service better be able to excuse that extra cost.



tabzer said:


> When medical progress has been stagnated, it is my interpretation that modern illness shouldn't be modern, but long gone.


Considering the speed at which we were able to develop multiple COVID-19 vaccines, I'd say medical science has progressed quite far.



tabzer said:


> It has always been the role of the government to benefit itself, and those who are participating in it.


Lol, do you believe Gordon Gekko was a founding father?  Government is meant to be of, by, and for the people.  Not of, by, and for the corporate oligarchs, as Republicans would have you believe.



tabzer said:


> Suggesting that it is a fault or an unexpected outcome, while comparing it to other governments (unlisted) that somehow are doing a better job isn't actually providing insight.


I didn't say I was providing insight, I was only making an observation/comparison.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 25, 2021)

I doubt the public option will have extra things like health coaching.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's like saying the government "decides" the package delivery market. No, they're just one part of it, along with UPS, DHL, FedEx, and a number of others. If a company can't adapt its pricing/quality of service to match the competition in some way, then it fails, that's how the free market is meant to work. Which means you can still charge much more than the public option, but your quality of service better be able to excuse that extra cost.



They do.  They determine a rate, the standard of expectation, and then the rest of the market follows.  It's not a free market.  It's every other horse following the first horse; the government designated first horse.



Xzi said:


> Considering the speed at which we were able to develop multiple COVID-19 vaccines, I'd say medical science has progressed quite far.



One step forward, two steps back, one step forward, one step back.  I see you are in favor of ignoring the big picture because you saw a "step forward".



Xzi said:


> Lol, do you believe Gordon Gekko was a founding father? Government is meant to be of, by, and for the people. Not of, by, and for the corporate oligarchs, as Republicans would have you believe.



AFAIK that government was a necessary evil intended to be on the verge of obsoletion the moment it was founded.  Corporate oligarchs monopolize it, now, thanks to the effect of lobbying.  Don't deny it.   Pointing at the Republicans (we all know they suck) like it was ONLY their fault doesn't mean that the democrats fixed anything.



Xzi said:


> I didn't say I was providing insight, I was only making an observation/comparison.



We still don't know what that observation/comparison is, because you never actually gave an example.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> They do. They determine a rate, the standard of expectation, and then the rest of the market follows. It's not a free market. It's every other horse following the first horse; the government designated first horse.


I'm telling you there's no requirement that private insurers can't exceed that standard if they so choose.  Private companies will always make the most amount of money possible, which is exactly why UPS, FedEx, and DHL all continue to cost far more than USPS.  If that means private insurers have to provide better service to justify their prices, I'm not gonna cry a river over it.



tabzer said:


> One step forward, two steps back, one step forward, one step back. I see you are in favor of ignoring the big picture.


Err no...medical science has pretty much only moved forward.  And none of us get to see the big picture where something like that is concerned, being that we live only about a hundred years at most.  As fast as we can make vaccines now though, it will be interesting to see how quickly new viruses are eradicated in say, 2060.  Assuming natural disasters and droughts and the like don't wipe us all out before that, anyway.



tabzer said:


> Corporate oligarchs monopolize it, now, thanks to the effect of lobbying. Don't deny it. Pointing at the Republicans (we all know they suck) like it was ONLY their fault doesn't mean that the democrats fixed anything.


Oh you're certainly correct about that, but Democrats on some levels have introduced anti-lobbying legislation in the past and likely will in the future.  There's never any question when it comes to which way Republicans will vote on such legislation.



tabzer said:


> We still don't know what that observation/comparison is, because you never actually gave an example.


You need specifics?  Canada, Scandinavian countries, the EU, Scotland, take your pick.  All provided like 80% - 100% of monthly paychecks for the unemployed, most froze rent/mortgage payments for the duration of the pandemic.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's not a conspiracy theory, Biden made it clear from the start he wasn't going to run for a second term.  There's still no guarantee Kamala will win the primary or the general race in 2024, though.
> 
> 
> Is that answer 55% to 60% approval ratings?  It's much too early for the general public to have buyers' remorse with Biden.  Maybe if he kills 500K Americans and declares himself leader of the Proud Boys that might start to change.
> ...



FWIW, most of the a


KingVamp said:


> Hopefully RCV or approval voting helps change that.




Hey, I actually do agree with Xzi that he didn't do a good enough job with limiting deficit spending in a certain thread that got taken down for being "fake news" by Costello even though I find a good majority of his sources in his QAnon thread to be fake news themselves. I certainly don't think he's the Second Coming of Christ like many of the stereotypical Trump supporters that you guys like to say exist, which while they do, some of us realize also that David slept with Bathsheba and had her husband killed along with some of his personal servants in battle to cover up his sin. But Wikipedia? A Medium article? Fucking random Reddit posts? Those are more reliable sources?

By the way, I love that no one has actually went and tried to refute my points. I guess @0xFFFFFFFF is fine being racist. And Xzi just broke down when arguing with tabzer by calling him a douchebag, a clear sign of the winner in a debate! XD


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 25, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> I always wondered why so many Americans came to Scotland to do higher education. Then I found out the costs of such things in America aparently the advantage cost of college for the 2017–2018 school year was $20,770 for public schools (in-state) and *$46,950* for nonprofit private schools,  compare that to the cost here in Scotland and it's no bloody wonder a shit load of Americans come here.
> 
> What is that cost you ask here in Scotland well its a huge fuck all as all levels of education are totally free.



And your hard earned wages are paying for it! After all, who needs national sovereignty when we can just hold hands with each other and act like everything is hunky dory?

Screw individual achievement, just be a part of the collective: a number, and nothing else.


Or, to put it more metaphorically, this ending from Critical Depth when the gaming industry wasn't simping for Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and Jack Thompson's opinions of which I'm sure has no influence on games and content within them whatsoever! /s:


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> And your hard earned wages are paying for it!
> 
> Screw individual achievement, just be a part of the collective: a number, and nothing else.


The fuck are you talking about man?  She said they get free education.  _Our_ hard-earned wages pay for it.  _Our_ privatized systems already turn everybody into a number.  Scotland doesn't have less "freedom" just because people can pursue higher education, in whatever field they choose, for far less money.  Even when accounting for the extra taxes it's still like 3% of education costs in America.

You've taken a lot of propaganda to heart if you're assuming that any deviation from the current strain of crony capitalism can only make things worse.  On the contrary, there's pretty much nowhere to go but up.  The US has essentially been one giant pyramid scheme for the last four years, and that mentality has seeped into every industry, including education.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2021)

I agree.  Taxation & the devaluation of currency = free things.  Haha, no, no it doesn't.  When people like @AmandaRose says something is free, it's because he/she doesn't consider what everyone else is sacrificing for him/her.  It's spoiled, and would be contained within its own small social cage if it weren't for the internet (which also isn't built on free stuff).

If you aren't lying to us, then you are lying to yourself.  Try to determine how much you actually produce.  Then consider that if everyone in a society was you; how would it survive?  If any part of the answer relies on becoming less lazy, then you are the problem.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The fuck are you talking about man?  She said they get free education.  _Our_ hard-earned wages pay for it.  _Our_ privatized systems already turn everybody into a number.  Scotland doesn't have less "freedom" just because people can pursue higher education, in whatever field they choose, for far less money.  Even when accounting for the extra taxes it's still like 3% of education costs in America.
> 
> You've taken a lot of propaganda to heart if you're assuming that any deviation from the current strain of crony capitalism can only make things worse.  On the contrary, there's pretty much nowhere to go but up.  The US has essentially been one giant pyramid scheme for the last four years, and that mentality has seeped into every industry, including education.



Yes, but higher earners end up paying more in taxes than those on the bottom, and even then, how can you be sure the politicians and their lobbyists who support them don't use loopholes in laws that they sponsor and support and pay the writers to purposefully leave said loopholes in aforementioned laws to be treated as equals like the regular citizens? You seriously think these people actually represent you when they can represent themselves and know that they can coast easy in life as long as their donors keep giving them money?

All in all, it makes going to college to earn a better paying and more comfortable job than a retail stocker moot when you end up getting more money pulled out of your paycheck, less benefits from the government, and everything else in between that the regular people could honestly make better for themselves if the government and bureaucracy didn't have its fingers in more ways than I think a lot of you guys and gals think in everything. Or do you seriously think your hard-earned wages should be going to someone else, lest your government kicks the door to your house down because you don't have The Bill of Rights in Scotland and points a gun at you and your hypothetical family for not paying for someone to go to college when they should either ask their family, friends, and/or community(ies) that they're a part of for support, or just work their way through college just like everyone else who is doing the right thing does. Those are the actions of mafias, drug cartel members, and gangs alike not just in the US, but worldwide. With no incentive to go to college, everyone is stuck at the bottom rung of society, either working a boring job as mandated by the government, not having access to food or basic medicine like what you and I do and take for granted, and there's no way for things to get better unless if the government decides to lift its knee off the neck of the population's opportunities to make money and a better life not just for themselves, but for their families, communities, towns, cities, states, and possibly entire nations?

You sign your name on a loan? You accept the full responsibilities of the contract between you and the other party(ies) involved. Whether you can get help or not matters little as long as you uphold your end of the deal. In the end, the assumption is that if both parties are being honest, then you can assume both sides are binded to each other until they fulfill their duties to each other. Scotland has less freedom because for a lot of people, the signage of income-restricting legislation occurred with no representation on their part in relation to their own country for itself. Of course, those who came up with and benefit from this system made the whole thing to benefit them because that's how politicians usually are. Or are you naive enough to think Cuomo won't prioritize COVID testing for those closest to him over everyone else?

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/High-level-health-officials-were-tasked-with-16044748.php

This is what you guys and gals don't understand about no taxation without representation: if the people's interests aren't being represented by the representatives, senators, and presidents they elect, they have an option, one of which you guys and gals would classify as terrorism, which I find interesting as the Roman Empire's words for "savages" that ended up eventually destroying what was left of the empire at its peak before the rise of the Roman Catholic Church was basically what one would call terrorists. The founding fathers put the Second Amendment in place in the event that our government would turn away from being a religious and moral one to being corrupt to the core and in need of replacement much like what happened during the Revolutionary War. They knew what the results of a people stripped of their independence would lead to:



Socialism. Does. Not. Work. Government bailing people out is like expecting people to stay at home with their parents for the rest of their lives. The amount of people who want to do that and waste the one life they're given is very low. By having the government come in and nationalizing everything, you basically turn the entire country, not just African-Americans, but all citizens into your personal slaves. When you owe money to someone, it's a ball and chain. And with how much people are on welfare because of financial mismanagement on their parts, or because of excessive taxation and regulation that is unnecessary in a free and open market due to competition, I think a good amount of people are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find out how much more its going to cost to maintain the living standard you and I have taken for granted for so long unless if people finally remember that the Declaration of Independence started with We The People, and was meant for a nation united in its understanding of the national motto at the time, which was "Mind your own business." As long as your business didn't interrupt that of others, you were free. The moment your irresponsibility spills over into and affects others, the offender should be responsible for cleaning it up, though if the offense is particularly grave, then exercise of legal power to execute true justice becomes necessary. And it is this executing of justice, free of social bias regarding any qualities about a person or persons, that will set the tone for a nation.

When you bail people out of debt, it doesn't fix any of the qualities that got them into it. It doesn't fix the hedonism, the lack of moral virtue, courage, strength, and character, the attitudes they have about living a daily life, or other problems that used to be viewed as being vices. It just resets the amount of money they have from being in the red.

"But what about the single mothers!? What about disadvantaged people who can't pay!? What about..."

Yeah? What about them? What kinds of decisions did they make that got them to that point in life? Were they smart, well informed decisions? Were they made with consideration towards a long term future, or just a flight of fanciful whimsey to satisfy a carnal desire for a natural biological urge that was satisfied earlier in life in our parents' generations because they were expected to mature faster than we are today, and because they patterned themselves after principles established and outlined in books containing wisdom for how to live one's life? 

Be it the Bible, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, Huckleberry Finn, Great Expectations, and other books of old that weren't just about a bunch of people who's struggles were just how badly they were cutting themselves. I know, "Fallacy of relative privation," and trust me, that's still a problem today, but for every decade, there's a dark subculture that seems to encourage this kind of unhealthy behavior in a subset of people that leads to more legislation passed that's trying to solve problems that used to be solved earlier in life when one parent could support an entire family on their income, have an authority figure in the home who had not just an emotional, mental, spiritual (if you believe in that), but also physical interest in seeing their offspring grow up to be as successful as they are. 

These are all small things that, when you look at the problems of people back in the 1950's compared to today, you wonder what in the Hell happened? How did people go from being able to buy cars with no problem back then to now everyone just using Uber and not even knowing how to drive a damn car in 2021 as being the standard well into their 20's? It's because of government trying to step in and fill the roles that families, communities, and friends and neighbors did back in previous decades.

We just sort of accept that people are on their phones, on their devices, even at social gatherings like its second nature, and then you look at old media from back in the day, and people were smiling, shaking hands, and just being all the more friendlier than ever. If someone said something you didn't like, they'd fight it out, whereas today, the moment a fight breaks out, especially at school where the bullied is defending themselves from the bully, both kids get in big trouble, and now, we have people killing themselves over the words people said not because bullies have disappeared, but because they've gotten a lot sneakier with their conduct, and now have a whole system that backs them up on their bullying of people who hold different opinions in a way that's not dissimilar to 1984 and the Ministry of Truth.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 25, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Well, if Biden gets his way, free community college might happen.


Imagine living a lie


----------



## Elvasat (Mar 25, 2021)

I wonder why Biden outright refused to talk to Putin live?
Does he even have the mental capacity?


----------



## djpannda (Mar 25, 2021)

Elvasat said:


> I wonder why Biden outright refused to talk to Putin live?
> Does he even have the mental capacity?


maybe because







*Russia Navalny: Poisoned opposition leader held after flying home*


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 25, 2021)

This guy brain is fried 
🇺🇸 — WATCH: President Biden at his first Press Conference, says that he came to the US Senate "120 years ago" when answering a question about ending the filibuster. pic.twitter.com/HPY0e0oL1q— Belaaz News (@TheBelaaz) March 25, 2021


----------



## djpannda (Mar 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> This guy brain is fried
> https://twitter.com/TheBelaaz/status/1375142527431495681


Laugh out loud... 
I get it... he is old.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 25, 2021)

More popular than Obama we were told 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1375150770681737216


----------



## djpannda (Mar 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> More popular than Obama we were told
> https://twitter.com/QuarantinedCoof/status/1375150770681737216


yes 81 million.. how many tells do we have to tell you.


----------



## Elvasat (Mar 25, 2021)

I can not comprehend as to why 80 Million Americans vote vote a man with dementia. I know people in the US can be whacky but that is a whole new level of crazy.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Yes, but higher earners end up paying more in taxes than those on the bottom, and even then, how can you be sure the politicians and their lobbyists who support them don't use loopholes in laws that they sponsor and support and pay the writers to purposefully leave said loopholes in aforementioned laws to be treated as equals like the regular citizens?


Nobody gets to know exactly where their taxes go or what they're spent on, but that's ultimately irrelevant.  At the end of the day they're still paying a small fraction of what we do for higher education, not simply to spite the US, but because they believe their own citizens are worth the investment.  Most Republicans and even some Democrats would rather see you broke, dumb, jobless, and living in a trailer park after high school.  Makes people that much easier to anger/manipulate.



Silent_Gunner said:


> All in all, it makes going to college to earn a better paying and more comfortable job than a retail stocker moot when you end up getting more money pulled out of your paycheck, less benefits from the government, and everything else in between that the regular people could honestly make better for themselves if the government and bureaucracy didn't have its fingers in more ways than I think a lot of you guys and gals think in everything.


In France, McDonald's employees make around $22/hour.  Believe me, they don't care if a little extra is taken out in taxes, and they do get far more benefits from the government than we do.  They also have a much higher standard of living.  The idea that nothing can improve in America without sacrificing some other aspect of our lives or freedoms is nonsense, rooted in nothing but nihilism and Stockholm Syndrome.

As for your socialism diatribe, it was amusing, but that wasn't even the topic at hand.  Universal healthcare, tuition-free college, UBI, and pandemic assistance...none of these things are are socialist by nature.  We're literally comparing apples to apples here, the US against other capitalist countries, so there is no excuse whatsoever for why we can't do better.



Silent_Gunner said:


> These are all small things that, when you look at the problems of people back in the 1950's compared to today, you wonder what in the Hell happened? How did people go from being able to buy cars with no problem back then to now everyone just using Uber and not even knowing how to drive a damn car in 2021 as being the standard well into their 20's? It's because of government trying to step in and fill the roles that families, communities, and friends and neighbors did back in previous decades.


The tax rate for the top bracket in the 1950s was 90%.  The minimum wage from the 1950s when adjusted for inflation and productivity would be over $20/hour today.  In some cases, the government would literally provide you a house if you lost your job.  So obviously that wasn't the best choice of decades if you were looking to make a point about the benefits of a hands-off government.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 25, 2021)




----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 25, 2021)

Me checking this thread


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 25, 2021)

Elvasat said:


> I can not comprehend as to why 80 Million Americans vote vote a man with dementia. I know people in the US can be whacky but that is a whole new level of crazy.


In our defense, it was either old white dude or other old white dude, we didn't have much choice


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> It was either old white dude or other old white dude, we didn't have much choice


Yep, and one of the old white dudes had politicized a virus, causing the death of 500,000 Americans.  That's why the general consensus of the Democratic party that Biden had a better shot than Bernie was idiotic, literally anybody would've beaten Trump with his record in office working against him.  Well, _almost_ anyone.  Not Hillary.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nobody gets to know exactly where their taxes go or what they're spent on, but that's ultimately irrelevant.  At the end of the day they're still paying a small fraction of what we do for higher education, not simply to spite the US, but because they believe their own citizens are worth the investment.  Most Republicans and even some Democrats would rather see you broke, dumb, jobless, and living in a trailer park after high school.  Makes people that much easier to anger/manipulate.
> 
> 
> In France, McDonald's employees make around $22/hour.  Believe me, they don't care if a little extra is taken out in taxes, and they do get far more benefits from the government than we do.  They also have a much higher standard of living.  The idea that nothing can improve in America without sacrificing some other aspect of our lives or freedoms is nonsense, rooted in nothing but nihilism and Stockholm Syndrome.
> ...



Nobody gets to know where their taxes go, except that they do when the money goes to Planned Parenthood and other programs they don't personally support for a whole host of reasons. And all politicians in Washington DC want us to be their slaves, on both sides of the aisle. People can get insurance from private businesses who, when the boot isn't being pushed on their neck thanks to taxes, regulations, and laws that limit the extent to which they, as a business entity, can exercise their liberty to give customers options that are way more effective than any government insurance or benefits package.

They make $22 an hour? So tell me if there's enough workers to get the job done in a timely manner, or if they hire less people and put the burden of the workload on fewer people to keep franchises from going into the red? And if the living standard is so much better in Europe, let alone France, then why are the people protesting the mandatory vaccinations? Might it be that they have nothing left to lose from rising up against their governments?

Pure capitalism hasn't been a thing ever since the days of the income tax, and as for your figures, how much of that do you think is because of The New Deal of FDR, the income tax, and other factors that led to the government getting more powerful slowly, but surely? It doesn't change the fact that the problems we view as being major weren't even a thing back then thanks to an economy and people who had savings that could weather an economic storm and who had more and better opportunities to build up said savings more easily back then compared to today.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> They make $22 an hour? So tell me if there's enough workers to get the job done in a timely manner, or if they hire less people and put the burden of the workload on fewer people to keep franchises from going into the red?


Yes and no.  France's unemployment rate has never been much higher than ours, and we're talking about international conglomerates here, they aren't in any danger of going bankrupt.  No reason to lick their boot.



Silent_Gunner said:


> It doesn't change the fact that the problems we view as being major weren't even a thing back then thanks to an economy and people who had savings that could weather an economic storm and who had more and better opportunities to build up said savings more easily back then compared to today.


So you agree that workers should be getting paid more in both minimum and average wages?  And that healthcare and education should be cheaper?  That's the only way we get anywhere close to recreating your idea of the golden years.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> And if the living standard is so much better in Europe, let alone France, then why are the people protesting the mandatory vaccinations?


Well due to heighten hysteria and also the insane amount of mis information, there has been a large up tick in anti vaxxers.
Oh and by the way. The living standard is much better. you want to know why?
First off, the united states is the only 1st world country in the world that does not have  proper paid maternity leave.
Second off the united states is not only the highest spender in health care, but also statistically get's the worst healthcare in the first world.

Here's a story that everyone has probably heard.
Your sick, you know you can't afford the doctor. and all you do is pray that it's not something awful. your condition gets worse, and worse and worse. Maybe you take a sick day longer than what your job offered. so your fired. So then you loose health care. And either you live with a giant ass medical bill you can't pay. Or fucking die.
A lot of people have died because the healthcare system here is not about being prevention, it creates a system where people are coming in at their absolute worst condition, and would cost more to fix. Than being preventive about it, and costing less.
meanwhile since there is little no price point in other countries. People are a lot more proactive if they notice something is wrong, and will go to the doctor asap.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I think being able to not worry about fucking dying because of health care costs is a definite better living standard if you ask me.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 26, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Well due to heighten hysteria and also the insane amount of mis information, there has been a large up tick in anti vaxxers.
> Oh and by the way. The living standard is much better. you want to know why?
> First off, the united states is the only 1st world country in the world that does not have  proper paid maternity leave.
> Second off the united states is not only the highest spender in health care, but also statistically get's the worst healthcare in the first world.
> ...



And that's what insurance, having savings, investments that you allow to grow over the course of your life is all about; having money for unexpected events, emergencies, and for any rainy day in general. But when expenses start rising thanks to government suddenly stepping in to power their way over private insurers, you have to wonder what the government is mandating that would cause costs to rise so high in the first place.

Then, you also have the fact that a lot of the elderly that can afford to get healthcare in the first place have a lot of the three things I mentioned earlier due to them having planned ahead for a long time for the years where their bodies would start to break down. It's because of this philosophy that you see more of the elderly living longer than ever...meanwhile, Social Security isn't getting any cheaper due to it being a program that should've been allowed to go bankrupt long ago, but keeps getting bailed out by the groups that want to keep it going.

As for your point about wages, @Xzi, I think by mandating minimum wages, it makes businesses' abilities to compete with one another lesser. It's much like putting a price floor in the apartment market; when a price can't go any lower, then it's going to affect those who can be hired; often times, those who could've been hired end up suddenly being a bad hire due to an artificially inflated increase in the price of labor.

And education being as expensive as it is is thanks to the same kind of mismanagement: as opposed to paying professors less, or cutting back on the costs of operating campus sports and other clubs that can honestly be their own organizations with their own payrolls independent of the college and by extension, the state and federal governments and agencies they partner with, and by not being part of a push to get more people in higher education than what is necessary, colleges can go back to being about legitimate higher education as opposed to being about indoctrinating young adults, many of whom are looking to specialize in a job field and not have to learn the "significance" of the Humanities when the study of it, on its own, has nothing to do with one's pursuit of becoming, say, an accountant, or an investment banker, or a chemist at a lab on its own.

Basically, trim out all of the fat in the "general education "requirements,"" and you reduce the costs in terms of money and more importantly, time it takes for students to become whatever it is they're pursuing that probably doesn't require them to take all of the classes that are "general education."


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> As for your point about wages, @Xzi, I think by mandating minimum wages, it makes businesses' abilities to compete with one another lesser.


If having lower minimum wages meant more competition, we'd have more than just two options for everything.  That's not the way things work.  McDonald's and Wal-Mart know they don't pay enough to live on, and they know that their employees have to compensate for their low wages by going on welfare, food stamps, or other assistance.  We as taxpayers end up subsidizing starvation wages, so it's in our best interest to stop allowing corporations to game the system that way.



Silent_Gunner said:


> And education being as expensive as it is is thanks to the same kind of mismanagement: as opposed to paying professors less, or cutting back on the costs of operating campus sports and other clubs that can honestly be their own organizations with their own payrolls independent of the college and by extension, the state and federal governments and agencies they partner with, and by not being part of a push to get more people in higher education than what is necessary, colleges can go back to being about legitimate higher education as opposed to being about indoctrinating young adults, many of whom are looking to specialize in a job field and not have to learn the "significance" of the Humanities when the study of it, on its own, has nothing to do with one's pursuit of becoming, say, an accountant, or an investment banker, or a chemist at a lab on its own.


I have no idea where you're getting this shit.  PragerU maybe?  In any case, it's ridiculous.  You can get a four-year degree in virtually any field and attend maybe one humanities class in that entire span.  We get it, you don't like people in general.  That has nothing to do with America's out of control education costs.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> If having lower minimum wages meant more competition, we'd have more than just two options for everything.  That's not the way things work.  McDonald's and Wal-Mart know they don't pay enough to live on, and they know that their employees have to compensate for their low wages by going on welfare, food stamps, or other assistance.  We as taxpayers end up subsidizing starvation wages, so it's in our best interest to stop allowing corporations to game the system that way.
> 
> 
> I have no idea where you're getting this shit.  PragerU maybe?  In any case, it's ridiculous.  You can get a four-year degree in virtually any field and attend maybe one humanities class in that entire span.  We get it, you don't like people in general.  That has nothing to do with America's out of control education costs.



More than two options? Bro, c'mon, there's way more options in those businesses than what you listed! Let me help you:

Fast Food:
McDonald's
Burger King
Arby's
Wendy's
Culver's
Dairy Queen
Subway
Taco Bell
Chick-Fil-A
Popeye's
IHop
Hooters

Retail:
Walmart
Lowe's
Best Buy
Costco
Walgreens
Sam's Club
Meijer
Home Depot
Menard's
JCPenney
Kohl's
Five Below
Office Max/Office Depot
The Salvation Army
Goodwill
Micheal's
Hobby Lobby
GameStop
EBGames (where they haven't been absorbed by the above)
Ross Dress for Less
Micro Center

But, sure. We have just two options for everything. Totes.


And boy oh boy, calm your tits! I never mentioned PragerU, and I don't even know why you're bringing them up. I sure hope you don't teach school, because if "wrong" answers trigger you this much, students would feel very uncomfortable with asking you questions. What I outlined is basic cost/revenue analysis; every business has assets, liabilities, and equities. And in order to stay solvent, they must be bringing in revenue to at least break even and be able to pay their liabilities on time. If they can't do that, businesses and/or the individuals they do business with will sue, and then if the business can't handle the legal fees or be able to get their shit together, then in a free market, they'd have to declare bankruptcy, and the owner(s) would have to assume all the responsibilities that come with said declaration. Money is the lifeblood of any business. It's a powerful tool that can turn both a profit for itself, its employees, and those doing business with it. It can also be abused, and is why there's such a big debt crisis in America; people borrow against the future of not only themselves, but also the next generation because those doing the borrowing won't have to be around for when the chickens come home to roost. 

By spending all this money on extracurriculars and on clubs that could be better managed by not being tied to the college's payroll itself, and by cutting how much they're paying professors or the benefits provided, the college can reduce the liabilities it owes, and thus the burden of the costs they have to charge its students, and make it easier for the organization itself to pay off its debts and to return to breaking even, with no subsidies or dependence on satisfying the demands of an external party that an organization that never got itself into debt that it couldn't easily pay off in the first place wouldn't have to do.

I know, this is basic stuff, but you'd be surprised how much people don't follow their own advice, and who's financial habits are the same as the government's. I was the same way until COVID hit; I had debt that I wanted cleared, but I figured, "eh, I'll get around to it when I have everything I want," a fallacy that's never ending because to want things, to be materialistic is to be human. But in a vacuum, where nothing matters, when there's no set goal or timeline, its easy to just have such an apathetic attitude towards important things in life. By wanting to be financially free by the end of last year so I could go and do whatever I want again like in 2019 and before, I did whatever I had to do to get to that goal; I cut down on the spending I'd normally indulge in, I decided to try and improve my standing in life by going from a job in retail at Walmart to a job in a distribution center with Target, and now, at another distribution center with a different organization that pays better and comes with more benefits, and I am growing and learning new skills each and every day, and am starting to gain a new perspective I didn't have before on my view of the world, especially seeing how this pandemic has, ironically, unmasked what side a person takes, and who and/or what they really put their faith and trust in more when the going gets tough.


Contrary to your assumption at the end there that's you also assuming other peoples' perspectives about who I am, I actually like people. If I didn't, why would I even be posting as much as I do here on GBATemp, a site where its more active userbase is by and large openly liberal at least, and baptized in the Bern and on fire for socialism as the leftist. I just want the best for those who I care about the most, and I can tell you that if, by some miracle I was to have kids, I'd want the best future for them. Believe it or not, but there's more people out there in the world who want to fulfill their natural urges in preferably more healthy and beneficial ways than there are people looking to become infertile or change their gender, and I can tell you that if and when push comes to shove, they will protect their own first before they will others. We are all going to die some day, and we're going to leave some kind of legacy to those around us. People in the world who might look on from the outside might not understand as much as those who knew the deceased, which is why education is so important to get right, which it hasn't if one was to look at declining test scores nationwide compared to those of other nations, which, while they might use other scales, if you have analysts saying that Japan and other Asian countries are performing better in school and getting higher standard jobs than the majority of the students in the US, and you have students who are getting into debt that they won't ever pay off because the college system lets them go into Gender Studies as a major which has very few job opportunities compared those available for an accountant, chemist, and engineer, then something must be corrected, and I can tell you that throwing more money to the wall and hoping it sticks has not, is not, and will not ever fix the problem.


You and a lot of other people on this forum and in related places need to grow the fuck up. There will always be another Tekken, another Street Fighter, another flagship Mario, Mario Kart, Legend of Zelda, or *insert game franchise/new game performing well critically here*, just like there's always going to be water running, food growing, cells replicating, and people who take assumptions like what you made at the end of your posts as being nothing more than that - assumptions, based on nothing but a worldview that you've formed that rationalizes wearing masks because you yourself don't want to talk to people in real life. That's your prerogative, and the choice is up to you. Don't expect the entirety of society to suddenly change because of your wishes, because while it's changed, the internal thoughts and feelings of every human being in this nation and other nations that locked down are not going to line up with what you and others on this forum think.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 26, 2021)

Well, the Republicans in Georgia have no one to blame but themselves if HR1 gets passed. They even banned giving out food in lines.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> More than two options? Bro, c'mon, there's way more options in those businesses than what you listed! Let me help you: snip


Lmao don't play dumb, I'm sure you're aware that a lot of those companies are owned in groups by even larger corporations.  Consolidation is the name of the game when you have infinite money from stupid low taxes and corporate welfare to buy out the competition with.

You're never gonna be in the 1%.  Stop licking their dicks and pretending nothing in America is their fault, or that they their precious income which they could never spend in a million lifetimes should remain untouchable forever.  Capitalism has failed us in so many ways (each generation more than the next), it's okay to critique it.  You won't melt.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Me checking this thread
> View attachment 254157


For some strange reason I'm not heated. I fell oddly at peace and relaxed reading comments in this thread. Today is a weird day for me for sure.


----------



## Elvasat (Mar 26, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> In our defense, it was either old white dude or other old white dude, we didn't have much choice



Trump is an old white man, so lets vote an even older white man.
Trump is a liar, so lets vote someone who lied so much, you could write a book out of it.
Trump is a woman abuser, so lets vote a creepy old guy who sniffes on little girls.
Trump is a rich white guy, so lets vote someone with ties to several billionaires.

That logic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Yep, and one of the old white dudes had politicized a virus, causing the death of 500,000 Americans.  That's why the general consensus of the Democratic party that Biden had a better shot than Bernie was idiotic, literally anybody would've beaten Trump with his record in office working against him.  Well, _almost_ anyone.  Not Hillary.



He didnt kill anyone, if you want to blame someone, blame Xi. I dont understand why American liberals dont whine infront of Xi about the Corona deaths since the Chinese were the ones who unleashed this bioweapon in the first place. I get the feeling that Progressives and Democrats are someonehow fond of the CCP which might explain why they endorse Antifa/BLM/PKK.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Elvasat said:


> He didnt kill anyone, if you want to blame someone, blame Xi. I dont understand why American liberals dont whine infront of Xi about the Corona deaths since the Chinese were the ones who unleashed this bioweapon in the first place.


This wasn't the first new deadly virus discovered and it won't be the last.  Each country's leadership was responsible for protecting its own populace.  Some succeeded beyond any expectation, such as New Zealand.  Others failed worse than we possibly could've imagined in the beginning, such as the US.  Remember when a projection of 250,000 dead seemed overblown?


----------



## Elvasat (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> This wasn't the first new deadly virus discovered and it won't be the last.  Each country's leadership was responsible for protecting its own populace.  Some succeeded beyond any expectation, such as New Zealand.  Others failed worse than we possibly imagined in the beginning, such as the US.  Remember when a projection of 250,000 dead seemed overblown?



You can't honestly compare New Zealand with the US, can you?
New zealand is an isolated island with 5 Million people and a population wuth a thin spread. New zealand has options in regards to lockdowns that other countries do not have. As for the US, each governor is responsible for their respective states lockdowns and its their responsibility to mandate it. As far as i know from relatives, who live in New York, their Governor Cuomo alongside other Democrat dems thought it was a good idea to throw the infected into Nursing homes, causing many deaths and Cuomo was also caught underreporting the whole nursing home debacle and still gets endorsed by most Democrats, even with the sexual herrasement allegations from 2 women. If you want to blame someone, blame your corrupt governors. 

China on the other hand still have to reveal their statistics, which they still conceal to the public. Honestly, with all the shit China has been doing, unleashing a virus, stealing organs from Turkic people and enslaving them, we can all agree that Japan did the world a Public service back in nanking.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Elvasat said:


> You can't honestly compare New Zealand with the US, can you?


Yes.  It's not like their science is decades ahead of ours.  All they did was contact tracing and heavily-enforced quarantines early on, while Trump downplayed and politicized the virus for months at the beginning.  Hell what am I saying, he downplayed and politicized it his entire time in office, then got secretly vaccinated in January, and only this month finally told his supporters to get the vaccine.



Elvasat said:


> China on the other hand still have to reveal their statistics, which they still conceal to the public.


Americans don't get to vote for Chinese president, so we exercise what power we do have.  At least on that front, Biden has sanctioned China for the Uighur genocide, whereas Trump never even mentioned it once.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lmao don't play dumb, I'm sure you're aware that a lot of those companies are owned in groups by even larger corporations.  Consolidation is the name of the game when you have infinite money from stupid low taxes and corporate welfare to buy out the competition with.
> 
> You're never gonna be in the 1%.  Stop licking their dicks and pretending nothing in America is their fault, or that they their precious income which they could never spend in a million lifetimes should remain untouchable forever.  Capitalism has failed us in so many ways (each generation more than the next), it's okay to critique it.  You won't melt.




I know that corporations own a lot of other companies and brands. And I really couldn't give that much of a rat's ass about these companies and especially any time they try to posture anything about morality. If anything, you're the one bringing up this unrelated point and who's changed the topic we were discussing all of a sudden. And lol at not understanding the basic concept of scarcity and thinking that money and resources is infinite.

And fwiw, I don't want to, or have any plans to be in the 1%. I'm sure they contribute to politics in ways I could never approve of myself.

And if you think Capitalism has failed so hard, then why do you have a gif of one of Yu Narukami's victory anims from Persona 4 Arena? Why do you have the games you play listed in your signature? Why do you have a character that was created by companies participating in the philosophy that is capitalism as your profile picture? Was it because capitalism and free market economics failed in your parents' generations, or their parents, and then their parents? Like everything us humans have made in one form or another, it's has its faults, but if you were to put an honest presentation on the economic philosophies of the world and the results they've brought on the societies they've been practiced in, capitalism would be the best thing we got at the moment, and trust me, my skin hasn't melted off from opening the Ark of the Covenant for saying that!

At the end of the day, everything you and I like is a result of the practices of trade associated with capitalism in markets around the world.

Everyone's income and the results of that income is felt each and every day we live our lives. Those of us in the US actually have it the best that us humans have had it however long we've been inhabiting this pale blue dot known as Earth. Take a look at all of the things that support a structure and give it the functions it has and marvel and consider that it was made by someone some time ago, who knew to connect this to that, support this to that, put a cable holder here and there, and make it look all neat and "invisible" to the casual observer.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> And lol at not understanding the basic concept of scarcity and thinking that money and resources is infinite.


Lol at believing this is an excuse to continue underpaying workers and providing them minimal/no benefits.



Silent_Gunner said:


> And if you think Capitalism has failed so hard, then why do you have a gif of one of Yu Narukami's victory anims from Persona 4 Arena? Why do you have the games you play listed in your signature? Why do you have a character that was created by companies participating in the philosophy that is capitalism as your profile picture?


Participation in capitalism is not optional for survival in the US.  And I hate to break it to you, but private businesses/game developers do not exist solely due to capitalist fairy dust.  Art in all its forms, including video games, transcends monetary value and economic restraints.  Besides, Persona 5 is in large part a critique of Japanese work culture and capitalism's rat race.



Silent_Gunner said:


> capitalism would be the best thing we got at the moment, and trust me, my skin hasn't melted off from opening the Ark of the Covenant for saying that!


Well you complimented it instead of criticizing it, so that still seems to be taboo for you.


----------



## Elvasat (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yes.  It's not like their science is decades ahead of ours.  All they did was contact tracing and heavily-enforced quarantines early on, while Trump downplayed and politicized the virus for months at the beginning.  Hell what am I saying, he downplayed and politicized it his entire time in office, then got secretly vaccinated in January, and only this month finally told his supporters to get the vaccine.
> 
> 
> Americans don't get to vote for Chinese president, so we exercise what power we do have.  At least on that front, Biden has sanctioned China for the Uighur genocide, whereas Trump never even mentioned it once.



New Zealand is currently struggling with low birth rates and the so called "Intelectual man drought" because they have a lack of educated men available for their "Strong wahmen" to choose from. This country is, if anything going downhill.

As for Biden, he was the one who took billions in forgivable loans from China for no apperant reason other than introdicing American billionaires to the Chinese.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Elvasat said:


> New Zealand is currently struggling with low birth rates and the so called "Intelectual man drought" because they have a lack of educated men available for their "Strong wahmen" to choose from. This country is, if anything going downhill.


Besides the point at best, completely irrelevant to the topic of COVID-19 at worst.  And honestly sounds like a good problem to have, I'd take me an NZ sugar momma.  No wonder GabeN has been spending so much time there.



Elvasat said:


> As for Biden, he was the one who took billions in forgivable loans from China for no apperant reason other than introdicing American billionaires to the Chinese.


Sounds like fake news.  He wouldn't be willing to criticize or sanction China if it were true.


----------



## Elvasat (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Besides the point at best, completely irrelevant to the topic of COVID-19 at worst.  And honestly sounds like a good problem to have, I'd take me an NZ sugar momma.  No wonder GabeN has been spending so much time there.
> 
> 
> Sounds like fake news.  He wouldn't be willing to criticize or sanction China if it were true.



True, but NZ's leader Ardern is often praised as a competent leader for dealing with Covid, yet she cant solve simple issues. From what i know, she is a man hating feminist and turned NZ into a gynocentric wasteland at this point. No wonder NZ barely has any high earning, highly educated men, especially younger men when the women there are this nasty. As for the whole sugar momma, forget it, rich women don't settle down for poor guys and sure as hell dont want men beneath them.

Biden critizied China, but its just talk. His actions say otherwise. He and his degenerate son supposedly sold american companies to military contractors in China and helped opening up the American economy for the Chinese. If im not mistaken, both Obama and Biden tolerated China's trade practices and did nothing when they cheated their way out of the agreements.

At least Trump was a strong leader and also one of few who was willing to stop funding pointless wars in the middle east.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lol at believing this is an excuse to continue underpaying workers and providing them minimal/no benefits.
> 
> 
> Participation in capitalism is not optional for survival in the US.  And I hate to break it to you, but private businesses/game developers do not exist solely due to capitalist fairy dust.  Art in all its forms, including video games, transcends monetary value and economic restraints.  Besides, Persona 5 is in large part a critique of Japanese work culture and capitalism's rat race.
> ...



How would you manage the resources at your Walmart store then to pay people better while not cutting hours, laying employees off, reducing benefits, or making changes that have to be made for your store to break even for the larger Walmart company and to not have corporate descend on yours and your employees' asses with no warning?


Survival doesn't mean what you think it means. As long as people have sufficient food and water and access to oxygen, they can survive just fine. Sure, maybe their living arrangements and/or options for moving out aren't as good as their managers or that of the CEO of a company, but their basic needs are met in more ways than you might expect as long as they plan their living arrangements frugally around the meeting of their basic needs. This is basic financial and resource management skills 101.




And art transcends monetary value? You must live in a small world, because guess how much the Mona Lisa sold for according to an article on MSN: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...na-lisa-just-sold-for-dollar98000/ar-BB1c1fbs

How much does a Chinese artist's take on the classical Last Supper sell for? Millions of dollars: https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-SJB-12444

And a painting by Botticelli sold for $92 million: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55839330

Are you aware of what you're saying? Sure, art can be debated as having value that one can't put a price on from a certain perspective, but you are unaware of the world to think no one pays money that would make sellers able to live like kings and queens in the world these days.


And I didn't say that Capitalism was perfect if you go back and read what I said.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> How would you manage the resources at your Walmart store then to pay people better while not cutting hours, laying employees off, reducing benefits, or making changes that have to be made for your store to break even for the larger Walmart company and to not have corporate descend on yours and your employees' asses with no warning?


The same way every other first-world nation manages to do it.  By regulating it and charging ever-so-slightly more for goods and services.



Silent_Gunner said:


> Survival doesn't mean what you think it means.


No it absolutely means exactly what I think it means.  Capitalism kills millions of people per year through both starvation and death by preventable illness.  Not even mentioning all the wars it has started just to please the military-industrial complex.



Silent_Gunner said:


> And art transcends monetary value? You must live in a small world, because guess how much the Mona Lisa sold for according to an article on MSN: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...na-lisa-just-sold-for-dollar98000/ar-BB1c1fbs


Again you're playing the fool, or maybe you really are that dumb.  Art transcends monetary value because it's all in the eye of the beholder, and the Mona Lisa will never truly belong to just one person, as everybody has seen it, experienced it in their own way already.



Silent_Gunner said:


> And I didn't say that Capitalism was perfect if you go back and read what I said.


I didn't claim that you said it was perfect, only that you complimented it instead of critiquing it.  Which you did.


----------



## smf (Mar 26, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Alright smart ass, explain this:
> I have many family members and friends living in the US, all of them Cuban refugees that don't have citizenship and some don't even have any sort of ID. They are not LEGALLY allowed to vote under any circumstance under any democracy (they could't vote in the US, or Spain, or anywhere else that has a decent democracy). Yet ALL of them received mail in ballots in THEIR name.
> How is that not voter fraud? Please enlighten me, cause in any decent democracy that would be voter fraud, but it seems in the US it's just "a vulnerability in the voting system", so if it's not ILEGAL, then it is (in the best case) ALEGAL.



Didn't cuban immigrants vote for Trump because they associated Biden with the regime they escaped?



Xzi said:


> Participation in capitalism is not optional for survival in the US.



No? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish

Quite what would happen if everyone became Amish, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the US implemented Star Trek.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

smf said:


> Didn't cuban immigrants vote for Trump because they associated Biden with the regime they escaped?


Yeah, which is ridiculous because Biden's previous record is about as "Socialist" as Reagan lmao.



smf said:


> No? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish


Even a lot of Amish communities participate in capitalism to varying degrees.  In some you can own cars.  If nothing else, there aren't unlimited trees on un-owned land they can cut down, so they have to source their wood and metal materials from somewhere.  My bet's on Home Depot.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The same way every other first-world nation manages to do it.  By regulating it and charging ever-so-slightly more for goods and services.
> 
> 
> No it absolutely means exactly what I think it means.  Capitalism kills millions of people per year through both starvation and death by preventable illness.  Not even mentioning all the wars it has started just to please the military-industrial complex.
> ...



And now you have people shopping for food at the local pop-n'-shop and Meijer, sales are down, and now you have to cut workers or reduce wages and benefits.

OK, now you're just using Saul Alinsky's tactics of accusing the other person of the crime of the ideologies that you're advocating has committed. Or do I need to remind you of the Holomodor? https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-famine-of-1932-33

And if by "preventable illness," do I need to remind you about the scandals where hospitals were reporting deaths that had other causes as being by COVID when it had little, if anything to do with it for more government funding? Or how about the PCR tests for COVID positivity being amplified?

And wars? You mean how Trump was trying to get us out of wars, and now Biden has our troops back in Syria again?


For some people, they will pay the prices linked in the articles to gain access to a copy or to the original of that piece of work for as being a part of their own private property! "Eye of the beholder" has nothing to do with the legal right to own an object through the trade of money for a good or service. Just because someone finds beauty in the Starry Night by Van Gogh doesn't mean they have a legal right to the ownership of that property to where they can just take the original from whoever owns it and not expect to be accosted by law enforcement for the theft of that piece of art.


So, you want me to critique it just because you told me to? Who says I have to do that? You? Who made you the authority over what I say or don't say?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> And now you have people shopping for food at the local pop-n'-shop and Meijer, sales are down, and now you have to cut workers or reduce wages and benefits.


Sales are down...because people have more disposable income and more to spend on the essentials?  Do you hear yourself?



Silent_Gunner said:


> And wars? You mean how Trump was trying to get us out of wars






Silent_Gunner said:


> So, you want me to critique it just because you told me to? Who says I have to do that? You? Who made you the authority over what I say or don't say?


There's no requirement you critique it, but having no slight critiques of capitalism whatsoever is somewhat suspect.  It's like you haven't truly lived in this country, or you've always lived from a position of such privilege that you were able to simply block out all the "distasteful" aspects of it.


----------



## smf (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, which is ridiculous because Biden's previous record is about as "Socialist" as Reagan lmao.



I didn't say they were making a sane decision.



Xzi said:


> Even a lot of Amish communities participate in capitalism to varying degrees



But is that through choice or because they are forced to?

They only need more wood if they want more buildings to grow their community, they could choose not to do that.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

smf said:


> But is that through choice or because they are forced to?


A little of column A, a little of column B.  They're slowly choosing to embrace capitalism more, while at the same time, capitalism is slowly encroaching more upon their communities from the outside.


----------



## smf (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> capitalism is slowly encroaching more upon their communities from the outside.



How?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

smf said:


> How?


Well they only have so much space assigned to their communities, much like Native American reservations.  Corporations will often build right up to that line, and then engage in targeted advertising campaigns like they would with any other group.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Sales are down...because people have more disposable income and more to spend on the essentials?  Do you hear yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sales are down from customers because they want to spend less and save more, and if your store is gonna be more expensive, then they will just take their business or buy item X, Y, and/or Z somewhere else.

More like you are naive and only say stuff to elevate yourself and your opinions. And honestly, the white privilege thing is just an excuse at this point. Blacks have never had it better in the US, be it if they support BLM or don't support it, and trust me, there are more of the latter than you'd think.

You laugh, but how about him solving a conflict that the US didn't have to send troops in for? https://nypost.com/2020/08/13/trump-announces-peace-deal-between-israel-united-arab-emirates/

The only distasteful thing is that you have leeches who live in the US, complain about why its not like Scandinavia or *insert European country here*, especially when the person lives in the US itself, is benefitting from the US' infrastructure that he himself didn't have any involvement in making, and just looks at everything that's already built and what's successful as some sort of twisted mess that should be torn down when everyone else is fine with the object being there, paying it no mind, while you and others are going crazy over the object's existence. Kind of like the following video:




And to go back to my original post a few days ago: Reddit. This thread is just Reddit on GBATemp. And it's exactly what I expected: people who aren't aware that the criticisms they dish out to people of whom they share the same qualities with.


You all are the things you criticize, and are doing nothing about other than being slacktivists. You say you support this and that, but you only say that, and criticize people sending thoughts and prayers because they "do nothing." Your only standards are double standards. 

If the US is such a shit country, move to Canada. Move to Scotland. Move to Australia. Put your money where your mouth is, and stop crying like the overgrown babies that a lot of you are! If all of those European countries are so great to live in @Xzi, why not move over there yourself? Because your profile says you live in the US, so either you're lying about the benefits, you're stuck here, or you're in the process of moving immigrating over.

You're not nice, or even good people. You're just people who signal one thing to get what you want, and then, when you do get what you want, the thing you asked others to share with you is something you don't share equally with others since you only share it with those you want to do share it with.


I'm done playing around here. Go on. Continue your orgies. I'm a fool...for thinking I could find friends in this hobby.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Sales are down from customers because they want to spend less and save more, and if your store is gonna be more expensive, then they will just take their business or buy item X, Y, and/or Z somewhere else.


We're talking roughly $0.20 more expensive, nothing obscene like I'm sure you're imagining.  And nobody _has_ to spend to survive more than the working poor.  Millionaires and billionaires are the only ones who can afford to save every bit of economic assistance they receive.



Silent_Gunner said:


> Your only standards are double standards.


Pot, meet kettle.  You say you want to improve things, restore wages and benefits to some semblance of what they were in the 50s, but then you fight tooth and nail for the 1%ers when pushed on the subject, and just to put a bow on things, you go on some race-based rant unprompted.



Silent_Gunner said:


> If the US is such a shit country, move to Canada. Move to Scotland. Move to Australia. Put your money where your mouth is, and stop crying like the overgrown babies that a lot of you are! If all of those European countries are so great to live in @Xzi, why not move over there yourself? Because your profile says you live in the US, so either you're lying about the benefits, you're stuck here, or you're in the process of moving immigrating over.


How about you fucking move to somewhere that is sure to never change or improve, like Russia.  The rest of us will keep pushing for improvement and progress here and keep on ignoring nihilists telling us we can't because it might hurt corporations' fee-fees.  Cool?  Cool.


----------



## smf (Mar 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Well they only have so much space assigned to their communities, much like Native American reservations.  Corporations will often build right up to that line, and then engage in targeted advertising campaigns like they would with any other group.



Which they can choose to ignore.

What you're describing is that it's hard to make the choice to live outside capitalism, not that you cannot live outside capitalism if you choose.

Do you see the difference?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

smf said:


> Which they can choose to ignore.
> 
> What you're describing is that it's hard to make the choice to live outside capitalism, not that you cannot live outside capitalism if you choose.
> 
> Do you see the difference?


You've ignored parts of what I've said.  They have to source materials from somewhere if nothing else.  They also have to buy chickens and livestock from somewhere.  It's certainly possible to reduce your consumerism by a significant amount, but it's not possible to survive in America without at least occasionally participating in capitalism.  In a number of states you can't even get half decent water out of the tap, you have to pay more for it.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 26, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Then, you also have the fact that a lot of the elderly that can afford to get healthcare in the first place have a lot of the three things I mentioned earlier due to them having planned ahead for a long time for the years where their bodies would start to break down.


false. the times back then are not equal to now. You had mutliple economic crashes reversal of polices.  and also the fact the minium wage was more up to date with the people of the past than the people of now.
Right now the federal minimum wage is 7.25.
You have the fact there has been countless attacks on workers unions, practically giving companies free reign to do whatever the fuck they want.
The federal minium wage back at 1980, which was 3.10. when adjusted for inflation was 10.53
You have the fact that the rich are not being taxed as much as they should be, despite the fact making many many times over what the normal person could make and 100x times more than what they could make in the past.
This essentially means that those in the past who made decent amount of money in the past were perfectly fine. But people from ages 30 and downward are completely and utterly fucked.



Silent_Gunner said:


> And that's what insurance, having savings, investments that you allow to grow over the course of your life is all about; having money for unexpected events, emergencies, and for any rainy day in general.


Cool but you realize that 40% of the average workers pay goes to rent alone? what about other expenses? food, water, car expenses (if it breaks down or something happens. I'm sure you had to change oil plenty of times at this point)
Oh and let's not forget that jobs are not required to provide health insurance, so go add that too. Oh your diabetic type 1? go add another 5% To those expenses. Your going to quickly realize that there is very little to save.
Let's not forget to mention in 1963, you could pay for collage with a job.
In the modern day, that is completely infeasible. You could work two entry level jobs, and still not make enough to pay for collage.



Silent_Gunner said:


> But when expenses start rising thanks to government suddenly stepping in to power their way over private insurers, you have to wonder what the government is mandating that would cause costs to rise so high in the first place.


Meanwhile united states is the highest spender in healthcare already, while having the worst care. Meanwhile the UK spends less money on health care but has some of the best care.
Didn't really catch the memo didn't ya.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

oh and let's not forget the cost of housing went up by 60% all on it's own. even without a minimum wage increase.


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Mar 26, 2021)

aka mr plastice face ,aka actor ,aka actor with a mask ,aka the real biden is dead or locked up somewhere dark 
merica JOE BIDEN FUCK YEAHHH <hint > look at the paint of airforce one


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 26, 2021)

scroeffie1984 said:


> aka mr plastice face ,aka actor ,aka actor with a mask ,aka the real biden is dead or locked up somewhere dark
> merica JOE BIDEN FUCK YEAHHH



_So you need to be an actor to fall down stairs as a old guy?
where should I go hire one?_
Anyways, really should go get yourself off the kool aid. Or else you being the next clown in the circus.


----------



## Elvasat (Mar 26, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> _So you need to be an actor to fall down stairs as a old guy?
> where should I go hire one?_
> Anyways, really should go get yourself off the kool aid. Or else you being the next clown in the circus.


Old people like him belong in a nursing home and not an office.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 26, 2021)

Optics are important.

Worldwide, we are all seeing Biden fail as a President.

We are all seeing the narrative from the mainstream media is biased and untrustworthy.

We are seeing a nation where the government is not trusted, whether it be the legislative, executive, or judicial.

...

And BTW @Silent_Gunner, I appreciate your comments in this thread. But at the end of the day, it's not the sheep's fault there are where they are... the blame lies on the herder. I have been told a few times, "If you're young and a Republican, you have not heart; if you're old and a Democrat, you have not brain." Consider this thread just a small reflection of today's society... and you will not be surprised to find a hate mob that despises free thought. #cancelcancelculture


----------



## Elvasat (Mar 26, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Optics are important.
> 
> Worldwide, we are all seeing Biden fail as a President.
> 
> ...



Biden got voted because he was the only Democrat who had something going for him, despite being senile. Bernie could not win a primary, let alone a national election and he would sooner die of a heart attack than become president. The other dems are either too old or about to be voted out by disgruntled progressives such as Pelosi and Waters. 

It looks like the days of the Democratic old guard are numbered.

Kamal Harris could never win a national election on her own and i highly doubt Biden will run for a second term considering his deteriorating health. If Biden can not form a proper sentence at 78 years, how will he look like in his 80's?

Putin knows that Biden is just some senile old fool, thats why he challenged him to a live-debate which he or rather his handlers outright refused because they know that Putin will run circles around him.

Biden will sooner or later have to face Putin and the other world leaders.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 26, 2021)

Elvasat said:


> Biden got voted because he was the only Democrat who had something going for him, despite being senile. Bernie could not win a primary, let alone a national election and he would sooner die of a heart attack than become president. The other dems are either too old or about to be voted out by disgruntled progressives such as Pelosi and Waters.
> 
> It looks like the days of the Democratic old guard are numbered.
> 
> ...



Flashback to Trump's first year in office... bringing peace to the middle east and Korea... something the mainstream media would have us believe was impossible. 

Old Ben Hiden has not done anything except for make this country worse off. People actually believe this election was fair and free, and yet it has not been allowed to be investigated. I cannot wait until a court allows for discovery, which is going to shine a big bright light on the darkness that is the DemoNcratic party. I mean, you literately cannot argue that this election was not rigged, because there is not the evidence to support it yet... at this point, it is nothing more than an opinion.

President Hiden is the personification of the pussification of America. I mean, he even misses Trump... at least that is one thing he said that the majority of Americans can agree with.


----------



## Philipp_94 (Mar 26, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Optics are important.
> 
> Worldwide, we are all seeing Biden fail as a President.
> 
> ...



Biden holds a press conference without mocking and ridiculing one journalist. Apart from not one single journalist asking a question about the situation RN, it was a pretty boring press conference. Like it should be, boring. Politics isn't something the average person should be involved. It should just work and you as a citizen should benefit of it. In elections you should've to decide between the person which is better, not which is the lesser of two evil (while Biden is still a thousand times better than the former guy).

Biden yet broke a promise, he promised 100mio vaccinations in the first 100 days, sadly it took him only about 56 days, shame on him!
Yes I know some will say "he inherited the plan!!1!11!" No, he didn't. The former dude just slipped away without leaving any intel on ongoing and planned operations, the new administration had to came up with a distribution plan from scratch.

You want to go off at the media? Sure, no problem with that. Most are biased. It's virtuall impossible to be not biased. The problem is: people want to share their opinion about things, they want to share that something good happened, when smth happened you can condemn. Now most people can perfectly differ between an opinion about some refugees seeking help, some people protesting for climate and politicians speaking out against racism and agree with protestors AND between "ThE pOlItIcIaNs ArE bOuGhT". You can clearly see lobbyism and corruption in like every other government, but right wingers tend to not be able to differ between "well, they actually stand in for these topics and want to change the future and living situation RN" and "they do it for fame".

Second to the media: the "mainstream media" is like the last which you can consider "moderate" in any way. Everything besides the big 5-8 news outlets does lean into a direction so strong, the actual value of true informations is lost.

Oh, you've a problem with politicians having stocks in some corporations or any other side income? Well, that's how it works. Most democrats pledge that while you're in office, you shouldn't be allowed to have any income besides your official salary. Guess what, not a single republican tuned in.

Overall the government can be trusted. Yes, it's dangerous to do it blindly and should be viewed with a critic eye. But hey, you surely would do better, wouldn't you?

Last thing: "cancelculture" no one, not a single living being wants to cancel something. BUT there's no reason to tolerate intolerance. Most people think that racism, ableism or overt sexism is ok to produce because "it's my opinion daw¯\_(ツ)_/¯" No, neither of these are opinions. IF something gets "cancelled" it's most likely due to the reason someone can't sell it because the society just won't accept or tolerate this kind anymore. Should old books be burned? No, never. Old movies not be sold or hosted? Nah man. But there's nothing wrong to put a reminder at the beginning.
Cancelculture my ass,
Throughout history certain "opinions" always got canceled, like women in jobs or having a vote, like poc, like the whole social security, depression/mental health.
If anything, society didn't cancel but opened up.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

Elvasat said:


> Biden got voted because he was the only Democrat who had something going for him, despite being senile. Bernie could not win a primary, let alone a national election and he would sooner die of a heart attack than become president.


How many times I gotta repeat myself?  Literally all but one of our presidents have been old white guys.  Biden is in better shape than Trump, and Bernie is in better shape than Biden.  All you have to do is take one look at each of them to know that.  Besides, the candidates' health ultimately had nothing to do with the outcome of the election.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 26, 2021)

Philipp_94 said:


> Biden holds a press conference without mocking and ridiculing one journalist. Apart from not one single journalist asking a question about the situation RN, it was a pretty boring press conference. Like it should be, boring. Politics isn't something the average person should be involved. It should just work and you as a citizen should benefit of it. In elections you should've to decide between the person which is better, not which is the lesser of two evil (while Biden is still a thousand times better than the former guy).
> 
> Biden yet broke a promise, he promised 100mio vaccinations in the first 100 days, sadly it took him only about 56 days, shame on him!
> Yes I know some will say "he inherited the plan!!1!11!" No, he didn't. The former dude just slipped away without leaving any intel on ongoing and planned operations, the new administration had to came up with a distribution plan from scratch.
> ...



A) Yes, we should all be more involved in politics... less we have our rights taken away from us. 

B) Biden has broken promises that he made on the campaign trail. As for the previous Administration not working with him... well, if he stole the election unlawfully, then that should be what happened. Time will tell...

C) Career politicians and family dynasties should not be a thing, but it is. T) his is why the "average" person should be more involved in politics, and not less. 

D) The government should be trusted in a sense... in the sense that you know they are going to hide the truth from you. How many more government whistleblowers will it take to understand this?

E) If anything, society is pretending to be opening up, while in reality the walls are closing in.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Biden has broken promises that he made on the campaign trail.


I'm sure he will end up breaking some of his campaign promises, but he's got three and a half more years in office bud.  Slow your roll.  He's also fulfilled certain campaign promises already.



tthousand said:


> As for the previous Administration not working with him... well, if he stole the election unlawfully, then that should be what happened. Time will tell...


Time already told.  The election's over.  The results aren't suddenly going to change a few years from now.  The only reason the Trump administration wouldn't work with him on the transition is because it was full of petty toddlers.  Same reason Trump never hung his predecessor's portrait in the White House, as is typically tradition.



tthousand said:


> D) The government should be trusted in a sense... in the sense that you know they are going to hide the truth from you. How many more government whistleblowers will it take to understand this?


"Government doesn't work.  Republicans would know, we're the ones who make sure of that."



tthousand said:


> E) If anything, society is pretending to be opening up, while in reality the walls are closing in.


Good, the walls should be closing in on bigots.  Force them back underground where they lived before Trump gave them permission to be the worst version of themselves in public.  The rest of us are tired of dealing with their idiocy and blind rage, not to mention all the mass shootings that result from it.


----------



## Philipp_94 (Mar 26, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A) Yes, we should all be more involved in politics... less we have our rights taken away from us.
> 
> B) Biden has broken promises that he made on the campaign trail. As for the previous Administration not working with him... well, if he stole the election unlawfully, then that should be what happened. Time will tell...
> 
> ...



A) yes, you should be kinda political active, as in voting, protesting things which are wrong. Not trying to stop the government from what's right. 

B) for all the accusations of "stole the election" nothing, not a single trustworthy source with any kind of actual credibility has anything which can really prove the "rigged election"

C) yeah, I'm with you. Being a politician shouldn't make you rich. Never. But that's nothing what you can just stop. Especially not with screaming or protesting. That's a thing which only ever can end with a hard break in politics and believe me, you absolutely don't want to have the gunslinging people to have the majority after the money is taken away from politicians. You only can abolish this mismanagement when moderate people are at power or else you risk a civil war.

D) the government doesn't gain anything by hiding. There's some things which have to be confidential, some things which no one should know about. But what's the gain from hiding "truth"? Nothing. Government doesn't like to "keep the sheeple uneducated". No. If so, it could be so much easier (looking at you, north korea). It's come this far that people can just disagree with scientifical facts and just get away with it. No, 2+2 doesn't make 5 just because some dude on the internet said so. Government doesn't benefit of doubtful citizens which get deceived by opportunistic third parties which want to "get the elites to scrumble!". What this whole "whistleblowing master plan" led to is pretty clear by now. Grief, trauma, misery. Just because people believed some dudes on the internet that the government is openly lying.

E) sociology wise, that's just not true. Society is so open and divers, people a hundred years ago would fall into a coma because of what's possible now. Close-minded (or bigot) people mostly just don't understand what they don't know or what doesn't affect them. To a heterosexual it may mean nothing but for homosexuals to be able to call each other officially husband/husband or wife/wife or any respectively means the world.
Yeah, homosexuals where considered equal but still different in many countries. Some don't allow them to adopt children.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 26, 2021)

How NOT to respond in a way to promote civil discourse....



Xzi said:


> I'm sure he will end up breaking some of his campaign promises, but he's got three and a half more years in office bud.  Slow your roll.  He's also fulfilled certain campaign promises already.
> 
> 
> Time already told.  The election's over.  The results aren't suddenly going to change a few years from now.  The only reason the Trump administration wouldn't work with him on the transition is because it was full of petty toddlers.  Same reason Trump never hung his predecessor's portrait in the White House, as is typically tradition.
> ...



How TO respond in a way to promote civil discourse....



Philipp_94 said:


> A) yes, you should be kinda political active, as in voting, protesting things which are wrong. Not trying to stop the government from what's right.
> 
> B) for all the accusations of "stole the election" nothing, not a single trustworthy source with any kind of actual credibility has anything which can really prove the "rigged election"
> 
> ...



A) Actually, yes, we the people should be fully aware of our constitution, and what our forefathers demanded of us, including taking back our government from tyrants if it ever came to that.

B) There is not trustworthy evidence that the election was not stolen either. There are more red flags in regards to the opposite in fact. The fact that the powers that be are scared to even shed a little light on the subject speaks volumes.

C) The problem with the government is there is little-to-no oversight. While it would be awesome to break the chains, without a civil war it seems like an impossibility.

D) I mean, yes and no. The government hides things like the fact it spies on us in all aspects of our lives, and even when Snowden exposes this as a fact, they do nothing to change it. And education is successfully made progressively worse and worse with each passing standardized test. For instance, let's say the tests show Americans are doing bad at math... do they in turn focus on bringing them up to speed? No, they just teach them math that is not as hard, so everyone can pass.

And speaking of science... don't get me started. I am a very very scientific minded person. I like to look at all opinions and question everything. That is not what is happening today. Scientists are being silenced and murdered. I mean, the mere idea of "laws of science" goes against the nature of science. It's like they need to dumb down every aspect of our lives... because we are seen as a commodity. Let's not kid our selves, America is the land of consumerism.

E) I agree that America has made grand strides in change, from abolishing slavery, to given rights to so many individuals, etc, etc. The problem nowadays is that there is an attack on free and open speech. One side gets away with murder (or at least threats).


----------



## Philipp_94 (Mar 26, 2021)

tthousand said:


> How NOT to respond in a way to promote civil discourse....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A) well as I always understood the constitution and the thoughts of the grounding fathers, they intended that every new government actually came up with a new form of Constitution. Keep what's working, get rid of everything what's wrong. Because they knew that future generations will be brighter and in other circumstances. Like the whole point with guns. Yes people should be able to defend themselves, I can't agree more with that fact. But please, there's not a single reason to have weapons designed to kill hundreds of people in a blip to be carried by triggerfriendly people in the middle of the day in the streets. If scientifical evolution is allowed and accepted there, it should be equally accepted anywhere else.

B) Well to me, the OSCE is a pretty good source. As a European, I tend to agree with them more than some people with "bad feelings about the election".

C) It absolutely can work without civil war. Problem with corruption and lobbyism is, once you give it a let-go, it's nearl inevitable. Watch at sport. People throwing a ball some 30m earn more in that 2h than the average person earns in a lifetime. But people just gave them a pass, society didn't actually acted against those, neither did society against corruption and Lobbyism. It can be abolished, but certainly not as long as people are taking part. Vote!

D1) government doesn't really care or gain anything from spying on the average person either. It's more corporations wich want to earn money. The whole Snowden whistleblowing affected what, a 100k on the high side? That's nothing id never not expect from the US to do. I always thought "how could anyone be surprised by this?" 
D2) I work in education and "making tests easier" wasn't a thing in the past 40years or so. Well, maybe some sport tests but they don't really matter. The curriculums do grow exponentially since years. Today, Students do have a weekly workload of what students in the 80s had in a semester. There are weeks where I literally do nothing apart from writing assignments and correcting papers. It's not that (your example) the us does bad at maths, they are at the same level. But in comparison they didn't adapt to even higher expectations. So as the knowledge I have to teach grows, the expectation that students will just accommodate to it grows (but even faster).
D3) well, last time scientists got murdered is long time ago. The reason why everything has to be "dumbed down" is that in the last 30 years (like education) science has made so astronomical huge steps that the average person just isn't able to understand. If you'd say to someone 20 years ago you'd be able to videocall someone with your wristwatch while you called your car to park itself, you'd be laughed at. Tbh, imho most people which "don't trust science" just don't understand it. And that's okay, not everyone has to have the knowledge of 20+years educated and working scientists. The fact that people are critical and try to disprove facts is a good thing. But the scepticism has to stop if you aren't able to disprove, that's when the dangerous "well they are hiding, they silenced etc" is really getting a problem today.

E) free speech isn't really attacked at all, companies just now start to take a stand in that racism, bigotry, etc aren't opinions. "You can't tolerate intolerance or you may end up with no tolerance at all" ~ the tolerance paradox by Karl Popper. 
Let's say you'd insult your boss, shouted that the company your working for is garbage or you just lie about your work, is it a violation of free speech if you get fired? No, because the freedom of speech just protects you from governmental consequences. You can say "this government is shit" even protest this in front of the white White House, day by day. But you can't really think that insulting your workplace or boss is protected by freedom of speech. It isn't and certainly never was.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 27, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Flashback to Trump's first year in office... bringing peace to the middle east and Korea... something the mainstream media would have us believe was impossible.
> 
> Old Ben Hiden has not done anything except for make this country worse off. People actually believe this election was fair and free, and yet it has not been allowed to be investigated. I cannot wait until a court allows for discovery, which is going to shine a big bright light on the darkness that is the DemoNcratic party. I mean, you literately cannot argue that this election was not rigged, because there is not the evidence to support it yet... at this point, it is nothing more than an opinion.
> 
> President Hiden is the personification of the pussification of America. I mean, he even misses Trump... at least that is one thing he said that the majority of Americans can agree with.



Apparently, an audit is occurring in Arizona, and I read about a similar effort occurring in Wisconsin just this week. Not sure if the latter is an audit or recount.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 27, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Apparently, an audit is occurring in Arizona, and I read about a similar effort occurring in Wisconsin just this week. Not sure if the latter is an audit or recount.


Apparently Bigfoot was seen riding off into the sunset on the Loch Ness monster's back.  Oh and there was a Kraken involved somehow.

Seriously, are you gonna keep moving the goalposts for Trump's imaginary inauguration back until we're in Biden's third year?  It was funny the first several times, now it's just pathetic.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 27, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Apparently Bigfoot was seen riding off into the sunset on the Loch Ness monster's back.  Oh and there was a Kraken involved somehow.
> 
> Seriously, are you gonna keep moving the goalposts for Trump's imaginary inauguration back until we're in Biden's third year?  It was funny the first several times, now it's just pathetic.



https://www.theblaze.com/news/arizona-full-hand-recount-machine-audit

https://www.theblaze.com/news/wisconsin-assembly-authorizes-2020-election-probe

And why is what I assert on here worth that kind of response? Or have I finally transcended into a being that can live rent free in people's heads...kind of like Trump still does!?



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Aww, did a cat get your tongue, @Xzi? Or are you out of talking points you learned from r/atheism?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 27, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> And why is what I assert on here worth that kind of response?


Quite a lot of what you've been asserting on here lately has been on the loopy side, to say the least.

Republicans are free to spin their wheels with audits all they like if it makes them feel special.  The documented numbers aren't gonna change.  Goes to show just how little interest they have in actually doing their jobs, aka governing.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 27, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Quite a lot of what you've been asserting on here lately has been on the loopy side, to say the least.
> 
> Republicans are free to spin their wheels with audits all they like if it makes them feel special.  The documented numbers aren't gonna change.  Goes to show just how little interest they have in actually doing their jobs, aka governing.



Heh, and you know they called the whole Pepe thing that on 4chan back in 2016, right?

And you can go say that an audit should take place and govern at the same time. And an audit might reveal things that a casual glance, or, IDK, something covered up by white pieces of cardboard over windows wouldn't. Or what, you don't think accounting practices that were put in place after the Enron scandal weren't necessary when an audit revealed how full of shit they were, and that the same principle should apply to who we elect as being the most powerful man in the US, if not the whole world?

And trust me, when it comes to the loopy I've seen, what I'm saying on here is normal in comparison.

Look, I know you like to argue because it seems like you have all the time in the world to do so, but I actually want to play games as opposed to arguing with someone who won't even listen to all that the opposing side has said.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 27, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> And you can go say that an audit should take place and govern at the same time. And an audit might reveal things that a casual glance, or, IDK, something covered up by white pieces of cardboard over windows wouldn't. Or what, you don't think accounting practices that were put in place after the Enron scandal weren't necessary when an audit revealed how full of shit they were, and that the same principle should apply to who we elect as being the most powerful man in the US, if not the whole world?


Recounts were already conducted basically everywhere the race was close, old white dudes who spend most of their time golfing aren't gonna turn up anything new.  Like I said though, they're free to spin their wheels, since the more time they waste on playing detective, the less time they have to focus on stripping away rights from their constituents.



Silent_Gunner said:


> And trust me, when it comes to the loopy I've seen, what I'm saying on here is normal in comparison.


Oh I'm sure, the shit on some of those alt-right sites pretty damn far down the rabbit hole.  So like I'm sure your momma has told you before: don't believe everything you read on the internet.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 27, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Recounts were already conducted basically everywhere the race was close, old white dudes who spend most of their time golfing aren't gonna turn up anything new.  Like I said though, they're free to spin their wheels, since the more time they waste on playing detective, the less time they have to focus on stripping away rights from their constituents.
> 
> 
> Oh I'm sure, the shit on some of those alt-right sites pretty damn far down the rabbit hole.  So like I'm sure your momma has told you before: don't believe everything you read on the internet.



Recounts != Audits.

And I'll add this to your statement: don't believe everything you see and hear on the news, either. They're a uniparty at this point, and really, they only seek to divide and conquer...and it looks to me like their propaganda tactics are working on you and monkeyman.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 27, 2021)

Some people have been drinking the propaganda red bulls and think they can fly


----------



## smf (Mar 27, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You've ignored parts of what I've said.



No, you are just under the impression that if I read your post then I would agree with you.



Xzi said:


> They have to source materials from somewhere if nothing else.



What materials exactly? It was possible to source materials before capitalism existed.



Xzi said:


> They also have to buy chickens and livestock from somewhere.



Aren't animals capable of reproducing without capitalism?



Xzi said:


> but it's not possible to survive in America without at least occasionally participating in capitalism.



You've offered no evidence that it's impossible, only that you (and many other people) would not choose to do it. That is not the same thing.



Xzi said:


> In a number of states you can't even get half decent water out of the tap, you have to pay more for it.



You can choose not to live in those states, or choose to drink rain water etc.



Silent_Gunner said:


> https://www.theblaze.com/news/wisconsin-assembly-authorizes-2020-election-probe



Either 58 people who voted for this are dumb or 35 who voted against it are dumb.

We shall have to wait for the result of the investigation to know which it is (a high number is no guarantee that you aren't dumb).


----------



## Xzi (Mar 27, 2021)

smf said:


> What materials exactly? It was possible to source materials before capitalism existed.


Right...you mean before property laws existed and Native Americans could just use whatever was provided by the land?  Long time ago my friend.  The modern amish live surrounded by parking lots and strip malls much as the rest of us do.  They can't just cut down all the trees on what property they do own, so wood and metal are likely coming from Home Depot in most cases.



smf said:


> Aren't animals capable of reproducing without capitalism?


Are you under the impression that wild chickens and cows roam the land freely?  Turkeys, maybe.



smf said:


> You've offered no evidence that it's impossible, only that you (and many other people) would not choose to do it. That is not the same thing.


Conversely, you've offered no evidence that it is possible to live in the US without ever once participating in capitalism.  Even the Wikipedia article on the Amish that you posted earlier contradicts that notion in a number of ways.  Anecdotally, the last time I saw Amish people IRL was arriving on a bus to Garden of the Gods, where they snapped a bunch of photos using digital cameras.



smf said:


> You can choose not to live in those states, or choose to drink rain water etc.


So you expect them to call up a moving company or rent a U-Haul?  Seems counterproductive if the idea is to avoid capitalism.  Drinking rainwater isn't exactly an option in states that go months without rain, either.


----------



## smf (Mar 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Are you under the impression that wild chickens and cows roam the land freely?



No I'm under the impression that some people already own chickens and cows and can breed them.

How they got them originally is not particularly relevant, maybe they stole them or something. They can turn their back on capitalism now though if they have enough resources.


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 28, 2021)

No you cant record the BIDEN CAGES 
How far is Joe Biden going to stop the American people from seeing inside the Donna CBP facility?Biden sent a political operative from DC to block our cameras and even threatened another senator to obstruct legitimate congressional oversight. pic.twitter.com/vHT2U7Nh1z— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 28, 2021


----------



## Xzi (Mar 28, 2021)

Silent_Gunner said:


> Recounts != Audits.


Audits were also already conducted in some areas.  Along with what, sixty lawsuits that failed to provide enough tangible evidence of fraud even for the tastes of Trump-appointed judges?



Silent_Gunner said:


> And I'll add this to your statement: don't believe everything you see and hear on the news, either.


I never said I did.  I mostly read my news online and vary my sources greatly.  What you quickly learn is that liberal media outlets are typically guilty of lies of omission/framing, whereas conservative outlets will simply lie to your face outright about anything and everything.



smf said:


> No I'm under the impression that some people already own chickens and cows and can breed them.


Correct, but there are far fewer breeders these days who are individuals or small businesses, odds are the Amish have to work with factory farms near as much as anyone else.


----------



## smf (Mar 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> odds are the Amish have to work with factory farms near as much as anyone else.



You seem to be moving from impossible to difficult.

America was stolen by the British from the natives. Then "Americans" stole it from the British.

If you stole enough before capitalism or turn away from capitalism after buying it then I think you can become self sufficient.



Xzi said:


> Drinking rainwater isn't exactly an option in states that go months without rain, either.



Dig a well then. You're building strawmen, I'm not saying it's possible for everyone to live everywhere without capitalism. You can hitch hike, or rent a u-haul. It's what you do after you turn away from capitalism that is important.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> No you cant record the BIDEN CAGES



Didn't they already exist before Biden was elected?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 30, 2021)

smf said:


> You seem to be moving from impossible to difficult.


Nah, still impossible.  Like I said, reducing your reliance on capitalism is doable.  Living a full life from birth to death _anywhere_ in the US without ever once participating in capitalism is not.



smf said:


> Dig a well then.


Made of naturally-grown bricks?  You see how we're just going in circles now?


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 31, 2021)

Thats just sad 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/PinkMilkSamurai/status/1377136387196002310


----------



## smf (Mar 31, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Living a full life from birth to death _anywhere_ in the US without ever once participating in capitalism is not.



You're arguing against a point I never made, you surely can't be held responsible from birth up to 18 & even then you can turn away from capitalism at any point.

I'll remind you of your original statement: _Participation in capitalism is not optional for survival in the US._

So if I choose not to participate in capitalism for six months living in a cave, I have still opted out of participating in capitalism.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 31, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Thats just sad
> https://twitter.com/PinkMilkSamurai/status/1377136387196002310



I happened to check out the YouTube channel within the first few days of the Presidency, and I noticed not only where there removing the comment sections from all their videos, but they were also changing the dislikes and likes. From one day to the next, you would see a massive decrease in dislikes, and a big increase in likes, when not even that many more people watched the video. 

And now they just want to remove the whole dislike system from their videos?!?! What happened to transparency?


----------



## Darth Meteos (Mar 31, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Some people have been drinking the propaganda red bulls and think they can fly


up is down
EDIT: apparently this was hard to understand
i shall rephrase:
this dude, a rabid regurgitator of a series of beliefs that are measurably wrong, is saying that people who actually understand the world are propagandized
fucking   l m a o


----------



## tthousand (Mar 31, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> up is down



as in out is in? or as in as above as below?

edit: Yeah, so the latter I see. What you know is what you know. But believe me, there is more that you or I do not know than what we do know. Ignorance is bliss, and in that sense I suppose I could be envious of you.

Open up and chug! LOL


----------



## Lacius (Mar 31, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I happened to check out the YouTube channel within the first few days of the Presidency, and I noticed not only where there removing the comment sections from all their videos, but they were also changing the dislikes and likes. From one day to the next, you would see a massive decrease in dislikes, and a big increase in likes, when not even that many more people watched the video.
> 
> And now they just want to remove the whole dislike system from their videos?!?! What happened to transparency?


YouTube regularly removes spam likes and dislikes from videos.


----------



## tthousand (Mar 31, 2021)

Lacius said:


> YouTube regularly removes spam likes and dislikes from videos.



YouTube has been doing a lot of shit they shouldn't do, at least that is what a lot of their content creators have been saying over the years. Given their corporate and political ties, it does not surprise me.


----------



## Raven_Raving (Mar 31, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Here we are, the inauguration is over and President Biden has been sworn in.
> 
> What are your hopes for his administration? What do you want from his first set of executive orders?



My hopes are the destruction of the American government and its replacement with a humanitarian state instead of the warmongering state it is, but that's a pipe dream.. for now.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 31, 2021)

tthousand said:


> YouTube has been doing a lot of shit they shouldn't do.


Removing spam likes/dislikes isn't one of them.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 31, 2021)

Raven_Raving said:


> My hopes are the destruction of the American government and its replacement with a humanitarian state instead of the warmongering state it is, but that's a pipe dream.. for now.


Which is unfortunate since really the reason why it is that way (or a lot of things) is because pain/war is profitable. If there was no profit motive, shit like this wouldn't happen near as often. (I won't say it will never happen. but it reduces incentive to do so)


----------



## Raven_Raving (Mar 31, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Which is unfortunate since really the reason why it is that way (or a lot of things) is because pain/war is profitable. If there was no profit motive, shit like this wouldn't happen near as often. (I won't say it will never happen. but it reduces incentive to do so)



Correct. Seems like we have a comrade in our midst


----------



## Darth Meteos (Mar 31, 2021)

Raven_Raving said:


> My hopes are the destruction of the American government and its replacement with a humanitarian state instead of the warmongering state it is, but that's a pipe dream.. for now.


For now. Fight on.



Lacius said:


> Removing spam likes/dislikes isn't one of them.


YouTube's solution is dogshit, though. One-size-fits-all fixes like this just damage the community. They could turn this around with a more nuanced response, but they're just going nuclear, it's fucked.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 31, 2021)

smf said:


> You're arguing against a point I never made, you surely can't be held responsible from birth up to 18 & even then you can turn away from capitalism at any point.


By moving to a non-capitalist country, sure.  Short of that, it ain't happening.



smf said:


> I'll remind you of your original statement: _Participation in capitalism is not optional for survival in the US._


And I'm holding to that.  People starve to death on our streets almost every day.  That would not happen if participation in capitalism was truly optional.


----------



## smf (Mar 31, 2021)

Xzi said:


> People starve to death on our streets almost every day.



Again, you're arguing a different point. You're saying that because some people fail that it's impossible.

By that argument it's impossible to survive capitalism, because people die every day trying to participate in it.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 1, 2021)

smf said:


> You're arguing against a point I never made, you surely can't be held responsible from birth up to 18 & even then you can turn away from capitalism at any point.
> 
> I'll remind you of your original statement: _Participation in capitalism is not optional for survival in the US._
> 
> So if I choose not to participate in capitalism for six months living in a cave, I have still opted out of participating in capitalism.


That is one hell of a bad argument. It's like just telling a poor person to go buy a new phone if their current phone doesn't work well.
First off. Say you wanted to move a non capitalist society. You would still
A. Need to interact with capitalism to even move from a capitalist society out of one. and that's assuming that you can save up enough money for such a trip, which a poor person may never get to do because wages are ass.
B. You realistically cannot live off the land. Since most resources are reserved by capitalists. See food supply chain, wood needed for a house or building material, assuming you can build a stable home and also assuming you have a space of land that is somehow not owned by someone, and anyone at all, which is a massive ask considering the retail market and urbanization and other shit. That's also failing to realize that even if you manage to do all those things. Monsantos or x capitalist buisness here can still fuck you over, since they can sue you due to their crops that they really don't keep in check has patented Gene's. (Which would get into your crops because of cross pollination) In which you will be sued, and oh hey, capitalism you great friend buddy pal friend comes by and will sue you. And if that doesn't get you in, other shit will.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And realistically, you would likely not even get into the build home phase since what are you going to build that home with. Air?
Oh and that's another thing. That's also assuming you have some sort of system for idk. Heating and cooling. Just go build yourself AC 4head.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 1, 2021)

smf said:


> Again, you're arguing a different point. You're saying that because some people fail that it's impossible.


It's the same point.  When a person starves to death simply because they have no money, that's a feature of capitalism, not a bug.  If it was really as easy to reject the system from within as you claim, at least half the country would be doing so today.


----------



## smf (Apr 1, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> That is one hell of a bad argument. It's like just telling a poor person to go buy a new phone if their current phone doesn't work well.



No, it's nothing like that. I'm not telling anyone to do anything.

To be similar to my argument I'm saying that poor people would be allowed to buy a phone, while you would somehow prevent them even i they'd managed to obtain money by some means.



monkeyman4412 said:


> A. Need to interact with capitalism to even move from a capitalist society out of one. and that's assuming that you can save up enough money for such a trip, which a poor person may never get to do because wages are ass.



May never, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone to not participate in capitalism.



monkeyman4412 said:


> B. You realistically cannot live off the land.



Some people do.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Just go build yourself AC



You're saying it's impossible to live without air conditioning anywhere in the US?


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 1, 2021)

smf said:


> May never, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone to not participate in capitalism.


_wow there buddy, friendpal chummy friend pal. your taking a diddle step 1 too close to really stretching that definition of everyone getting a choice friend pal chummy chum chum pal._
But yeah, that's a big fucking stretch.
_Remember how EA said lootboxes are player choice and what was it... optional? And enhances the players experience but we both know that it's not really optional._
If you can't tell what I'm saying here. Tl;dr captalism is like EA's lootboxes. Maybe less gambling, but, not very optional isn't it.
I mean idk. Last time I checked, moving takes over 10,000 dollars if it's over seas. And uh... How much are people saving on average again?
Oh wait. right. I forgot, no no it's not that people have really tiny wages, or that if they get sick and it's fatal they just have to go die because paid health care system go weeeeeee.
getting a job to move away from capitalism, to gain capital to move, is in itself, participating in capitalism.
i


smf said:


> You're saying it's impossible to live without air conditioning anywhere in the US?


Can everyone move? I mean you can say that everyone can move but does everyone actually have the resources to go move else where?(last time I checked, you need capital for that. oh wait, there goes you having to go interact with capitalism for multiple years again.)
And What if it's a situation like Texas? since we both know climate change is a real thing. Sometimes you just need it, willingly or not.
I mean unless you want to put death as an option. _freezing to death or over heating to death is a perfectly humane and valid option that we all should just be okay with!_
if you can't tell by my use of italics in this specific instance, I'm using a mocking tone.


----------



## smf (Apr 1, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> _wow there buddy, friendpal chummy friend pal. your taking a diddle step 1 too close to really stretching that definition of everyone getting a choice friend pal chummy chum chum pal._



I have never once stated that everyone got a choice. The opposite of nobody having the choice isn't everybody has the choice, only once person would need to have the choice.



monkeyman4412 said:


> I mean you can say that everyone can move but does everyone actually have the resources to go move else where?



I have never stated that everyone could move. Again, only once person in all of the US would need to have the resources.



monkeyman4412 said:


> And What if it's a situation like Texas? since we both know climate change is a real thing. Sometimes you just need it, willingly or not.
> I mean unless you want to put death as an option. _freezing to death or over heating to death is a perfectly humane and valid option that we all should just be okay with!_
> if you can't tell by my use of italics in this specific instance, I'm using a mocking tone.



WTF are you going on about? Mock all you like but saying that because you could possibly die in death valley without AC means that everyone living in any part of the US needs AC, is just plain dumb. People survived in the US without AC before AC was invented.

Nice strawman though. Keep building it.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 2, 2021)

smf said:


> May never, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone to not participate in capitalism.


Aka, you saying that it is possible for everyone to get a choice, saying everyone can do it, and then....


smf said:


> I have never once stated that everyone got a choice. The opposite of nobody having the choice isn't everybody has the choice, only once person would need to have the choice.


And here's you now back tracking on that exact statement, now saying only some can do it, which in the context of something systemic isn't a choice.
If only 0.1% of people from any demographic can make a specific choice that the 99% can't. that's not really a choice. that's not everyone getting a equal opportunity. Yeah you can say "but the option was there"but that's not realistic.


smf said:


> People survived in the US without AC before AC was invented.


and climate change wasn't much of a thing back then now was it?
Comparing the times of old to now is really retarded. Some regions are going to drastically change because of that.
Also a lot of people died from heat death or freezing to death back then. saying that people lived is really stupid, because yeah, people lived, but you do realize people did die of those things, quite frequently back in whatever fuck time your thinking of.



smf said:


> . Again, only once person in all of the US would need to have the resources.


and I am telling you that they have a very low chance of reaching that point to obtain those resources, even once.
one fuck up, one injury, could cost you 10,000 dollars in the health care system. And that number is what the average hospital bill is.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh and your "just live off the land" kind of thing also doesn't work, I know I pointed at some other stuff, but fundamentally it also just doesn't work.  It's illegal to do that mostly because property laws and such, and that I guarantee you 100% of the time, some land that you try to live off is owned by someone , united states government or someone else.
unless, you somehow own your own land, which I mean, last time I checked most Americans can only afford to rent homes and such. So you must be stupidly rich or at least in the top 5% which lucky you.


----------



## smf (Apr 2, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Aka, you saying that it is possible for everyone to get a choice, saying everyone can do it, and then....



For clarity, my  point is that if it's possible for a single person to not participate in capitalism for a period of time (and I believe some individuals have managed it) then it's not true to say that it's impossible to not participate in capitalism. I have said earlier in the thread that not everyone could do it.

Either I have failed  to clearly explain it or you've failed to understand it. Further arguing about what I mean is pointless as I have not changed my position. If you still refuse to accept that this is what I meant, then there is no point in continuing and I'll take any further attempt by you as trolling.

I accept it will be difficult and it might be uncomfortable, but that is not the same as impossible. It might require you or your parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc to have participated in capitalism. However if you include that then even if we get rid of capitalism completely (i.e we implement Star Trek) then you would still be arguing that we were still participating in capitalism because of what had come before and that doesn't make sense.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> No you cant record the BIDEN CAGES


Ted Cruz is a party popper, the Biden administration is preparing a Big Bean Burrito party to celebrate the end of the pandemic and Ted is spoiling the surprise. What a dum-dum, now everybody knows.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 3, 2021)

smf said:


> For clarity, my  point is that if it's possible for a single person to not participate in capitalism for a period of time (and I believe some individuals have managed it) then it's not true to say that it's impossible to not participate in capitalism. I have said earlier in the thread that not everyone could do it.



Holy mother of hoop hopping insanity. Jesus what is this? gymnastics class?


smf said:


> May never, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone to not participate in capitalism.


So let me get this straight. when you say everyone, you never meant everyone, but someone, which in this case would probably be some rich white guy who is probably in the top 10%
because they can dodge capitalism for a short period of time,
that means people can avoid capitalism entirely?!
WHAT METAL GYMNASTICS ARE WE PULLING!?


smf said:


> I have never once stated that everyone got a choice. The opposite of nobody having the choice isn't everybody has the choice, only once person would need to have the choice.


further more this statement (the fact you say once) Implies long term.
That "only once" aka 1 time, a person would be able to make that choice.
But also is completely contradictory.
the exact opposite of nobody *is *everybody, it's not a few people, or a lot of people, . What the fuck do you mean that it isn't the case? Like I'm sorry but I don't play 8 dimensional chess and fucking wii ultimate hoop challenge at the exact same time. What your saying takes a degree of mental gymnastics that I've honestly never seen.

my point being that your not making any sense. I can take almost  any one of your statements, with this new context, and point out how ludicrous it sounds, as none of it is sound logic.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Ted Cruz is a party popper, the Biden administration is preparing a Big Bean Burrito party to celebrate the end of the pandemic and Ted is spoiling the surprise.


Ted Cruz feigning empathy for immigrants is laughable.  Dude clearly doesn't even give a fuck about his own constituents, let alone anybody from outside of Texas.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 3, 2021)

let's go back to where some of this started.


smf said:


> You're arguing against a point I never made, you surely can't be held responsible from birth up to 18 & even then you can turn away from capitalism at any point.


So your saying that you can turn away from captalism at any point,
and "you" in this general statement is a stand in for everyone, since this is the internet and often we don't know each other, this is later supported by your other arguments.
but now with the new context that it's only some people, and has requirements this statement no longer makes any sense.Since any time mean implicitly implies that individuals in question have the resources to do it any time, when we already just established that was not the case.


smf said:


> Participation in capitalism is not optional for survival in the US.


For most people, and realistically speaking it is essentially everyone It isn't an option.
I can say everyone here since, it in practicality is nearly everyone. If I draw from a random pool of people in a walamart, most of the time it's going to be the rest of the 90% in that entire pool (exuding managers or store managers, since there are odds that they just might go into the top 10%, can't say for certain)
You mentioned living in a cave earlier, which I already established that land ownership is a thing that only the wealthiest of people have and that property laws are a thing, in which you would be arrested. Which is not an everyone thing. Now considering for inflexible  dependencies such as medication since some people require to be able to live, and that little dumb reality you made completely breaks. Most people who are socialists aren't looking for a short time vacation away from capitalism, they are looking to live in a entirely different system, where workers own the means to production and it is people over profit. Which again, your cave idea doesn't work. It is a systematic change that is being looked for. Not some vacation time in lala land.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Further more I also already established that most people cannot afford to move over seas, and takes a great deal of capital to move. Which combined with the fact I already explained that peoples wages are ass low, lower than they have any right to be here in the united states, combined with any unexpected cost such as a medical bill. It makes it downright unrealistic to just tell people to move to go fix their "I don't like capitalism problem, I'm a socialist"

and you can't tell them to stop paying bills, or else they are going to loose their home, as I already established that most Americans don't own, but rent. Which in that case, not having shelter is pretty much a death sentence.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2021)

This thread is getting more ludicrous by the minute. I'm so happy to see that real, honest to God debates here now sound like Month Python transcripts.



I'll need someone to explain to me how living without AC in Death Valley relates to the Biden presidency. If it doesn't, I think we can return to the original subject. The diversion is very amusing, but entirely off-topic.


----------



## smf (Apr 3, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So your saying that you can turn away from captalism at any point,
> and "you" in this general statement is a stand in for everyone,



No, that isn't what I was saying or meant. Which I've repeatedly told you and you're ignoring me, so you're either mentally unwell or trolling.

I didn't bother reading past this opening sentence as your post is nothing to do with what the point I was making.

Which I will repeat, if one person can turn away from capitalism at any point in life then by very definition it's possible to not participate in capitalism. I don't expect everyone to have the opportunity, or to want to do it.

You seem to want me to be saying something else that you can argue against, for reasons only known to you.

If you need an analogy to help you understand. It's possible to run the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds as Usain Bolt did it, but I won't ever be able to and I don't even want to put myself through trying.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 3, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Oh and your "just live off the land" kind of thing also doesn't work, I know I pointed at some other stuff, but fundamentally it also just doesn't work.  It's illegal to do that mostly because property laws and such, and that I guarantee you 100% of the time, some land that you try to live off is owned by someone , united states government or someone else.
> unless, you somehow own your own land, which I mean, last time I checked most Americans can only afford to rent homes and such. So you must be stupidly rich or at least in the top 5% which lucky you.


As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. "100% of the time..." lol.

https://offgridpermaculture.com/Finding_Land/Free_Land___Living_Off_Grid_With_No_Money.html

https://homesteadsurvivalsite.com/top-10-states-living-off-grid/

Then there's this for other situations: https://www.avail.co/education/articles/squatter-rights-what-landlords-need-to-know#:~:text=What Are Squatter Rights?&text=Adverse possession laws allow squatters,the property, according to FindLaw.

And do you know why there are so many places for rent? Because in the long-run, the person renting out the property is either making money off of it, or using that money to pay for the property itself, so that they can one day move in without owing a bank anything for it. How can they make money? Because renting costs MORE than buying. There is land both with and without a structure (house) for sale in every single State.  Else (no money, or pretty much any other lame excuse you can think of), refer to link 1.

It's like you argue just for the sake of arguing, while being too damn lazy to even do a Google search.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 3, 2021)

The most pathetic president 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/MeOwOser/status/1378187565774340098


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The most pathetic president
> https://twitter.com/MeOwOser/status/1378187565774340098


YouTube regularly removes spam likes and spam dislikes from videos.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> YouTube regularly removes spam likes and spam dislikes from videos.


In all fairness, users are not allowed to comment on any White House videos anymore, which is curious to me. They don't have any other means to express their dissatisfaction or approval besides the Like/Dislike buttons. Why disable the comments? I was under the impression that interacting with the administration was a First Amendment right - it was certainly cause enough for multiple lawsuits when the Trump admin started blocking users spamming the POTUS account on Twitter. At that time the courts have decided that the right to comment on official government accounts is constitutionally protected, so why is the White House so afraid of detractors? That comment box should be permanently open. If the American right-wing had any sense at all, the matter would already be in court once more. Sadly, it's too busy being offended by "satanic shoes" to do anything effective or worthwhile.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, users are not allowed to comment on any White House videos anymore, which is curious to me. Why disable the comments? I was under the impression what interacting with the administration was a First Amendment right - it was certainly cause enough for multiple lawsuits when the Trump admin started blocking users spamming the POTUS account on Twitter. At that time the courts have decided that the right to comment on official government accounts is constitutionally protected, so why is the White House so afraid of detractors? That comment box should be permanently open. If the American right-wing had any sense at all, the matter would already be in court once more. Sadly, it's too busy being offended by "satanic shoes" to do anything effective or worthwhile.


There is a difference, legally, between turning off all comments and blocking individual users. In other words, the White House has the legal right to turn off all comments, but if the comments are on, everyone has a constitutional right to view and comment (edit: if they're Americans).


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

People participating on the internet, saying that capitalism is bad and that departure from it is impossible are simply not trying.  It's possible.  You might have an enemy chasing you for taxes and payment, but you can lead the good fight if you truly felt like it was an ideal and not just you simply blowing smoke or trying to be edgy. @monkeyman4412 @Xzi



Lacius said:


> There is a difference, legally, between turning off all comments and blocking individual users. In other words, the White House has the legal right to turn off all comments, but if the comments are on, everyone has a constitutional right to view and comment (edit: if they're Americans).


Seems like you decide what is legal.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> People participating on the internet, saying that capitalism is bad and that departure from it is impossible are simply not trying.  It's possible.  You might have an enemy chasing you for taxes and payment, but you can lead the good fight if you truly felt like it was an ideal and not you simply blowing smoke. @monkeyman4412 @Xzi
> 
> 
> Seems like you decide what is legal.


I don't decide what's legal. I'm telling you though that the law is clear about statements made by POTUS to the public having to be available to the public. The problem with Trump blocking people on Twitter is it made it so users couldn't even see what Trump was posting, which is arguably illegal. There is nothing in the constitution nor statute that says everything the White House posts must come with a comments section. As long was what's posted to the public is viewable by the public, there's no issue. Feel free to point out where I got anything wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is a difference, legally, between turning off all comments and blocking individual users. In other words, the White House has the legal right to turn off all comments, but if the comments are on, everyone has a constitutional right to view and comment (edit: if they're Americans).


The only difference between prohibiting one person from exercising their constitutional rights and prohibiting everyone from doing so is that the latter is more egregious than the former. To use the same phrasing as Judge Buchwald, much like the POTUS Twitter account, the White House YouTube account serves as "a designated public forum" by the virtue of the platform it operates on. The moment comments were disabled is precisely the moment the rights of citizens have been violated. The same first amendment protections apply, whether they're violated selectively or unilaterally is irrelevant. I am of the opinion that people are entitled to comment on this public forum in response to "official statements" made by the POTUS. I also reiterate that it would be politically expedient for the GOP to hold the Biden administration to the same standard the Trump admin was held to and push for transparency that was promised by Biden himself. YouTube is not the National Archive, users should have the ability to have discussions regarding any and all content posted on official government accounts.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The problem with Trump blocking people on Twitter is it made it so users couldn't even see what Trump was posting, which is arguably illegal. There is nothing in the constitution nor statute that says everything the White House posts must come with a comments section. As long was what's posted to the public is viewable by the public, there's no issue. Feel free to point out where I got anything wrong.



The Biden administration is taking steps towards the silencing of public response, where it would be, and is generally assumed to be available.  

Also (to play devil's advocate), if POTUS, a person, makes comments to his followers and non-blocked social media peers, it's not a statement to the public.  

You saying that turning off comments is legal is the same kind of legal it is for me to kill someone.  At least up to the point I am charged for it.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> YouTube regularly removes spam likes and spam dislikes from videos.


The defense force is here


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The only difference between prohibiting one person from exercising their constitutional rights and prohibiting everyone from doing so is that the latter is more egregious than the former. To use the same phrasing as Judge Buchwald, much like the POTUS Twitter account, the White House YouTube account serves as "a designated public forum" by the virtue of the platform it operates on. The moment comments were disabled is precisely the moment the rights of citizens have been violated. The same first amendment protections apply, whether they're violated selectively or unilaterally is irrelevant. I am of the opinion that people are entitled to comment on this public forum in response to "official statements" made by the POTUS. I also reiterate that it would be politically expedient for the GOP to hold the Biden administration to the same standard the Trump admin was held to and push for transparency that was promised by Biden himself. YouTube is not the National Archive, users should have the ability to have discussions regarding any and all content posted on official government accounts.


Like I said, there is no right to a comments section on the videos the White House posts. It is not a designated public forum in the same way Trump's Twitter account was, and there is no requirement for the White House's videos to be a public forum. The White House videos are viewable by the whole public, and that's all that matters.



tabzer said:


> The Biden administration is taking steps towards the silencing of public response, where it would be, and is generally assumed to be available.


The Biden administration hasn't silenced public response. The public can respond all it wants. There is no law, however, that says the Biden administration must allow that public response to appear directly below their videos.



tabzer said:


> Also (to play devil's advocate), if POTUS, a person, makes comments to his followers and non-blocked social media peers, it's not a statement to the public.


If the public can view Trump's Tweets, whether or not they are literal or figurative followers of Trump, then it's a statement made to the public. To block specific people from being able to view POTUS' statements to the public is unlawful.



tabzer said:


> You saying that turning off comments is legal is the same kind of legal it is for me to kill someone.  At least up to the point I am charged for it.


It is legal for the White House to not include a comments section on its videos. It is, generally, illegal for you to kill someone.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Biden administration hasn't silenced public response. The public can respond all it wants. There is no law, however, that says the Biden administration must allow that public response to appear directly below their videos.



I said,"The Biden administration is taking steps towards the silencing of public response".   You said, "The Biden administration hasn't silenced public response."  It did, and not fully.



Lacius said:


> If the public can view Trump's Tweets, whether or not they are literal or figurative followers of Trump, then it's a statement made to the public. To block specific people from being able to view POTUS' statements to the public is unlawful.



So right.  People who log out of their account can then see those statements.  Sounds like inconsistency on Twitter's part.



Lacius said:


> It is legal for the White House to not include a comments section on its videos. It is, generally, illegal for you to kill someone.



It is wholly legal for me to kill someone and get away with it as long as their isn't enough evidence to incriminate me.  It's also totally legal for the "White House" to censor people as long as they aren't challenged.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I said,"The Biden administration is taking steps towards the silencing of public response".   You said, "The Biden administration hasn't silenced public response."  It did, and not fully.


The public can respond all it wants.



tabzer said:


> So right.  People who log out of their account can then see those statements.  Sounds like inconsistency on Twitter's part.


Whether or not a blocked user could log out to view Trump's tweets is irrelevant to whether or not what Trump did was unlawful; it was.



tabzer said:


> It is wholly legal for me to kill someone and get away with it as long as their isn't enough evidence to incriminate me.  It's also totally legal for the "White House" to censor people as long as they aren't challenged.


Getting away with a crime is not the same thing as it not being a crime.

Whether or not the White House is challenged on this comments section thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's legal; it's legal.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 3, 2021)

As a rule of thumb, your speech cannot be impeded by the government. However, the government is not required to provide any particular platform for your speech.

For instance, the press briefing room is where the white house conveys its message, and reporters are allowed to ask questions. but they're called on, and it's somewhat arbitrary.
-Would you consider a press member not being called on a restriction of speech?

Let's say a particular group of folks were not allowed into the press room because of personal or arbitrary reasons.
-is this a restriction of speech? under what circumstance would it not be?

Are these two scenarios different, and how are they different?

Do not confuse not guaranteeing a platform with guarantee of not being restricted. It can be semantically confusing sometime, but they are clearly different.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The public can respond all it wants.



No, it can't.  It's been cut off from doing so, so now it has to resort to other means.



Lacius said:


> Whether or not a blocked user could log out to view Trump's tweets is irrelevant to whether or not what Trump did was unlawful; it was.



Right.  That's a past tense decree after the fact.  Before the courts said so, you would have been able to say the same thing.



Lacius said:


> Getting away with a crime is not the same thing as it not being a crime.
> 
> Whether or not the White House is challenged on this comments section thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's legal; it's legal.



It's not a crime if criminal law doesn't acknowledge it, in the same way that your "opinion" that the Biden administration's actions were lawful (until they aren't).


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2021)

It's legal until it is challenged and ruled against, and in my opinion it should be. The idea that you have freedom of speech because you're welcome to go outside and shout about a YouTube video to strangers like a madman has been challenged in the past - if your means of expressing an opinion in a manner that has adequate reach is restricted, it's violation enough, and there's no better place to comment on a video than directly under it. The actions of the administration could easily be construed as a limitation of freedom of speech and expression. That being said, someone would have to pose the legal question in an official capacity first in order to determine whether it should be permissable or not. Regardless of the legality, it sets a very poor precedent for the administration and is the antithesis of the transparency it promised. I don't think any previous administration has gone to such extreme lengths in order to avoid listening to criticism online. It's jarring and unacceptable.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> No, it can't.  It's been cut off from doing so, so now it has to resort to other means.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


@osaka35 put it well in the post above yours: Your speech cannot be impeded by the government, but the government is not required to provide any particular platform for your speech.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> @osaka35 put it well in the post above yours: Your speech cannot be impeded by the government, but the government is not required to provide any particular platform for your speech.



The government is not Youtube.  Putting pressure on Youtube...


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's legal until it is challenged and ruled against, and in my opinion it should be. The idea that you have freedom of speech because you're welcome to go outside and shout about a YouTube video to strangers like a madman has been challenged in the past - if your means of expressing an opinion in a manner that has adequate reach is restricted, it's violation enough, and there's no better place to comment on a video than directly under it. The actions of the administration could easily be construed as a limitation of freedom of speech and expression. That being said, someone would have to pose the legal question in an official capacity first in order to determine whether it should be permissable or not. Regardless of the legality, it sets a very poor precedent for the administration and is the antithesis of the transparency it promised. I don't think any previous administration has gone to such extreme lengths in order to avoid listening to criticism online. It's jarring and unacceptable.


There's nothing untransparent about not providing a comments section. Anyone can view the White House videos. Examples of untransparency would be blocking users from being able to see your Tweets, no longer holding press briefings, and other things the Trump administration did.



tabzer said:


> The government is not Youtube.  Putting pressure on Youtube...


We are talking about the actions of the White House, not the actions of YouTube.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We are talking about the actions of the White House, not the actions of YouTube.



You are right.  But I wasn't talking about the action of Youtube--as you seem to be implying...

Nothing against @osaka35 , but he/she didn't provide any clarity, unless the clarity is about how arbitrary and grey the terms of the definition are.

But the Biden administration took steps.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are right.  But I wasn't talking about the action of Youtube--as you seem to be implying...
> 
> Nothing against @osaka35 , but he/she didn't provide any clarity, unless the clarity is about how arbitrary and grey the terms of the definition are.


The government (in this case, the Biden White House) generally cannot impede one's right to free speech. However, that does not mean the government (the White House) must provide a platform (YouTube comments section under a particular video) for one's speech (YouTube comments).

I have a right to free speech as an American, but that does not give me the right to go on CNN and spew whatever nonsense I want on live TV. CNN, like the government, doesn't have to provide me a platform for my speech.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> However, that does not mean the government (the White House) must provide a platform (YouTube comments section under a particular video) for one's speech (YouTube comments).



Okay.  let's pretend that the default for Youtube videos are with the comments section off.  I _could _agree with you if that was the case.  But the situation is that the Biden group _elected_ for no comments.  That's an action.

Also, the platform is Youtube, not the White House.  Telling Youtube what to do, in terms of allowing comments or not, is a proactive decision--similar to Trump wanting to block people from his person account?

This is already perceivably bad, and we aren't even touching the issue that the Biden administration asked Youtube to redesign itself to further conform with its censorship of "spam"--which is a voice of the public.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2021)

The matter is far more complicated than you are trying to portray it. The White House YouTube account was a public forum as it is understood under U.S. law prior to the comment box being locked out. The ruling in Davison v. Randall explores and specifies what that kind of forum constitutes - an "interactive space - for ANY user to post on ANY issues". This ability has been restricted after the fact on a pre-existing account that belongs to the U.S.Government, not the Biden administration specifically. It functioned before Biden's inauguration and will continue to function after Biden leaves office. The same ruling also suggests that the matter of official government bodies running online accounts should be addressed by the Supreme Court to better specify how they should be ran in order to avoid future legal conundrums. The issue is anything but crystal clear, and I'm personally of the opinion that all government accounts on social media platforms should have their comment sections open without any exceptions and should not have the ability to selectively or unilaterally remove or restrict comments. Since those accounts are ran on private media platforms, this imposition on the account holders should not (and at present does not) limit the platform owners from removing commentary that violates community standards, which technically allows account holders to report content for third-party review. That's a sensible and transparent way to run things, anything short of that is thinly-veiled shielding from criticism on an otherwise open platform. The government should not have the power to remove your ability to directly critique it - by opening a public social media account the respective public official has accepted both the benefits and the drawbacks of running one, if they can't take the heat, they should close it entirely. You don't get the honey if you're not keen on getting stung by bees from time to time. I have zero doubt that if the Trump administration did the same thing, there would be no end to criticism over it.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Okay.  let's pretend that the default for Youtube videos are with the comments section off.  I _could _agree with you if that was the case.  But the situation is that the Biden group _elected_ for no comments.  That's an action.
> 
> Also, the platform is Youtube, not the White House.  Telling Youtube what to do, in terms of allowing comments or not, is a proactive decision--similar to Trump wanting to block people from his person account?
> 
> This is already perceivably bad, and we aren't even touching the issue that the Biden administration asked Youtube to redesign itself to further conform with its censorship of "spam"--which is a voice of the public.


Nobody is telling YouTube or Twitter what to do. The White House elected to not have comments on a video, and they are within their legal right to do so. They are not required to provide a place to speech with their videos. Trump elected to block people from viewing and commenting on his tweets, but he was not within his legal right to do so since he was a public official making comments to the public.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> The matter is far more complicated than you are trying to portray it. The White House YouTube account was a public forum as it is understood under U.S. law prior to the comment box being locked out. The ruling in Davison v. Randall explores and specifies what that kind of forum constitutes - an "interactive space - for ANY user to post on ANY issues". This ability has been restricted after the fact on a pre-existing account that belongs to the U.S.Government, not the Biden administration specifically. It functioned before Biden's inauguration and will continue to function after Biden leaves office. The same ruling also suggests that the matter of official government bodies running online accounts should be addressed by the Supreme Court to better specify how they should be ran in order to avoid future legal conundrums. The issue is anything but crystal clear, and I'm personally of the opinion that all government accounts on social media platforms should have their comment sections open without any exceptions and should not have the ability to selectively or unilaterally remove or restrict comments. Since those accounts are ran on private media platforms, this imposition on the account holders should not (and at present does not) limit the platform owners from removing commentary that violates community standards, which technically allows account holders to report content for third-party review. That's a sensible and transparent way to run things, anything short of that is thinly-veiled shielding from criticism on an otherwise open platform. The government should not have the power to remove your ability to directly critique it - by opening a public social media account the respective public official has accepted both the benefits and the drawbacks of running one, if they can't take the heat, they should close it entirely. You don't get the honey if you're not keen on getting stung by bees from time to time. I have zero doubt that if the Trump administration did the same thing, there would be no end to criticism over it.


A couple of issues: the accounts themselves weren't considered public forums; the comments sections were. Allowing public discourse on the comments section without blocking users and impeding on free speech is different that just opting out of a comments section. That's what the case was about. There's no law nor legal precedent for having to have a comments section.

You cannot make an argument for requiring a comments section be enabled on YouTube any more than you can make the argument that a government must use YouTube vs. a different video hosting site that doesn't have comments sections.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A couple of issues: the accounts themselves weren't considered public forums; the comments sections were. Allowing public discourse on the comments section without blocking users and impeding on free speech is different that just opting out of a comments section. That's what the case was about. There's no law nor legal precedent for having to have a comments section.
> 
> You cannot make an argument for requiring a comments section be enabled on YouTube any more than you can make the argument that a government must use YouTube vs. a different video hosting site that doesn't have comments sections.


I can and I just did. Disabling the comment section has changed the character of the account in question - an ability that existed previously has been removed by the current administration. You're incorrect in your assessment of governmental accounts on social media - they are in fact interactive spaces, and the ability to interact has been restricted to the Like/Dislike button only. I am perfectly happy questioning their motivation and I maintain that it raises important constitutional questions in regards to what future administrations can and cannot do with previously existing accounts that they inherit. The Biden administration is just that - an administration. They're currently in charge of the account in the same way a building administrator is in charge of a building's upkeep. They have the duty of care over the account and maintain it for the duration of the term, however much like a building administrator they should not have the ability to take a wrecking ball to it and punch a giant hole in its primary function - informing and communicating with the public. I can only hope that this move is eventually reversed as it is egregious and unacceptable.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> People participating on the internet, saying that capitalism is bad and that departure from it is impossible are simply not trying. It's possible. You might have an enemy chasing you for taxes and payment, but you can lead the good fight if you truly felt like it was an ideal and not just you simply blowing smoke or trying to be edgy.


Yeah I've already said it's possible...by moving to a non-capitalist country.  Or starving to death in protest of capitalism.  I've been working on possibly doing the former, but the latter I feel would ultimately make no difference.  People starve to death all the time here and the system stays the same regardless.

I won't even contend that all capitalist countries are created equal, some are better at minimizing the damage it can do and directing more of the profits gained from it back down to their working class.  There's no excuse for not having a strong social safety net when your country's corporations are raking in trillions in record profits year over year.



Foxi4 said:


> I can and I just did. Disabling the comment section has changed the character of the account in question - an ability that existed previously has been removed by the current administration. You're incorrect in your assessment of governmental accounts on social media - they are in fact interactive spaces, and the ability to interact has been restricted to the Like/Dislike button only. I am perfectly happy questioning their motivation and I maintain that it raises important constitutional questions in regards to what future administrations can and cannot do with previously existing accounts that they inherit. The Biden administration is just that - an administration. They're currently in charge of the account in the same way a building administrator is in charge of a building's upkeep. They have the duty of care over the account and maintain it for the duration of the term, however much like a building administrator they should not have the ability to take a wrecking ball to it and punch a giant hole in its primary function - informing and communicating with the public. I can only hope that this move is eventually reversed as it is egregious and unacceptable.


As if any useful information can be gleaned from _any_ Youtube comment section, let alone comment sections for videos that have anything to do with politics.  IIRC Youtube themselves disabled the comments on that account's videos because of the obscene number of right-wing bots that flooded them, starting with the inauguration.  There was no discussion or debate happening.  Two chimps flinging shit at each other better constitutes a "public forum" than that did.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can and I just did. Disabling the comment section has changed the character of the account in question - an ability that existed previously has been removed by the current administration.



100% complete lies. I saw plenty of videos/posts from official White House accounts when Trump was in office that had comments disabled, including on both Twitter and YouTube. Get out of here with that bullshit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> 100% complete lies. I saw plenty of videos/posts from official White House accounts when Trump was in office that had comments disabled, including on both Twitter and YouTube. Get out of here with that bullshit.


I haven't seen any, but if they were present, I'm both surprised it wasn't a headline and against the practice, regardless of what administration was in charge.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I haven't seen any, but if they were present, I'm both surprised it wasn't a headline and against the practice, regardless of what administration was in charge.


All the focus was on Twitter because that's where Trump spent the vast majority of his presidency.  Every time he blocked someone there it got some coverage.

Personally I'd say the fewer social media platforms government is engaged with, the better.  It's not like the president doesn't have a thousand other avenues he can use to communicate with the general public.  He can literally send a text message to every single American.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah I've already said it's possible...by moving to a non-capitalist country. Or starving to death in protest of capitalism.



You lack imagination.  Before vending machines there were other methods of getting food--wherever you are.  You don't expect those who are doing so successfully to broadcast themselves on YT or GBAtemp, do you?

*Snip*

Anyway, some people are publishing legal opinions as fact and I don't think I'd trust half the people here to help if I was stranded on the side of the road.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You lack imagination. Before vending machines there were other methods of getting food--wherever you are. You don't expect those who are doing so successfully to broadcast themselves in on YT or GBAtemp, do you?


"Before vending machines" was before I was born.  And you have to go back in time much further than that to reach the point where living off the land was common in the US.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "Before vending machines" was before I was born.  And you have to go back in time much further than that to reach the point where living off the land was common in the US.



The nature of this conversation speaks so much more about your character than actual facts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Personally I'd say the fewer social media platforms government is engaged with, the better.  It's not like the president doesn't have a thousand other avenues he can use to communicate with the general public.  He can literally send a text message to every single American.


I can't say that I agree. One of the first proposed amendments to the Constitution, Article the First, laid out a formula for Congressional appointments - one representative per 30000 constituents. Although never ratified, it's worth considering why Congress thought it was an important matter. The idea was very simple - each representative was supposed to be responsible in front of a group of peers that could, conceivably, approach them and give them their two cents. Anti-federalists had serious concerns, they wanted to avoid concentrating too much power in the hands of too few people that, although lawfully elected, cannot possibly represent the interests of their constituents due to the sheer scope of the constituency. Airing grievances and dialogue play a big part in representation - if you can't talk to your congressman, are they representing you, really?

Obviously this formula wouldn't hold up today - we can't have a Congress filled with 10940 representatives, and the 1 per 50000 math doesn't make things much better, but the motivation behind the article is still relevant. We now have the technology to address representatives directly with almost no effort. Every single politician who's on social media can be @'ed and they have staff solely dedicated to sifting through comments on various platforms they happen to operate on. Citizen-government interaction is important and the ability to directly address various members of government on as many social media platforms as possible aids in just that. You might not be able to ever speak with, say, your Governor face to face, but you absolutely can shoot a Tweet at them, and there's a fairly good chance that *someone* will read it on the other end - that's good.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The nature of this conversation speaks so much more about your character than actual facts.


I'll assume you've run out of arguments since you're now trying to turn this into a mud-slinging contest.  We got Native Americans hooked on alcohol and then put them on reservations where they would be forever reliant on capitalism.  If even they are no longer capable of living off the land, who is?  I have a feeling you're basing your opinions on this matter more on TV shows and movies than reality.



Foxi4 said:


> if you can't talk to your congressman, are they representing you, really?


Phone calls are the only way to get in touch with your representatives directly, and even then you're lucky if they answer one out of every thousand.  With e-mail and social media, there's like a 95% chance the only thing you're gonna receive back is a form letter response, assuming you receive any reply at all.  In theory all this technological advancement should make it easier to get in touch with them, but in practice they're still only one person (with maybe a couple staffers under them).


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Phone calls are the only way to get in touch with your representatives directly, and even then you're lucky if they answer one out of every thousand.  With e-mail and social media, there's like a 95% chance the only thing you're gonna receive back is a form letter response, assuming you receive any reply at all.  In theory all this technological advancement should make it easier to get in touch with them, but in practice they're still only one person (with maybe a couple staffers under them).


They don't need to reply to me, I just want them to read their feed, which they obviously do since they're all vain. If I can't @ them, I'm not truly free. Forget no taxation without representation, now it's all about no taxation without shitposting. To be fair though, as a cynical lolbertarian I would personally like them to sit on Twitter for 8 hours a day and maaaaybe actually work on the weekends, but you can't have everything, so I'll accept open comment sections protected by government mandate.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> All the focus was on Twitter because that's where Trump spent the vast majority of his presidency.  Every time he blocked someone there it got some coverage.
> 
> Personally I'd say the fewer social media platforms government is engaged with, the better.  It's not like the president doesn't have a thousand other avenues he can use to communicate with the general public.  He can literally send a text message to every single American.


That would be something. A president just texting everyone almost everyday. Are we allowed to block the president?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> They don't need to reply to me, I just want them to read their feed, which they obviously do since they're all vain.


The ones that run their own social media accounts I guess, but they're few and far between.  Before Trump came along, almost everybody just had staffers or interns do it instead.  You know as well as I that US representatives are mostly tech illiterate.



KingVamp said:


> That would be something. A president just texting everyone almost everyday. Are we allowed to block the president?


IIRC Trump used that capability once during his presidency, and I was able to block the number once the text came through lmao.


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 4, 2021)

You cannot block or shut off presidential alerts. It doesnt come through a number but through your phones notification system. FEMA is the one who sends out these messages, the name is a bit misleading making people think the president is sending them.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> You cannot block or shut off presidential alerts. It doesnt come through a number but through your phones notification system. FEMA is the one who sends out these messages, the name is a bit misleading making people think the president is sending them.


That's right, I had read somewhere previously that it isn't possible to truly block it.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 4, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> You cannot block or shut off presidential alerts. It doesnt come through a number but through your phones notification system. FEMA is the one who sends out these messages, the name is a bit misleading making people think the president is sending them.





Xzi said:


> That's right, I had read somewhere previously that it isn't possible to truly block it.


I never got the text. It probably had something to do with the frankensteinian state of my phone's OS.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 4, 2021)

I was joking. I doubt these messages will ever be sent continuously, unless something really bad was happening. 

I did get the message, forgot what it said tho.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'll assume you've run out of arguments since you're now trying to turn this into a mud-slinging contest.



In my previous response, I said you lacked imagination.  Your response to it cemented that claim and appears to be a joke.  If you were being serious, then there is nothing that I can say.  It's not something I can change your mind about.  You are already committed to not trying.  It is pathetic, "by definition".



Xzi said:


> We got Native Americans hooked on alcohol and then put them on reservations where they would be forever reliant on capitalism. If even they are no longer capable of living off the land, who is?



You say "we", so I assume that you are just playing along.  If you think "capitalism" is the catchall that explains the totality of your government's actions, then you are wrong.



Xzi said:


> I have a feeling you're basing your opinions on this matter more on TV shows and movies than reality.



I've lived in the wilderness and sometimes relying on a bartering lifestyle which was, in action, a form of distancing myself from a capitalistic lifestyle where the state knew "comparatively" little of my existence and had less direct control over my affairs.  Capitalism and communism as ideologies have no perfect execution from the standpoint of a government that is inevitably unaccountable.  Both of these aspects are dualisticaly inherent in human nature.  There will be times, in a community, where you want to help someone, and other times where someone's efforts are scrutinized as wanting--even if they are your own.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 4, 2021)

@D34DL1N3R, this thread is not a referendum on @tabzer's character, if you two want to argue, take it to PM's or, better yet, don't. Conversely, @tabzer, if you're being attacked, I'd appreciate it if you didn't perpetuate the problem by responding. Both of you know where the Report button is. I don't want to see more personal bickering going forward, consider it a verbal warning for both of you.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> @D34DL1N3R, this thread is not a referendum on @tabzer's character, if you two want to argue, take it to PM's or, better yet, don't. Conversely, @tabzer, if you're being attacked, I'd appreciate it if you didn't perpetuate the problem by responding. Both of you know where the Report button is. I don't want to see more personal bickering going forward, consider it a verbal warning for both of you.


*Snip*

If I recall correctly, it was he that called me an *names* to begin with. I get your post was mostly directed towards the both of us, but to play it off as if he was being randomly attacked is pretty weak sauce.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> If I recall correctly, it was he that called me *a name* to begin with. I get your post was mostly directed towards the both of us, but to play it off as if he was being randomly attacked is pretty weak sauce.


I'm not putting blame on either one of you specifically, I simply don't want you two fighting and flinging insults at each other. If that could be avoided, that'd be grand. You're correct, I didn't scroll quite far enough, he threw the first cussword, mea culpa. That doesn't change my suggestion - avoid getting into pointless fights going forward. We can get back to Joe Biden and his presidency, and leave any personal bickering out of it.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not putting blame on either one of you specifically, I simply don't want you two fighting and fling insults at each other. If that could be avoided, that'd be grand. You're correct, I didn't scroll quite far enough, he threw the first cussword, mea culpa. That doesn't change my suggestion - avoid getting into pointless fights going forward. We can get back to Joe Biden and his presidency, and leave any personal bickering out of it.


I said you don't have to be *a name*, as in act like one.  It was a very direct response to what you said and not who you are.  I also asked for a source, which @Foxi4 deleted.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 4, 2021)

We don't need to explore the matter any further, both of you were reprimanded, and I presume both of you understand why. Back on topic, if you will.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 4, 2021)

urherenow said:


> As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. "100% of the time..." lol.
> 
> https://offgridpermaculture.com/Finding_Land/Free_Land___Living_Off_Grid_With_No_Money.html
> 
> ...


you link squatters rights, which just basically says that the police has the right to boot you off property with notice.
You go and link two websites talking about living off the grid, and claiming free land.
Which here's the thing, I highly doubt that land is remotely close to free, but let's say it was. even then, again your not dodging capitalism, you know there's a thing called property taxes right?
And even then then, your not physically living outside of a capitalist country either.
So in other words you would have to go but homeless, pray to god the police don't come over and go tell you to get the fuck out.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> Which I will repeat, if one person can turn away from capitalism at any point in life then by very definition it's possible to not participate in capitalism. I don't expect everyone to have the opportunity, or to want to do it.


And I'm saying again, that was not your original argument. It was a lot more on the side of "well everyone can do it"
when really it was "well some can do it"

But hey, if you want to say that it was your intended argument, that by technicality because a small minority of person can avoid capitalism, it's possible to not participate in capitalism.
Then my argument is that because it is a such a small minority and the odds are so reduced, that in practicality you cannot avoid it in any meaningful long term way.
Socialists wouldn't be bitching and complaining about living in a capitalist society if they had the ability to go just leave. But since they are trapped, so they have no other option but vouching for change in the system they already live in.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I said you don't have to be *a name*, as in act like one.  It was a very direct response to what you said and not who you are.  I also asked for a source, which @Foxi4 deleted.



On topic... I already gave you sources in my original post. You asked for them after I already had provided them in the very post you were asking me to provide sources for. So. Shrug. Happy Easter.


----------



## smf (Apr 4, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> And I'm saying again, that was not your original argument. It was a lot more on the side of "well everyone can do it"
> when really it was "well some can do it"



And I'm saying again that you are wrong. So rather than let you bully me into retroactively changing my argument just because it fits what you want me to have said, let's focus on what I actually did say



smf said:


> No? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish
> 
> Quite what would happen if everyone became Amish, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the US implemented Star Trek.



I thought it was pretty clearly saying I wasn't confident that everyone could successfully not participate in  capitalism.

The main point I was trying to make was that there is no law that prevents you from not participating in capitalism if you can make it happen and I believe the number that could make it happen is > 0, I also would include people who steal everything are not participating in capitalism.

I think the reason why so few people "don't participate in capitalism" is because it's not as fun, not because it's impossible.

But maybe you'd enjoy it...
https://offgridpermaculture.com/Finding_Land/Free_Land___Living_Off_Grid_With_No_Money.html


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> In my previous response, I said you lacked imagination.


And my response is that your imagination is running a little too wild.  If you really believe that all it takes to live off the land in the US is "imagination," you've clearly never once visited here or even reviewed a small portion of our property laws.



tabzer said:


> You say "we", so I assume that you are just playing along. If you think "capitalism" is the catchall that explains the totality of your government's actions, then you are wrong.


Imperialism and capitalism go hand-in-hand.



tabzer said:


> I've lived in the wilderness and sometimes relying on a bartering lifestyle


For how long?  A day, a week, a month?  I too prefer to do business with individuals instead of corporations whenever possible, but it's not something you can keep doing for your entire life.  At least not here.  Camping, hunting, fishing, logging, etc all require a license and/or property rights too.


----------



## smf (Apr 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> but it's not something you can keep doing for your entire life.



Apart from eat, sleep, drink, breath etc, there is very little you can keep doing for your entire life.
At least for interesting people.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2021)

smf said:


> Apart from eat, sleep, drink, breath etc, there is very little you can keep doing for your entire life.
> At least for interesting people.


"Variety is the spice of life," sure.  That's an entirely different discussion.  It's not as though capitalism is the only economic system capable of providing said variety.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 4, 2021)

smf said:


> And I'm saying again that you are wrong.


So... your not going to read the rest of my statement, acknowledging your new/ or intended argument?



monkeyman4412 said:


> But hey, if you want to say that it wasn't your intended argument,that by technicality because a small minority of people can avoid capitalism, it's possible to not participate in capitalism.
> Then my argument is that because it is a such a small minority and the odds are so reduced, that in practicality you cannot avoid it in any meaningful long term way.
> Socialists wouldn't be bitching and complaining about living in a capitalist society if they had the ability to go just leave. But since they are trapped, so they have no other option but vouching for change in the system they already live in.


Your telling me that I was wrong about the previous notion. But then when I give you the chance/ allow you to change your argument/ give plausibility to it not being what you meant, and instead going with your currently presented statement, you don't reply to that?

I mean this is your current argument


smf said:


> Which I will repeat, if one person can turn away from capitalism at any point in life then by very definition it's possible to not participate in capitalism. I don't expect everyone to have the opportunity, or to want to do it.



I may of failed to make it clear, but for the second statement (made by me)

"But hey, if you want to say that it wasn't your intended argument,that"
it really should of been "your current statement actually is" between this and
, by technicality because a small minority of people can avoid capitalism, it's possible to not participate in capitalism."
In essence I was trying to summarize your argument you provided/moving on to your next argument, rather than analyzing how your some of your current statements change your previous ones since you said I was wrong.
And while I'm not of the opinion of that. There's no point between going yes and no forever and ever.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 4, 2021)

smf said:


> The main point I was trying to make was that there is no law that prevents you from not participating in capitalism if you can make it happen and I believe the number that could make it happen is > 0, I also would include people who steal everything are not participating in capitalism.


are you kidding me...
_sigh_
Okay, then can you stay consistent with your arguments? Like every single one of my arguments supports my overall statement,
Never once did I chance my primary argument. It pretty much is
"here's why capitalism is not optional for (almost) everyone"
you can see it in nearly every single one of my statements as being a through line, I gave supporting evidence to exactly why it's not available to most people, and why it's not really realistic for alternatives that's been stated here.


By trying to say that your main point was "there is no law preventing you from participating in capitalism" that completely invalidates plenty of your previous statement, since none of them included law.
And plenty times over you refactored that statement, and it was something entirely different


smf said:


> Which I will repeat, if one person can turn away from capitalism at any point in life then by very definition it's possible to not participate in capitalism. I don't expect everyone to have the opportunity, or to want to do it.


here's an example. So your argument a few messages ago is "it's possible because technicality"

rather than focusing anything on law.
And this drives me nuts. Either your trying to re frame your arguments, or you seriously cannot stick to one position and hold it. Or perhaps you really don't acknowledge when it happens. Don't go grilling on me about how I re look at your previous statements and try to re understand them when you make a new statement. Arguments are supposed to be built. I provided my foundation and gave the dressing ontop of it. Here your all over the place.



smf said:


> So if I choose not to participate in capitalism for six months living in a cave, I have still opted out of participating in capitalism.


Here's another statement of yours that is completely contradictory. No mentions of law now that I'm looking back even came from you.
You went by a technicality stance in these two quotes from you. Each of which I had poked holes into.


----------



## Jayro (Apr 4, 2021)

Most people can't even get a small business loan, without proving you don't need it first. The system is completely against people.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 4, 2021)

smf said:


> The main point I was trying to make was that there is no law that prevents you from not participating in capitalism


No explicit law.
But last time I checked taxes are a thing right?
I mean, owning land still requires you to pay property taxes.
(however yes, technically there is Agricultural Use tax exemption. but it depends state by state. Also do consider the fact that politicians are backed by companies. so if you even remotely start looking like a problem ,I'm pretty sure a law will be passed that will get you booted. Not the first time a targeted law like that has been passed by the way)
Which you know...
taxes, is capital... which is... ya know... capitalism?
I mean unless you want to be breaking the law by living in a place you shouldn't be.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> No explicit law.
> But last time I checked taxes are a thing right?
> I mean, owning land still requires you to pay property taxes.
> Which you know...
> ...


Uhm... No. People have paid taxes long before the concept of capitalism was even conceived. In fact, taxation by the state is contrary to the principles of capitalism which are based on free exchange of goods and services between private parties. The state charging you for the privilege of being a subject is not a capitalist concept in any shape or form.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Uhm... No. People have paid taxes long before the concept of capitalism was even conceived. In fact, taxation by the state is contrary to the principles of capitalism which are based on free exchange of goods and services between private parties. The state charging you for the privilege of being a subject is not a capitalist concept in any shape or form.


false, the form of taxation can come in different forms. In this specific case it comes in the form of capital/money. In which this case it is capitalism.



really good try at a gotcha though


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> false, the form of taxation can come in different forms. In this specific case it comes in the form of capital/money. In which this case it is capitalism.


The existence of legal tender is not a cornerstone of capitalism. "Money" entered the equation long before capitalism did, its function is serving as a universal stand-in for the concept of value which simplifies trade. It specifically exists so that we don't have to argue about how many bags of flour equal one chicken. The state taking money away from you is not a form of capitalism, you are not in a voluntary service agreement with the state and you're not under a legally binding contract signed by both parties - you're paying by the virtue of being a citizen. Peasants in feudal society didn't pay a bag of wheat to their local Lord because the Lord was providing them with some sort of services they ordered, they paid because they were peasants operating on the Lord's land.

Capitalism as we understand it today, or the concept of a free market economy, hasn't entered the scene until the Renaissance. Capital has existed for as long as civilisation has. Those two things are not one and the same.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The existence of legal tender is not a cornerstone of capitalism. "Money" entered the equation long before capitalism did, its function is serving as a universal stand-in for the concept of value which simplifies trade. It specifically exists so that we don't have to argue about how many bags of flour equal one chicken. The state taking money away from you is not a form of capitalism, you are not in a voluntary service agreement with the state and you're not under a legally binding contract signed by both parties - you're paying by the virtue of being a citizen. Peasants in feudal society didn't pay a bag of wheat to their local Lord because the Lord was providing them with some sort of services they ordered, they paid because they were peasants operating on the Lord's land.
> 
> Capitalism as we understand it today, or the concept of a free market economy, hasn't entered the scene until the Renaissance. Capital has existed for as long as civilisation has. Those two things are not one and the same.


okay and?
"fascism" also existed before we had a name for it. That doesn't mean its predecessors weren't fascism.
things don't just suddenly exist once they're named


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> okay and?
> "fascism" also existed before we had a name for it. That doesn't mean its predecessors weren't fascism. things don't just suddenly exist once they're named


Certain societies have implemented certain policies that also exist or are similar to those found in capitalist economic systems. That doesn't make them capitalist societies - you can't claim that they followed the principles of a theory that hasn't existed yet. Similarly, rulers have existed for centuries, but they were not "kings" until the first king was crowned and monarchy came into existence. Chieftains, maybe, but not kings.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Certain societies have implemented certain policies that also exist or are similar to those found in capitalist economic systems. That doesn't make them capitalist societies - you can't claim that they followed the principles of a theory that hasn't existed yet. Similarly, rulers have existed for centuries, but they were not "kings" until the first king was crowned and monarchy came into existence. Chieftains, maybe, but not kings.


Rulers haven't always existed. Not every society had one either. Your making really broad generalizations.
Also, tying this back since where we going is going to get completely out of scope and more broad that it won't really mean anything.
So, we can argue the entire time of semantics that money based taxes in the united states, isn't capitalist.
So how about we go down to function.
If I choose to stop paying rent, what happens? I loose my home right? and this apartment has some capital value to it. other wise people wouldn't be buying it
Now, let's move to owning a home.
If I choose to not pay property taxes in a house I own what happens?
I loose my home, and  IRS eventually sells my home.
That means that I am paying a fee to retain capital, since as I just established, it has value.
So In other words, this specific form of taxes, is most definitely capitalistic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

that also means that if I don't contribute to the "free market" that the "free market" will also forcefully take.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Rulers haven't always existed. Not every society had one either. Your making really broad generalizations.
> Also, tying this back since where we going is going to get completely out of scope and more broad that it won't really mean anything.
> So, we can argue the entire time of semantics that money based taxes in the united states, isn't capitalist.
> So how about we go down to function.
> ...


Any payment made to the state is not "capitalist" by definition, capitalism concerns private entities. The state is not a private entity - it's the state. The reason why it's not an element of capitalism, has never been an element of capitalism and cannot be capitalist is because the state is not a part of the market - the government has monopoly on taxation and state services. When you're unhappy with how your council patched up the road outside of your house, you can't give it a bad review on Google and call up a different council to do the job better. The government doesn't operate in a system of free market competition - you can't go start a new government to compete. The government just takes your money because it's the government and it can - whether what you own has any value or not is completely irrelevant. I don't know who told you that "if it concerns money, it's capitalism", but that's just wrong by definition. As far as rulers are concerned, even the most ancient societies we know of have been organised around one or multiple figures of authority like elders, patriarchs or matrons - there are very few exceptions. If you consider that to be broad strokes, I guess all I can do is shrug. Even non-human primates usually cluster around some kind of "alpha" monkey, it's entirely possible that it's in our DNA to seek out and follow leaders, or organise our societies in a manner that enables us to select our leadership. That's neither here nor there though.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> On topic... I already gave you sources in my original post. You asked for them after I already had provided them in the very post you were asking me to provide sources for. So. Shrug. Happy Easter.



You mentioned that it happened on Youtube sometime during Trump's term.  I was asking for something more specific.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You mentioned that it happened on Youtube sometime during Trump's term.  I was asking for something more specific.



No. You're wrong, again. I very specifically stated the OFFICIAL White House YouTube and Twitter accounts.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And my response is that your imagination is running a little too wild. If you really believe that all it takes to live off the land in the US is "imagination," you've clearly never once visited here or even reviewed a small portion of our property laws.



I already said the the decisions you may have to make may out you at odds with some of that.  I never said that you can live off the land with only pure imagination.  Disingenuous through and through.



Xzi said:


> Imperialism and capitalism go hand-in-hand.



Lol no.



Xzi said:


> For how long? A day, a week, a month? I too prefer to do business with individuals instead of corporations whenever possible, but it's not something you can keep doing for your entire life. At least not here. Camping, hunting, fishing, logging, etc all require a license and/or property rights too.



About 2 years in the US and about 6 months in Canada.  You should try it if you think you are being honest.  Look up WWOOF.  Anyway, it's my opinion that you are not providing, but just complaining.  So nothing is going to "work" wherever you remain a variable.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



D34DL1N3R said:


> No. You're wrong, again. I very specifically stated the OFFICIAL White House YouTube and Twitter accounts.



It's not wrong.  I asked you to be more specific.



D34DL1N3R said:


> 100% complete lies. I saw plenty of videos/posts from official White House accounts when Trump was in office that had comments disabled, including on both Twitter and YouTube. Get out of here with that bullshit.



To me, though it is potentially believable, doesn't escape being bullshit. Flipping out and not providing actual evidence.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Lol no.


The irony of someone with a Japanese flag claiming that America is not imperialist, rofl.  Too rich.



tabzer said:


> About 2 years in the US and about 6 months in Canada.


The argument I made at the beginning of all this is that it isn't possible to live a full life, from birth to death, inside of the US without participating in capitalism.  I never claimed you couldn't abstain from it for short periods of time.  So while you might've thought you were arguing against me here, you really only further proved my point.



tabzer said:


> Look up WWOOF.


Seems like a good program, but still not entirely divorced from capitalism assuming the farmers go on to sell their crops to supermarkets and the like.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The irony of someone with a Japanese flag claiming that America is not imperialist, rofl. Too rich.



I didn't say that.  Not even close.  



Xzi said:


> The argument I made at the beginning of all this is that it isn't possible to live a full life, from birth to death, inside of the US without participating in capitalism. I never claimed you couldn't abstain from it for short periods of time. So while you might've thought you were arguing against me here, you really only further proved my point.



"Yeah I've already said it's possible...by moving to a non-capitalist country. Or starving to death in protest of capitalism."

My point is that you love capitalism too much to leave it and are offering every excuse imaginable.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I didn't say that. Not even close.


Nobody who's ever passed a high school US/world history class would make a statement as dumb as, "lol no, imperialism and capitalism do not go hand-in-hand."



tabzer said:


> "Yeah I've already said it's possible...by moving to a non-capitalist country. Or starving to death in protest of capitalism."
> 
> My point is that you love capitalism too much to leave it and are offering every excuse imaginable.


Why am I not surprised you chose to omit the part of the quote where I said I'm currently working toward moving.  Or that you ignored my admission that not all capitalist countries are created equal.

Every time you try to make this personal, your arguments lose more credibility.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nobody who's ever passed a high school US/world history class would make a statement as dumb as, "lol no, imperialism and capitalism do not go hand-in-hand."


The notion that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and a natural outgrowth of colonialism is literally a Lenin quote. There's no shortage of strictly capitalist countries that were never particularly interested in expanding their borders by way of conquest. It's also rich for Lenin to claim that considering the USSR, the natural evolutionary outgrowth of Leninism, was one of the most imperialistic states in human history. I don't understand why people attribute the shortcomings of various systems of government to capitalism - the British Empire didn't conquer half of Africa for the sake of establishing private enterprise there, they did it for the enrichment of the Crown. In all factuality, imperialism is incompatible with the core concepts of capitalism and only a true Leninist would claim otherwise. Nothing says "voluntary participation in the market" like "military conquest and indentured servitude". You'd be hard-pressed to find a thinker on the opposite side of the aisle who shares your point of view, and I assure you that they passed their exams just fine.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The notion that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and a natural outgrowth of colonialism is literally a Lenin quote.


Well it's not as though Lenin is the only person throughout history to comment on the connections between the two.  Despite Eisenhower's warnings, the US military-industrial complex remains a perpetual imperialism machine to this day.



Foxi4 said:


> the British Empire didn't conquer half of Africa for the sake of establishing private enterprise there, they did it for the enrichment of the Crown.


And yet they _did _establish private enterprise there, along with everywhere else they invaded.  Arguing about which was their "primary" motivation at the time is an exercise in pointlessness.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's not wrong.  I asked you to be more specific. To me, though it is potentially believable, doesn't escape being bullshit. Flipping out and not providing actual evidence.



Flipping out? No further comment on that. Take that bit to PM if you wish to argue about it, as instructed my Foxi.

Back to the point. You asked for specifics. I gave them to you. Now you want MORE specifics. It never ends with you. NOTHING is good enough. You know FULL well that those YouTube vids and Tweets from the Trump admin have all been deleted. What you're asking is a bad faith request to begin with, and you know it. I can even probably guess your next post. Something along the lines of "Oh? So no proof then? Never happened." Like all the times I called you out on your hypocrisy here, only to have our posts deleted by Foxi and to have you then claim "No proof!!!" when you knew full well I had no way of restoring posts deleted by a mod. No proof does not equate didn't happen. If I took more time with this than I already have, I'm 100% certain I could find concrete proof. Thing is, I don't care enough to take more time than I already have. Don't believe me that it ever happened? I don't care.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Flipping out? No further comment on that. Take that bit to PM if you wish to argue about it, as instructed my Foxi.
> 
> Back to the point. You asked for specifics. I gave them to you. Now you want MORE specifics. It never ends with you. NOTHING is good enough. You know FULL well that those YouTube vids and Tweets from the Trump admin have all been deleted. What you're asking is a bad faith request to begin with, and you know it. I can even probably guess your next post. Something along the lines of "Oh? So no proof then? Never happened." Like all the times I called you out on your hypocrisy here, only to have our posts deleted by Foxi and to have you then claim "No proof!!!" when you knew full well I had no way of restoring posts deleted by a mod. No proof does not equate didn't happen. If I took more time with this than I already have, I'm 100% certain I could find concrete proof. Thing is, I don't care enough to take more time than I already have. Don't believe me that it ever happened? I don't care.



Your anecdote is very interesting.  Too bad that's all it amounts to.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Your anecdote is very interesting.  Too bad that's all it amounts to.


Nah he captured every bit of your essence perfectly in a single post.  There's a famous historical quote that does so too, just with different wording:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

- Jean-Paul Sartre

If that offends you, feel free to replace "anti-Semites" with "Trump supporters," though for the most part the two groups are one and the same.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 5, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nobody who's ever passed a high school US/world history class would make a statement as dumb as, "lol no, imperialism and capitalism do not go hand-in-hand."



One should not be so "dumb" to claim mutual dependence between capitalism and imperialism... yet here we are.



Xzi said:


> Why am I not surprised you chose to omit the part of the quote where I said I'm currently working toward moving



Because we both know that it is lip service and is not noteworthy.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> One should not be so "dumb" to claim mutual dependence between capitalism and imperialism... yet here we are.


So essentially your argument boils down to: it's just "coincidence" that the two most wealthy and prominent capitalist empires throughout history were/are also the most imperialist.  Yeah, nobody's buying that.



tabzer said:


> Because we both know that it is lip service and is not noteworthy.


Frankly I couldn't give half a shit if a neocon who defends and attempts to justify all of capitalism's flaws believes me or not, the discussion never needed to become personal in the first place.  You were just looking for an out after all of your previous arguments fell flat on their face.

Edit: Not that you care I'm sure, but the most difficult part of moving would be leaving my family and friends behind, not anything having to do with capitalism.  It also doesn't help that being poor is expensive in America, and the pandemic drained much of my savings.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Any payment made to the state is not "capitalist" by definition, capitalism concerns private entities. The state is not a private entity - it's the state. The reason why it's not an element of capitalism, has never been an element of capitalism and cannot be capitalist is because the state is not a part of the market - the government has monopoly on taxation and state services. When you're unhappy with how your council patched up the road outside of your house, you can't give it a bad review on Google and call up a different council to do the job better. The government doesn't operate in a system of free market competition - you can't go start a new government to compete. The government just takes your money because it's the government and it can - whether what you own has any value or not is completely irrelevant. I don't know who told you that "if it concerns money, it's capitalism", but that's just wrong by definition. As far as rulers are concerned, even the most ancient societies we know of have been organised around one or multiple figures of authority like elders, patriarchs or matrons - there are very few exceptions. If you consider that to be broad strokes, I guess all I can do is shrug. Even non-human primates usually cluster around some kind of "alpha" monkey, it's entirely possible that it's in our DNA to seek out and follow leaders, or organise our societies in a manner that enables us to select our leadership. That's neither here nor there though.


Not going to agree with your whole "alpha" shit right there because that isn't scientifically true at all.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10?amp
This also applies to other species.

Considering that we are a social species we are bound to group up, and because social has social implications. There's no intristic trait or that kind of bullshit in DNA.
And I'm sure your not vouching for eugenics, and I hope not. Since that would be a pretty eugenics kind of thing right there.
Moving on from that.
Fine, you can argue that money based taxes it's not capitalistic. I'll give you the win.

But even then, consequences occur.
A. The people making laws are backed by giant corporations, in which case they are pretty much required to fulfill their duties to those companies. In which I wouldn't be suprised if a retailer or two got involved with lobbying a bill or three. then with the threat of loosing your home, you could say the government is forcing people to remain in a capitalist system... which is made up of captalists... passing laws....
B.
Failure to comply with paying propery tax/participating in the system,  or retailer and so on,
 and what it means, is actually a really simple answer.
You die.
So you either die trying to avoid capitalism, or you live in a system that is bent backwards on making most money possible.
You choose to not pay your retailer. Your odds of death increase while being homeless (prolonged exposure to the environment)
You choose not to pay property taxes.
You end up homeless and again, increase your odds of death.
It's fucked up either way.
Again goes back to not participating in the system to be non optional for most. Unless your stupidly rich.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Again goes back to not participating in the system to be non optional for most. Unless your stupidly rich.


And even then you can be sure the wealth you were born into wasn't earned via underwater basket weaving, it was generated by exploiting workers much further down the chain than dad.  It doesn't get any more capitalist than that.


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> No explicit law.
> But last time I checked taxes are a thing right?
> I mean, owning land still requires you to pay property taxes.



Save up first, or get a job with the state that allows you to cover the taxes.

_capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
_
Money exists outside of capitalism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Not going to agree with your whole "alpha" shit right there because that isn't scientifically true at all.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10?amp
> This also applies to other species.
> 
> ...


I hope you realise that you're posting an opinion piece on Business Insider (the best source of information about animal behaviour, no doubt) about one researcher that has an opinion that goes against decades of research in the field. Dominance hierarchies have been observed across multiple species. In many cases subordinate members of groups don't even get to mate unless they use trickery. In terms of non-human primates they're observable in groups of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans etc., so no - this *doesn't* "translate to other species", you're demonstrably wrong. Even if it does not apply to wolves (which is highly debatable), it most certainly applies to other species, particularly primates which we were talking about (and which wolves are not, by the way). You also don't seem to be aware of what a turn of phrase is. When someone says "it's in your blood/genes/DNA" they don't necessarily mean that there's a specific isolated gene that does X, it's a reference to a recurring trait. For instance, if a son of a great driver is also a good driver, you might say "it's in his DNA". That doesn't necessarily mean that we've isolated a magical "driving gene", although in the case of dominance hierarchies you may as well treat it literally, it works both ways.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/...30425_todays_phrase_it_is_in_her_genes1.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy


smf said:


> Money exists outside of capitalism.


That's already been explained to him, but he doesn't accept that, so... Shrug?

I'm still unclear how this entire exchange relates to Joe Biden and his presidency though, I sure hope someone will explain the connection soon because, as I've mentioned earlier, all of this talk about "living off the grid" that brought us here seems grossly off-topic.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

I have a feeling all the off-topic of the last several pages is controlled opposition. SMF, Xzi, and monkeyboy were all on the same side at the start of this thread, and now they have been going on for pages arguing what arguably has nothing to do with this thread. And if it's not controlled opposition, it might just be a reflection of today's far-left followers, where as soon as one of their own start to step out of line, they gang up on the individual. 

This thread really beautifully illustrates which side the bullying is coming from. It is clear to see one side who does their best to have a civil conversation, and then there is the other side that is always condescending and down right rude. 

>> FOLLOW ME TO THE TOPIC >>

I saw this today and thought I would share it...
*
Allegations of Vote Fraud Rebutted*

In Nevada, despite it being illegal to offer anything of value in exchange for voting, officials from the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony were videoed offering gift cards, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, T-shirts, and masks to Indians who voted. "This was a normal get-out-the-vote activity," said RSIC spokeswoman Bethany Sam in an interview standing next to a Biden-Harris campaign bus wearing a Biden-Harris face mask. "We didn't tell anyone who to vote for and didn't ask anyone who they voted for." Jacqueline De León, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, maintains that "Ms Sam's statement clearly proves that no law was violated."

In Georgia, a video shows Democrat poll workers pulling cases of votes from under a table after GOP poll watchers were sent away. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger acknowledged that "some ballots were counted unlawfully and in secret. Yes, the GOP poll watchers were unnecessarily sent home for what turned out to be a minor water leak, but can we really condemn the brave Democrats who at great risk to themselves stayed on an continued the work? I think not. Besides, at this point all the ballots counted in the video have been mixed in with all the legitimate ballots. There's no way to separate out the unlawfully counted ones. So we can't determine whether the secretly counted votes were for Trump or Biden. The election will have to stand as is."

In Minnesota, a witness made a sworn affidavit declaring that he saw "a busload of severely mentally handicapped people who were forced by handlers to vote for Joe Biden. The handlers literally held the handicapped person's hand in theirs and marked the ballot for them." State Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) dismissed this evidence, calling it "inconclusive. Perhaps the handicapped voters were whispering their choices to the handlers. After all, it makes sense that a mentally-challenged voter would want to vote for the mentally-challenged presidential candidate. And even if they didn't whisper, the person helping them would likely surmise that it was in that person's best interest to cast their ballot for Biden. So, no harm, no foul."

In Michigan, nearly a thousand witnesses have made sworn statements that they personally observed vote fraud. State Representative Cynthia Johnson (D) called these witnesses "a bunch of liars. Every election official has assured me that there was no fraud. Every media outlet I have seen says there was no fraud." Reminded that lying in sworn testimony is perjury, Johnson remained adamant in her trust of government officials and the media, saying "the opinions of important people have to be given more weight than the ravings of lunatics."

In Pennsylvania, Jesse Morgan, a truck driver for a subcontractor with the United States Postal Service, says he drove a trailer containing an estimated 288,000 ballots from Bethpage, New York to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D) insisted that "there's nothing odd about this. The whole point of mail-in ballots is that the voter doesn't have to appear in-person to vote. New York and Pennsylvania share a long border. Pennsylvanians often cross that border for business or pleasure. It's not inconceivable to me that 288,000 could've have been in Bethpage, New York when they mailed in their ballots."

In Arizona, Maricopa County GOP chairwoman Linda Brickman testified before members of the Arizona State Legislature that she "personally observed votes for President Donald Trump being tallied as votes for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden when input into Dominion machines. When I brought this to the attention of election supervisors others in the room also commented that they had witnessed the same manipulation." Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) characterized Brickman's testimony as "delusional" and contended that corroboration by others "is a case of mass hysteria of the kind we've come to expect from Trump's neo-Nazi base of supporters."

In Washington DC, Attorney General Bill Barr issued a statement admitting that "it sure looks like there was a lot of 'hank-panky' going on with those after-hours ballot dumps. However, at this point, the bogus ballots are all mixed in with the legal ballots, so there's no way to tell whether the bogus ballots favored Trump or Biden. Obviously, a crime has been committed, but we have no way to determine who the guilty parties are. For better or worse, we'll just have to let the tallies stand where they are and accept Joe Biden as the nation's next president. I hope the people of America understand that the FBI did their best to investigate this and unify behind our next president as he carries out the mandate he received from the vote counters."


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I have a feeling all the off-topic of the last several pages is controlled opposition. SMF, Xzi, and monkeyboy were all on the same side at the start of this thread, and now they have been going on for pages arguing what arguably has nothing to do with this thread. And if it's not controlled opposition, it might just be a reflection of today's far-left followers, where as soon as one of their own start to step out of line, they gang up on the individual.
> 
> This thread really beautifully illustrates which side the bullying is coming from. It is clear to see one side who does their best to have a civil conversation, and then there is the other side that is always condescending and down right rude.
> 
> ...


At best, some of these claims are baseless accusations without supporting evidence. At worst, some of these claims have been debunked.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> At best, some of these claims are baseless accusations without supporting evidence. At worst, some of these claims have been debunked.



At this point, you just debunk yourself.

"We the people" have yet to see any concrete evidence one way or the other in regards to last year's election.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> At this point, you just debunk yourself.
> 
> "We the people" have yet to see any concrete evidence one way or the other in regards to last year's election.


There's no evidence there was any widespread voter fraud in last year's election, and there is evidence the election was one of the most secure in history. Providing baseless allegations and debunked allegations doesn't change that.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence there was any widespread voter fraud in last year's election, and there is evidence the election was one of the most secure in history. Providing baseless allegations and debunked allegations doesn't change that.



I would like to see you try to provide any evidence what-so-ever that this was one of the most secure elections in history. Please, let's see this evidence you claim there is.

With more and more evidence coming our daily that this was in fact most likely the most fraudulent election in history, you would be better off providing evidence for that argument.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I would like to see you try to provide any evidence what-so-ever that this was one of the most secure elections in history. I assume all I will see is regurgitated dribble... but please, let's see this evidence you claim there is.
> 
> With more and more evidence coming our daily that this was in fact most likely the most fraudulent election in history, you would be better off providing evidence for that argument.


https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election



I had a feeling that is what you were going to post. Still, they provide NO evidence. None, nadda, zilch, zero...


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I had a feeling that is what you were going to post. Still, they provide NO evidence. None, nadda, zilch, zero...





> “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.
> 
> *“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.*
> 
> ...



We have every reason to think the 2020 election was secure, and we have no reason to think there was widespread fraud.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We have every reason to think the 2020 election was secure, and we have no reason to think there was widespread fraud.



YAWN. Again, this is far from what I call evidence. This is more hearsay. There is no proof that this was a secure election besides them telling you it was.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> YAWN. Again, this is far from what I call evidence. This is more hearsay. There is no proof that this was a secure election besides them telling you it was.


There is more than enough evidence showing how secure the election was. I suggest you look through, for starters, the Rumor Control section of the CISA website. It includes reputable sources under each debunked falsehood.
https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol#rumor20

We have ample evidence the 2020 election was secure, and we have zero evidence of widespread voter fraud.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

In the words of Tommy Callahan,

"I can take a shit in a box and slap a guarantee on it, but all I am guaranteeing is that I sold you a piece of shit."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

The election ship has already sailed. Unless there's a nuclear bomb somewhere that we haven't seen yet, and a lot of time has passed since November, the subject is not worth discussing.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I hope you realise that you're posting an opinion piece on Business Insider (the best source of information about animal behaviour, no doubt) about one researcher that has an opinion that goes against decades of research in the field.


fucking... lmao
Yeah, yeah...
WHEN IT'S THE RESEARCHER WHO ORIGINALLY COINED THE TERM!
yes, the very guy who started saying "Alpha's exist" back tracked on his statement, realizing it was wrong.
NO THAT'S AN OPINION PIECE.
Okay... okay.
holy fuck you did not read that article, it wasn't even in the opinion tab.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The election ship has already sailed. Unless there's a nuclear bomb somewhere that we haven't seen yet, and a lot of time has passed since November, the subject is not worth discussing.



Well, just a few days ago, a physicist by the name of Dr. Douglas Frank just shared some very interesting finds about the 2020 election. Until there is concrete evidence one way or another that there was or was not voter fraud, I think it is still relevant. https://lindelltv.com/mike-lindell-tv-releases-irrefutable-election-theft-proof/

I mean, the left was trying to get Trump out of office for four years. They obviously thought it was still important to talk about the possibility of election interference well after November 2016.

Besides, what is there to even discuss about Biden really? The only questions I have is WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE DOCTOR REPORT? By now, most Presidents would have been thoroughly checked by a doctor to see if they are fit enough for the office. Where is Biden's bill of health?!?? Personally, I do not think he would pass, and that is why it has not been shared.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I hope you realise that you're posting an opinion piece on Business Insider (the best source of information about animal behaviour, no doubt) about one researcher that has an opinion that goes against decades of research in the field. Dominance hierarchies have been observed across multiple species. In many cases subordinate members of groups don't even get to mate unless they use trickery. In terms of non-human primates they're observable in groups of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans etc., so no - this *doesn't* "translate to other species", you're demonstrably wrong. Even if it does not apply to wolves (which is highly debatable), it most certainly applies to other species, particularly primates which we were talking about (and which wolves are not, by the way). You also don't seem to be aware of what a turn of phrase is. When someone says "it's in your blood/genes/DNA" they don't necessarily mean that there's a specific isolated gene that does X, it's a reference to a recurring trait. For instance, if a son of a great driver is also a good driver, you might say "it's in his DNA". That doesn't necessarily mean that we've isolated a magical "driving gene", although in the case of dominance hierarchies you may as well treat it literally, it works both ways.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/...30425_todays_phrase_it_is_in_her_genes1.shtml
> 
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)
here's Wikipedia debunking Alpha
"
*Application to humans*
Within the manosphere, especially in the pickup artist community, there is a widespread view, later taken up in the mainstream, that there was also a dominance hierarchy among humans consisting of "alpha males" and "beta males". This view was accompanied by partly misogynistic, stereotypical ideas about women being "hard-wired" to desire "alpha males."[34] Comparisons were drawn to other apes. *However, researchers reject this view, reasoning that masculinity and social behavior in humans are so complex that no general classification into a dominance hierarchy can be made*. Humans can take the dominant role in some social situations and a subordinate role in others.[35][36]"


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Well, just a few days ago, a physicist by the name of Dr. Douglas Frank just shared some very interesting finds about the 2020 election. Until there is concrete evidence one way or another that there was or was not voter fraud, I think it is still relevant. https://lindelltv.com/mike-lindell-tv-releases-irrefutable-election-theft-proof/
> 
> I mean, the left was trying to get Trump out of office for four years. They obviously thought it was still important to talk about the possibility of election interference well after November 2016.
> 
> Besides, what is there to even discuss about Biden really? The only questions I have is WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE DOCTOR REPORT? By now, most Presidents would have been thoroughly checked by a doctor to see if they are fit enough for the office. Where is Biden's bill of health?!?? Personally, I do not think he would pass, and that is why it has not been shared.


We have Biden's medical report from December, 2019.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...-report/ca7808de-da80-4f40-84e8-9dc3b23a7f12/


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> fucking... lmao
> Yeah, yeah...
> WHEN IT'S THE RESEARCHER WHO ORIGINALLY COINED THE TERM!
> yes, the very guy who started saying "Alpha's exist" back tracked on his statement, realizing it was wrong.
> ...


Maybe you should read the article instead. David Mech does not reject the idea of dominance hierarchies as they exist in the animal kingdom, he rejects the idea that such behaviour exists in wolves in the wild since his original research was based on observing captive animals. This in no way invalidates decades of research into dominance hierarchies, you're wrong, and there's reams of literature that adequately prove that point.


monkeyman4412 said:


> Within the manosphere, especially in the pickup artist community, there is a widespread view, later taken up in the mainstream, that there was also a dominance hierarchy among humans consisting of "alpha males" and "beta males". This view was accompanied by partly misogynistic, stereotypical ideas about women being "hard-wired" to desire "alpha males." Comparisons were drawn to other apes. However, researchers reject this view, reasoning that masculinity and social behavior in humans are so complex that no general classification into a dominance hierarchy can be made. *Humans can take the dominant role in some social situations and a subordinate role in others*."


We're not discussing pick-up artistry. I bolded the only relevant section of the paragraph. Humans absolutely form dominance hierarchies in various areas of life - employees subordinate to their bosses, children subordinate to their parents and so on, and so forth. These dynamics are indeed complex and in constant flux. I won't be delving further into your rabbit hole since it's unrelated to the thread, I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong, and you are wrong.

More on-topic, the Supreme Court has just vacated a previous ruling that Trump was in the wrong when blocking his detractors spamming his feed on Twitter - a somewhat empty ruling given the fact that Trump is permanently banned on the platform, but it relates to our previous conversation. Justice Clarence Thomas has also released a scathing opinion in regards to Section 230, link below.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/05/supreme-court-trump-clarence-thomas/


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Maybe you should read the article instead. David Mech does not reject the idea of dominance hierarchies as they exist in the animal kingdom, he rejects the idea that such behaviour exists in wolves in the wild since his original research was based on observing captive animals. This in no way invalidates decades of research into dominance hierarchies, you're wrong, and there's reams of literature that adequately prove that point.
> We're not discussing pick-up artistry. I bolded the only relevant section of the paragraph. Humans absolutely form dominance hierarchies in various areas of life - employees subordinate to their bosses, children subordinate to their parents and so on, and so forth. These dynamics are indeed complex and in constant flux. I won't be delving further into your rabbit hole since it's unrelated to the thread, I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong, and you are wrong.
> 
> More on-topic, the Supreme Court has just vacated a previous ruling that Trump was in the wrong when blocking his detractors spamming his feed on Twitter - a somewhat empty ruling given the fact that Trump is permanently banned on the platform, but it relates to our previous conversation. Justice Clarence Thomas has also released a scathing opinion in regards to Section 230, link below.
> ...


Just to be clear, the Supreme Court ruling today has no bearing on the topic of the White House removing the comments section from YouTube videos. Trump blocking people on Twitter was unlawful, and the Supreme Court only vacated that consistent ruling because Trump's no longer president (and he's blocked), as you mentioned.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Just to be clear, the Supreme Court ruling today has no bearing on the topic of the White House removing the comments section from YouTube videos. Trump blocking people on Twitter was unlawful, and the Supreme Court only vacated that consistent ruling because Trump's no longer president (and he's blocked), as you mentioned.


The ruling isn't particularly interesting. The opinion by Justice Thomas on the other hand is worth looking at.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The ruling isn't particularly interesting. The opinion by Justice Thomas on the other hand is worth looking at.


It is and is really good


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The ruling isn't particularly interesting. The opinion by Justice Thomas on the other hand is worth looking at.


Sure, it's interesting (albeit nauseatingly stupid), but it's also irrelevant to the specific points being made in our previous conversation. Thomas has a problem with the power that tech companies (and more specifically, the few individuals who allegedly control those companies) have over what's censored and who's banned. In other words, Thomas was (mistakenly) more concerned with how tech companies were treating users, vs. how public officials were treating users.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Sure, it's interesting (albeit nauseatingly stupid), but it's also irrelevant to the specific points being made in our previous conversation. Thomas has a problem with the power that tech companies (and more specifically, the few individuals who allegedly control those companies) have over what's censored and who's banned. In other words, Thomas was (mistakenly) more concerned with how tech companies were treating users, vs. how public officials were treating users.


It actually goes to show that the YouTube Bidden incident is very similar to the Trump Twitter incident. Those White House video originally had the comments section open. They were closed after the fact the so many people were displeased and expressed such. I see no mistakes on the Judge Thomas interpretation, which he has been doing since before you were even a thought. All I see if double standards... But hey, at least you are showing some standards.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Sure, it's interesting (albeit nauseatingly stupid), but it's also irrelevant to the specific points being made in our previous conversation. Thomas has a problem with the power that tech companies (and more specifically, the few individuals who allegedly control those companies) have over what's censored and who's banned. In other words, Thomas was (mistakenly) more concerned with how tech companies were treating users, vs. how public officials were treating users.


I disagree. The spirit of 230 was very simple - shielding service providers from culpability in instances where the user has misused their service.

If I call someone and threaten them over the phone, is the telephone company liable, or an accomplice to the crime, because the threat was transmitted over their lines? No, of course not - they have no control over the content of phone calls, they simply provide a service that is available to the public and the culpable person is the one who issued the threat. Things take a twist when the service is something like Facebook or Twitter where the platform *does* have control over the content. If they have the power to separate what is and is not acceptable, there is an argument to be made that they are in fact culpable for whatever slips between their fingers, should they fail to police their users.

The legislation was specifically created to protect websites from third-party content that is uploaded onto them. It gave them the means to deal with such content, but this exchange is not one-sided. The mutual understanding here was that various online service providers were committed to creating free and open platforms for the public, and in exchange for providing this service, the state was going to shield them from liability. Since the platforms now police content beyond the usual removal of spam and beyond what could be considered removing illegal content in the timely fashion, they're inviting this kind of scrutiny.

As I've mentioned in the past, previous rulings show that a private property, like a mall, still cannot infringe upon first amendment rights. In fact, it has the duty to uphold them, simply by the virtue of being the public square, see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins which always gets mentioned. This can translate to "online spaces" very easily and is perfectly sensible. Fence sitting only goes so far, social media companies cannot real all the benefits and refuse to bear any of the duties in this relationship with the state.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It actually goes to show that the YouTube Bidden incident is very similar to the Trump Twitter incident. Those White House video originally had the comments section open. They were closed after the fact the so many people were displeased and expressed such. I see no mistakes on the Judge Thomas interpretation, which he has been doing since before you were even a thought. All I see if double standards... But hey, at least you are showing some standards.


Trump Twitter blocks treat some people differently than others; the White House video comments section being removed treats everyone the same. Trump Twitter blocks make it so some people cannot see what Trump is posting to the public; the White House video comments section being removed still allows the public to view the videos. They're entirely different situations with no double standards.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Trump Twitter blocks treat some people differently than others; the White House video comments section being removed treats everyone the same. Trump Twitter blocks make it so some people cannot see what Trump is posting to the public; the White House video comments section being removed still allows the public to view the videos. They're entirely different situations with no double standards.


Do you believe the lies that come out of your fingers? Because anyone Trump blocked from Twitter could have easily signed out of their account and/or created a new one to see what he was Tweeting and/or respond.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

Are some people here under the false impression that the primary moderators for Youtube comments are channel owners?  Because that is not the case, the primary moderator is Youtube/Google themselves.  They don't hesitate to disable comments on videos/channels that see a ton of bot and spam activity.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Are some people here under the false impression that the primary moderators for Youtube comments are channel owners?  Because that is not the case, the primary moderator is Youtube/Google themselves.  They don't hesitate to disable comments on videos/channels that see a ton of bot and spam activity.



 I was there the first days, and there was not bot/spam activity going on when those comment sections were open. Now everytime they post a video they just assume to disable the comments automatically. It's not YouTube going out of there way to do that, it's the Biden Administration.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Do you believe the lies that come out of your fingers? Because anyone Trump blocked from Twitter could have easily signed out of their account and/or created a new one to see what he was Tweeting and/or respond.


It doesn't matter. It creates a burden on the individual who is blocked that other individuals don't have to deal with, even though they're messages to the public. The blocked person has to log out and log back in each time they want to look at the President's tweets, they are blocked from getting notifications for the tweets, etc.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I was there the first days, and there was not bot/spam activity going on when those comment sections were open.


As was I, and that's bullshit.  It was 95% bot and spam activity from butthurt Trumpkins.



tthousand said:


> Now everytime the post a video they just assume to disable the comments automatically.


Right, that's what I said.  When their own automated moderation system can no longer keep up, Youtube disables comments on all videos from certain channels.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It doesn't matter. It creates a burden on the individual who is blocked that other individuals don't have to deal with, even though they're messages to the public. The blocked person has to log out and log back in each time they want to look at the President's tweets, they are blocked from getting notifications for the tweets, etc.



And I suppose you would have me to believe Trump was the only official to have blocked people on social media platforms? Perhaps these companies should come up with better solutions, like an IGNORE instead of a BLOCK. But, these companies are not to be trusted anyways, and there day in the sun is not permanent.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> As was I, and that's bullshit.  It was 95% bot and spam activity from butthurt Trumpkins.
> 
> 
> Right, that's what I said.  When their own automated moderation system can no longer keep up, Youtube disables comments on all videos from certain channels.



As I said, no bots or spam. Just opposition. As for the rest of what you are saying, many will continue to believe the opposite until there is hard evidence that is the case with the White House channel. For now, it's simply wishful thinking. But sure, I do not have any doubts that Google and current administration are in cahoots.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> And I suppose you would have me to believe Trump was the only official to have blocked people on social media platforms? Perhaps these companies should come up with better solutions, like an IGNORE instead of a BLOCK. But, these companies are not to be trusted anyways, and there day in the sun is not permanent.


I don't know if other public officials have blocked users (I assume they have), and it doesn't matter. Public officials should not be allowed to block individual users. The whole public should be treated the same.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> And I suppose you would have me to believe Trump was the only official to have blocked people on social media platforms?


Trump was literally the only president to run his own Twitter account since the platform's debut, so yes.  Everybody else has had staffers do it, and only for the purpose of making announcements which don't require any back-and-forth.



tthousand said:


> As I said, no bots or spam.


Dude the bots are still there, but now their only purpose is spamming the dislike button on all White House videos.  Some of the Trumpanzees out there treat it like a full-time job, as if Biden will be automatically impeached once he reaches a certain number of dislikes.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't know if other public officials have blocked users (I assume they have), and it doesn't matter. Public officials should not be allowed to block individual users. The whole public should be treated the same.


Like I said, Twitter should use an IGNORE system instead of BLOCK system to prevent things like this from happening, which would be very, very simple to implement (at least I assume so).

At the same time, it's not like Trump's account was private. Anyone could ultimately look at what he said everyday. So you didn't get a notification, big whoop. Or so you have to log out, or well. The words he said were still available for all public to see.


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I have a feeling all the off-topic of the last several pages is controlled opposition. SMF, Xzi, and monkeyboy were all on the same side at the start of this thread, and now they have been going on for pages arguing what arguably has nothing to do with this thread. And if it's not controlled opposition, it might just be a reflection of today's far-left followers, where as soon as one of their own start to step out of line, they gang up on the individual.



I have no idea what you're going on about & I'm not far left (well maybe to someone in the US I am as they are so scared of commies that anything left of nazis is far left)


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

smf said:


> I have no idea what you're going on about & I'm not far left (well maybe to someone in the US I am as they are so scared of commies that anything left of nazis is far left)


I was trying to imply that you were left, and the you were being ganged up on by further leftists. Honestly, nazi and fascism seems a little left to me as well.


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> YAWN. Again, this is far from what I call evidence. This is more hearsay. There is no proof that this was a secure election besides them telling you it was.



For the number of voters there was less fraud detected than usual.

Either there was less fraud or it was hidden better.

If it was hidden better then it's just hearsay to say that there was fraud.

I'm still waiting for the my pillow guy's absolute proof of fraud that he claimed he was going to release months ago.



tthousand said:


> It's not YouTube going out of there way to do that, it's the Biden Administration.



Rrrrright...


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Like I said, Twitter should use an IGNORE system instead of BLOCK system to prevent things like this from happening, which would be very, very simple to implement (at least I assume so).
> 
> At the same time, it's not like Trump's account was private. Anyone could ultimately look at what he said everyday. So you didn't get a notification, big whoop. Or so you have to log out, or well. The words he said were still available for all public to see.


I'd be fine with an ignore system, but that's not what happened, which is why what Trump did was unlawful.

If we pretend all a block did was remove notifications for a particular user who wants them, when they're available to the rest of the public, that would still be problematic and unlawful.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

smf said:


> For the number of voters there was less fraud detected than usual.
> 
> Either there was less fraud or it was hidden better.
> 
> ...



I am saying at this point there is no hard evidence either way, and that investigation need to happen (which seemed to have happened every other time except for this time). 

As for arguing if there was or was not, there is more evidence for the latter, with more and more coming out as the days go by. 

And you cannot look at the Biden administration and not see his handlers running the situation. Constantly keeping reporters from even having a chance to ask him anything. Ben Hiden is just an actor on the world stage playing his part.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I was trying to imply that you were left, and the you were being ganged up on by further leftists. Honestly, nazi and fascism seems a little left to me as well.


Naziism and fascism are, by definition, far right  ideologies with inherent disdains for liberal democracies.


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> As for arguing if there was or was not, there is more evidence for the latter, with more and more coming out as the days go by.



More and more "evidence" is made up by Trump and his supporters as days go by. That isn't the same thing.

It's essentially impossible to have hard evidence of no fraud, you are expecting a level of proof that not only is impossible but you set a higher bar than you do for Trump and his supporters.

You seem to think they didn't look for fraud because you believe if they did then they would find it. However in reality they were unable to find it despite trying.

Without any evidence of enough fraud that would affect the outcome of the election then Trumps theory that the election was rigged is him being a sore loser (and if you know anything about him then you'll know he is a really sore loser)


----------



## tthousand (Apr 5, 2021)

smf said:


> More and more "evidence" is made up by Trump and his supporters as days go by. That isn't the same thing.
> 
> It's essentially impossible to have hard evidence of no fraud, you are expecting a level of proof that not only is impossible but you set a higher bar than you do for what people claim if you want to believe it.
> 
> You think they didn't look for fraud because you believe if they did then they would find it. However in reality they were unable to find it despite trying.



I am not looking for absolute, 100% proof either way. Just saying there is not enough publicly available evidence that supports if the elections results should or should not have been overturned, at this point at least. 

The problem is 1/4 of the people want it investigated further, 1/4 of the people want no further investigation, and 1/2 of the people could care less and just wanna watch TV. 

Physicist Dr. Douglas Frank made some very interesting finds, and I am hoping to get some free time to check it out and see if I can replicate the data for myself. If I am able to do so.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> Without any evidence of enough fraud that would affect the outcome of the election then Trumps theory that the election was rigged is him being a sore loser (and if you know anything about him then you'll know he is a really sore loser)



Sure, he is self admittedly not the most humble guy, but at the same time, he has a higher classification than most and thus has access to all sorts of information we cannot even begin to fathom. Chances are he saw real time evidence of a fraudulent election.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 5, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Bugsnax


The only intelligent post in this thread


----------



## smf (Apr 5, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I am not looking for absolute, 100% proof either way. Just saying there is not enough publicly available evidence that supports if the elections results should or should not have been overturned, at this point at least.



There is no evidence that they should be overturned, public or not.



tthousand said:


> The problem is 1/4 of the people want it investigated further, 1/4 of the people want no further investigation, and 1/2 of the people could care less and just wanna watch TV.



What exactly do you want investigated? None of the investigations has come up with anything and going over the same ground over and over won't achieve anything.



tthousand said:


> Physicist Dr. Douglas Frank made some very interesting finds, and I am hoping to get some free time to check it out and see if I can replicate the data for myself. If I am able to do so.



The fact you think he is credible is quite telling.



tthousand said:


> Chances are he saw real time evidence of a fraudulent election.



No, Trump ALWAYS says things are rigged when he loses (or even if ahead of time he thinks he will lose). Chances are he hasn't seen any evidence whatsoever, most probably because there is no evidence & likely because there wasn't enough fraud to change the election.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 6, 2021)

Looks like Democrats can use reconciliation at least two more times.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 6, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Looks like Democrats can use reconciliation at least two more times.


Not exactly. They have one more, but if that one more is to be split into two parts, it still counts as one as long as it's the same general package. That was the ruling as I understand it.

It is good news though.

Edit: It's a little more complicated than how I described, but it is two more reconciliations in addition to the one already used for COVID relief. You are correct. It's too bad the Republicans want to obstruct popular bills like COVID relief, voting rights, and infrastructure and that we're even talking about this.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 6, 2021)

Imao Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1379452782827212804


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 6, 2021)

Breaking-ish news today is that according to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas the construction of Trump's wall may continue under Biden's administration despite a promise that he won't allow "another foot" to be built. This move to "fill in the gaps" is a response to an influx of illegal migrants at the border, particularly unaccompanied minors. Rather interesting considering we've been told that walls are ineffective for four years and there are better ways to handle illegal crossings.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/5/dhs-may-restart-border-wall-construction-plug-gaps/

EDIT: Ninja'd.


----------



## notimp (Apr 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Imao https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1379452782827212804


Got to be BS, for public perception, now that migration numbers actually spiked  by quite a bit. No?

Issue has always been, that you cant build/maintain a wall that vast by any sensible standards of spending, that couldnt be circumvented by people moving others in -- which is why you'd want to go with automated drones, and cameras and... That way you'd only need a response team close enough(?!).

edit: Ah, the commissioner says its BS. 


> Mark Morgan, who served as acting commissioner of CBP under President Trump, said Mr. Mayorkas’s comments were “more spin and misdirection.”


(From the WP article linked.)

Status quo:


> Mr. Trump left office with about 460 miles of border wall completed, funded by a mixture of money Congress specifically approved and money Mr. Trump siphoned from Pentagon accounts after declaring a national emergency.
> 
> Most of that construction came where a barrier already existed, replacing outdated designs or vehicle barriers that did nothing to stop people on foot.
> 
> The new wall is more than just the steel slats. Officials describe it as a system, one that includes technology to allow agents to detect incursions and high-speed roads to allow them to reach trouble spots faster so that agents can interdict anyone who does make it over.


same article

Public polling currently:


> But with Mr. Trump out of office, the public is swinging back toward the wall, with a recent poll conducted for the Senate Opportunity Fund showing 53% now favor construction.


Cant explain to public, that its still a bat sh*t crazy idea, once a president told them its not.  (The 'entire border walled' thingy. (Which 'filling gaps' applies is still a goal. Its not.))


edit: Thats great also: Make hole in wall big enough for car, use road they build for your escape. 


> “We just built roads for the cartels,” Sheriff Mark Dannels said.


 (In a region, where the road (to react faster) got finished, but the wall didnt.  Those are the parts, that are probably getting plugged still... 

edit: No was partly wrong real reason burried deep in the article:


> Mr. Biden, when he announced his wall pause, gave Homeland Security the task of figuring out how to proceed, within legal limits.
> 
> Those legal questions may force Mr. Mayorkas to build more wall. The Washington Times reported in January that experts on congressional and presidential powers said Mr. Biden’s halt likely violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act.
> 
> ...


Funds already allocated for this year. Meaning money available to spend.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 7, 2021)

I looked up the "The Senate Opportunity Fund" out of curiosity.  Apparently it is a nonprofit from Wyoming.


----------



## notimp (Apr 7, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> I looked up the "The Senate Opportunity Fund" out of curiosity.  Apparently it is a nonprofit from Wyoming.


Its still somewhat likely that public opinion shifted under the current news.

But looking at the overall situation is much funnier. 

First rule of populism is - never fix the migration issue. Maybe be tougher on migrants for a little while, but NEVER solve the underlying issue. Its what brings you your votes. Fix it, and the votes are gone. No brainer. 

Second, lets look at what happened with the funds. Most funds were invested in regions, where there already were (sometimes defunct) barriers. Good idea. The border control infrastructure is already there, its most efficient to start there. You built them roads, you gave them surveillance tech, now their jobs went from 'driving patrols in the boondocks' to sitting in climatized rooms, cruising on tarmac roads once on a while. Much better job.  You have a few friends in construction, hey they could use 1.4+ (edit he actually spent 15 in 4 years in total) billion USD a year -- everybody involved is happy. 

Issue still remains, if wall goes down, great road into the US for cartels.  And of course - maintenance cost. And operational cost more than 4x higher, if you plan to build the 'entire thing' - because so far you built it where its most easy to cross over from mexico.

So - a project that has you increase operational costs by maybe 6x, has you investing in maintanance an equal amount as Trumps yearly spending times 7x (4x the size, and more expensive build costs in remote areas) at least every five years or so -- can be circumvented by hardware from home depot (electric steel saws), and increases efficiency for the cartels, IF they manage to open a gap big enough for a car - in a period shorter than response time. (Or if they have an accomplice park one on the other side, then human sized gap is enough.)


Bwaaaaaaha..

Yeah. No. This is dead in the water, past its current 'build out' stage. (Plus a little spending here and there.) Never ever.

(And for what? To prevent migrants from providing a net benefit to your economy from the second generation onwards? (How benefits are distributed is a different question.  ))


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 7, 2021)

some people here 
Biden voters explaining how him continuing the build the wall and caging children is actually good when he does it pic.twitter.com/cte1e6j9JB— 🦑Smugly🦑 (@smugry) April 7, 2021


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 7, 2021)

It's just copium. According to Jan Psaki who stammered her way through the answer, "limited construction" will continue for as long as there are funds since you can't randomly decide to stop a project Congress has allocated funds for already. We knew this when Biden said he'll stop it last year, no big surprise. In typical Psaki fashion, you get two different things from each side of her mouth - construction is paused, and also continuing in limited capacity at the same time. It's the world's first Quantum Wall, simultaneously being built and not being built. Just say that you're building it because the law says you have to, at least that's honest, and significantly less hilarious.

.@PressSec on border wall construction: "There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for." pic.twitter.com/grUlcrPD3q— The Hill (@thehill) April 6, 2021


----------



## Xzi (Apr 7, 2021)

So now we're back to pretending Democrats are and always have been against any form of border security?  Their counter-proposal to Trump's 7th century wall* was using 21st century technology to monitor the border instead.  Which makes sense, because people are going to climb over regardless of whether it's a two-foot fence or a fifteen-foot wall*.  Like Foxi said though, the money is already allocated, aka wasted, and there's no way to get it back.

* Anything with giant gaps in it isn't really a wall, now is it?  It's just a taller fence, and it's not slowing immigration down in the least.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> So now we're back to pretending Democrats are and always have been against any form of border security?  Their counter-proposal to Trump's 7th century wall* was using 21st century technology to monitor the border instead.  Which makes sense, because people are going to climb over regardless of whether it's a two-foot fence or a fifteen-foot wall*.  Like Foxi said though, the money is already allocated, aka wasted, and there's no way to get it back.
> 
> * Anything with giant gaps in it isn't really a wall, now is it?  It's just a taller fence, and it's not slowing immigration down in the least.


Not according to the DHS. According to Homeland Security's own report, the wall allowed for reduced manpower at the border and its effectiveness measures between 70% and 87% depending on sector as far as illegal entries are concerned. The difference between policing a gap and policing the entire border is the scope - walled off sections only need surveilance (drones, CCTV) and the occasional patrol, an open and unsecured section needs boots and tires on the ground. All the nonsense about "cutting giant truck-sized holes" in thick steel slats or digging holes under the structure is complete poppycock - the area is monitored for any seismic activity and smuggling tunnels are found and intercepted routinely. As for the cutting, I've only ever heard of or seen small openings that a single person can fit through at a time because such a procedure needs to be quick and dirty. Border Patrol is rather quick to show up in the event of any disturbance, and wherever the full system is working, the wall's structural integrity is monitored. They have a very limited amount of time to take advantage of the breached barrier, and it takes a significant amount of time to breach it in the first place. It's 6mm thick steel slats - if you think you can cut it quick, grab a battery-operated angle grinder and give it a spin yourself, might take you a hot minute, and a few discs. No doubt the effectiveness will increase further as the construction is completed and the remaining infrastructure goes online.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/10/29...ective-and-disrupting-criminals-and-smugglers

For the record, the recent influx at the border is *clearly* attributed to the change of both the policies and the language surrounding the illegal immigration debate. The reinstatement of catch and release and "softening" the approach by Biden's administration led directly to the influx, it's rather obvious. The language and the approach Trump used, albeit often unpleasant, served as a deterrent to illegal migration, and the statistics demonstrate that. Now the "cages" are overflowing with unaccompanied human-burritos and Biden's administration bears sole responsibility for it. It's his crisis, whether he wants to admit it or not (are we still denying that there is a crisis at the border? I'm not sure).


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Not according to the DHS. According to Homeland Security's own report, the wall allowed for reduced manpower at the border and its effectiveness measures between 70% and 87% depending on sector as far as illegal entries are concerned.  The difference between policing a gap and policing the entire border is the scope - walled off sections only need surveilance (drones, CCTV) and the occasional patrol, an open and unsecured section needs boots and tires on the ground. All the nonsense about "cutting giant truck-sized holes" in thick steel slats or digging holes under the structure is complete poppycock - the area is monitored for any seismic activity and smuggling tunnels are found and intercepted routinely.


Sounds like someone is fudging the numbers, because only 47 miles of new fence has been built since Trump's election.  There's no way it's making that much difference on a 2000 mile-long border.  It's also very easy to find video of immigrants going over, under, or straight through the new fencing.  Whether border patrol shows up after the fact or not is irrelevant.



Foxi4 said:


> For the record, the recent influx at the border is *clearly* attributed to the change of both the policies and the language surrounding the illegal immigration debate.


Partially.  Criminalizing the process of seeking asylum, telling immigrants to wait just on the other side of the border in Mexico, and cutting off all humanitarian aid to the continent of South America while many of its countries were in crisis certainly didn't help the situation.



Foxi4 said:


> Now the "cages" are overflowing with unaccompanied human-burritos and Biden's administration bears sole responsibility for it. It's his crisis, whether he wants to admit it or not (are we still denying that there is a crisis at the border? I'm not sure).


Well it's a good thing he plans to implement a path to citizenship then, because that's the only way we're gonna solve this problem long-term.  Aside from handing down meaningful punishments (jail time) to corporations and business owners when they're caught employing undocumented immigrants, anyway, but neither party seems to have an appetite for that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Sounds like someone is fudging the numbers, because only 47 miles of new fence has been built since Trump's election.  There's no way it's making that much difference on a 2000 mile-long border.  It's also very easy to find video of immigrants going over, under, or straight through the new fencing.  Whether border patrol shows up after the fact or not is irrelevant.
> 
> Partially.  Criminalizing the process of seeking asylum, telling immigrants to wait just on the other side of the border in Mexico, and cutting off all humanitarian aid to the continent of South America while many of its countries were in crisis certainly didn't help the situation.
> 
> Well it's a good thing he plans to implement a path to citizenship then, because that's the only way we're gonna solve this problem long-term.  Aside from handing down meaningful punishments (jail time) to corporations and business owners when they're caught employing undocumented immigrants, anyway, but neither party seems to have an appetite for that.


I'm absolutely going to count sections where the wall replaced dilapidated fencing and waist-high (often wooden) barriers because those are ineffective. Within those parameters, 452 miles of wall (there or thereabouts) have been built up until the end of his presidency with around a hundred currently under construction and then some in pre-construction phase. Presumably the sections still under construction will be completed since they were funded. I'm sure that you can find such videos, however statistics have a slightly larger scope than a handful of Liveleak videos you may have come across - we'll put those in the +/- 20% that are determined enough to slip through, no matter how they're deterred. At present, the result of Biden's "humane" policies are a humanitarian crisis, complete with smugglers tossing (sic!) children over the border wall because they know that even if they're apprehended or injured, they will be taken care of by the state. That's a 14-foot drop, dare I say mildly dangerous. Orange man was bad, but at the very least he didn't *incentivise* illegal migration by effectively giving them a promise of citizenship as long as they were willing to break immigration law first. I think it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to offer an easy path to citizenship for legal migrants and I'm all for lowering the barrier of entry, but at the same time, if Biden and his administration are not willing to enforce immigration law (the enforcement of law being part of his responsibilities as chief executive) then you have no border at all and the whole debate is moot.

EDIT: I've added a few choice pictures of how some of the barriers looked like prior to being modernised just to drive my point a bit further. May as well not have been there at all.





The second one is particularly valuable since it shows exactly what problem was being addressed and how, a contrast between the old and the new. I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure I can lift my leg that high - the old barrier was useless.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> At present, the result of Biden's "humane" policies are a humanitarian crisis, complete with smugglers tossing (sic!) children over the border wall because they know that even if they're apprehended or injured, they will be taken care of by the state. That's a 14-foot drop, dare I say mildly dangerous.


Once they've been paid, the vast majority of smugglers and coyotes don't give a damn about the well-being of others, children or otherwise.



Foxi4 said:


> Orange man was bad, but at the very least he didn't *incentivise* illegal migration by effectively giving them a promise of citizenship as long as they were willing to break immigration law first.


He _did_ incentivize illegal migration, by making it the only option.  Why would anybody bother going through the process of seeking asylum if they're just going to be treated like the people who were caught trying to cross illegally anyway?



Foxi4 said:


> The second one is particularly valuable since it shows exactly what problem was being addressed and how, a contrast between the old and the new. I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure I can lift my leg that high - the old barrier was useless


I don't disagree that the previous fencing was useless, but I do contend that the new fencing is equally as useless AND more expensive.  Even in the worst shape I've ever been in, I guarantee you I could scale it and get back down without issue.  It's money that should've been spent on infrastructure, pandemic relief, or a million other things that might've actually have a positive impact for the average American.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Once they've been paid, the vast majority of smugglers and coyotes don't give a damn about the well-being of others, children or otherwise.
> 
> He _did_ incentivize illegal migration, by making it the only option.  Why would anybody bother going through the process of seeking asylum if they're just going to be treated like the people who were caught trying to cross illegally anyway?
> 
> I don't disagree that the previous fencing was useless, but I do contend that the new fencing is equally as useless AND more expensive.  Even in the worst shape I've ever been in, I guarantee you I could scale it and get back down without issue.  It's money that should've been spent on infrastructure, pandemic relief, or a million other things that might've actually have a positive impact for the average American.


When the wall construction started there was no pandemic, so it's disingenuous to suggest that this spending was frivolous and in a time of desperate need. I'm glad that we agree that the border was in a sorry state before Trump took to modernising it, as both of his predecessors did. I'll have to disagree in regards of effectiveness since I trust numbers more than I trust your anecdotes - you cannot drive a vehicle through that thing unless you intend to ram into it and topple a section over (which has happened at least once and led to some 13 casualties, so clearly it's not a very bright idea). The numbers show that the measure worked, I see no evidence of "fudging" since similar results were observed in other countries where border walls were erected. Of course *no* barrier is completely impenetrable, some portion of illegal migrants will always manage to find a way to cross the border, however the wall is definitely a large obstacle that makes it significantly more difficult, particularly for larger groups. It's also worth noting that the style of wall that was erected was a direct result of negotiations with the opposition party. It wasn't originally intended to be steel slats at all, however this solution seemed to tick all the boxes and it fit the requirements of border agents themselves.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> When the wall construction started there was no pandemic, so it's disingenuous to suggest that this spending was frivolous and in a time of desperate need.


I wasn't suggesting that, but there will always be unexpected events (natural disasters, pandemics, infrastructure emergencies, etc) for governments to contend with.  Putting that money away for a rainy day obviously would've been a better use for it, hindsight or not.



Foxi4 said:


> I'll have to disagree in regards of effectiveness


Indeed we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  Border patrol obviously doesn't report on the number of immigrants that manage to make it over the fence and then evade authorities, because they don't know.  I'd wager a guess that the ten extra minutes it takes to scale the taller fence results in a 15% higher capture rate at most.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I wasn't suggesting that, but there will always be unexpected events (natural disasters, pandemics, infrastructure emergencies, etc) for governments to contend with.  Putting that money away for a rainy day obviously would've been a better use for it, hindsight or not.
> 
> 
> Indeed we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  Border patrol obviously doesn't report on the number of immigrants that manage to make it over the fence and then evade authorities, because they don't know.  I'd wager a guess that the ten extra minutes it takes to scale the taller fence results in a 15% higher capture rate at most.


The number is derived from the apprehension rate, not the evasion rate. If Border Patrol apperhends X people in one period of time and Y in another then they've recorded a Z% increase/decrease. They're not basing their numbers on guesses, they're basing their numbers by comparing them to, for instance, the same time last year. Your wager is based on pure speculation, but you cop to that, so I have no reason to give you a hard time over it. I understand this is a contentious issue - it was a contentious issue for the last couple of years, so I get where you're coming from. With that being said, relaxing border policy perhaps wasn't the best of ideas in the middle of a global pandemic when public resources are already stretched thin enough. Can't be helped now, I suppose - here's for hoping the problem gets resolved soon.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The number is derived from apprehension rate, not the evasion rate. If Border Patrol apperhends X people in one period of time and Y in another then they've recorded a Z% decrease. They're not basing their numbers on guesses, they're basing their numbers by comparing them to, for instance, the same time in a previous calendar year.


Well that certainly brings the accuracy of their statistics into question then, as they have no idea whether fewer people are attempting to cross during a given day/month, or more managed to evade them during that same period.  It's not a blind guess, but there is guesswork involved.



Foxi4 said:


> With that being said, relaxing border policy perhaps wasn't the best of ideas in the middle of a global pandemic when public resources are already stretched thin enough. Can't be helped now, I suppose - here's for hoping the problem gets resolved soon.


Cruelty as a blanket immigration policy simply wasn't sustainable.  And for his part, Biden did tell immigrants to hold off for a while, but what we're seeing is an influx of mostly children who wouldn't have survived on their own in Mexico or central America.  I do expect a resolution, but given the scale of the problem, not for a few years at least.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Well that certainly brings the accuracy of their statistics into question then, as they have no idea whether fewer people are attempting to cross during a given day/month, or more managed to evade them during that same period.  It's not a blind guess, but there is guesswork involved.
> 
> Cruelty as a blanket immigration policy simply wasn't sustainable.  And for his part, Biden did tell immigrants to hold off for a while, but what we're seeing is an influx of mostly children who wouldn't have survived on their own in Mexico or central America.  I do expect a resolution, but given the scale of the problem, not for a few years at least.


The numbers are as accurate as can be, which is to say "pretty damn accurate" considering the area is monitored 24/7 and patrolled every day. You're getting better results with reduced manpower required, not much to complain about. You're comparing like to like, the methodology hasn't changed, so whatever result you see is an accurate representation of percentage change.

Yeah, I remember that TV spot where he asked them nicely. It was hilarious, I couldn't believe he actually did it, or that he and his handlers thought it'd work. It was kind of embarrasing, all things considered - made it look like he doesn't have a handle on the situation at all (which he doesn't). I'm surprised the media aren't storming the border like Ted Cruz did the other day, I'd expect those vultures to camp there 24/7 to capitalise on some misery, as they always do.

I find it interesting that you actually believe this level of migration is caused by "asylum seekers" and not seekers of economic opportunity who are sneaking their children in to use as anchors in anticipation of some kind of "family reunification", which is plausible once the whole "pathway to citizenship" malarkey (ha!) rolls out. You might have more faith in humanity than I do - all I see is a new spin on the old cuckoo scam.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The numbers are as accurate as can be, which is to say "pretty damn accurate" considering the area is monitored 24/7 and patrolled every day.


IIRC Democrats were pushing to fund drone monitoring precisely because the entire 2000-mile border _isn't _being monitored, and certainly not all at once.  Monitoring via aircraft is a big waste of fuel and can only capture so much square mileage at a time.



Foxi4 said:


> I find it interesting that you actually believe this level of migration is caused by "asylum seekers" and not seekers of economic opportunity who are sneaking their children in to use as anchors in anticipation of some kind of "family reunification", which is plausible once the whole "pathway to citizenship" malarkey (ha!) rolls out. You might have more faith in humanity than I do - all I see is a new spin on the old cuckoo scam.


So now we're pretending everything is hunky-dory down in Central and South America?  That's a bit too cynical even for you.  A lot of their parents are dead due to cartel/gang activity, and some of them were knowingly sent to their deaths via deportation from the Trump administration.  Not all of the children have family in America either, and finding new homes for them is going to take a long time.

For humans, survival comes before economic considerations, always.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> IIRC Democrats were pushing to fund drone monitoring precisely because the entire 2000-mile border _isn't _being monitored, and certainly not all at once.  Monitoring via aircraft is a big waste of fuel and can only capture so much square mileage at a time.
> 
> So now we're pretending everything is hunky-dory down in Central and South America?  That's a bit too cynical even for you.  A lot of their parents are dead due to cartel/gang activity, and some of them were knowingly sent to their deaths via deportation from the Trump administration.  Not all of the children have family in America either, and finding new homes for them is going to take a long time.
> 
> For humans, survival comes before economic considerations, always.


I don't see how socio-economic troubles in Central and South America should be of any concern for American taxpayers. It is not incumbent on the American government to rehome foreign children, it is however incumbent on it to secure the border and prevent illegal migration. As for my cynicism, it knows almost no bounds. I'm afraid that "hopping across the border" is simply not an approved method of seeking asylum. That's neither here nor there though, the damage is already done.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't see how socio-economic troubles in Central and South America should be of any concern for American taxpayers.


Up until we cut off aid to the regions, it wasn't any concern for American taxpayers.  Solving small problems while they're still small prevents them from becoming bigger problems.  That should be common sense, yet Republicans keep nominating and electing the most short-sighted politicians they possibly can.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm afraid that "hopping across the border" is simply not an approved method of seeking asylum.


No, but crossing the border at a legal entry point, walking right up to authorities and asking for asylum is an approved method.  One which was criminalized under the Trump administration all the same.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Up until we cut off aid to the regions, it wasn't any concern for American taxpayers.  Solving small problems while they're still small prevents them from becoming bigger problems.  That should be common sense, yet Republicans keep nominating and electing the most short-sighted politicians they possibly can.
> 
> No, but crossing the border at a legal entry point, walking right up to authorities and asking for asylum is an approved method.  One which was illegal under the Trump administration all the same.


You're mischaracterising the rules. Trump's administration instituted a policy which required asylum seekers to first apply for asylum in the first country of transit. Their application for asylum would be considered if they were rejected in the countries they've traveled through first. This was *entirely* sensible since, if you're fleeing prosecution from the government of, say, Nicaragua, you are *not* actively persecuted against by the government of Honduras. If you're referring to migrants waiting for their applications to be approved on the other side of the port of entry, they weren't exactly stranded there either - they received humanitarian aid to the best of the administration's ability. I very much doubt that Border Patrol was detaining people awaiting approval on Mexican soil, the only detainees were those who crossed the border illegally. It was never "illegal" to seek asylum at a port of entry, and in fact many migrants received asylum by adhering to the (admittedly strict) rules.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You're mischaracterising the rules. Trump's administration instituted a policy which required asylum seekers to first apply for asylum in the first country of transit. Their application for asylum would be considered if they were rejected in the countries they've traveled through first. This was *entirely* sensible since, if you're fleeing prosecution from the government of, say, Nicaragua, you are *not* actively persecuted against by the government of Honduras.


The governments are bad enough on their own, but not the primary reason people fled the region.  That would be cartels/gangs, and you can bet your ass that many of the same ones operating in Nicaragua also operate in Honduras.



Foxi4 said:


> If you're referring to migrants waiting for their applications to be approved on the other side of the port of entry, they weren't exactly stranded there either - they received humanitarian aid to the best of the administration's ability.


Particularly with Steven Miller in charge of immigration, I'm gonna have to press X to doubt.  CBP is known more for destroying food and water supplies left along migration routes than providing said supplies.



Foxi4 said:


> It was never "illegal" to seek asylum at a port of entry, and in fact many migrants received asylum by adhering to the (admittedly strict) rules.


"Many?"  One out of ten thousand maybe?  And only after months or years of waiting?  As I said before, it's both intentionally cruel, and also unsustainable.  Reforming our immigration system to be more fair would have the added benefit of making it more efficient.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The governments are bad enough on their own, but not the primary reason people fled the region.  That would be cartels/gangs, and you can bet your ass that many of the same ones operating in Nicaragua also operate in Honduras.
> 
> Particularly with Steven Miller in charge of immigration, I'm gonna have to press X to doubt.  CBP is known more for destroying food and water supplies left along migration routes than providing said supplies.
> 
> "Many?"  One out of ten thousand maybe?  And only after months or years of waiting?  As I said before, it's both intentionally cruel, and also unsustainable.  Reforming our immigration system to be more fair would have the added benefit of making it more efficient.


26.3% of applicants, actually. 11,814 were resettled in the year 2020. If we're not going to operate on real numbers, it's not a worthwhile conversation. I'm not going to say that the rules didn't become more strict - they did. With that being said, the U.S. doesn't have to be the de facto country refugees from both Americas flock to - there are multiple other countries on the way there. I don't buy your cartel excuse - there's a finite amount of miles you have to put between yourself and whoever you're running away from to feel fairly safe. The reason why the U.S. is the destination is because it's unquestionably the riches country in the area with the highest standard of living, and one of the few keen on accepting refugees at all. If I had to pick between living in Tegucigalpa or living in Texas, I'd pick Texas too, but you don't always get what you want. There's a fine line between fleeing danger and just migrating to a wealthier country. There has to be some kind of distinction between migration out of necessity and economic migration, otherwise the whole conversation is just dishonest.


----------



## 64bitmodels (Apr 8, 2021)

I'd like to see biden make this crap country socialist/communist so we can finally leave crapitalism behind and make the world a better place
maybe then all of america's problems will be fixed
specifically, i want to see him
tax the hell out of all the rich folk (basically everyeone making over 5 mil a year) like jeff bezos and bill gates, and use that extra cash to make basic human necessities like food, water, housing and internet completely free and not products to be fucking sold, impose more restrictions on companies and patch up the tax loopholes, and no cap, kill andrew wilson and bobby kotick, or at least imprison them because the stuff that they do is actually criminal and they need the death sentence pronto
also try to make companies make products that dont involve making poor kids in china work hours on end for low pay and a shit life, or using up shitloads of resources from countries like africa.
either that or have the US collapse, id be down w that as well


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't buy your cartel excuse - there's a finite amount of miles you have to put between yourself and whoever you're running away from to feel fairly safe.


Feel free to tell the kids their parents weren't _really_ killed by the cartel, for all the good that'll do us now.  The fact is that Mexico does play host to many of the same gangs and cartels that South American countries do.  Hell, many of those same gangs and cartels operate even in the US, but their power and influence has been somewhat diminished with much of the country legalizing marijuana.



Foxi4 said:


> There has to be some kind of distinction between migration out of necessity and economic migration, otherwise the whole conversation is just dishonest.


Sure, but life isn't always that neat and orderly, sometimes it's impossible to distinguish between the two.  Assuming things get bad enough or close enough to collapse, it's also possible for economic factors to force migration out of necessity.  Nobody is coming to the US under the impression that they'll become rich the second they step over the border, they know they'll have to work for every cent, and probably work harder than native-born Americans at that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Feel free to tell the kids their parents weren't _really_ killed by the cartel, for all the good that'll do us now.  The fact is that Mexico does play host to many of the same gangs and cartels that South American countries do.  Hell, many of those same gangs and cartels operate even in the US, but their power and influence has been somewhat diminished with much of the country legalizing marijuana.
> 
> Sure, but life isn't always that neat and orderly, sometimes it's impossible to distinguish between the two.  Assuming things get bad enough or close enough to collapse, it's also possible for economic factors to force migration out of necessity.  Nobody is coming to the US under the impression that they'll become rich the second they step over the border, they know they'll have to work for every cent, and probably work harder than native-born Americans at that.


The number of asylum applications has increased by nearly 1700% in the last decade. In 2007, a grand total of 5171 people have claimed credible fear, in the year 2016 it was *91786*. We haven't seen a major military conflict in the area or a sudden increase in cartel activity in the same time frame, so I'm calling shenanigans. *Many* people die on their way to reach the U.S. border, that much is true, and one of the many ways to prevent that is to disincentivise illegal migration as much as humanly possible.


64bitmodels said:


> I'd like to see biden make this crap country socialist/communist so we can finally leave crapitalism behind and make the world a better place
> maybe then all of america's problems will be fixed
> specifically, i want to see him
> tax the hell out of all the rich folk (basically everyeone making over 5 mil a year) like jeff bezos and bill gates, and use that extra cash to make basic human necessities like food, water, housing and internet completely free and not products to be fucking sold, impose more restrictions on companies and patch up the tax loopholes, and no cap, kill andrew wilson and bobby kotick, or at least imprison them because the stuff that they do is actually criminal and they need the death sentence pronto
> ...


This reads like satire, especially for someone who was born in a communist country and grew up watching it recover from all the "prosperity" it was experiencing at the time. It's getting better, but not quite up to my standard - I'm glad that I *legally* migrated.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We haven't seen a major military conflict in the area or a sudden increase in cartel activity in the same time frame, so I'm calling shenanigans.


There were some major economic downturns in the region in 2016/2017, which usually comes with an increase in gang and cartel activity attached by default.



Foxi4 said:


> *Many* people die on their way to reach the U.S. border, that much is true, and one of the many ways to prevent that is to disincentivise illegal migration as much as humanly possible.


Or in other words, incentivize them to stay in their home countries using various methods, one of which is to increase humanitarian aid in times of crisis.  Y'know, rather than cutting it off entirely.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> There were some major economic downturns in the region in 2016/2017, which usually comes with an increase in gang and cartel activity attached by default.
> 
> Or in other words, incentivize them to stay in their home countries using various methods, one of which is to increase humanitarian aid in times of crisis.  Y'know, rather than cutting it off entirely.


I wish I lived in your reality, where giving money to corrupt foreign governments translated to some measurable improvement in the lives of citizens instead of building another seaside villa, or where giving someone "humanitarian aid" improved their standard of living instead of getting them addicted to the hand that gives. Cynical, I know, but your policy seems to be filling every hole you can see with money. That ain't it, chief. I understand the sentiment, I just have a "colder" outlook on the situation. We could talk about this endlessly, honestly - I think I made my stance clear, so there's little point in making this circular.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I wish I lived in your reality, where giving money to corrupt foreign governments translated to some measurable improvement in the lives of citizens instead of building another seaside villa, or where giving someone "humanitarian aid" improved their standard of living instead of getting them addicted to the hand that gives.


Who said anything about involving their governments?  The US has the money, resources and manpower to get creative with our solutions.  We can deliver clothing, food, and water supples directly to the people, airdrop them, whatever.  If we're gonna keep spending more than the next hundred countries combined on our military, there are better uses for it than perpetually bombing the Middle East.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Who said anything about involving their governments?  The US has the money, resources and manpower to get creative with our solutions.  We can deliver clothing, food, and water supples directly to the people, airdrop them, whatever.  If we're gonna keep spending more than the next hundred countries combined on our military, there are better uses for it than perpetually bombing the Middle East.


You've heard of carpet bombing, now try toilet paper bombing! 

I mean, that sure is creative, but surely you realise that you can't pull up with a truck full of supplies, cross (often several) borders and hand them out, nor can you fly over another country's airspace and drop packages of goodies willy-nilly - these things take approval, and approval usually requires some hands to be greased. Not only that, often times those extra supplies are simply snatched up by whoever is the head honcho in the area and "redistributed" for a little something-something. It's not as straight-forward as you portray it, but the sentiment is nice.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 10, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Are some people here under the false impression that the primary moderators for Youtube comments are channel owners?  Because that is not the case, the primary moderator is Youtube/Google themselves.  They don't hesitate to disable comments on videos/channels that see a ton of bot and spam activity.


I felt sometime channel owners can do that specially with download said game here which is actually a Virus


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 11, 2021)

imagine voting for Biden 
https://t.co/DxVBoc8E0Y— Sal the Agorist (@SallyMayweather) April 11, 2021


----------



## Darth Meteos (Apr 11, 2021)

100,000 views. Thanks, guys, may this shitshow continue forever.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 11, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> 100,000 views. Thanks, guys, may this shitshow continue forever.


161 million people "voted".  100K is nothing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> 100,000 views. Thanks, guys, may this shitshow continue forever.


Oh God, not "forever". I don't think Joe has that much steam left in him.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> 161 million people "voted".  100K is nothing.


330 million people live in the US.  Not sure what point you were trying to make here, but it was surely a dumb one.


----------



## Vila_ (Apr 11, 2021)

man, y'all have way too much time to waste... stop writing 3000 word replies, no one cares.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Apr 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> 161 million people "voted".  100K is nothing.


i don't really know what you're trying to say
are you trying to cast aspersions on the election because everyone who voted hasn't visited this thread?



Foxi4 said:


> Oh God, not "forever". I don't think Joe has that much steam left in him.


well, whatever machine they had hooked up to phillip is vacant now
it'd be nice if kissinger died soon, then they could use that one instead, save the plane trip


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> well, whatever machine they had hooked up to phillip is vacant now
> it'd be nice if kissinger died soon, then they could use that one instead, save the plane trip


Hey, that's not fair.

Everybody knows the prince subsisted on the souls of the youngins, they were just in short supply on account of the lockdown. Better spent on keeping Lizzy alive, something had to give.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 11, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Not sure what point you were trying to make here, but it was surely a dumb one.



Okay Mr. Ironic.  Having trouble understanding the dumb stuff?



Darth Meteos said:


> are you trying to cast aspersions on the election because everyone who voted hasn't visited this thread?



*100K views is not a lot.  *


----------



## vincentx77 (Apr 11, 2021)

It's a bit amazing how a thread titled "Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America" has created over a hundred pages of off-topic, virtually nonsensical left and right wing bickering for almost three months now. The horse is dead. Stop beating it, and let it rest in peace ffs.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2021)

vincentx77 said:


> It's a bit amazing how a thread titled "Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America" has created over a hundred pages of off-topic, virtually nonsensical left and right wing bickering for almost three months now. The horse is dead. Stop beating it, and let it rest in peace ffs.


The horse may be dead, but Trump's Qultists won't stop spewing salt and bile until he is too.  Actually, even then there will mostly likely be a bunch of conspiracy theories surrounding his death.  "The Marxist Democrats force-fed him McDonald's and Diet Coke his entire life!"


----------



## AmandaRose (Apr 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The horse may be dead, but Trump's Qultists won't stop spewing salt and bile until he is too.  Actually, even then there will mostly likely be a bunch of conspiracy theories surrounding his death.  "The Marxist Democrats force-fed him McDonald's and Diet Coke his entire life!"


I'm going for they will put poison in his fake tan lotion


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The horse may be dead, but Trump's Qultists won't stop spewing salt and bile until he is too.  Actually, even then there will mostly likely be a bunch of conspiracy theories surrounding his death.  "The Marxist Democrats force-fed him McDonald's and Diet Coke his entire life!"


You say that, but the last couple of weeks were mostly filled with left-wing copium when it comes to political discourse in America. There's a lot of discontent considering Joe Biden's barely aware body hadn't really adhered to the expectations of progressives given the burrito factories at the border, the basically unchanged (slightly increased, even) military spending compared to the Orange Man and other assorted "not-so-progressive" items on the agenda. Who knows what left-wingers will notice next?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You say that, but the last couple of weeks were mostly filled with left-wing copium when it comes to political discourse in America. There's a lot of discontent considering Joe Biden's barely aware body hadn't really adhered to the expectations of progressives given the burrito factories at the border, the basically unchanged (slightly increased, even) military spending compared to the Orange Man and other assorted "not-so-progressive" items on the agenda. Who knows what left-wingers will notice next?


For my part I'd say he's toned down the neolib tendencies more than I expected him to, but that might be because Sanders is holding the checkbook, or just for show in the early days.  Between the COVID relief bill and the infrastructure package, he has the opportunity to accomplish more for the American people in a year than Trump did in his entire term.  Not that that's saying much.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> For my part I'd say he's toned down the neolib tendencies more than I expected him to, but that might be because Sanders is holding the checkbook, or just for show in the early days.  Between the COVID relief bill and the infrastructure package, he has the opportunity to accomplish more for the American people in a year than Trump did in his entire term.  Not that that's saying much.


If he achieves half in his entire term of what Trump achieved in one year of his presidency, I will stop making fun of him. Possibly posthumously, 4 years is a long time.


----------



## omgcat (Apr 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If he achieves half in his entire term of what Trump achieved in one year of his presidency, I will stop making fun of him. Possibly posthumously, 4 years is a long time.



yeah, but having some of the worlds best dr's makes him dying in 4 years really low at 78. he doesn't have any visible risk factors that would make his 5 year mortality high at all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2021)

omgcat said:


> yeah, but having some of the worlds best dr's makes him dying in 4 years really low at 78. he doesn't have any visible risk factors that would make his 5 year mortality high at all.


There's always the option of Weekend at Bernie's.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There's always the option of Weekend at Bernie's.


For multiple reasons, that would have been more likely if Sanders had gotten the nomination.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> For multiple reasons, that would have been more likely if Sanders had gotten the nomination.


We must redistribute the means of puppetering old men rapidly approaching their demise.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If he achieves half in his entire term of what Trump achieved in one year of his presidency


Trump achieved zilch for the average American (other than killing off a good portion of them).  For corporate interests he achieved quite a lot.  He'll go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever and Biden will go down as middling.  Calling it now.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 12, 2021)

"Copium". We still have people, including in this thread, saying that the whole election was fraud.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 13, 2021)

Biden voters are right now burning cities again and looting


----------



## Lacius (Apr 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden voters are right now burning cities again and looting


Biden voters aren't burning cities.

Trump supporters engaged in an armed insurrection against the Capitol and American democracy.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Biden voters aren't burning cities.
> 
> Trump supporters engaged in an armed insurrection against the Capitol and American democracy.


please show me the arms use in it 

also I'm watching a live stream right now and Biden voters are looting targets  Live right now so who do i belive you here on gba temp or the person filming live ?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> please show me the arms use in it
> 
> also I'm watching a live stream right now and Biden voters are looting targets  Live right now so who do i belive you here on gba temp or the person filming live ?


It's amazing these looters were able to voice their support for Biden during these alleged events.

As for the armed Capitol riot part:
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's amazing these looters were able to voice their support for Biden during these alleged events.
> 
> As for the armed Capitol riot part:
> https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/



Ono old lady walking sticks 

anyway 
Dollar Tree is being looted By Biden voters  right now while fireworks go off by the police station


----------



## Lacius (Apr 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Ono old lady walking sticks
> 
> anyway
> Dollar Tree is being looted By Biden voters  right now while fireworks go off by the police station


If you're going to randomly call people Biden supporters, it must mean Biden is living rent free in your head.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 13, 2021)

Biden voters are now burning an American flag as more tear gas and flash bangs continue to be fired


----------



## Xzi (Apr 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden voters are now burning an American flag as more tear gas and flash bangs continue to be fired


You make Biden voters sound so much cooler than they actually are.  These people are protesting murderous police, rightfully so.


----------



## vincentx77 (Apr 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden voters are now burning an American flag as more tear gas and flash bangs continue to be fired



I'm going to regret this, but what live stream are you watching? Where is this supposed to be happening?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 13, 2021)

vincentx77 said:


> I'm going to regret this, but what live stream are you watching? Where is this supposed to be happening?


Minneapolis again unfortunately.  Daunte Wright was shot and killed yesterday, during a traffic stop, by a female police officer who thought she was reaching for her taser.


----------



## vincentx77 (Apr 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Minneapolis again unfortunately.  Daunte Wright was shot and killed yesterday, during a traffic stop, by a female police officer who thought she was reaching for her taser.


I was aware of the shooting. The news sites made it look like the protesting had happened yesterday.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 13, 2021)

vincentx77 said:


> I was aware of the shooting. The news sites made it look like the protesting had happened yesterday.


Yeah the victim's mother has said she doesn't want any sort of escalation, so I don't think it's been as bad as it could've been.  There are still bound to be some who have to take out their frustrations in protest and/or some who choose to take advantage of the situation.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 13, 2021)

Bidens Violence 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/BidenLs/status/1381672321430216708


----------



## Lacius (Apr 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden voters are now burning an American flag as more tear gas and flash bangs continue to be fired


Where are the Biden voters?

Also, it's interesting you're only interested in the protests but not the systemic police violence against people of color.


----------



## Jiolo_Miles (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Where are the Biden voters?
> 
> Also, it's interesting you're only interested in the protests but not the systemic police violence against people of color.


Without considering the validity of the cause, there is a difference between protesting and rioting.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Where are the Biden voters?
> 
> Also, it's interesting you're only interested in the protests but not the systemic police violence against people of color.


>protests

you mean the riot


----------



## tthousand (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Also, it's interesting you're only interested in the protests but not the systemic police violence against people of color.



Are you sure you do not mean white people? Because looking at the statistics (link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/), it seems white people are killed twice as much as African Americans (or Black, depending on the current political correctness).








Lacius said:


> Where are the Biden voters?



Exactly. Like Antifa, there are not any actual Biden supporters, just the idea of Biden supporters.


----------



## Jiolo_Miles (Apr 13, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Are you sure you do not mean white people? Because looking at the statistics (link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/), it seems white people are killed twice as much as African Americans (or Black, depending on the current political correctness).
> 
> View attachment 258126


It doesn't' fit the narrative so it doest count. What is plaguing the American black community is a toxic culture that worships misogyny, drugs and disrespect of authority. The Puerto Rican culture, which I grew up in, is very similar and the statistics and the state of the country are proof of that. I read somewhere that "people of color" who come from the Caribbean islands, eg ( Haiti, Jamaica, Bahamas etc. ) do much better here in the states.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 13, 2021)

Jiolo_Miles said:


> It doesn't' fit the narrative so it doest count. What is plaguing the American black community is a toxic culture that worships misogyny, drugs and disrespect of authority. The Puerto Rican culture, which I grew up in, is very similar and the statistics and the state of the country are proof of that. I read somewhere that "people of color" who come from the Caribbean islands, eg ( Haiti, Jamaica, Bahamas etc. ) do much better here in the states.



Exactly... if it does fit into the designed outcome, it is not discussed. The very reason no one is talking about the Black individual who killed a Capitol Police Officer on April 2nd. If he was white, they would have talked about it more, or if he had used a gun they would have talked about it more.

Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and it seems to be doing it's job.


----------



## Jiolo_Miles (Apr 13, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Exactly... if it does fit into the designed outcome, it is not discussed. The very reason no one is talking about the Black individual who killed a Capitol Police Officer on April 2nd. If he was white, they would have talked about it more, or if he had used a gun they would have talked about it more.
> 
> Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and it seems to be doing it's job.


Im very careful to jump to deep into a great conspiracy but by enlarged, I think that the Democrats don't care about any of the causes they claim to champion: climate, racism, immigration, pandemics, economic disparity etc. They are just really good at milking the latest fad to gain greater political power to enrich themselves.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 13, 2021)

Jiolo_Miles said:


> Without considering the validity of the cause, there is a difference between protesting and rioting.





Valwinz said:


> >protests
> 
> you mean the riot


My point still stands regardless of which word you want to use.



tthousand said:


> Are you sure you do not mean white people? Because looking at the statistics (link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/), it seems white people are killed twice as much as African Americans (or Black, depending on the current political correctness).


There are a lot more White people than Black people, so looking at the raw numbers only demonstrates that fact. Here's a more relevant statistic from the same website looking at the rate (per million of that population):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/



tthousand said:


> Exactly. Like Antifa, there are not any actual Biden supporters, just the idea of Biden supporters.


My point is Valwinz and people like him are the ones bringing Biden into this. Presidential politics have nothing to do with these protests, since they're about police violence against people of color, and you don't know the party affiliation of anyone protesting/rioting.


----------



## Haloman800 (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> My point still stands regardless of which word you want to use.
> 
> 
> There are a lot more White people than Black people, so looking at the raw numbers only demonstrates that fact. Here's a more relevant statistic from the same website looking at the rate (per million of that population):
> ...



Unarmed whites are killed more _per capita_ than blacks. Also, blacks are 12% of the US population, yet commit over 50% of all murders. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2

"violence against people of color" violence by blacks against whites occurs far more often per capita than the other way around.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 13, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Are you sure you do not mean white people? Because looking at the statistics (link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/), it seems white people are killed twice as much as African Americans (or Black, depending on the current political correctness).
> 
> View attachment 258126


Yeah that's kinda the point...police shouldn't be killing unarmed people at all.  Yet they kill everybody at a pretty high rate and they still kill black people at a rate disproportionate with their population.  Roughly a thousand murders are committed by police per year, and roughly ten thousand dogs are killed by them per year.  We need a complete national overhaul of police forces before it comes to all-out war with them.

For my part I'd go full John Wick on their asses if they shot and killed my dog.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> My point still stands regardless of which word you want to use.
> 
> My point is Valwinz and people like him are the ones bringing Biden into this. Presidential politics have nothing to do with these protests, since they're about police violence against people of color, and you don't know the party affiliation of anyone protesting/rioting.



Are people rioting yes or not


----------



## Lacius (Apr 13, 2021)

Jiolo_Miles said:


> What is plaguing the American black community is a toxic culture that worships misogyny, drugs and disrespect of authority.


Thank you for broadly prejudging and victim-blaming an entire race. I don't wish to respond to this anymore than to say your prejudice is noted.



Haloman800 said:


> Unarmed whites are killed more _per capita_ than blacks. Also, blacks are 12% of the US population, yet commit over 50% of all murders. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2


It's almost as though there's a correlation between socioeconomic status and the likelihood of committing certain kinds of crime. I am assuming you aren't arguing that Black people are inherently more violent, right? There are also issues of discrimination by law enforcement (i.e. Black areas are more heavily policed), issues related to childhood exposure to violence, socioeconomic factors related to whether or not a person can post bail (and instead pleads guilty to a crime they didn't commit), and correlations between segregation and violent crime.



Haloman800 said:


> "violence against people of color" violence by blacks against whites occurs far more often per capita than the other way around.


I'm unaware of any systemic violence against White people, which is the point of what we're talking about.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah that's kinda the point...police shouldn't be killing unarmed people at all.  Yet they kill everybody at a pretty high rate and they still kill black people at a rate disproportionate with their population.  Roughly a thousand murders are committed by police per year, and roughly ten thousand dogs are killed by them per year.  We need a complete national overhaul of police forces before it comes to all-out war with them.
> 
> For my part I'd go full John Wick on their asses if they shot and killed my dog.



If you feel you can do a better job, I am sure they are always looking for individuals willing to put there life on the line everyday. 

But I do agree, there needs to be more oversight in any and everything the government has it's bloodied hands in/on. Not saying the government needs to get bigger to take care of the problem, but we the people as their source of income need to do a better job at holding them accountable for their actions. Rioting is not going to fix the problem though. Defunding the police isn't going to fix it either. Like I am saying, there needs to be a private sector organization that we all can be a part of the look at what is going on behind the scenes and making sure our money is being used as intended.


----------



## Jiolo_Miles (Apr 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah that's kinda the point...police shouldn't be killing unarmed people at all.  Yet they kill everybody at a pretty high rate and they still kill black people at a rate disproportionate with their population.  Roughly a thousand murders are committed by police per year, and roughly ten thousand dogs are killed by them per year.  We need a complete national overhaul of police forces before it comes to all-out war with them.


Even if granted the need for police reform, a one size fit all wouldn't work. Right now a lot of the protesters are asking for the removal of police funding in their communities. If they get what they want, how higher will the death toll be in the black community ?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Are people rioting yes or not


Rioting has occurred, yes. I am not sure what your point is by asking this question. My points still stand regardless.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 13, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If you feel you can do a better job, I am sure they are always looking for individuals willing to put there life on the line everyday.


I would be immediately booted off the force for reporting other officers when they do something unethical or unlawful.  That's part of what I'm referring to when I say sweeping reform is desperately needed, many departments have created an atmosphere where being a "bad cop" is the only option.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm unaware of any systemic violence against White people, which is the point of what we're talking about.



It's literally right under your nose, in your face and down your throat everyday. "White Americans are bad and need to be less white". All the media is doing is furthering the divide amongst it's citizens. If they have white people hating white people, imagine what the non-white people think about white people.

Personally, growing up most of my friends were Asian for Latino. I have seen more racism against white people by the normal everyday person than I have against other races. That's just what I have witnessed for myself though. I cannot speak of everyone else.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> I would be immediately booted off the force for reporting other officers when they do something unethical or unlawful.  That's part of what I'm referring to when I say sweeping reform is desperately needed, many departments have created an atmosphere where being a "bad cop" is the only option.



I suppose it's where your from really. I would be booted from my local department because I believe in our rights and constitution... which I guess cops around here frown upon.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 13, 2021)

tthousand said:


> It's literally right under your nose, in your face and down your throat everyday.


First, please understand the difference between violence and systemic violence before continuing down this path. Second, where?



tthousand said:


> "White Americans are bad and need to be less white"


I've literally never heard this, and I don't think you have either.



tthousand said:


> All the media is doing is furthering the divide amongst it's citizens.


How?



tthousand said:


> Personally, growing up most of my friends were Asian for Latino. I have seen more racism against white people by the normal everyday person than I have against other races. That's just what I have witnessed for myself though. I cannot speak of everyone else.


First, seeing "racism against White people" is not necessarily systemic. Second, anecdotes are not data. Third, racism against people of color, systemic or otherwise, is a far more substantial problem than racism against White people.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tthousand said:


> I suppose it's where your from really. I would be booted from my local department because I believe in our rights and constitution... which I guess cops around here frown upon.


What a loaded piece of bullshit. I believe in our rights and Constitution, but I doubt you and I think similarly. In fact, based on what I've seen so far from your posts, I would guess you believe less in our rights and Constitution than you think you do, but that's not a conversation I want to have in public right now.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> blah blah blah



I do not know what to tell you. It's everywhere you look, unless you choose to close your eyes.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> What a loaded piece of bullshit. I believe in our rights and Constitution, but I doubt you and I think similarly. In fact, based on what I've seen so far from your posts, I would guess you believe less in our rights and Constitution than you think you do, but that's not a conversation I want to have in public right now.


But here you are, bringing it up. What a crock of shit. But based on what I've seen from your posts, I would not expect anything more.

Feel free to PM buddy


----------



## Jiolo_Miles (Apr 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Thank you for broadly prejudging and victim-blaming an entire race. I don't wish to respond to this anymore than to say your prejudice is noted.
> 
> 
> It's almost as though there's a correlation between socioeconomic status and the likelihood of committing certain kinds of crime. I am assuming you aren't arguing that Black people are inherently more violent, right? There are also issues of discrimination by law enforcement (i.e. Black areas are more heavily policed), issues related to childhood exposure to violence, socioeconomic factors related to whether or not a person can post bail (and instead pleads guilty to a crime they didn't commit), and correlations between segregation and violent crime.



No I'm not assuming blacks are inherently more violent due to their skin color, but are you saying that we shouldn't consider what the culture thinks and believes? if you grew up being taught that the police are out to hunt you, won't that affect how an interaction with the police may go down wether the interaction was justified or not ? I had mentioned before that I grew up in Puerto Rico where there are cultural norms that are very similar and toxic. Then migrate to the states and is the same bullshit excuse, that the reason why we don't get far in life is because there are systems put in place to keep us down. Never mind the Barack Obamas, Michael Jordans, LeBron James, Oprahs, Beyonce, Clarence Thomas and Condoleza Rice's that had made it in this country via hard work. I'm not denying that there are isolated incidents of brutality, positions of power and authority tend to attract some very evil people, but that is a long shot from systematic racism.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 14, 2021)

Jiolo_Miles said:


> No I'm not assuming blacks are inherently more violent due to their skin color, but are you saying that we shouldn't consider what the culture thinks and believes? if you grew up being taught that the police are out to hunt you, won't that affect how an interaction with the police may go down wether the interaction was justified or not ? I had mentioned before that I grew up in Puerto Rico where there are cultural norms that are very similar and toxic. Then migrate to the states and is the same bullshit excuse, that the reason why we don't get far in life is because there are systems put in place to keep us down. Never mind the Barack Obamas, Michael Jordans, LeBron James, Oprahs, Beyonce, Clarence Thomas and Condoleza Rice's that had made it in this country via hard work. I'm not denying that there are isolated incidents of brutality, positions of power and authority tend to attract some very evil people, but that is a long shot from systematic racism.


My comment about one thinking Black people are inherently more violent was not directed at you. You just engage in prejudicial thinking where you prejudge an entire group of people and tell them what they're doing wrong.

Systemic racism objectively exists, and I suggest you educate yourself. Naming off some anecdotes about some people who were successful doesn't change that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism


----------



## tthousand (Apr 14, 2021)

The whole damn system is what is wrong, not just parts of it. White, black, brown, asian, etc... we are all being oppressed by the powers that be. The reasons why the people @Jiolo_Miles got ahead in life might be due to hard, hard work... or the reason they got as far as they did is because they sold their souls to the devil.

It is true that anyone can make it in this work through GREAT sacrifice, no matter the color of your skin. The problem is that the life path may not be for most. 

Look, you can believe what ever you want, that is fine by me and I do not intend to insult anyone. But respect my right to believe what I want to as well. What most of you do not realize is that I take everything with a heap of salt. I really questions everything, and only tend to lean one way or the other. I am always willing to keep my mind open and let go of my preconceptions... something that terrifies most people.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 14, 2021)

We don't have a policing problem. /s


----------



## Louse (Apr 14, 2021)

tthousand said:


> What a crock of shit.


Urine and feces, _yes,_ urine and feces!


----------



## Lacius (Apr 14, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The whole damn system is what is wrong, not just parts of it. White, black, brown, asian, etc... we are all being oppressed by the powers that be. The reasons why the people @Jiolo_Miles got ahead in life might be due to hard, hard work... or the reason they got as far as they did is because they sold their souls to the devil.
> 
> It is true that anyone can make it in this work through GREAT sacrifice, no matter the color of your skin. The problem is that the life path may not be for most.
> 
> Look, you can believe what ever you want, that is fine by me and I do not intend to insult anyone. But respect my right to believe what I want to as well. What most of you do not realize is that I take everything with a heap of salt. I really questions everything, and only tend to lean one way or the other. I am always willing to keep my mind open and let go of my preconceptions... something that terrifies most people.


Socioeconomic mobility in the United States isn't great, and it's worse for people of color. It's a myth that everyone has equal opportunity. Systemic racism exists.

You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Socioeconomic mobility in the United States isn't great, and it's worse for people of color. It's a myth that everyone has equal opportunity. Systemic racism exists.
> 
> You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts.



Believe me, I consider everything in this thread an opinion and not a fact.

I have a theory the powers that be want to keep everyone down, but yes, they might target blacks more than others by doing things like dropping guns and drugs in their communitites, as well as many other things. But the majority of the people are not to blame. As long as those in power remain at the top, nothing is going to change. 

We are in need of a revolution, but THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2021)

"Systemic racism of the gaps" is not an argument - the fact that disparities exist does not prove that there are any artificial barriers preventing people from being successful based on their race. The same system which supposedly persecutes against black people simultaneously allows Asians to thrive - they achieve better scores in the education system, have significantly higher median incomes and the lowest incarceration rates. If "the system" is built for the benefit of whites then the white supremacists in charge didn't do a very good job. A disparity between outcomes of black and white people does not prove systemic racism any more than the disparities between asians and whites do.

In terms of policing, year after year studies fail to demonstrate a significant disparity in terms of policing - in they exist at all, it's been demonstrated that black people are (on average) less likely to be shot by police and more likely to face some degree of physical violence compared to white suspects in similar circumstances.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/...police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

When you look at the numbers with a cool head, things click together rather neatly. Predominantly black neighbourhoods have higher levels of criminality, and as a consequence there's a higher police presence in them. Where there's a higher police presence there are more encounters with the police, and any encounter with the police can potentially be fatal, regardless of whether you're black, white or neon green.

The problem of criminality needs to be addressed with more policing, not less, as well as better training and a more stringent selection process. Negative interactions with the police aren't just fueled by poor policing though, they're also fueled by a strong distrust of the police which is endemic in those same neighbourhoods.

There are so many causes of this situation that trying to name them all is almost futile - single parenthood (statistically increases the likely hood of incarceration by a significant margin), wide-spread use of drugs, relatively low standards of living, poor educational outcomes, the world is your oyster when it comes to naming and shaming. Some of those problems could perhaps be addressed with policy, others need solutions in the communities themselves. "Whitey's fault" is not a solution, and does not adequately explain the disparities we see either.

One would be a fool not to admit past injustices, but one would also be hard-pressed to point out *systemic* injustices today. There are no laws on the books that explicitly discriminate against black people. There are certainly laws that are aimed to combat specific crimes, however if those crimes happen to be predominantly committed in black neighbourhoods then the logical conclusion isn't "systemic racism", it's "criminality problem".


----------



## Lacius (Apr 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> "Systemic racism of the gaps" is not an argument - the fact that disparities exist does not prove that there are any artificial barriers preventing people from being successful based on their race. The same system which supposedly persecutes against black people simultaneously allows Asians to thrive - they achieve better scores in the education system, have significantly higher median incomes and the lowest incarceration rates. If "the system" is built for the benefit of whites then the white supremacists in charge didn't do a very good job. A disparity between outcomes of black and white people does not prove systemic racism any more than the disparities between asians and whites do.
> 
> In terms of policing, year after year studies fail to demonstrate a significant disparity in terms of policing - in they exist at all, it's been demonstrated that black people are (on average) less likely to be shot by police and more likely to face some degree of physical violence compared to white suspects in similar circumstances.
> 
> ...


Systemic racism factually makes it more difficult for people of color to do things that white people can do more easily. The data is clear that, when presented with identical resumes, people with non-white names are far less likely to get interviews. Housing discrimination still happens on the basis of race. Racism from yesteryear continues to percolate across time to the present, as things like mortgage discrimination and red lining have resulted in decreased average equity when comparing families of color and white families. And this list barely covers the systemic barriers that people of color have to deal with.

The model minority myth in reference to Asian Americans is a racist counterargument against the Civil Rights Movement, and to not look so racist after WWII during the Cold War, and it's racist propaganda you've unfortunately bought into. In reality, the United States for a long time had laws restricting Asian immigration for racist reasons, and when a new law was passed after WWII increasing Asian immigration, it only allowed successful and well-educated Asians into the country. In other words, you're touting a myth that a racial community is well-educated and successful after the United States only let well-educated and successful people over. And, as I mentioned previously, the effects of racist policies continue to percolate into the present.

Well-educated and successful Asian families gave their kids a good education so they could become successful, and then they did the same thing for their kids, and so on. Black people in this country largely started off as slaves brought here against their will, and even after slavery ended, Black families continued to be persecuted and kept down.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Systemic racism factually makes it more difficult for people of color to do things that white people can do more easily. The data is clear that, when presented with identical resumes, people with non-white names are far less likely to get interviews. Housing discrimination still happens on the basis of race. Racism from yesteryear continues to percolate across time to the present, as things like mortgage discrimination and red lining have resulted in decreased average equity when comparing families of color and white families. And this list barely covers the systemic barriers that people of color have to deal with.
> 
> The model minority myth in reference to Asian Americans is a racist counterargument against the Civil Rights Movement, and to not look so racist after WWII during the Cold War, and it's racist propaganda you've unfortunately bought into. In reality, the United States for a long time had laws restricting Asian immigration for racist reasons, and when a new law was passed after WWII increasing Asian immigration, it only allowed successful and well-educated Asians into the country. In other words, you're touting a myth that a racial community is well-educated and successful after the United States only let well-educated and successful people over. And, as I mentioned previously, the effects of racist policies continue to percolate into the present.
> 
> Well-educated and successful Asian families gave their kids a good education so they could become successful, and then they did the same thing for their kids, and so on. Black people in this country largely started off as slaves brought here against their will, and even after slavery ended, Black families continued to be persecuted and kept down.


I didn't buy into any myths - I see statistics, I draw conclusion. You claim that the disparity is caused by a wealth and educational gap dating back to WWII - that's a fair argument, but doesn't negate the fact that the current system does not discriminate by race (as shown by *current* performance) in any shape or form - it used to, now it does not.

Asians used to build railroads in subhuman conditions, they didn't have the luxury of "inheriting" a whole lot of wealth, and yet here we are. The transcontinental railroad alone was built by around 15000-20000 Chinese immigrants, many of whom were killed or injured in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_Americans

Anti-Asian sentiment was very prevalent, resulting in expulsions, the Chinese Exclusion Act, Magnuson Act etc. - the reason why "Chinatowns" exist at all is because Chinese workers lived in slum towns - they were poor. The idea that the gross majority of Asian immigrants came from wealthy or highly educated families is patently false, that didn't happen until later waves of immigration. This sentiment continued well into the WWII era - let's not forget that the internment camps are still standing today.

Regarding resumes, I would *love* to see some numbers on that - the studies I've seen indicate a strong preference towards POC candidates, particularly black women. I also don't see how that has anything to do with systemic discrimination - the government doesn't do a whole lot of hiring, private companies do. If you can prove that a specific company rejects POC applicants at a significantly higher rate than white applicants despite similar qualifications, you should probably report it because it's literally illegal to do so already.

Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling, but you've made some fair points which are worth reading.


----------



## Haloman800 (Apr 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Thank you for broadly prejudging and victim-blaming an entire race. I don't wish to respond to this anymore than to say your prejudice is noted.
> 
> 
> It's almost as though there's a correlation between socioeconomic status and the likelihood of committing certain kinds of crime. I am assuming you aren't arguing that Black people are inherently more violent, right? There are also issues of discrimination by law enforcement (i.e. Black areas are more heavily policed), issues related to childhood exposure to violence, socioeconomic factors related to whether or not a person can post bail (and instead pleads guilty to a crime they didn't commit), and correlations between segregation and violent crime.



There's no evidence "socioeconomics" is what's causing 12% of the population to commit 50% of all murders. When the Great Depression happened in the 1930s, millions of Americans went from middle class to below the poverty line, yet we didn't see an uptick in crime. Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.



> I'm unaware of any systemic violence against White people, which is the point of what we're talking about.



There's no evidence that police arrest blacks more than the proportion of crime they commit. The National Crime Victimization Survey every year randomly surveys 50,000 to 75,000 people to ask them if they were a victim of a crime, and who was the perpetrator. 

The survey shows that the arrests rates line up with the amount of crime that various groups commit, i.e. *blacks are arrested to their proportion of crimes they commit*.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I didn't buy into any myths - I see statistics, I draw conclusion. You claim that the disparity is caused by a wealth and educational gap dating back to WWII - that's a fair argument, but doesn't negate the fact that the current system does not discriminate by race (as shown by *current* performance) in any shape or form - it used to, now it does not.
> 
> Asians used to build railroads in subhuman conditions, they didn't have the luxury of "inheriting" a whole lot of wealth, and yet here we are. The transcontinental railroad alone was built by around 15000-20000 Chinese immigrants, many of whom were killed or injured in the process.
> 
> ...


It's a fact that the model minority myth about Asian Americans happened in part as a direct consequence of the 1965 immigration bill. When immigrants come to the United States with an education, skills, and preexisting wealth, they tend to do better and pass on that advantage to the next generation. 

It's also well-established that the model Asian-American minority myth was a counterargument in direct response to the Civil Rights Movement. In other words, white people were arguing for the conservation of segregation, legal discrimination, etc. using the newly invented model minority myth as their rationalization, and like many others, you've bought into it.

There's a whole Wikipedia page on the model minority myth, its origins, and its detrimental effect on society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority

For racial biases in job hiring, according to the following study, out of 5,000 identical resumes, white people received 50% more interview requests. Other studies show the same systemic biases.
https://uh.edu/~adkugler/Bertrand&Mullainathan.pdf (it's a PDF)

The government could, but doesn't, do more to curb systemic racism like hiring discrimination, which is part of what makes it systemic. There are numerous other examples of systemic racism in the United States I haven't even mentioned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

I suggest reading some books on the topic of systemic racism in the United States, because your failure to 'buy it" isn't due to any lack of evidence. If you're genuinely interested, I can give you the names of some of my favorite books.



Haloman800 said:


> There's no evidence "socioeconomics" is what's causing 12% of the population to commit 50% of all murders. When the Great Depression happened in the 1930s, millions of Americans went from middle class to below the poverty line, yet we didn't see an uptick in crime. Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't say socioeconomic factors were the only reason for the criminal statistics we previously talked about. I voted several reasons for the disparity.

There is, however, ample evidence of increased policing of Black communities even when controlling for actual crime rates. Traffic stops (and when and why they turn fatal) are a good example of disproportionate policing.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 14, 2021)

This thread is a circular mess idk how you guys can stand it

Seems like a lot of people who don't face systemic discrimination wanna act like it doesn't exist - as if you have any say about the lived experiences of minority populations who prove time and time again that it does in fact exist even though some people want to act like it doesn't because they literally don't know what it's like to be discriminated against and therefore can't understand blatant discrimination even if it's right in their face.

Yeesh.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's a fact that the model minority myth about Asian Americans happened in part as a direct consequence of the 1965 immigration bill. When immigrants come to the United States with an education, skills, and preexisting wealth, they tend to do better and pass on that advantage to the next generation.
> 
> It's also well-established that the model Asian-American minority myth was a counterargument in direct response to the Civil Rights Movement. In other words, white people were arguing for the conservation of segregation, legal discrimination, etc. using the newly invented model minority myth as their rationalization, and like many others, you've bought into it.
> 
> ...





> Since the creation of the model minority stereotype, Asian Americans have now exceeded White Americans in terms of education, as well as many other racial and ethnic groups in American society. As of 2012, Asian Americans as a whole have obtained the highest educational attainment level and median household income of any racial and ethnic demographic in the country, a position in which African immigrants, and their American-born offspring, have now started to outperform. (...) Cultural factors are thought to be part of the reason why East Asian Americans are successful in the United States. East Asian societies often place more resources and emphasis on education.


Selective immigration is only one of many reasons listed that explains why the stereotype turns out to ring true in certain (not all - South Asians seem to be the odd ones out, immigrants from India and China lead the charge) groups of Asian immigrants. Cultural differences is another, and given the fact that the same emphasis on educational achievement can be seen in modern China and India today, I'm going to lean on that as the root cause. It is not uncommon to see Chinese parents in particular putting their children under intense, often unreasonable pressure to perform. That does translate to better outcomes in the education system, however it's rather detrimental to mental health (given the suicide rates in those parts of the world). It's a culture that's laser-focused on success, both domestically and in the United States.


> For racial biases in job hiring, according to the following study, out of 5,000 identical resumes, white people received 50% more interview requests. Other studies show the same systemic biases.
> https://uh.edu/~adkugler/Bertrand&Mullainathan.pdf (it's a PDF)


This study is almost 20 years old and doesn't reflect the current job market. That's not to say that there isn't progress to be made, however as of today minority hires make up the bulk of all new hires (25-54). It appears to me that the tide is turning around as-is. The job market is cyclical - in order to record a new hiring one of two things needs to happen, a new job needs to be created *or* an old employee needs to retire to make room for a new one. Right now we're seeing both a wave of retirements and (up until the pandemic) an economic boom, so the trend is likely to continue (unless inflation catches up to us).

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/minorities-ages-25-to-54-make-up-most-new-hires-in-workforce.html



> The government could, but doesn't, do more to curb systemic racism like hiring discrimination, which is part of what makes it systemic. There are numerous other examples of systemic racism in the United States I haven't even mentioned.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism


I'm of the opinion that the government should do absolutely nothing in terms of who private companies hire and for what reasons. The qualifications to do the job are the only relevant factor in hiring. I'm not particularly interested in what skin colour an employee is, I do care about whether or not they can help me with my query quickly and reliably. I consider affirmative action or diversity quotas as explicitly racist in nature, freedom of association should always trump social engineering. Nobody said changes in hiring practices would take place instantaneously, they should be organic, and for the most part have been organic. As long as there is *no law* that encourages discrimination based on race, I am perfectly happy concluding that any discrimination that does take place isn't systemic, as in, a part of an organised system. People's biases are what people's biases are - businesses that refuse to hire well-qualified employees based on skin colour alone will inevitably fall behind those businesses that do not, their hiring pools are smaller (by their own making). One thing that has helped close the gap in the UK and is worth emulating is the standardisation of job application forms. Here on the other side of the pond including any identifying information like spelling out the race of an applicant or attaching photographs is a disqualifying factor, it's not practiced specifically to avoid biased selection. The initial picks are chosen solely on the basis of qualifications and the cover letter, which is great. What happens during the interview can't really be influenced in a way that wouldn't interfere with how business owners run their businesses, but it's a small step that helps people get heard. A good interview performance goes a long way.


> I suggest reading some books on the topic of systemic racism in the United States, because your failure to 'buy it" isn't due to any lack of evidence. If you're genuinely interested, I can give you the names of some of my favorite books.


I'm only interested in conclusions that are data-driven and not decades old. I'm also thoroughly uninterested in works that explain the current situation away with the specter of "systemic racism" - either they can point to a policy that is in law here and now that's holding minorities back or they can't. With that being said, you can shoot me a PM with a bibliography and I can give it a cursory read - I'm rather familiar with the subject, I'm simply highly critical of some of the conclusions, particularly when I can come up with 20 better explanations each time the ghost of racism is mentioned.


> I didn't say socioeconomic factors were the only reason for the criminal statistics we previously talked about. I voted several reasons for the disparity.
> 
> There is, however, ample evidence of increased policing of Black communities even when controlling for actual crime rates. Traffic stops (and when and why they turn fatal) are a good example of disproportionate policing.


Evidence suggests that "black communities" (I still can't understand how that's a "community", I'm against grouping people by skin colour on principle) are heavily *underpoliced* when taking into account the levels of crime in those areas. If there's a symptom of "systemic racism" at all, it's that. Certain parts of town are "not worth policing" to an extent that would generate a measurable decrease in crime rates, which in turn would result in better outcomes for young people who live there, including black youths. 131+ people have been killed in Chicago this year already, and it's only April. If I was a hypothetical mayor of a city like this, there would be a cop on every street corner going forward until people stop dying needlessly in drive-by shootings. I can't imagine being able to focus on fulfilling my potential when there's a good chance I'll get randomly shot - not by the police, but by my neighbour.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0210401-dprv6a7aj5g47m3vc74ovhlvaq-story.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-underpolicing-of-black-america-1422049080


----------



## Lacius (Apr 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Selective immigration is only one of many reasons listed why the stereotype turns out to ring true in certain (not all - South Asians seem to be the odd ones out, immigrants from India and China lead the charge) groups of Asian immigrants. Cultural differences is another, and given the fact that the same emphasis on educational achievement can be seen in modern China and India today, I'm going to lean on that as the root cause. It is not uncommon to see Chinese parents in particular putting their children under intense, often unreasonable pressure to perform. That does translate to better outcomes in the education system, however it's rather detrimental to mental health (given the suicide rates in those parts of the world). It's a culture that's laser-focused on success, both domestically and in the United States.


I definitely did not say selective immigration is the sole reason for the model Asian American minority myth, but it's a large component. You can see my previous posts for other components to the myth.



Foxi4 said:


> This study is almost 20 years old and doesn't reflect the current job market. That's not to say that there isn't progress to be made, however as of today minority hires make up the bulk of all new hires (25-54). It appears to me that the tide is turning around as-is. The job market is cyclical - in order to record a new hiring one of two things needs to happen, a new job needs to be created *or* an old employee needs to retire to make room for a new one. Right now we're seeing both a wave of retirements and (up until the pandemic) an economic boom, so the trend is likely to continue (unless inflation catches up to us).
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/minorities-ages-25-to-54-make-up-most-new-hires-in-workforce.html


The worse the economy, the more the racial discrimination, since there is increased competition for jobs. Various studies, including more contemporaneous studies, show that in economies where there's more job competition, people of color have increased barriers to job acquisition. Studies in 2009 and 2016 show the same thing (people of color were 50% less likely to receive a job interview solely on the basis of race) as the 2004 study I mentioned earlier. A 2015 study showed that people of color had to graduate from elite private colleges in order to have the same job prospects as a white person who graduated from a state university. When these facts are repeatable across the broad economic system, it's a systemic problem.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm of the opinion that the government should do absolutely nothing in terms of who private companies hire and for what reasons.


We know your views on government intervention. You've said previously that you don't even think it should be illegal for a private business to refuse service to an entire group of people (race, sexuality, etc.). We don't need to rehash that conversation, but it's safe to say you care more about libertarian ideology than whether or not systemic racism is a problem. You seem to care more about a business' right to discriminate on the basis of race than you care about the right of the person to not be systematically oppressed on the basis of race.



Foxi4 said:


> The qualifications to do the job are the only relevant factor in hiring. I'm not particularly interested in what skin colour an employee is, I do care about whether or not they can help me with my query quickly and reliably.


If you think merit should be the sole criteria for whether or not a person is hired for a job, then you should be outraged by the systemic racism I've outlined previously.



Foxi4 said:


> I consider affirmative action or diversity quotas as explicitly racist in nature, freedom of association should always trump social engineering.


If a group makes up 16% of the population, for example, then one would expect 16% of the employees at a company in that area to also be 16% that group. Since, across the board, that number falls far below 16%, then there's a problem. There are a lot of variables, but it largely comes down to access to quality education, socioeconomic status ("cost of poverty" can make it harder to get work), discrimination, etc. One of the ways to solve that problem is affirmative action. Given these facts and the fact that Black people in this country continue to have disadvantages stemming from having slave ancestors, affirmative action is a great way to right these wrongs. There's literally no reason why a group that makes up approximately 16% of the population, for example, should not make up 16% or more of a given workforce. Affirmative action helps mitigate the consequences of systemic discrimination and biases, and it helps give education and wealth to families that otherwise haven't had it before, which will perpetuate a cycle in which they can pass the wealth on to the next generation and give them some of the same advantages a lot of white people have had for hundreds of years.



Foxi4 said:


> Nobody said changes in hiring practices would take place instantaneously, they should be organic, and for the most part have been organic.


I suggest looking into the history of the Civil Rights Movement. Changes in hiring practices were not "organic." They were the result of an organized movement towards racial justice in this country.

Your distinction between whether or not something should be "organic" seems completely arbitrary. In other words, there's no reason I'm aware of why it should be, unless you're arbitrarily clinging to libertarian ideals that aren't actually conducive to well being.



Foxi4 said:


> As long as there is *no law* that encourages discrimination based on race, I am perfectly happy concluding that any discrimination that does take place isn't systemic, as in, a part of an organised system.


See my previous point about the economic system in this country being systematically racist. It doesn't take a government for something to be systemically racist.



Foxi4 said:


> People's biases are what people's biases are - businesses that refuse to hire well-qualified employees based on skin colour alone will inevitably fall behind those businesses that do not, their hiring pools are smaller (by their own making).


That's nice to believe, but that's not necessarily true, particularly when there's a surplus of job applicants relative to actual jobs available.



Foxi4 said:


> One thing that has helped close the gap in the UK and is worth emulating is the standardisation of job application forms. Here on the other side of the pond including any identifying information like spelling out the race of an applicant or attaching photographs is a disqualifying factor, it's not practiced specifically to avoid biased selection. The initial picks are chosen solely on the basis of qualifications and the cover letter, which is great.


Does that include names? Because we've already been over studies where only the names were different, and that's all it took for consequential racial biases to occur.

I'm generally in favor of the standardized application form, however. Factors like race, previous incarceration, etc. should come up later, if at all.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm only interested in conclusions that are data-driven and not decades old. I'm also thoroughly uninterested in works that explain the current situation away with the specter of "systemic racism" - either they can point to a policy that is in law here and now that's holding minorities back or they can't. With that being said, you can shoot me a PM with a bibliography and I can give it a cursory read - I'm rather familiar with the subject, I'm simply highly critical of some of the conclusions, particularly when I can come up with 20 better explanations each time the ghost of racism is mentioned.
> Evidence suggests that "black communities" (I still can't understand how that's a "community", I'm against grouping people by skin colour on principle) are heavily *underpoliced* when taking into account the levels of crime in those areas. If there's a symptom of "systemic racism" at all, it's that. Certain parts of town are "not worth policing" to an extent that would generate a measurable decrease in crime rates, which in turn would result in better outcomes for young people who live there, including black youths. 131+ people have been killed in Chicago this year already, and it's only April. If I was a hypothetical mayor of a city like this, there would be a cop on every street corner going forward until people stop dying needlessly in drive-by shootings. I can't imagine being able to focus on fulfilling my potential when there's a good chance I'll get randomly shot - not by the police, but by my neighbour.


You cannot argue you're interested in conclusions that are data-driven while ignoring the data-driven conclusion that black communities are overpoliced.

There's an excellent Wikipedia article here on the different barriers people of color face at each stage of the criminal justice process. I'm honestly not sure why I'm talking about it here when this information is freely available to the public.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I definitely did not say selective immigration is the sole reason for the model Asian American minority myth, but it's a large component. You can see my previous posts for other components to the myth.


It can only be called a myth if it's not true. I can't believe I have to explain this, but dragons are mythical creatures because they don't actually exist. There is an actual, measurable difference in median income and educational outcomes among asians when compared to other racial groups in America (not ethnic, since the term "asian" is an umbrella term for many ethnicities).


> The worse the economy, the more the racial discrimination, since there is increased competition for jobs. Various studies, including more contemporaneous studies, show that in economies where there's more job competition, people of color have increased barriers to job acquisition. Studies in 2009 and 2016 show the same thing (people of color were 50% less likely to receive a job interview solely on the basis of race) as the 2004 study I mentioned earlier. A 2015 study showed that people of color had to graduate from elite private colleges in order to have the same job prospects as a white person who graduated from a state university. When these facts are repeatable across the broad economic system, it's a systemic problem.


I'll have to look into that. It's entirely possible that this is the case, however it's not the government's fault, and I only consider regulation from on-high to be "systemic", as in, a part of an organised system with defined rules. People's personal biases don't play into that and vary wildly between individuals. On the flip side, minority-owned businesses are far more likely to hire minority staff, particularly within their own minority - tribal thinking is expected behaviour here.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-sep-18-fi-11575-story.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyw...businesses-more-likely-to-hire-diverse-teams/

As far as the current job market is concerned, we're going through a bit of a watershed moment - various industries are explicitly looking for minority applicants.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-hiring-idUSKCN25F2SY


> We know your views on government intervention. You've said previously that you don't even think it should be illegal for a private business to refuse service to an entire group of people (race, sexuality, etc.). We don't need to rehash that conversation, but it's safe to say you care more about libertarian ideology than whether or not systemic racism is a problem. You seem to care more about a business' right to discriminate on the basis of race than you care about the right of the person to not be systematically oppressed on the basis of race.


I will happily admit that I care more about people being equal under the law than about people's own biases - I am not in the business of changing people's minds on things and I don't think the government should ever be in a position to force private business owners to hire certain employees over others.


> If you think merit should be the sole criteria for whether or not a person is hired for a job, then you should be outraged by the systemic racism I've outlined previously.


I consider merit as the sole criterion for hiring, I also simultaneously value freedom, particularly freedom of association and freedom to self-determine. I accept the fact that people have innate biases and take my business elsewhere - I won't force anyone to change their hiring practices, the market will.


> If a group makes up 16% of the population, for example, then one would expect 16% of the employees at a company in that area to also be 16% that group. Since, across the board, that number falls far below 16%, then there's a problem. There are a lot of variables, but it largely comes down to access to quality education, socioeconomic status ("cost of poverty" can make it harder to get work), discrimination, etc. One of the ways to solve that problem is affirmative action. Given these facts and the fact that Black people in this country continue to have disadvantages stemming from having slave ancestors, affirmative action is a great way to right these wrongs. There's literally no reason why a group that makes up approximately 16% of the population, for example, should not make up 16% or more of a given workforce. Affirmative action helps mitigate the consequences of systemic discrimination and biases, and it helps give education and wealth to families that otherwise haven't had it before, which will perpetuate a cycle in which they can pass the wealth on to the next generation and give them some of the same advantages a lot of white people have had for hundreds of years.


No, I wouldn't expect that at all, because that 16% of population is, in and out of itself, very diverse, not to mention vastly different than the remaining 84% we're comparing it to. For instance, when I look at an IT firm, I don't expect it to have 16% black employees - I expect it to have a similar percentage of black employees as whatever the percentage of black people graduating with IT degrees is. That's significantly more representative then pretending that this is an apples to apples comparison. If this 16% has overall lower educational outcomes, or they pursue different degrees on average, I absolutely expect them to have lower representation in a certain field. If I have a basket of apples and a basket of pears, and I make an apple pie, I put zero pears in it - it's an apple pie. If the number of black graduates with a degree I'm looking for is low, I can't hire them in large numbers, let alone hire them in numbers representative of the general population. This is the same reason why so many doctors in America are of asian descent - 17.1% of practitioners identify as asian while they only constitute 5.6% of fen pop. You call that overrepresentation, I call that different educational preferences.


> I suggest looking into the history of the Civil Rights Movement. Changes in hiring practices were not "organic." They were the result of an organized movement towards racial justice in this country.
> 
> Your distinction between whether or not something should be "organic" seems completely arbitrary. In other words, there's no reason I'm aware of why it should be, unless you're arbitrarily clinging to libertarian ideals that aren't actually conducive to well being.


We already had this conversation before - I'm familiar. I don't care about "policies conducive to well-being" if they come at a cost of individual freedoms. My "libertarian ideals" are indeed more important - it's "give me liberty or give me death" for a reason. Whether those ideals themselves are "conducive to well-being" is in the eye of the beholder - in my estimation they've worked splendidly over the course of the last couple centuries.


> See my previous point about the economic system in this country being systematically racist. It doesn't take a government for something to be systemically racist.


In order for something to be systemic, you have to demonstrate that there isn't just an established pattern, but a system of agreed upon rules. You would have to prove, to me, with numbers and data, that employers are in cahoots colluding not to hire minority workers, and that the end result doesn't spring from individual biases every person has one way or the other, but from a system built with purpose in order to oppress. That's how high my bar is. You could meet that standard in the 20th century, you can't possibly meet it now, so there can be very little common ground in this discussion - I reject your premise.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It can only be called a myth if it's not true. I can't believe I have to explain this, but dragons are mythical creatures because they don't actually exist. There is an actual, measurable difference in median income and educational outcomes among asians when compared to other racial groups in America (not ethnic, since the term "asian" is an umbrella term for many ethnicities).
> 
> I'll have to look into that. It's entirely possible that this is the case, however it's not the government's fault, and I only consider regulation from on-high to be "systemic", as in, a part of an organised system with defined rules. People's personal biases don't play into that and vary wildly between individuals. On the flip side, minority-owned businesses hire predominantly black staff - tribal thinking is expected behaviour here.
> 
> ...


I got tired of quoting everything I was responding to. Hopefully it's obvious which parts of your post my comments are directed at.

The Model Minority Myth is indeed a myth:


> “Since 1965, some Asian-American immigrants have come to the U.S. under certain immigration preference categories that favor professional skills and training,” Eliza Noh, an associate professor at California State University, Fullerton, said in an email. “Those groups tend to already have educational training and economic resources, which they invest in their children’s education. Their access to social and economic capital is what fuels academic achievement.”
> 
> Asian-Americans — immigrants and their descendants who come from the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent — account for about 6 percent of the U.S. population. Six groups make up the majority of this population, including people of Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese origin.
> 
> ...



https://blogs.voanews.com/all-about...icans-are-the-most-educated-group-in-america/

Since the 1960s, the model minority myth has been used by conservatives and racists to claim that Black people have no one to blame but themselves for poverty and social disadvantages. It's cliche at this point in the year 2021, and the only thing that disappoints me more than your use of it is your continued insistence that it's benign.

I'd have a problem with minority-owned businesses hiring mostly minorities if they weren't facing much larger systemic disadvantages across the rest of society. Until that day comes, I don't have a problem with it. People of color should grab whatever advantages they can to get ahead and break the cycle.

It's a good thing if businesses are intentionally seeking to hire more people of color. Let me know when the data shows that the social disadvantages people of color face have finally been eliminated.

I don't think the government should be in the business of changing people's minds. It should be in the business of making sure people are treated equally. If a business serves the public, it needs to serve the public. A business that discriminates against people of color, for example, should not be allowed to do so. In addition to being the morally correct thing, a business should not be allowed to exist and benefit from the government's existence when many of the people paying taxes to that government are the people of color being discriminated by that business. You say 

If Black people make up 16% of the population but make up less than 16% of people who graduated with IT degrees, that's a problem. Affirmative action, both in schools and in business, can help to remedy that too.

You say you don't care about "policies conducive to well-being" if they come at a cost of individual freedoms, but you're the one ignoring the individual freedoms of people of color, whether it's having equal job opportunities, having the freedom to not be discriminated against, and having the freedom to not have one's tax dollars go towards things that allow the racist business to exist in the first place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I got tired of quoting everything I was responding to. Hopefully it's obvious which parts of your post my comments are directed at.
> 
> The Model Minority Myth is indeed a myth:
> 
> ...


It's not a myth. Asians have higher median incomes and better educational outcomes. You can say that it's a stereotype since it generalises an entire diverse group of people by presenting characteristics that don't necessarily apply to each and every asian, but you cannot call it a "myth". Even Wikipedia chose the term "stereotype" over "myth", and I agree with that choice of phrasing.


> I'd have a problem with minority-owned businesses hiring mostly minorities if they weren't facing much larger systemic disadvantages across the rest of society. Until that day comes, I don't have a problem with it. People of color should grab whatever advantages they can to get ahead and break the cycle.
> 
> It's a good thing if businesses are intentionally seeking to hire more people of color. Let me know when the data shows that the social disadvantages people of color face have finally been eliminated.


So you're okay with discrimination, asterisk. I'm not okay with discrimination, period. Businesses that discriminate based on race should fail on the market, I explicitly choose who I give my business to and avoid businesses that do not align with my beliefs, I recommend that people do the same. The difference here is that you support using the long arm of the government to force people into non-consensual business arrangements whereas I believe it should have nothing to do with who private individuals hire in their private businesses that they've established and own. You could make that argument in terms of hiring for governmental agencies - the government needs to practice the equality that it preaches. Individuals don't - they have a right to have preferences, even if you don't like those preferences. It's up to you to decide whether you want to give them business or not based on those preferences.



> I don't think the government should be in the business of changing people's minds. It should be in the business of making sure people are treated equally. If a business serves the public, it needs to serve the public. A business that discriminates against people of color, for example, should not be allowed to do so. In addition to being the morally correct thing, a business should not be allowed to exist and benefit from the government's existence when many of the people paying taxes to that government are the people of color being discriminated by that business.


It's the job of the government to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the law. It is *not* the job of the government to tell me, or anybody else, how to treat other people. I would also argue that the government benefits from the existence of a business more so than the business benefits from the existence of a government - businesses would continue to operate in the absence of a government, the country could not operate in the absence of business. That's neither here nor there though, the government cannot arbitrarily prohibit its citizens from exercising their civil liberties, one of which is participating in commerce.


> If Black people make up 16% of the population but make up less than 16% of people who graduated with IT degrees, that's a problem. Affirmative action, both in schools and in business, can help to remedy that too.


Why? Maybe they prefer different majors on average? Maybe they prefer to pursue a trade instead? Maybe they choose to enter the job market as soon as they can and don't pursue higher education to the same extent? People aren't a spaghetti factory, they're not cut with a cookie cutter either. How can you claim to support diversity when you want every group to behave the same? That seems counter-intuitive to me.


> You say you don't care about "policies conducive to well-being" if they come at a cost of individual freedoms, but you're the one ignoring the individual freedoms of people of color, whether it's having equal job opportunities, having the freedom to not be discriminated against, and having the freedom to not have one's tax dollars go towards things that allow the racist business to exist in the first place.


Those two things are not freedoms, there are no specific rights that would define them.

You do not have a right to never, ever be discriminated against based on a set of criteria chosen by your interlocutor - it would be asinine to claim otherwise. The inverse is true - you do have a right to engage or not engage with another person and the government cannot force you one way or the other. The same right that allows a racist to discriminate against you also allows you to discriminate against a racist. Any and all legislation that violates people's ability to choose who they associate with is wrong-headed and an imposition on freedom.

You also don't have the right to pick and choose what your tax dollars are spent on (we should be so lucky!). You don't have influence on how others perceive you, you have *some* influence on how the government allocates resources - you do so by voting.

We're getting a bit circular here and I'd like to return to the subject at hand, lest we get too far off into the weeds. I am (genuinely) interested in some of your choice literature, I would appreciate the bibliography you've mentioned. I make an effort to know both sides of an argument before taking a side, and that necessitates ingesting data points that may go against my preconceived notions.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If "the system" is built for the benefit of whites then the white supremacists in charge didn't do a very good job.


I'd say they did a fine job considering all the reforms and re-written laws it took just to get us to this point.  A lot of police still act like their primary job is catching runaway slaves.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'd say they did a fine job considering all the reforms and re-written laws it took just to get us to this point.  A lot of police still act like their primary job is catching runaway slaves.
> 
> View attachment 258360


If your response to an officer facing due process is burning down your own town and rampant theft, perhaps the police is in the right chasing you for doing so.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If your response to an officer facing due process is burning down your own town and rampant theft, perhaps the police is in the right chasing you for doing so.


Most backwards logic ever.  "Murder is an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage is not an appropriate response to murder."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Most backwards logic ever.  "Murder is an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage is not an appropriate response to murder."


Property damage is not an appropriate form of protest and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. People who engage in criminal acts under the guise of righteous anger are disgusting, they're exploiting a tragedy for their own self-interest while simultaneously spreading destruction within the very same neighbourhoods they live in - the only people they're setting back are themselves.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Property damage is not an appropriate form of protest and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. People who engage in criminal acts under the guise of righteous anger are disgusting, they're exploiting a tragedy for their own self-interest while simultaneously spreading destruction within the very same neighbourhoods they live in - the only people they're setting back are themselves.


It's the inevitable result of feeling powerless.  Due process has yet to deliver true justice to any murderous police officer, so it's hard to blame people who dismissed it before Chauvin's trial even began.  And then cops murdered yet another person while it was still ongoing.  Before worrying about prosecuting property damage to the "fullest extent of the law," there needs to be some proof that murder will be prosecuted to that extent as well.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Property damage is not an appropriate form of protest and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. People who engage in criminal acts under the guise of righteous anger are disgusting, they're exploiting a tragedy for their own self-interest while simultaneously spreading destruction within the very same neighbourhoods they live in - the only people they're setting back are themselves.


People of color are literally being killed, despite being unarmed and nonviolent, and you're clutching your pearls at property damage. Lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's the inevitable result of feeling powerless.  Due process has yet to deliver true justice to any murderous police officer, so it's hard to blame people who dismissed it before Chauvin's trial even began.  And then cops murdered yet another person while it was still ongoing.  Before worrying about prosecuting property damage to the "fullest extent of the law," there needs to be some proof that murder will be prosecuted to that extent as well.


This isn't a discussion I would consider to be worth having. Criminals should be arrested and shipped straight to jail, you're not going to convince me that two wrongs make a right. You do not get a carte blanche to rob other people or set their property on fire because some guy who happens to be the same colour as you happened to be killed by the police. Laws don't cease to exist pending a trial.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Criminals should be arrested and shipped straight to jail, you're not going to convince me that two wrongs make a right.


Nor am I trying to, I'm only pointing out the level of corruption that must exist within a criminal justice system which hands out longer sentences for property damage than it does for murder.  If police are going to be allowed to continue operating as a de facto gang in some areas of the country, nobody should be surprised when other gangs start waging a form of asymmetrical warfare against them.  Put simply: if our law enforcement officers are not beholden to the law, the whole system becomes vestigial at best, a detriment and a threat to Americans at worst.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> People of color are literally being killed, despite being unarmed and nonviolent, and you're clutching your pearls at property damage. Lol.





Xzi said:


> Nor am I trying to, I'm only pointing out the level of corruption that must exist within a criminal justice system which hands out longer sentences for property damage than it does for murder.  If police are going to be allowed to continue operating as a de facto gang in some areas of the country, nobody should be surprised when other gangs start waging a form of asymmetrical warfare against them.  Put simply: if our law enforcement officers are not beholden to the law, the whole system becomes vestigial at best, a detriment and a threat to Americans at worst.


I clutch pearls over property damage (particularly private property) regardless of the circumstances and I let due process play out. I am all for holding police accountable, however if there is something detrimental to the average American, I'd say groups of violent criminals setting their cities on fire and looting their workplaces, potentially putting business owners out of business and their workforce out of a job, are pretty high on the list. I will not be surprised if food deserts will become more prevalent and unemployment will increase in areas affected by these riots - I wouldn't open or operate a business in an area where it is liable to be destroyed next time a police officer screws up, and if I were an insurer, I wouldn't insure it either.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am all for holding police accountable, however if there is something detrimental to the average American, I'd say groups of violent criminals setting their cities on fire and looting their workplaces, potentially putting business owners out of business and their workforce out of a job.


This is all within the scope of police activity too, and in most cases there's no way to seek reimbursement when they raid the wrong house or trash a business while chasing a criminal.  Just another example of "rules for thee, not for me."



Foxi4 said:


> I will not be surprised if food deserts won't become more prevalent and unemployment will increase in areas affected by these riots - I wouldn't open or operate a business in an area where it is liable to be destroyed next time a police officer screws up, and if I were an insurer, I wouldn't insure it either.


If police keep fucking up with this kind of frequency, those same risks are going to apply to every area of the country.  It's not like the backlash to Floyd's murder was contained to that one city/state, after all.  Obviously then the better solution is to ensure police fuck up less through massive reforms and more extensive training, rather than constantly brace ourselves to deal with the fallout from their frequent fuck-ups.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I clutch pearls over property damage (particularly private property) regardless of the circumstances and I let due process play out. I am all for holding police accountable, however if there is something detrimental to the average American, I'd say groups of violent criminals setting their cities on fire and looting their workplaces, potentially putting business owners out of business and their workforce out of a job, are pretty high on the list. I will not be surprised if food deserts will become more prevalent and unemployment will increase in areas affected by these riots - I wouldn't open or operate a business in an area where it is liable to be destroyed next time a police officer screws up, and if I were an insurer, I wouldn't insure it either.


Could you say "black lives matter" for me real quick?


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

Something something "a riot the language of the unheard" something something MLK quote something something "our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay" blahblahblah

Time is a flat circle


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Something something "a riot the language of the unheard" something something MLK quote something something "our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay" blahblahblah
> 
> Time is a flat circle


betcha ten imaginary bucks that if any of these guys is actually on the receiving end of any significant life-impacting discrimination, either they'll suddenly turn around and hindsight-fallacy into believing they were always decent human beings capable of empathy... or they'll somehow inverse no true scotsman into believing that they're the only case that actually does not deserve the bad things happening to them completely beyond their control
bonus points if they protest and do so in as violent a manner as they can think of... because that's what they've been brainwashed into thinking all protesting is


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> betcha ten imaginary bucks that if any of these guys is actually on the receiving end of any significant life-impacting discrimination, either they'll suddenly turn around and hindsight-fallacy into believing they were always decent human beings capable of empathy... or they'll somehow inverse no true scotsman into believing that they're the only case that actually does not deserve the bad things happening to them completely beyond their control
> bonus points if they protest and do so in as violent a manner as they can think of... because that's what they've been brainwashed into thinking all protesting is


It's insane because I've seen 30+ states (including the one I live in) across this dumbass country write up legislation (not all of it has passed or been voted on yet) that is discriminatory again me and an active threat to my wellbeing. To act like systemic discrimination doesn't exist and to say that we shouldn't pursue means of protest against discrimination that have been used for centuries and have worked for centuries is absurd and deeply insulting.

When the government won't listen, we make them listen. If they deny us democracy, we create our own democracy. It's an idea this country was supposedly founded on but apparently some of our country's biggest defenders don't believe in it unless it minorly inconveniences them (like having to wear a mask).

In addition, while cutting public school arts education funds by 70% as well as defunding food pantries across the city, the NYC government has spent millions on technology and funding for police, including actual robot dogs designed to spy on citizens that cost $75,000+. Talk about fucked up priorities. Instead of actually caring for its citizens, our country would rather increase funding for the already militarized police force so they can suppress us even harder. To say that we need to fund them even MORE is deeply foolish and deeply harmful for actual people who actually need that funding to live. We live in a police state dystopia. Defund the police and invest in our communities, ACAB.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> but apparently some of our country's biggest defenders don't believe in it unless it minorly inconveniences them (like having to wear a mask


Racism: i sleep

Having to put a piece of cloth on my face: real shit


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 15, 2021)

Biden voters right now lol 
The Biden admin has been given "immediate possession” of a Texas family’s private land to build more of Trump’s wall.A woman who lives there says she voted for Biden on his promise to end wall construction and now feels betrayedhttps://t.co/tMk1vVonmr— Jon Passantino (@passantino) April 14, 2021


--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Biden voters right now lol
> https://twitter.com/passantino/status/1382461494747672576





Seliph said:


> Something something "a riot the language of the unheard" something something MLK quote something something "our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay" blahblahblah
> 
> Time is a flat circle



Looting is bad


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

And no one was surprised that Biden upholds the neoliberal imperial agenda that our country has run on for 30+ years



Valwinz said:


> Looting is bad


Tell that to our government that has stolen from indigenous people/societies for centuries.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

"The power is in the people and politics we address."

Looking to government for an answer to "why" is not going to change anything. If you want change, address your local and state politicians directly. Start your own grass roots movement and be the change you want. Start by making changes in your own community without having to rely on big government. Protesting will only take you so far without quantity. Rioting will get you even less further. Just look at the insurrection at the capitol... just look at the killing and destruction this summer. Neither of these are good looks for any of the groups involved.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Looking to government for an answer to "why" is not going to change anything. If you want change, address your local and state politicians directly. Start your own grass roots movement and be the change you want. Start by making changes in your own community without having to rely on big government.


Shit policing is a national problem, not just one or two states, and therefore requires the federal government to take action.  Though I suppose we can abolish qualified immunity state-by-state, at least.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Protesting will only take you so far without quantity. Rioting will get you even less further








Idk it got these guys pretty far.

Hell I probably wouldn't even be here if it weren't for the stonewall riots. To suggest that riots/uprisings/popular insurrections haven't worked in securing the rights of people is foolish and ahistorical. Our country was founded on riots and protests and it will die on riots and protests.

Here's a list of cool and important riots/uprisings in US history that have brought real social change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
https://blog.education.nationalgeog...w-a-riot-helped-to-ratify-the-19th-amendment/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches
Not to mention countless slave rebellions that blazed across the South and countless anti-colonial indigenous rebellions across our entire country that have gone undocumented.

I could give many more examples of riots and revolutions that have worked and done great things in other countries.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Apr 15, 2021)

64bitmodels said:


> I'd like to see biden make this crap country socialist/communist so we can finally leave crapitalism behind and make the world a better place
> maybe then all of america's problems will be fixed
> specifically, i want to see him
> tax the hell out of all the rich folk (basically everyeone making over 5 mil a year) like jeff bezos and bill gates, and use that extra cash to make basic human necessities like food, water, housing and internet completely free and not products to be fucking sold, impose more restrictions on companies and patch up the tax loopholes, and no cap, kill andrew wilson and bobby kotick, or at least imprison them because the stuff that they do is actually criminal and they need the death sentence pronto
> ...


imagine hating your own country
also yes the rich should be taxed way more, especially silicon valley, but their power and relation with the gov is too strong. No matter who is president, those guys will stay on top because of.... well, let's just say people they hire to keep their taxes low. Which is pretty bogus as well. What do they need all that money for? Ah, well.
And USA would never pull out of harvesting resources unless said countries retaliated. Either way, socialism and communism won't fix any of those things.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 15, 2021)

DC statehood has passed the House committee.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> DC statehood has passed the House committee.


nice I can't wait for conservatives to stonewall it


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 15, 2021)

its not going to get 60 votes, even moderate dem's probably wont support it
just like the rumored court packing bill being created


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 15, 2021)

I seen some make the argument that you don't need 60 votes, just the regular majority. If true, that would make things easier.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> DC statehood has passed the House committee.



Hard to imagine such a thing... oh wait, no it's not. DC and all it's Satanism needs to be torn down.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Hard to imagine such a thing... oh wait, no it's not. DC and all it's Satanism needs to be torn down.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


>


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


>


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Something something "a riot the language of the unheard" something something MLK quote something something "our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay" blahblahblah
> 
> Time is a flat circle


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> View attachment 258393


The ole "Communism is anything I don't like" excuse


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> The ole "Communism is anything I don't like" excuse


That's what 80 years of propaganda will do to you.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Hard to imagine such a thing... oh wait, no it's not. DC and all it's Satanism needs to be torn down.


I feel like Congress would get more done if they were all Satanists.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I feel like Congress would get more done if they were all Satanists.


From the Wikipedia page on Satanism:
Anton LaVey, who has been referred to as "The Father of Satanism",[145] synthesized his religion through the establishment of the Church of Satan in 1966 and the publication of _The Satanic Bible_ in 1969. LaVey's teachings promoted "indulgence", "vital existence", "undefiled wisdom", "kindness to those who deserve it", "responsibility to the responsible" and an "eye for an eye" code of ethics, while shunning "abstinence" based on guilt, "spirituality", "unconditional love", "pacifism", "equality", "herd mentality" and "scapegoating". In LaVey's view, the Satanist is a carnal, physical and pragmatic being—and enjoyment of physical existence and an undiluted view of this-worldly truth are promoted as the core values of Satanism, propagating a naturalistic worldview that sees mankind as animals existing in an amoral universe.

You're probably right tbh. Not exactly the most defined ideology but it's a hell of a lot better than the dominant neoliberal ideology of our government right now.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> The ole "Communism is anything I don't like" excuse


Did you forget what karl marx said?


Scott_pilgrim said:


> "Communism is when you take steps to stop a pandemic"-Karl Marx


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Did you forget what karl marx said?


Communism is when Bugsnax


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Communism is when Bugsnax


This is true, i asked the bugsnax dev about it and he said  "how did you get into my house"


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

At least there is one thing we can all agree on...

The best meal is rubber buns and liquor.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> At least there is one thing we can all agree on...
> 
> The best meal is rubber buns and liquor.


What has this thread become


----------



## Seliph (Apr 15, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> What has this thread become


Every thread I touch burns


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Every thread I touch burns


Honestly, we aren't losing much with you burning this thread


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> What has this thread become


A reflection of humankind. A look inside the hearts of men. An insight to madness. And also a glimpse of beautiful, unfied future? 

Or maybe it has become a gang bang of red and blue, where everyone is getting blasted.

Either way, sometimes we need to find some common ground... and who doesn't love rubber buns and liquor time?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Scott_pilgrim said:


> Honestly, we aren't losing much with you burning this thread



Aren't we though? Aren't we?


----------



## SG854 (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> And no one was surprised that Biden upholds the neoliberal imperial agenda that our country has run on for 30+ years
> 
> 
> Tell that to our government that has stolen from indigenous people/societies for centuries.


Are they looting the government or someone else?

Shouldn't they target the government and not random innocent businesses.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Every thread I touch burns



I burn everyTHING I touch like



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Are they looting the government or someone else?
> 
> Shouldn't they target the government and not random innocent businesses.



What good are you to the government if you do not have to rely on them?


----------



## SG854 (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I burn everyTHING I touch like
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm nothing to the government? I don't know


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I'm nothing to the government? I don't know



I dont think they would miss me if I was gone. 

But it's a shame when we think the enemy is one another. We will never defeat the true enemy while we are divided.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I clutch pearls over property damage (particularly private property) regardless of the circumstances and I let due process play out. I am all for holding police accountable, however if there is something detrimental to the average American, I'd say groups of violent criminals setting their cities on fire and looting their workplaces, potentially putting business owners out of business and their workforce out of a job, are pretty high on the list. I will not be surprised if food deserts will become more prevalent and unemployment will increase in areas affected by these riots - I wouldn't open or operate a business in an area where it is liable to be destroyed next time a police officer screws up, and if I were an insurer, I wouldn't insure it either.


i don't know who needs to read this, but human lives are worth more than property


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

I see that the support for *robbing somebody else* and *setting their property on fire* is going strong in this thread - who would've thunk? I'm sure that won't engender any ill will towards the cause. At this point I wonder why people in Minnesota pay any taxes at all - the state has repeatedly failed at its job. The state government has a duty of care, and it's shown to not care enough about its duty.


Lacius said:


> Could you say "black lives matter" for me real quick?


I'm on the side of "No Lives Matter".


Darth Meteos said:


> i don't know who needs to read this, but human lives are worth more than property


"Someone was killed by the police, therefore it is justifiable for me to rob the nearest Dollar Tree and set it on fire" - this thread in a nut shell.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I see that the support for *robbing somebody else* and *setting their property on fire* is going strong in this thread - who would've thunk? I'm sure that won't engender any ill will towards the cause. At this point I wonder why people in Minnesota pay any taxes at all - the state has repeatedly failed at its job. The state government has a duty of care, and it's shown to not care enough about its duty.
> I'm on the side of "No Lives Matter".
> "Someone was killed by the police, therefore it is justifiable for me to rob the nearest Dollar Tree and set it on fire" - this thread in a nut shell.


"No property matters."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> "No property matters."


It seems to matter to Americans at large since according to USA Today and IPSOS trust in the police increased while trust in the BLM movement declined since last summer. People are getting real tired of the rioting.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Lives-Matter-movement-fallen-poll-finds.html


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It seems to matter to Americans at large since according to USA Today and IPSOS trust in the police increased while trust in the BLM movement declined since last summer. People are getting real tired of the rioting.
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Lives-Matter-movement-fallen-poll-finds.html


Why do you care? If no lives matter, then the lives of the property owners don't matter. The lives of the people who are tired of the rioting don't matter.

Lol at focusing on the people tired of the rioting without focusing on the people tired of the police violence against people of color and protestors.

If you can't say black lives matter, I'm not particularly interested in continuing to participate in this conversation.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 15, 2021)

So don't know how many days this is now. Is the world all sunshine and rainbows because the right guy got in? Or alternatively if the wrong guy got in is the world a shit show now? Is it actually more or less business as normal and has been for the last however long regardless of the colour of tie the theoretical big bossman is wearing?



Lacius said:


> If you can't say black lives matter, I'm not particularly interested in continuing to participate in this conversation.


If everybody is special nobody is special.

I am now curious if those words are supposed to be the equivalent of "if I walked into a church I would catch fire" jokes you would get in formerly religious places.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> So don't know how many days this is now. Is the world all sunshine and rainbows because the right guy got in? Or alternatively if the wrong guy got in is the world a shit show now? Is it actually more or less business as normal and has been for the last however long regardless of the colour of tie the theoretical big bossman is wearing?
> 
> 
> If everybody is special nobody is special.
> ...


Can you say "black lives matter" for me please?


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Can you say "black lives matter" for me please?


What purpose would it serve?

I can say all manner of lies when it suits me normally -- why yes I am really IT support, no officer I did not see a thing, yes I can see us getting into a long term relationship, nah it is worthless junk miss little old widow, yes I believe in the company and don't just care about being paid...

What meaning would a line of text on a forum have? Either I mean it, or have said your magic spell that somehow makes me a person not immediately worth dismissing in your eyes and somehow not set on fire (which because magic is not real...).

This is also before I split it between what is generally an entirely agreeable abstract and a codified and named organisation that share a term.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> What purpose would it serve?
> 
> I can say all manner of lies when it suits me normally -- why yes I am really IT support, no officer I did not see a thing, yes I can see us getting into a long term relationship, nah it is worthless junk miss little old widow, yes I believe in the company and don't just care about being paid...
> 
> ...


Because when a person can't say "black lives matter," it usually means they don't think black lives matter. It's not rocket science.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Because when a person can't say "black lives matter," it usually means they don't think black lives matter. It's not rocket science.


and all lives matter, which presumably includes the subset of coloured folks, somehow does not count?

But again we are back to you fundamentally assuming people are honest in the text online and will demean themselves enough to be a parrot for you.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> and all lives matter, which presumably includes the subset of coloured folks, somehow does not count?
> 
> But again we are back to you fundamentally assuming people are honest in the text online and will demean themselves enough to be a parrot for you.


That's great that you think all lives matter. It's a good start, and that's already better than somebody here. Could you say "black lives matter"?


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That's great that you think all lives matter. Could you say "black lives matter"?


a) did I say I thought all lives matter? I thought we were still talking abstracts and hypotheticals.
b) Not that it matters at all but did I not already? Was only a couple of posts back. Why repeat myself?
c) do you really find gatekeeping in such a manner to be useful? Even ignoring the efficacy question it would also operate under the presumption that you are either an authority to have to suck up to, or such a presence that one can't help but debase themselves in front of you for the mere chance of engaging in conversation?


----------



## Haloman800 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is, however, ample evidence of increased policing of Black communities *even when controlling for actual crime rates*. Traffic stops (and when and why they turn fatal) are a good example of disproportionate policing.



Blacks commit more crime and therefore are arrested more often. If you believe they're policed more than their increased crime warrants, cite your source.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Because when a person can't say "black lives matter," it usually means they don't think black lives matter. It's not rocket science.


That's a disingenuous portrayal of the subject. You can simultaneously value the lives of all people equally and disagree with the BLM movement, or the BLM organisation which exploits the misery of black people for profit. I'm not going to recite magical slogans to pay some bizarre form of fealty to a group of people that I fundamentally disagree with in regards to policy, or even the root causes of the problem. Spoilers, I also won't take a knee, or do any of the other theatrics required of "allies", whatever that means. If you want it to just be a hashtag, you do you. Approaching the issue from the perspective of "either you agree with me, agree with the movement and say the magical words or you're a racist" is ridiculous, and a false dichotomy. I'm willing to wager that a gross majority of Americans, or people worldwide for that matter, care about police brutality and people being killed in custody. They might just not like the BLM movement, or its methods, or the organisation, or a myriad of other things associated with the name.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)




----------



## KingVamp (Apr 15, 2021)

In other news, the Senate passed an anti-Asian American Hate Crimes bill.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 15, 2021)

Some black lives matter more than others.  It wouldn't be fair to say all black lives matter when nobody would sincerely agree.  Otherwise the bigger issue at hand would probably be the death penalty.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Apr 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Looting is bad


Murder is worse


----------



## tabzer (Apr 15, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Murder is worse


Both contribute to the same end.  Nobody said that murder is okay.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

Looting = Bad
Murder = Worse
Looting + Murder = Profit

Covid = Bad
Collapsing the World Economy = Worse
Covid + Collapsing the World Economy = Profit

Everyone gets so focused on the now, they forget about the future. It's like slight of hand; you focus on what the magicians wants you to focus on so you do not see the tricks they are playing on you.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a disingenuous portrayal of the subject. You can simultaneously value the lives of all people equally and disagree with the BLM movement, or the BLM organisation which exploits the misery of black people for profit. I'm not going to recite magical slogans to pay some bizarre form of fealty to a group of people that I fundamentally disagree with in regards to policy, or even the root causes of the problem. Spoilers, I also won't take a knee, or do any of the other theatrics required of "allies", whatever that means. If you want it to just be a hashtag, you do you. Approaching the issue from the perspective of "either you agree with me, agree with the movement and say the magical words or you're a racist" is ridiculous, and a false dichotomy. I'm willing to wager that a gross majority of Americans, or people worldwide for that matter, care about police brutality and people being killed in custody. They might just not like the BLM movement, or its methods, or the organisation, or a myriad of other things associated with the name.


What's disingenuous is saying I'm asking you to agree with a movement by asking you to say black lives matter. I'm sorry it's difficult for you to say black lives matter, but at least we've figured out the root of the problem, and we don't have to waste our time talking about it anymore.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Both contribute to the same end.  Nobody said that murder is okay.


@Foxi4 implied murder is okay when he said he doesn't believe any lives matter.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> @Foxi4 implied murder is okay when he said he doesn't believe any lives matter.


I didn't imply that at any point. If that's what you've gathered from the statement, you have bigger problems besides requiring people to play Simon Says with you for some undisclosed reason.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Haloman800 said:


> Blacks commit more crime and therefore are arrested more often. If you believe they're policed more than their increased crime warrants, cite your source.


Black people are pulled over more despite not committing more traffic violations. Black people are stopped on the street more, particularly during the days of Stop and Frisk, despite not committing more crimes. Racial profiling demonstrably exists, and communities of color are over-policed. A lot of the statistics you think show Black people committing more crime don't show what you think they show. If an area is more policed, it's going to show more crime even when there isn't more crime. If a community is less likely to meet bail or afford anything other than a public defender, they're more like to plead guilty even when they aren't.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I didn't imply that at any point. If that's what you've gathered from the statement, you have bigger problems besides requiring people to play Simon Says with you for some undisclosed reason.


I don't believe you believe murder is okay, but when you do a cop-out like "I don't believe any lives matter," you should accept the consequences of such a statement.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> a) did I say I thought all lives matter? I thought we were still talking abstracts and hypotheticals.
> b) Not that it matters at all but did I not already? Was only a couple of posts back. Why repeat myself?
> c) do you really find gatekeeping in such a manner to be useful? Even ignoring the efficacy question it would also operate under the presumption that you are either an authority to have to suck up to, or such a presence that one can't help but debase themselves in front of you for the mere chance of engaging in conversation?


You can't say black lives matter, and I suggest you ask yourself why not. If you did it already, I'm not sure what's keeping you from doing it again. I didn't see it. I see everything else in your post as a distraction from the point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't believe you believe murder is okay, but when you do a cop-out like "I don't believe any lives matter," you should accept the consequences of such a statement.


In a cosmic sense, none of our lives matter. We're all specks of dust sitting on a mud ball barrelling through space at ludicrous speeds - we live for a blink of an eye and make very little difference on an individual basis. This should be fairly obvious to the average reader.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In a cosmic sense, none of our lives matter. We're all specks of dust sitting on a mud ball barrelling through space at ludicrous speeds - we live for a blink of an eye and make very little difference on an individual basis. This should be fairly obvious to the average reader.


If you don't think murder is okay, then you believe lives matter. This should be fairly obvious to the average reader.


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you don't think murder is okay, then you believe lives matter. This should be fairly obvious to the average reader.



Say "All lives matter"! 
Say "No lives matter in the cosmic sense"!!
Say "I am forcing you to put words in your mouth I want you to say" !!!
Say it!!!!!


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you don't think murder is okay, then you believe lives matter. This should be fairly obvious to the average reader.


Matter to who? In what sense? People die every single day, by the thousands. That has zero impact on me, it has zero impact on you. You might "care" about them in a humanitarian sense, but they don't occupy your mind on a constant basis.

Certain specific lives might matter - those who are actually dear to you. You want the world to be safe because death awaits all of us, and ideally you'd like it to be a distant concept rather than an everyday worry. If you care about lives so much, you should be supporting policies that preserve them.

213 people have been shot by the police across the United States in the first three months of 2021, 30 of whom were black, and an even smaller fraction was "unarmed", since that always seems to be a point of contention. In Chicago that's called "a weekend" - 875 people were shot dead in Cook County in 2020, 78% of whom were black - that's +/- 56 dead black people every single month, or 162 in the same time frame last year. Those deaths are preventable with proper policing, but that's not what you want - you want less policing instead. Who's caring about lives here, exactly? What should we worry about more, the few deaths by the hands of the police or the many by the hands of criminals? Both are bad, but one problem is more prescient than the other.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-2020-shooting-crime-stats-statistics/9250374/


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

Lives matter to you and me, but what you don't see, is that it ain't no thing to the powers that be
If they could kill you and your family, just so there bloodlines can breed, then that's what would be
I suggest that you get up off your knees, and quit trying to suck up to and please this evil disease
That would have you believe, that you're part of a plague called humanity, but all ain't as it seems
You're stuck in a dream, no one hears your screams, being muffled by the noise of the machines
You're trying to hold it together, but the scheme is coming apart at the seams, what does it mean?
It means it's now or never. It means you better do better. The storm's here and it's getting wetter!


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You can't say black lives matter, and I suggest you ask yourself why not. If you did it already, I'm not sure what's keeping you from doing it again. I didn't see it. I see everything else in your post as a distraction from the point.



Still not sure of the purpose.

Would playing your parrot be anything other than a trite but otherwise agreeable/obvious statement along the lines of "being hungry sucks" or, far worse still, potentially being considered as expressing solidarity with a named group with stated goals, leaders/founders and a world view that I find dubious at best?

Anyway bored of that one now.

So some do nothing/feel good statements on gun control were uttered


Apparently this was a thing he was running on. Is this a good thing, bad thing, good in intent but poor in execution?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Matter to who? In what sense? People die every single day, by the thousands. That has zero impact on me, it has zero impact on you. You might "care" about them in a humanitarian sense, but they don't occupy your mind on a constant basis.
> 
> Certain specific lives might matter - those who are actually dear to you. You want the world to be safe because death awaits all of us, and ideally you'd like it to be a distant concept rather than an everyday worry. If you care about lives so much, you should be supporting policies that preserve them.
> 
> ...


I'm asking if you, Foxi4, think black lives matter. You previously said you don't think any lives matter, but then you said murder is bad, so which is it? If you stop for a second and think about why you can't say black lives matter, you might be able to avoid the consequences of cognitive dissonance.

All anyone should really take note of here is how hard you're trying to avoid saying black lives matter. Nothing else matters.



FAST6191 said:


> Still not sure of the purpose.
> 
> Would playing your parrot be anything other than a trite but otherwise agreeable/obvious statement along the lines of "being hungry sucks" or, far worse still, potentially being considered as expressing solidarity with a named group with stated goals, leaders/founders and a world view that I find dubious at best?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure why you're making a simple question difficult. Do you think black lives matter, yes or no? Can you say black lives matter? If it's complicated, I'm not the one making it complicated, and I don't think this requires further clarification.



Bullseye said:


> Say "All lives matter"!
> Say "No lives matter in the cosmic sense"!!
> Say "I am forcing you to put words in your mouth I want you to say" !!!
> Say it!!!!!


Can you say black lives matter? Regarding Foxi4, I'm not asking about the cosmic sense of whether or not something matters. I'm asking if he thinks black lives matter. Bringing up existential questions about whether or not anything truly matters is irrelevant to the conversation, and it's a predictable deflection.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tthousand said:


> Looting = Bad
> Murder = Worse
> Looting + Murder = Profit
> 
> ...


Generally speaking, nobody thinks looting+murder is a good thing. Nobody thinks COVID-19+the collapse of the world economy is a good thing.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not sure why you're making a simple question difficult. Do you think black lives matter, yes or no? Can you say black lives matter? If it's complicated, I'm not the one making it complicated, and I don't think this requires further clarification.



It is easy and the answer obvious/easily derived from my previous posts, conduct and more besides. Would almost say the questions are insulting but this is the internet so meh.

Otherwise I am avoiding saying the specific words for reasons already illustrated but 90% because it seems to wind you up for reasons unknown (well I suppose I could speculate and would place good money on me being right) and that was sufficiently amusing for a few posts.



Going for an obscure reference. Going to have to cop to being an actor before long aren't I?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> It is easy and the answer obvious/easily derived from my previous posts, conduct and more besides. Would almost say the questions are insulting but this is the internet so meh.
> 
> Otherwise I am avoiding saying the specific words for reasons already illustrated but 90% because it seems to wind you up for reasons unknown (well I suppose I could speculate and would place good money on me being right) and that was sufficiently amusing for a few posts.
> 
> ...


I am not the one who feels the need to avoid saying black lives matter, so I don't think I'm the one with the problem. I suggest thinking about why it matters so much to you that you not say black lives matter.

At least we've figured out the root cause of our disagreements, and we don't have to talk about it anymore.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 15, 2021)

I have no problem.

We could go the nihilistic/cosmic approach detailed above.
Alternatively I don't care to see any lives troubled saving the usual leave others alone caveat, this applies whether tall or short, fat or thin, have blue eyes or otherwise, are more of a cat person or a dog person, are ginger, are young or old, are rich or poor, think tomatoes constitute edible food or are filth, think there is a sky daddy or that chemistry just got a bit uppity around here, or the 1000 more boring than any of those in that they have relatively different levels of melanin to some others.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

You're definitely acting like you got a problem @Lacius. Who hurt you?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm asking if you, Foxi4, think black lives matter. You previously said you don't think any lives matter, but then you said murder is bad, so which is it? If you stop for a second and think about why you can't say black lives matter, you might be able to avoid the consequences of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> All anyone should really take note of here is how hard you're trying to avoid saying black lives matter. Nothing else matters.


I'm not going to, and I explained why. It's not my job to entertain your bizarre requests. I'm not going to repeat slogans of a group I disagree with - what I can say is that we're all created equal, which should be satisfactory. The fact that you can't grasp the point behind "no lives matter", the point being a rejection of stupid sloganeering that means nothing in the grand scheme of things, is your problem, not mine.



FAST6191 said:


> Still not sure of the purpose.
> 
> Would playing your parrot be anything other than a trite but otherwise agreeable/obvious statement along the lines of "being hungry sucks" or, far worse still, potentially being considered as expressing solidarity with a named group with stated goals, leaders/founders and a world view that I find dubious at best?
> 
> ...


Remember, adding a shoulder brace to a pistol totally changes it into a rifle, even though the length of the barrel, the caliber, any of its critical characteristics or even the sights are completely unaffected by the "modification".


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 15, 2021)

It seems Biden is ready to power grab and add more justices



Lacius said:


> I am not the one who feels the need to avoid saying black lives matter, so I don't think I'm the one with the problem. I suggest thinking about why it matters so much to you that you not say black lives matter.
> 
> At least we've figured out the root cause of our disagreements, and we don't have to talk about it anymore.



Im with you donate more money to BLM so they can get a 2nd masion


----------



## mammastuffing (Apr 15, 2021)

While we're on the subject, just stopped by to say: Black lives matter!


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 15, 2021)

Wtf i love Biden now 
BIDEN... promises made, promises broken.pic.twitter.com/nSsDYvSAP2— Steven Cheung (@CaliforniaPanda) April 15, 2021


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

mammastuffing said:


> While we're on the subject, just stopped by to say: Black lives matter!



Just like to point out:







Perhaps ALL lives are important? Or is that racist to not single out an entire spectrum of people based on the tone of their skin color?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> It seems Biden is ready to power grab and add more justices


Good, we don't need justices with stolen seats unilaterally sending this country back to the 1950s in terms of voting rights and civil rights.  Assuming we aren't going to be adding more major political parties any time soon, the Supreme Court has to remain semi-balanced, or we end up with idiots telling us that "corporations are people too."


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Good, we don't need justices with stolen seats unilaterally sending this country back to the 1950s in terms of voting rights and civil rights.  Assuming we aren't going to be adding more major political parties any time soon, the Supreme Court has to remain semi-balanced, or we end up with idiots telling us that "corporations are people too."



stolen seat? imao when they die the party with the votes gets to put someone nobody stole anything


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> You're definitely acting like you got a problem @Lacius. Who hurt you?


I can say black lives matter, and I asked if others could also say that. I'm not sure how that makes me the one with the problem.



FAST6191 said:


> I have no problem.
> 
> We could go the nihilistic/cosmic approach detailed above.
> Alternatively I don't care to see any lives troubled saving the usual leave others alone caveat, this applies whether tall or short, fat or thin, have blue eyes or otherwise, are more of a cat person or a dog person, are ginger, are young or old, are rich or poor, think tomatoes constitute edible food or are filth, think there is a sky daddy or that chemistry just got a bit uppity around here, or the 1000 more boring than any of those in that they have relatively different levels of melanin to some others.





Foxi4 said:


> I'm not going to, and I explained why. It's not my job to entertain your bizarre requests. I'm not going to repeat slogans of a group I disagree with - what I can say is that we're all created equal, which should be satisfactory. The fact that you can't grasp the point behind "no lives matter", the point being a rejection of stupid sloganeeting that means nothing in the grand scheme of things, that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Remember, adding a shoulder brace to a pistol totally changes it into a rifle, even though the length of the barrel, the caliber, any of its critical characteristics or even the sights are completely unaffected by the "modification".


TLDR for anyone reading this is these two gentlemen wanting to argue about race in the United States can't say black lives matter. I don't think I need to say anything else.



Valwinz said:


> Im with you donate more money to BLM so they can get a 2nd masion


Can you say black lives matter?



tthousand said:


> Just like to point out:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think anybody condones the murder of a child (well, Foxi4 might, depending on how you're using words like "matter" and whether he's feeling particularly nihilistic). Her life, assuming this story is true, mattered. Can you say black lives matter?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> stolen seat? imao when they die the party with the votes gets to put someone nobody stole anything


Merrick Garland was never given a hearing after that fat fuck Scalia keeled over.  The seat that Neil Gorsuch sits in was a stolen one.  And the other two justices Trump appointed aren't even qualified to be McDonald's fry cooks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I can say black lives matter, and I asked if others could also say that. I'm not sure how that makes me the one with the problem.
> 
> TLDR for anyone reading this is these two gentlemen wanting to argue about race in the United States can't say black lives matter. I don't think I need to say anything else.
> 
> ...


Clearly you don't know how this game works. You have to say "Simon Says", otherwise nobody repeats after you.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Clearly you don't know how this game works. You have to say "Simon Says", otherwise nobody repeats after you.


It's not a good thing that you have to be playing a game of Simon Says to say you think black lives matter.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I can say black lives matter, and I asked if others could also say that. I'm not sure how that makes me the one with the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this! I have a particular distain for him (more than any other right wing nut/ trump supporter i met) how he became a mod is beyond me but i guess those in a seat of power tend to show their true colors especially if there is 0 repercussions for that said person


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Merrick Garland was never given a hearing after that fat fuck Scalia keeled over.  The seat that Neil Gorsuch sits in was a stolen one.  And the other two justices Trump appointed aren't even qualified to be McDonald's fry cooks.


Both Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh have long careers in the legal system and are more than qualified. Barrett was literally a constitutional law professor while Kavanaugh worked in the legal system for nearly 30 years before taking the seat.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Can you say black lives matter?


Can you say Free masion


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Both Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh have long careers in the legal system and are more than qualified. Barrett was literally a constitutional law professor while Kavanaugh worked in the legal system for nearly 30 years before taking the seat.


Barrett is a religious cultist/nutjob, and Kavanaugh has a severe drinking problem.  They both belong in rehab, not on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> this! I have a particular distain for him (more than any other right wing nut/ trump supporter i met) how he became a mod is beyond me but i guess those in a seat of power tend to show their true colors especially if there is 0 repercussions for that said person


If you're going to complain about someone having a difference of opinion in regards to politics, at least send some hate mail my way - I love those. As a side note, we've never "met" - you literally don't know me.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Can you say Free masion


Other than your unwillingness to say black lives matter, I have no idea what the point of this post is.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Barrett is a religious cultist/nutjob, and Kavanaugh has a severe drinking problem.  They both belong in rehab, not on the Supreme Court.


The first statement is debatable, the second could potentially be considered libelous.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Other than your unwillingness to say black lives matter, I have no idea what the point of this post is.


i want to know why you want people to say those words


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The first statement is debatable, the second could potentially be considered libelous.


Rofl if he wants to bring even more attention to his drinking problem by suing random people on the internet for pointing it out, I guess that's his prerogative.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

@Lacius I can say all lives mater: black, white, brown, and every other color you wish to label humans. I can also say mammal lives mater, reptile lives mater, amphibian lives matter, bird lives matter, fish lives matter, insect lives matter, plant life matters. I can even say unborn lives matter. To sum it up... matter matters.

Can you say the same?


----------



## djpannda (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> @Lacius I can say all lives mater: black, white, brown, and every other color you wish to label humans. I can also say mammal lives mater, reptile lives mater, amphibian lives matter, bird lives matter, fish lives matter, insect lives matter, plant life matters. I can even say unborn lives matter. To sum it up... matter matters.
> 
> Can you say the same?


great, you said it .. .now act like they do!


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> i want to know why you want people to say those words


It's not so much I want people to say those words; it's that I'm wondering if you can, since not being able to actually speaks volumes.



tthousand said:


> @Lacius I can say all lives mater: black, white, brown, and every other color you wish to label humans. I can also say mammal lives mater, reptile lives mater, amphibian lives matter, bird lives matter, fish lives matter, insect lives matter, plant life matters. I can even say unborn lives matter. To sum it up... matter matters.
> 
> Can you say the same?


To be clear, I don't value all of the lives on your list equally, and I hope you don't either. The life of a frog matters, for example, but I subjectively value a human life many times more than I value that frog's life.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

djpannda said:


> great, you said it .. .now act like they do!


 I have never acted any other way in my life. So um, what are you implying?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> To be clear, I don't value all of the lives on your list equally, and I hope you don't either. The life of a frog matters, for example, but I subjectively value a human life many times more than I value that frog's life.



We all have our parts to play.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not so much I want people to say those words; it's that I'm wondering if you can


All Lives matter


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> We all have our parts to play.


I don't necessarily disagree, depending on what you mean, but that does not mean I think a frog's life matters as much as a human's life.



Valwinz said:


> All Lives matter


Good start. Can you say black lives matter?


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

@Lacius, so you can say "all living things matter" then, or no?


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Good start. Can you say black lives matter


Why do you want them to say it so badly? It's pretty obvious they don't support the movement


----------



## smf (Apr 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> i want to know why you want people to say those words



Because some people find it hard to say.



Valwinz said:


> All Lives matter



The issue is that racists will say that and then under their breath or in their mind they say "of course I only mean white people, those black people don't matter of course". By being explicit then there is no ambiguity.

You can acknowledge what they have gone through without making it all about you and how you also matter.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

I like how we've gotten to a point where the only person in this entire thread posting anything even remotely on-topic is now @Valwinz with his multiple posts drawing attention to the Biden administration and their attempt at dismantling the nation's institutions, including the Supreme Court and the Electoral College, in direct contradiction to previous statements from before the election. Soon enough cats will start sleeping with dogs.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> @Lacius, so you can say "all living things matter" then, or no?


No, I can't. I see no value, for example, in the life of a Guinea worm, and I'd eradicate them from this planet if I could.



Scott_pilgrim said:


> Why do you want them to say it so badly? It's pretty obvious they don't support the movement


I answered this question already. In short, it speaks volumes when a person can't say black lives matter, and it gets us to the root of our disagreement.


----------



## smf (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I can even say unborn lives matter.



Better start collecting those unfertilized eggs and unused sperm then.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 15, 2021)

smf said:


> Better start collecting those unfertilized eggs and unused sperm then.


If jacking off is murder than I'm hitler


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I answered this question already. In short, it speaks volumes when a person can't say black lives matter, and it gets us to the root of our disagreement.


The root of the problem is that you're acting like an Internet bully asking people to bend the knee before you, the implication being that if they refuse to do so, they're racists and their opinion, however valid, can be discarded. In life you'll learn that certain people kneel before no one and keep their head up high, high enough to let you swing without any measurable effect. That's neither here nor there though, this weird thought experiment of yours has nothing to do with the Biden administration, the topic of this thread.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

smf said:


> Because some people find it hard to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you ever think some people do not like singling out an entire race, and lumping them all together? Some people are against labeling things, and would prefer to avoid it. Also, instead of asking someone to chant "black lives matter!", which can be viewed as a hate group, why not ask instead to say something like "black lives are important". Seems to me very ignorant anyone you look at it though. 

Can anyone here say that they are actually BLM activists, and are actually helping the cause by talking with the local and state officials? If not, then keep your self-rightous bigotry to yourselves.



Foxi4 said:


> I like how we've gotten to a point where the only person in this entire thread posting anything even remotely on-topic is now @Valwinz with his multiple posts drawing attention to the Biden administration and their attempt at dismantling the nation's institutions, including the Supreme Court and the Electoral College, in direct contradiction to previous statements from before the election. Soon enough cats will start sleeping with dogs.



It's true. @Valwinz has done an excellent job in keeping this thread alive.


----------



## smf (Apr 15, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> If jacking off is murder than I'm hitler



The alternative is that your body eats them.



tthousand said:


> Did you ever think some people do not like singling out an entire race, and lumping them all together? Some people are against labeling things, and would prefer to avoid it.



The people who don't want to say black lives matter seem quite happy for police to single them out and kill them. So I don't know if I buy your argument.



Foxi4 said:


> In life you'll learn that certain people kneel before no one and keep their head up high, high enough to let you swing without any measurable effect.



Yeah, you learn to avoid those arrogant idiots. Every grown up knows that there are times when you should be humble.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

smf said:


> The people who don't want to say black lives matter seem quite happy for police to single them out and kill them. So I don't know if I buy your argument.



Seems like a very prejudice comment to me. Again with labeling and lumping everyone together. There will never be another me, and there will never be another you. We might share similarities, but we are all different. Step away from the stereotypical labeling.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 15, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> this! I have a particular distain for him (more than any other right wing nut/ trump supporter i met) how he became a mod is beyond me but i guess those in a seat of power tend to show their true colors especially if there is 0 repercussions for that said person


I mean, he's not a bad mod, even if his politics opinions are..... divisive


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I mean, he's not a bad mod, even if his politics opinions are..... divisive


Wait till you hear my spiel on organ sales!


----------



## smf (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Seems like a very prejudice comment to me.



You appear to not understand what prejudice is. You can acknowledge that there are groups of racists without being prejudiced towards them.

I never went to a blm protest, never did the whole blm meme on social networks, but I understand that being able to bring myself to say that black lives matter means that I'm not racist. I of course know that all lives matter and at some point it will be ok to have that conversation.

Unless you have something pressing that is important for us to know about how your life matters, then you should go along with it.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

smf said:


> You appear to not understand what prejudice is. You can acknowledge that there are groups of racists without being prejudiced towards them.


 But when you start making broad accusations, like saying "The people who don't want to say black lives matter seem quite happy for police to single them out and kill them," that is prejudging a whole lot of people. How do you not see that? I can feel like BLM is a marxist hate group funded by Soros money, but at the same time feel there is injustice being done to black people not only in our country but around the world. Just because I think BLM is a big facade doesn't mean I think anything less of someone with a different skin tone than me.

Are you gonna go down to the hood in the big city at night? I don't think so. Have I been there? You bet.

So again, out the prejudice labeling away, and save the self-righteous bigotry. This is the internet, so of course the kiddies are gonna act tougher than they are. Bring your big talk to the streets and see how far you get without showing proper respect.


----------



## smf (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Just because I think BLM is a big facade doesn't mean I think anything less of someone with a different skin tone than me.



You seem very prejudiced against BLM.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

smf said:


> You seem very prejudiced against BLM.


 Antifa, KKK, BLM, Proud Boys... yeah, I do not care for any of them. That does not mean I have anything against the color of someone's skin. Far from it... I just think these groups have agendas I do not personally agree with. I doubt they are what you think they are. All you see is the tip of the ice burg. You do not see what's lurking beneath.

To reiterate, as I have said before, I have had more friends of a darker skin tone than I have had friends of a lighter skin tone. Personally, I just don't care much for most people. I feel like the majority of people either have their heads up their own asses or just don't really care about anything in general where they are worth my time.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The root of the problem is that you're acting like an Internet bully asking people to bend the knee before you, the implication being that if they refuse to do so, they're racists and their opinion, however valid, can be discarded. In life you'll learn that certain people kneel before no one and keep their head up high, high enough to let you swing without any measurable effect. That's neither here nor there though, this weird thought experiment of yours has nothing to do with the Biden administration, the topic of this thread.



It's not bullying to ask, in a conversation about race in the United States, if one thinks black lives matter. I think you're confusing bullying for just not liking what I have to say or ask.
I'm not asking anyone to bend the knee before me, literally or figuratively.
I never said nor implied anyone was racist or that anyone's opinion can be discarded. It is absolutely my prerogative, however, to not have or continue a conversation with someone who can't say black lives matter. It's my prerogative to not have a conversation with someone for any reason I want. It's not unreasonable to think a conversation is futile if the other party cannot say black lives matter as a starting point. If, in a conversation about LGBT rights, a person couldn't say gay lives mattered, I'd probably end the conversation right then and there, and rightfully so. There can be no common ground in that situation.
Even deplorable people with deplorable views can hold their heads up high in the face of public disdain. It doesn't mean they aren't deplorable or wrong. It only means they're unwavering, which isn't always a virtue.
Are you saying, as a moderator, that we need to get back on topic? That's fine, and I'd agree, but you will note that I've said "I have nothing more to say" and "I think I've said all that needs to be said" and "At least we don't have to keep talking about this anymore" numerous times before this, and you pulled me back. There are also approximately 17 posts over 48 hours from you talking about race as much as, if not more than, anyone else here, and I considered this conversation tentatively done hours ago. I am going to assume that you aren't flexing your moderator status now, arbitrarily, just because you didn't like what I had to say. If you don't like what I have to say or ask about race, assuming it's in a relevant place, you can always just ignore me. Hypothetically, if you can't help but respond to everything I post, or if you can't help but put on the moderator hat when the conversation gets hard, that would show poor judgment.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

Remember GBATempers, it's easier to point out flaws in others that you have within yourselves.

@Foxi4 , thanks for pointing out how far off topic this thread has become. All though, Ben Hiden has to be one of the boring-est presidents ever, if not thee. I can see why people would rather discuss something else than the stupidity that is "our great leader". I mean, I feel like Trump has been mentioned more than President Harris in this thread.

The guy is a failure, and he is weak. Of course he is either going to destroy our country and/or serve our corporate overlords. American is the land of consumerism, and the majority of the people will buy anything that is thrown at them. Left, right... the only unbiased news these days is coming from the random dude in his basement.

Personally, I agree with what Joey said in his corona birthday special, "I miss Trump"... we all would rather have Trump back at this point. At least the leftists would have someone to point the finger at and call the bad guy.

Old Ben Dover has some big shoes to fill. By this time in Trump's presidency, he was already about to start making huge peace deals all across the world. All old man aviator has done is divide the country more, including the people who voted this clown into office.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not bullying to ask, in a conversation about race in the United States, if one thinks black lives matter. I think you're confusing bullying for just not liking what I have to say or ask.
> I'm not asking anyone to bend the knee before me, literally or figuratively.
> I never said nor implied anyone was racist or that anyone's opinion can be discarded. It is absolutely my prerogative, however, to not have or continue a conversation with someone who can't say black lives matter. It's my prerogative to not have a conversation with someone for any reason I want. It's not unreasonable to think a conversation is futile if the other party cannot say black lives matter as a starting point. If, in a conversation about LGBT rights, a person couldn't say gay lives mattered, I'd probably end the conversation right then and there, and rightfully so. There can be no common ground in that situation.
> Even deplorable people with deplorable views can hold their heads up high in the face of public disdain. It doesn't mean they aren't deplorable or wrong. It only means they're unwavering, which isn't always a virtue.
> Are you saying, as a moderator, that we need to get back on topic? That's fine, and I'd agree, but you will note that I've said "I have nothing more to say" and "I think I've said all that needs to be said" and "At least we don't have to keep talking about this anymore" numerous times before this, and you pulled me back. There are also approximately 17 posts over 48 hours from you talking about race as much as, if not more than, anyone else here, and I considered this conversation tentatively done hours ago. I am going to assume that you aren't flexing your moderator status now, arbitrarily, just because you didn't like what I had to say. If you don't like what I have to say or ask about race, assuming it's in a relevant place, you can always just ignore me. Hypothetically, if you can't help but respond to everything I post, or if you can't help but put on the moderator hat when the conversation gets hard, that would show poor judgment.


I pointed out that the conversation has gone off the rails quite some time ago and that the only person actually trying to stick to the topic now is @Valwinz, which I find hilarious. It is well-within my jurisdiction to permit that if I believe there is something interesting or worthwhile to gather from a brief diversion. Since all of the current participants of this conversation have now seemingly responded to your query, the side plot has reached its natural conclusion. I have no issue with what you have to say about race, and by your own admission you've said all you had to say already. In addition to being a moderator, I also have the gift of impeccable timing - the debate regarding BLM is getting circular and has outlived its usefulness, to the point that a discussion about frog lives somehow entered the conversation. A conversation about race relations could arguably be tied to a conversation about the administration since the current race riots are taking place under the administration's watch and the government is responding to the situation. A conversation about whether or not people are willing to use magic spells of your choice to somehow prove their worth to you, albeit briefly amusing, is far removed from the topic. I hope this explanation is satisfactory.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> ...but that does not mean I think a frog's life matters as much as a human's life.









Foxi4 said:


> ... frog lives [matter]...


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Ben Hiden has to be one of the boring-est presidents ever, if not thee.


Boring is a good thing, particularly when we are contrasting him with the previous president.



tthousand said:


> has been mentioned more than President Harris in this thread.


Vice President Harris.



tthousand said:


> The guy is a failure, and he is weak.


Biden and the Democrats passed a major piece of legislation only two months into his presidency. It took Obama much longer than that, and one could argue the former president never did that (that depends on how you view the tax cuts largely for the wealthy).



tthousand said:


> Of course he is either going to destroy our country and/or serve our corporate overlords.


There's no reason to think Biden is going to destroy the country or serve "our corporate overlords." There's a reason corporations, for the most part, prefer Republicans over Democrats: They don't want to pay higher taxes or deal with more regulation. There's reason to think corporations aren't going to like what Biden and the Democrats have planned.



tthousand said:


> we all would rather have Trump back at this point.


Speak for yourself. A majority of Americans approve of Biden's job so far (about 53%, to be specific).



tthousand said:


> Old Ben Dover has some big shoes to fill. By this time in Trump's presidency, he was already about to start making huge peace deals all across the world. All old man aviator has done is divide the country more, including the people who voted this clown into office.


The former president had an approval rating of about 41% at this point in his first (and only) term. I'm also curious what "huge peace deals" the former president accomplished.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 16, 2021)

*off topic*


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Can you quote where you read that? I have been following the conversation and I didn't come to that conclusion at all.  I saw many try to "put words in his mouth" because he didn't decide to play jury on manslaughter/murder.  Also, nobody seems to mention that the person who was shot at was a violent and potentially armed criminal.  Instead, you claim the opposite, lol.


I think we've moved on from that topic now, unless you *really* want to roll it back to the recent shooting and the resulting riots in a way that actually relates to Biden's administration. I'd say we should probably wait and see what the administration does about the matter, if anything at all. The National Guard seems to have it on lock now that they've stepped in and the city effectively instituted Martial Lite with a strict curfew, which in turn led to large swathes of arrests. Could've used rapid response like that last summer, but then again, we had a different president back then, and politics are often about the optics.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I think we've moved on from that topic now, unless you *really* want to roll it back to the recent shooting and the resulting riots in a way that actually relates to Biden's administration. I'd say we should probably wait and see what the administration does about the matter, if anything at all - the National Guard seems to have it on lock now that they've stepped in and the city effectively instituted Martial Lite with a strict curfew, which in turn led to large swathes of arrests. Could've used rapid response like that last summer, but then again, we had a different president back then, and politics are often about the optics.



Sorry, I just woke up and responded to something directed to me.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Apr 16, 2021)

all the less-than-artful dodging these guys have been doing regarding systemic racism seems to have aged like milk WHILE THEY WERE TRYING TO DODGE IT, what with adam toledo and all
it's like mold spontaneously growing on a piece of bread right as you're about to eat it
oh and btw
saying black lives matter doesn't mean you're saying other lives matter less
it means that you aren't a bigoted prick and that you do actually believe that black lives matter *just as much as *others
refusing to say it, or repeatedly dodging the question, is an indicator that you're not only a bigot but a coward


----------



## tabzer (Apr 16, 2021)

I think that's just being bossy and isn't really considering the fact that people can and do say things that they don't believe all the time.  Just like *insert current administration*.

Some people think that paying lip services detracts from the importance of action.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> all the less-than-artful dodging these guys have been doing regarding systemic racism seems to have aged like milk WHILE THEY WERE TRYING TO DODGE IT, what with adam toledo and all
> it's like mold spontaneously growing on a piece of bread right as you're about to eat it
> oh and btw
> saying black lives matter doesn't mean you're saying other lives matter less
> ...


Can't believe we're back at it again, but fair enough - there's a "new" (to some) element to the discussion. Am I the only one who was already aware of the shooting? The details have been released what, 18 hours ago? More than that. It doesn't change my calculus - young teens running around with weapons sadly isn't unusual in Chicago, which is precisely why it needs more stringent policing. Still a bad shoot, but it's very clear that Toledo ran towards the fence specifically to dispose of the luger and hide, and if the visibility was poor I can see the officer making a poor split-second decision. It's regrettable, really.

The problem I have with this train of thought is that both you and @smf treat these words as some kind of magical spell, which is precisely why I call it that. What a load of croak.



smf said:


> I never went to a blm protest, never did the whole blm meme on social networks, but I understand that *being able to bring myself to say that black lives matter means that I'm not racist*.


This implies that saying the phrase requires an inordinate amount of effort, you need to "bring yourself to say it" (it doesn't), but just by the virtue of saying the magic words you are automatically absolved of racism, hallelujah! Uhm, no - those are just words. More specifically, it's a catchphrase of a group of activists that has proven time and time again to pursue their goals by using violence and intimidation (for financial gain, mind), and I refuse to kowtow to strangers on the Internet requiring me to use their arcane passwords in order to participate in a serious discussion about race. In addition, it causes you guys to fall into a tail spin every single time, so the refusal has additional benefits in the form of entertainment.

At this point I will make a conscious effort to never say it, even on accident. That's not indicative of whether someone is racist or not, this crazy standard is simply bizarre. What other truism are people required to utter in order to be worthy? "Sir, please confirm that murder is bad"? Poppycock. You can choose to debase yourself when prompted to, I choose not to.


----------



## mammastuffing (Apr 16, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Just like to point out:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you are missing the point.

Saying that black lives matter isn't about any individual person or actions.
It's about a systematic oppression of part of a population because of the color of their skin.

And it is a completely independent proposition from if ALL lives matter. If you want to propose that all lives matter, that's fine. I think most people would disagree though, considering for instance how life is treated when it comes to animals for example.

But in the independent proposition of "Do black lives matter", the answer for me is YES - Black lives matter. Do white lives matter? Yes! But white lives aren't threatened by a system of oppression so there isn't a problem.


----------



## smf (Apr 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This implies that saying the phrase requires an inordinate amount of effort, you need to "bring yourself to say it" (it doesn't),



Some people can't say it because of the conflict it creates in their brain.
For those people it does require an inordinate amount of effort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
_In the field of psychology, *cognitive dissonance* occurs when a person holds contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, and is typically experienced as psychological stress when they participate in an action that goes against one or more of them. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent_

For example you might hold these two beliefs.
Racism is bad, I'm not racist.
Black lives don't really matter, most murdered black people are murdered by other black people. They deserve it.

The easiest thing to do would be to argue about why you aren't racist, but that there is no reason to actually say that black lives matter.

Making excuses why you won't say it makes you look like you can't say it without causing inner conflict.

Of course saying it doesn't absolve you from anything that would be ridiculous.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 16, 2021)

smf said:


> Some people can't say it because of the conflict it creates in their brain.
> For those people it does require an inordinate amount of effort.
> 
> Making excuses why you won't say it makes you look like one of those people.



There is no evidence you believe that black lives matter.  To the contrary, it is evident that you'd prefer to lecture people on the internet instead of joining the rioting protests.  It is worse than an empty gesture.  It's perverted.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2021)

smf said:


> Some people can't say it because of the conflict it creates in their brain.
> For those people it does require an inordinate amount of effort.
> 
> Making excuses why you won't say it makes you look like one of those people.
> ...


You said it, not me - no activism to speak of, no protests, no "doing the meme", just the statement - either that's stolen valor *or* the statement is not required to prove that you're not racist - you can just not be a racist. Why would anyone feel compelled to prove a negative, prove that they're *not* something? That's a fallacy just on the face of it - you can't prove a negative. The requirement is a thinly-veiled suggestion that your interlocutor is a racist unless they do exactly what you tell them to do. I don't take commands because I'm not a dog - if people want someone to listen to their commands, they can get a pet.


----------



## smf (Apr 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> There is no evidence you believe that black lives matter.  To the contrary, it is evident that you'd prefer to lecture people on the internet instead of joining the rioting protests.  It is worse than an empty gesture.  It's perverted.



There is a pandemic on, I'd rather not kill anyone by attending a protest.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 16, 2021)

smf said:


> There is a pandemic on, I'd rather not kill anyone by attending a protest.





smf said:


> According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent



Wow, you look like you are a racist.  That's too bad.


----------



## smf (Apr 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You said it, not me - no activism to speak of, no protests, no "doing the meme", just the statement - either that's stolen valor *or* the statement is not required to prove that you're not racist - you can just not be a racist.



My edited post explains it more.

Saying it doesn't prove anything, not being able to say it when someone asks you makes you look like it would cause cognitive dissonance. Your constant refusal really does speak volumes.



tabzer said:


> Wow, you look like you are a racist.  That's too bad.



I look racist because I won't spread a virus? I think you're going to have to explain that one a bit more as I don't see it.

For context there are other protests that I have avoided due to the pandemic, I have not specifically avoided blm protests.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 16, 2021)

smf said:


> I look racist because I won't spread a virus? I think you're going to have to explain that one a bit more.



It sounds like you are using the virus as an excuse to not do black lives matter.

Please say,"black lives matter".


----------



## smf (Apr 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It sounds like you are using the virus as an excuse to not do black lives matter.
> 
> Please say,"black lives matter".



I said it, I can also type it.

black lives matter.

no inner conflict for me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2021)

smf said:


> My edited post explains it more.


Your post is armchair psychology. I sufficiently explained why I'm not going to use a BLM slogan, and why I'm not taking commands from strangers. Neither is evidence of any racial prejudice whatsoever. With that being said, I also don't particularly care what people think of me - I've been incorrectly called worse things than that, it doesn't affect me.


----------



## smf (Apr 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I sufficiently explained why I'm not going to use a BLM slogan



Right, your explanation is just weak that is all. I get that you disagree, it's your explanation after all. But as someone that isn't you, not so much.

If you don't care then it's fine, but you seem to care.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 16, 2021)

It didn't take long for the "cognitive dissonance" to set in, did it?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2021)

smf said:


> Right, your explanation is just weak that is all. I get that you disagree, it's your explanation after all. If you don't care then it's fine, but you seem to care.


Most times I only care about being entertained, that and making sure threads are interesting and pertinent to recent events. This was indeed an entertaining bit, but it's getting quite stale.


----------



## smf (Apr 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Most times I only care about being entertained, and making sure that threads are interesting and pertinent to recent events. This was indeed an entertaining bit, but it's getting quite stale.



Well I've found it very enlightening about you.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 16, 2021)

Just to be clear, we are seeing bigotry and prejudice to label others as being prejudice bigots.

Assuming someone does not want to say the mantra of a marxist, racist hate group automatically makes them the racist?

Again, why the fixation on saying "black lives matter"? Why not ask people to say "black lives are important", or something similar?

Personally, because I am not black, I do not wish to speak for the black masses. But I will always listen to what is being said, by all parties and either side.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> There is a pandemic on, I'd rather not kill anyone by attending a protest.



Okay, so you do not want to protest, but are you actively speaking to officials to try and make a change? For that matter, are you actively doing *anything* to make the change you wish to see, or are you just coming online to spread hate?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2021)

This whole weird line of questioning is really giving me Orwellian vibes. I don't want the thread to turn into a weird virtue contest. I think both sides demonstrated their points, for better or worse, and each is entitled to an opinion. We've revisited the idea after abandoning it earlier, but only because of the latest shooting in Chicago. Since then, nobody seems to have added anything to that story.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Apr 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This whole weird line of questioning is really giving me Orwellian vibes. I don't want the thread to turn into a weird virtue contest. I think both sides demonstrated their points, for better or worse, and each is entitled to an opinion. We've revisited the idea after abandoning it earlier, but only because of the latest shooting in Chicago. Since then, nobody seems to have added anything to that story.


You haven't really demonstrated much. You've dodged the question for days now for seemingly no reason other than not wanting to directly admit to agreeing with us on anything significant.
It's really not that hard to just say it.
Literally stating that the lives of black people are, in fact, no less valuable than the lives of people with other skin colors should not be difficult, nor is it part of a virtue contest or anything Orwellian.
There are only three reasons anyone would refuse to say it.
Either they're so far down the far-right rabbit hole that they treat the relatively mild notion of "skin color doesn't change the value of a life" as some kind of LiBeRaL eXtReMiSt ideology, they're so far down the far-right rabbit hole that they instinctively fight back against nearly any point made from a left-wing position whether they actually disagree with it or not... or they're just flat out racist. (Or both.)
Which one are you?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> You haven't really demonstrated much. You've dodged the question for days now for seemingly no reason other than not wanting to directly admit to agreeing with us on anything significant.
> It's really not that hard to just say it.
> Literally stating that the lives of black people are, in fact, no less valuable than the lives of people with other skin colors should not be difficult, nor is it part of a virtue contest or anything Orwellian.
> There are only three reasons anyone would refuse to say it.
> ...


To the contrary, I specifically stated that all people are created equal - this includes black people. My point of contention is that I'm expected to use very specific phrasing that expresses the same idea, and I'm not going to do that - on principle and for personal amusement.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 16, 2021)

Another prejudice comment from the left. 

FACT CHECK: Just because you say "black lives matter", it does not mean you are NOT a racist, or a good person. Implying other people are inherently bad because they do not agree 100% with you just shows a closed mind. Food for thought


----------



## RandomUser (Apr 16, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Literally stating that the lives of black people are, in fact, no less valuable than the lives of people with other skin colors should not be difficult, nor is it part of a virtue contest or anything Orwellian.


That is the issue that I'm seeing, some members on here are actually implying that black lives is worth more then white and/or other race lives.
There is at least one member on here said that "all lives matter" to another member, but sadly their arrogance cannot comprehend what "all" means.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 16, 2021)

RandomUser said:


> That is the issue that I'm seeing, some members on here are actually implying that black lives is worth more then white and/or other race lives.
> There is at least one member one here said that "all lives matter" to another member, but sadly their arrogance cannot comprehend what "all" means.



Thank you for putting that into terms everyone should easily be able to comprehend, with perhaps the exception of the mentally anorexic.

The end of the day, it does not really MATTER what any of us actually think. All lives matter (including frogs), while at the same time, no lives matter. If an asteroid hit the planet tomorrow and wiped out all life but the Earth still stood... guess what, time would still go on.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 17, 2021)

BASED BIDEN
https://t.co/Man7oDlXKA— Waleed Shahid (@_waleedshahid) April 16, 2021


also remember when the Asian stuff  that was happening and someone say Asian lives matter and BLM people been so good and great attacked the person lol


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2021)

RandomUser said:


> That is the issue that I'm seeing, some members on here are actually implying that black lives is worth more then white and/or other race lives.
> There is at least one member on here said that "all lives matter" to another member, but sadly their arrogance cannot comprehend what "all" means.


Saying black lives matter doesn't mean black lives matter more than others.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 17, 2021)

What people are intentionally refusing to acknowledge when they say "all lives matter" is that certain lives are under more threat than others right now, and have been throughout our nation's entire history.  It's the same type of racially charged cop-out as, "the Civil War was fought over _states' rights_."  Just because a number of historical and modern events are uncomfortable to discuss from the perspective of privilege doesn't mean the answer is to stick your head in the sand and pretend they never happened.

Additionally, a certain amount of nihilism always comes attached with alt-right ideologies, so what a lot of people really mean when they say, "all lives matter" is, "no lives matter."  After all, there is no actual organization by that name, "ALM" is nowhere to be found when police brutalize or murder anybody of _any_ race/ethnicity.  In other words, it's an endorsement of the status quo, and the only group that benefits from such an endorsement is the police.  I say if you're gonna lick boot, at least be honest and straightforward about your intention to do so.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 17, 2021)

Xzi said:


> certain lives are under more threat than others right now,


No I'm pretty sure that's a lie


----------



## Xzi (Apr 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> No I'm pretty sure that's a lie


Then I'm pretty sure you must be blind, deaf, and dumb, because the attacks on Asians and African-Americans have been nonstop from the beginning of this year.  The former are mostly attacked by individuals, the latter mostly by the police.

Besides, you're one of those nihilists I was talking about.  You don't even seem to care about potential statehood for Puerto Rico.  And if you don't even care about your own community, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that you can be objective when it comes to the topic of another group being persecuted.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 17, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Then I'm pretty sure you must be blind, deaf, and dumb, because the attacks on Asians and African-Americans have been nonstop from the beginning of this year.  The former are mostly attacked by individuals, the latter mostly by the police.


No I'm pretty sure your flat out lying

if what you mean is The media focusing on certain races attacks while ignoring others  them sure


----------



## Xzi (Apr 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> No I'm pretty sure your flat out lying
> 
> if what you mean is The media focusing on certain races attacks while ignoring others  them sure


It's what you're focusing on that's the problem.  Just because I acknowledge that certain groups are victimized more than others doesn't mean I'm ignoring the bigger picture.  US police have been killing more than a thousand people per year lately, of all races and ethnicities.  That shouldn't be acceptable to anybody, and if it's acceptable to you then we have nothing more to discuss.  Nihilism serves no purpose in this discussion other than to muddy the waters, and again, endorse the status quo.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Saying black lives matter doesn't mean black lives matter more than others.


It depends on context, which many people abuse.  I see the categorization of people that groups people together as different races to be divisive and potentially harmful to the prospect of both greater unity and individualism. 

Some actions by the system can be helpful in the short-term and harmful in the long-term, and vice-versa. An example being is when a member of a classified group becomes the beneficiary of public aid, it reinforces dependence and complacency.  It's good for padding immediate needs, but it maybe at the expense of incentive to excell and self-definition--both within the group and to those who get defined as some a part of some other group.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 17, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's what you're focusing on that's the problem.  Just because I acknowledge that certain groups are victimized more than others doesn't mean I'm ignoring the bigger picture.  US police have been killing more than a thousand people per year lately, of all races and ethnicities.  That shouldn't be acceptable to anybody, and if it's acceptable to you then we have nothing more to discuss.  Nihilism serves no purpose in this discussion other than to muddy the waters, and again, endorse the status quo.


I’m just gonna say you are falling for easy bate into a circular argument with someone who seems want to be a contrarian.


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm asking if you, Foxi4, think black lives matter. You previously said you don't think any lives matter, but then you said murder is bad, so which is it? If you stop for a second and think about why you can't say black lives matter, you might be able to avoid the consequences of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> All anyone should really take note of here is how hard you're trying to avoid saying black lives matter. Nothing else matters.
> 
> ...



Say what I imposed you to say, don't avoid it. 

Taste from your own medicine.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2021)

Bullseye said:


> Say what I imposed you to say, don't avoid it.
> 
> Taste from your own medicine.


I asked if he could say something, and that's it. I wasn't imposing my will onto anybody. That being said, we've moved on from the topic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> It depends on context, which many people abuse.  I see the categorization of people that groups people together as different races to be divisive and potentially harmful to the prospect of both greater unity and individualism.
> 
> Some actions by the system can be helpful in the short-term and harmful in the long-term, and vice-versa. An example being is when a member of a classified group becomes the beneficiary of public aid, it reinforces dependence and complacency.  It's good for padding immediate needs, but it maybe at the expense of incentive to excell and self-definition--both within the group and to those who get defined as some a part of some other group.


Saying "black lives matter" is not to say "black lives matter more than other lives." If someone is using it that way, that's not how I'm using it. Regardless, we've mostly moved on.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 17, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It sounds like you are using the virus as an excuse to not do black lives matter.
> 
> Please say,"black lives matter".







Lacius said:


> Saying black lives matter doesn't mean black lives matter more than others.



I've never thought those trying to force the utterance from others were implying that black lives matter _more_. They are simply requiring a capitulation if one wishes to be passed over, i.e. not subjected to violence and/or social ostracization. 

It's like the Japanese fumi-e. 

A modern day "are you now, or have you ever been?" test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumi-e


----------



## tabzer (Apr 17, 2021)

Cult vs cult as far as I am concerned.



Hanafuda said:


> I've never thought those trying to force the utterance from others were implying that black lives matter _more_.



Only more value than that the "inquisited" is suspected of holding--damned be all other standards and consistency of their character.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I asked if he could say something, and that's it. I wasn't imposing my will onto anybody.n.


Mansion lives matter


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Mansion lives matter


I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the point is you're trying to make.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the point is you're trying to make.


Breonna Taylor's mother slams Black Lives Matter and calls the organization a 'fraud' saying 'they've never done a damn thing for us' https://t.co/SaF2iAEF3g— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) April 17, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/DailyMail/status/1383330156077453312


What does this have to do with "mansions"?


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What does this have to do with "mansions"?



Probably referring to Patrisse Khan-Cullors' high $$ real-estate investment spree.

For a purported socialist, she's a pretty effective capitalist.

Which doesn't really bother me. If selling socialism snake oil is your angle to getting filthy rich, and it works ....  hey it's a free country.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 18, 2021)

One of Biden people is exciting violence 
Minnesota National Guard, Police Team Shot In Drive-By Hours After Maxine Waters Incites BLM Protesters https://t.co/Oybz4MAUzm— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 18, 2021


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 19, 2021)

do you blame everything on biden @Valwinz cause most of the shit is out of his control that protestors are doing he's not directing them (unlike trump who directly incited the jan 6th inserection)


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 19, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> do you blame everything on biden @Valwinz cause most of the shit is out of his control that protestors are doing he's not directing them (unlike trump who directly incited the jan 6th inserection)


It's like the "thanks obama" meme


----------



## RandomUser (Apr 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Saying black lives matter doesn't mean black lives matter more than others.


Then why not add the word "*too*"? Adding that word I think would have created a more positive impact and probably would have even more people agreeing with this then we do now.



Xzi said:


> What people are intentionally refusing to acknowledge when they say "all lives matter" is that certain lives are under more threat than others right now, and have been throughout our nation's entire history.  It's the same type of racially charged cop-out as, "the Civil War was fought over _states' rights_."  Just because a number of historical and modern events are uncomfortable to discuss from the perspective of privilege doesn't mean the answer is to stick your head in the sand and pretend they never happened.
> 
> Additionally, a certain amount of nihilism always comes attached with alt-right ideologies, so what a lot of people really mean when they say, "all lives matter" is, "no lives matter."  After all, there is no actual organization by that name, "ALM" is nowhere to be found when police brutalize or murder anybody of _any_ race/ethnicity.  In other words, it's an endorsement of the status quo, and the only group that benefits from such an endorsement is the police.  I say if you're gonna lick boot, at least be honest and straightforward about your intention to do so.


I agree that police brutality is never a good thing and should never be condoned.
I do have to wonder if people that you described actually exist in majority? I am not denying that they do exist, but somehow I think they are far fewer then what you let on.
I think that when people say "All lives matter" they actually mean _all race matters_ or _all race are equal_. Generally not "all lives matter" = "No lives matter". Perhaps saying "all lives matter" is not correct for most people, because eating meat requires ending a life of an animal or swatting a fly for example. Anybody should understand what they are trying to portray.
Perhaps I'm being naïve in this regard.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2021)

RandomUser said:


> Then why not add the word "*too*"? Adding that word I think would have created a more positive impact and probably would have even more people agreeing with this then we do now.
> 
> 
> I agree that police brutality is never a good thing and should never be condoned.
> ...


It shouldn't be so difficult for someone to say black lives matter.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It shouldn't be so difficult for someone to say black lives matter.



A lot of things should not be.

Keep in mind, just because someone does not say black lives matter in this thread, does not mean they do not say it else where. And vice versa. 

Here is an interesting take on Critical Race Theory, and where it came from and what it was influenced by. 

Link >> https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/critical-race-theory-fight/


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A lot of things should not be.
> 
> Keep in mind, just because someone does not say black lives matter in this thread, does not mean they do not say it else where. And vice versa.


If a person cannot say black lives matter, here or anywhere else, it's meaningful.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If a person cannot say black lives matter, here or anywhere else, it's meaningful.



Perhaps to you, yes. And perhaps to 5 other people in this world of 7.9 billion.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Perhaps to you, yes. And perhaps to 5 other people in this world of 7.9 billion.


The number of people who think black lives matter outnumber six.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The number of people who think black lives matter outnumber six.



I think you must have severely misunderstood what I said.

First) Just because someone does* not* say black lives matter in this thread, does *not* mean they do not say it else where. At the same time, just because someone *does *say black lives matter in this thread, does *not* mean they *do* say it else where.

Second) It seems to matter to about 6 people (give or take) in this thread if other's chant the mantra of what has been labeled a fraudulent, racist hate group.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I think you must have severely misunderstood what I said.
> 
> First) Just because someone does* not* say black lives matter in this thread, does *not* mean they do not say it else where. At the same time, just because someone *does *say black lives matter in this thread, does *not* mean they *do* say it else where.
> 
> Second) It seems to matter to about 6 people (give or take) in this thread if other's chant the mantra of what has been labeled a fraudulent, racist hate group.


Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about BLM, it's problematic if one cannot say black lives matter.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about BLM, it's problematic if one cannot say black lives matter.



Again, perhaps to you. To me, it is problematic that you insist some people say "black lives matter", instead of offering an alternative option. There is more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 20, 2021)

RandomUser said:


> Then why not add the word "*too*"?


Black lives matter too, is a mouth full and not as catchy. Besides, bad actors would just say "all lives matter too", intentionally missing the point.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Again, perhaps to you. To me, it is problematic that you insist some people say "black lives matter", instead of offering an alternative option. There is more than one way to skin a cat.


You either can say black lives matter or you can't, and that's a dichotomy.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You either can say black lives matter or you can't, and that's a dichotomy.


 I suppose it might be easier to live in a black and white reality as opposed to one with varying shades.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I suppose it might be easier to live in a black and white reality as opposed to one with varying shades.


Black people exist, and their lives matter. I'm sorry there's anyone who cannot acknowledge this.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Black people exist, and their lives matter. I'm sorry there's anyone who cannot acknowledge this.


 I am sure there are pockets all around the world who hate, there are even blacks who hate blacks and whites who hate whites, and so on and so on. Do you really think there are those in this thread that see black lives as not equal to other ethnicities? I really doubt that personally.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 20, 2021)

All Lives Matter is literally the equivalent to the Founding Fathers saying "All men are created equal," while owning slaves.
The All Lives Matter movement is literally just a movement made to throw a blanket over actual issues and not deal with systematic problems.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 20, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> All Lives Matter is literally the equivalent to the Founding Fathers saying "All men are created equal," while owning slaves.
> The All Lives Matter movement is literally just a movement made to throw a blanket over actual issues and not deal with systematic problems.



So... when people say All Lives Mater, they think modern day slavery should be a thing? And when the forefathers said "All men are created equal", they where really just trying to hide issues and avoid systematic problems? Not sure I am following your logic. Can you please explain a little more for me how these are literal equivalents?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I am sure there are pockets all around the world who hate, there are even blacks who hate blacks and whites who hate whites, and so on and so on. Do you really think there are those in this thread that see black lives as not equal to other ethnicities? I really doubt that personally.


I really think there are those in this thread who cannot say black lives matter. I think that speaks for itself.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 20, 2021)

tthousand said:


> So... when people say All Lives Mater, they think modern day slavery should be a thing? And when the forefathers said "All men are created equal, they where really just trying to hide issues? Not sure I am following your logic.


No, I am saying the phrases are disingenuous and that the inclusion of "All" doesn't actually include everyone. Saying "All men are created equal" while literally continuing a system where POC were slaves, women didn't have rights, and so on, really just shows that "all" only meant a small group of people were equal. Saying "All Lives Matter" as a response to "Black Lives Matters" isn't about trying to resolve the systemic abuse primarily faced by POC, it's about trying to avoid the issues. It's about pretending the problems are either not as bad as people make them out to be or the mentality that the problems are more universal. Regardless of the reasoning, All Lives Matter isn't actually about the "All" in the name, it's about continuing to the status quo of blissful ignorance towards the systematic abuse towards POC.


----------



## notimp (Apr 20, 2021)

Black lives matter exactly as much as they are needed to create advancements that will sell in the fast developing parts of afrika, same as advancing females to promote inovation generation matters mostly for when we drive India to get through the same cultural advancements within a decade and get their female workforce in the higher education sector online.

Oh and they matter of course everytime, when you would want to prevent social uprising within your own country --

and they matter in self advancement strategies of people buying equality storytelling, or did so a while ago.

Apart from that they matter on the individual level.

But certainly not on the cultural level, where we'd like for corporate sensitivity training to take over please. Or facebooks new worldwide ethics. One of those would be fine. 

Everyone happy now? 

Oh - and apart from that there is potential in getting the right people into the right positions independent of certain prejudices - and always the hope, that if they dont manage to produce something astonishing right about now, they can still serve as rolemodels to pacify their constituency. 


edit: Oh, and there is a problem with police culture and racism in the US, that really ought to be solved by now - but please not by toppling the institutions, signed - the current administration.

edit2: Oh, and we didnt teach people in universities, how to deal with disruptive innovation, so if someone could come along and help us with that - that would be neat as well. Diverse leadership teams, probably would help.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> No, I am saying the phrases are disingenuous and that the inclusion of "All" doesn't actually include everyone. Saying "All men are created equal" while literally continuing a system where POC were slaves, women didn't have rights, and so on, really just shows that "all" only meant a small group of people were equal. Saying "All Lives Matter" as a response to "Black Lives Matters" isn't about trying to resolve the systemic abuse primarily faced by POC, it's about trying to avoid the issues. It's about pretending the problems are either not as bad as people make them out to be or the mentality that the problems are more universal. Regardless of the reasoning, All Lives Matter isn't actually about the "All" in the name, it's about continuing to the status quo of blissful ignorance towards the systematic abuse towards POC.


That is a mightily impressive amount of reading into things and extrapolation, also some large assumptions on how the world works that may or may not comport with reality.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 20, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> That is a mightily impressive amount of reading into things and extrapolation, also some large assumptions on how the world works that may or may not comport with reality.


Would you like to correct me if I am wrong? I shocked this wasn't another one of your famous crazy long posts.


----------



## notimp (Apr 20, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Would you like to correct me if I am wrong? I shocked this wasn't another one of your famous crazy long posts.


Read this for some other (crazy) perspectives:


notimp said:


> Black lives matter exactly as much as they are needed to create advancements that will sell in the fast developing parts of africa, same as advancing females to promote innovation generation matters mostly for when we drive India to get through the same cultural advancements within a decade and get their female workforce in the higher education sector online.
> 
> Oh and they matter of course everytime, when you would want to prevent social uprising within your own country --
> 
> ...



On advancing the societal standing of POC you are correct. But making society equal - might not be all there is in terms of outcome.

Making it "more equal" (shedding prejudices, providing more opportunities to people on equal grounds)  is a valiant and valid goal though.

edit: Here is another crazy persons opinion on why the corporate push for more diversity in leadership teams - can be prejudice as well:


The person speaking is not so much needed/wanted anymore, by current management standards btw - which are more targeted towards telling people how wonderful they are and manage themselves most of the time - as well as make them act as wanted by applying soft skills. (The person in the video might lack some soft skills, is what I'm saying.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Would you like to correct me if I am wrong? I shocked this wasn't another one of your famous crazy long posts.


I can do a Venn diagram if you like. Pretty sure all encompasses all the hues of power rangers though.
Could someone want to say all and instead mean your list of exemptions and tweaks... sure. To presume all that would is... presumptive to say the least.
Almost as amusing as presuming those that can bring themselves to say the apparently magic words are inherently so pure of heart and not just capitulating to the demands of a mob to stay hidden.
By and large one does also tend to operate under the assumption that the plain meanings of the words are the ones that are meant. To do otherwise does rather make life complicated.

Equally the problem, or indeed lack thereof, of systemic would be one of the assumptions in that. I would still maintain it is more or less done, no great leaps left to make on that front. Far more to gain by sorting the poverty issue. However I believe that was otherwise deemed a boring discussing going nowhere fast earlier in the thread (I think I was being accused of having privilege or something).


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Apr 20, 2021)

(6) Axios on Twitter: " BREAKING: Verdict in Derek Chauvin trial: • 2nd-degree murder: Guilty • 3rd-degree murder: Guilty • Manslaughter: Guilty https://t.co/ii5bCOG4uo" / Twitter

Chauvin guilty on all counts.


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (Apr 20, 2021)

is anyone paying attention to the results of the Derek Chauvin trial??


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 20, 2021)

The president pressuring a Jury and telling them what to do is pretty amazing really shows the Biden dictatorship


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2021)

yummycake said:


> is anyone paying attention to the results of the Derek Chauvin trial??


GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS, YESSS!  Fuck that fascist scum, hopefully someone kneels on his neck in prison.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-death-verdict-2021-04-20/


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS, YESSS!  Fuck that fascist scum, hopefully someone kneels on his neck in prison.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-death-verdict-2021-04-20/


Hopefully in appeals gets revoke and goes to trial again  this trial was damage the moment Biden decided to tell the Jury what to do


----------



## boots_n_cats (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Hopefully in appeals gets revoke and goes to trial again  this trial was damage the moment Biden decided to tell the Jury what to do



Are you drunk? An appeals court isn't going to throw out a jury verdict over something the president said while they were sequestered. That just isn't how anything works. The judges will likely take one look at the video and rule the statement harmless error.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Hopefully in appeals gets revoke and goes to trial again  this trial was damage the moment Biden decided to tell the Jury what to do


Offering an opinion on the trial is not telling the jury what to do. You also know juries are typically sequestered, particularly when they're jurors in a high profile case, right? You're talking more nonsense than usual, and that's a high bar for you.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Offering an opinion on the trial is not telling the jury what to do. You also know juries are typically sequestered, particularly when they're jurors in a high profile case, right? You're talking more nonsense than usual, and that's a high bar for you.


The president and other demos telling it has to go a certain way is a sad day  a day where the mob wins  I don't think I have ever seen a president tell the Jury what to do what ta shamefully day I hope the lawyer appeals


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 21, 2021)

As if Trump wouldn't be tweeting up a storm during this whole trial.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> As if Trump wouldn't be tweeting up a storm during this whole trial.


Dude literally told cops that brutalizing suspects was okay.  He's far from being _solely_ responsible for murderous police, but he sure as shit didn't help either.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Dude literally told cops that brutalizing suspects was okay.  He's far from being _solely_ responsible for murderous police, but he sure as shit didn't help either.


do you do it for free?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> do you do it for free?


Do what?  Piss you off?  Yeah that part's free DLC.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Do what?  Piss you off?  Yeah that part's free DLC.


He does it for free


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The president and other demos telling it has to go a certain way is a sad day  a day where the mob wins  I don't think I have ever seen a president tell the Jury what to do what ta shamefully day I hope the lawyer appeals


Biden did nothing improper, and the jury was sequestered. Your desire for a convicted murderer to go free will likely go unfulfilled.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> He does it for free


Dude I wish I got paid just for being a DemSoc, do you get paid just for being an idiot?


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

The president of the USA telling  wait no pretty much blackmail them in to doing how he wants it or there is a mob


----------



## boots_n_cats (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The president of the USA telling  wait no pretty much blackmail them in to doing how he wants it or there is a mob



I think you might be having a stroke. Either that or you never learned how to use punctuation.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

boots_n_cats said:


> I think you might be having a stroke. Either that or you never learned how to use punctuation.


Bidens America no rule of law


----------



## boots_n_cats (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Bidens America no rule of law


Stroke it is.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The president of the USA telling  wait no pretty much blackmail them in to doing how he wants it or there is a mob


The president of the United States did not blackmail anybody.



Valwinz said:


> Bidens America no rule of law


The former president was the most anti-law president in US history.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The president of the United States did not blackmail anybody.
> 
> 
> The former president was the most anti-law president in US history.



Biden American people burn cities and the president does not know where he is while racist Kamala is lol doing nothing those midterms are going to be delicious


----------



## SG854 (Apr 21, 2021)

Val Winz Again


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden American people burn cities and the president does not know where he is while racist Kamala is lol doing nothing those midterms are going to be delicious


No cities have been burned. Kamala Harris has done nothing racist that I am aware of. Considering how many popular things the Democrats are accomplishing, and likely to accomplish through budget reconciliation alone despite Republican obstruction, the midterms might go well for them.

Are you okay?


----------



## notimp (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden American people burn cities and the president does not know where he is while racist Kamala is lol doing nothing those midterms are going to be delicious


Probably referencing Iowa or Colorado? Both states are not representative of what is happening in the rest of the US, nor will the experiences there inform or shape most of the developments in the rest of the US.

Apart from that Biden pretty much said eff you to social progressives over and over again -

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-progressives-put-biden-warning/story?id=71280330

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/13/politics/biden-economic-social-policies-congress/index.html

Where he is lauded for progressive politics most is - for starting spending programs into a deficit, to get out of the crisis.
https://archive.is/PoI9b


So some people here are still reading BS - designed to split the country in two, spreading false, very simplified "thruth", that on closer inspection turn out to be lies, designed to rile up people emotionally. Also with the usual role reversal, where Harris becomes "racist" against white folks (?).

BS, all of it. But you eat it up like it was breakfast cereal.

BLM protests waned already, with the only felt impact from them being police reform ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...protests-but-is-waning-among-white-americans/ ).

No likely long lasting major impact on attitudes. Even the protests themselves never reached the level of 'major statewide' protests past the first week, and outside of one or two states (past the first week). (watch the Zeihan videos in the "everything explained" thread for actual numbers, sorry that I cant be more concise.)


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 21, 2021)

Biden is a dictator, but he also doesn't even know where he is.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

The kids are still in the cages


----------



## notimp (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The kids are still in the cages


(CNN)The number of unaccompanied minors in US Customs and Border Protection custody, akin to jail-like conditions, has dropped 45%, according to the latest government data, amid an ongoing effort by the Biden administration to find suitable spaces to accommodate kids after facing scrutiny for overcrowded facilities.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/12/politics/border-migrant-children/index.html

Trying to fix the damage that Trump caused in the first place. Not too fast, mind you... Public image and costs... Dont want more of them...


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

notimp said:


> (CNN)The number of unaccompanied minors in US Customs and Border Protection custody, akin to jail-like conditions, has dropped 45%, according to the latest government data, amid an ongoing effort by the Biden administration to find suitable spaces to accommodate kids after facing scrutiny for overcrowded facilities.
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/12/politics/border-migrant-children/index.html
> 
> Trying to fix the damage that Trump caused in the first place. Not too fast, mind you... Public image and costs... Dont want more of them...


Cnn imao


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> I have a feeling all the off-topic of the last several pages is controlled opposition. SMF, Xzi, and monkeyboy were all on the same side at the start of this thread, and now they have been going on for pages arguing what arguably has nothing to do with this thread. And if it's not controlled opposition, it might just be a reflection of today's far-left followers, where as soon as one of their own start to step out of line, they gang up on the individual.
> 
> This thread really beautifully illustrates which side the bullying is coming from. It is clear to see one side who does their best to have a civil conversation, and then there is the other side that is always condescending and down right rude.



This some biased bullshit right there if I've ever seen some. Are you fucking BLIND? Or do you just choose to intentionally skip over the hateful shitposts from those on your own side of the fence? Gtfo of here with that garbage.


----------



## notimp (Apr 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Cnn imao


C'mon I even counterbalanced with "they are showing little urgency". Here is how news work. You release statistics. Journalism checks if those sound propper and releases. If journalism is wrong on factual stuff, and people catch it, there is a big scandal, and journalism has to do rounds of mea culpa, mea culpa. So in essence - you usually dont create falsifiable figures on parts of the government that are checkable, by a journalist talking to an NGO and asking them if, they sound about right.

So at this point, you arent trusting government, you arent trusting CNN, experts (probably from the NGO field), you arent...

On one of the plainest non achievement achievements there is, of a figure reduction of less than 50%. Which in itself hardly is an achievement.

You are spelling out "ideology trumps facts" at this point and "I only trust me blog news". On reporting stuff like figures that didnt even make headline news, journalism usually is still quite alright. No campaign there, no entity that has an interest in fudging those numbers (not even the government, because if they are caught here - there is nothing to earn but moral outrage - rightfully so btw) - except you who are overly suspicious about those set of numbers in particular, because of an internet argument you made.

Chances that you are right here - are slim.

They probably did reduce the number by about 50% by now. And the remaining 50 is still a disgrace - because if you werent fixated on public perception you could make this a priority - and probably change their situation in a day.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 21, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> This some biased bullshit right there if I've ever seen some. Are you fucking BLIND? Or do you just choose to intentionally skip over the hateful shitposts from those on your own side of the fence? Gtfo of here with that garbage.



Here is another prime example of bullying, condescending, and rudeness. If you have any example of the other side doing such things, please share them and enlighten us all. I'll wait...


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2021)

Cnn has been proven to be a democratic propaganda news anything from there is meaningless and should be ignore


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Here is another prime example of bullying, condescending, and rudeness. If you have any example of the other side doing such things, please share them and enlighten us all. I'll wait...



Here is another prime example of 100% pure hypocrisy. This entire thread is literally littered with them. Like I said, obvious selective reading. Fact. I don't need to prove anything as it's all RIGHT THERE. I've proven it before to others, no need to once again just because someone else is arrogant and refuses to see past their own goal posts. Your poor and tired attempts at trying to turn the table have also already been tried by many others that are like minded with yourself. Doesn't work. Edit: And before you come in with some "tolerant liberal" comment (which we both know is what your comments regarding this are all about), why do I have to be tolerant to lies and hypocrisy? Answer = I don't. But you're expecting and wanting me to. I know exactly how your side of the fence works, and exactly what you're trying to do. Not happening with me, bud.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 21, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Here is another prime example of 100% pure hypocrisy. This entire thread is literally littered with them. Like I said, obvious selective reading. Fact. I don't need to prove anything as it's all RIGHT THERE. I've proven it before to others, no need to once again just because someone else is arrogant and refuses to see past their own goal posts. Your poor and tired attempts at trying to turn the table have also already been tried by many others that are like minded with yourself. Doesn't work. Edit: And before you come in with some "tolerant liberal" comment (which we both know is what your comments regarding this are all about), why do I have to be tolerant to lies and hypocrisy? Answer = I don't. But you're expecting and wanting me to. I know exactly how your side of the fence works, and exactly what you're trying to do. Not happening with me, bud.



So no proof, not even an attempt? Just prejudice and down talking? I don't want anything from you, and I don't owe you anything. Just sharing my thoughts civilly. You can do the same, or not. Doesn't matter.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

tthousand said:


> So no proof, not even an attempt? Just prejudice and down talking? I don't want anything from you, and I don't owe you anything. Just sharing my thoughts civilly. You can do the same, or not. Doesn't matter.



Taking a page from Tabbys book, huh? Like I said, your cheap tactics aren't going to work with me. I already gave you proof. This entire thread. That's ALL the proof you need. Are you wanting me to quote pages and pages and pages worth of comments - including those that have been removed by mods? Bad faith requests, another Tabby tactic. Clap clap. Try reading the entire thing, rather than only the parts you choose. Both sides have been bullying, condescending, and rude. Do you think the mods would be deleting posts from BOTH if only one of them have been doing the things you describe? Have you read the reasons for all of the post removals from your own side of the fence? For you to be so incredibly one sided on cold, hard facts just proves my points about you. Like I said, gtfo of here with your hypocritical bullshit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

@D34DL1N3R is correct in this instance, foul behaviour has been observed on both sides of the aisle, civil behaviour is expected of both the supporters and opponents of the current administration. At this rate, I don't know if we're all going to survive the next four years - I might get an aneurysm reading all the pointless drivel for years on end. It would be nice if we could all get along and discuss the issues instead of pointing fingers, I don't think a debate about who's the "biggest bully" in the thread is productive in any shape or form. This is not a playground for school children, the participants are (presumably) all grown adults, so "bullying" isn't high on the long list of concerns in regards to this thread. Any and all violations of community standards will be addressed as they come up.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2021)

The biden Insanity continues 
I honestly did not think the day would come where "Democrats defend teenage knife fights" would be something I would tweet but here we are— Tim Pool (@Timcast) April 21, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Apr 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Cnn has been proven to be a democratic propaganda news anything from there is meaningless and should be ignore


CNN has not been "proven to be Democratic propaganda."


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> CNN has not been "proven to be Democratic propaganda."


Yes It has lol there was a undercover video and everything and twitter is been sue too

I know you do it for free but at least try


----------



## Lacius (Apr 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Yes It has lol there was a undercover video and everything and twitter is been sue too
> 
> I know you do it for free but at least try


What are you talking about?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What are you talking about?


@Valwinz is referring to a hidden camera video published by Project Veritas in which a technical director working for CNN describes the inner workings of their news room and calls it "effectively propaganda", or something to that effect. Technical directors have no impact on content, so a pinch of salt is required here, but they can speak in regards to the overall sentiment in the news room. The video led to Project Veritas and O'Keefe himself being banned on Twitter, which is somewhat odd.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The video led to Project Veriras and O'Keefe himself being banned on Twitter, which is somewhat odd.


Probably because it was concluded to have been faked, or at least portions of it.  That's typically how Veritas conducted business.

Not that I'm defending CNN, which is largely sensationalist and often low-quality journalism.  It's just that most right-wing journalism is even worse than that, because they'll outright lie to your fucking face repeatedly.  That or stoke racism and divisiveness.  Fucker Carlson on Fox just keeps sinking lower and lower lately to try to compete with bottom of the barrel networks like OANN and NewsMax.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Probably because it was concluded to have been faked, or at least portions of it.  That's typically how Veritas conducted business.
> 
> Not that I'm defending CNN, which is largely sensationalist and often low-quality journalism.  It's just that most right-wing journalism is even worse than that, because they'll outright lie to your fucking face repeatedly.  That or stoke racism and divisiveness.  Fucker Carlson on Fox just keeps sinking lower and lower lately to try to compete with bottom of the barrel networks like OANN and NewsMax.


According to Twitter, the ban was a result of O'Keefe operating multiple accounts. He vehemently denies doing so. It had nothing to do with the content of the recordings. I won't comment on the veracity of the story, but the timing seems inconvenient here and certainly comes across as Twitter covering for CNN, as they have previously in regards to the New York Post story about Hunter Biden.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 22, 2021)

uh remind me what country I live in now?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-creating-harsher-penalties-protesters-123225066.html
out of all the fucked up laws red states are passing Oklahoma and Iowa takes the f-nig cake

*
Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets.*

*so in other words legal Chaolettsville as long as i don't kill anyone in the process i can mow people down protesting (both peaceful or not) and not get charged? this isn't gonna end well*


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> uh remind me what country I live in now?
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-creating-harsher-penalties-protesters-123225066.html
> out of all the fucked up laws red states are passing Oklahoma takes the f-nig cake
> 
> ...


I am unironically in favour of this. The street is not a safe place to protest, restricting traffic without prior authorisation and an organised traffic diversion is not acceptable. People are trying to get around town, emergency services require easy access, there's a million reasons why a mob shouldn't spontaneously take to the streets. If you want to organise a protest in the streets, it should be done with the permission of City Hall and an appropriate police escort, otherwise you're just in violation of traffic laws and you're impeding people's right to travel unimpeded.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> uh remind me what country I live in now?
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-creating-harsher-penalties-protesters-123225066.html
> out of all the fucked up laws red states are passing Oklahoma and Iowa takes the f-nig cake
> 
> ...


Florida's even worse, they declared that any group of three people misbehaving constitutes a "riot," and that it was legal to run over said "rioters."  But I guess nobody should be surprised by Florida one-upping crazy laws.  Republicans (governors and constituents) were really hoping for a not guilty verdict on at least one of the counts so they could have an excuse to assault and kill people.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am unironically in favour of this. The street is not a safe place to protest, restricting traffic without prior authorisation and an organised traffic diversion is not acceptable. People are trying to get around town, emergency services require easy access, there's a million reasons why a mob shouldn't spontaneously take to the streets. If you want to organise a protest in the streets, it should be done with the permission of City Hall and an appropriate police escort, otherwise you're just in violation of traffic laws and you're impeding people's right to travel unimpeded.


so basicly your saying you ok if peaceful protesters (not saying many are) get intentionally run over (like chasing protesters even if they get out of the way) just for shills are you ok with that? cause i bet the law is vague enough that even with intent to injure will be shielded there are plenty of racist/neo nazi's who would exploit this law to the absolute limit


----------



## tabzer (Apr 22, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Taking a page from Tabbys book, huh? Like I said, your cheap tactics aren't going to work with me. I already gave you proof. This entire thread. That's ALL the proof you need. Are you wanting me to quote pages and pages and pages worth of comments - including those that have been removed by mods? Bad faith requests, another Tabby tactic. Clap clap. Try reading the entire thing, rather than only the parts you choose. Both sides have been bullying, condescending, and rude. Do you think the mods would be deleting posts from BOTH if only one of them have been doing the things you describe? Have you read the reasons for all of the post removals from your own side of the fence? For you to be so incredibly one sided on cold, hard facts just proves my points about you. Like I said, gtfo of here with your hypocritical bullshit.





Foxi4 said:


> @D34DL1N3R is correct in this instance, foul behaviour has been observed on both sides of the aisle, civil behaviour is expected of both the supporters and opponents of the current administration. At this rate, I don't know if we're all going to survive the next four years - I might get an aneurysm reading all the pointless drivel for years on end. It would be nice if we could all get along and discuss the issues instead of pointing fingers, I don't think a debate about who's the "biggest bully" in the thread is productive in any shape or form. This is not a playground for school children, the participants are (presumably) all grown adults, so "bullying" isn't high on the long list of concerns in regards to this thread. Any and all violations of community standards will be addressed as they come up.



None of you are reading if you think I'm on someone's side.  I think you are all awful.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am unironically in favour of this. The street is not a safe place to protest, restricting traffic without prior authorisation and an organised traffic diversion is not acceptable. People are trying to get around town, emergency services require easy access, there's a million reasons why a mob shouldn't spontaneously take to the streets. If you want to organise a protest in the streets, it should be done with the permission of City Hall and an appropriate police escort, otherwise you're just in violation of traffic laws and you're impeding people's right to travel unimpeded.



I side with this. Having lived smack dab in the middle of uptown and downtown Minneapolis for 20+ years, I've experienced first hand BLM protestors blocking the streets and even the light rail track! Get off the fucking road and train tracks. It effects far too many people that have nothing to do with what they're protesting against.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I side with this. Having lived smack dab in the middle of uptown and downtown Minneapolis for 20+ years, I've experienced first hand BLM protestors blocking the streets and even the light rail track! Get off the fucking road and train tracks. It effects far too many people that have nothing to do with what they're protesting against.


Not to be pedantic, but part of any protest is protesting against apathy.  They're meant to be disruptive, to a point.  This country was founded on protest, so criminalizing it to any degree is dumb/hypocritical.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

tabzer said:


> None of you are reading if you think I'm on someone's side.  I think you are all awful.


Hell is other people.


chrisrlink said:


> so basicly your saying you ok if peaceful protesters (not saying many are) get intentionally run over (like chasing protesters even if they get out of the way) just for shills are you ok with that? cause i bet the law is vague enough that even with intent to injure will be shielded there are plenty of racist/neo nazi's who would exploit this law to the absolute limit


Intentionally? No. I believe the driver should come to a full stop and announce their presence with the horn. If the "peaceful protesters" refuse to let the vehicle pass and the driver has no other alternative to reach their destination, they should slowly move forward. This allows anyone protesting to get out of their way. If they don't get out of their way, I can't blame the driver - they've taken all the reasonable steps to safely pass through the obstruction. All I expect from the driver in that situation is to inform the crowd - "I am here, I wish to pass, I am going to do so slowly. If you do not move out of the way, you are liable to get hit". I can only see two exception from this rather sensible standard. The first would be the crowd not having any room to move - that does happen, the driver needs to give the crowd a sensible amount of time to relocate if there's very little space available. The second would be the driver getting attacked - if that's the case, pedal to the metal. At that point it's a matter of self-defense, the driver is entitled to use force to preserve their own life and well-being, and a vehicle is as good a weapon as any other. If life and limb are at risk, I'd expect the driver to leave the area where they're in danger immediately - if the escape route is blocked, that's not their fault.


----------



## notimp (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> @Valwinz is referring to a hidden camera video published by Project Veritas in which a technical director working for CNN describes the inner workings of their news room and calls it "effectively propaganda", or something to that effect. Technical directors have no impact on content, so a pinch of salt is required here, but they can speak in regards to the overall sentiment in the news room. The video led to Project Veriras and O'Keefe himself being banned on Twitter, which is somewhat odd.


Thats factually wrong - and frankly I dont know how to deal with a moderator spreading falsehoods and propaganda.

I'm not familiar with the case - but you produce the story in an off handed way, so I cant get familiar with the original sources - and from what I can dig up via Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas ) this specifically refers to one persons opinion on them handling the russia investigation.

And not to "the inner workings of their newsroom" in particular.

What you are doing is distorting peoples believes in the news ecosystem - by blowing up a story that might have shown misreporting in one case to a "you cant trust this news network anymore - on all topics" -- effectively driving people into the arms of the fraction that brought you this UNDERCOVER REPORTING, which probably has ties to russian PR efforts as well. So from your perspective, people should end up with russia affiliated blogeria - probably? Whats your path of action here?

Id mount a campaign to get you banned from posting in here as a moderator again, simply on that aspect alone - if I werent two strikes away from getting banned, while you had been very effective in the past on driving my warning counter up - whenever I confronted you in the past.

What you are doing here is not ok. You are flipping moving people away from CNN as a news source on all topics, because of how they might have handled one story in the past - based on one of their reporters, who wasnt part of their daily news beat.

Then you do so without posting sources - and flippingly using the pull the moderator badge gives you. I hate it. I hate every part of it.
--

If you do that with every major news source over the years - what do you expect young people to follow? Scandal reporting on Project Veritas exclusively?
-

HOW WOULD A RESPONSIBLE WAY OF HANDLING THIS INFORMATION LOOK LIKE?

First, there are pressures within the news ecosystem to fall in line with government positions on all things "national security related" - basically because they can be searched, pressured and so on by state agencies, if they do reporting that would conflict with national interests.

Thats acknowledged, and most newsoutlets fall within the pocket, that would self censor themselves, before getting into conflict with the state on those grounds.

From that arguably follows a 'self censorship/corporate culture' mentality that f.e. would drive stories against foreign powers you are in conflict with full force - and without 'objective distance' because its perceived as in the interest of the nation. Even down to producing sensationalism.

If that was the case here - we dont know, the other side also isnt just working by handing out lemon tea, but is driving a public perception agenda as well.

It has to be noted, that most of that impacts, how 'much you play' as story, as well as probably 'source selection' and 'the experts you ask' (- which usually would be experts within the Washington bubble and...)


It usually doesnt impact - reporting, and even more so "all reporting". So stay away from commentary - use the reporting (fact based), and you should be fine - because other pressures aside, it still has a negative impact on a newspaper if they are found reporting the facts incorrectly.

If they would start doing so - other journalism outlets could accuse them of misreporting facts - causing them serious economical harm and loss of reader and viewership.

Interpretation? (Commentary) Agenda setting (which stories are played as important), different ballgame. Most of the spin can be found there.


But if we now do what you people are trying to pull off in here and discredit all reporting of a news organisation with hundreds of reporters, following an ethos, now questioning all government statistics they report and at the same time drive people to outlets that are run by one or two flipping nutters, who are solely dependent on ad revenues, they have no idea where they are coming from --

the entire ecosystem doesnt get better, it gets worse.

So making transparent, where "reporting in the bubble" affected journalistic standards negatively - good.
Telling people "dont trust CNN anymore, one of their medical reporters said, that one of their russia stories was pushed because of alterior motives - so now all of CNN reporting bad, because Project Veritas said so (it didnt, btw)" = idiotic.

If you cant be bothered to differenciate between reporting and opinion, move people into worse news ecosystems, dont tell them how the pressures, work, but that they have to differenciate between the "good" newspapers and the "bad" ones, where the good ones are the ones always doing the scandal reporting -- and do that on a forum targeted towards younger people - as a moderator, then get the flack out of here.


Just fyi - there is a "Project Veritas" clone (? - spoken with liberties in interpretation), called bellingcat ( https://www.bellingcat.com/ ) where you can read partlysensationalistic 'exposing the truth' reporting all day. They must be the good ones then? Arguably yes - sure, but their contributers also mainly stem from the security analysts sector within the US.

see: https://www.mintpressnews.com/bellingcat-intelligence-agencies-launders-talking-points-media/276603/

And that source probably has some russian agencies behind them, who paid for that research work.

So now we arent reading bellingcat anymore? Because its propaganda?
-

Here is the simple but essential 'truth' NO ONE will work with the public interest in mind in news reporting, if it were not for bigger news outlets employing enough reporters, that they can debate on topics and look over each others shoulders. Every blogger caters to their audience and their sources as well - at least the vast majority of popular ones do - because then they get the exclusives.

And when CNN does so on a russia story - it doesnt mean, that you cant trust anything that is posted on the platform.

As a flipping result, never trust one source - there isnt such a thing as 'objective news'.

But far more importantly, never trust one guy, that hasnt got a clue about how this works, but is steering people away from trusting in CNN reporting on even mundane stuff - like a statistic, that didnt come with a story, because he read some persons opinion on an "expose the truth" platform.

Even flipping Chomsky - who wrote the theory on how media manipulation works in the west (mainly through agenda setting and giving an aura, on what opinion is ok to hold, or not -- elite bubbles journalism is part of, and ownership concentration -. which lead to proactive selfcensorship and on the flipside the 'sensationalistic article on russia' you might put more focus on because you know its in the interest of the state) still reads the reporting in the New York Times.

Its all about having enough people following an ethos of actual journalistic reporting - in one place - so they can discuss stories, you have as a counterbalance to what you are claiming is the issue here. On factual reporting, facts should usually be checked using different sources anyhow. And if they are not you can congratulate your facebook news consumption habbits, for them not being checked thoroughly, because 'whos got the story first - gets most of the ad money'. One whistleblower once in a while strengthens that concept, but cant replace it.

And yes there are economical pressures, elite bubbles, national interest concerns, that interact with all this. Which is why you read international sources - but still preferable ones where reporting is done - as supposed to "oppinion sharing".

And if you are dependent on mimicking another persons "commentary" - so you can propose, that you've understood how the world works - you havent even done the first step. Commentary usually is - where most of the spin is situated.

Reporting usually is not. And the more boring an article is to read, the more likely that its not drawn up for a purpose.


edit: "Why cant journalism just simple tell me "that truth"" - First, because there is no such thing as "the truth" without a perspective that leads to that assessment, second - because there are 3x more people doing "content production" in marketing agencies and PR firms, getting payed better to produce what they are producing. Journalism isn't immune to those forces - by having a direct line to god, to ask him whats true, and whats not -- so some influence always is implied. You get around it, by reading different perspectives and forming your own opinion, not by putting CNN on a blacklist, because it was featured negatively on Project Truth (veritas) once.

And why not get rid of all the marketing and PR thats driving that stuff? Answer are you kidding - its in the language - you use it every day - trying to influence people, you cant just outrule "spin". No even the professional spin. Again - having more than one person working together with likeminded people, following an ethic of producing content in the public interest is all you have to try to counter it. Do those people have white spots, and biases they might not even realize, or as a result of having grown up with "within the organisation" - sure. But in the end they (that concept), are still 50x better than some anonymouse source posting a tellall article somewhere on the internet. At the same time the tellall articles are important as well - but you dont get their importance without context - and there is where interpretation comes in again. Damn. No Project Truth I can read to only get the Truth news from today on... So sad.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 22, 2021)

notimp said:


> Thats factually wrong - and frankly I dont know how to deal with a moderator spreading falsehoods and propaganda.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the case - but you produce the story in an off handed way, so I cant get familiar with the original sources - and from what I can dig up via Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas ) this specifically refers to one persons opinion on them handling the russia investigation.
> 
> ...



The wall of text will take time to digest.  I'll address the first point.  How do you deal with media that perpetuates propaganda?

Seek the truth behind it?

Unfortunately too many people react to headlines.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 22, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> uh remind me what country I live in now?
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-creating-harsher-penalties-protesters-123225066.html
> out of all the fucked up laws red states are passing Oklahoma and Iowa takes the f-nig cake
> 
> ...



Simple solution. Protest all you like, but don't block public roads.

That's not to say these legislative attempts to do something about it are correct. But they wouldn't be passing these laws if so-called "peaceful protesters" had the sense not to be blocking public roadways and violently fucking with people who just want to get home, or to their job, or to the hospital.

This is stupid behavior being met by a stupid response.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

notimp said:


> *Wall of Text*


I don't know what your problem is. I'm simply describing the story @Valwinz was referring to, I'm not commenting on whether the story is true or not. You're also two warnings away from a ban because your behaviour here is appalling, and hasn't improved over time. You know this, and you've been informed about that being the case not just by myself, but by multiple members of staff, from the very bottom of the hierarchy to the tippy-top of it. I normally don't respond to you anymore because I'm not interested in having any exchanges with you that go outside of my duties on the site, but if you feel the need to post blatant misinformation, you force my hand. For the record, you may as well not reply to this correction, because I certainly won't be responding to your baseless accusations.


----------



## smf (Apr 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Simple solution. Protest all you like, but don't block public roads.



Or block them better and make sure anyone running into you has a costly insurance claim to make and have to explain why they thought it was a good idea to drive into someone.

The stupid thing about laws against protesting, is it affects both sides. Supporting bans because you hate the idea of black people protesting for rights, will have the same effect the next time the capitol gets stormed.


----------



## djpannda (Apr 22, 2021)

sorry I know its a bit off topic.. but is any one watching the Mike Lindell Frankspeech live video..
...He is diff on Crack again... and its FUCKING GREAT!!! He's mad that the Reporters debunked him and called them Chinese spies for questioning him. He's crying stating Smartmatic is Cyberdyne creating Terminators
And Now he's mad they sued him stating thats proof of the coverup!


----------



## smf (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> civil behaviour is expected of both the supporters and opponents of the current administration. At this rate, I don't know if we're all going to survive the next four years - I might get an aneurysm reading all the pointless drivel for years on end.



The previous administration set the bar, mutually assured destruction is the only way to prevent anyone from picking such a douche bag in the future. I suspect the US will have a female president soon anyway and that will start the healing, if your aneurysm can last so long.



djpannda said:


> but is any one watching the Mike Lindell Frankspeech live video..



I only saw the clips shown on kimmel, looking forward to his appearance on the show next week. It's going to be mental.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

smf said:


> The previous administration set the bar, mutually assured destruction is the only way to prevent anyone from picking such a douche bag in the future. I suspect the US will have a female president soon anyway and that will start the healing, if your aneurysm can last so long.


I will keep praying for sweet release. I can't say I agree with your point of view - the political scene in the US didn't need any healing, it needed to be up-ended. The previous administration did just that, the playbook has changed, which is a positive development as far as I'm concerned. The years of the Uniparty won't be coming back anytime soon, the two parties were reminded about the priorities of their electorate. I hope competition will keep growing, but for now the circus is still ran by dinosaurs who don't fully understand the new rules of the game.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Not to be pedantic, but part of any protest is protesting against apathy.  They're meant to be disruptive, to a point.  This country was founded on protest, so criminalizing it to any degree is dumb/hypocritical.



They can protest every bit as effectively protesting elsewhere. People need to get to their job, to the airport to fly home to their family, to the hospital for an emergency, etc, etc. I'll say it again. Stay the fuck off the roads and light rail train tracks.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> At this rate, I don't know if we're all going to survive the next four years - I might get an aneurysm reading all the pointless drivel for years on end.


In before that happens but it does not take you out and you get both a nice hospital bed with TV on news and maybe a drip feed of the forum when your family find you spent a fair bit of time here and feel like making you at home.



Foxi4 said:


> I will keep praying for sweet release. I can't say I agree with your point of view - the political scene in the US didn't need any healing, it needed to be up-ended. The previous administration did just that, the playbook has changed, which is a positive development as far as I'm concerned. The years of the Uniparty won't be coming back anytime soon, the two parties were reminded about the priorities of their electorate. I hope competition will keep growing, but for now the circus is still ran by dinosaurs who don't fully understand the new rules of the game.


The slow drawn out death of various US political parties as they refuse to change, or listen to the populace, has been somewhat amusing to watch. Would have been nice to have a proper change about 10 years ago but eh, death comes if not for everybody then enough that it will likely happen by that if nothing else before the next few years are up.

As far as competition and not uniparty. Can that mathematically exist in the US' setup? The shakeup required to make that happen and not just offer up your neck to the spoiler effect* would almost make for new country levels of change (can you really see coalition governments, runoff or something other than electoral college win-lose) and likely only happen as a result of massive centralisation (and while I usually laugh at states rights types they are not entirely without a point).
Also seeing the mess of things that is Germany, Belgium, Northern Ireland, India, Spain to some extents, maybe Italy but that is something of a different game, Canada to a few extents, arguably the UK as a whole... where coalitions are either the order of the day or something of a thing.

*give or take their recent suicide then when the libertarian party was a cohesive force was it ever a thing people voted for in proportion to the likely "all things being equal which do you like the most?" or just when it was comfortable as a "not effectively a vote against" choice in a given location?



smf said:


> I suspect the US will have a female president soon anyway and that will start the healing


Ignoring my misgivings with the term healing does having tits particularly make for some kind of political ability or abilities in this particular scenario?

Edit: Re protest laws. Do we have links to the proposed bills so we can try reading for ourselves?
If it is making for something equivalent to stand your ground laws when someone decides surrounding you to set you on fire/mace to the face/try to pull you out/smash your windows, which is what I imagined would be the laws if going by the usual action-reaction thing. If it is "fuck your Doom my childhood training simulator was Carmageddon" then that is a rather different matter.
As far as 3 man riot. I don't know if that would be a follow on from 3 man gang type rulings so I would be curious to see a breakdown of that one (not that I find the 3 man gang laws that useful).


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2021)

Biden Child Camps 
Deplorable Conditions At Biden Child Camp Leads to Immediate Shutdown https://t.co/Vrzz2fSVba— Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) April 22, 2021


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 22, 2021)

smf said:


> Or block them better and make sure anyone running into you has a costly insurance claim to make and have to explain why they thought it was a good idea to drive into someone.
> 
> The stupid thing about laws against protesting, is it affects both sides. Supporting bans because you hate the idea of black people protesting for rights, will have the same effect the next time the capitol gets stormed.




For me it's just a matter of the manner of protesting. We have a constitutional right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. In my opinion, that does not encompass the blocking of public roadways, violence against persons, vandalism, arson, and looting. All of that is criminal and not protected "speech."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> For me it's just a matter of the manner of protesting. We have a constitutional right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. In my opinion, that does not encompass the blocking of public roadways, violence against persons, vandalism, arson, and looting. All of that is criminal and not protected "speech."


You could argue that in the event of a medical emergency, a fire or a traffic accident down the road, any deaths resulting from a person being delayed are caused by the protesters, which logically makes them liable. Every individual has a right to freedom of movement - this right should not be impeded without proper cause. It is not the driver who is interrupting the protesters in their attempt to exercise their rights to free speech and assembly, it is the protesters who are interrupting the driver as they exercise their right to travel. The driver belongs on the road more so that the protesters do - they can be just as loud on the pavement.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

This nasty bitch forget who her boss was? Lmao. I can't even... Just. WOW!!! Does the hypocrisy equivalent of horrible diarrhea ever stop spewing from her mouth? Ish. She's so fucking GROSS.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> This nasty bitch forget who her boss was? Lmao. I can't even... Just. WOW!!! Does the hypocrisy equivalent of horrible diarrhea ever stop spewing from her mouth? Ish. She's so fucking GROSS.



So what your saying is is ok when Biden does it


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> So what your saying is is ok when Biden does it



I see what you did there. Sorry, doesn't work.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I see what you did there. Sorry, doesn't work.


So in simple terms to make it clear now that is Biden is ok for him to do it  ok Got it


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> So in simple terms to make it clear now that is Biden is ok for him to do it  ok Got it



I see what you did there. Sorry, doesn't work.

Also, project much?


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2021)

Finally someone say it the Biden Mob
DeSantis suggests Chauvin jury may have been "scared of what a mob" would do https://t.co/JJzSw6uS2W pic.twitter.com/N5BY2Ozswz— The Hill (@thehill) April 22, 2021


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Finally someone say it the Biden Mob
> https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1385097538370523139



Are you serious? That's seriously your follow up?  And like one of the comments over there says, "this is what Republicans say to try an excuse a police officer murdering a man handcuffed on the street."

Back to the Kayleigh thing. Did you even LISTEN to the shit she said? Did you? "The role of the POTUS is to stay back, to not inflame the tensions" and "He should reserve comment"? Does she (or you) remember who the hell her boss was? Was she (or you) passed out drunk on Jan 6th, 2021? You want to talk about "So it's okay for Biden to do it?" To do what exactly? For starters I never said anything of the sort, you did. But what exactly are you referring to? Comment on current events? Yup, it's okay for Biden to do that. Or do you mean inflaming the tensions, of which your boy is the KING of? You're failing to see the sheer hypocrisy of her statements. And I would have to say you're doing it on purpose.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 22, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Are you serious? That's seriously your follow up?  And like one of the comments over there says, "this is what Republicans say to try an excuse a police officer murdering a man handcuffed on the street."
> 
> Back to the Kayleigh thing. Did you even LISTEN to the shit she said? Did you? "The role of the POTUS is to stay back, to not inflame the tensions" and "He should reserve comment"? Does she (or you) remember who the hell her boss was? Was she (or you) passed out drunk on Jan 6th, 2021? You want to talk about "So it's okay for Biden to do it?" To do what exactly? For starters I never said anything of the sort, you did. But what exactly are you referring to? Comment on current events? Yup, it's okay for Biden to do that. Or do you mean inflaming the tensions, of which your boy is the KING of? You're failing to see the sheer hypocrisy of her statements. And I would have to say you're doing it on purpose.



So ... what you're saying is it's okay when Biden does it.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 22, 2021)

Left or Right, I doubt any of us care what Kayleigh is saying. Personally, I do not think I have ever heard her talk. I am not about to click on your video link. I do not know why you care what she says or thinks. Do you think I care about what people at CNN say? Or FOX? Because it's all just infotainment... like CNN's Charlie Chester said, the only real news these days is coming from streamer in his basement. All the mainstream crap is garbage.

You guys got your boy Biden in the there for now, so let bygones be bygones and let's start talking about the current administration and like events.



D34DL1N3R said:


> This nasty bitch forget who her boss was? Lmao. I can't even... Just. WOW!!! Does the hypocrisy equivalent of horrible diarrhea ever stop spewing from her mouth? Ish. She's so fucking GROSS.




They saw what you did there, and it didn't work.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The biden Insanity continues
> https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1384924907235127305



Here's more for you. "Democrats defend". Oh? Not this Democrat. I firmly believe the shooting of the girl was justified. She was about to stab someone else with a fucking knife. Then the mother comes on with her interview and says the typical line and I quote "She was a very loving, peaceful, little girl. She promoted peace." Did the mother not watch the video of her peaceful little girl attacking others with a knife? So next time you want to make more bullshit blanket statements about an entire group, kindly refer back to this post.


Hanafuda said:


> So ... what you're saying is it's okay when Biden does it.



Reading comprehension is key. So is not putting words in my mouth & not projecting bullshit lies that were never said. Still see what you lot are trying to do, and it still won't work. The deflection is 100% real, folks. Have anything better AND original?


----------



## smf (Apr 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> For me it's just a matter of the manner of protesting. We have a constitutional right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. In my opinion, that does not encompass the blocking of public roadways, violence against persons, vandalism, arson, and looting. All of that is criminal and not protected "speech."



The peaceful assembly obviously doesn't work as black people have been trying to stop police from killing them for years. I'd have more sympathy for you if the peaceful protest worked the first time.

But I agree looting isn't right, but then neither is taking out protesters with your car if you can find one that happens to be in the road and you think you can get away with it.

It's no better than the retarded "good guy with a gun", they are just people who want to kill others but are prepared to wait for a sanctioned event.



Foxi4 said:


> You could argue that in the event of a medical emergency, a fire or a traffic accident down the road, any deaths resulting from a person being delayed are caused by the protesters, which logically makes them liable.



You can argue what you want. It wouldn't meet mens rea and you'd be laughed out of court harder than Trump was.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2021)

Biden kids trying to defend biden here is the most fun I have and they do it for free


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

The fact that Democrat representatives are demonising a cop who literally stopped a stabbing and, very likely, saved a life is very weird to me. Even in this thread their own electorate seems to be recognising that this is a textbook swing and a miss. This story will get buried after a week, we'll only hear about it again when most viewers forget the details.

With that being said, I can see that the Chauvin trial opened the doors to attacking the police even when their actions are justified, or at least somewhat understandable. I can only hope that the guilty verdict will not embolden people to act up in the presence of officers. My worry is that the lesson learned from all this is "riot long enough and you'll get the verdict you want", which is the wrong one altogether. I have zero doubt that the pressure on the jury and the judge was immense, they were operating under the assumption that if they don't appease the crowd, the city will burn. That's a perversion of justice, and I blame the media sensationalising these kinds of stories instead of reporting the cold facts, as well as elected officials who butt in with their two cents instead of letting the wheels of justice turn based on the evidence presented.

We saw the same thing earlier with the luger kid - out of the entire tape the still image every outlet picked is the one with his hands up - nevermind the fact that less than a second ago he was still holding the gun, nevermind the fact that when he threw it, it was behind his back and the officer probably had no way of knowing that he dropped it. All he knew was that an armed suspect was raising their hands and had to act. Cops are now expected to be superheroes with X-ray vision and the uncanny ability to shoot people in their arms and/or legs while they're running with a weapon - people who have no firearms experience not only don't realise that this would be an Olympic feat, it's also extremely dangerous to bystanders. The media and elected officials should be held to a higher standard - the people deserve to be informed, and the information should be honest, cold facts.


smf said:


> You can argue what you want. It wouldn't meet mens rea and you'd be laughed out of court harder than Trump was.


Blatantly untrue. In terms of police officers and government officials, 18 U.S. Code §111 states that anyone impeding, interfering or intimidating an officer as they perform their duties is liable to be fined or imprisoned. Obstructing medical responders is also a crime in many state statutes. For instance, in Georgia it is illegal to obstruct an EMT, §16-10-24.2. A similar statute exists in Virginia - §18.2-414.1, to name two states off the top of my head. Colorado has an all-encompassing obstruction statute which includes peace officers, firefighters, EMT's and other similar personnel - §18-8-104 CRS. Obstruction of emergency responders absolutely does entail criminal liability. It's actually kind of obvious - if you prevent a responder from doing their duty, you are delaying the aid they're there to dispense when every minute counts, you're contributing to circumstances that may lead to loss of life by delaying the aid that the responder is there to provide - intentionally at that. If the protesters let the responder through, that's fair. If they purposefully interfere with the responder, they are criminally liable for doing so. It absolutely meets the standard of mens rea - the protesters have the knowledge that their activity leads to a specific consequence - a fire truck isn't there for funsies, it's there because there's a fire. The same can be said about an ambulance, or any other emergency response vehicle that's on duty and signals that they're responding to an emergency. They literally have lights and sirens on them, what do you think those signify?


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2021)

Is ok when Biden does it 
Biden played golf over the weekend, and a reporter asks "is there anything else you can tell us about how he spends his evenings and weekends? Is he reading books or listening to music? Is he was he watching movies?"— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) April 22, 2021


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 22, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> The deflection is 100% real, folks.




Your point was that it was hypocritical for McEnany to criticize Biden for sticking his nose and opinion into things where he shouldn't, when Trump did that all the time. And you're right. But you're also overlooking that now it's Biden doing it, and you don't seem to mind. Just admit that sometimes we excuse some bad political behavior on an ideological basis.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> They can protest every bit as effectively protesting elsewhere. People need to get to their job, to the airport to fly home to their family, to the hospital for an emergency, etc, etc. I'll say it again. Stay the fuck off the roads and light rail train tracks.


Obviously it's not as effective if everybody is just going about their business.  Apathy is a large part of the reason this country is still dealing with problems that should've been fixed fifty plus years ago.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 22, 2021)

smf said:


> The peaceful assembly obviously doesn't work as black people have been trying to stop police from killing them for years.



Really? You'd think if people wanted to stop police from killing them, they'd stop committing murder at 4 times the rate of their demographic representation. (13% of population, 52% of homicide offenders).


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Your point was that it was hypocritical for McEnany to criticize Biden for sticking his nose and opinion into things where he shouldn't, when Trump did that all the time. And you're right. But you're also overlooking that now it's Biden doing it, and you don't seem to mind. Just admit that sometimes we excuse some bad political behavior on an ideological basis.


I'd say there's a big difference between offering an opinion on things and attempting to sway things in your favor via barely-veiled threats and intimidation, as Trump was known for.



Hanafuda said:


> Really? You'd think if people wanted to stop police from killing them, they'd stop committing murder at 4 times the rate of their demographic representation. (13% of population, 52% of homicide offenders).


Here's a thought: what if white people are out committing crimes at roughly the same rate, but the cops only focus on arresting people that "fit a certain description?"  Basically you're just providing even more evidence of racism in policing.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Here's a thought: what if white people are out committing crimes at roughly the same rate, but the cops only focus on arresting people that "fit a certain description?"  Basically you're just providing even more evidence of racism in policing.



Nope. You can make that argument if you want to about more pedestrian offenses like weed possession or something, but I'm talking about murder.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 22, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Left or Right, I doubt any of us care what Kayleigh is saying. Personally, I do not think I have ever heard her talk. I am not about to click on your video link. I do not know why you care what she says or thinks. Do you think I care about what people at CNN say? Or FOX? Because it's all just infotainment... like CNN's Charlie Chester said, the only real news these days is coming from streamer in his basement. All the mainstream crap is garbage.
> 
> You guys got your boy Biden in the there for now, so let bygones be bygones and let's start talking about the current administration and like events.
> 
> hey saw what you did there, and it didn't work.



Except you're acting like I posted a fake news story that you're refusing to watch because, well, it's fake news. In that context your reply would be perfectly applicable. However, that's not what's going on here. 



Hanafuda said:


> Your point was that it was hypocritical for McEnany to criticize Biden for sticking his nose and opinion into things where he shouldn't, when Trump did that all the time. And you're right. But you're also overlooking that now it's Biden doing it, and you don't seem to mind. Just admit that sometimes we excuse some bad political behavior on an ideological basis.



1) That wasn't my point at all.
2) The excusing of any actions of Biden on my end is pure projection and made up fake news. Please do quote me excusing anything Biden has said or done.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Nope. You can make that argument if you want to about more pedestrian offenses like weed possession or something, but I'm talking about murder.
> 
> https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime


I can make that argument about anything, even your own source points out that this is only one study of many.  52% also refers to the number of arrests, not convictions, so again, we don't know how many of those simply "fit a certain description," and how many actually committed murder.

Now am I surprised that tensions between black communities and police are high?  No, of course not.  Even ignoring all that's been happening lately, we can look to history to see why.  The police were founded as a group of runaway slave catchers, and they participated in outright slaughter of black communities multiple times, the Tulsa race massacre being just one example.  "Protect and serve" has never been applicable to them.


----------



## tthousand (Apr 22, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Except you're acting like I posted a fake news story that you're refusing to watch because, well, it's fake news. In that context your reply would be perfectly applicable. However, that's not what's going on here.



What the hell are you talking about? I am acting like you posted a news story that you shouldn't care about, nor should anyone else. Instead of posting a stupid video no one is going to watch, why don't you actually type something that some of us might read?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Obviously it's not as effective if everybody is just going about their business.  Apathy is a large part of the reason this country is still dealing with problems that should've been fixed fifty plus years ago.


And the answer to that apathy is to commit crimes and interfere with people exercising their freedoms? Okay, you're making a pretty good argument for locking them up. What you're effectively saying is that because peaceful, legal assembly has lower efficacy, you have to resort to protest that is dangerous/obstructive/illegal in order to meet your goals. That's one step removed from terrorism.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> And the answer to that apathy is to commit crimes and interfere with people exercising their freedoms?


Sorry, but a group of protestors spilling into the streets for ten minutes or so is not a criminal act, as much as I'm sure you'd prefer otherwise.



Foxi4 said:


> What you're effectively saying is that because peaceful, legal assembly has lower efficacy, you have to resort to protest that is dangerous/obstructive/illegal in order to meet your goals. That's one step removed from terrorism.


Now we're basically equating jaywalking with terrorism.  A little too melodramatic for my tastes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Sorry, but a group of protestors spilling into the streets for ten minutes or so is not a criminal act, as much as I'm sure you'd prefer otherwise.
> 
> Now we're basically equating jaywalking with terrorism.  A little too melodramatic for my tastes.


10 minutes? Jaywalking? We must live in two very different realities. I'm old enough to remember protesters occupying entire blocks of the city in a bizarre attempt at secession - that didn't happen 200 years ago, that happened last summer. Don't be disingenuous.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm old enough to remember protesters occupying entire blocks of the city in a bizarre attempt at secession - that didn't happen 200 years ago, that happened last summer. Don't be disingenuous.


Okay, and would you have remembered that protest or what it was about if not for a bit of disruption to your normal routine?  Probably not.  Again, this country was founded on protest.  The only reason certain people want to criminalize it now is because popular opinion is no longer on their side; they don't like the causes people are choosing to protest for.  Progress is always painful, even more so for those benefiting from the status quo and stagnation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Okay, and would you have remembered that protest or what it was about if not for a bit of disruption to your normal routine?  Probably not.  Again, this country was founded on protest.  The only reason certain people want to criminalize it now is because popular opinion is no longer on their side; they don't like the causes people are choosing to protest for.  Progress is always painful, even more so for those benefiting from the status quo and stagnation.


If the states in question dispatched rocket-propelled bulldozers, as they should have, to break up those grossly illegal gatherings that disrupted their respective cities and led to an unprecedented wave of murders and rapes within the so-called "autonomous zones", I can guarantee you that I would have remembered them. It is the duty of the state to protect the citizens from criminals, the fact that the zones were allowed to exist was a dereliction of duty that should be punished next election season. You might be okay with living in Robocop-style Detroit, most people are not.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If the states in question dispatched rocket-propelled bulldozers, as they should have, to break up those grossly illegal gatherings that disrupted their respective cities and led to an unprecedented wave of murders and rapes within the so-called "autonomous zones", I can guarantee you that I would have remembered them.


Well yeah, the right-wing does so love to cheer on fascism in any form.



Foxi4 said:


> It is the duty of the state to protect the citizens from criminals


A big reason why we need the right to protest is because the state often turns criminal itself, or at least the people representing it do.  For every action, an equal and opposite reaction.  No murderous cops = no autonomous zones or calls to defund the police.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm old enough to remember protesters occupying entire blocks of the city in a bizarre attempt at secession - that didn't happen 200 years ago, that happened last summer. Don't be disingenuous.




It's still like that. And if you go there, there are different/special rules for white people.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Well yeah, the right-wing does so love to cheer on fascism in any form.


You will have to explain to me in excruciating detail how breaking up a violent mob that's taken a block of the city hostage is a display of fascism.


> A big reason why we need the right to protest is because the state often turns criminal itself, or at least the people representing it do.  For every action, an equal and opposite reaction.  No murderous cops = no autonomous zones or calls to defund the police.


Cute, but ultimately without merit. The state should not allow criminals to form city states that operate under the watchful eyes of self-proclaimed warlords. If this is your way of gaining some kind of sympathy, I'm afraid that it's a swing and a miss. In the 24 days CHAZ/CHOP existed we had at least 2 gun homicides and 4 additional shooting victims - all of the victims were black. God knows how many robberies and rapes took place, I don't think anyone was counting. Seems to me that the whole self-governance thing didn't quite work out the way they had hoped.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You will have to explain to me in excruciating detail how breaking up a violent mob that's taken a block of the city hostage is a display of fascism.


A state-backed force (presumably police or national guard) rolling through and destroying a whole city block while also killing any American occupying said block?  That's basically Tiananmen square all over again, there's no spinning that as anything but fascism.



Foxi4 said:


> Cute, but ultimately without merit.


How so?  Over a thousand murders committed by police yearly lately, and you think the autonomous zones had nothing to do with that?  Well you're just plain wrong, no two ways about it.



Foxi4 said:


> The state should not allow criminals to form city states that operate under the watchful eyes of self-proclaimed warlords.


So then make the choice an easy one, instead of making people choose between a state-sponsored warlord and a private warlord.  If police think that throwing Chauvin under the bus was enough to cover for their next hundred cold-blooded murders or so, they've got another thing coming.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> A state-backed force (presumably police or national guard) rolling through and destroying a whole city block while also killing any American occupying said block?  That's basically Tiananmen square all over again, there's no spinning that as anything but fascism.
> 
> How so?  Over a thousand murders committed by police yearly lately, and you think the autonomous zones had nothing to do with that?  Well you're just plain wrong, no two ways about it.
> 
> So then make the choice an easy one, instead of making people choose between a state-sponsored warlord and a private warlord.  If police think that throwing Chauvin under the bus was enough to cover for their next hundred cold-blooded murders or so, they've got another thing coming.


The comparison is plain ridiculous, so much so that it's almost not worth arguing about it. Tiananmen Square was cleared by the Chinese military armed with assault rifles and tanks. Removing road blockades with a bulldozer isn't equivalent in any shape or form, unless concrete lives matter now. Not only that, I figured that the "rocket-propelled" part would've tipped you off about the satirical element of the statement, but apparently not. I'll be sure to use satire tags next time. What I meant was that the protests should've been broken up quickly to restore order, I didn't *actually* suggest that the state government should hire the A-Team to combine a Tomahawk missile with a bulldozer and create the ultimate protest-breaking machine, as amusing as that would be. In terms of your deceptive statistics, areas where BLM protests took place saw a reduced number of deaths caused by the police, but that number was dwarfed by the increase in homicides:

https://www.vox.com/22360290/black-lives-matter-protest-crime-ferguson-effects-murder

300 less deaths by the hands of the police? Sounds great. Oh, *1000-6000* more deaths overall? Now it sounds counterproductive. If lives matter so much to you, perhaps you shouldn't support solutions that lead to *significantly* more deaths.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> 52% also refers to the number of arrests, not convictions


Did you once link me to an "all the people killed by police in [year]" database/collation and more or less leave it at that in one of the previous discussions?





Speaking of which some poor child merely 16 years young was in the middle of stabbing someone and got shot by the police, all whilst having more melanin than the average member of the population. Apparently we are all supposed to be upset about that now.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What I meant was that the protests should've been broken up quickly to restore order, I didn't *actually* suggest that the state government should hire the A-Team to combine a Tomahawk missile with a bulldozer and create the ultimate protest-breaking machine, as amusing as that would be.


Well I'm glad we could clear that up.  The situation called for patience and observation from a distance, which is why I'm glad state leadership doesn't call you for advice.  Any early show of aggression from police would've made the situation ten times worse.



Foxi4 said:


> 300 less deaths by the hands of the police? Sounds great. Oh, *1000-6000* more deaths overall? Now it sounds counterproductive. If lives matter so much to you, perhaps you shouldn't support solutions that lead to *significantly* more deaths.


I don't support autonomous zones, at least not the way they were structured this last go around.  Ultimately what I do or don't support is irrelevant though, my only point was that maybe cops shouldn't be pushing certain communities so deep into desperation that declaring autonomy becomes the more appealing option regardless of consequences.



FAST6191 said:


> Did you once link me to an "all the people killed by police in [year]" database/collation and more or less leave it at that in one of the previous discussions?


I figured you were smart enough to put two and two together on your own.  Sure, a small number of those shootings are justified, but even the most obvious of criminal suspects is meant to face justice by trial.  Not be gunned down by people who have deemed themselves judge, jury, and executioner.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Obviously it's not as effective if everybody is just going about their business.  Apathy is a large part of the reason this country is still dealing with problems that should've been fixed fifty plus years ago.



Just. Stop. Want to know what's obvious? That you've never personally lived through it on a regular enough basis. We're not talking about a 10 minute spill over into the street and you know it. When something has happened like. I dunno, missing the birth of your child because these ass hats want to think they own the roads and block trains, then get back to me. It has ZERO to do with apathy, whatsoever. Do you know what them protesting in this manner accomplishes? More people getting PISSED OFF at them, rather than get their message across. There's nothing you can say that will get me to accept that type of behavior. I've lived through it face to face on multiple occasions. I lived in Murderapolis for over 20 years and have seen it all.  I could look back at the thread but can you just tell me... are you okay with protesters rioting, looting, starting fires, destroying businesses, etc?



tthousand said:


> What the hell are you talking about? I am acting like you posted a news story that you shouldn't care about, nor should anyone else. Instead of posting a stupid video no one is going to watch, why don't you actually type something that some of us might read?



What the hell are YOU talking about?  I seriously have to tell you a 3rd time that it's not a news story? So why act like I was posting a news story? You make zero sense. You sure like to continue on and on about one single "stupid video", but are completely silent about the meme and Twitter post masters because they offer the same viewpoints as yourself. Extremely hypocritical. Period. Annnnnnnnnnnnnd, post something some of you might read??? That's a good one. Shoved your own foot right down your throat. Do you realize how incredibly stupid your comment sounds given the fact you had to literally read my posts in order to react and reply to them? But. Okay? If you're not reading, feel free to stop replying. I mean. Yeah.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> When something has happened like. I dunno, missing the birth of your child because these ass hats want to think they own the roads and block trains, then get back to me.


"When you've got real experience like (HYPOTHETICAL ANECDOTE) then get back to me."  Yeah okay Mr. Worldly.  



D34DL1N3R said:


> More people getting PISSED OFF at them, rather than get their message across.


Pissed off is a start, even if they aren't pissed off at the right things at first.



D34DL1N3R said:


> I lived in Murderapolis for over 20 years and have seen it all. I could look back at the thread but can you just tell me... are you okay with protesters rioting, looting, starting fires, destroying businesses, etc?


Am I okay with it?  No.  Is it a wholly expected outcome of and reaction to police killing people over twenty bucks?  Yes.  The Chauvin trial shows us that it takes almost the entire world protesting before we can expect justice to be served against just one US police officer.  That's not the fault of any individual American, but neither should the individual hold any delusions that they "deserve" to never be inconvenienced by societal unrest.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "When you've got real experience like (HYPOTHETICAL ANECDOTE) then get back to me."  Yeah okay Mr. Worldly.
> 
> 
> Pissed off is a start, even if they aren't pissed off at the right things at first.
> ...



So what exactly is wrong with using an example to show my point in the matter? I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever, incredibly common practice. Also zero idea where the worldly comment came from. It doesn't even make sense. I stated I lived in Minneapolis for over 20 years and experienced protesters preventing me (and tons of other people) from going to where they needed to be, many times over & that it's obvious that you have not. Worldly? That was just a weird comment to make. I mentioned Minneapolis, not that I was on an African safari and then buying keychains at the Tower of Pisa souvenir shop. So shrug on that one, bud.

So people being pissed off at protesters is something that is furthering the protesters cause in a positive manner? Ummmm. What?!?!?! No. It makes people think "Fuck these people and fuck their cause". Why protest in a completely counter productive way? It makes zero sense whatsoever. Sorry, but you're talking completely out of your ass when it comes to this matter.

The rest of you post is good. lol


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> So what exactly is wrong with using an example to show my point in the matter? I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever, incredibly common practice. Also zero idea where the worldly comment came from. It doesn't even make sense.


I was mocking you for using a hypothetical anecdote to question my real-world experience.  I've participated in and been held up by plenty of protests, I live in a medium-sized city myself.



D34DL1N3R said:


> So people being pissed off at protesters is something that is furthering the protesters cause in a positive manner? Ummmm. What?!?!?! No.


In a roundabout way.  It raises awareness of the issue and gets people to think about it, not until much later on in some cases.  If your mind was already made up then you aren't the target audience.


----------



## notimp (Apr 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know what your problem is. I'm simply describing the story @Valwinz was referring to, I'm not commenting on whether the story is true or not. You're also two warnings away from a ban because your behaviour here is appalling, and hasn't improved over time. You know this, and you've been informed about that being the case not just by myself, but by multiple members of staff, from the very bottom of the hierarchy to the tippy-top of it. I normally don't respond to you anymore because I'm not interested in having any exchanges with you that go outside of my duties on the site, but if you feel the need to post blatant misinformation, you force my hand. For the record, you may as well not reply to this correction, because I certainly won't be responding to your baseless accusations.


Sorry the I've just responded to underline what the other person was saying is an excuse - when you offered no clarification, no external link, just your personal opinion, from which you are now retracting from - because essentially you were pulling people in here away from using conventional news media.

And thats not even adressing the point that you misrepresented the story you where peddling to the point where you promoted a lie (over generalization, and overinterpretation that ended in "all CNN reporting isnt to be trusted").

I suggest, that if you want to move more people into the direction to not trust CNN on _anything_ anymore - you take your opinions and never return to the politics subforum ever. Take your extremists, oversimplified views, and dump them somewhere else.

Dont influence younger people in here with that crap.

If you dont know better, thats one thing - but we are clashing repeatedly, because of what you are doing in here witch borders on creating extremists, peddling lies.

Or what function does leading people away from normal news sources serve in your world.

This is the third time we clash on this, start taking personal responsibility - deflecting doesnt solve the issue here.

I dont have the option to 'just ignore' - because unlike you I actually care what kind of rolemodels are available to people in here (especially the ones - sporting a moderator tag). If its just wanting to part take in the discussion here with your personal views - shed the moderator badge use a normal user account - and we will certainly but heads less often, but that you interject yourself into discussions lending credence to "haha, CNN isnt a source you could post" flaming, by posting s*t like "all of their reporting should basically be seen as propaganda", and doing so in a moderator role - needs someone to stop you in your tracks, asking "what the frack are you doing"?


Oh, and btw - this was the source you were "promoting people to use" instead of CNN:


> *Project Veritas* is an American far-right[38] activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.[42] The group produces deceptively edited videos[24] of its undercover operations,[16] which use secret recordings[17] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.[50] Project Veritas uses entrapment[23] to generate bad publicity for its targets,[2] and has propagated disinformation[14] and conspiracy theories[57] in its videos and operations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas


So here is the gag of your operation. Create doubt in peoples minds. Move them as far away from news reporting as possible. Dont explain to them the pressures and inherent biases to be expected as part of the news ecosystem - no instead refer them to the story of a mediacal journalist on CNN talking about their news coverage on one russia related story -- then extend that characterization to their reporting in general (all of it, even the written reporting on the government releasing statistics) then lie, that that journalist stated, that "basically" all of CNNs reporting was is "creating propaganda". He didnt say that (he criticize their handling of one story). You did.

All the while moving people away from normal reporting on something as mundane as statistics, moving them into "the sensationalist uncover journalism of blogs is where its at" - not mentioning, that you are promoting the use of a far right activist outfit, that has been caught in the past peddling disinformation.

What, I shut up?

Then I explain the pressures and informal relationships of journalism with people in political circles, as well as legal pressures (national security) and journalists usually being fed exclusive stories (or "PR- leaks" as known the videogame world for no reason), if they are reporting in the interest of the entity they are reporting on -- which might lead to them reporting very uncritically on someone seen as "a national political opponent" in the case of proclaimed russian influence on domestic US politics. Added - to counteract that, you also read foreign reporting. (Basically telling people to make their news diet broader, instead of 'more narrow'.)

And your response becomes - "we warned you, and you never learn"?

Sorry?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2021)

notimp said:


> Sorry the I've just responded to underline what the other person was saying is an excuse - when you offered no clarification, no external link, just your personal opinion, from which you are now retracting from - because essentially you were pulling people in here away from using conventional news media.
> 
> And thats not even adressing the point that you misrepresented the story you where peddling to the point where you promoted a lie (over generalization, and overinterpretation that ended in "all CNN reporting isnt to be trusted").
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm not reading all that. Like I said, I won't be engaging in a debate with you. I don't know what your issue is and I'm not qualified to make that determination. I also don't know where you're getting all this nonsense about my supposed motivation and I'm not interested in it, or any suggestions you might have. @Valwinz mentioned a video, other people were unaware of it, I clarified what the contents of the video were, the end. I'm afraid that we won't be having a conversation about this because I take no pleasure in talking to you. If you're feeling lonely, you'll have to find somebody else to talk to, I've already signified that I have no interest in conversing with you whatsoever.


----------



## notimp (Apr 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, I'm not reading all that. Like I said, I won't be engaging in a debate with you. I don't know what your issue is and I'm not qualified to make that determination. I also don't know where you're getting all this nonsense about my supposed motivation and I'm not interested in it, or any suggestions you might have. @Valwinz mentioned a video, other people were unaware of it, I clarified what the contents of the video were, the end. I'm afraid that we won't be having a conversation about this because I take no pleasure in talking to you. If you're feeling lonely, you'll have to find somebody else to talk to, I've already signified that I have no interest in conversing with you whatsoever.


You moved people towards a source, that is directly financed by -- ah, read it yourself..



> Project Veritas is financed by conservative fund Donors Trust[2] (which provided over $6.6 million from 2011 to 2019)[50][60][61] and other supporters including the Donald J. Trump Foundation.[6] In 2020, _The New York Times_ published an exposé detailing Project Veritas' use of spies recruited by Erik Prince, to infiltrate "Democratic congressional campaigns, labor organizations and other groups considered hostile to the Trump agenda". The _Times_ piece notes O'Keefe's and Prince's close links to the Trump administration, and details contributions such as a $1 million transfer of funds from an undisclosed source to support their work. The findings were based in part on discovery documents in a case brought by the American Federation of Teachers, Michigan, which had been infiltrated by Project Veritas.[62]


src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

You moved children (presumable) into a space, where they should never trust CNN even on basic news reporting, like statistics the border agency releases - because of their "over critical reporting" of affiliations of the presidents campaign with known russian operatives.

Based on the opinion of a CNN medical reporter, who said, that their reporting on this topic would have been biased - out of which you and you alone constructed - YOU CANT TRUST CNN ON ANYTHING.

As a f*cking alternative for people to get their "Truth" from, you edged them towards Project Veritas, a far right activist organisation, directly sponsored by the Donald J. Trump Foundation, with links to the Trump administration. Who gets yearly financing of one million USD directly from right wing political organisations, and who are infiltrating the teachers union in their free time. To produce scandalist reporting.

Now you dont want to read what you've done here?

You dont even know what news is. You don't even have an effing notion for why an independant (mostly public, or ad financed) entity is needed in public communication. You would effing move users in here, including childred directly into the PR arms of party organizations and pressure groups who effing pay out of their slushfunds to get a certain kinds of reporting produced.

But you tell people, that CNN is propaganda and PR?

That you "don't read that" is probably the truest thing you've uttered in three postings.

You are showing more than gross neglect on part of your duties as a person holding a public function in here. The moderator most active in the gbatemp political subforum is playing an active role in leading people straight into far right news ecosystems -

and then hiding behind "what we told you to do - which essentially was never to criticise us in our decisions" to f*cking get his critics removed from the platform with power politcs.

THIS is gbatemp, and its moderators, leading children into far right extremist thoughtbubbles, for the better part of five years now.

And if people are confronting you - your reposte becomes "you have a behavioral issue - better ban you now, because warning you on that attitude, didnt take...".

Dont you ever try to pull stuff like that off again - that you have not the slightest concern about you actions on young people, has been undoubtedly expressed by now - but if you are then moving into a personal slugfest, abusing moderator priveledges with people that confront you on your actions touting the chance of banning someone for doing so - as your primary defense in front of you -- you have lost all respect from me on the human level. Forget politcal opinion.

This is not the first time you try to pull this, this is the third time - and I have all the warning points to prove it, personally administered by you.

So emotionally speaking - leave, and dont you dare ever trying to move more young people into far right, privately financed, politically motivated misinformation again.

Take an effing clue.


edit: And for everyone else in here -

If an organization is called "Project Truth", and almost exclusively financed by political precursor organisations in the the background - run. This is not democracy. This is not journalism.

This is producing thought opposition, activism, scorched earth ("never trust CNN") - leading people away from actual reporting and into PR operations, full force. Thats not normal. Thats not healthy for a democracy.

To promote that is not a normal stance to take for any adult in any western democratic system. So get over your 'its so edgy, and the people doing it are promoting such a manly aura of power' and get a grips on that it is only there for a reason, and that someone is paying for it. And it isnt you. Its political organizations in the far right spectrum.

And then try to understand that those are the people trying to undermine you trusting 'conventional' journalism.

(Put a moderator tag on them - put them in control of a forum targeting minors and the videogames they like? Perfect?

Political recruitment for a next generation paid for. No - literally payed for. Oh, Project Truth has such a broad reach...)


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2021)

I'm here @notimp, why don't you respond to me?




notimp said:


> over critical reporting



I asked a question about how you deal with news media reporting propaganda.  




 

 
-And that was after body cam footage was released showing the cop stopping the girl from stabbing someone.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2021)

notimp said:


> You moved people towards a source, that is directly financed by -- ah, read it yourself..
> 
> 
> src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
> ...


I didn't tell anyone to do anything. Since I don't feel inclined to deal with you, I've reported your post to inform senior staff that you're spilling spaghetti over the pol section again, they can decide what to do with this reply chain, your persecution complex and your wild imagination. I'm afraid that you're in no position to dictate who gets to use the subforum and who has to leave - I'm entitled to participate in any discussion I want, your backseat modding is not needed. You're the one who mentioned that you're 2 warns away from getting banned, not me.


----------



## barronwaffles (Apr 23, 2021)

If it's not begging people to watch Noam Chomsky's animated corpse it's pearl clutching over the propaganda arm of the US empire.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2021)

I personally like Noam Chomsky.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I personally like Noam Chomsky.


He's a fantastic (a genius, in fact) linguist, but not my favourite political commentator. His ideas on how a society should function are a little bit out of left field. I misspoke, they're so far off the field they're half-way to the Moon - anarcho-syndicalism is a great Monty Python sketch, but that's about it.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2021)

Idealism and practice are realities apart.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

My favorite old (dead person) is Alan Watts probably.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> In a roundabout way.  It raises awareness of the issue and gets people to think about it, not until much later on in some cases.  If your mind was already made up then you aren't the target audience.



Except that at one point my mind was made up on your side of the fence on this. Their actions changed my mind (and that of a significant amount of others). Great job. Lol. I'm personally likely to take notice & interest in actual peaceful protests to see what their cause for protesting is. Intentionally blocking roadways and train tracks is not peaceful. It's intentionally causing and looking for trouble.

You writing things off as 10 minute spillovers into the street tells me you've never actually experienced anything on a greater level, and most likely on an even smaller than 10 minute level.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 23, 2021)

according to BLM that some here love so much, Biden is worst than Trump
Biden is currently sending more military equipment to our neighborhoods than Trump did. You read that right. Our communities are being terrorized at a greater rate than they had been under Trump.— Black Lives Matter (@Blklivesmatter) April 20, 2021


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Sure, a small number of those shootings are justified, but even the most obvious of criminal suspects is meant to face justice by trial.  Not be gunned down by people who have deemed themselves judge, jury, and executioner.



Is that a common problem is it?
I quite often follow such things. For the most part I would say it is the inversion of yours in that only a small number are unjustified, and that usually followed by sanctions. Plenty to talk about as far as tactics (too much of what I see would get you flunked out of basic training in most serious militaries, never mind proper door kickers) usually but as far as those being gunned down I rarely see Judge Dread characters doing that as much as those posing a serious immediate threat to the officer and/or others being given usually a few chances to pack it in (more than I might have were I in the situation) and then dropped.
There is much to talk about as far as US justice (civil asset forfeiture, the whole culture of fines, the things where they yank driving licenses for reasons other than driving offences or medical reasons) but police playing cowboys and indians is not really one of them.


----------



## smf (Apr 23, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Really? You'd think if people wanted to stop police from killing them, they'd stop committing murder at 4 times the rate of their demographic representation. (13% of population, 52% of homicide offenders).



That is a racist way of thinking.

Just because a black person murders someone, doesn't mean it's ok for the police to murder someone else who happens to be black.

But you obviously think it does. Looking up the stats means you put a lot of effort into your racism, you must get a lot of enjoyment out of it.


----------



## TroubledPickle (Apr 23, 2021)

jesus this thread is bad



smf said:


> That is a racist way of thinking.
> 
> Just because a black person murders someone, doesn't mean it's ok for the police to murder someone else who happens to be black.
> 
> But you obviously think it does. Looking up the stats means you put a lot of effort into your racism, you must get a lot of enjoyment out of it.



i think the word racist is thrown around too much. you can say something racist or offensive of whatever but it doesn't immediately make you a shit person. i doubt that @Hanafuda believes in the inferiority of people of color but makes a strange point, that the crimes of a certain race makes everyone in it guilty. that's a racist point but i think that resect is a term "racist" for people is pretty strong, and that should be kept for nazis and klan members. 

also, the contrast of mood on this website is insane. we go from happy blog posts about our dogs and consoles to this thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2021)

ntcc45 said:


> also, the contrast of mood on this website is insane. we go from happy blog posts about our dogs and consoles to this thread.


Welcome to the Thunderdome, scrub - I hope you're wearing two condoms because around here you need all the protection you can get.


----------



## djpannda (Apr 23, 2021)

ntcc45 said:


> term "racist" for people is pretty strong, and that should be kept for nazis and klan members


thats like saying
" You should not seek treatment for a kid with sociopathic tendencies until he goings on a killing spree"
Sorry but I for one will not wait till they  pop up with white sheets and gasoline before I call them a DUCK..


----------



## smf (Apr 23, 2021)

ntcc45 said:


> i think the word racist is thrown around too much. you can say something racist or offensive of whatever but it doesn't immediately make you a shit person.



Sure, I specifically said it was a racist way of thinking and it absolutely is. Not saying it because I don't want to hurt someone's feelings because they don't want to be accused of racist thinking is dumb. Because it's asking for political correctness when he has no willingness to display political correctness himself.



ntcc45 said:


> i doubt that @Hanafuda believes in the inferiority of people of color but makes a strange point, that the crimes of a certain race makes everyone in it guilty. that's a racist point but i think that resect is a term "racist" for people is pretty strong, and that should be kept for nazis and klan members.



Except he is making the point that they are inferior and brings statistics along with it. Nazi's and klan members also think like that.

Racists are also the ones who don't realize why black people murder more. If white people were treated like black people are, then white people would behave in the same way. So you have people who not only support keeping their feet firmly pressed on the heads of black people to keep them down, but then punish them for it. Those people are 100% racists, they just can't handle the truth.

White supremacists are completely wrong, if we're going to get rid of anyone then it should be them.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Except that at one point my mind was made up on your side of the fence on this. Their actions changed my mind (and that of a significant amount of others). Great job. Lol.


That's awfully shallow and fickle of you, but it's no skin off my back.  Still shouldn't be legal under almost any circumstances to run over a protestor.  That's both a violation of our first amendment rights, and a good way to normalize the use of vehicles as weapons.



FAST6191 said:


> Is that a common problem is it?


If they're killing people over twenty bucks in the modern day, in front of a crowd no less, it's not hard to imagine the kinds of murders they got away with pre-bodycam technology and with no one watching.  Dave Chappelle's "sprinkle some crack on the bodies and let's get out of here" sketch comes to mind.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's awfully shallow and fickle of you, but it's no skin off my back.  Still shouldn't be legal under almost any circumstances to run over a protestor.  That's both a violation of our first amendment rights, and a good way to normalize the use of vehicles as weapons.


Shallow and fickle in what way? IIRC, he lives (lived?) in Minneapolis. BLM shenanigans are not something he sees on the news, it's something he sees outside of his windows. The riots *directly* affect him - if anything would change one's mind, it'd be that.


> If they're killing people over twenty bucks in the modern day, in front of a crowd no less, it's not hard to imagine the kinds of murders they got away with pre-bodycam technology and with no one watching.  Dave Chappelle's "sprinkle some crack on the bodies and let's get out of here" sketch comes to mind.


Aren't you misrepresenting the arrest here? Floyd didn't "die over $20", he was restrained because he was resisting arrest and acting irrationally. Tragic either way, the guy was killed in the end, but to pretend that Chauvin rolled up to the store and executed him because he paid with a fake bill is lying through omission. Not that it matters now, the verdict is what the verdict is, but facts still matter.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Shallow and fickle in what way? IIRC, he lives (lived?) in Minneapolis. BLM shenanigans are not something he sees on the news, it's something he sees outside of his windows. The riots *directly* affect him - if anything would change one's mind, it'd be that.


I won't speculate on his motivations, but from the outside looking in it's kind of a hipster move.  "Oh look, all these people are out fighting for the same ideals I hold, time to switch sides so I can be in the minority again and whine about how this inconveniences me personally."



Foxi4 said:


> Aren't you misrepresenting the arrest here? Floyd didn't "die over $20", he was restrained because he was resisting arrest and acting irrationally.


Not at all, the man was cuffed and seated in the back of a police vehicle.  They made the conscious decision to not close the door and instead pull him out of the vehicle.  Then they made the conscious decision to put him on the ground behind the exhaust pipe and allow Chauvin to kill him.  "Acting irrationally" is not a crime worthy of the death penalty any more than using a fake twenty dollar bill is.


----------



## smf (Apr 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "Acting irrationally" is not a crime worthy of the death penalty any more than using a fake twenty dollar bill is.



But he was black and all people die in the end anyway, right?

We can imagine he had some health conditions too, to deflect any arguments in court. Whoops, looks like that doesn't work, but we can always try again at appeal (although appealing is like resisting, hypocrisy right there).

If you don't think black lives matter when police are killing black people, then you probably won't think black lives matter when it slightly inconveniences your more privileged life.

You know whats inconvenient? Having a police man put his knee on your neck and refuse to let anyone treat you medically, even after you have died. Where was a good man with a gun when you needed it?

Instead of allowing you to murder protesters maybe they should remove the risk of prosecution if you kill a police man who is kneeling on someones neck.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2021)

smf said:


> But he was black and all people die in the end anyway, right?
> 
> We can imagine he had some health conditions too, to deflect any arguments in court (whoops, looks like that doesn't work, but we can always try again at appeal).
> 
> ...


That's a nice projection, but this has nothing to do with race. If I was being arrested and I was acting in the same manner as George Floyd did, I would fully expect to be subdued by force by the officer arresting me. Floyd's death is unfortunate, it shouldn't have happened, but it is the nature of half-truths that they're also half-lies. Floyd was subdued because of the manner in which he was behaving - erratic and suspicious. We all saw the same tapes, he was resisting arrest, which is why the arrest turned foul. By no means an excuse for killing the guy, but it's a relevant fact that shouldn't be omitted when discussing the issue.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2021)

djpannda said:


> thats like saying
> " You should not seek treatment for a kid with sociopathic tendencies until he goings on a killing spree"
> Sorry but I for one will not wait till they  pop up with white sheets and gasoline before I call them a DUCK..



Calling people "racist" is not a kind of treatment unless you are looking to abuse or accost a "potential" abuser.

It appears that black lives matter is a scam.

It also appears to be kind of ironic in light of Hanafuda's statistic.

Also seems that you are still being a thug.




smf said:


> appealing is like resisting, hypocrisy right there



Lol, no.  That's not smart.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> That is a racist way of thinking.
> 
> Just because a black person murders someone, doesn't mean it's ok for the police to murder someone else who happens to be black.
> 
> But you obviously think it does. Looking up the stats means you put a lot of effort into your racism, you must get a lot of enjoyment out of it.



I think this is called putting words in someone else's mouth. I said no such thing as what you posted there.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I think this is called putting words in someone else's mouth. I said no such thing as what you posted there.



So your argument isn't

'because more black men kill people than white men kill people, then white police should be able to kill black men & until the black men lower their rate to the same as white men then all black men deserve to be murdered by police'

Because it really sounded like it is your argument. Can you explain your thought process behind it...

_Really? You'd think if people wanted to stop police from killing them, they'd stop committing murder at 4 times the rate of their demographic representation. (13% of population, 52% of homicide offenders).
_
As far as I know George Floyd never murdered anyone, it certainly hasn't come up on any of the news reports. Your argument appears to be that if he didn't want to be murdered then other black people should stop committing murder, thereby punishing him for his race and not his own actions.

You know who punish people for their race? racists....

How many of the 41.99 million black people in the US are murderers? Should they all be treated like murderers? Or should they have the same rights as any other US citizen, no matter what race?


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> So your argument isn't



Nope. Not what I said, and you're full of shit.




> "As far as I know, George Floyd never murdered anyone"



He came close though.
https://i.imgur.com/rIQlB81.jpg




> "How many of the 41.99 million black people in the US are murderers?"



7 times as many per capita than whites.




smf said:


> Racists are also the ones who don't realize why black people murder more. If white people were treated like black people are, then white people would behave in the same way.



This is some rickidiculous shit right here. We're not talking about drug use, or petty theft, skipping out on child support. This is about MURDERING OTHER PEOPLE. It's indefensible. It's unjustifiable. It has nothing to do with racism (most victims of murder are the same race as the perpetrator). It's fucking MURDER, and you're trying to excuse it. Fuck off. We're done here.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 24, 2021)

the lesson


smf said:


> As far as I know George Floyd never murdered anyone,


No he likes to steal and point guns at women he was a good boy


----------



## SG854 (Apr 24, 2021)

Snip


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "Acting irrationally" is not a crime worthy of the death penalty any more than using a fake twenty dollar bill is.


Apparently with protesting, that's now the case. Why stop there? Anyone that's being an inconvenient or irrational towards anyone deserves to be hit with a vehicle.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Apparently with protesting, that's now the case. Why stop there? Anyone that's being a inconvenient or irrational towards anyone deserves to be hit with a vehicle.


I predict these laws will last right up until the moment a Republican gets hit during one of their little klan rallies, though perhaps they'll be a bit more apprehensive about staging those without the orange one in office.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Nope. Not what I said, and you're full of shit.



Actually it is exactly what you said.

_Really? You'd think if people wanted to stop police from killing them, they'd stop committing murder at 4 times the rate of their demographic representation. (13% of population, 52% of homicide offenders)._

By people you mean any black people obviously, because none of them want to be killed by the police.

By "they'd" you mean all black people, as by using statistics of the entire black population you've lumped them all together.

Your objection is that the rate is 4 times higher than murders by white people.

So if any black people want to stop police from murdering them, then all black people need to reduce their murdering to acceptable white levels.

"You'd think if" means that once they achieve the same level as whites then it would be acceptable for black people to request not being killed by the police.



Hanafuda said:


> This is some rickidiculous shit right here. We're not talking about drug use, or petty theft, skipping out on child support. This is about MURDERING OTHER PEOPLE. It's indefensible. It's unjustifiable. It has nothing to do with racism (most victims of murder are the same race as the perpetrator). It's fucking MURDER, and you're trying to excuse it. Fuck off. We're done here.



Exactly it's unjustifiable for police to keep murdering black people and yet you're trying to excuse it.

I am not excusing anything, I am saying you should treat black and white murderers the same and black and white non murderers the same.

I asked for an alternate explanation and you refused, you side stepped answering the direct question whether all black people deserved to be treated as murderers and just gave this veiled racist view point.

_7 times as many per capita than whites._

I gave you a very good chance, you have refused to give any non racist view of why you should treat anyone any differently just because they are black.

I guess it must be quite traumatic to be pointed out that your racist views are racist.

But don't blame me.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

DC statehood passed the House.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Actually it is exactly what you said.
> 
> _Really? You'd think if people wanted to stop police from killing them, they'd stop committing murder at 4 times the rate of their demographic representation. (13% of population, 52% of homicide offenders)._
> 
> ...



Not believing in the authenticity or sincerity of a message is not the same as rationalizing murder.  You want to talk about "black people", and then you are going to call someone racist by sharing statistics on said "black people".

Considering what we actually know about the movement and its organizers, it seems like black lives don't actually matter to them.  It's a scam, like Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> DC statehood passed the House.


It's not going to pass the Senate, so who cares. The only scenario in which this vote farming strategy succeeds is if the Democrats change the rules yet again. Is it stands, it's nothing more than a "look, we're totally doing things" waste of time.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Not believing in the authenticity or sincerity of a message is not the same as rationalizing murder.



What does that mean? His view is that he is surprised that black people want to stop being murdered, because of all the murdering black people do. He seems to be perfectly happy with the police murdering black people.



tabzer said:


> You want to talk about "black people", and then you are going to call someone racist by sharing statistics on said "black people".



No, I'm calling out someone using statistics for racist reasons. It's kinda hard to discuss that use, without referring to black people.



tabzer said:


> Considering what we actually know about the movement and its organizers, it seems like black lives don't actually matter to them.  It's a scam, like Bernie Sanders.



The BLM movement and "black people who don't want to be murdered" are two entirely different things.

You shouldn't judge all black people for anything that any individual or organisation does, you're thinking in racist terms too now.

You seem unable to comprehend that both black lives matter, but also black people can still kill black people. White people murder other white people, are you saying that white lives don't matter?


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not going to pass the Senate, so who cares. The only scenario in which this vote farming strategy succeeds is if the Democrats change the rules yet again. Is it stands, it's nothing more than a "look, we're totally doing things" waste of time.


Well, people seem to care enough to make nonsensical arguments and comments against it.  

There are arguments that since statehood is under "article 4", it can't be filibustered even with current rules.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Well, people seem to care enough to make nonsensical arguments and comments against it.
> 
> There are arguments that since statehood is under "article 4", it can't be filibustered even with current rules.


People care about it because it's a cynical power grab sold under the guise of fighting for civil rights.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> You shouldn't judge all black people for anything that any individual or organisation does, you're thinking in racist terms too now.



I didn't do that and you should be smart enough to know better.



smf said:


> His view is that he is surprised that black people want to stop being murdered, because of all the murdering black people do. He seems to be perfectly happy with the police murdering black people.



That is an obvious mischaracterization.  The fact is that there are bigger issues than just the police if "black lives matter".



smf said:


> The BLM movement and "black people who don't want to be murdered" are two entirely different things.



The BLM "movement" is centralized and capitalized on by pseudo-marxists who are preying on the ignorance of supposedly well intentioned people.  That's why I say it's a scam.  I did not speak on behalf of "black people".  For a movement brand that wants to encourage the health of "its own" demographic, it's disingenuous to ignore troubling statistics that exposes large issues affecting said demographic, and it's even worse to call the statistics racist. 



smf said:


> You seem unable to comprehend that both black lives matter, but also black people can still kill black people. White people murder other white people, are you saying that white lives don't matter?



Maybe you should stop assuming everyone who has an opposing point of view from yours is a racist.  If white people murdered white people at alarming rates and wanted to stick it to the police, I would also see that as a strong argument supporting more law enforcement.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I didn't do that and you should be smart enough to know better.



You did do that, by bringing the irrelevant BLM organisation into the discussion.

You obviously don't know better.



tabzer said:


> That is an obvious mischaracterization.  The fact is that there are bigger issues than just the police if "black lives matter".



We're not talking about any bigger issues. We're talking about whether it's reasonable for black people to want police to stop killing them or not, he says it's unreasonable.

_Really? You'd think if people wanted to stop police from killing them, they'd stop committing murder at 4 times the rate of their demographic representation. (13% of population, 52% of homicide offenders)._



tabzer said:


> The BLM "movement" is centralized and capitalized on by pseudo-marxists who are preying on the ignorance of supposedly well intentioned people.  That's why I say it's a scam.  I did not speak on behalf of "black people".  For a movement brand that wants to encourage the health of "its own" demographic, it's disingenuous to ignore troubling statistics that exposes large issues affecting said demographic, and it's even worse to call the statistics racist.



Right, you're trying to derail the conversation with irrelevant talk about the BLM movement. What has that got to do with whether it's reasonable or not for the police to kill black people?



tabzer said:


> Maybe you should stop assuming everyone who has an opposing point of view from yours is a racist.



Maybe you should stop assuming that everyone who accuses you of racist thinking is wrong. I don't call everyone with an opposing view a racist, only when you are being racist.



tabzer said:


> If white people murdered white people at alarming rates and wanted to stick it to the police, I would also see that as a strong argument supporting more law enforcement.



What do you mean "stick it to the police"? I'm talking about if white people started murdering more white people then should the police be allowed to murder random white people who act funny or allegedly use a fake note? As his argument was it's fine for the police to murder random black people

You are very disingenuous with your reply & you know it. All this acrobats to pretend you are not advocating racist view points is hilarious.

For avoidance of doubt, this statement is 100% racist.

_Really? You'd think if people wanted to stop police from killing them, they'd stop committing murder at 4 times the rate of their demographic representation. (13% of population, 52% of homicide offenders)._

If you support it then you are supporting a racist statement, it is saying that you can punish all black people due to the crimes of a minority of black people.

Maybe I'm giving you too much credit to be able to understand why it's racist, I guess you have to be pretty dumb to be racist in the first place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

I don't know why people are so opposed to the idea that the organisation's finances are highly suspect when one of the founders openly admits on tape that buying real estate for her family is her idea of enriching the black community. I quote:


> "I think that is a critique that is wanting, and I say that because the way that I live my life is in direct support to Black people, including my Black family members, first and foremost (...) For so many Black folks who are able to invest in themselves and their community, *they choose to invest in their family, and that's what I have chosen to do*."


Over the course of the last few years Patrisse Cullors purchased two smaller properties in LA, a 3.2 acre property in Georgia and recently a $1.4m compound in LA. Her current housing portfolio is worth in excess of $3m, and presumably it will keep growing. There's internal conflict over this within the organisation itself, the head of the NYC chapter has already called for a financial probe into BLM's finances. BLM members themselves want the organisation audited. It is *entirely* possible that this money came from speaking fees and other assorted income as opposed to the donations, but regardless, it appears that founding the organisation turned out to be a highly lucrative business for her. Good on her, I love capitalism myself, but at least be aware of what's going on.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> You did do that, by bringing the irrelevant BLM organisation into the discussion.
> 
> You obviously don't know better.
> 
> ...



Enjoy living in twilight zone.  You aren't even talking to me.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 24, 2021)

DC statehood is a powergrab by the dems hopefully it will go nowere


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> DC statehood is a powergrab by the dems hopefully it will go nowere


DC already has two electoral votes as per the 23rd Amendment and has representation in Congress via the DC delegate. Democrats just want to generate additional senators out of thin air. If they truly wanted the voters to be represented in Congress, they could return the land to the adjecent states at any time - that's not what they want though, they want to create a new state on borrowed land.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Enjoy living in twilight zone.  You aren't even talking to me.



I am, you're just so detached from reality of what was being discussed and what your thinking means, that you incorrectly believe I'm wrong.

Your life must suck.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't know why people are so opposed to the idea that the organisation's finances are highly suspect when one of the founders openly admits on tape that buying real estate for her family is her idea of enriching the black community. I quote:
> 
> Over the course of the last few years Patrisse Cullors purchased two smaller properties in LA, a 3.2 acre property in Georgia and recently a $1.4m compound in LA. Her current housing portfolio is worth in excess of $3m, and presumably it will keep growing. There's internal conflict over this within the organisation itself, the head of the NYC chapter has already called for a financial probe into BLM's finances. BLM members themselves want the organisation audited. It is *entirely* possible that this money came from speaking fees and other assorted income as opposed to the donations, but regardless, it appears that founding the organisation turned out to be a highly lucrative business for her. Good on her, I love capitalism myself, but at least be aware of what's going on.



I'm not opposed to the possibility that they could be suspect, black people and white people can both equally em-bezel money, however nothing that was said in that quote is actual evidence of anything suspect. I don't get why you think it's a huge revelation that someone would buy property for their family.

Do you also think it's suspect when it's white people who don't want to talk about their personal finances, like Trump constantly avoiding releasing his tax returns.

Of course BLM should be auditing their own stuff already.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Your life must suck.



We aren't having race wars in Japan, so it must be at least a little better than yours.

If everything you said didn't hinge on a strawman, I'd suggest you have no purpose.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If everything you said didn't hinge on a strawman,



Oh you learnt a new word that you think wins an argument. Good for you.

Now maybe someone will teach you what it actually means.



tabzer said:


> We aren't having race wars in Japan



Yeah right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Japan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53428863

What you mean is you like the way racism has managed to keep the non japanese down.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Oh you learnt a new word that you think wins an argument. Good for you.
> 
> Now maybe someone will teach you what it actually means.



Your life matters.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> What you mean is you like the way racism has managed to keep the non japanese down.



Disgruntled minorities who are frustrated in adapting =/=.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> I'm not opposed to the possibility that they could be suspect, black people and white people can both equally em-bezel money, however nothing that was said in that quote is actual evidence of anything suspect. I don't get why you think it's a huge revelation that someone would buy property for their family.
> 
> Do you also think it's suspect when it's white people who don't want to talk about their personal finances, like Trump constantly avoiding releasing his tax returns.
> 
> Of course BLM should be auditing their own stuff already.


I'd say buying multiple properties worth millions of dollars in such a short span of time after founding a charity is somewhat suspect, but then again, I'm good at identifying scams.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'd say buying multiple properties worth millions of dollars in such a short span of time after founding a charity is somewhat suspect,



That in itself isn't suspicious, you would have to know that they didn't have the money before they started the charity & that they didn't just have huge mortgages. You've skipped a lot of detail there.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrisse-cullors-topanga-house/



Foxi4 said:


> , but then again, I'm good at identifying scams.



I don't have enough evidence to validate that claim of yours & well it seems kinda suspect.

Can you name any white people you've been suspicious of? So I can see how well you do?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Disgruntled minorities who are frustrated in adapting =/=.



Do you understand how bad that sounds?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> That in itself isn't suspicious, you would have to know that they didn't have the money before they started the charity & that they didn't just have huge mortgages. You've skipped a lot of detail there.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrisse-cullors-topanga-house/
> 
> ...


I don't think I did - I posted the broad strokes. The article you linked says exactly what I said - that an allegation exists, but remains unproven. I also don't need validation from strangers, so we'll skip the part where I post a comprehensive list of my scam busting exploits, you can take my word for it or not, it's irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The article you linked says exactly what I said - that an allegation exists, but remains unproven.



It's not exactly as you said, the properties weren't worth "millions of dollars" when they were bought and so far the explanation seems reasonable and the person making the allegation has failed to back up their claim and it seems purposefully vague

_It said the home was sold “to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled” by Cullors, but didn’t name the corporation._

Seems they would only do that to give the impression to those who are just aching to think badly of her judge that the corporation was BLM.

_The Post story published on April 10 also reported Cullors went on a “million dollar real estate buying binge” and claimed she spent $3.2 million “snagging four high-end homes.”

When you read past the headline and leading language, the Post story really describes two modest home purchases, one in South Los Angeles (formerly known as South Central) and the other in Inglewood. Both homes are in working class communities and were purchased for $590,000 and $510,000 respectively. Like most homes in Los Angeles, they have appreciated in value since their most recent purchase date._

Any suspicion seems better aimed at the person making the misleading allegations and those who believe them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-million-dollar-house-fox-news-b1831612.html

_The truth is that we’ve been conditioned to believe advocates for equality and equity should, or do, have limited funds. But really, the whole attitude is upside-down. After all, isn’t equity about everybody having access to the same opportunities, each according to their need? Equity isn’t about people struggling together — it’s about thriving, and knowing that the only way we can all do that is by working together. Social justice movements like the one championed by Cullors work towards the understanding that we’re all important and should all be valued. That Black Lives Matter, too._

You know where I'm going with this.



Foxi4 said:


> I also don't need validation from strangers, so we'll skip the part where I post a comprehensive list of my scam busting exploits, you can take my word for it or not, it's irrelevant to the conversation.



In light of your post, I absolutely do not believe your claim and cannot take your word for it. I don't know why you bothered saying it if it's irrelevant, I guess you thought it was some kind of winning move.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> DC statehood is a powergrab by the dems hopefully it will go nowere


I am also going to add that it's a slap in the face of Puerto Rico and other areas like Jefferson, which have been trying to become a state and kept getting shot down. But when DC becomes beneficial to become a state, suddenly our government is quick to start pushing to make it a state.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> It's not exactly as you said, the properties weren't worth "millions of dollars" when they were bought and so far the explanation seems reasonable and the person making the allegation has failed to back up their claim and it seems purposefully vague
> 
> _It said the home was sold “to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled” by Cullors, but didn’t name the corporation._
> 
> ...


No, I don't know what you're saying. Let's do a little math here before we get lost in the weeds.

$590k + $510k + $1.4m = $2.5m

Presumably the land in Georgia wasn't free, but let's assume it was for a minute because we're generous and we don't know the value of that fourth property at the time of purchase. We'll just *say* it was free to throw you an enormous bone, even though it obviously wasn't. Those are the three known values she purchased three properties for, we're not taking any appreciation into account, it's money paid. Is that, or is that not, a multi-million dollar property purchasing binge? I'm not having this conversation if we can't agree on simple facts.

I also don't particularly care what you think about my second statement - your opinion is what's irrelevant here, and immaterial in regards to the numbers discussed. As I said, I'm not looking for affirmation from strangers on the Internet. I don't need any special "winning move", the fact that she conjured up capital well in excess of 2 million dollars on what appears to be a whim *is* suspect. It's suspect to fellow BLM members as well, suspect enough to warrant an internal financial probe, it seems. If you want to accuse the black NYC head of BLM of racism against her fellow black BLM member, you go on ahead.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 24, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am also going to add that it's a slap in the face of Puerto Rico and other areas like Jefferson, which have been trying to come to a state and kept getting shot down. But when DC becomes beneficial to become a state, suddenly our government is quick to start pushing to make it a state.


Pretty much agreed fully with this as a Puertorican. Puertorico would give neither party any sure political power


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am also going to add that it's a slap in the face of Puerto Rico and other areas like Jefferson, which have been trying to come to a state and kept getting shot down. But when DC becomes beneficial to become a state, suddenly our government is quick to start pushing to make it a state.


Puerto Rico deserves statehood way more than DC does, even if you ignore the legal and constitutional concerns around DC statehood. It's long overdue.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Puerto Rico deserves statehood way more than DC does, even if you ignore the legal and constitutional concerns around DC statehood. It's long overdue.


I completely agree and it's actually upsetting to see how quick the government is being with moving DC to statehood while ignoring Puerto Rico.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I completely agree and it's actually upsetting to see how quick the government is being with moving DC to statehood while ignoring Puerto Rico.


It's moving quickly for a reason - it's free seats in Congress. Puerto Rico is a coin toss. Everybody with at least two brain cells that occasionally flare up understands that this has nothing to do with the citizens of DC.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's moving quickly for a reason - it's free seats in Congress. Puerto Rico is a coin toss. Everybody with at least two brain cells that occasionally flare up understands that this has nothing to do with the citizens of DC.


I mean, nothing to do with them other than the fact that they pay taxes but don't receive representation.  Even if DC was a bastion of conservatism I'd say that's a problem in need of correcting.  Puerto Rico has a high likelihood of voting Democrat as well, but still I'm guessing there's more opposition to its statehood from members of both parties.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I mean, nothing to do with them other than the fact that they pay taxes but don't receive representation.  Even if DC was a bastion of conservatism I'd say that's a problem in need of correcting.  Puerto Rico has a high likelihood of voting Democrat as well, but still I'm guessing there's more opposition to its statehood from members of both parties.


Return the land to Maryland then, problem solved. That's not what's being proposed though because it nets less seats. If you think it's not a cynical move, that's cool.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Return the land to Maryland then, problem solved. That's not what's being proposed though because it nets less seats. If you think it's not a cynical move, that's cool.


I have no problem with that suggestion, though Maryland would need an extra seat or two in the House to make up for the sudden jump in population.  Basically the same outcome.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I have no problem with that suggestion, though Maryland would need an extra seat or two in the House to make up for the sudden jump in population.  Basically the same outcome.


It's not the same outcome. Every state de facto gets two senators and at least one representative in the House, regardless of population size. Making DC a state pulls two senators out of a hat, returning the land does not.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not the same outcome. Every state de facto starts off with two senators and at least one representative in the House, regardless of population size. Making DC a state pulls out two senators out of a hat, returning the land does not.


Yeah that's true, but these voters/constituents are being pulled from a hat too, so I don't see statehood as an unreasonable solution to that.  If it was solely about winning elections, Democrats would just do like Republicans and pass voter suppression laws in blue states that only target their opposition.


----------



## TroubledPickle (Apr 24, 2021)

so to be clear there will be now 102 senators if it passes the senate?


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am also going to add that it's a slap in the face of Puerto Rico and other areas like Jefferson, which have been trying to become a state and kept getting shot down. But when DC becomes beneficial to become a state, suddenly our government is quick to start pushing to make it a state.


If that all it is, DC would have become a state as soon as Democrats had the majority years ago. Not to mention, Puerto Rico is being discuss in the House as we speak. It isn't one or the other. Good chance if one is passed, the other will be passed right after.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah that's true, but these voters/constituents are being pulled from a hat too, so I don't see statehood as an unreasonable solution to that.  If it was solely about winning elections, Democrats would just do like Republicans and pass voter suppression laws in blue states that only target their opposition.


"Yeah, but..." - nah, no butts. I'm not even too sure if the federal government legally *can* declare the land to be a new state - it doesn't *own* DC, the land has been ceded to the federal government for the purposes of establishing a seat of government. The government can choose to shrink its size, but that *does not* answer the question of what happens with the land next. Logically it should be returned to the state that ceded it in the first place, as it was the case with Virginia's land, except Maryland doesn't want it back, which leads to a legal and constitutional conundrum. There's a reason why this issue has been debated for well over a century, and it goes beyond the current administration and its (fairly obvious) attempt at seizing more power in Congress than it already has.


KingVamp said:


> If that all it is, DC would have become a state as soon as Democrats had the majority years ago. Not to mention, Puerto Rico is being discuss in the House as we speak. It isn't one or the other. Good chance if one is passed, the other will be passed right after.


Curiously the push increased in its intensity right as the Democrats are on the cusp of reaching a very comfortable majority (not quite a supermajority, but still) in the Senate and control all branches of government besides the Supreme Court (which they want to pack in order to control that also). Listen. I get what you're saying, but I'm not 5.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 24, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> If that all it is, DC would have become a state as soon as Democrats had the majority years ago. Not to mention, Puerto Rico is being discuss in the House as we speak. It isn't one or the other. Good chance if one is passed, the other will be passed right after.


I really don’t give the benefit of doubt towards our government. The rate they are pushing to make DC a state makes it obvious that there’s something clearly politically motivated to this change of heart. There needs to be suspicious to the motivations as to why they are doing this and who’s benefiting from making DC a state? Why have been so against adding states in the past but suddenly now decide that it’s time to recognize a new state? I am suspicious of our government’s motivations because of little they act in the people’s favor.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not even too sure if the federal government legally *can* declare the land to be a new state - it doesn't *own* DC, the land has been ceded to the federal government for the purposes of establishing a seat of government. The government can choose to shrink its size, but that *does not* answer the question of what happens with said land next.  Logically it should be returned to the state that ceded it in the first place, as it was the case with Virginia's land, except Maryland doesn't want it back.


Lol you act like all this stuff was written in stone by Moses.  If legislation put us in this conundrum, it can also get us out of it.  If Maryland doesn't want the land back, then the focus falls back onto the people living there and not receiving representation in government, and seemingly we're left with only one good option for rectifying that.



Lilith Valentine said:


> Why have been so against adding states in the past but suddenly now decide that it’s time to recognize a new state?


I suppose it wasn't the first priority of the Obama administration, but Democrats in the majority have favored adding new states for some time now.  Republicans have typically had enough power to obstruct those efforts or prevent relevant bills from even receiving a vote.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lol you act like all this stuff was written in stone by Moses.  If legislation put us in this conundrum, it can also get us out of it.  If Maryland doesn't want the land back, then the focus falls back onto the people living there and not receiving representation in government, and seemingly we're left with only one good option for rectifying that.


The situation does not require rectifying. I sincerely hope that the Senate throws the bill away and prevents a complete Democrat takeover of every single branch of government with zero oversight from their opposition, which is what all of this is really about. Maybe try again in a couple of years, or negotiate with Maryland regarding their no backsies policy.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The situation does not require rectifying.


"Some Americans don't require representation in government."  Didn't we fight a war about this?



Foxi4 said:


> I sincerely hope that the Senate throws the bill away and prevents a complete Democrat takeover of every single branch of government with zero oversight from their opposition, which is what all of this is really about.


Lmao, "no fair you staged a takeover of government by getting more people to vote for you."  Such a nefarious plan that nobody could possibly see coming.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I really don’t give the benefit of doubt towards our government. The rate they are pushing to make DC a state makes it obvious that there’s something clearly politically motivated to this change of heart. There needs to be suspicious to the motivations as to why they are doing this and who’s benefiting from making DC a state? Why have been so against adding states in the past but suddenly now decide that it’s time to recognize a new state? I am suspicious of our government’s motivations because of little they act in the people’s favor.


Perhaps because they have been discussing this for years and enough people are now convinced? Even if we expect the worse and they giving them statehood for the wrong reason, doesn't mean they don't deserve it. Are we just going to block all statehoods because we don't trust the government, no matter what the actual people want?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "Some Americans don't require representation in government."  Didn't we fight a war about this?
> 
> Lmao, "no fair you staged a takeover of government by getting more people to vote for you."  Such a nefarious plan that nobody could possibly see coming.


The nefarious plan of giving yourself free Senators by signing a bill, and giving yourself Supreme Justices by signing another bill, yes. Fortunately they will fail at both since they lack the votes for either proposal, but the fact that they're attempting it alone should be a wakey wakey signal to some people who were napping for the last couple of years. You talk a lot about fascism, and here you are - singing praises for the party that is literally attempting to gain control of the entirety of the government not because it was elected to control all of it, but because they say so. If by some bizarre twist of fate they somehow do manage to pack the court, I hope every single Republican administration adds the same amount of seats plus one going forward. Why not? It's free seats, who cares. 328+ million Supreme Justices, please - we'll figure things out from there.

DC residents *are* represented in government - they have a delegate in Congress and two electoral votes. They don't get to play House because they happen to live in the capitol, the literal seat of government.


KingVamp said:


> Perhaps because they have been discussing this for years and enough people are now convinced? *Even if we expect the worse and they giving them statehood for the wrong reason*, doesn't mean they don't deserve it. Are we just going to block all statehoods because we don't trust the government, no matter what the actual people want?


Ah yes, the good 'ol "right thing for the wrong reasons" spiel. Nah, give it back to Maryland, that's where the land belongs.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 24, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Perhaps because they have been discussing this for years and enough people are now convinced? Even if we expect the worse and they giving them statehood for the wrong reason, doesn't mean they don't deserve it. Are we just going to block all statehoods because we don't trust the government, no matter what the actual people want?


I am not opposing making DC a state, I am questioning why DC before any other and what’s the motivations? As said before, I have a hard time assuming the best of the government because they so rarely act in the best interest of the people. I simply want to understand why DC first, what’s the gain and who’s gaining from it?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You talk a lot about fascism, and here you are - singing praises of the party that is literally attempting to gain control of the entirety of the government not because it was elected to control all of it, but because they say so.


DC would have the vote same as any other state.  It's not my fault if the Republican platform is completely unappealing to the people who live there (along with the majority of the country).  Maybe pulling the party out of the 18th century might help.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> DC would have the vote same as any other state.  It's not my fault if the Republican platform is completely unappealing to the people who live there (along with the majority of the country).  Maybe pulling the party out of the 18th century might help.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


It seems to be appealing enough to give them 50 seats in the Senate. You're being facetious, that's a bad look. You'd be way more convincing if you just owned it - honest villainy is at least honest.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It seems to be appealing enough to give them 50 seats in the Senate. You're being facetious, that's a bad look. You'd be way more convincing if you just owned it - honest villainy is at least honest.


And those fifty Senators represent far fewer people than the fifty Democratic senators.  I'm sure you already knew that though, being that you're in favor of minority rule.  Bold of you to admit that democracy is the same thing as villainy in your mind.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The nefarious plan of giving yourself free Senators by signing a bill, and giving yourself Supreme Justices by signing another bill, yes. Fortunately they will fail at both since they lack the votes for either proposal, but the fact that they're attempting it alone should be a wakey wakey signal to some people who were napping for the last couple of years. You talk a lot about fascism, and here you are - singing praises of the party that is literally attempting to gain control of the entirety of the government not because it was elected to control all of it, but because they say so. If by some bizarre twist of fate they somehow do manage to pack the court, I hope every single Republican administration adds the same amount of seats plus one going forward. Why not? It's free seats, who cares.


We wouldn't even be discussing the Supreme Justices, if Republicans wasn't playing games with court in the first place. Sure, the parties are just going to make states every time they are in power, when we barely can get 2 after years. (Potentially.)



Foxi4 said:


> Ah yes, the good 'ol "right thing for the wrong reasons" spiel. Nah, give it back to Maryland, that's where the land belongs.


At least admitted you don't care what the people actually want.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And those fifty Senators represent far fewer people than the fifty Democratic senators.  I'm sure you already knew that though, being that you're in favor of minority rule.  Bold of you to admit that democracy is the same thing as villainy in your mind.


Let it be stated for the record, the first proposal to make DC a state was introduced in Congress in 1888, by Sen. Henry W. Blair, a Republican. Hearings began in 1921 when the bill was introduced by Sen. Wesley L. Jones, a Republican. The Democrats weren't interested in any of it until 1993 when Bill Clinton was President, then went hush-hush until 2014 when Obama was in charge. Casual observation, but it would seem that they only want it when it gives them more power, how curious. Thankfully Republicans are not stupid enough to fall for that - they threw the bill out in 93 and they'll throw it out now. If you're going to do something for DC, it should be done for the citizens, not because it's politically expedient.


KingVamp said:


> We wouldn't even be discussing the Supreme Justices, if Republicans wasn't playing games with court in the first place. Sure, the parties are just going to make states every time they are in power, when we barely can get 2 after years. (Potentially.)


You mean filling in vacancies. Give people a big, juicy doughnut on a mouse trap and you're sure to find some that will go right for it.


----------



## smf (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> No, I don't know what you're saying. Let's do a little math here before we get lost in the weeds.
> 
> $590k + $510k + $1.4m = $2.5m



Before you get too excited, you were talking about the property that she bought after starting the charity. The 1.4m purchase is recent, not 13 years ago when the charity was started.



Foxi4 said:


> your opinion is what's irrelevant here



No, your boastful claims about being good at spotting scams is irrelevant and quite clearly unfounded arrogance.



Foxi4 said:


> the fact that she conjured up capital well in excess of 2 million dollars on what appears to be a whim *is* suspect.



You're saying you have evidence they were bought for cash? As she's repeatedly stated, she's got multiple streams of income. She could have a mortgage.

It's certainly not on a whim when you purchase 3 houses over more than a decade. For someone in her position it is not a lot of money. You're obviously jealous.



Foxi4 said:


> If you want to accuse the black NYC head of BLM of racism against her fellow black BLM member, you go on ahead.



No thank you. Racism is a serious allegation to throw around and I don't do that without careful and accurate evaluation. He might have other political reasons to go after her, but you know there is nothing to stop someone from being racist against their own race right? I have spoken with plenty of people who think they are the only decent one from their entire country.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Let it be stated for the record, the first proposal to make DC a state was introduced in Congress in 1888, by Sen. Henry W. Blair, a Republican.


So back before Republicans were Republicans.  Got it.



Foxi4 said:


> Casual observation, but it would seem that they only want it when it gives them more power, how curious.


I'm 99% sure there were a least a few statehood bills sitting in McConnell's legislative graveyard during the Trump era.  And you seem to be under the false impression that whoever controls the federal government when DC is given statehood would automatically receive those House and Senate seats.  That's not the case.  There would be elections/special elections to pick their representatives just like any other state.  So I'm not sure what you think kicking the can down the road will accomplish here.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Let it be stated for the record, the first proposal to make DC a state was introduced in Congress in 1888, by Sen. Henry W. Blair, a Republican. Hearings began in 1921 when the bill was introduced by Sen. Wesley L. Jones, a Republican. The Democrats weren't interested in any of it until 1993 when Bill Clinton was President, then went hush-hush until 2014 when Obama was in charge. Casual observation, but it would seem that they only want it when it gives them more power, how curious.


Then they would have already gotten statehood under Obama. 



Foxi4 said:


> If you're going to do something for DC, it should be done for the citizens, not because it's politically expedient.


The citizens want statehood. In fact, it is politically expedient to not give them statehood. If you actually cared, your "solution" wouldn't be to ignore both what DC and Maryland actually want. 



Foxi4 said:


> You mean filling in vacancies. Give people a big, juicy doughnut on a mouse trap and you're sure to find some that will go right for it.


Filling out vacancies is all they did. That's why Obama got all his picks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Before you get too excited, you were talking about the property that she bought after starting the charity. The 1.4m purchase is recent, not 13 years ago when the charity was started.
> 
> No, your boastful claims about being good at spotting scams is irrelevant and quite clearly unfounded arrogance.
> 
> ...


So you're not going to answer a simple yes or no question. Alright then. My claim was, I quote:


> Over the course of the last few years Patrisse Cullors purchased two smaller properties in LA, a 3.2 acre property in Georgia and recently a $1.4m compound in LA. Her current housing portfolio is worth in excess of $3m, and presumably it will keep growing.


This statement is 100% correct. BLM Network was started by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi in 2013 - 8 years ago, not 13. I consider $3+ million in real estate spending in 8 years to be "within the last few years". Since we cannot have an agreement on that, the rest of the conversation is pointless and I'll have no part in it.


Xzi said:


> So back before Republicans were Republicans.  Got it.
> 
> I'm 99% sure there were a least a few statehood bills sitting in McConnell's legislative graveyard during the Trump era.  And you seem to be under the false impression that whoever controls the federal government when DC is given statehood would automatically receive those House and Senate seats.  That's not the case.  There would be elections/special elections to pick their representatives just like any other state.  So I'm not sure what you think kicking the can down the road will accomplish here.


The Senate has been pretty tight in terms of power balance for the last couple of years, and that's a good thing. Having it at effectively 50/50 is great. I'm unaware of any bills that have gotten anywhere near Congress besides the 2019 bill which was reintroduced this year, but I may be wrong - non-starters don't get reported on as much. I see it as a cynical power grab, but as I said earlier, it's cool if you think it's not one.


KingVamp said:


> Filling out vacancies is all they did. That's why Obama got all his picks.


There was no legal obligation to confirm any of Obama's nominees. No laws were broken, historical precedent was followed.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I see it as a cynical power grab, but as I said earlier, it's cool if you think it's not one.


Ultimately I don't care about the motivations in this case as much as I care about the outcome of all Americans (and American territories) receiving their due representation in government.  The default Republican position is that these people deserve to go on perpetually unrepresented, and that's simply not acceptable.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Ultimately I don't care about the motivations in this case as much as I care about the outcome of all Americans (and American territories) receiving their due representation in government.  The default Republican position is that these people deserve to go on perpetually unrepresented, and that's simply not acceptable.


Well, to be fair, if the territories want to stay territories, that's up to them.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Well, to be fair, if the territories want to stay territories, that's up to them.


True, but I don't think there's strong support for maintaining the status quo either.  The people who want to remain in territories probably want taxes to be reduced or eliminated, which is understandable but unlikely to happen.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 24, 2021)

Washington D.C. is land that the state of Maryland ceded to the US government for the purpose of a Constitutionally mandated federal district as the seat of the Federal government. It's a conditional grant. Virginia also ceded land for this (D.C. was originally a complete square shape), but the land was later returned to Virginia. If the Federal government stops using Maryland's land for the capital, that land reverts to Maryland. The residents would then have representation in Congress by virtue of Maryland's Congressional delegation and senators.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> If the Federal government stops using Maryland's land for the capital, that land reverts to Maryland. The residents would then have representation in Congress by virtue of Maryland's Congressional delegation and senators.


Foxi pointed out that Maryland doesn't want the land back, so there's nothing preventing the federal government from claiming full ownership over it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> True, but I don't think there's strong support for maintaining the status quo either.  The people who want to remain in territories probably *want taxes to be reduced or eliminated*, which is understandable but unlikely to happen.





Spoiler





TAXATION IS THEFT! REEEEEE!





Hanafuda said:


> Washington D.C. is land that the state of Maryland ceded to the US government for the purpose of a Constitutionally mandated federal district as the seat of the Federal government. It's a conditional grant. Virginia also ceded land for this (D.C. was originally a complete square shape), but the land was later returned to Virginia. If the Federal government stops using Maryland's land for the capital, that land reverts to Maryland. The residents would then have representation in Congress by virtue of Maryland's Congressional delegation and senators.


This is the correct solution with historical precedent, regardless of any objections Maryland might have.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In this case yes, DC and territories aren't really receiving anything in return.  It's taxation without representation, a concept that all Americans used to vehemently oppose.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> In this case... _*Flashbang-like whistling in my ears*_


In general.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Foxi pointed out that Maryland doesn't want the land back, so there's nothing preventing the federal government from claiming full ownership over it.



I don't think real property law works that way. Title to the land would revert to Maryland regardless of what their current Democrat politicians want. 

If following the law had any role in what's going in there. It doesn't though, so who knows what comes of it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I don't think real property law works that way. Title to the land would revert to Maryland regardless of what their current Democrat politicians want.


Maryland forfeits the title to the land and then it reverts back to Maryland?  I doubt that very much.

If we're talking about tyranny, then the federal government forcing a state to take back land it doesn't want and isn't prepared to take care of/maintain is pretty high up on the list of dick moves.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Maryland forfeits the title to the land and then it reverts back to Maryland?  I doubt that very much.
> 
> If we're talking about tyranny, then the federal government forcing a state to take back land it doesn't want and isn't prepared to take care of/maintain is pretty high up on the list of dick moves.


This will come as a shock, but when you have a tenant and that tenant leaves, you still own the house. You still have to pay for upkeep, you still have to pay property tax, it doesn't really matter if you put it back on the market or not. You can abandon it all you like, it's still yours until you sell it. If Maryland "forfeits" the land, the U.S. Government doesn't magically get to decide that it owns that land now - it would become no man's land, if that's even an option at all. Do you expect it to become a whole new country, then ask the U.S. Government to enter the union and finally become federalised? That would take some time and isn't realistic.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This will come as a shock, but when you have a tenant and that tenant leaves, you still own the house.


Unless you sign over the deed to the house, yes.  Which will have to be done with the land title between Maryland and the federal government, assuming that's not something that's already been done in one form or another.  I'd have to double-check on that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Unless you sign over the deed to the house, yes.  Which will have to be done with the land title between Maryland and the federal government, assuming that's not something that's already been done in one form or another.  I'd have to double-check on that.


That would just make DC federal land in perpetuity. Pursuant to Article 4, Congress has the right to buy, sell and regulate federal lands, I'm not sure it has the right to abandon them. It would be the first time in history the U.S. Government has generated a new state out of thin air. Pursuant to the same Article, the government has the right to admit new states into the union, but it's unclear whether it can just generate them using the land it owns. If that were the case, the fed owns 640 million acres of land, 28% of the whole country - ripe for new states whenever an administration feels like pulling two new senators out of a hat. If this comes to pass as the new status quo, I am perfectly happy with the Republicans starting a New California Republic or two somewhere in a national park, inhabited solely by bears.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If that we're the case, the fed owns 640 million acres of land, 28% of the whole country - ripe for new states whenever an administration feels like pulling two new senators out of a hat. If this comes to pass as the new status quo, I am perfectly happy with the Republicans starting a New California Republic or two somewhere in a national park, inhabited solely by bears.


Much of that land is designated national parks/wildlife, which of course Republicans would want to eliminate, but then much of it is also designated as resource gathering (fracking/drilling/etc) in various states, and Republicans wouldn't want to change what we're already doing there.

As far as anybody knows, statehood can be granted by legislation.  Republicans threaten to go nuclear on every little issue, so after a while it starts to sound like the boy who cried wolf.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That would just make DC federal land in perpetuity. Pursuant to Article 4, Congress has the right to buy, sell and regulate federal lands, I'm not sure it has the right to abandon them. It would be the first time in history the U.S. Government has generated a new state out of thin air. Pursuant to the same Article, the government has the right to admit new states into the union, but it's unclear whether it can just generate them using the land it owns. If that were the case, the fed owns 640 million acres of land, 28% of the whole country - ripe for new states whenever an administration feels like pulling two new senators out of a hat. If this comes to pass as the new status quo, I am perfectly happy with the Republicans starting a New California Republic or two somewhere in a national park, inhabited solely by bears.




Depends on what kind of bears.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Much of that land is designated national parks/wildlife, which of course Republicans would want to eliminate, but then much of it is also designated as resource gathering (fracking/drilling/etc) in various states, and Republicans wouldn't want to change what we're already doing there.


Give me one good reason why clown world can't get any more ridiculous. Your suggestion isn't any less silly than mine - you want Congress to take land it owns and create a new state just because. Two can play that game - a national park that you can live in sounds lovely. I'll have a log cabin, why not? Cozy.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Give me one good reason why clown world can't get any more ridiculous. Your suggestion isn't any less silly than mine - you want Congress to take land it owns and create a new state just because. Two can play that game - a national park that you can live in sounds lovely. I'll have a log cabin, why not? Cozy.


They fuck with that land, Dems fuck with drilling land.  It's a nice balance they've found themselves, or so they think.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> They fuck with that land, Dems fuck with drilling land.  It's a nice balance they've found themselves, or so they think.


We can both have a log cabin. Let's split the parks into 100 meter squares so everyone gets a nice lawn. I am looking forward to our 2000 Senator future, lemme get my visa sorted.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We can both have a log cabin. Let's split the parks into 100 meter squares so everyone gets a nice lawn. I am looking forward to our 2000 Senator future, lemme get my visa sorted.


I'm telling you it'll never happen.  Most of that land exists within established states.  Fuck the politicians, the corporations would be out minute one.  DC is a very unique situation, along with our territories.  Don't play dumb.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'm telling you it'll never happen.  Most of that land exists within established states.  Fuck the politicians, the corporations would be out minute one.  DC is a very unique situation, along with our territories.  Don't play dumb.


I think my log cabin idea is great, you're playing dumb by pretending this isn't about power.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I think my log cabin idea is great, you're playing dumb by pretending this isn't about power.


Again, I couldn't care less what the motivations are or what you perceive them to be, the people in DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam need to be given representation in government.  Let the votes fall how they may for their own representatives.

Edit: TIL Guam has one House representative.  At least that's _something_ I guess.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Edit: TIL Guam has one House representative.  At least that's _something_ I guess


They call these shadows. They can have a say, but can't actually vote.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We can both have a log cabin. *Let's split the parks into 100 meter squares so everyone gets a nice lawn.* I am looking forward to our 2000 Senator future, lemme get my visa sorted.



Make each 100 meter square its own State. Then everyone gets two senators.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 25, 2021)

Make D.C its own independent nation-state

Boom problem solved


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 25, 2021)

The arizona thing is odd because for some reason Democrats are trying to stop the audit and now paypal is also trying to stop it 

I mean at this point what are they afraid off? everything was fine they say why are they afraid of an audit


----------



## Lacius (Apr 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The arizona thing is odd because for some reason Democrats are trying to stop the audit and now paypal is also trying to stop it
> 
> I mean at this point what are they afraid off? everything was fine they say why are they afraid of an audit


The "audit" is partisan nonsense. They're making things up as they go along.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 25, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The "audit" is partisan nonsense. They're making things up as they go along.


if it is nonsense why try to stop it what are afraid off kinda odd mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> if it is nonsense why try to stop it what are afraid off kinda odd mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Why stop it?  Because it's a waste of state funds, duh.  It's completely inconsequential, and the people behind it are just gonna lie their asses off anyway.  You'll get to hear what you want to hear, but Arizona's official results will remain unchanged.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 25, 2021)

Donald Trump told us the 2020 election would be stolen via fake printed ballots. The media and left labeled us as conspiracy theorists.The Maricopa County audit is confirming the rumors, that a special watermark is on the real ballots. No wonder the Democrats tried to stall. pic.twitter.com/53BRIwvwvF— Dino Veletanlic (@Dino_Velet) April 24, 2021


this is why this audit is good because it will put some conspiracies to rest finally or it will show they were actually true there

Democrats seems so scared of this for some funny reason I mean nothing wrong with showing elections are secure

They are checking the watermarks thing and hopefully put it rest


----------



## tthousand (Apr 26, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Why stop it?  Because it's a waste of state funds, duh.  It's completely inconsequential, and the people behind it are just gonna lie their asses off anyway.  You'll get to hear what you want to hear, but Arizona's official results will remain unchanged.



A) The government is interested in NOT wasting funds now? LOL
B) If fraud is found, there could be major, major consequences.
C) At least they have people looking into it who actually are interested in finding foul-play, as opposed to all the people who have previously "looked" into it who knew finding anything would be bad for them.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2021)

tthousand said:


> The government is interested in NOT wasting funds now? LOL


It's coming out of Arizona's budget, not the federal government's, so yes I imagine there are a million more beneficial things the money could've been spent on.



tthousand said:


> If fraud is found, there could be major, major consequences.


If fraud was to be discovered by an independent nonpartisan committee or outside group, that'd be one thing.  But when it's discovered by a bunch of known partisan grifters?  They'll largely be ignored.  Supposing I were to play into the fairy tale though, then what?  Arizona flips and Biden still wins by like three states.  The desperation from conspiracy loons is both palpable and pathetic.



tthousand said:


> At least they have people looking into it who actually are interested in finding foul-play, as opposed to all the people who have previously "looked" into it who knew finding anything would be bad for them.


You mean all the Republicans in the room while votes were being counted and re-counted weren't interested in finding foul play?  Believe me, they tried to generate some evidence of foul play from thin air.  Many times.


----------



## Louse (Apr 26, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A) The government is interested in NOT wasting funds now? LOL
> B) If fraud is found, there could be major, major consequences.
> C) At least they have people looking into it who actually are interested in finding foul-play, as opposed to all the people who have previously "looked" into it who knew finding anything would be bad for them.
> 
> View attachment 260310​


This photo is quite suspicious, my good lad.
Please reverse the processes in which created this seemingly pin-holed photograph


----------



## AncientBoi (Apr 26, 2021)

This chit still ain't convincing me that tRUMP won. tRuMp was Dumped on election day.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 26, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A) The government is interested in NOT wasting funds now? LOL
> B) If fraud is found, there could be major, major consequences.
> C) At least they have people looking into it who actually are interested in finding foul-play, as opposed to all the people who have previously "looked" into it who knew finding anything would be bad for them.
> 
> View attachment 260310​


I'm glad they're extending votes to ghosts now (▰˘◡˘▰)


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 26, 2021)

Seliph said:


> I'm glad they're extending votes to ghosts now (▰˘◡˘▰)


My ghost friends feel so glad about this


----------



## tthousand (Apr 26, 2021)

After Lives Matter


----------



## KimKong (Apr 26, 2021)

Who cares..? The guy is soooo old he's about to turn to dust any minute!


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Apr 26, 2021)

KimKong said:


> Who cares..? The guy is soooo old he's about to turn to dust any minute!


In our defense, it was either old guy or other old guy


----------



## tabzer (Apr 26, 2021)

Biden is not an upgrade.  It's not even treading water.  The world ended with Trump vs Clinton.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Biden is not an upgrade.


A moldy cat turd would've handled the pandemic better than Trump, so I'm gonna have to disagree.  Biden's still a neolib, but at least he's preventing as many unnecessary deaths as possible with his COVID relief plan and a fast vaccine rollout.

With other issues we'll just have to wait and see.  Biden promised all troops out of Afghanistan by November 11, which is also a promise Trump made for his administration but failed to keep.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 27, 2021)

some good news 
Texas gains two new seats in Congress, while New York, California and five other states lose seats following new Census numbers


----------



## Xzi (Apr 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> some good news
> Texas gains two new seats in Congress, while New York, California and five other states lose seats following new Census numbers


Lol why am I not surprised you chose to omit the blue states gaining seats and the red states losing seats?  It's basically a wash.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 27, 2021)

Xzi said:


> A moldy cat turd would've handled the pandemic better than Trump



Considering that Biden has your support, it appears that you sincerely believe that.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 27, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Considering that Biden has your support, it appears that you sincerely believe that.


He has my support where his pandemic relief plan is concerned, but that doesn't mean there's nobody out there who could've handled it just as well or better.  And yes I sincerely believe a moldy cat turd would've handled things better than Trump.  That has nothing to do with how much skill or experience the cat turd has, and everything to do with what a useless fucking leech Trump is.  Doing nothing is better than actively inflicting harm and spreading misinformation.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 27, 2021)

More good news 
Big win: Florida Senate approves election integrity bill https://t.co/CCgd3cnSlO— Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) April 26, 2021


----------



## Xzi (Apr 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> More good news
> https://twitter.com/Wizard_Predicts/status/1386831626831896576


Knowing the Florida GOP, I'm gonna guess this is a voter suppression bill before even reading it.

...

Yep, guessed correctly.  Not even sure why they bother, Dems haven't won Florida in quite a long time.  Georgia is the new Southeast battleground state thanks to so many Republicans there dying of COVID.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 27, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Doing nothing is better than actively inflicting harm and spreading misinformation.



Well, if that wasn't a problem with the world at large, I could see myself agreeing.  I would like for a consistent understanding to find consensus, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 27, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Knowing the Florida GOP, I'm gonna guess this is a voter suppression bill before even reading it.
> 
> ...
> 
> Yep, guessed correctly.  Not even sure why they bother, Dems haven't won Florida in quite a long time.  Georgia is the new Southeast battleground state thanks to so many Republicans there dying of COVID.


Biden better be paying you good


----------



## Xzi (Apr 27, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well, if that wasn't a problem with the world at large, I could see myself agreeing.  I would like for a consistent understanding to find consensus, but I won't hold my breath.


Huh?  We have plenty of examples of countries that handled the pandemic much better than we did in the midst of it.  OTOH our vaccine rollout has been one of the fastest in the world, but we're now starting to hit a wall with vaccine-hesitant groups and individuals.  If Trump had told his followers to wear masks and get the vaccine as soon as it was available, they would've done both and the country would've been in a much better position over the entirety of this last year and a half.



Valwinz said:


> Biden better be paying you good


What does Biden have to do with Florida and the electoral map of the Southeast?  Answer: nothing.  He's living rent-free inside your head I guess though.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden better be paying you good


Whenever you make a comment about Biden supporters being paid, I think of this:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-campaign-offered-actors-803161


----------



## urherenow (Apr 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Whenever you make a comment about Biden supporters being paid, I think of this:
> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-campaign-offered-actors-803161


Lol... Dude's been out of office for months, and anti-Trumpers still be delusional... 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-minority-actors-trump-rally-fake/3220676001/


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Lol... Dude's been out of office for months, and anti-Trumpers still be delusional...
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-minority-actors-trump-rally-fake/3220676001/


Your article has nothing to do with the article I posted.


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 27, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lol why am I not surprised you chose to omit the blue states gaining seats and the red states losing seats?  It's basically a wash.


it should be about gop +4, dem -4 seats with the total tally,
https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/house/redistricting/2020-census-what-reapportionment-numbers-mean

of course they also have to fill those seats with R's


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 27, 2021)

Either way, I hope the Wyoming Rule becomes a thing.


----------



## Louse (Apr 28, 2021)

hoo hoo funny child touch man

srsly tho wtf is with biden and sniffing little girls hair
its probably been discussed to death already but its still weird and i dont get it


----------



## ChrisMCNBVA (Apr 28, 2021)

Louse said:


> hoo hoo funny child touch man
> 
> srsly tho wtf is with biden and sniffing little girls hair
> its probably been discussed to death already but its still weird and i dont get it



I've never understood anything Joe Biden's done and it's just getting worse and worse, feel free to agree or disagree...whatever i'm just not feeling happy at all with the way things are with america with him in charge


----------



## Louse (Apr 28, 2021)

ChrisMCNBVA said:


> I've never understood anything Joe Biden's done and it's just getting worse and worse, feel free to agree or disagree...whatever i'm just not feeling happy at all with the way things are with america with him in charge


i honestly dont even know, why cant we just have like, a decent human being in office for once


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2021)

Louse said:


> i honestly dont even know, why cant we just have like, a decent human being in office for once


Because Republicans are too busy trying to establish the Fourth Reich, and that allows the Democratic party to remain centrists while still appearing very progressive by comparison.  Much of the party believes their only job is to keep actual progressives like Bernie Sanders from gaining too much power.


----------



## Louse (Apr 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Because Republicans are too busy trying to establish the Fourth Reich, and that allows the Democratic party to remain centrists while still appearing very progressive by comparison.  Much of the party believes their only job is to keep actual progressives like Bernie Sanders from gaining too much power.


yeah, sounds about right. i hope biden trips and lands on the 'make third-parties viable candidates' button so we can get to the good part.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Because Republicans are too busy trying to establish the Fourth Reich, and that allows the Democratic party to remain centrists while still appearing very progressive by comparison.  Much of the party believes their only job is to keep actual progressives like Bernie Sanders from gaining too much power.


Imagine voting for biden and them posting here lol


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Because Republicans are too busy trying to establish the Fourth Reich, and that allows the Democratic party to remain centrists while still appearing very progressive by comparison.  Much of the party believes their only job is to keep actual progressives like Bernie Sanders from gaining too much power.


>Democratic party
>Centrist

Okay. In regards to "establishing the fourth reich", there's only one party in the United States that is actively trying to rewrite the rules in order to gain control of the Senate and the Supreme Court, and it's not the Republicans.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2021)

Louse said:


> yeah, sounds about right. i hope biden trips and lands on the 'make third-parties viable candidates' button so we can get to the good part.


Probably never gonna happen without ranked choice voting, and that's something that has to be implemented on a state-by-state basis.  Then again, I never thought we'd see marijuana legalized nationally in my lifetime, and we're awfully close to that happening.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Probably never gonna happen without ranked choice voting, and that's something that has to be implemented on a state-by-state basis.  Then again, I never thought we'd see marijuana legalized nationally in my lifetime, and we're awfully close to that happening.


Legalising marijuana, yes. Delegalising methol cigarettes though.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...en-administration-fda-may-propose/4871444001/

I'm sure black voters will appreciate that, thanks for telling consumers what kinds of leaves they can or can't burn.


----------



## Louse (Apr 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Probably never gonna happen without ranked choice voting, and that's something that has to be implemented on a state-by-state basis.  Then again, I never thought we'd see marijuana legalized nationally in my lifetime, and we're awfully close to that happening.


you a boof jacker, or just in it so less people get arrested? i hear its safer than alcohol, but i suppose that's not a far stretch.



Foxi4 said:


> Legalising marijuana, yes. Delegalising methol cigarettes though.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...en-administration-fda-may-propose/4871444001/
> 
> I'm sure black voters will appreciate that, thanks for telling consumers what kinds of leaves they can or can't burn.


i thought that was more for the safety of others, and all that. is that even confirmed yet?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2021)

Louse said:


> i thought that was more for the safety of others, and all that. is that even confirmed yet?


Others can guarantee their safety by taking a few steps away from the smoker. One's freedom should not be encumbent on the comfort of others. I already live in a country where menthols were banned, but the tobacco industry quickly found a workaround in the form of "crush balls" with menthol inside the filter, so I suspect this ban will be equally toothless if it comes to pass. It's unconfirmed, but still relatively funny to me.


----------



## Louse (Apr 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Others can guarantee their safety by taking a few steps away from the smoker. One's freedom should not be encumbent on the comfort of others. I already live in a country where menthol were banned, but the tobacco industry quickly found a workaround in the form of "crush balls" with menthol inside the filter, so I suspect this ban will be equally toothless if it comes to pass. It's unconfirmed, but still relatively funny to me.


wow, this is worthless! i wonder if the law is intentionally neutered. not being conspiratorial here, just thinking if someone if lobbied for that


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> >Democratic party
> >Centrist


Yeah I guess they're more like center-right relative to world politics.



Foxi4 said:


> In regards to "establishing the fourth reich", there's only one party in the United States that is actively trying to rewrite the rules in order to gain control of the Senate and the Supreme Court, and it's not the Republicans.


The can for DC statehood has been kicked down the road long enough.  Even Maryland Republicans repeatedly declined to take the land back.  On the Supreme Court there's at least one stolen seat and three justices who won't recuse themselves even when there are massive conflicts of interest.  It's inching the court toward illegitimacy, and that might be enough to bring the whole justice system crashing down.  Not that the whole thing couldn't use thorough reforms anyway.

There's only one party that marches through the streets yelling "Jews will not replace us," so the Fourth Reich analogy is the most fitting one I could think up.



Louse said:


> you a boof jacker, or just in it so less people get arrested? i hear its safer than alcohol, but i suppose that's not a far stretch.


Lmao doesn't "boofing" refer to shoving stuff up your ass?  I smoke weed and have sold it as a (legal) budtender, but I don't do that.


----------



## Louse (Apr 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lmao doesn't "boofing" refer to shoving stuff up your ass?  I smoke weed and have sold it as a (legal) budtender, but I don't do that.


i really hope thats what it means cuz thats fuckin hilarious


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2021)

Louse said:


> i really hope thats what it means cuz thats fuckin hilarious


@Xzi is right. Pretty sure boofing is shoving stuff up the butt to get drunk/high faster/using smaller doses.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> >Democratic party
> >Centrist
> 
> Okay. In regards to "establishing the fourth reich", there's only one party in the United States that is actively trying to rewrite the rules in order to gain control of the Senate and the Supreme Court, and it's not the Republicans.


There's only one party in the United States that is actively trying to overturn an election because they didn't like the results, and it's not the Democratic Party.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2021)

Louse said:


> i really hope thats what it means cuz thats fuckin hilarious


Yep, the top definition changed since Kavanaugh talked about boofing during his confirmation hearing, but from #2 onward it's all about shoving stuff up your butt:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boofing


----------



## Louse (Apr 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's only one party in the United States that is actively trying to overturn an election because they didn't like the results, and it's not the Democratic Party.


how are we still having this conversation? its been like 3 months
dont we have more important things to dwell on?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2021)

Louse said:


> how are we still having this conversation? its been like 3 months
> dont we have more important things to dwell on?


I'm not the one who incorrectly suggested the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is doing something untoward.


----------



## Louse (Apr 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not the one who incorrectly suggested the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is doing something untoward.


no, i got ya. just worries me that people still hold on to the that kind of misinformation


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 29, 2021)

Clown president just say January 6 was worst than Pearl harbor


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 29, 2021)

tthousand said:


> A) The government is interested in NOT wasting funds now? LOL
> B) If fraud is found, there could be major, major consequences.
> C) At least they have people looking into it who actually are interested in finding foul-play, as opposed to all the people who have previously "looked" into it who knew finding anything would be bad for them.
> 
> View attachment 260310​


I imagine most of those "illegal votes" were for trump anyays I mean there were republicans who was gonna storm the Phili convention center armed to put illegal trump votes in to the legit votes


----------



## TheN00b21 (Apr 29, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Clown president just say January 6 was worst than Pearl harbor


lol, America is going to fall apart sooner or later. It's just waiting to collapse into 2, just takes something big to push it over the ledge.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

TheN00b21 said:


> lol, America is going to fall apart sooner or later. It's just waiting to collapse into 2, just takes something big to push it over the ledge.


Idiots have been saying "the South will rise again" ever since the Civil War ended...hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Clown president just say January 6 was worst than Pearl harbor



Biden didn't mention Pearl Harbor as far as I can tell. He compared the January 6 attack to the Civil War because both happened because a stupid section of the population couldn't handle election results.
January 6 was an attack on our democracy.
Pearl Harbor was a literal attack on a naval base, not democracy.
I don't think Biden is the clown here.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Biden didn't mention Pearl Harbor as far as I can tell.
> January 6 was an attack on our democracy.
> Pearl Harbor was a literal attack on a naval base, not democracy.
> I don't think Biden is the clown here.


He called it the worst attack since the Civil War, so we can assume he was referring specifically to internal domestic attacks.  Valwinz is not very good at picking up on contextual clues.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Biden didn't mention Pearl Harbor as far as I can tell. He compared the January 6 attack to the Civil War because both happened because a stupid section of the population couldn't handle election results.
> January 6 was an attack on our democracy.
> Pearl Harbor was a literal attack on a naval base, not democracy.
> I don't think Biden is the clown here.


The Biden fact checker is here imao  and is telling me that January 6 is worst than pearl harbor and 9/11


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 29, 2021)

In Georgia, they literally rewritten the rules to takeover both county election boards and just removed Raffensperger.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not the one who incorrectly suggested the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is doing something untoward.


The Democratic party is absolutely doing "something untoward" - if you're going to suggest that the Republicans are trying to overturn a totally legitimate election because they're "unhappy with the results", you'll also have to accept that the Democratic party is trying to throw off the balance of the Supreme Court because they don't like the previous administration's justice selection. If they do end up packing the court just to ensure a "liberal majority" (in spite of the fact that those are lifetime nominations and no justice needs to pay fealty to either party), that's a textbook fascistic move to seize control of a branch of government, specifically the judiciary. They don't like the current guys, so they want to pack it with "their guys" to have a majority, outside of the usual process. I don't see how there can be any other interpretation.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> you'll also have to accept that the Democratic party is trying to throw off the balance of the Supreme Court because they don't like the previous administration's justice selection. If they do end up packing the court just to ensure a "liberal majority" (in spite of the fact that those are lifetime nominations and no justice needs to pay fealty to either party), that's a textbook fascistic move to seize control of a branch of government, specifically the judiciary.


You keep pushing this bullshit narrative as though nobody remembers anything about the past.  McConnell declared Supreme Court justices could not be nominated in an election year to prevent Obama's pick from getting a confirmation hearing.  Then he fast-tracked an unqualified Trump nominee through in an election year.  So either Gorsuch or Barrett is sitting in a stolen seat, take your pick.  Expanding the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional or illegal, and it has been larger in the past.

The Democratic party is also the only party in which imposing term limits for Supreme Court justices has gained any traction.  So there's that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You keep pushing this bullshit narrative as though nobody remembers anything about the past.  McConnell declared Supreme Court justices could not be nominated in an election year to prevent Obama's pick from getting a confirmation hearing.  Then he fast-tracked an unqualified Trump nominee through in an election year.  So either Gorsuch or Barrett is sitting in a stolen seat, take your pick.  Expanding the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional or illegal, and it has been larger in the past.
> 
> The Democratic party is also the only party in which imposing term limits for Supreme Court justices has gained any traction.  So there's that.


McConnell was very clear about the historical precedent - you're keen on mentioning the election year part, but not the support of the Senate part. The appointment clause of Article 2 states clearly that the President is entitled to nominate justices, but those justices are confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. There was no obligation to confirm any of Obama's picks, the Senate did not consent.

Term limits in the SC is a terrible idea - the whole point of having lifetime appointments is specifically to prevent a situation where justices can be swayed by the other branches under the threat of terminating their term. Having a lifetime term that cannot be revoked allows the SC to be impartial, the unfortunate consequence of that is that it also leads to living fossils on the court. Not sure what the solution here is, but having them beholden to the administration isn't one of them.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> McConnell was very clear about the historical precedent


What he made very clear is that McConnell is 100% full of shit, 100% of the time.  Republicans always think Democrats are too timid to play the "eye for an eye" game, but it would seem not this time.  Assuming Biden actually goes through with expanding the court, anyway.  There's still no guarantee of that, it's only in the "exploratory committee" stage.



Foxi4 said:


> Having a lifetime term that cannot be revoked allows the SC to be impartial


Funny joke.  ACB and Trump's other appointees are already declining to recuse themselves from a case with massive conflicts of interest for them.  They were put on the court with a mission to rule in favor of corporations and the wealthy whenever applicable/possible.



Foxi4 said:


> Not sure what the solution here is, but having them beholden to the administration isn't one of them.


That's only the case if their terms are two or four years.  No reason they couldn't be eight or even twelve-year terms instead, but lifetime appointments just aren't gonna work any more with how polarized Americans are.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> What he made very clear is that McConnell is 100% full of shit, 100% of the time.  Republicans always think Democrats are too timid to play the "eye for an eye" game, but it would seem not this time.  Assuming Biden actually goes through with expanding the court, anyway.  There's still no guarantee of that, it's only in the "exploratory committee" stage.
> 
> Funny joke.  ACB and Trump's other appointees are already declining to recuse themselves from a case with massive conflicts of interest for them.  They were put on the court with a mission to rule in favor of corporations and the wealthy whenever applicable/possible.
> 
> That's only the case if their terms are two or four years.  No reason they couldn't be eight or even twelve-year terms instead, but lifetime appointments just aren't gonna work any more with how polarized Americans are.


They seemed to work just fine from 1789 up until now, but *now* America is polarised, more polarised than during the Civil War, or during the two World Wars, or during the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War, or... Okay, settle down.

As for recusing or not recusing themselves, again, the justices are supposed to be impartial. I have serious doubts whether they were asked to recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest or because they're Trump nominees. They're not meant to sway in the wind like blades of grass, it doesn't matter if someone's asking them to recuse themselves or not, that's their determination to make. I'd have to look into the details of the case to myself to comment in more detail, what are we talking about here? Shell? Mail-in ballots? She's been asked to recuse herself on a number of occasions, I'm not surprised she started ignoring such calls, as she should.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> They seemed to work just fine from 1789 up until now, but *now* America is polarised, more polarised than during the Civil War, or during the two World Wars, or during the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War, or... Okay, settle down.


Did you sleep through January sixth?  It's a deep polarization, and a new type of polarization now that we've realized one of two major political parties is susceptible to joining cults of personality.



Foxi4 said:


> As for recusing or not recusing themselves, again, the justices are supposed to be impartial. I have serious doubts whether they were asked to recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest or because they're Trump nominees.


The people arguing one side of the case paid for advertisements for all three of his appointees in favor of confirming them.  "Americans For Prosperity," a Koch-funded group.  It's a very clear-cut conflict of interest, and ACB promised to recuse herself from such cases during her confirmation hearing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...k-money-case-of-koch-funded-group/ar-BB1g7iVQ


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Did you sleep through January sixth?  It's a deep polarization, and a new type of polarization now that we've realized one of two major political parties is susceptible to joining cults of personality.


It would be easy to sleep through, in all fairness. I've never seen a more orderly insurrection in my entire life - not only they were let in through the front door, they also left right in time for curfew. Shame about the podium and all the poop. 


> The people arguing one side of the case paid for advertisements for all three of his appointees in favor of confirming them.  "Americans For Prosperity," a Koch-funded group.  It's a very clear-cut conflict of interest, and she promised to recuse herself from such cases during her confirmation hearing.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...k-money-case-of-koch-funded-group/ar-BB1g7iVQ


You do know that confirming or not confirming a judge is up to the Senate, not the general public, right? I honestly don't know why they even ran ads at all, I'm not sure what kind of effect that might even have in such an insular environment. Regardless, their appointments are lifetime - do they receive any benefits from this side of the case *right now*? If not, they are not beholden to that side in any way, unless you believe in some silly scout's promise or somesuch nonsense. A conflict of interest occurs when something is given and can be taken away - you don't want a judge to rule on a case that affects their bottom line. This does not affect the judge's bottom line - they're already appointed. Your only argument here is weird sentimentality towards a former donor which would have to be evidenced further. Do you think the judges "owe" that side a favourable verdict? If so, under what threat are they if the verdict is unfavourable, exactly?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I've never seen a more orderly insurrection in my entire life


Five dead and hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage, but sure let's just play make believe.  



Foxi4 said:


> You do know that confirming or not confirming a judge is up to the Senate, not the general public, right?  I honestly don't know why they even ran ads at all, I'm not sure what kind of effect that might even have in such an insular environment.


I guess the idea was to make people call their Senators about confirming?  But yeah obviously with the Republican majority they would've voted to confirm even a convicted pedophile, so somewhat pointless on the Kochs' part.



Foxi4 said:


> A conflict of interest occurs when something is given and can be taken away - you don't want a judge to rule on a case that affects their bottom line. This does not affect the judge's bottom line - they're already appointed.


Money was spent on their behalf, and now they'll rule in favor of the people who spent that money (let's not pretend otherwise).  That's as clear-cut a conflict of interest as there's ever been for a justice.  And it isn't about the individual's "bottom line," it's about preserving the legitimacy and integrity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's only one party in the United States that is actively trying to overturn an election because they didn't like the results, and it's not the Democratic Party.


wrong answer. The democratic party did it for MORE than 4 years (started before he was even sworn in), and 2 false impeachments. Try again.

The nonsense spectacle in DC aside, Everything Trump tried was through the courts. Almost all were done (and lost) before the inauguration. Is he still even trying? I honestly don't know. It hasn't warranted mention in the news in a couple of months already, and I live overseas. That's a far stretch from 4 years and literally inventing lies to try overthrowing a sitting president.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I guess the idea was to make people call their Senators about confirming?  But yeah obviously with the Republican majority they would've voted to confirm even a convicted pedophile, so somewhat pointless on the Kochs' part.
> 
> Money was spent on their behalf, *and now they'll rule in favor of the people who spent that money* (let's not pretend otherwise).  That's as clear-cut a conflict of interest as there's ever been for a justice.  And it isn't about the individual's "bottom line," it's about preserving the legitimacy and integrity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public.


Why? Why would they do that? Their appointment is lifetime, they stand nothing to gain or lose in this scenario. Things would be different if they were ruling on a matter that directly involves them, for instance if they owned a significant amount of stock of a given company involved in a suit and the outcome of the suit could have a monetary consequence to them. If the justices have no present obligation or duty, financial or otherwise, to one side of the suit then there is no conflict of interest. If they are not involved at present, they are not required to recuse themselves. Conflicts of interest are not established based upon former association, they're established on current pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest. If the former was the case, a donor could theoretically donate towards all candidates that ever arise, however little, and effectively shield themselves from any prosecution ever. That's silly. In order to establish a conflict of interest, you have to outline *an interest*, some kind of role that generates loyalty in the present. "They owe the donors a favour" is not satisfactory evidence, it's conjecture.


> Typically, a conflict of interest arises when an individual finds himself or herself occupying two social roles simultaneously which generate opposing benefits or loyalties. The interests involved can be pecuniary or non-pecuniary. The existence of such conflicts is an objective fact, not a state of mind, and does not in itself indicate any lapse or moral error. However, especially where a decision is being taken in a fiduciary context, it is important that the contending interests be clearly identified and the process for separating them is rigorously established. Typically, this will involve the conflicted individual either giving up one of the conflicting roles or else recusing himself or herself from the particular decision-making process that is in question.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest


As far as practice of law is concerned, a legal expert may find themselves in a conflict of interest if they're put in a position of working on a case for or against a former client. This is not the case here from what you outlined - a political donor is not a former client.


> The basic formulation of the conflicts of interest rule is that a conflict exists "if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer's own interests or by the lawyers' duties to another current client, a former client, or a third person." The duty of loyalty requires an attorney not to act directly adverse to an existing client, even on an unrelated matter where the lawyer has no client confidences. Such a loyalty conflict has been labeled a _concurrent_ conflict of interest. The duty of confidentiality is protected in rules prohibiting so-called _successive_ conflicts of interest, when a lawyer proposes to act adversely to the interests of a former client. A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter is precluded from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client. These two basic formulations – that a lawyer may not act directly adverse to a current client or adverse to a former client on a substantially related matter – form the cornerstone of modern legal conflicts of interest rules.


Tl;dr If you claim conflict of interest, outline which two interests that exist currently are conflicting.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Why? Why would they do that?


Why *will* they do that, you mean?  I dunno, perhaps out of some misguided sense of loyalty, to the Kochs or Trump.  Perhaps because all their friends, family, and business associates are either Republicans, wealthy, or both, and they'd also benefit from such a decision.  Perhaps because Kavanaugh is easy to blackmail and ACB's religious cult worships the rich.



Foxi4 said:


> If the justices have no present obligation or duty, financial or otherwise, to one side of the suit then there is no conflict of interest.


So unless money is changing hands inside the courtroom and while court is in session, there is no conflict of interest?  That's bullshit and you know it.  Money was spent on their behalf.  That creates obligation, or expectation of reciprocation.  Trump's appointees cannot be trusted to remain impartial in this case, and therefore there's a conflict of interest.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Why *will* they do that, you mean?  I dunno, perhaps out of some misguided sense of loyalty, to the Kochs or Trump.  Perhaps because all their friends, family, and business associates are either Republicans, wealthy, or both, and they'd also benefit from such a decision.
> 
> So unless money is changing hands inside the courtroom and while court is in session, there is no conflict of interest?  That's bullshit and you know it.  Money was spent on their behalf.  That creates obligation, or expectation of reciprocation.  Trump's appointees cannot be trusted to remain impartial in this case, and therefore there's a conflict of interest.


Read above, I've added more information. If you claim there is a conflict of interest, it is encumbent on you to demonstrate what two opposed interests exist currently. I'm afraid that "the expectation to reciprocate" is not sufficient because the judges are under no obligation to do so. You must have two conflicting pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests, otherwise there is no conflict existing in the present. Are they in a country club together and they might get booted if they rule against a former donor? Is their position in an institution threatened based on the ruling? Do they have a financial interest in the present that sways them to rule one way or the other? If you can't answer yes to any of those questions, there's no conflict.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm afraid that "the expectation to reciprocate" is not sufficient because the judges are under no obligation to do so.


But they *will fucking do so.*  You and I both know it.  If they want to blatantly flout the law and Supreme Court procedure, that's their choice.  But it also means they'll have fewer people willing to cry for them when there are inevitably consequences for that choice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> But they *will fucking do so.*  You and I both know it.  If they want to blatantly flout the law and Supreme Court procedure, that's their choice.  But it also means they'll have fewer people willing to cry for them when there are inevitably consequences for that choice.


They're not "flouting" the law or the SC procedure, as demonstrated above. In fact, they're not even in a conflict of interest in common parlance as they are not presently in any relation with the donor. You can't just say that there is a conflict of interest here if there is no opposing interest, that's not how it works.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You can't just say that there is a conflict of interest here if there is no opposing interest, that's not how it works.


Obviously we're at an impasse here if you're just going to keep pretending 2+2=5.  Obligation was created the moment money was spent on their behalf.  When all three rule in favor of their "generous benefactors," that much will be confirmed.  For all I know, there's even money in it for the justices after the fact, considering that a ruling in the Kochs' favor would allow for unlimited dark money donations without the possibility of the donors' identities being revealed.  That's what makes this case particularly nefarious.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Obviously we're at an impasse here if you're just going to keep pretending 2+2=5.  Obligation was created the moment money was spent on their behalf.  When all three rule in favor of their "generous benefactors," that much will be confirmed.  For all I know, there's even money in it for the justices after the fact, considering that a ruling in the Kochs' favor would allow for unlimited dark money donations without the possibility of the donors' identities being revealed.


It's not my fault that you can't demonstrate a present and real interest for the justices. If they have nothing to gain or lose from the verdict and they are not ruling in a case that involves a former client (in which case they would be interfering with the interests of the client, as well as their own) then there is no conflict of interest, rather a suggestion of impropriety, which is an unevidenced assumption on your part. As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the justices ruled that donors should be anonymous since that's sensible - it's a conclusion one can come to with or without any greasing.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not my fault that you can't demonstrate a present and real interest for the justices.


It's not my fault you refuse to see the forest for the trees.



Foxi4 said:


> As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the justices ruled that donors should be anonymous since that's sensible - it's a conclusion one can come to with or without any greasing.


I must've missed the part of the Constitution where it suggests corporations and billionaires should be able to donate to political candidates (and Supreme Court justices) anonymously and with unlimited amounts.

You're making a preemptive excuse for when these justices inevitably bow to their obligation, bow to the Kochs.  The majority of the country will be appropriately appalled and their opinion of the Supreme Court will sour in kind.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's not my fault you refuse to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I must've missed the part of the Constitution where it suggests corporations and billionaires should be able to donate to political candidates (and Supreme Court justices) anonymously and with unlimited amounts.
> 
> You're making a preemptive excuse for when these justices inevitably bow to their obligation, bow to the Kochs.


I am 100% happy to switch sides on this by the way, if you can provide me with compelling evidence that their judgement is clouded due to an existing interest or loyalty. So far you haven't done that, but I'm keen on leaning one way or the other if you do present one. Justice Roberts has already explained this once, way back when. I quote:


> "I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process. (...) If a justice withdraws from as case, the court must sit without its full membership. A justice accordingly *cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy*. Rather, each justice has an obligation to the court to be sure of the need to recuse before deciding to withdraw from a case. (...) Some observers have suggested that, because the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct applies only to the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court is exempt from the ethical principles that lower courts observe. That observation rests on misconceptions about both the Supreme Court and the Code."


In other words, the recusal process is the reverse of what you think it should be. It is not the default position a justice should opt for, it is a last resort. Controversy, which I will loosely define as "we no likely", is not a relevant factor in making this decision.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am 100% happy to switch sides on this by the way, if you can provide me with compelling evidence that their judgement is clouded due to an existing interest or loyalty.


What I've provided meets all your criteria, you say a former client is a conflict of interest but somehow the justices being de facto former clients of AFP is not a conflict of interest?  Make it make sense.  Because it seems like you're doing an awfully lot of mental gymnastics just to avoid admitting the grass is green and the sky is (perceived as) blue.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> What I've provided meets all your criteria, you say a former client is a conflict of interest but somehow the justices being de facto former clients of AFP is not a conflict of interest?  Make it make sense.  Because it seems like you're doing an awfully lot of mental gymnastics just to avoid admitting the grass is green and the sky is (perceived as) blue.


They're not former clients unless any of the justices have represented them in a court of law. Have they done that or not? You're playing loosey goosey with definitions here. Donating money to a cause does not make one a client.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> They're not former clients unless any of the justices have represented them in a court of law. Have they done that or not? You're playing loosey goosey with definitions here.


Read again, I'm saying it's the other way around.  The justices are former clients of AFP's advertising agency.  Money was spent on their behalf which was never repaid.  It's no less a conflict of interest than if things were reversed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Read again, I'm saying it's the other way around.  The justices are former clients of AFP's advertising agency.  Money was spent on their behalf which was never repaid.  It's no less a conflict of interest than if things were reversed.


That's asinine. I suppose if they drank a can of coke at some point in their life, they can't rule on any cases involving Coca Cola then. To reiterate, in the civil realm you have to outline a pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest - the justices would have to stand to gain or lose something on the basis of the ruling. That's the literal definition of the word "interest". In the legal realm, they would have to be ruling on a case related to a former client - *their* former client, specifically a client in the legal system, since that creates a form of legal obligation *as well as* personal interest - they couldn't exactly defend someone one day and then go against their own defense the next, that would imply they were lying at one occasion or the other, which is an ethics violation. Having money donated on behalf of your nomination, not even directly to you, does not create a contract which generates on-going loyalty, and it does not generate an on-going fiduciary interest for the justice. There isn't a way for me to explain this in more detail than I already have.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Having money donated to you does not create a contract which generates on-going loyalty, and it does not generate an on-going feduciary interest for the justice.


Absolutely it does, when the implication is that more money will follow if the "right" ruling is made.  And that is the case here.  Oligarchs buying off the highest court in the land in broad daylight.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Absolutely it does, when the implication is that more money will follow if the "right" ruling is made.  And that is the case here.


To whom? The justices? The justices are appointed for life, there is no expectation of any money coming their way on the basis of the ruling, their position is cemented in the moment they're confirmed. They don't need to campaign to keep their seat, they have the seat for life. The seat on the court, which we will define as "an interest" here, cannot be affected by a third-party, so the only other interest could be monetary. If what you're suggesting is that they'll receive a bribe, that could happen with or without prior association and you'd have to provide evidence that one was offered and accepted - any judge can be bribed by anyone at any time, regardless of whether you've donated money towards their advertising or not.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> To whom? The justices? The justices are appointed for life, there is no expectation of any money coming their way on the basis of the ruling


That expectation is there with this ruling in particular, yes.  It would make catching and reporting on illicit donations to the justices nearly impossible.  And these are the Kochs we're talking about, Republican royalty.  If all three of Trump's appointees rule in their favor, you're going to have a tough time convincing anybody they can remain impartial in future cases, or that they were ever impartial to begin with.  I'd love for just one of them to prove me wrong, even if it's only to save their own public image.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That expectation is there with this ruling in particular, yes.  It would make catching and reporting on illicit donations to the justices nearly impossible.  And these are the Kochs we're talking about, Republican royalty.  If all three of Trump's appointees rule in their favor, you're going to have a tough time convincing anybody they can remain impartial in future cases, or that they were ever impartial to begin with. I'd love for just one of them to prove me wrong, even if it's only to save their own public image.


If the system worked according to your weird standard, all conservative justices on the SC would have to recuse themselves due to the specter of "future donations towards GOP causes". That's a ridiculous standard to operate on, the justices are not instruments of either party, they just happen to be conservative or liberal. Do justices even receive donations at all? Towards what? They're not campaigning, they're not subject to any election past the point of confirmation. I'm unfamiliar with this, can you elaborate?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Do justices even receive donations at all? Towards what?


Typically no, and any money sent their way, especially in large sums, would be met with a lot of suspicion and probably an investigation.  But this case involves dark money and the ability to cover its trail.  The wrong ruling here could spawn a whole new wave of organized crime, assuming the Republican party doesn't already have a monopoly on that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Typically no


Then you're arguing a non-issue. I won't be discussing hypotheticals, if you think they're getting bribes, that's an unevidenced claim.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Then you're arguing a non-issue. I won't be discussing hypotheticals, if you think they're getting bribes, that's an unevidenced claim.


The money already spent on their behalf is not hypothetical, and neither is the implication that the Kochs will provide more if the ruling is in their favor.  There will be no evidence for it after the fact, that's the big benefit they receive from ruling that dark money should be anonymous.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The money already spent on their behalf is not hypothetical, and neither is the implication that the Kochs will provide more if the ruling is in their favor.  There will be no evidence for it after the fact, that's the big benefit they receive from ruling that dark money should be anonymous.


The reason why I'm going hard on you for this is because you've made a serious allegation that doesn't fulfil the requirements of the term you used.

When I questioned you about it and asked what two present interests exist that would interfere with the judgement, since you need two conflicting interests to have a damned conflict of interest, you were unable to name them and kept back-tracking to a past donation which is irrelevant and in no way indicative of future gain or loss, financial or otherwise. When I asked you about whether or not one side of the suit was a former client, you again were unable to answer and flipped it the other way around for some reason, which doesn't work. The justices never represented that side of the case in a court of law (that we know of) and as such it cannot be considered a former client. When I questioned you about supposed donations to the Supreme Court, which to my knowledge aren't a thing, you stated that they don't receive monetary contributions, but now they totally will, based on nothing.

In other words, you've concocted a conspiracy theory and expect it to be accepted as gospel. You have no evidence of any existing interest, you just *think* there is one on the basis of a donation. In your mind that creates an obligation, which it does not - the stakes for the justices are zero. They have no interest in terms of their position, which is a lifetime appointment that the side of the case cannot affect, and no interest financially, since they don't receive donations either way, nor would they have any reason to receive them.

Your only actual argument is the idea that they might be bribed, which you have no evidence for, and when questioned your line of defense was "hey dude, it only makes sense, don't make it 2+2=5, follow the money my man". Uh, no. This is an Alex Jones-level argument. Either you can describe a present, relevant and opposing interest or you can't - anything beyond that is your own conjecture. If the justices can't gain or lose anything on the basis of their judgement, there is no conflict of interest - they don't have an interest to begin with if nothing is at stake.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Either you can describe a present, relevant and opposing interest or you can't - anything beyond that is your own conjecture.


We're simply not gonna agree on what fulfills those requirements.  Gifts provided to justices above and beyond a certain monetary value constitute a conflict of interest that's ongoing until the debt is repaid.  You want to pretend it's over and done with, but the obligation remains.  The Kochs would have undue influence over conservative justices even without having spent tens of thousands of dollars on air time for them, which just further solidifies the case for term limits.

Again, they're gonna rule however they please, but nobody should be surprised if/when that leads to a check on their power, such as expanding the court or impeachment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> We're simply not gonna agree on what fulfills those requirements.  Gifts provided to justices above and beyond a certain monetary value constitute a conflict of interest that's ongoing until the debt is repaid.  You want to pretend it's over and done with, but the obligation remains.  The Kochs would have undue influence over conservative justices even without having spent tens of thousands of dollars on air time for them, which just further solidifies the case for term limits.


My problem with your reasoning is that this standard disqualifies every single justice as all justices ran nomination campaigns at one point or another, presumably. You are creating an environment where donating to everyone across the board makes one untouchable. We would have a very different discussion if Mr.X gave money or an item of high value to Justice Y, to hand. This is not the case here, we're talking about advertising via a third party. To put it in different terms, if I as a private citizen donate money to a PAC, that PAC in turn spends that money to advertise on behalf of a candidate, and later down the line I happen to be in court and that candidate is presiding over the case, you cannot say that I've bribed the judge with a straight face. The judge has no financial interest, or any other interest, in my case, regardless of whether I supported their nomination or not. We are multiple steps removed from what I would consider a bribe and on completely different planets when it comes to what could be considered a financial interest in the outcome. The relevant part of the equation is the interest in the outcome of the case, of which there is none here.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> My problem with your reasoning is that this standard disqualifies every single justice as all justices ran nomination campaigns at one point or another.


Err...not really.  Justices lobby for themselves at their confirmation hearing, sure, but running full-blown campaigns?  Nah.



Foxi4 said:


> To put it in different terms, if I as a private citizen donate money to a PAC, that PAC in turn sends that money to advertise on behalf of a candidate, and later down the line I happen to be in court and that candidate is presiding over the case, you cannot say that I've bribed the judge with a straight face.


There are several degrees of separation in your example that don't exist for the case in question.  AFP ran the advertisements for the justices, and AFP is arguing one side of this case.  They're going into this with the expectation that Trump's appointees will rule in their favor, and not without reason.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Err...not really.  Justices lobby for themselves at their confirmation hearing, sure, but running full-blown campaigns?  Nah.
> 
> There are several degrees of separation in your example that don't exist for the case in question.  AFP ran the advertisements for the justices, and AFP is arguing one side of this case.  They're going into this with the expectation that Trump's appointees will rule in their favor, and not without reason.


There are multiple reasons why they would expect that which do not involve any impropriety. Don't mistake my reluctance to accept your argument with antagonism to your case - I can see how a conflict of interest *might* arise in such a case, you just haven't demonstrated one in a way that would fit within the accepted guidelines of what constitutes one, or at least in a way that I would find satisfactory. If we were arguing about the Shell case, I'd agree that ACB should recuse herself since her father spent 30 years as an attorney for Shell Oil and that proximity does raise eyebrows, even if she herself has no interest in the outcome. This case? Not so sure, I would really have to do a deep dive on it to make a determination. Based on what you said, I'm unconvinced.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The Democratic party is absolutely doing "something untoward" - if you're going to suggest that the Republicans are trying to overturn a totally legitimate election because they're "unhappy with the results", you'll also have to accept that the Democratic party is trying to throw off the balance of the Supreme Court because they don't like the previous administration's justice selection. If they do end up packing the court just to ensure a "liberal majority" (in spite of the fact that those are lifetime nominations and no justice needs to pay fealty to either party), that's a textbook fascistic move to seize control of a branch of government, specifically the judiciary. They don't like the current guys, so they want to pack it with "their guys" to have a majority, outside of the usual process. I don't see how there can be any other interpretation.



The Senate is an unrepresentative body where a vast majority of citizens are represented by a minority of Senators.
The House has a gerrymandering problem.
The Electoral College gives more power to some citizens over others based on where they live, and a minority of citizens often choose the president in part because rural/Republican places have more voting power.
A Supreme Court Justice is nominated by a president chosen by the broken Electoral College, and they can be blocked by a single Senator from a broken Senate due to arbitrary and inconsistent rules dictated by that Senator alone. In 2016, the rule was "Democratic presidents don't get to have their nominees voted on."
In addition to the issues above, there are inherent problems with lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.
There is nothing untoward about wanting to fix these problems. The system is becoming increasingly undemocratic, and members of the Democratic Party are trying to fix that. As a result of the problems above, conservatives have a 6:3 majority on the Supreme Court, but just about every position on the left has majority support from its citizens. However, there is something very untoward about trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and there's no excuse.

Please don't confuse anti-Democratic for anti-democratic. That's the mistake you're making.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> The Biden fact checker is here imao  and is telling me that January 6 is worst than pearl harbor and 9/11


The former was an attack on a democratic institution (our elections, the peaceful transfer of power, the idea of democracy in general, etc.). The latter two were not.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Senate is an unrepresentative body where a vast majority of citizens are represented by a minority of Senators.
> The House has a gerrymandering problem.
> The Electoral College gives more power to some citizens over others based on where they live, and a minority of citizens often choose the president in part because rural/Republican places have more voting power.
> A Supreme Court Justice is nominated by a president chosen by the broken Electoral College, and they can be blocked by a single Senator from a broken Senate due to arbitrary and inconsistent rules dictated by that Senator alone. In 2016, the rule was "Democratic presidents don't get to have their nominees voted on."
> ...


I like how the fix seems to be "put more of our guys in there". Thankfully all of those proposals will die on the Senate floor, which is the correct outcome.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

urherenow said:


> wrong answer. The democratic party did it for MORE than 4 years (started before he was even sworn in), and 2 false impeachments. Try again.
> 
> The nonsense spectacle in DC aside, Everything Trump tried was through the courts. Almost all were done (and lost) before the inauguration. Is he still even trying? I honestly don't know. It hasn't warranted mention in the news in a couple of months already, and I live overseas. That's a far stretch from 4 years and literally inventing lies to try overthrowing a sitting president.


The Democratic Party never tried to overturn Trump's election. Opposing his deplorable policies and impeaching him when he committed impeachable offenses are not attempting to overturn an election.

The Democratic Party didn't like the results of the 2016 election, but they accepted the results of the 2016 election because they aren't an anti-democratic party.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I like how the fix seems to be "put more of our guys in there". Thankfully all of those proposals will die on the Senate floor, which is the correct outcome.


We don't know what the recommended fixes will be. Considering everything I said above though, I don't know how a person could say putting more Democratically-appointed justices onto the Supreme Court is untoward.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can see how a conflict of interest *might* arise in such a case, you just haven't demonstrated one in a way that would fit within the accepted guidelines of what constitutes one, or at least in a way that I would find satisfactory.


It's a pivotal case that will impact the integrity of our elections going forward, so even if it doesn't rise to the level of conflict of interest in your mind, any faint whiff of impropriety should be cleared from the air before it proceeds.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We don't know what the recommended fixes will be. Considering everything I said above though, I don't know how a person could say putting more Democratically-appointed justices onto the Supreme Court is untoward.


Call it what it is - packing the court. The plan is to add seats in the absence of any vacancies to tip the balance in favour of the ruling party - that's fascistic. They don't want a 50/50 split, which would at least suggest a degree of good intent, there's a strong desire to add four additional seats to flip the script from 6-3 to 6-7. I'm sure the completely, totally non-partisan commission Biden's administration has put on the case will come up with an excellent solution that isn't a thinly-veiled attempt at seizing control of the highest court in the land, I can't wait to read their report.


Xzi said:


> It's a pivotal case that will impact the integrity of our elections going forward, so even if it doesn't rise to the level of conflict of interest in your mind, any faint whiff of impropriety should be cleared from the air before it proceeds.


Controversy is not sufficient grounds for recusal.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 29, 2021)

Biden is sick 
Spitting on thousands of dead Americans, some of them forever entombed below the waters of the Pacific, in a pathetic attempt to frame January 6 in an absurd way is disgusting, unpresidential, & unAmerican.— Anna James Zeigler (@ajzeigler) April 29, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Call it what it is - packing the court. The plan is to add seats in the absence of any vacancies to tip the balance in favour of the ruling party - that's fascistic. They don't want a 50/50 split, which would at least suggest a degree of good intent, there's a strong desire to add four additional seats to flip the script from 6-3 to 6-7. I'm sure the completely, totally non-partisan commission Biden's administration has put on the case will come up with an excellent solution that isn't a thinly-veiled attempt at seizing control of the highest court in the land, I can't wait to read their report.
> Controversy is not sufficient grounds for recusal.


Let's not beat around the bush. Republican attacks on the 2020 election are anti-democratic and were justifiably compared to "establishing the fourth reich." Lol at you comparing pro-democratic efforts by the Democratic Party to fix the Supreme Court, Senate, etc. to "establishing the fourth reich." Nobody on the Democratic side is talking about overturning elections or storming the Capitol.

I'm not sure what world one has to be living in to view what the Democratic members are doing as anything other than pro-democracy, and I'm not sure what world one has to be living in to view Republican attacks on American democracy as anything other than untoward. What you're doing is textbook whataboutism, and it's not even applicable whataboutism.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Biden is sick
> https://twitter.com/ajzeigler/status/1387565599555997696


Biden didn't mention Pearl Harbor, but he did correctly point out that, when it comes to attacks specifically against American democracy, January 6 was the worst since the Civil War, which also started as an attack on the results of a presidential election. Try again.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Let's not beat around the bush. Republican attacks on the 2020 election are anti-democratic and were justifiably compared to "establishing the fourth reich." Lol at you comparing pro-democratic efforts by the Democratic Party to fix the Supreme Court, Senate, etc. to "establishing the fourth reich." Nobody on the Democratic side is talking about overturning elections or storming the Capitol.
> 
> I'm not sure what world one has to be living in to view what the Democratic members are doing as anything other than pro-democracy, and I'm not sure what world one has to be living in to view Republican attacks on American democracy as anything other than untoward. What you're doing is textbook whataboutism, and it's not even applicable whataboutism.


>Pro-democratic efforts at fixing the court
>Adding justices by government mandate

...weren't you the one who *just* outlined the difference between "pro-Democratic" and "pro-democratic"? When did they ask the public if it wants them to pack the court? I must've missed that referendum. Polls show that the public is against the president supporting a court-packing scheme - 65% against  31% for, according to Mason-Dixon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mason-dixon-poll-americans-reject-court-packing-11619200597

This is way up from when the court-packing question was asked by Siena College on election day when 58% opposed it and 31% supported it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/politics/biden-trump-times-poll.html

It's not a "pro-democratic" move since the public opposes court packing, overwhelmingly so. It is "pro-Democratic" because it gives them more power on the sole basis of them saying that they're in deservement of it.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Democratic Party never tried to overturn Trump's election. Opposing his deplorable policies and impeaching him when he committed impeachable offenses are not attempting to overturn an election.


Starwman bullshit as usual. Tell me one thing about the first impeachment that had to do with his policies. One thing that wasn't straight up FABRICATED. Which impeachable offense did he commit again? Not a goddamn thing. Stayed in office. Documents leading to the impeachment proved to be made up. Try again.

and more on "his" policies. You mean among which was to actually enforce policies put forth by previous administrations, including Joe and Obama? Yea, tell me how the border is working out now... deplorable policies indeed


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> >Pro-democratic efforts at fixing the court
> >Adding justices by government mandate
> 
> ...weren't you the one who *just* outlined the difference between "pro-Democratic" and "pro-democratic"? When did they ask the public if it wants them to pack the court? I must've missed that referendum. Polls show that the public is against the president supporting a court-packing scheme - 65% against versus 31% for, according to Mason-Dixon.
> ...


The Supreme Court does not represent the voters who elected the Presidents who appoint justices and the Senators who confirm justices. The Supreme Court has a 6:3 split in the conservative direction, despite the fact that a majority of voters voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, and a majority of voters voted for Democratic senators when looking at all of the sitting Senators between 2016 to now and their elections. I would also remind you that the rule for a long time has arbitrarily been "Democratic presidents don't get to appoint justices." I'm not sure why someone would think this is okay.

As for your argument that anything about what the Democratic members might do to the Supreme Court is undemocratic, I'll remind you to re-read what I posted and point out that the Democratic members wanting to do this were democratically elected, lol.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> Starwman bullshit as usual. Tell me one thing about the first impeachment that had to do with his policies. One thing that wasn't straight up FABRICATED. Which impeachable offense did he commit again? Not a goddamn thing. Stayed in office. Documents leading to the impeachment proved to be made up. Try again.


Trump tried to elicit foreign election interference by extorting a foreign government. That's why he was impeached the first time.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Supreme Court does not represent the voters who elected the Presidents who appoint justices and the Senators who confirm justices. The Supreme Court has a 6:3 split in the conservative direction, despite the fact that a majority of voters voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, and a majority of voters voted for Democratic senators when looking at all of the sitting Senators between 2016 to now and their elections. I would also remind you that the rule for a long time has arbitrarily been "Democratic presidents don't get to appoint justices." I'm not sure why someone would think this is okay.
> 
> As for your argument that anything about what the Democratic members might do to the Supreme Court is undemocratic, I'll remind you to re-read what I posted and point out that the Democratic members wanting to do this were democratically elected, lol.
> 
> ...


um... try again. All false.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

urherenow said:


> um... try again. All false.


Screaming "false" without any context doesn't move the conversation forward in any meaningful way. What did I say specifically that was false? Try again.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Screaming "false" without any context doesn't move the conversation forward in any meaningful way. What did I say specifically that was false? Try again.


Playing stupid doesn't move the conversation either. You replied to me with two short sentences. If you can't figure it out, well, that explains a lot


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Supreme Court does not represent the voters who elected the Presidents who appoint justices and the Senators who confirm justices. The Supreme Court has a 6:3 split in the conservative direction, despite the fact that a majority of voters voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, and a majority of voters voted for Democratic senators when looking at all of the sitting Senators between 2016 to now and their elections. I would also remind you that the rule for a long time has arbitrarily been "Democratic presidents don't get to appoint justices." I'm not sure why someone would think this is okay.
> 
> As for your argument that anything about what the Democratic members might do to the Supreme Court is undemocratic, I'll remind you to re-read what I posted and point out that the Democratic members wanting to do this were democratically elected, lol.


Being democratically elected officials does not preclude them from using fascistic power grabs to gain even more control than they already have. Adding justices to the court because they say so is in fact a fascistic power grab - if they claim that the court needs to be rebalanced, they have to provide evidence to demonstrate that the current rulings are skewed. That'd be rather hard to do considering the newly-appointed conservative judges did not rule in favour of all conservative causes as the political left expected them to, they remained fairly balanced in their rulings. The public is against you on this, overwhelmingly so, which de facto means any attempt at packing the court goes directly against the wishes of We The People. It'd be done in service of the party, which is why it will rightfully die in the Senate, as it should.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Playing stupid doesn't move the conversation either. You replied to me with two short sentences. If you can't figure it out, well, that explains a lot


Your previous post was essentially just "nope," so there's not much I can say in response without having an argument with myself, and as much as I like reading and re-reading what I type, I don't think anybody else here wants me to do that.

Please respond to me directly or tag me if you decide to post a substantive response to anything I've said. Thank you.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 29, 2021)

IMAO
CNN’s Democrat audience gave Biden a lower positive reaction than Trump
View of speech watchers, per CNN poll. The speech watchers tonight overall leaned Democratic. pic.twitter.com/9VslE8ir7Z— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 29, 2021


----------



## urherenow (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Your previous post was essentially just "nope," so there's not much I can say in response without having an argument with myself, and as much as I like reading and re-reading what I type, I don't think anybody else here wants me to do that.
> 
> Please respond to me directly or tag me if you decide to post a substantive response to anything I've said. Thank you.


the entire first impeachment was predicated under false pretenses from the beginning: a fake dossier.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-dossier-deceit-11595027626
Just as Trump said, the whole thing was a sham. Had he been guilty of an impeachable offense, it wouldn't have been dismissed in the senate. End of story. But you do you and keep clinging on to whatever lies meet your notion of him.


----------



## smf (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I consider $3+ million in real estate spending in 8 years to be "within the last few years".



8 years is not by any stretch of the imagination, a few years. That is a manipulative choice of words on your part.

Spending is how much you spent, not how much it's worth now. You yourself said she spent $2.5 million a few posts ago, which is it?

If the properties were mortgaged then you would need considerably less than $2.5 million.
I have seen no evidence whether she's renting the properties out, or sold any of them to buy the next one.

So it's not suspicious at all, unless you think Black woman buying property is automatically suspicious. Which is the impression you, and all the other people angry about BLM, give.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Being democratically elected officials does not preclude them from using fascistic power grabs to gain even more control than they already have. Adding justices to the court because they say so is in fact a fascistic power grab - if they claim that the court needs to be rebalanced, they have to provide evidence to demonstrate that the current rulings are skewed. That'd be rather hard to do considering the newly-appointed conservative judges did not rule in favour of all conservative causes as the political left expected them to, they remained fairly balanced in their rulings. The public is against you on this, overwhelmingly so, which de facto means any attempt at packing the court goes directly against the wishes of We The People. It'd be done in service of the party, which is why it will rightfully die in the Senate, as it should.


You are again confusing pro-democratic for pro-Democratic.

Democratically elected officials lawfully adding seats to the Supreme Court in response to the multitude of anti-democratic problems with the court that I already explained, including but not limited to Republicans arbitrarily blocking nominations to the court from Democrats, is not fascist. It's pro-democratic, not pro-Democratic. Using false allegations of voter fraud, and violence, in an attempt to overturn an election is fascist.

In summary, your comparisons are wrong, and even if they weren't, they're whataboutism.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> the entire first impeachment was predicated under false pretenses from the beginning: a fake dossier.
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-dossier-deceit-11595027626
> Just as Trump said, the whole thing was a sham. Had he been guilty of an impeachable offense, it wouldn't have been dismissed in the senate. End of story. But you do you and keep clinging on to whatever lies meet your notion of him.


Russia's meddling in the 2016 election, which demonstrably happened, has nothing to do with either of Trump's impeachments.

I'd suggest you do some reading and get the basic timeline and facts straight before responding.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

smf said:


> 8 years is not by any stretch of the imagination, a few years. That is a manipulative choice of words on your part.
> 
> Spending is how much you spent, not how much it's worth now. You yourself said it was $1.5 million a few posts ago.
> 
> ...


I know precisely zero people who have spent in excess of 3 million dollars on property in the span of 8 years. I am willing to bet you don't know anyone like that either. The supposed mortgage is an invention of your imagination you brought into the conversation that you have no evidence for. Zero banks would give a single individual mortgages of a cumulative value of 3 million dollars unless their annual income was insane. I don't know why you'd even continue the conversation after such a thorough trouncing, but if you feel like carrying this giant L, have fun.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 29, 2021)

Considering the argument that people were elected democratically, that anything they do is a part of democracy--Trump, too, was elected.  So why was he a fascist if he was democratically elected?  It is a double standard.


----------



## kevin corms (Apr 29, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Considering the argument that people were elected democratically, that anything they do is a part of democracy--Trump, too, was elected.  So why was he a fascist if he was democratically elected?  It is a double standard.


If he's a fascist, he's the least effective one ever.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 29, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> If he's a fascist, he's the least effective one ever.


It seemed like he didn't actually do anything fascist.  And when Covid came around, people were upset that he wasn't fascist enough.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You are again confusing pro-democratic for pro-Democratic.
> 
> Democratically elected officials lawfully adding seats to the Supreme Court in response to the multitude of anti-democratic problems with the court that I already explained, including but not limited to Republicans arbitrarily blocking nominations to the court from Democrats, is not fascist. It's pro-democratic, not pro-Democratic. Using false allegations of voter fraud, and violence, in an attempt to overturn an election is fascist.
> 
> In summary, your comparisons are wrong, and even if they weren't, they're whataboutism.


Two in three surveyed adults disagree. Thankfully such plainly fascistic moves always die in a fairly balanced Senate, which is precisely why all of a sudden it's very important to make DC, an exceedingly blue area, a State - well ahead of other territories that have been awaiting statehood. In the end I'll have the last laugh, so it's a silly discussion either way - the Democrats will fail, but the conservatives will never forget. There will come a day when they'll regret even trying, to paraphrase McConnell.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 29, 2021)

Good thing we have Lacius to explain this one to us on how this is actually good  that 80 million votes more popular than Obama biden  cant manage to get views that show that
WOW!!! Look how low these numbers are for Biden addressing congress! pic.twitter.com/4kYfWtYURg— Eric Spracklen🇺🇸 (@EricSpracklen) April 29, 2021


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Two in three surveyed adults disagree. Thankfully such plainly fascistic moves always die in a fairly balanced Senate, which is precisely why all of a sudden it's very important to make DC, an exceedingly blue area, a State - well ahead of other territories that have been awaiting statehood. In the end I'll have the last laugh, so it's a silly discussion either way - the Democrats will fail, but the conservatives will never forget. There will come a day when they'll regret even trying, to paraphrase McConnell.


The silliness started when you called changing the Supreme Court or adding a state, all precedented things, fascist. The Supreme Court should be altered. The Senate should be changed. The Electoral College should be abolished. These are pro-democratic positions.

Saying there are other territories awaiting statehood is more whataboutism. D.C. is clearly at the top of the list since, as is the theme in our conversation, citizens of D.C. lack representation and it's anti-democratic. Their population is also high relative to a lot of other territories. Finally, they voted on whether or not they want statehood (you like survey results), and they voted overwhelmingly for it. For the record, I and a lot of other people don't want to stop with D.C.

We don't forego making a territory a state because one political party might benefit. Hell, the Dakota's were split for partisan reasons, and that was far worse than any criticism of D.C. statehood.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Good thing we have Lacius to explain this one to us on how this is actually good  that 80 million votes more popular than Obama biden  cant manage to get views that show that
> https://twitter.com/EricSpracklen/status/1387633190026764290


I guess it's a good thing we don't elect presidents by view counts, and I guess it's a good thing we don't measure popularity by view counts either.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Considering the argument that people were elected democratically, that anything they do is a part of democracy--Trump, too, was elected.  So why was he a fascist if he was democratically elected?  It is a double standard.


The argument wasn't that anything an elected person does is inherently democratic and not fascist. The argument was something isn't inherently fascist just because lawmakers did something that wasn't directly voted on by the people. This is a democratic republic, not a democracy.

The former president was 100% a fascist. He continues to this day to figuratively set fire to our democratic institutions.


----------



## Snintendog (Apr 29, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Good thing we have Lacius to explain this one to us on how this is actually good  that 80 million votes more popular than Obama biden  cant manage to get views that show that
> https://twitter.com/EricSpracklen/status/1387633190026764290


This is the litmus test Most people that are on the internet HATE him and HIS policies MORE than trump ever was hated. Yet we see nothing but censorship of criticism of Biden and Boosting of those that Praise him the inverse of what was Recorded and Scientifically proven what happened during 2016 onward of Trump Major censorship of anyone praising him and boosting those that criticized him.

In Fact there is a study on Twitter of accounts that were confirmed to be Foreign agent bots that was set out to prove Trump used bots and the Study found the Opposite of what they wanted it also found that a majority of rasism on twitter came from the Democrat community it found a ton of Russian bots but they were focused on account scamming and ID theft rather than anything political. Aydin Paladin covered these studies in depth and showed even the flawed approach to it that Should have skewed heavily in favor for them yet the truth of numbers and data prevails yet again. https://www.youtube.com/c/AydinPaladin/videos Trigger warning if you dont like Facts or being bombarded with the truth dont watch her.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The silliness started when you called changing the Supreme Court or adding a state, all precedented things, fascist. The Supreme Court should be altered. The Senate should be changed. The Electoral College should be abolished. These are pro-democratic positions.
> 
> Saying there are other territories awaiting statehood is more whataboutism. D.C. is clearly at the top of the list since, as is the theme in our conversation, citizens of D.C. lack representation and it's anti-democratic. Their population is also high relative to a lot of other territories. Finally, they voted on whether or not they want statehood (you like survey results), and they voted overwhelmingly for it. For the record, I and a lot of other people don't want to stop with D.C.
> 
> ...


Attempting to seize power over two branches of government by using the power of the legislature, thus establishing one-party rule without the consent of We The People is a fascist move, you won't convince me otherwise, so you're wasting your breath.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Attempting to seize power over two branches of government by using the power of the legislature and establish one-party rule without the consent of We The People is a fascist move, you won't convince me otherwise, so you're wasting your breath.


It's about blocking parties from being able to seize power through any means other than winning elections, so you should be on my side.

The Republicans have an arbitrary advantage in the Senate because it isn't a representative body. The Republicans have an arbitrary advantage in the House because of gerrymandering. The Republicans have an advantage for president because the Electoral College gives them an arbitrary advantage. The Republicans have an arbitrary advantage in the Supreme Court because of the aforementioned problems with the Senate and the Electoral College, as well as issues related to the consequences of lifetime appointments, etc.

The Democratic Party is looking to make things more fair and more democratic. If that would also make things more Democratic, that's not a consequence of corruption or anything untoward; it's a consequence of having popular candidates and popular policy positions. Your argument appears to be that what the Democratic Party wants to do would benefit the Democratic Party and hurt the Republican Party, but that's not the Democratic Party's problem. If the Republican Party is unpopular, maybe they should do something about it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's about blocking parties from being able to seize power through any means other than winning elections, so you should be on my side.
> 
> The Republicans have an arbitrary advantage in the Senate because it isn't a representative body. The Republicans have an arbitrary advantage in the House because of gerrymandering. The Republicans have an advantage for president because the Electoral College gives them an arbitrary advantage. The Republicans have an arbitrary advantage in the Supreme Court because of the aforementioned problems with the Senate and the Electoral College, as well as issues related to the consequences of lifetime appointments, etc.
> 
> The Democratic Party is looking to make things more fair and more democratic. If that would also make things more Democratic, that's not a consequence of corruption or anything untoward; it's a consequence of having popular candidates and popular policy positions. Your argument appears to be that what the Democratic Party wants to do would benefit the Democratic Party and hurt the Republican Party, but that's not the Democratic Party's problem. If the Republican Party is unpopular, maybe they should do something about it.


I'm sure it's all for the good of the people and not at all to seize power over the court, which the Democratic party uses to effectively legislate by reading the constitution using a kaleidoscope, as they have for many years now. For once the checks and balances are working as they should, and they sure don't like that. Tough luck. They'll get those seats out of McConnell's cold, dead hands.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm sure it's all for the good of the people and not at all to seize power over the court, which the Democratic party uses to effectively legislate by reading the constitution using a kaleidoscope, as they have for many years now. For once the checks and balances are working as they should, and they sure don't like that. Tough luck. They'll get those seats out of McConnell's cold, dead hands.


Just because something is in the Constitution doesn't mean it should be in the Constitution. Slavery would like to have a word with you, for example.

Like it or not, the current system is arbitrary and anti-democratic. Whether or not you agree with changing the system, it's foolhardy to call attempts to do so the Fourth Reich as though they're at all comparable to trying to overturn an election with violence, corruption, and fake allegations of voter fraud.


----------



## Snintendog (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Just because something is in the Constitution doesn't mean it should be in the Constitution. Slavery would like to have a word with you, for example.
> 
> Like it or not, the current system is arbitrary and anti-democratic. Whether or not you agree with changing the system, it's foolhardy to call attempts to do so the Fourth Reich as though they're at all comparable to trying to overturn an election with violence, corruption, and fake allegations of voter fraud.


You seem to be hard Advocating how the CCP rose to power being repeated in the US.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Snintendog said:


> You seem to be hard Advocating how the CCP rose to power being repeated in the US.


I'm only advocating for democracy. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.


----------



## smf (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I know precisely zero people who have spent in excess of 3 million dollars on property in the span of 8 years.



That says more about the people you know. A minute ago it was 2.5 million, then 3 million, now excess of 3 million. Can you make up your mind?

I'm more suspicious of the guy behind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization



Foxi4 said:


> The supposed mortgage is an invention of your imagination you brought into the conversation that you have no evidence for.



Sure I have no evidence for a mortgage, but most property is bought with a mortgage & I haven't seen evidence of those either. I only ever saw mine. It's certainly delusional to think she must have bought it for cash.



Foxi4 said:


> Zero banks would give a single individual mortgages of a cumulative value of 3 million dollars unless their annual income was insane.



You consider 750k insane? High yes, but more manipulative language.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't know why you'd even continue the conversation after such a thorough trouncing, but if you feel like carrying this giant L, have fun.



I've never had the chance to study someone that shows the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect as much before.



tabzer said:


> Considering the argument that people were elected democratically, that anything they do is a part of democracy--Trump, too, was elected.  So why was he a fascist if he was democratically elected?  It is a double standard.



Being elected has nothing to do with whether you are a fascist, it's possible to elect a fascist or non fascist.

Even dictators get elected.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21521958/what-is-fascism-signs-donald-trump

_And every week, I receive dozens of emails from readers wondering if I stand by my conclusion in 2015, that Trump is simply a bigot with an authoritarian streak, not a fascist.

So I reached out to the experts I talked to back then. Four of the five replied, and I also got in touch with a few more scholars who have researched fascism to get a broader view.

The responses were, again, unanimous, albeit tinged with much greater concern about Trump’s authoritarian and violent tendencies. No one thinks Trump is a fascist leader, full stop. Jason Stanley, a Yale philosopher and author of How Fascism Works, came closest to that conclusion, saying that “you could call legitimately call Trumpism a fascist social and political movement” and that Trump is “using fascist political tactics,” but that Trump isn’t necessarily leading a fascist government._


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

smf said:


> That says more about the people you know. A minute ago it was 2.5 million, then 3 million, now excess of 3 million. Can you make up your mind?
> 
> I'm more suspicious of the guy behind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
> 
> ...


I've never seen anyone show symptoms of spontaneous amnesia before. She purchased 4 properties in the US worth in excess of 3.2 million dollars altogether, however we only knew the value of the 3 properties bought in LA, as in the values at the time of purchase ($590k, $510k and $1.4m respectively). Since you had a problem with the published evaluation of $3.2m total, or something to that effect, I showed you that even if the Georgia property was worth zero dollars, the value of the remaining three properties was still exorbitant - $2.5m. Here's another thought experiment. Let's say that she mortgaged it all (she didn't) and generously assume that it was for an average period of 25 years. Let's also assume that the bank giving the mortgage to her had a severe lapse of judgement twice and offered it at 0% APR, so no interest (it wouldn't) and no downpayment (it wouldn't do that either). With those parameters, the $2.5m we agreed upon would result in monthly payments of $8333 - likely story. There are no reports of her getting any mortgages though, so this is all in your imagination until proven otherwise. Don't hit the ceiling beams with this L you're carrying around, it's only getting bigger.

EDIT: In terms of Cullors' income, she was paid a grand total of $120,000 for her work in BLM over the course of 6 years (2013-2019) and no longer receives a salary from BLM Network, her consultancy firm received an additional $191,000 during 2019. Presumably she has other sources of income, for instance book sales and speaking fees, she also worked with Warner Brothers for a bit, but you're a little short off the mark there, skipper. I think the amount of money we're talking about is "a little sus" and I'm not surprised to see her fellow BLM members wanting to see some receipts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lting-firm-paid-20K-month-LA-jail-reform.html


Lacius said:


> Just because something is in the Constitution doesn't mean it should be in the Constitution. Slavery would like to have a word with you, for example.
> 
> Like it or not, the current system is arbitrary and anti-democratic. Whether or not you agree with changing the system, it's foolhardy to call attempts to do so the Fourth Reich as though they're at all comparable to trying to overturn an election with violence, corruption, and fake allegations of voter fraud.


The sole responsibility of the Supreme Court is to determine whether the matters put in front of it are constitutional or not. If the Democrats feel like using it as a backup legislature for when their causes get struck down in the actual legislature, they're the ones perverting the nation's institutions.


----------



## Snintendog (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm only advocating for democracy. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.



Your Advocating for power imbalance to complete and utter control. "Packing the courts is only right because congress cant pass the LAWS i like because i dont have more than 60% of the power to pass them" We have democracy a simple majority should never be allowed you have to make BOTH sides agree to pass the law not just one That is what True democracy looks like. For goods sake you are asking a for the Supreme Court to handle things beyond what the PEOPLE VOTE for invalidating their voice entirely and giving them the power to Override The VOTE simply because you don't like the decision. Like i Said you are HARD PUSHING FOR DICTATORSHIP We are NOT NAZI GERMANY *Snip*.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The sole responsibility of the Supreme Court is to determine whether the matters put in front of it are constitutional or not. If the Democrats feel like using it as a backup legislature for when their causes get struck down in the actual legislature, they're the ones perverting the nation's institutions.


I misread your point about the Constitution and thought you were referring the Constitutional checks and balances that are the problem with the Senate, Electoral College, etc. Each side is going to argue that it's the other side that uses the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench, so I don't think there's any reason to say anything else on that topic.



Snintendog said:


> Your Advocating for power imbalance to complete and utter control. "Packing the courts is only right because congress cant pass the LAWS i like because i dont have more than 60% of the power to pass them" We have democracy a simple majority should never be allowed you have to make BOTH sides agree to pass the law not just one That is what True democracy looks like. For goods sake you are asking a for the Supreme Court to handle things beyond what the PEOPLE VOTE for invalidating their voice entirely and giving them the power to Override The VOTE simply because you don't like the decision. Like i Said you are HARD PUSHING FOR DICTATORSHIP We are NOT NAZI GERMANY *Snip*.


I'm not advocating for anything other than democracy. The goal isn't "put more members of the Democratic Party in power." The goal is a fair democratic electoral system. A gerrymandered House is not a fair electoral system. An unrepresentative Senate is not a fair electoral system. An Electoral College is definitely not a fair electoral system. Requiring 60% to pass any legislation is not a fair system. And, a Supreme Court with lifetime appointments and inconsistent rules about who can nominate justices is not a fair system.

You are making what seem to be a lot of references to the filibuster, which is a racist relic that was always anti-democratic. The filibuster, contrary to popular myth, does not result in an increase in discourse and compromise. In fact, it allows a minority to block anything they want without having to work with the majority party. Without the filibuster, the minority would instead have to actually participate in the legislative process in order to have their voices heard.

I am 100% not advocating for the Supreme Court to be able to overturn the vote. It's the Republican side that has done that and wants to do that. I cannot be pushing for a dictatorship if I'm advocating for increased democracy. In reality, making it so a political party in this country cannot compete unless they're overwhelmingly more popular than the ruling party, that's what potentially breeds a dictatorship. Imagine a corrupt country for a moment that has a corrupt ruling party and an opposition party, but despite the opposition party having majority support, they still cannot defeat the ruling party because the ruling party has made it so the cards are always in their favor. That's what is happening in the United States right now with the anti-democratic issues I've listed ad nauseum in this thread.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm sure it's all for the good of the people and not at all to seize power over the court, which the Democratic party uses to effectively legislate by reading the constitution using a kaleidoscope, as they have for many years now.


So we're gonna pretend Scalia didn't spend his whole career ruling straight down party lines?  I seriously doubt the guy ever glanced at the Constitution once in his life.  He'd get a case in front of him, call up the Koch brothers to see what ruling they wanted on it, and make that ruling.  Impartiality from Republican appointees is a convenient myth.  

Term limits, expansion of the court, or both are a must.  The only reason the right is against these things is because they appear to be consequences for their own actions, but in the long-run it'd create a more just system overall.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I misread your point about the Constitution and thought you were referring the Constitutional checks and balances that are the problem with the Senate, Electoral College, etc. Each side is going to argue that it's the other side that uses the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench, so I don't think there's any reason to say anything else on that topic.


Fair, provided we agree that doing so is a perversion of the system and that the Supreme Court was never intended to be a replacement for the legislature when the party in power fails to push their agenda effectively.


> I'm not advocating for anything other than democracy. *The goal isn't "put more members of the Democratic Party in power."* The goal is a fair democratic electoral system. A gerrymandered House is not a fair electoral system. An unrepresentative Senate is not a fair electoral system. An Electoral College is definitely not a fair electoral system. Requiring 60% to pass any legislation is not a fair system. And, a Supreme Court with lifetime appointments and inconsistent rules about who can nominate justices is not a fair system.


Pressing X.


> You are making what seem to be a lot of references to the filibuster, which is a racist relic that was always anti-democratic. The filibuster, contrary to popular myth, does not result in an increase in discourse and compromise. In fact, it allows a minority to block anything they want without having to work with the majority party. Without the filibuster, the minority would instead have to actually participate in the legislative process in order to have their voices heard.


The filibuster prevents legislation that's only popular with one side of the aisle to pass and forces both parties to reach compromises. Congress wasn't created to rapidly pass new laws - the opposite is true, the hurdles are there on purpose and are supposed to stop Congress from passing legislation that does not have broad appeal.


> I am 100% not advocating for the Supreme Court to be able to overturn the vote. It's the Republican side that has done that and wants to do that. *I cannot be pushing for a dictatorship if I'm advocating for increased democracy*. In reality, making it so a political party in this country cannot compete unless they're overwhelmingly more popular than the ruling party, that's what potentially breeds a dictatorship. Imagine a corrupt country for a moment that has a corrupt ruling party and an opposition party, but despite the opposition party having majority support, they still cannot defeat the ruling party because the ruling party has made it so the cards are always in their favor. That's what is happening in the United States right now with the anti-democratic issues I've listed ad nauseum in this thread.


I cannot be called a bad guy when my team's name is The Good Guys™. As a side note, the opposite is true - the Democratic party is the ruling party, the Republicans are the opposition. What you have a problem with is that the opposition has teeth to bite back with, you'd prefer if the Democrats were in Congress in numbers required to pass legislation completely unopposed. If that is not your intention, it is in effect what you're advocating for.


Xzi said:


> So we're gonna pretend Scalia didn't spend his whole career ruling straight down party lines?  I seriously doubt the guy ever glanced at the Constitution once in his life.  He'd get a case in front of him, call up the Koch brothers to see what ruling they wanted on it, and make that ruling.  Impartiality from Republican appointees is a convenient myth.
> 
> Term limits, expansion of the court, or both are a must.  The only reason the right is against these things is because they appear to be consequences for their own actions, but in the long-run it'd create a more just system overall.


Scalia is dead and irrelevant to this conversation.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Scalia is dead and irrelevant to this conversation.


And two mini-Scalias (partisan hacks) have been appointed in his place.  Jury's still out on Gorsuch.  One of the three is in a stolen seat.  To correct that there are two options: add two new seats (because there can't be an even number of justices), or remove one of Trump's appointees from the bench and replace them with a Biden appointee.  With as much screeching as there's been about the former option, I'm pretty sure Republicans would lose their shit over the latter option even more.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And two mini-Scalias (partisan hacks) have been appointed in his place.  Jury's still out on Gorsuch.  One of the three is in a stolen seat.  To correct that there are two options: add two new seats (because there can't be an even number of justices), or remove one of Trump's appointees from the bench and replace them with a Biden appointee.  With as much screeching as there's been about the former option, I'm pretty sure Republicans would lose their shit over the latter option even more.


None of the seats are "stolen". President Trump filled in the vacancies with the consent of the Senate, as per the appointment clause. Sour grapes are a bad look.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And two mini-Scalias (partisan hacks) have been appointed in his place.  Jury's still out on Gorsuch.  One of the three is in a stolen seat.  To correct that there are two options: add two new seats (because there can't be an even number of justices), or remove one of Trump's appointees from the bench and replace them with a Biden appointee.  With as much screeching as there's been about the former option, I'm pretty sure Republicans would lose their shit over the latter option even more.


the party with the votes gets to put people you need to stop crying ok ? the Supreme court is not only for dems to put people


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> None of the seats are "stolen".


"Water isn't wet."  You might be able to convince someone who doesn't follow any politics or current events of this nonsense, but not I.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "Water isn't wet."  You might be able to convince someone who doesn't follow any politics or current events of this nonsense, but not I.


Not following very closely, clearly. That, or unfamiliar with the procedure of confirming a justice.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Not following very closely, clearly. That, or unfamiliar with the procedure of confirming a justice.


What procedure?  McConnell just made up the rules as he went along.  Then ignored his own rules whenever convenient.  Such corruption cannot go unanswered.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> What procedure?  McConnell just made up the rules as he went along.  Then ignored his own rules whenever convenient.  Such corruption cannot go unanswered.


He was under no obligation to confirm Obama's picks, with or without historical precedent. There was no consent from the Senate and thus no confirmation. Besides, let's not pretend you guys wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if it was a 5-4 balance instead of 6-3 conservative majority - you'd still be trying the same old packing tricks to get a majority. Tried it under FDR - didn't work. Trying it now, not gonna work. Maybe third time lucky.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> He was under no obligation to confirm Obama's picks, with or without historical precedent. There was no consent from the Senate and thus no confirmation.


It's not just that there was no confirmation, there was no confirmation hearing.  Which is completely without historical precedent to that point.  If they had given Garland a hearing, as Constitutionally mandated, and rejected him, then Obama was meant to nominate someone else.



Foxi4 said:


> Besides, let's not pretend you guys wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if it was a 5-4 balance instead of 6-3 conservative majority - you'd still be trying the same old packing tricks to get a majority.


Ah yes, the classic fallacy of "I can do whatever I want, commit whatever crimes I want, because surely there's a Democrat out there somewhere that _might_ do worse."  My opinion of Biden has never been all that high, but I can say with confidence that he would not be exploring the possibility of expanding the court if not for the fact that he personally watched McConnell cheat Obama.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's not just that there was no confirmation, there was no confirmation hearing.  Which is completely without historical precedent to that point.  If they had given Garland a hearing, as Constitutionally mandated, and rejected him, then Obama was meant to nominate someone else.
> 
> Ah yes, the classic fallacy of "I can do whatever I want, commit whatever crimes I want, because surely there's a Democrat out there somewhere that _might_ do worse."  My opinion of Biden has never been all that high, but I can say with confidence that he would not be exploring the possibility of expanding the court if not for the fact that he personally watched McConnell cheat Obama.


What would this exercise in futility do besides wasting taxpayer money? You'd prefer if they rejected all nominees individually or collectively? You and I both know they wouldn't confirm a single one of them, there was no consent from the Senate, McConnell was the Senate majority leader.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You'd prefer if they rejected all nominees individually or collectively?  You and I both know they wouldn't confirm a single one of them, there was no consent from the Senate, McConnell was the Senate majority leader.


Correct, all McConnell had to do was give a hearing to one or two nominees, and that would've been enough to cover his ass.  Which makes him all the dumber for not doing that and instead making up some bullshit election-year rule, flouting Constitutionally-mandated procedure in the process.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Correct, all McConnell had to do was give a hearing to one or two nominees, and that would've been enough to cover his ass.  Which makes him all the dumber for not doing that and instead making up some bullshit election-year rule, flouting Constitutionally-mandated procedure in the process.


Who ruled that it was unconstitutional? I must've missed that part, I don't remember hearing about a successful legal challenge.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Who ruled that it was unconstitutional? I must've missed that part, I don't remember hearing about a successful legal challenge.


I'm not sure what a legal challenge would be capable of fixing at this point, at best McConnell would receive the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, at worst the case would reach the Supreme Court and be dismissed by the very people who benefited most from his corrupt actions.  I've already laid out the only two options for actually fixing the problem instead of dancing around it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'm not sure what a legal challenge would be capable of fixing at this point, at best McConnell would receive the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, at worst the case would reach the Supreme Court and be dismissed by the very people who benefited most from his corrupt actions.  I've already laid out the only two options for actually fixing the problem instead of dancing around it.


I was just making sure that you were talking out of your behind, and have now confirmed that. All I can say is "good luck with the packing attempt" without a majority in the Senate, every Republican across the board will vote against it since they're not five and they can see it for what it really is - an attempt at seizing more power. There's nothing legitimate about it, the public at large seems to agree.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 29, 2021)

Lol.  The argument is "it's not fascism if we are forcing people to do the right thing".


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 29, 2021)

Buhahahahah
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1387834659409698819


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> every Republican across the board will vote against it since they're not five and they can see it for what it really is - an attempt at seizing more power.


They'll vote against it because they're the minority party clinging to vestiges of power like rats cling to a sinking ship.  They know it's both corrupt and unconstitutional, but they felt like they got away with it at the time.  Now they're pissed because it's coming back to bite them in the ass.  No sympathy from me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Buhahahahah
> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1387834659409698819


I'm actually surprised by this low viewership. Biden's speeches are hilarious. Not hilarious enough to watch live, maybe, but still worth tuning in for a re-run on YouTube.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm actually surprised by this low viewership. Biden's speeches are hilarious. Not hilarious to watch live, maybe, but still worth tuning in for a re-run on YouTube.


I'm not surprised, a lot of people tuned into Trump's speeches to hate-watch or because they were expecting a trainwreck.  Both those audiences are gone, so the only people tuning into Biden are heavily politically engaged (C-SPAN viewers), or people looking for a sleep aid.  People voted to make politics boring again, and that's precisely what they got.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'm not surprised, a lot of people tuned into Trump's speeches to hate-watch or because they were expecting a trainwreck.  Both those audiences are gone, so the only people tuning into Biden are heavily politically engaged (C-SPAN viewers), or people looking for a sleep aid.  People voted to make politics boring again, and that's precisely what they got.


Biden can't open his mouth without a gaffe falling out of it, his speeches can be called many things, but they're definitely not boring. They're certainly good meme material, if nothing else.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Biden can't open his mouth without a gaffe falling out of it, his speeches can be called many things, but they're definitely not boring.


From the clips I saw, Biden's speech was supremely boring.  He stumbled over the words at the beginning of sentences a few times, that's about it.  You can't rely on him to go way off-script like you could with Trump, and he can't hit the high notes of speeches like Obama and other past presidents could.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Fair, provided we agree that doing so is a perversion of the system and that the Supreme Court was never intended to be a replacement for the legislature when the party in power fails to push their agenda effectively.


We are in agreement that Congress passes bills and presidents signs them, and that's where new laws should come from. However, if the Supreme Court finds something unconstitutional, for example, and that has a significant effect on the law, that should also happen if the thing was actually unconstitutional. I think you would agree.



Foxi4 said:


> Pressing X.


I have been shouting from the metaphorical mountaintops that we should end the filibuster and Electoral College, even when members of the Democratic Party benefited from the filibuster and/or Electoral College. You can disagree with me, but I'm going to be consistent. If eliminating the filibuster, Electoral College, unrepresentative Senate, gerrymandering, etc. benefited Republicans, I would still say we should do it.



Foxi4 said:


> The filibuster prevents legislation that's only popular with one side of the aisle to pass and forces both parties to reach compromises. Congress wasn't created to rapidly pass new laws - the opposite is true, the hurdles are there on purpose and are supposed to stop Congress from passing legislation that does not have broad appeal.


The filibuster prevents legislation that's broadly popular, and even has 50-59% support, from passing. It allows from a minority of just above 40% the ability to block any legislation, and it's anti-democratic. The history of the filibuster is also embarrassing. It was accidentally created from an oversight because a Senate rule was eliminated without being replaced, and it was made what is mostly is today because Senators wanted to block anti-lynching bills and the removal of Jim Crow laws.

For someone who likes the Constitution and balance of powers so much, you seem to be ignoring the original intent by the founders for the Senate to be a majority body. Sounds like an ex post facto rationalization to me.

As for your point about the filibuster leading to more compromises, that's demonstrably untrue. It's a tool for the minority to use to block legislation they don't like automatically without having to participate in the legislative process. Without the filibuster, the two parties would actually have to work together to come up with compromise bills. If the majority party didn't do that, they would have to deal with the electoral consequences of passing a bill without support from the other party. If the minority party didn't do that, the bill they didn't like would be passed without them having any say. And, when the majority margin is thin (like 50/50), one or two Senators could cross over to the other side, leading to compromise. If a moderate member of the majority party had concerns with a bill, they could cross over and require the majority party to compromise. If a moderate member of the minority party offered support for a bill with changes, those concessions might be met if it meant bipartisan support.

In summary, the filibuster is undemocratic, and it doesn't accomplish what you think it does.



Foxi4 said:


> I cannot be called a bad guy when my team's name is The Good Guys™.


That's not at all applicable. Democracy is the antithesis of a dictatorship, by definition.



Foxi4 said:


> As a side note, the opposite is true - the Democratic party is the ruling party, the Republicans are the opposition. What you have a problem with is that the opposition has teeth to bite back with, you'd prefer if the Democrats were in Congress in numbers required to pass legislation completely unopposed. If that is not your intention, it is in effect what you're advocating for.


I referencing the broad electoral advantages the Republican Party arbitrarily has. It's not difficult to imagine the scenario I laid out with the Republican Party as the ruling party and the Democratic Party as the minority opposition party, despite the Democratic Party being much more popular. The anti-democratic system needs to be changed.



Foxi4 said:


> Scalia is dead and irrelevant to this conversation.


Scalia is completely relevant to the point that was made. I'm sorry he's an inconvenient stain on history for you, but he is a really good example of conservative legislation from the bench.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Biden can't open his mouth without a gaffe falling out of it, his speeches can be called many things, but they're definitely not boring. They're certainly good meme material, if nothing else.


Biden is boring, which is a good thing. The former president is the one who couldn't open his mouth without some insane nonsense and/or utter lie coming out.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Lol.  The argument is "it's not fascism if we are forcing people to do the right thing".


I never came close to making that argument.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> the Supreme court is not only for dems to put people


Only one person said that members of a particular party weren't allowed to nominate people to the Supreme Court, and that person was Mitch McConnell, a Republican.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We are in agreement that Congress passes bills and presidents signs them, and that's where new laws should come from. However, if the Supreme Court finds something unconstitutional, for example, and that has a significant effect on the law, that should also happen if the thing was actually unconstitutional. I think you would agree.


That depends on your definition of what is and is not constitutional. I feel we might have a different opinion on the matter, but in principle, sure.


> I have been shouting from the metaphorical mountaintops that we should end the filibuster and Electoral College, even when members of the Democratic Party benefited from the filibuster and/or Electoral College. You can disagree with me, but I'm going to be consistent. If eliminating the filibuster, Electoral College, unrepresentative Senate, gerrymandering, etc. benefited Republicans, I would still say we should do it.


Good for you. Consistency is good, even if it's consistency in being wrong about the institutions of the Republic.


> The filibuster prevents legislation that's broadly popular, and even has 50-59% support, from passing. It allows from a minority of just above 40% the ability to block any legislation, and it's anti-democratic. The history of the filibuster is also embarrassing. It was accidentally created from an oversight because a Senate rule was eliminated without being replaced, and it was made what is mostly is today because Senators wanted to block anti-lynching bills and the removal of Jim Crow laws.
> 
> For someone who likes the Constitution and balance of powers so much, you seem to be ignoring the original intent by the founders for the Senate to be a majority body. Sounds like an ex post facto rationalization to me.
> 
> ...


50-59% is not broad support. 3/4ths is unquestionably broad support. When we're talking about legislation that changes the very mechanisms of the Republic, I wouldn't want anything less, but I'll shake hands on 60-69%. 69 seems like a very attractive number, I like that.


> That's not at all applicable. Democracy is the antithesis of a dictatorship, by definition.


Dictatorship of the stupid is still dictatorship. Besides, this wouldn't be the first totalitarian dictatorship that was elected into position of power, nor the first one to have broad support.


> I referencing the broad electoral advantages the Republican Party arbitrarily has. It's not difficult to imagine the scenario I laid out with the Republican Party as the ruling party and the Democratic Party as the minority opposition party, despite the Democratic Party being much more popular. The anti-democratic system needs to be changed.


Nah, thanks.


> Scalia is completely relevant to the point that was made. I'm sorry he's an inconvenient stain on history for you, but he is a really good example of conservative legislation from the bench.


God bless his soul.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 29, 2021)

god i hope they really are paying you to defend biden lol


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Apr 29, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I'm not surprised, a lot of people tuned into Trump's speeches to hate-watch or because they were expecting a trainwreck.  Both those audiences are gone, so the only people tuning into Biden are heavily politically engaged (C-SPAN viewers), or people looking for a sleep aid.  People voted to make politics boring again, and that's precisely what they got.


To bad you only post personal opinions and not facts. Democrats never state the facts because they are not educated on the subjects. You continue to make baseless claims without backing it up, which is a trend with democrats.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Good for you. Consistency is good, even if it's consistency in being wrong about the institutions of the Republic.


I'm not wrong about what is and isn't anti-democratic.



Foxi4 said:


> 50-59% is not broad support. 3/4ths is unquestionably broad support. When we're talking about legislation that changes the very mechanisms of the Republic, I wouldn't want anything less, but I'll shake hands on 60-69%.


That depends on your definition of _broad_. I consider broad support to be a majority with room to spare. There's also a pretty arbitrary distinction between broad support at 60% but not 59%.



Foxi4 said:


> Dictatorship of the stupid is still dictatorship. Besides, this wouldn't be the first totalitarian dictatorship that was elected into position of power, nor the first one to have broad support.
> God bless his soul.


When a party with minority support can retain power against an opposition party that has majority support, it's a festering ground for corruption and authoritarianism.



Valwinz said:


> god i hope they really are paying you to defend biden lol


It was the former president who had to pay people to publicly support him. You keep drawing attention to this embarrassing fact.



PiracyForTheMasses said:


> To bad you only post personal opinions and not facts. Democrats never state the facts because they are not educated on the subjects. You continue to make baseless claims without backing it up, which is a trend with democrats.


The Republican Party is the party of 30,000 lies from the former president, "alternative facts," baseless allegations of voter fraud, debunked policies like trickle down economics, global warming denial, COVID-19 denial, anti-vaccination, etc. I could really go on and on.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2021)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> To bad you only post personal opinions and not facts. Democrats never state the facts because they are not educated on the subjects. You continue to make baseless claims without backing it up, which is a trend with democrats.


I never claimed any of that as fact, it's just my analysis of the ratings decline.  Unless you work for Nielsen, your analysis isn't gonna be any more accurate than mine or anyone else's.

And you can blow it out your ass with the "holier than thou" routine, Trump set new records for the number of lies told in office.  Anybody willing to keep licking the boot of a New York billionaire who tried to stage an insurrection to keep himself in power has piss-poor moral judgement.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 30, 2021)

Some good News, a water infrastructure bill passed the Senate.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Some good News, a water infrastructure bill passed the Senate.


"The only two senators to vote against the bill, the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act, were Republicans Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas."

Seriously, does anybody like Ted Cruz?


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> "The only two senators to vote against the bill, the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act, were Republicans Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas."
> 
> Seriously, does anybody like Ted Cruz?


The guy barely won in the first place.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius will reply to this mad 
Biden so far 
No $15 wage 
No $2000 checks, let alone monthly checks
No rent forgiveness 
No full student debt cancelation 
No Green New Deal 
$20 billion increase in military funding
Increased police funding 
Bombing Syria


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Lacius will reply to this mad
> Biden so far
> No $15 wage
> No $2000 checks, let alone monthly checks
> ...


Your checks must have gotten lost in the mail, because I got my $2,000.


----------



## Snintendog (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Your checks must have gotten lost in the mail, because I got my $2,000.


you got the ticket stub for that mate we only got 1400 at best some only got 300.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Your checks must have gotten lost in the mail, because I got my $2,000.




Lol.

Gets money from Trump.

"Thanks Biden."


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Biden can't open his mouth without a gaffe falling out of it, his speeches can be called many things, but they're definitely not boring. They're certainly good meme material, if nothing else.



I certainly hope you feel exactly the same about Trumps speeches, because they certainly fit your bill.



Valwinz said:


> Lacius will reply to this mad
> Biden so far
> No $15 wage
> No $2000 checks, let alone monthly checks
> ...



Oh, you mean in a bit over three months in office? Can you compare that to Trumps first 100 days in office and which of his campaign promises he completely fulfilled in the same time frame? Or how about this, come back to this post in 4 years time and then we can talk about pots and kettles and whatnots.



tabzer said:


> Lol.
> 
> Gets money from Trump.
> 
> "Thanks Biden."



Says the guy who must actually believe the money people received came from Biden OR Trump. Here's a factoid for ya that you seem to be missing.... it didn't.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I certainly hope you feel exactly the same about Trumps speeches, because they certainly fit your bill.


Trump's speeches were hilarious, just for different reasons. More "zing", less "grandpa is lost in the mall again looking for cranberries".


----------



## PityOnU (Apr 30, 2021)

Hehe, man these threads continue to be dumpster fires.

From where I'm standing, it seems like there's a lot of good being done so far into the presidency, and I hope the Biden administration can keep up this trend.

If you feel differently, that's totally fine. If the country does totally plunge into the ground and become godless, genderless, and communist, there's probably no better time for it (were already pretty low altitude following COVID), and it'll all be over in 4 years when there's a revolution of the silent majority, amiright? Whiny, spineless dems couldn't handle the crunch anyway.

I think things'll turn out just fine, though.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Says the guy who must actually believe the money people received came from Biden OR Trump. Here's a factoid for ya that you seem to be missing.... it didn't.



Besides the point as you ignore the context of the conversation.  Somebody claimed they got $2,000 from Biden.  Go ahead and target anybody else who brought that up in the past 50 or so pages.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Snintendog said:


> you got the ticket stub for that mate we only got 1400 at best some only got 300.





tabzer said:


> Lol.
> 
> Gets money from Trump.
> 
> "Thanks Biden."


The promise from Biden was $2,000, Trump and the Republicans capped it at $600 and sent out those checks, and then Biden and the Democrats sent out $1,400 checks to make up the difference. That's $2,000. That's also not including the multitude of other benefits in the bill, including but not limited to the increase in the child tax credit, etc.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Besides the point as you ignore the context of the conversation.  Somebody claimed they got $2,000 from Biden.  Go ahead and target anybody else who brought that up in the past 50 or so pages.


I got $2,000 after a promise was made that I'd receive $2,000.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2021)

The humor I find in it is that there were a couple of times that $2,000 checks were being promised, but instead ended up to be supplemented $1,400 checks piggybacking on something the Trump admin pushed through.  "Biden promised $2,000" but, in part, it was actually Trump admin who delivered it.  Bipartisanship if anything.

If I made a campaign promise saying that you would get a total of $3,200 in relief and after being elected said you already got it from previous administrations, it would simply be seen as deceit.  What Biden did was enter into the grey territory of such action.

Obviously anything helps, and I cannot make claims on the effectiveness of the spending, but I balk at the idea that Biden got you $2,000--which is, plainly, what you suggested happened in your prior response.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The humor I find in it is that there were a couple of times that $2,000 checks were being promised, but instead ended up to be supplemented $1,400 checks piggybacking on something the Trump admin pushed through.  "Biden promised $2,000" but, in part, it was actually Trump admin who delivered it.  Bipartisanship if anything.
> 
> If I made a campaign promise saying that you will get a total of $3,200 in relief and after being elected said you already got it from previous administrations, it would simply be seen as deceit.  What Biden did was enter into the grey territory of such action.
> 
> Obviously anything helps, and I cannot make claims on the effectiveness of the spending, but I balk at the idea that Biden got you $2,000--which is, plainly, what you suggested happened in your prior response.


The promise of $2,000 came right when the Republicans were capping their checks at $600. Biden said that those checks should be $2,000, not $600. If you do the math, $2,000 minus the $600 that went out after that is $1,400. I believe the checks should have been higher than $1,600, but no promises were broken. We got the $2,000 Biden promised.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The promise of $2,000 came right when the Republicans were capping their checks at $600. Biden said that those checks should be $2,000, not $600. If you do the math, $2,000 minus the $600 that went out after that is $1,400. I believe the checks should have been higher than $1,600, but no promises were broken. We got the $2,000 Biden promised.



Please acknowledge what I said if you are going to respond to it.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Please acknowledge what I said if you are going to respond to it.


You're arguing Biden promised we'd receive $2,000 and didn't deliver, but he did. It isn't rocket science:

Biden promises $2,000, the former president signs a bill into law sending out $600, Biden takes office, and then Biden and the Democratic Party (with no Senate Republican support) send out $1,600 to make up the difference and keep the promise made.
The only thing embarrassing here is that Republicans capped their checks at $600, and Trump showed he has zero negotiating skills when, after being absent from the negotiations completely, he refused to sign the bill into law until the checks were increased above $600, and then fecklessly signed the bill anyway.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You're arguing Biden promised we'd receive $2,000 and didn't deliver, but he did. It isn't rocket science:



I'm not arguing that he blatantly broke any promises.  I thought that I made it clear.  Considering that I am saying so, can you reread my previous post with that understanding and try replying again, instead of insinuating (and trumping) an argument that doesn't exist?

"You didn't build that."


----------



## Louse (Apr 30, 2021)

PityOnU said:


> If the country does totally plunge into the ground and become godless, genderless, and communist, there's probably no better time for it.


thats based and good, amen.

let the good christian values burn in the fires of the Motherland.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm not arguing that he blatantly broke any promises.  I thought that I made it clear.  Considering that I am saying so, can you reread my previous post with that understanding and try replying again, instead of insinuating (and trumping) an argument that doesn't exist?
> 
> "You didn't build that."


If you aren't arguing Biden broke a promise, I'm not sure what the point of your posts are. Is it that you think the Republicans deserve some credit because they passed the first $600? Because they don't. The only reason Biden and the Democratic Party had to pass their bill in the first place was to fix the inadequacies of the Republican bill, and all of the Senate Republicans voted against the Democratic COVID-19 relief bill. The Republicans deserve zero credit for the extra $2,000 I have in my bank account. If the Republicans hadn't passed a relief bill at all, the Democratic bill would have been $2,000 instead of $1,600. If the Republican Party were still in power, I'd have $600 instead of $2,000.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

The whole $2K debacle is old news. No, the Biden administration didn't give anyone $2K, they topped off the second stimulus check of $600 received under Trump with an additional $1400 and called it a day. This is one of those situations where both sides of the argument will claim they're right forever - I don't think it's relevant, it's April at this point, we'll dismiss that as the usual political doublespeak. What should be somewhat concerning is that *it's only April* and the Biden admin is already planning to spend in excess of 10 trillion dollars over the course of the next 10 years, all while promising that it won't increase the deficit and that they won't raise taxes on citizens who earn less than $400,000 per annum. Forget about the checks, this is more than double the annual federal budget. $10 trillion dollars is like 5-9 Iraq wars ($1.1 trillion, give or take, some estimates go as high as $2 trillion). Can't wait to see this trainwreck. If anyone actually believes that this won't affect their pocket book, I've got a bridge to sell them. If you happen to be heavily invested in the dollar, or American stocks, I suggest reevaluating your investments, particularly in the wake of the capital gains tax increase.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The promise from Biden was $2,000, Trump and the Republicans capped it at $600 and sent out those checks, and then Biden and the Democrats sent out $1,400 checks to make up the difference. That's $2,000. That's also not including the multitude of other benefits in the bill, including but not limited to the increase in the child tax credit, etc.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Although it wasn't from Biden or Trump. @tabzer You happy now?


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you aren't arguing Biden broke a promise, I'm not sure what the point of your posts are. Is it that you think the Republicans deserve some credit because they passed the first $600? Because they don't. The only reason Biden and the Democratic Party had to pass their bill in the first place was to fix the inadequacies of the Republican bill, and all of the Senate Republicans voted against the Democratic COVID-19 relief bill. The Republicans deserve zero credit for the extra $2,000 I have in my bank account. If the Republicans hadn't passed a relief bill at all, the Democratic bill would have been $2,000 instead of $1,600. If the Republican Party were still in power, I'd have $600 instead of $2,000.


You've got this way of looking at one party as the embodiment of good and the other as the embodiment as bad.  They are both good and bad.

My point is "You didn't build that."

"I could have paid you if I needed to." Hah.



D34DL1N3R said:


> Although it wasn't from Biden or Trump. @tabzer You happy now?



I can't fathom being happy with you talking to me at all.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I can't fathom being happy with you talking to me at all.



Then stop responding to and making requests of me. And I quote "Go ahead and target anybody else who brought that up in the past 50 or so pages." So I do, it's even someone on the opposite side of the fence as yourself, and you're still a miserable juggalo.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Then stop responding to and making requests of me. And I quote "Go ahead and target anybody else who brought that up in the past 50 or so pages." So I do, it's even someone on the opposite side of the fence as yourself, and you're still a miserable juggalo.



There was no point for you to talk to me or mention me from the beginning.  Further attempts are redundant.  Of course it wouldn't be satisfying.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Your checks must have gotten lost in the mail, because I got my $2,000.


you did not get a 2,000 I know you are pay to do this but cmon get the right script


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> There was no point for you to talk to me or mention me from the beginning.  Further attempts are redundant.  Of course it wouldn't be satisfying.



Oh, yes. There was a point. You just either refuse to see it, or are too ignorant to understand. Your statement is as incredibly fucking stupid as me saying you have no point in talking to ANYone in this topic. You just fail to see anyone elses point other than your own.  Have a nice day, juggalo.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 30, 2021)

Biden 2021 
I can’t believe what we’re watching.  pic.twitter.com/gNoOnS8MWJ— Chris Stigall (@ChrisStigall) April 29, 2021


----------



## tabzer (Apr 30, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Oh, yes. There was a point. You just either refuse to see it, or are too ignorant to understand. Your statement is as incredibly fucking stupid as me saying you have no point in talking to ANYone in this topic. You just fail to see anyone elses point other than your own.  Have a nice day, juggalo.



I see the point behind people's posts.  I tend not to fully agree.  The point behind your post was to target me exclusively in an attempt to "gotcha" as an excuse to pass insults at the expense of contributing anything meaningful to the context of the discussion.  It's pathetic.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You've got this way of looking at one party as the embodiment of good and the other as the embodiment as bad.  They are both good and bad.
> 
> My point is "You didn't build that."
> 
> ...


The fact remains that I have $2,000, and I wouldn't have had more than $600 if it had not been for Biden and the Democratic Party. This is an example of a promise kept, and that's not even getting into all of the other benefits of the COVID-19 relief bill.

The $600 payment was also bipartisan, while the other $1,400 was not.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> you did not get a 2,000 I know you are pay to do this but cmon get the right script


I received a $600 check and a $1,400 check, just as promised. I received $2,000 in total. Thank you, President Biden.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



D34DL1N3R said:


> Although it wasn't from Biden or Trump. @tabzer You happy now, juggalo?


Trump signed a bipartisan bill for $600 checks into law. Biden signed a bill into law for $1,400 checks and more, despite Republican opposition.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I see the point behind people's posts.  I tend not to fully agree.  The point behind your post was to target me exclusively in an attempt to "gotcha" as an excuse to pass insults at the expense of contributing anything meaningful to the context of the discussion.  It's pathetic.



Except, you're wrong. As usual. Why am I surprised? If my goal was to specifically target you, I wouldn't have wasted my time fulfilling your request. And as usual, you're being a hypocrite. Why? You want proof, AGAIN? Okay. Here. The point behind your post was to target me exclusively in an attempt to "gotcha" as an excuse to play the poor, innocent, bullied, victim at the expense of contributing anything meaningful to the context of the discussion. It's pathetic.



Lacius said:


> Trump signed a bipartisan bill for $600 checks into law. Biden signed a bill into law for $1,600 checks and more, despite Republican opposition.



I'm not arguing who signed them. I'm arguing who the money is from. Some people be thanking Trump and Biden like it came out of their own pockets.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 30, 2021)

We are suppose to believe he got 80 million votes 
"80 million votes"🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/C89DlaI51a— drefanzor memes (@drefanzor) April 29, 2021


----------



## djpannda (Apr 30, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> We are suppose to believe he got 80 million votes
> https://twitter.com/drefanzor/status/1387839166524710915


The Power of Elections Compel you! ;



 
I know... Lizard people stole the elections to create Pedo rings under all Pizza places.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 30, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> We are suppose to believe he got 80 million votes
> https://twitter.com/drefanzor/status/1387839166524710915


So how much are you getting paid?


----------



## tthousand (Apr 30, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> So how much are you getting paid?



Apparently up to $1,400.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Imagine a corrupt country for a moment that has a corrupt ruling party and an opposition party, but despite the opposition party having majority support, they still cannot defeat the ruling party because the ruling party has made it so the cards are always in their favor. That's what is happening in the United States right now with the anti-democratic issues I've listed ad nauseum in this thread.


This is something that I forgot to respond to at the time, and feel like it is prudent to correct that. The Democratic party is not the opposition party, not just because they're currently in charge of the house, but also because they have the support of corporate America. I understood your point the first time around, the problem I have with it is that the scenario is in stark contrast with reality. The Democrats *used to* be the opposition party, they *used to* be on the defense, but that hasn't been the case for decades, at least since the Clinton years. Corporations that effectively control the flow of information on the Internet like Google and Amazon, since they do most of the hosting, are more than happy to deny said hosting to websites that go against the agenda.They are not siding with conservative values, none of them are parroting conservative talking points - they're siding with progressive causes. Social media sites like Twitter or Facebook are laser-focused on "correcting the record" when it comes to Republican lawmakers using their built-in fact-checking features, but they're not so keen on doing so in reference to the Democrats. Biden's speech yesterday was a perfect example - fact-checking it is a footnote, not a major news item like it used to be when Trump was president. All of these private entities are, in effect, running Democratic PR, and they're very open about it. It is very clear to me that corporate America is becoming increasingly left-leaning, which creates an identity crisis for the Democratic party. They're not "fighting the system" as their slogans state - "the system" is very much behind them. Portraying the Democrats as the opposition party in any sense comes across as silly - they've never been in a better position to pass their extreme agenda, and I'm glad that there exists a system that can prevent that from happening. Now I expect Republicans to do their duty and blockade as much of it as humanly possible, just as they were stonewalled by the Democrats when they were in charge. They need to put the Democratic party on a one-way track towards losing the house, and one of the ways they can do that is preventing them from achieving any of their legislative goals, even if it leads to bad optics.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This is something that I forgot to respond to at the time, and feel like it is prudent to correct that. The Democratic party is not the opposition party, not just because they're currently in charge of the house, but also because they have the support of corporate America. I understood your point the first time around, the problem I have with it is that the scenario is in stark contrast with reality. The Democrats *used to* be the opposition party, they *used to* be on the defense, but that hasn't been the case for decades, at least since the Clinton years. Corporations that effectively control the flow of information on the Internet like Google and Amazon, since they do most of the hosting, are more than happy to deny said hosting to websites that go against the agenda.They are not siding with conservative values, none of them are parroting conservative talking points - they're siding with progressive causes. Social media sites like Twitter or Facebook are laser-focused on "correcting the record" when it comes to Republican lawmakers using their built-in fact-checking features, but they're not so keen on doing so in reference to the Democrats. Biden's speech yesterday was a perfect example - fact-checking it is a footnote, not a major news item like it used to be when Trump was president. All of these private entities are, in effect, running Democratic PR, and they're very open about it. It is very clear to me that corporate America is becoming increasingly left-leaning, which creates an identity crisis for the Democratic party. They're not "fighting the system" as their slogans state - "the system" is very much behind them. Portraying the Democrats as the opposition party in any sense comes across as silly - they've never been in a better position to pass their extreme agenda, and I'm glad that there exists a system that can prevent that from happening. Now I expect Republicans to do their duty and blockade as much of it as humanly possible, just as they were stonewalled by the Democrats when they were in charge. They need to put the Democratic party on a one-way track towards losing the house, and one of the ways they can do that is preventing them from achieving any of their legislative goals, even if it leads to bad optics.


There's no objective measure by which one can say the Democratic Party has an electoral advantage. The House is structurally gerrymandered in the Republicans' favor, the Senate is unrepresentative and structurally favors Republicans, the Electoral College structurally favors Republicans, and the Supreme Court is inherently linked to the aforementioned structural inequalities of the Senate and Electoral College.

Whether or not the Democratic Party is currently the opposition party right now (they're not) is irrelevant to the point I was making.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> We are suppose to believe he got 80 million votes
> https://twitter.com/drefanzor/status/1387839166524710915


It's a good thing we pick our leaders by votes, not TV viewership.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



D34DL1N3R said:


> I'm not arguing who signed them. I'm arguing who the money is from. Some people be thanking Trump and Biden like it came out of their own pockets.


We would not have gotten the $1,600 check if the Democratic Party hadn't won in 2020. The Republican Party was clear that $600 was enough. It's appropriate to thank them and Biden.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's no objective measure by which one can say the Democratic Party has an electoral advantage. The House is structurally gerrymandered in the Republicans' favor, the Senate is unrepresentative and structurally favors Republicans, the Electoral College structurally favors Republicans, and the Supreme Court is inherently linked to the aforementioned structural inequalities of the Senate and Electoral College.
> 
> Whether or not the Democratic Party is currently the opposition party right now (they're not) is irrelevant to the point I was making.


They're a party in opposition to nothing. The system (rightfully) prevents them from passing legislation that does not broadly appeal across party lines, as it should. That's neither here nor there though - you maintain that you'd be against the system if the shoe was on the other foot and I have no evidence to think otherwise based on your post history, even if I personally very much doubt it. You'd be the first liberal on the Internet I've ever met who wouldn't sell their kidney for a chance to enact all of their policies. It is the absence of those systems that could lead to a one-party dictatorship, not the opposite.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's a good thing we pick our leaders by votes, not TV viewership.


Well...one of the parties picks their nominees based on TV viewership.  Can't wait to see what D-list reality TV celebrity they roll out next after Trump croaks.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> They're a party in opposition to nothing. The system (rightfully) prevents them from passing legislation that does not broadly appeal across party lines, as it should. That's neither here nor there though - you maintain that you'd be against the system if the shoe was on the other foot and I have no evidence to think otherwise based on your post history, even if I personally very much doubt it. You'd be the first liberal on the Internet I've ever met who wouldn't sell their kidney for a chance to enact all of their policies. It is the absence of those systems that could lead to a one-party dictatorship, not the opposite.


I guess I'll be the one to tell you that both the Senate and House were designed to pass legislation by majority votes. It's in the Constitution. I've also already explained how the filibuster hinders compromise; it is a myth it promotes it.


----------



## djpannda (Apr 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Well...one of the parties picks their nominees based on TV viewership.  Can't wait to see what D-list reality TV celebrity they roll out next after Trump croaks.


...Arnold, Regan, Trump. ... man I can wait for  Q  to vote for Russell Brand for Senator of UTAH!


----------



## Xzi (Apr 30, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ...Arnold, Regan, Trump. ... man I can wait for  Q  to vote for Russell Brand for Sentor of UTAH!


Caitlyn Jenner is also running for governor of California as a Republican.  Not that the GOP at large will support her run while they're busy passing trans discrimination laws in a bunch of other states.  No idea what's she's thinking...assuming she's thinking at all.


----------



## djpannda (Apr 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Caitlyn Jenner is also running for governor of California.  Not that the GOP at large will support her run while they're busy passing trans discrimination laws in a bunch of other states.  No idea what's she's thinking...assuming she's thinking at all.


The issue is Jenner has been around "Money Republicans" for soo long she does not realize how much they despise her  now... you because she can publicly wear a dress.. while most of them have to hide that fact.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Caitlyn Jenner is also running for governor of California as a Republican.  Not that the GOP at large will support her run while they're busy passing trans discrimination laws in a bunch of other states.  No idea what's she's thinking...assuming she's thinking at all.





djpannda said:


> The issue is Jenner has been around "Money Republicans" for soo long she does not realize how much they despise her  now... you because she can publicly wear a dress.. while most of them have to hide that fact.


Don't underestimate the weirdness of California GOP voters.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I guess I'll be the one to tell you that both the Senate and House were designed to pass legislation by majority votes. It's in the Constitution. I've also already explained how the filibuster hinders compromise; it is a myth it promotes it.





> Just because something is in the Constitution doesn't mean it should be in the Constitution.


There's nothing I enjoy more than Lacius vs. Lacius. We won't agree on this - if you can't sell your idea to the chamber, the whole chamber, and reach a significant majority of votes, perhaps the idea isn't that great. 50% isn't good enough when the Senate is literally split 50/50 (50 Republicans vs. 48 Democrats + 2 "independents"). A system that'd allow one party to pass legislation willy-nilly as long as everyone tows the line is no system at all - it's one-party rule with extra steps. Since there can be no agreement on this between us, I'll leave it at that so we can continue with the thread.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There's nothing I enjoy more than Lacius vs. Lacius. We won't agree on this - if you can't sell your idea to the chamber, the whole chamber, and reach a significant majority of votes, perhaps the idea isn't that great. 50% isn't good enough when the Senate is literally split 50/50 (50 Republicans vs. 48 Democrats + 2 "independents"). A system that'd allow one party to pass legislation willy-nilly as long as everyone tows the line is no system at all - it's one-party rule with extra steps. Since there can be no agreement on this between us, I'll leave it at that so we can continue with the thread.


I'm not arguing it's good because it's in the Constitution. I'm arguing that you, an apparent constitutional originalist, should not be pretending that 60+ votes in the Senate was ever intended. Please do not be disingenuous.

Edit: You should also see my earlier points on how the elimination of the filibuster actually fosters cooperation and compromise.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not arguing it's good because it's in the Constitution. I'm arguing that you, an apparent constitutional originalist, should not be pretending that 60+ votes in the Senate was ever intended. Please do not be disingenuous.
> 
> Edit: You should also see my earlier points on how the elimination of the filibuster actually fosters cooperation and compromise.


I don't want cooperation or compromise, I want conservative agenda to be passed. I am happy with any tool that can be used to achieve that as long as it's done in the service of protecting individual rights, cutting personal tax rates and limiting the size and scope of government. I don't like rat poison, not my kind of snack, but it sure does get rid of rats quick, so it can stay in the cupboard for as long as it's needed. I'm not disingenuous - in our discussions I've always maintained that winning takes priority over principle. You can have principles *after* you win, losers don't get to enact policy. This has never been a secret about my approach towards politics. Principles are great, but you can't eat them - if you're not in a position to push those principles forward, they don't mean anything.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't want cooperation or compromise, I want conservative agenda to be passed. I am happy with any tool that can be used to achieve that as long as it's done in the service of protecting individual rights, cutting personal tax rates and limiting the size and scope of government. I don't like rat poison, not my kind of snack, but it sure does get rid of rats quick, so it can stay in the cupboard for as long as it's needed. I'm not disingenuous - in our discussions I've always maintained that winning takes priority over principle. You can have principles *after* you win, losers don't get to enact policy. This has never been a secret about my approach towards politics.


Thank you for dropping the pretense. I truly appreciate your candor. However, you should understand that you're advocating for party over democracy, and your views are authoritarian by definition. Your ad hoc defenses of the Senate as an unrepresentative body, the Electoral College, the filibuster, etc. make more sense now. You've effectively admitted that you'd be on my side if it meant more Republicans would win.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Thank you for dropping the pretense. I truly appreciate your candor. However, you should understand that you're advocating for party over democracy, and your views are authoritarian by definition. Your ad hoc defenses of the Senate as an unrepresentative body, the Electoral College, etc. make more sense now. You've effectively admitted that you'd be on my side if it meant more Republicans would win.


I am the last person who would advocate for the GOP - I hate the GOP, as any libertarian with any connection to reality does. The Republican party has been overtaken by religious zealots to a large extent, they are not fiscally conservative and do not represent my interests to a satisfactory level. At the same time, the Democratic party has been overtaken by wokeism and extreme progressives, which is reflected in their current plans. Old Republicans know that the modern talking points are stupid and unattractive, old Democrats know that the extreme agenda has very little support among average Americans and will fail to pass in the Senate anyway, but it makes it seem like they're trying, which is good enough for re-election. "We'll pass it next time" is what you'll hear on both sides of the aisle. Both sides allow the younglings to screech into microphones while the figures that matter are hiding behind whoever happens to be the president at any given time and plays the role of an old house plant that's hiding a stain on the carpet. If anything, it is in my interest to have Congress in a persistent state of stalemate - libertarians like stability. I don't want change, I just want to be left alone. As such, I will always advocate for a relative power balance and the only policies I want to slip past the goalie are those which further enshrine things I actually care about. I thought this was always fairly obvious? I don't wear masks - my stated beliefs are unorthodox enough to make that clear.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If anything, it is in my interest to have Congress in a persistent state of stalemate - libertarians like stability.


Stagnation is not the same thing as stability.  At the very minimum, stability means keeping our roadways and bridges from collapsing, and our air and water from being poisoned.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Stagnation is not the same thing as stability.  At a minimum, stability means keeping our roadways and bridges from collapsing, and our air and water from being poisoned.


I care about both of those things less than I care about preventing any unnecessary laws or regulations from being passed. The problem of pollution can solve itself via technological progress, keeping the roadways running is already mandatory spending to a large extent.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 30, 2021)

Some good news 
Florida Passes New Elections Bill Adding Restrictions To Vote-By-Mail And Ballot Drop-Boxes https://t.co/ItZ2wlN9y6— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 30, 2021


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Some good news
> https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1388246953536937985


I hope the bill includes provisions against ballot harvesting. I am not necessarily against voting by mail - some people cannot go to a poll location to cast a vote, so as long as it's secure, I have no objections. I do object to third-party actors canvassing for political parties on the side and telling fossils how to "fill out their form the right way", there's no way to effectively police that. If a voter really can't drop their vote off at the nearest mailbox themselves, it should be picked up by the mailman, not a stranger.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The problem of pollution can solve itself via technological progress


Let's not test that theory by turning the country into a radioactive hellscape before the technology to reverse it is even invented.  Corporations do not and will not regulate themselves, that's been proven time and again throughout history.



Foxi4 said:


> keeping the roadways running is already mandatory spending to a large extent.


Not really no, the money built into the budget is just enough to keep applying new band-aids, that's about it.  There are thousands upon thousands of roadways and bridges in the US which are rated at a D or lower.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Let's not test that theory by turning the country into a radioactive hellscape before the technology to reverse it is even invented.  Corporations do not and will not regulate themselves, that's been proven time and again throughout history.
> 
> 
> Not really no, the money built into the budget is just enough to keep applying new band-aids, that's about it.  There are thousands upon thousands of roadways and bridges in the US which are rated at a D or lower.


Sounds like we should divert the funds from ineffective government programs towards infrastructure then. Maybe voters should push for that when it comes time to pass a budget, instead of inflating said budget on useless boondogles. Then again, if you put a government in charge of something, you should expect the result to be over budget and 2 weeks late.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Some good news
> https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1388246953536937985


It is a not a good thing when a government restricts voting access under the guise of curbing voter fraud that doesn't exist.



Foxi4 said:


> I am the last person who would advocate for the GOP - I hate the GOP, as any libertarian with any connection to reality does. The Republican party has been overtaken by religious zealots to a large extent


For once, we agree. Perhaps we should stop here.



Foxi4 said:


> If anything, it is in my interest to have Congress in a persistent state of stalemate - libertarians like stability.


Gridlock brings instability. You can look at any of the recent government shutdowns as examples.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't wear masks


There's a pandemic going on.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't want change


Change is sometimes necessary, and species that don't change often go extinct.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Sounds like we should divert the funds from ineffective government programs towards infrastructure then.


I'm down for taking the money from the military budget, but taking it from millionaires and billionaires is a solid choice too.  Neither option affects you or I, so that meets your criteria of wanting to be "left alone."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It is a not a good thing when a government restricts voting access under the guise of curbing voter fraud that doesn't exist.
> 
> For once, we agree. Perhaps we should stop here.
> 
> ...


Oh no, not the national parks getting closed, where will I ever grill? Oh no, I don't want government employees, whom I find useless to a large extent, to miss their paychecks (they didn't, they were all compensated)! The shutdowns were great, the US should have them more often. Essential services keep on running regardless - the fact that the country *didn't* stop functioning *in spite* of Washington taking a holiday is evidence that they *are* just keeping seats warm, not the opposite. I'm only happy with change that further enshrines personal liberties and limits the size and scope of government - my priority is liberty, so I'm very happy with that kind of change slipping past the goalie. That rarely happens, so risk mitigation is the next best thing. The few things that both parties can agree are often acceptable truism.

Edit: Why retract the Like? I thoroughly enjoyed that. I'll keep it in memory forever. Good mask joke, too. 



Xzi said:


> I'm down for taking the money from the military budget, but taking it from millionaires and billionaires is a solid choice too.  Neither option affects you or I, so that meets your criteria of wanting to be "left alone."


False, if you know anything about how the economy actually functions. "Taking it from the rich" just means taking it from you with extra steps, the economy adjusts to any new and unexpected expense by adjusting pricing accordingly, the stock market responds to such events and all you end up with is paying for things with your 401K instead of your wallet. If you think "the rich" are smart enough to start and run multi-billion dollar business ventures, but not smart enough to just move their money somewhere where they don't have to pay an arm and a leg just to operate, you're disconnected from reality.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> "Taking it from the rich" just means taking it from you with extra steps


Talk about a hot take.  I must've somehow missed the thousands of checks sent to me by the department of trickle-down economics.

Your theory doesn't hold up when examining past decades, given the top tax bracket was much higher, along with relative minimum wage, and the price of goods was relatively lower or about the same.  The Waltons can't suddenly jack up the prices of all the cheap Chinese crap in their stores, or people run to Amazon/Target, and vice-versa.

The idea that the rich might "punish" the poor for higher taxes is ridiculous, they're already ripping them off as much as possible by paying poverty wages and providing zero benefits.  It's also sort of a staple of neo-conservatism, there's no good reason for a libertarian to defend exploitation and oligarchy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Talk about a hot take.  I must've somehow missed the thousands of checks sent to me by the department of trickle-down economics.
> 
> Your theory doesn't hold up when examining past decades, given the top tax bracket was much higher, along with relative minimum wage, and the price of goods was relatively lower or about the same.  The Walton's can't suddenly jack up the prices of all the cheap Chinese crap in their stores, or people run to Amazon/Target, and vice-versa.
> 
> The idea that the rich might "punish" the poor for higher taxes is ridiculous, they're already ripping them off as much as possible by paying poverty wages and providing zero benefits.


"Trickle-down economics" is a leftist term designed to oversimplify the matter and obfuscate the results. The actual term is supply-side economics, and it worked as it was expected to every time it was implemented, from Reagan to Trump. I don't need you to agree with me on this, the historical record and the numbers already do. Any rebuttal I've ever heard in this regard focuses on factors I don't care about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Results


----------



## Xzi (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The actual term is supply-side economics, and it works as it was expected to every time it was implemented, from Reagan to Trump.


It works if the goal is to ensure the rich get perpetually richer and the poor get perpetually poorer, sure.  But that's not the type of thing I typically expect to see a libertarian defending.  It has nothing to do with the freedoms of the average Joe, other than perhaps his freedom to get bent over a barrel.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It works if the goal is to ensure the rich get perpetually richer and the poor get perpetually poorer, sure.  But that's not the type of thing I typically expect to see a libertarian defending.  It has nothing to do with the freedoms of the average Joe, other than perhaps his freedom to get bent over a barrel.


Lowered inflation, lowered unemployment, reduced the misery index (greatest improvement since Truman), increased the GDP and the median household income, all right after a recession. Happy days as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh no, not the national parks getting closed, where will I ever grill? Oh no, I don't want government employees, whom I find useless to a large extent, to miss their paychecks (they didn't, they were all compensated)! The shutdowns were great, the US should have them more often. Essential services keep on running regardless - the fact that the country *didn't* stop functioning *in spite* of Washington taking a holiday is evidence that they *are* just keeping seats warm, not the opposite. I'm only happy with change that further enshrines personal liberties and limits the size and scope of government - my priority is liberty, so I'm very happy with that kind of change slipping past the goalie. That rarely happens, so risk mitigation is the next best thing. The few things that both parties can agree often acceptable truism.
> 
> Edit: Why retract the Like? I thoroughly enjoyed that. I'll keep it in memory forever. Good mask joke, too.
> 
> False, if you know anything about how the economy actually functions. "Taking it from the rich" just means taking it from you with extra steps, the economy adjusts to any new and unexpected expense by adjusting pricing accordingly, the stock market responds to such events and all you end up with is paying for things with your 401K instead of your wallet. If you think "the rich" are smart enough to start and run multi-billion dollar business ventures, but not smart enough to just move their money somewhere where they don't have to pay an arm and a leg just to operate, you're disconnected from reality.


I know friends and spouses of friends who were directly affected by the government shutdowns, and it was anything but stable. They weren't getting paid, they didn't know for how long they weren't being paid, and many of them weren't compensated for the time they weren't working. My point wasn't that a short-term government shutdown was the worst thing in the world; my point was that it was a sign of the instability caused by government gridlock, and I'm not sure how anyone can look at a government shutdown objectively and say "that's stable," regardless of how one feels about the budget or spending.

The like was a misclick, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I like you or your authoritarian sentiments.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Lowered inflation, lowered unemployment


You forgot lowered wages and an increased tax burden on the poor and middle class, so they get squeezed from both ends.  You and I both know it's a fucking scam, that's why they had to get an actor to sell it to the American people.  I can only assume you must be benefiting from a similarly broken economic system if you're willing to go out on a limb to defend it, because no other libertarian I've talked to is a fan.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I know friends and spouses of friends who were directly affected by the government shutdowns, and it was anything but stable. They weren't getting paid, they didn't know for how long they weren't being paid, and many of them weren't compensated for the time they weren't working. My point wasn't that a short-term government shutdown was the worst thing in the world; my point was that it was a sign of the instability caused by government gridlock, and I'm not sure how anyone can look at a government shutdown objectively and say "that's stable," regardless of how one feels about the budget or spending.
> 
> The like was a misclick, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I like you or your authoritarian sentiments.


I feel for the families affected, but only by the virtue of them being American families. My de facto position is that I don't care about the government, and as government agents, they are part of the government, albeit on the bottom floor. I hope they're alright, but I can't lose sight of the prize even if the road towards it is covered in some stinging nettles. If Congress wants to avoid further gridlock, maybe they should get along a bit more and focus on this compromise you're talking about - ideally compromise that behoves me and my priorities.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I feel for the families affected, but only by the virtue of them being American families. My de facto position is that I don't care about the government, and as government agents, they are part of the government, albeit on the bottom floor. I hope they're alright, but I can't lose sight of the prize even if the road towards it is covered in some stinging nettles. If Congress wants to avoid further gridlock, maybe they should get along a bit more and focus on this compromise you're talking about - ideally compromise that behoves me and my priorities.


Or we could solve the problem of gridlock with fair and democratic elections. If your ideals are popular, I'm sure they will succeed. If they aren't, then they won't. You have nothing to be afraid of if your ideals are actually effective in being conducive to well-being.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You forgot lowered wages and an increased tax burden on the poor and middle class, so they get squeezed from both ends.  You and I both know it's a fucking scam, that's why they had to get an actor to sell it to the American people.  I can only assume you must be benefiting from a similarly broken economic system if you're willing to go out on a limb to defend it.


It's a pretty good system from where I'm sitting, and you haven't presented any data to the contrary. Reagan didn't "increase taxes on the poor", he cut taxes, as did Trump. They were long-overdue for a cut after the World Wars. The results of cuts were predictable - average income grew by 75%, median household income grew by 10% and federal tax revenues *doubled* despite lower rates due to decreased tax avoidance. Your problem, in a nutshell, is that lower income brackets grew at a much slower rate than higher income brackets - I don't have a problem with that as long as everyone's growing, the disparity isn't an issue to me. Capital attracts capital - the more of it you have, the faster you grow, this is economics 101.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts


Lacius said:


> Or we could solve the problem of gridlock with fair and democratic elections. If your ideals are popular, I'm sure they will succeed. If they aren't, then they won't. You have nothing to be afraid of if your ideals are actually effective in being conducive to well-being.


"If you don't do any wrongthink, you have nothing to be afraid of" - many people have heard those words right before their demise. Stakes are too high, defending personal liberties takes priority over popularity - trends come and go, the government never shrinks.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 30, 2021)

Just looking at other 1st world countries, shows trickle-down economics just isn't a situation. Social democracies have consistently topped charts when I comes to happiness.


----------



## Lumstar (Apr 30, 2021)

Tycoons and barons aren't going to hand their "extra" money over to the destitute without a fight.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It's a pretty good system from where I'm sitting, and you haven't presented any data to the contrary. Reagan didn't "increase taxes on the poor", he cut taxes, as did Trump. They were long-overdue for a cut after the World Wars. The results of cuts were predictable - average income grew by 75%, median household income grew by 10% and federal tax revenues *doubled* despite lower rates due to decreased tax avoidance. Your problem, in a nutshell, is that lower income brackets grew at a much slower rate than higher income brackets - I don't have a problem with that as long as everyone's growing, the disparity isn't an issue to me. Capital attracts capital - the more of it you have, the faster you grow, this is economics 101.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts
> "If you don't do any wrongthink, you have nothing to be afraid of" - many people have heard those words right before their demise. Stakes are too high, defending personal liberties takes priority over popularity - trends come and go, the government never shrinks.


My point was that if your policy positions are good, people will vote for them in a fair democracy. However, if your policy positions aren't actually good, then it's no surprise you're anti-democratic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Just looking at other 1st world countries, shows trickle-down economics just isn't a situation. Social democracies have consistently topped charts when I comes to happiness.


Switzerland would like to have a word with you - it's pretty high on the list (scored third in 2020) while simultaneously having exclusively private healthcare, very lax gun control (46% of the Swiss are armed), it's effectively a tax haven (federal corporate income tax [CIT] is a flat 8.5%) and business regulations are equally lax. Seems like it can be done with the right attitude.


Lacius said:


> My point was that if your policy positions are good, people will vote for them in a fair democracy. However, if your policy positions aren't actually good, then it's no surprise you're anti-democratic.


Liberty is not subject to a popularity contest, individual rights are inalienable regardless.


----------



## Lacius (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Switzerland would like to have a word with you - it's pretty high on the list while simultaneously having exclusively private healthcare, very lax gun control (46% of the Swiss are armed), it's effectively a tax haven (corporate tax rate is a flat 8.5%) and business regulations are equally lax. Seems like it can be done with the right attitude.
> Liberty is not subject to a popularity contest, individual rights are inalienable regardless.


The problem is you and I both think our views are pro-liberty, as does probably everyone else. I think pro-democratic changes are the solution, but you admittedly care more about your team winning than whether or not democracy is pissed on.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The problem is you and I both think our views are pro-liberty, as does probably everyone else. I think pro-democratic changes are the solution, but you admittedly care more about your team winning than whether or not democracy is pissed on.


That's because I don't necessarily listen to the sentiment of the mob at any given moment, I am laser focused on optimal solutions that lead towards my stated goals. The "democracy" part of the equation is the public picking representatives that best represent their interests and can effectively implement policies that will better their lives in the long run, leaving as much kaching in their pockets while spending the least kaching in the budget. That's what I care about. Right now we're having a discussion on an Internet forum, so I don't need to account for what you believe or support, I only have to present my point of view to other readers. It might not be a popular point of view, but that has never bothered me before and it isn't about to start bothering me now. As far as political candidates are concerned, they campaign on specific promises - how they get from Point A to fulfilling the promise is completely immaterial to me as a potential voter, I only care about what they're promising and how likely it is that the promise will be fulfilled. Optimal solutions give predictable results with a high likelyhood of success, so that's what I tend to advocate for.


----------



## Valwinz (May 1, 2021)

We sure are getting pretty chummy with Ukraine lately for some reason mmmm  Big guy is looking for his cut.
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1388245996069588998


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Reagan didn't "increase taxes on the poor", he cut taxes, as did Trump.


Decreasing taxes on the rich means a greater tax burden on the poor by default.  It also means there's less funding for important projects, and it's a great way to balloon both the national debt and deficit.  I guess the right stopped caring about that around the time GWB was elected though, being that they've been spending more than Democrats on average since then, while simultaneously reducing the government's revenue and wondering why the economy keeps crashing on their watch.

Again, trickle-down is not a staple of libertarianism, it's outright neo-conservatism, and that shit just does not work any more than neo-liberal policies do.  It's just a means for the rich to pillage and loot the economy.  And there is no re-creating the 1980s unless you also re-create the three decades or so leading up to it.



Valwinz said:


> We sure are getting pretty chummy with Ukraine lately for some reason mmmm Big guy is looking for his cut.


Were you under the false impression that Ukraine is an adversary to the US?  Maybe you were thinking of Russia.


----------



## laudern (May 1, 2021)

Can't we all just agree that Biden and Biden's America is just the worst? 182 pages debating how bad the guy is. Come on now, it's like arguing over how bad different types of cancer is.


----------



## djpannda (May 1, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Some good news
> https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1388246953536937985


“a role in manipulating Dominion voting machines, Dominion voting software, and the final vote counts in the 2020 presidential election, Newsmax subsequently found no evidence that such allegations were true.”
Lol man NewMax just bitched out .. lol
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/a...&month=04&date=30&id=1019671&oref=www.npr.org


----------



## Valwinz (May 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Decreasing taxes on the rich means a greater tax burden on the poor by default.  It also means there's less funding for important projects, and it's a great way to balloon both the national debt and deficit.  I guess the right stopped caring about that around the time GWB was elected though, being that they've been spending more than Democrats on average since then, while simultaneously reducing the government's revenue and wondering why the economy keeps crashing on their watch.
> 
> Again, trickle-down is not a staple of libertarianism, it's outright neo-conservatism, and that shit just does not work any more than neo-liberal policies do.
> 
> ...


Team America world police


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

laudern said:


> Can't we all just agree that Biden and Biden's America is just the worst?


What specifically has he done to make things worse?  He's handled the pandemic better than Trump in every way, and the only major legislation he's passed so far is the COVID relief bill.  The fact that an Australian just assumes everything is so much worse goes to show what an iron grip Murdoch has on the country's balls.


----------



## Valwinz (May 1, 2021)

djpannda said:


> “a role in manipulating Dominion voting machines, Dominion voting software, and the final vote counts in the 2020 presidential election, Newsmax subsequently found no evidence that such allegations were true.”
> Lol man NewMax just bitched out .. lol


it is the most secure elections in history and Florida just made it even more secure so not sure why you be mad about it


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Team America world police


What an astonishingly moronic statement.  Why would we police our allies?



Valwinz said:


> it is the most secure elections in history and Florida just made it even more secure so not sure why you be mad about it


Voter suppression =/= election security and you know it.


----------



## tabzer (May 1, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> If my goal was to specifically target you, I wouldn't have wasted my time fulfilling your request.



It wasn't a request, and even if it was, you didn't fulfill it.

It was a rhetorical question showing that you arbitrarily targeted me with a opinion that nobody believes or is making the argument for.  It's either illiteracy on your part or malice.

I don't think I'm a hypocrite and I don't want anything from you, but you keep giving whatever it is you are giving, anyway.  Complete garbage to me.



Lacius said:


> I received a *$600* check and a *$1,600* check, just as promised. I received *$2,000* in total. Thank you, President Biden.


. It's simple math.

So far, Trump gave you $1800 and Biden gave you $1400.  Apparently people believe the money came out of their own pockets.


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

Better late than never I guess: the Pentagon has cancelled all contracts to build Trump's wall.


----------



## djpannda (May 1, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> it is the most secure elections in history and Florida just made it even more secure so not sure why you be mad about it


Lol because there was no fraud  found, all this new laws don’t do anything to actually secure the election they are just meant to make it harder for people ( especially from low income area ) to vote ... ... yet  People crying these laws are needed because that was the only way Trump would of  lost... not the fact Trump was the most polarizing Candidate ever.
Lol so sad.. and the worst part is most of these voter bills will be thrown out after they lose in court .. so all they would  have Done is waste millions of tax payers money to defend racist bills..


----------



## SG854 (May 1, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Just looking at other 1st world countries, shows trickle-down economics just isn't a situation. Social democracies have consistently topped charts when I comes to happiness.


I don't think people like @Foxi4 believes that tax cuts will trickle down nor do some Republicans that want tax cuts.

Their argument is not make the rich wealthier and somehow they will share that extra wealth and will trickle down. It's not their argument. Because they know the rich won't do that. They'll keep the money instead.

Their argument for tax cuts is behavioral change.

Don't tax the rich too high because they'll just put their money in off shore accounts. Tax them at a lower rate that won't scare them off and at a rate that putting that money in off shore accounts would be more costly then what they would pay if those taxes rate were lower, so they would rather pay the taxes instead.

So find a rate that can maximize how much tax we can bring in but not too much to scare them away.

Their reason for tax cuts is behavioral change not trickle down economics.


Unless you address their core argument. You are not going to change their mind.


I did read something awhile back that republicans are just snake oil sales men and use this argument to convince people its not about making the rich richer. But in reality it secretly is. I haven't verified if it's true or not though.


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Don't tax the rich too high because they'll just put their money in off shore accounts.


Which is ridiculous, they'll do everything they can to pay as little in taxes as possible, no matter what their rate on the books is.  Recently they haven't even had to hide their money in off-shore accounts, because the IRS simply hasn't had the money or resources necessary to audit the rich.  It's estimated that they're cheating on their taxes to the tune of $800 billion annually.

We've tried sucking them off for decades, nothing's improved, it's only gotten worse.  It's about time to start playing hardball with the parasites instead.  Simplify the tax code, close all the loopholes, raise the top tax bracket to make up for the lost years.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 1, 2021)

Hey don't worry about any more Coronavirus coming in the country, y'all. Biden banned travel to and from India, where those brown Corona-having people are. Way to go, Joe!


----------



## SG854 (May 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Which is ridiculous, they'll do everything they can to pay as little in taxes as possible, no matter what their rate on the books is.  Recently they haven't even had to hide their money in off-shore accounts, because the IRS simply hasn't had the money or resources necessary to audit the rich.  It's estimated that they're cheating on their taxes to the tune of $800 billion annually.
> 
> We've tried sucking them off for decades, nothing's improved, it's only gotten worse.  It's about time to start playing hardball with the parasites instead.  Simplify the tax code, close all the loopholes, raise the top tax bracket to make up for the lost years.


I don't think the loopholes will ever close. Lots of campaign promises but still nothing.


----------



## Valwinz (May 1, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Lol because there was no fraud  found, all this new laws don’t do anything to actually secure the election they are just meant to make it harder for people ( especially from low income area ) to vote ... ... yet  People crying these laws are needed because that was the only way Trump would of  lost... not the fact Trump was the most polarizing Candidate ever.
> Lol so sad.. and the worst part is most of these voter bills will be thrown out after they lose in court .. so all they would  have Done is waste millions of tax payers money to defend racist bills..


ok so the most secure election was just made more secure whats the issue here lol


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I don't think the loopholes will ever close. Lots of campaign promises but still nothing.


Yeah it's a big undertaking and usually one that presidents try to put off until last, but that just helps to ensure it never gets done.



Valwinz said:


> ok so the most secure election was just made more secure whats the issue here lol


The election is over.  You can't make it more secure after the fact.  The bill you linked is a voter suppression bill, not an election security bill.  It's obviously meant to target and disenfranchise Democrats, but a number of Republican voters will be affected too.  I don't know how to dumb it down for you any more than that.


----------



## Valwinz (May 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah it's a big undertaking and usually one that presidents try to put off until last, but that just helps to ensure it never gets done.
> 
> 
> The election is over.  You can't make it more secure after the fact.  The bill you linked is a voter suppression bill, not an election security bill.  It's obviously meant to target and disenfranchise Democrats, but a number of Republican voters will be affected too.  I don't know how to dumb it down for you any more than that.


you can make future ones even more secure so not sure why you be against it


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> you can make future ones even more secure so not sure why you be against it


Okay now you're just intentionally trying to get on my nerves.  Why not suppress and disenfranchise more voters in future elections?  Because that's not fucking democracy.  If you're that desperate to live in an oligarchy or dictatorship, there are plenty of countries you could move to.


----------



## KingVamp (May 1, 2021)

I was curious and searched at a glance.


Foxi4 said:


> Switzerland would like to have a word with you - it's pretty high on the list (scored third in 2020) while simultaneously having exclusively private healthcare


1) You have to have insurance.
2) Insurance must be nonprofit for basic care.
3) Still uses some taxes.

Still not as efficient as other counties healthcare.




Foxi4 said:


> lax gun control (46% of the Swiss are armed),


1) Permit to purchase most guns
2) Carrying permit
3) Time limits
4) Stored safely


Actually, just looking at their gun laws, it doesn't seem as lax as people are making it.




Foxi4 said:


> it's effectively a tax haven (federal corporate income tax [CIT] is a flat 8.5%) and business regulations are equally lax. Seems like it can be done with the right attitude.


Kind of misleading, apparently taxes varies.




SG854 said:


> Don't tax the rich too high because they'll just put their money in off shore accounts. Tax them at a lower rate that won't scare them off and at a rate that putting that money in off shore accounts would be more costly then what they would pay if those taxes rate were lower, so they would rather pay the taxes instead.



Or just stop them from doing it altogether, which is what the USA is trying to do now. Even working with other countries to do so.


----------



## Valwinz (May 1, 2021)

imao is ok when Biden does it 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1388209606103605250


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao is ok when Biden does it
> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1388209606103605250


More like it's okay to act on advice from the CDC, which we know Trump never did.  The situation in India is dire, which is why the US and many other countries are sending whatever medical supplies they can spare.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Which is ridiculous, they'll do everything they can to pay as little in taxes as possible, no matter what their rate on the books is.


Explain how lowering tax rates doubled tax revenues and decreased tax avoidance under Reagan, and did near enough the same thing under Trump. If your aim is to have a treasury that's bursting with cash for dumb-dumb boondoggles, you should opt for options that maximise tax revenues, yes or no? A higher percentage does not necessarily translate to higher tax revenues if it kills businesses - there is a number between 0% (no revenue, everything stays in private pockets) and 100% (no revenue, nobody works for free) that is optimal, it is up to Congress to establish and implement that number, and that number can in fact change depending on economic circumstances. The relation between taxation  and federal tax revenue is not a line that goes from zero into the heavens - it's a curve. To claim otherwise is silly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve


Xzi said:


> More like it's okay to act on advice from the CDC, which we know Trump never did.  The situation in India is dire, which is why the US and many other countries are sending whatever medical supplies they can spare.


China was literally welding people inside their apartments and catching people off the streets like dogs to put them in makeshift isolation - I'd say it was pretty dire.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 1, 2021)

Gee, I wonder what the political scene is here on GBATemp? Gotta be filled with reasonable and intelligent people since most are hackers, modders, and coders and such. It must be different than other places! Most likely no liberals and liberal logic.

_reads and skims the replies to this thread


_
.....I don't know why I was expecting anything to be different.....


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> I was curious and searched at a glance.
> 
> 1) You have to have insurance.
> 2) Insurance must be nonprofit for basic care.
> ...


Seems to have excellent outcomes and it removes the government from the business of providing healthcare, which the government knows nothing about. The private sector is more efficient at this, the government merely created an environment in which it can do so effectively - that's the government's job.


> 1) Permit to purchase most guns
> 2) Carrying permit
> 3) Time limits
> 4) Stored safely
> ...


You seem to be under the impression that you don't need a permit to carry in the US, or that no checks whatsoever exist, or that some weapons aren't explicitly taxed, or that there are no storage safety requirements, or perhaps all of the above. You're mistaken on all counts if that's the case. Comparatively speaking, gun control in Switzerland is far closer to the American model than it is to any European state.


> Kind of misleading, apparently taxes varies.


Your tax rate varies because in addition to the federal CIT there are other taxes you may also have to cover, particularly on the municipal level. We're not interested in that because we're discussing the federal government, not the equivalent state governments. With that said, even if you combined all of those taxes in Switzerland, you'd still be paying anywhere between 11% and 21.6%, which is miniscule compared to most European states and equivalent or better than the US rate, which is 21% plus any state-level taxes which range between 1% and 12%. If we're comparing like to like, you're better off in Switzerland.


----------



## SG854 (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Explain how lowering tax rates doubled tax revenues and decreased tax avoidance under Reagan, and did near enough the same thing under Trump. If your aim is to have a treasury that's bursting with cash for dumb-dumb boondoggles, you should opt for options that maximise tax revenues, yes or no? A higher percentage does not necessarily translate to higher tax revenues if it kills businesses - there is a number between 0% (no revenue, everything stays in private pockets) and 100% (no revenue, nobody works for free) that is optimal, it is up to Congress to establish and implement that number, and that number can in fact change depending on economic circumstances. The relation between taxation  and federal tax revenue is not a line that goes from zero into the heavens - it's a curve. To claim otherwise is silly.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
> China was literally welding people inside their apartments and catching people off the streets like dogs to put them in makeshift isolation - I'd say it was pretty dire.


Has anyone found the optimal tax rate?



Foxi4 said:


> Seems to have excellent outcomes and it removes the government from the business of providing healthcare, which the government knows nothing about. The private sector is more efficient at this, the government merely created an environment in which it can do so effectively - that's the government's job.
> You seem to be under the impression that you don't need a permit to carry in the US or that no checks whatsoever exist, or that some weapons aren't explicitly taxed, or that there are no storage safety requirements. You're mistaken on all counts if that's the case. Comparatively speaking, gun control in Switzerland is far closer to the American model than it is to any European state.
> Your tax rate varies because in addition to the federal CIT there are other taxes you may also have to cover, particularly on the municipal level. We're not interested in that because we're discussing the federal government, not the equivalent state governments. With that said, even if you combined all of those taxes in Switzerland, you'd still be paying anywhere between 11% and 21.6%, which is miniscule compared to most European states and equivalent or better than the US rate, which is 21% plus any state-level taxes which range between 1% and 12%. If we're comparing like to like, you're better off in Switzerland.


When Trump tarriffs hit and gpu prices rose. Lots of people were saying welcome to European Prices. Those VAT's really drives up the price. Made me realize how much cheaper computer parts were in America compared to the rest of the world.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Decreasing taxes on the rich means a greater tax burden on the poor by default.  It also means there's less funding for important projects, and it's a great way to balloon both the national debt and deficit.  I guess the right stopped caring about that around the time GWB was elected though, being that they've been spending more than Democrats on average since then, while simultaneously reducing the government's revenue and wondering why the economy keeps crashing on their watch.


"The rich" already carry effectively *all* of the federal tax burden. If any of this was up to me, lower and maybe even the middle income tax brackets would pay no income tax whatsoever - they don't pay enough to make a difference and paying a 0% income tax would enable them to accumulate wealth faster. To put this in perspective, the top 50% of income earners paid in 97% of *all* federal income tax revenue in 2017, the bottom 50% paid *3%*. The top 1% of taxpayers carried a burden of 38.5% while the bottom *90%* paid in *29.9%* of the total. I am *perfectly happy* with half of the country's tax payers not paying any income tax at all and ending up with 3% less revenue (in fact, I'm not even sure if revenues would decrease all that much thanks to increased spending by the public, you'd see more income from the sales taxes in local governments etc.), I want that money in private hands so that people can spend it on improving their lives, the last thing I want is for those people to earn less in wages, spend more in living costs and pay more in taxes. There's your "tax the rich" segment - here's a proposal, only tax the rich, don't tax anybody else because there's no point in doing that, you're only decelerating their growth and decreasing income mobility.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/

Regarding libertarians and economic policy, I'm sorry that libertarians on the left side of the aisle are economically illiterate, they share that trait with the rest of the left. You're under the mistaken impression that this applies to the entire group, which is not the case.


SG854 said:


> Has anyone found the optimal tax rate?


Hard to say yes or no to that one given the fact that the economy is in constant flux and the optimal point moves, it's not static because it's not a static system. If you keep cutting and your revenues still inexplicably increase, or remain the same, you're not there yet. If you increase it and your revenues decrease, you're past that mark.


> When Trump tarriffs hit and gpu prices rose. Lots of people were saying welcome to European Prices. Those VAT's really drives up the price. Made me realize how much cheaper computer parts were in America compared to the rest of the world.


I was always against tarrifs and did not approve of this move by the Trump administration, as I don't approve of any additional tax, duty or levy. With that said, it showed that ultimately it was the consumers who paid the price, which illustrates my point. Taxes are put on the dollar, not on the individual. If I have something to sell that you want to buy, I don't want to be in the hole for selling it. Somebody will have to pay that extra X%, and it's not going to be me - I have an X% profit margin in mind, so guess what? Your GPU just got more expensive, and since supply decreased while the demand is the same or higher due to the crypto boom, the environment couldn't be better for me to jack the price up. It's not magic, it's simple cause and effect. I want my money, I need someone to butter up my toast, and the unfortunate privilege of doing that falls on you since you want my GPU. I'm not lowering the price until demand decreases and my stock starts gathering dust in the warehouse - that's not happening, you can't get a GPU these days to save your life, even if you offer a soul of a newborn for it.


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Explain how lowering tax rates doubled tax revenues and decreased tax avoidance under Reagan, and did near enough the same thing under Trump.


Any source for that under Trump?  Again, the estimated tax avoidance of the rich is $800 billion annually, I highly doubt his tax cuts had any effect on that whatsoever.



Foxi4 said:


> A higher percentage does not necessarily translate to higher tax revenues if it kills businesses


We aren't talking about small businesses here, and obviously they aren't impacted by the top tax bracket.  There's no reason a higher percentage shouldn't translate to higher tax revenues, other than the fact that the rich have lobbied to make the code needlessly complex to ensure it's full of loopholes they can exploit.



Foxi4 said:


> China was literally welding people inside their apartments and catching people off the streets like dogs to put them in makeshift isolation - I'd say it was pretty dire.


Sure, I'm not denying that.  In this particular case it's not that he took the wrong action, it's just the way he went about it and the fact that he took that action too late.  Cases of COVID-19 had already been confirmed inside the US for over a month when he decided to restrict travel, and blaming the whole of China for the virus encouraged a lot of violence directed at Asian-Americans.



Foxi4 said:


> here's a proposal, only tax the rich, don't tax anybody else because there's no point in doing that, you're only decelerating their growth and decreasing income mobility.


Well shiiiet, you should've just made such a proposal to begin with.  Of course I'd be happy with that solution, along with 98% of Americans (the ones that haven't totally bought into "bootstraps" propaganda anyway).  Their wealth isn't earned or generated from their own hard work, so it only makes sense they remove all tax burden from the working class they exploit.



Foxi4 said:


> Regarding libertarians and economic policy, I'm sorry that libertarians on the left-side of the aisle are economically illiterate, they share that trait with the rest of the left. You're under the mistaken impression that this applies to the entire group, which is not the case.


No, I'm talking about right-wing libertarians in specific, and only the ones I've met IRL.  Why would any of them bother shilling for trickle-down economics when it's done nothing but keep their wages low and drastically decrease upward mobility?  Libertarians are all about personal freedoms, and corporations/billionaires tend to trample over those whenever convenient.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Any source for that under Trump?  Again, the estimated tax avoidance of the rich is $800 billion annually, I highly doubt his tax cuts had any effect on that whatsoever.


Sure! The best source there is, in fact. Federal tax revenues have continued to increase under Trump in spite of the tax cuts. Here's the revenues by year, as reported by the U.S. Treasury:

FY 2020 $3.71 trillion estimated, around $3.42 actual (as of October) because we had a pandemic and an economic shutdown which, as it turns out, was very expensive. I'd have to do a deeper dive to find out if this is the final result, but let's assume it is.
FY 2019 $3.46 trillion
FY 2018 $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 $3.32 trillion
Anyone telling you that the Trump tax cuts led to decreased tax revenue is lying to you, the numbers don't reflect that. In spite of the pandemic shutting the entire country down and severely limiting commerce the federal government is still raising *more* in revenue than before the tax cuts. In 2018 alone revenue from income taxes increased by 6%, and kept increasing even further in 2019. In fact, tax receipts have reached all-time highs during his presidency.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

The Trump administration's problem was always excessive spending, much of which was inherited or mandatory, but a lot was also new and unnecessary. Tax cuts should go hand in hand with spending cuts - the former is popular, the latter is not. Tax cuts do not increase the deficit, spending well beyond your means does.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-revenue-keeps-rising-11557691166

Decreased tax avoidance is cited among the (many) reasons why you'd get such a counter-intuitive result, but you can't effectively measure that, so take it however you want. I'm going to say that decreased tax avoidance is part of it because it's a sensible assumption to make.


> We aren't talking about small businesses here, and obviously they aren't impacted by the top tax bracket.  There's no reason a higher percentage shouldn't translate to higher tax revenues, other than the fact that the rich have lobbied to make the code needlessly complex to ensure it's full of loopholes they can exploit.


There's a million reasons why a higher percentage doesn't always lead to increased revenues, as I've explained earlier.


> Sure, I'm not denying that.  In this particular case it's not the he took the wrong action, it's just the way he went about it and the fact that he took that action too late.  Cases of COVID-19 had already been confirmed inside the US for over than a month when he decided to restrict travel, and blaming the whole of China for the virus encouraged a lot of violence directed at Asian-Americans.


I'm glad that we agree restricting travel to and from pandemic hot spots was the correct decision. Can we now agree, a year after the fact, that it had nothing to do with xenophobia and everything to do with the virus running rampant in Wuhan?


> Well shiiiet, you should've just made such a proposal to begin with.  Of course I'd be happy with that solution, along with 98% of Americans (the ones that haven't totally bought into "bootstraps" propaganda anyway).  Their wealth isn't earned or generated from their own hard work, so it only makes sense they remove all tax burden from the working class they exploit.


Welcome aboard. Fuck the tax man.


> No, I'm talking about right-wing libertarians in specific, and only the ones I've met IRL.  Why would any of them bother shilling for trickle-down economics when it's done nothing but keep their wages low and drastically decrease upward mobility?  Libertarians are all about personal freedoms, and corporations/billionaires tend to trample over those whenever convenient.


Because engaging with a corporation is consensual. Engaging with a government is mandatory. During his speech Biden said that "government is just you and me". That's a fucking lie, the government is not you and me, it's not "We The People". The government is a group of our agents that we send to Washington to do a specific job, and we allow them special privileges that "We The People" don't have for the purposes of doing that job, on the proviso that they do not trample on our individual rights in the process, which they do anyway. A corporation *can* be you and me, we can shake hands and start one today if we wanted to, we can't shake hands and start a government.

It's a difference of perspective, and the same disconnect I have with left wingers in general. They see the Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, as a permissive document - a list of things we are allowed to do by the government. Libertarians see this document as a *restrictive* one, it's a set of restrictions imposed on the government by "We The People". A short list of things our agents *cannot* touch because they're our inalienable rights. These are two very different seats with very different views on the situation.

To put this in short, a corporation is just a group of people operating as one, as in incorporated. The government is a group of agents that we select, a group which has more power than "We The People", and we permit it to have those powers for the explicit purpose of protecting our individual rights. When Biden says that government is people, that it's just like us, he humanises it and makes it all friendly. Friends don't knock on my door and demand payment at the point of a gun because I had the audacity to make an income, corporations don't do that, but the government does. We allow it to do so as a necessary evil, but we don't have to like it or be friends with it, or send it Thanksgiving cards. The government comes from "We The People", we create it and consent to it, but it is not "like us".

Bit of a word salad, but it's early morning and my head is still in the shed, so you'll have to cut me some slack, wink wink.


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In spite of the pandemic shutting the entire country down and severely limiting commerce the federal government is still raising *more* in revenue than before the tax cuts.


That's not too surprising as corporate profits spiked during the pandemic, but along with them so did tax avoidance (just ask Bezos).  By your own numbers we can see that revenue stayed virtually flat in the three years previous.



Foxi4 said:


> Can we now agree, a year after the fact, that it had nothing to do with xenophobia and everything to do with the virus running rampant in Wuhan?


The travel restrictions themselves weren't necessarily xenophobic, at least not the restrictions put in place because of COVID, but Trump's rhetoric surrounding the virus certainly was.



Foxi4 said:


> Because engaging with a corporation is consensual.


Tell that to all the small towns that only have a Wal-Mart for a grocery store.



Foxi4 said:


> A corporation *can* be you and me, we can shake hands and start one today if we wanted to, we can't shake hands and start a government.


A *business* can be founded by you and me, but the inevitable outcome of that in a lot of parts of the country would be at best a low-ball offer for corporate buyout, and at worst they run us out of town (into bankruptcy).  Neither of those is necessarily consensual.



Foxi4 said:


> It's a difference of perspective, and the same disconnect I have with left wingers in general. They see the Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, as a permissive document - a list of things we are allowed to do by the government. Libertarians see this document as a *restrictive* one, it's a set of restrictions imposed on the government by We The People. A short list of things our agents *cannot* touch because they're our inalienable rights. These are two very different seats with very different views on the situation.


That being the case, you'd think both groups would be in favor of a second Bill of Rights, or at least expansion of the first one.  Libertarians seem to often get bogged down by two or three fringe/niche issues though, and lose sight of the bigger picture as a result.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's not too surprising as corporate profits spiked during the pandemic, but along with them so did tax avoidance.  By your own numbers we can see that revenue stayed virtually flat in the three years previous.


I disagree. You'd have to look at specific revenue streams to draw that conclusion - revenue from income specifically has increased, which accounts for 50% of all revenue, give or take. We also saw an increase in overall revenue in 2018 and 2016, it was not stagnant. I know this is represented as X,YZ, but we're talking about billions of dollars here. Not worth arguing about though since there's no real way to measure the exact amount of tax unpaid though, we can only operate on guesstimates.


> The travel restrictions themselves weren't necessarily xenophobic, at least not the restrictions put in place because of COVID, but Trump's rhetoric surrounding the virus certainly was.


I'll take that, even if I disagree with the latter half.


> Tell that to all the small towns that only have a Wal-Mart for a grocery store.


Tell that to the government which is stifling competition on behalf of big business. Under my audacious plan mom and pop would pay zero tax if they chose to compete and open a small shop right next to your own doorstep, at least until they reach the corporate tax level, which would likely take a hot minute. The government should encourage competition, most proposals on the left discourage it.


> A *business* can be founded by you and me, but the inevitable outcome of that in a lot of parts of the country would be at best a low-ball offer for corporate buyout, and at worst they run us out of town (into bankruptcy).  Neither of those is necessarily consensual.


You don't have to accept a buyout offer if you believe that you can out-compete a local corporate entity, which isn't always beyond the realm of possibility. Have you been to a corporate-ran store recently? They're all ran by fuckballs who don't know what they're doing. That's neither here nor there, my point is that the barrier for entry should be as low as possible, as I said earlier.


> That being the case, you'd think both groups would be in favor of a second Bill of Rights, or at least expansion of the first one.  Libertarians seem to often get bogged down by two or three fringe/niche issues though, and lose sight of the bigger picture as a result.


I think they may have a problem with who'd write the bill. I can't speak for other people, but I myself am very careful about expanding the list of "inalienable rights" and dead set against shrinking it. The Constitution is possibly the only bill that was actually written by We The People. A bunch of guys showed the king the middle finger and said that they're independent now. A few years later they called the first US Congress consisting of just a bunch more guys and wrote a bunch of stuff on a piece of paper, stuff that the government to this day has to respect as the highest law of the land. It is the most "We The Peoplest" piece of legislation in all of U.S. law, and it's nearly all-encompassing.

There's also a disconnect on the grounds of defining what a "right" is. Libertarians only accept negative rights - those are rights that prohibit another from acting upon the rights holder. Progressives propose positive rights, which is a silly concept that just translates to an entitlement.

You'll notice that the language of the Bill of Rights is very specific - it lists things that shall not be infringed upon. It doesn't say things like "you can speak freely" or "you can bear arms", or "you can get a speedy trial", it says "Congress shall make no law (...) abridging the freedom of speech", "(...) right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury". Those are things Congress *cannot* do. To pick one of many proposed rights, "you have a right to healthcare" is a positive right. That's not a restriction of power, that's an entitlement. Who grants it? Based on what? If you were to frame it in a way of the original, you'd say that "Congress shall make no law restricting access to healthcare", and I'd be okay with that - it'd be egregious if it did, an imposition on commerce in fact, but that kind of statement has very different implications - it doesn't guarantee that one will receive care, it merely restricts the power of Congress to prevent one from getting care. Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be a bad addition - it's prevent Congress from making laws that restrict shopping for healthcare across state lines, or even internationally if needs be - a positive outcome, if I do say so myself.


----------



## SG854 (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I disagree. You'd have to look at specific revenue streams to draw that conclusion - revenue from income specifically has increased, which accounts for 50% of all revenue, give or take. We also saw an increase in overall revenue in 2018 and 2016, it was not stagnant. I know this is represented as X,YZ, but we're talking about billions of dollars here. Not worth arguing about though since there's no real way to measure the exact amount of tax unpaid though, we can only operate on guesstimates.
> I'll take that, even if I disagree with the latter half.
> Tell that to the government which is stifling competition on behalf of big business. Under my audacious plan mom and pop would pay zero tax if they chose to compete and open a small shop right next to your own doorstep, at least until they reach the corporate tax level, which would likely take a hot minute. The government should encourage competition, most proposals on the left discourage it.
> You don't have to accept a buyout offer if you believe that you can out-compete a local corporate entity, which isn't always beyond the realm of possibility. Have you been to a corporate-ran store recently? They're all ran by fuckballs who don't know what they're doing. That's neither here nor there, my point is that the barrier for entry should be as low as possible, as I said earlier.
> ...


How many people are in the top 50%?

I tried to look at how much you have to make to reach that bracket. But information I found was for 3 person housholds. Houses have different amounts of people living in them so need different yearly income to reach the top 50%.


I calculated 2 couples working $10 an hour for 8 hr work days puts them in the top 50%. So they are in the 97% paying the majority of taxes. Or 60% of the taxes paid if you don't count the top 1%. So basically minimum wage workers with two working couples reaches the top 50%.

But thats only for a Household of 3 people which the majority is not. Plus each state has different living fees. I want to know what % of the population reached the top 50% adjusting for family size and living area.


----------



## Lacius (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's because I don't necessarily listen to the sentiment of the mob at any given moment, I am laser focused on optimal solutions that lead towards my stated goals. The "democracy" part of the equation is the public picking representatives that best represent their interests and can effectively implement policies that will better their lives in the long run, leaving as much kaching in their pockets while spending the least kaching in the budget. That's what I care about. Right now we're having a discussion on an Internet forum, so I don't need to account for what you believe or support, I only have to present my point of view to other readers. It might not be a popular point of view, but that has never bothered me before and it isn't about to start bothering me now. As far as political candidates are concerned, they campaign on specific promises - how they get from Point A to fulfilling the promise is completely immaterial to me as a potential voter, I only care about what they're promising and how likely it is that the promise will be fulfilled. Optimal solutions give predictable results with a high likelyhood of success, so that's what I tend to advocate for.


Just so we are clear, you appear to be arguing that you don't care how a candidate comes to power as long as they're from your team. In addition to being authoritarian, isn't that arbitrary? I think I've made this point before, but you've spent some time arguing against abolishing the Electoral College, for example, but you're pretty much admitting that you'd actually be arguing for its abolishment too if it benefited your team and your policy positions. Doesn't that mean we should discount a lot of the arguments you've made in the past?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> It wasn't a request, and even if it was, you didn't fulfill it.
> 
> It was a rhetorical question showing that you arbitrarily targeted me with a opinion that nobody believes or is making the argument for.  It's either illiteracy on your part or malice.
> 
> ...


It's an apples and oranges comparison when you're talking about different time frames and different states of economy and the pandemic, and it's pretty irrelevant. I'll give the Republicans full credit for the first two stimulus checks, if we are ignoring the facts that they were bipartisan bills, had to be negotiated with a Democratic House, should have contained more money, and would have contained more money if the Democratic Party had been in charge of the White House and Senate.

The issue is Biden said we should receive $2,000 while the second check was still being negotiated, and after the $600 check went out, Biden was sworn in and made it right without any support from Senate Republicans. While it should have been more in my opinion, it was the correction of a problem caused by the Republican Party. Biden and the Democratic Party should definitely get credit for their relief bill, and the promise of $2,000 was kept.


----------



## tabzer (May 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Just so we are clear, you appear to be arguing that you don't care how a candidate comes to power as long as they're from your team. In addition to being authoritarian, isn't that arbitrary? I think I've made this point before, but you've spent some time arguing against abolishing the Electoral College, for example, but you're pretty much admitting that you'd actually be arguing for its abolishment too if it benefited your team and your policy positions. Doesn't that mean we should discount a lot of the arguments you've made in the past?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



The promise of $2,000 was kept, depending who you ask and what words that they listened to when they decided what the promise meant.  I can see reasons for both yes and no, and I do think it was somewhat sloppy and overstepping.  In the end, to me at least, it looks like people are crediting Biden for portions that the Trump admin supplied.  If we are going to compare apples to apples, like I said before--Trump gave you $1800 and Biden gave you $1400.

Also, that's not even the most interesting subject of conversation.  This is:



Lacius said:


> I received a $600 check and a $1,600 check, just as promised. I received $2,000 in total. Thank you, President Biden



It's going into my signature if you don't acknowledge fudging simple math.


----------



## omgcat (May 1, 2021)

so whens that Biden crash coming? i was hoping to buy some cheap stock.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> imao is ok when Biden does it
> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1388209606103605250




imagine being upset that we want to keep out a potential escape variant that would render our vaccines potentially uselss or much less effective. i thought you wanted things to go back to normal?


----------



## KingVamp (May 1, 2021)

Forgot to mention, Switzerland has a more direct democracy than US.  


Foxi4 said:


> Seems to have excellent outcomes and it removes the government from the business of providing healthcare, which the government knows nothing about. The private sector is more efficient at this, the government merely created an environment in which it can do so effectively - that's the government's job..


There are plenty of healthcare systems that governments fund public healthcare just fine. Meanwhile, our private sector got us paying double, only to cover half the amount of people. 



Foxi4 said:


> You seem to be under the impression that you don't need a permit to carry in the US


I don't see any federal law for this and last time I checked, some states are weakening their gun laws even further.



Foxi4 said:


> that no checks whatsoever exist,


No, just the oddly of private sales sidestepping most gun laws. Even Switzerland need some kind of record.




Foxi4 said:


> that there are no storage safety requirements.


No federal law, besides transfers. In fact, doesn't seem like most states have any laws on this. There's a bit more when children are around, but even that's kind of low.




Foxi4 said:


> Your tax rate varies because in addition to the federal CIT there are other taxes you may also have to cover, particularly on the municipal level. We're not interested in that because we're discussing the federal government, not the equivalent state governments. With that said, even if you combined all of those taxes in Switzerland, you'd still be paying anywhere between 11% and 21.6%, which is miniscule compared to most European states and equivalent or better than the US rate, which is 21% plus any state-level taxes which range between 1% and 12%. If we're comparing like to like, you're better off in Switzerland.


This at face value, just shows how broken our healthcare is, when we don't have a universal healthcare at all.



Xzi said:


> Well shiiiet, you should've just made such a proposal to begin with.  Of course I'd be happy with that solution, along with 98% of Americans (the ones that haven't totally bought into "bootstraps" propaganda anyway).  Their wealth isn't earned or generated from their own hard work, so it only makes sense they remove all tax burden from the working class they exploit.


The irony is, while I doubt zero taxes will ever happen, it is Democrats that are most likely to remove some burden from the lower class. Like with basic income.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Just so we are clear, you appear to be arguing that you don't care how a candidate comes to power as long as they're from your team. In addition to being authoritarian, isn't that arbitrary? I think I've made this point before, but you've spent some time arguing against abolishing the Electoral College, for example, but you're pretty much admitting that you'd actually be arguing for its abolishment too if it benefited your team and your policy positions. Doesn't that mean we should discount a lot of the arguments you've made in the past?


I've never said that I don't care how a candidate comes to power. What I said was that they should use any and all available legal measures to push their policy goals, regardless of whether I personally like them or not. If a chess piece is on the board and you arbitrarily choose not to use it, you electively put yourself at a disadvantage, often at your own peril. If a move is legal, it is not below the belt - if you don't use it, your opponent will. The time for principles and changes in the system comes after you win - without power you can't enact change, so your principles are just words. Politicians have to operate in the system that exists, not the system they dream of. I was not, and am not, in favour of abolishing the Electoral College - I think it should be emulated around the world, if anything.


SG854 said:


> How many people are in the top 50%?
> 
> I tried to look at how much you have to make to reach that bracket. But information I found was for 3 person housholds. Houses have different amounts of people living in them so need different yearly income to reach the top 50%.
> 
> ...


I'm not entirely sure regarding the exact number, but I think allowing the bottom 50% of earners who need a boost the most to have a rate of zero percent and a better chance at a head start is the first step in the right direction. This isn't unprecedented either - in the UK the bottom tax bracket is in fact 0%, so if all of you guys are so keen on emulating European countries, that's a good place to start. There is absolutely no reason at all why the poor should be taxed - they're already poor.

EDIT: A quick Google later, the bottom 50% of earners equaled 71 million Americans as of 2017, or a little under 22% of the population. That's *a lot of people* who shouldn't be paying any income tax.


> How much do you need to make to be in the top 50% of earners? Just $41,740.
> 
> Fall below that level, and you are in the bottom half, along with about 71 million of your fellow taxpayers. All told, that group earned just 11.3% of the AGI reported on 2017 federal returns. And they paid about 3% of all the income taxes paid.
> 
> https://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/t054-c000-s001-how-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html


Giving them a rate of 0% would be a sacrifice of 3% total income tax revenues. 3%. We can keep slashing even above that mark as far as I'm concerned.


KingVamp said:


> Forgot to mention, Switzerland has a more direct democracy than US.
> 
> There are plenty of healthcare systems that governments fund public healthcare just fine. Meanwhile, our private sector got us paying double, only to cover half the amount of people.
> 
> ...


A law doesn't have to be federal in order to be binding. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one - if the Swiss can manage, so can the US, and I find their model to be more attractive than many European models. There's a reason why Switzerland tops the charts not only in happiness, but also income.


----------



## Lacius (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I've never said that I don't care how a candidate comes to power. What I said was that they should use any and all available legal measures to push their policy goals, regardless of whether I personally like them or not. If a chess piece is on the board and you arbitrarily choose not to use it, you electively put yourself at a disadvantage, often at your own peril. If a move is legal, it is not below the belt - if you don't use it, your opponent will. The time for principles and changes in the system comes after you win - without power you can't enact change, so your principles are just words. Politicians have to operate in the system that exists, not the system they dream of. I was not, and am not, in favour of abolishing the Electoral College - I think it should be emulated around the world, if anything.
> I'm not entirely sure regarding the exact number, but I think allowing the bottom 50% of earners who need a boost the most to have a rate of zero percent and a better chance at a head start is the first step in the right direction. This isn't unprecedented either - in the UK the bottom tax bracket is in fact 0%, so if all of you guys are so keen on emulating European countries, that's a good place to start. There is absolutely no reason at all why the poor should be taxed - they're already poor.
> 
> EDIT: A quick Google later, the bottom 50% of earners equaled 71 million Americans as of 2017, or a little under 22% of the population. That's *a lot of people* who shouldn't be paying any income tax.
> ...


A person should not necessarily use all the legal options available to them, and just because the system is a certain way doesn't mean it's democratic or shouldn't change. For example, if I were alive during a time of slavery, that doesn't mean I should own slaves because it would get me ahead economically. Principles are not something that should be an afterthought.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A person should not necessarily use all the legal options available to them, just because the system is a certain way doesn't mean it's democratic or shouldn't change. For example, if I were alive during a time of slavery, that doesn't mean I should own slaves because it would get me ahead economically. Principles are not something that should be an afterthought.


We're talking about political campaigns, not about slave ownership. If you're going to make an argument that's several centuries out of date, owning or refusing to own slaves was a moral dilemma, not a matter of specific political principles. Both sides of the political aisle owned slaves. In fact, white people *and* black people owned slaves. You really dug deep for this one, didn't you?


----------



## Lacius (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We're talking about political campaigns, not about slave ownership. If you're going to make an argument that's several centuries out of date, owning or refusing to own slaves was a moral dilemma, not a matter of specific political principles. Both sides of the political aisle owned slaves. In fact, white people *and* black people owned slaves. You really dug deep for this one, didn't you?


It's called an analogy, and I'm sorry it hit a nerve.


----------



## KingVamp (May 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> A law doesn't have to be federal in order to be binding. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one - if the Swiss can manage, so can the US, and I find their model to be more attractive than many European models. There's a reason why Switzerland tops the charts not only in happiness, but also income.


Never said that. My point was, both federal and the states have laxer gun laws than even Switzerland.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's called an analogy, and I'm sorry it hit a nerve.


It didn't hit a nerve, you're just purposefully avoiding the actual argument being made. Let's say you're a politician and you have a noble political objective, like abolishing slavery. That's great, a very good moral stance. You need to be elected to do anything with it. Winning an election and getting into a position of power from which you can enact policy that leads towards your objective is priority number one. If you don't win, you're just a dude with a moral stance - commendable, but ultimately powerless. If you are unable to operate within the system at full capacity, you are at a disadvantaged position and you do your electorate a disservice - they're voting for you on the basis of your political positions. You refusing to do everything in your power to fulfil the objectives of your platform, the platform that your electorate voted you in for, is a dereliction of duty. It is your sworn duty to get the job done. If you can't get the job done, I'm not wasting a vote, I'm voting for someone who will.


KingVamp said:


> Never said that. My point was, both federal and the states have laxer gun laws than even Switzerland.


I didn't compare Switzerland to the United States or any particular state, I compared it to the rest of Europe.


----------



## tabzer (May 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's called an analogy, and I'm sorry it hit a nerve.



A proper analogy, that would at least touch the point, is if you bought slaves in order to set them free. 

Watching you two dance is kind of fun.


----------



## Seliph (May 2, 2021)

Checking back in on this and we're talking about laser guns. Awesome.


----------



## Lacius (May 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It didn't hit a nerve, you're just purposefully avoiding the actual argument being made. Let's say you're a politician and you have a noble political objective, like abolishing slavery. That's great, a very good moral stance. You need to be elected to do anything with it. Winning an election and getting into a position of power from which you can enact policy that leads towards your objective is priority number one. If you don't win, you're just a dude with a moral stance - commendable, but ultimately powerless. If you are unable to operate within the system at full capacity, you are at a disadvantaged position and you do your electorate a disservice - they're voting for you on the basis of your political positions. You refusing to do everything in your power to fulfil the objectives of your platform, the platform that your electorate voted you in for, is a dereliction of duty. It is your sworn duty to get the job done. If you can't get the job done, I'm not wasting a vote, I'm voting for someone who will.
> I didn't compare Switzerland to the United States or any particular state, I compared it to the rest of Europe.


You're purposefully avoiding the point of my counterargument: Just because something is lawful, such as slavery, or just because the system allows for something, such as gerrymandering or an unrepresentative Senate, doesn't mean one should take advantage of that system or that the system should be that way.

You have previously made the argument that getting your team in power is more important than whether or not the system is democratic, which is authoritarian and makes any argument by you in support of the anti-democratic aspects of the system arbitrary. You'd be on my side if it benefited your side.



tabzer said:


> A proper analogy, that would at least touch the point, is if you bought slaves in order to set them free.


That wasn't the point of my analogy.


----------



## tabzer (May 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That wasn't the point of my analogy.



I know, which is why it wasn't good analogy.  @Foxi4 clearly suggested using the social/legal standards to get idealized propositions into reality (ie change the world for the better through the utilization of its current imperfect form) , which is why my tweaking of your "analogy" to encapsulate that point has more integrity as an analogy.  Maybe he likes slavery.  But that isn't the point he was making.

Maybe I read him wrong.  Maybe he disagrees with how I interpret it.

:::shrug:::


----------



## Lacius (May 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I know, which is why it wasn't good analogy.  @Foxi4 clearly suggested using the social/legal standards to get idealized propositions into reality (ie change the world for the better through the utilization of its current imperfect form) , which is why my tweaking of your "analogy" to encapsulate that point has more integrity as an analogy.  Maybe he likes slavery.  But that isn't the point he was making.
> 
> Maybe I read him wrong.  Maybe he disagrees with how I interpret it.
> 
> :::shrug:::


His point was that a person should do everything in their legal power to accomplish their desired goals, but that doesn't mean what's legal or what's systemic should continue to be that way.


----------



## tabzer (May 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> His point was that a person should do everything in their legal power to accomplish their desired goals, but that doesn't mean what's legal or what's systemic should continue to be that way.


That's what I think he is saying too.

Otherwise we could agee that no laws should be changed, ever.


----------



## Lacius (May 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That's what I think he is saying too.


However, just because a person can take advantage of an anti-democratic system rigged in their favor, for example, doesn't mean they should, and it doesn't mean the system should be that way.


----------



## tabzer (May 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> However, just because a person can take advantage of an anti-democratic system rigged in their favor, for example, doesn't mean they should, and it doesn't mean the system should be that way.



Well, I agree that the system shouldn't be that way, but I don't know who can decide who should and should not take advantage of it if it is already built and operating in that way.  How do you cancel it?  By getting your guy in the position?  Or letting the other guy?


----------



## Lacius (May 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well, I agree that the system shouldn't be that way, but I don't know who can decide who should and should not take advantage of it if it is already built and operating in that way.  How do you cancel it?  By getting your guy in the position?  Or letting the other guy?


Those who want to change the system cannot win in enough numbers to change the system unless the rigged system is changed, but the rigged system cannot be changed unless those who want to change it win enough numbers. It's a Catch-22.


----------



## tabzer (May 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Those who want to change the system cannot win in enough numbers to change the system unless the rigged system is changed, but the rigged system cannot be changed unless those who want to change it win enough numbers. It's a Catch-22.



Really seems like that.  Maybe that's the only outcome from the system, and the idea of change is just an illusion to keep people embellishing its presence.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2021)

Thanks for explaining my own position @Lacius, without your help I wouldn't know what *I* think.  I can see it now - the hypothetical scenario of a President Lacius (God, spare us all).

_Alternative America, present day. A bill to fully legalise slavery has just passed due to the Senate's inaction. President Lacius addresses the nation:_

"Dear slaves. I know that your new predicament is surprising and unfortunate, your emancipation is my priority. As President, I have advocated against the bill that put you in servitude, however... we couldn't really stop it without using the filibuster, and using it just wouldn't sit right with me - it's undemocratic. Fair is fair - the majority has decided, and no amendment is absolute. I hope proponents of abolition elect me again so we can try to undo this. Until then, hang in there, kitties!"

Get outta here.  If it's there, use it to achieve your goals. If you don't use it, you shouldn't be in office - you don't have what it takes. The public gave you a vote of confidence and you let your own personal feeling stand in the way of doing your job. If that's your idea of governance, spare the people the disappointment - don't run for office. Politics take grit, if you don't have grit, you're just a guy with "principles" and no courage or power to change anything.

@tabzer immediately understood what my point was, meanwhile you're just trying (and failing) to pull weird gotchas instead of addressing the point.

Given the opportunity, you *would* use whatever systems were available to you to achieve your goals, or you'd be a fool. If you're against using the system to achieve your goals, which may or may not include changing said system, you're supporting the wrong party - the Democrats are on record praising the filibuster *and* the Electoral College when the two behooved them. President Obama himself praised it in 2005, now that he's *not* a Senator and the tool is no longer useful it's a "Jim Crow relic".



Obama vs. Obama is almost as good as Lacius vs. Lacius. 



Can't break the rules to change the rules. The majority doesn't want to hear what others have to say, even if it's the rule. You might own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. He said it, not me. 

I also won't bother commenting much in regards to any and all accusations of "authoritarian tendencies" - I'm the guy who clearly stated that the government should be limited in scope and size, unintrusive and ideally in a state of near-constant stalemate so that only broadly supported policy slips through. You might not know this, but libertarians? They're not big fans of the government. Shocking, I know. If that's your definition of what an authoritarian government looks like, it's incongruent with the actual definition of the word.


> Authoritarian
> _adjective_
> Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.


I want the government out of people's business, and their pockets. I've made that abundantly clear, and I'll always stand for personal freedoms, using any and all tools available to protect them, or advocate for them.


----------



## Valwinz (May 2, 2021)

The Biden Fascist goons  are again rioting and attacking random people Thank god the police was there 
Seattle: Police rushed in to arrest BLM-antifa rioters after a child was assaulted by them. An #antifa flag can be seen in the crowd. Videographer @KatieDaviscourt was brazenly assaulted by a protester for filming: pic.twitter.com/urfdkKfT58— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) May 2, 2021


----------



## Xzi (May 2, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden Fascist goons are again rioting and attacking random people Thank god the police was there


Ngo's a known fraudster.  Always assume anything he posts is faked or staged in some way.  Or don't, and people will just assume you're an idiot.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 2, 2021)

Um....except that most if not all the time Andy Ngo is right. He even got he skull cracked by these psychopaths.


----------



## Xzi (May 2, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Um....except that most if not all the time Andy Ngo is right.


Right about what?  I just told you he fakes his videos.  He's been caught faking his videos.  He'll start shit or pay someone to start shit, and then only record when the other side starts fighting back.  Dude's a far-right agitator.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Right about what?  I just told you he fakes his videos.  He's been caught faking his videos.  He'll start shit or pay someone to start shit, and then only record when the other side starts fighting back.  Dude's a far-right agitator.


I'm unfamiliar with the accusation of staging events to film them - Ngo's coverage has been heavily criticised on the grounds of lack of objectivity and selective editing, and both charges are probably true, but that can be said about a lot of modern journalists.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Right about what?  I just told you he fakes his videos.  He's been caught faking his videos.  He'll start shit or pay someone to start shit, and then only record when the other side starts fighting back.  Dude's a far-right agitator.


Gimme some example and/or evidence to this so I can see for myself, because from what I've seen, it's clear that Antifa and BLM are violent and engage in criminal activity on a regular basis, and it's been shown time and time again online,


----------



## Xzi (May 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Ngo's coverage has been heavily criticised on the grounds of lack of objectivity and selective editing, and both charges are probably true, but that can be said about a lot of modern journalists.


Yeah if any of his footage had any merit to it, Fox would be running it 24/7.  Even they're smart enough to stay far away from that lawsuit bait.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah if any of his footage had any merit to it, Fox would be running it 24/7.  Even they're smart enough to stay far away from that lawsuit bait.


I mean, the guy was invited to testify before Congress - I think that's slightly more relevant than getting featured on Fox & Friends. Like I said, I don't know the guy - I can only operate on Google-fu.


----------



## Xzi (May 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, the guy was invited to testify before Congress


That means very little other than that the GOP had nothing better to do that day and were looking to grab a few select soundbites to use against the opposition.  The thing is: nobody's buying what he's selling, which is to say that the far-left is in love with Joe Biden and other neoliberals.


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

We call this been a fascist
The Biden admin is considering using outside firms to track extremist chatter by Americans online, an effort that would expand the govts ability to gather intel but could draw criticism over surveillance of citizens.    @ZcohenCNN & @KatieBoWillCNN reporthttps://t.co/VI7wbYvLXJ— CNN NationalSecurity (@NatSecCNN) May 3, 2021


----------



## djpannda (May 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> We call this been a fascist
> https://twitter.com/NatSecCNN/status/1389162972715511810


..funny you would be against monitoring Hate Groups and Terrorist ....


----------



## tabzer (May 3, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ..funny you would be against monitoring Hate Groups and Terrorist ....



If you are ok with what happened with the Patriot Act, then of course this would be a non-issue for you--trusting your government unconditionally.


----------



## djpannda (May 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If you are ok with what happened with the Patriot Act, then of course this would be a non-issue for you--trusting your government unconditionally.


.... but we are not talking bout the Patriot Act. ...We are taking bout Hate Groups and Terrorist.


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ..funny you would be against monitoring Hate Groups and Terrorist ....


Yes Biden decides who are this so call groups the government I'm sure that wont be use to abuse
Biden peeps defending facist amazing


----------



## tabzer (May 3, 2021)

djpannda said:


> .... but we are not talking bout the Patriot Act. ...We are taking bout Hate Groups and Terrorist.



And the Patriot Act was about "terrorists".


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

there people here defending government giving it self power to spy on its own people after what happen with the Patriot act


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 3, 2021)

For anyone still doubting mail voter fraud:
The Spanish government (socialist-communist, how surprising....) was recently caught trying to do the same to the upcoming elections in Madrid.





Note that it says "votos emitidos" (votes sent) despite the customer not actually casting any vote (customer only sent an ordinary letter).
Funny enough the head of Correos (public mail service of Spain) was part of the current ruling socialist party.
You can find this all over the Spanish news networks (just do a little bit of Googling).


----------



## djpannda (May 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Yes Biden decides who are this so call groups the government I'm sure that wont be use to abuse
> Biden peeps defending facist amazing


... funny Because most of the Group they are targeting were labeled Hate Group before Biden was even Vice President....
KKK with KU KLUX ACT of 1865
NAZI ..by you know WWII
Neo NAZI in the 2000s
I mean yea.  Proud boys on were declared a Terrorist group on 2/2021... but that was by CANADA. 
 soo again your calling the people against Nazi and White Supremacy groups Fascist? lol 
 I don't know how to tell you this but I have a feeling some of you guy's childhood Heroes were the fascist see below for examples


----------



## djpannda (May 3, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> For anyone still doubting mail voter fraud:
> The Spanish government (socialist-communist, how surprising....) was recently caught trying to do the same to the upcoming elections in Madrid.
> 
> 
> ...


 soo a Random postal receipt in Galicia is proof of what? *Trolls making up shit.*. lol Ayuso is projected to Win ( by the way another far right anti vaccer using phrases like "Communism or freedom" to justify all the Covid Death in the Region )


...EDIT: also ...WTF does a Constitutional monarchy in the other side of the world have to do with the USA election.. Even If all of Europe is Corrupt, that does not give any Evidence of US Election Fraud.. By the logic all Republicans are Pedophile because Matt Gatez paid off a 17 year old hooker.


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

80 million votes 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Xrcalo/status/1389213923115634690


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 3, 2021)

President Biden: Will gladly sniff and molest your kids and not even remember doing it 5 minutes later!


----------



## djpannda (May 3, 2021)

Lol really ?? did Patriot.win lock you guys out? So you posting garbage on GBAtemp..


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 3, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> President Biden: Will gladly sniff and molest your kids and not even remember doing it 5 minutes later!



Former President Trump: Will gladly rape women, take creepy pedo pics with his daughter & say that he would be dating her if she weren't related, walk into under-age girls dressing rooms, grab em by the pussy, pay for adultery, party hearty with sex traffickers, take smiling photo ops with convicted pedophiles..... and brag about it all.


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Lol really ?? did Patriot.win lock you guys out? So you posting garbage on GBAtemp..


You can stop Biden is not paying anymore

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



D34DL1N3R said:


> Former President Trump: Will gladly rape women, take creepy pedo pics with his daughter & say that he would be dating her if she weren't related, walk into under-age girls dressing rooms, grab em by the pussy, pay for adultery, party hearty with sex traffickers, take smiling photo ops with convicted pedophiles..... and brag about it all.


give me the video of Trump raping pls


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> give me the video of Trump raping pls



Is that your best? Give me the video of Biden molesting pls.


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Is that your best? Give me the video of Biden molesting pls.


ok


Valwinz said:


> 80 million votes
> https://twitter.com/Xrcalo/status/1389213923115634690


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> ok



I asked you to show me the video of Biden molesting.


----------



## djpannda (May 3, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I asked you to show me the video of Biden molesting.


its funny,  did you notice the far-right ignores when KKK/Nazi/Slavery leanings are pointed out and They only rebuttal is to retweet people with racist and Conspiracy theories. Its almost like they don't want People to Point out They are aligned with White Supremacy.


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Thanks for explaining my own position @Lacius, without your help I wouldn't know what *I* think.


Why are you acting like I was explaining your position to you?



Foxi4 said:


> _Alternative America, present day. A bill to fully legalise slavery has just passed due to the Senate's inaction. President Lacius addresses the nation:_
> 
> "Dear slaves. I know that your new predicament is surprising and unfortunate, your emancipation is my priority. As President, I have advocated against the bill that put you in servitude, however... we couldn't really stop it without using the filibuster, and using it just wouldn't sit right with me - it's undemocratic. Fair is fair - the majority has decided, and no amendment is absolute. I hope proponents of abolition elect me again so we can try to undo this. Until then, hang in there, kitties!"


The filibuster could be used to block good legislation. Thanks, Captain Obvious. It can also be used to block bad legislation. Your point is utterly irrelevant.

As an aside, the modern filibuster pretty much exists in use today because racist politicians wanted to use it to block anti-lynching legislation and keep Jim Crow laws on the books.



Foxi4 said:


> Get outta here.  If it's there, use it to achieve your goals. If you don't use it, you shouldn't be in office - you don't have what it takes. The public gave you a vote of confidence and you let your own personal feeling stand in the way of doing your job. If that's your idea of governance, spare the people the disappointment - don't run for office. Politics take grit, if you don't have grit, you're just a guy with "principles" and no courage or power to change anything.


My point was never that undemocratic aspects of the system, if in place, should never ever be used. My point is they shouldn't exist, and a democratic system is the fairest system. Prioritizing your team winning over democracy is authoritarian, whether you like it or not. You've effectively admitted that you'd be arguing on my side if it benefited your team, which is unprincipled and arbitrary.



Foxi4 said:


> @tabzer immediately understood what my point was, meanwhile you're just trying (and failing) to pull weird gotchas instead of addressing the point.


I've addressed the point. You just seem to be missing mine.



Foxi4 said:


> Given the opportunity, you *would* use whatever systems were available to you to achieve your goals, or you'd be a fool. If you're against using the system to achieve your goals, which may or may not include changing said system, you're supporting the wrong party - the Democrats are on record praising the filibuster *and* the Electoral College when the two behooved them. President Obama himself praised it in 2005, now that he's *not* a Senator and the tool is no longer useful it's a "Jim Crow relic".


The filibuster needs to be eliminated. While I'd prefer for that to happen while the Democrats are in control of the Senate, it doesn't matter to me when it happens as long as it happens. If it could only happen while the Republicans were in power, I'd support that. I can be against a system while acknowledging that the system can sometimes benefit my side, but that's irrelevant to whether or not the system should be eliminated.

In other words, if I were a Senator, I would vote to eliminate the filibuster, but if the filibuster survived, I might use it to block a majorly bad piece of legislation. That's not an inconsistent position.




Foxi4 said:


> Obama vs. Obama is almost as good as Lacius vs. Lacius.


Yeah, I'm the one making up false gotchas.



Foxi4 said:


> Can't break the rules to change the rules. The majority doesn't want to hear what others have to say, even if it's the rule. You might own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. He said it, not me.


Thank you, Captain Obvious. That's not a reason to keep the filibuster.



Foxi4 said:


> I also won't bother commenting much in regards to any and all accusations of "authoritarian tendencies" - I'm the guy who clearly stated that the government should be limited in scope and size, unintrusive and ideally in a state of near-constant stalemate so that only broadly supported policy slips through. You might not know this, but libertarians? They're not big fans of the government. Shocking, I know. If that's your definition of what an authoritarian government looks like, it's incongruent with the actual definition of the word.
> 
> I want the government out of people's business, and their pockets. I've made that abundantly clear, and I'll always stand for personal freedoms, using any and all tools available to protect them, or advocate for them.


You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care how democratic a system is as long as your team wins: That's authoritarian. You literally said that people shouldn't have principles until after they win. I'm sorry if your views are in conflict with other views you hold, but that's not my problem.

You've effectively condoned corrupt autocracies as long as your people win and your policies are enacted.


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I asked you to show me the video of Biden molesting.


Just did are you blind ?


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Just did are you blind ?


What's your definition of "molesting"?


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What's your definition of "molesting"?


So you are ok with people sniffing your kids? Yikes i know you love Biden but some self respect dude


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> So you are ok with people sniffing your kids? Yikes i know you love Biden but some self respect dude


I asked a question. I said nothing about what I was or was not okay with.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> *The filibuster needs to be eliminated.* (...) *I might use it to block a majorly bad piece of legislation.*





> *I'm sorry if your views are in conflict with other views you hold. *(...)* You've effectively condoned corrupt autocracies as long as your people win and your policies are enacted*


Lacius vs. Lacius.


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Lacius vs. Lacius.


As I already said in my last post, that's not a conflict. I would vote to remove it, but if that vote fails, I might use it.

I don't think the electoral college should exist, but if it did exist and I'm running for president, I'm going to campaign in swing states.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> As I already said in my last post, that's not a conflict. I would vote to remove it, but if that vote fails, I might use it.
> 
> I don't think the electoral college should exist, but if it did exist and I'm running for president, I'm going to campaign in swing states.


As I said, if you think the filibuster is undemocratic and your stance is principled, you wouldn't be using it, regardless of whether the vote failed or not. You just said that if the vote failed, you would use it to block legislation that you consider detrimental to the country. We are in agreement on this - use every tool in the toolbox, regardless of whether you like the tool or not. Not doing so puts you at a disadvantage. I argued this point this entire time. Doth protest too much.


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> As I said, if you think the filibuster is undemocratic and your stance is principled, you wouldn't be using it, regardless of whether the vote failed or not. You just said that if the vote failed, you would use it to block legislation that you consider detrimental to the country. We are in agreement on this - use every tool in the toolbox.


I didn't say I'd use it. I said I might use it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say I'd use it. I said I might use it.


Of course. 

EDIT: For the record, the filibuster is almost as old as democracy itself. It gained prominence in ancient Rome. It's not a uniquely American legislative procedure, it's used all around the world, including in many European parliaments.


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I asked a question. I said nothing about what I was or was not okay with.


YIKES


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> YIKES


Is this supposed to mean something?



Foxi4 said:


> Of course.


Regardless, the Electoral College, unrepresentative Senate, filibuster, gerrymandering, etc. are undemocratic. While I'd be saying so even if it hurt my team, you'll admittedly argue for whatever helps your team win, whether or not it's democratic. Based on your arguments so far, I'm surprised you aren't arguing in favor of the election fraud hoax. It would be more consistent with the "do whatever you can lawfully do to get into power and have principles later" mentality, but I guess it's just another example of your cognitive dissonance.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 3, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Former President Trump: Will gladly rape women, take creepy pedo pics with his daughter & say that he would be dating her if she weren't related, walk into under-age girls dressing rooms, grab em by the pussy, pay for adultery, party hearty with sex traffickers, take smiling photo ops with convicted pedophiles..... and brag about it all.


....Yeah I'm not gonna argue with someone this delusional with massive TDS, it gets nobody nowhere.


----------



## Xzi (May 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Is this supposed to mean something?


It signals that he thinks hair sniffing is worse than a guy who palled around with Epstein for decades, entered Teen Miss USA dressing rooms, and probably fucked his own underage daughter.  Those recordings of Biden are undeniably creepy, but coming from a cultist who worships a rapey orange pedophile, that information loses a lot of its impact.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It signals that he thinks hair sniffing is worse than a guy who palled around with Epstein for decades, entered Teen Miss USA dressing rooms, and probably fucked his own underage daughter.  Those recordings of Biden are undeniably creepy, but coming from a cultist who worships a rapey orange pedophile, that information loses a lot of its impact.


Evidence? Because I'm 100% sure those never happened or have been so twisted around from what the actual truth is.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Regardless, the Electoral College, unrepresentative Senate, filibuster, gerrymandering, etc. are undemocratic. While I'd be saying so even if it hurt my team, you'll admittedly argue for whatever helps your team win, whether or not it's democratic. Based on your arguments so far, I'm surprised you aren't arguing in favor of the election fraud hoax. It would be more consistent with the "do whatever you can lawfully do to get into power and have principles later" mentality, but I guess it's just another example of your cognitive dissonance.


I don't see what you mean by "arguing for it". If state legislatures feel the need to perform audits and recounts then it is well-within their purview to do so - the Constitution, specifically the election clause, outlines that the specifics of an election on a state level are decided by the state legislature. I personally think that the effort is futile because the number of votes needed to close the gap is too wide, but they're welcome to perform any and all investigations they want to ensure election integrity, it's their election.

I've been perfectly consistent all this time - do whatever it takes to win within the legal boundaries of the system -> get elected -> enact your policy goals, which may or may not include changing the system. In that order, 100% of the time. If there's anyone struggling with cognitive dissonance, it'd be you, given the fact that you admit you're not dismissing the possibility of using tools you'd wish to see eliminated from the process and actively campaign against. A vegan is not much of a vegan if they eat a nice slice of ham on their sandwich every morning. I don't claim to be a vegan - I just have specific policy goals and I'm not ashamed to use any tool to achieve said goals.

To a casual reader it would appear that your principled stance is entirely dependent on circumstances - my stance is constant, it doesn't deviate from the plan based on arbitrary conditions. The difference here is that I'm willing to temporarily suspend a subordinate pursuit in order to achieve a more important primary goal, and I have no issues with stating that fact. You actively deny you'd do the same, even though you absolutely would.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 3, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Just did are you blind ?



No, you showed me a video of Biden and a kid that you ASSUME to be molestation. Have you ever had children or grandchildren? I have both, and I sniffed all of their hair. My granddaugher is 3 and I still sniff her hair and probably will now and then for a couple more years. You're insinuating baseless bullshit. If he's so guilty of all of this molestation, where are the lawsuits? I know if I felt my child was being molested by ANYONE, there would be hell to pay. Especially if there was video of it. It's obvious the boys parents don't see it as threatening in any way. But you do, so you must be in the right. Right? Lmao. Whatever.



Valwinz said:


> So you are ok with people sniffing your kids? Yikes i know you love Biden but some self respect dude



I remember my grandma sniffing my head. She never molested me nor anyone else. Depends on the circumstances and the relation to the child. Also refer back to my reply above.



BitMasterPlus said:


> ....Yeah I'm not gonna argue with someone this delusional with massive TDS, it gets nobody nowhere.



Yeah. Is a common reply when a person has nothing left of significant value to add to the topic. Only reason you acted like a jerk towards me in the other thread is because you're on opposite sides of the fence in this one, and you had to drag it elsewhere where it didn't belong, then try to blame it on me.


----------



## Xzi (May 3, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Evidence? Because I'm 100% sure those never happened or have been so twisted around from what the actual truth is.


Do I really need evidence for him palling around with Epstein?  There are pictures and videos of the two of them from as far back as the 80s.  Not to mention Epstein was conveniently "suicided" on the Trump administration's watch.

The Teen Miss USA dressing room incident Trump admitted to, even bragged about.

With Ivanka there are pictures of him basically dry-humping her, and he's talked in multiple interviews about he'd love to fuck her.  Still just a "probably" on this one, but if he's that bold about it in public we can imagine what they were doing in private.

Then there's the fact that Trump has had about the same number of sexual assault and rape accusations levied at him as Bill Cosby, and some of them are still pending trial.

I don't even know why I bother, you know exactly who and what Donald Trump is.  Everybody does.  It takes a special kind of malice to stick your head in the sand and pretend he's some sort of moral paragon.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2021)

We're gonna stop talking about Joe Biden's supposed sexual exploits now, if you will. As it was mentioned a number of times in the thread, we'll be actively removing conspiracy theories from the section, and this is one of them. There are no credible allegations of sexual assault against the current president and no reports of any criminal injunction against him - as such, any accusations of sexual misconduct not accompanied with a relevant and trustworthy source are libelous in nature and will be deleted.


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't see what you mean by "arguing for it". If state legislatures feel the need to perform audits and recounts then it is well-within their purview to do so - the Constitution, specifically the election clause, outlines that the specifics of an election on a state level are decided by the state legislature. I personally think that the effort is futile because the number of votes needed to close the gap is too wide, but they're welcome to perform any and all investigations they want to ensure election integrity, it's their election.
> 
> I've been perfectly consistent all this time - do whatever it takes to win within the legal boundaries of the system -> get elected -> enact your policy goals, which may or may not include changing the system. In that order, 100% of the time. If there's anyone struggling with cognitive dissonance, it'd be you, given the fact that you admit you're not dismissing the possibility of using tools you'd wish to see eliminated from the process and actively campaign against. A vegan is not much of a vegan if they eat a nice slice of ham on their sandwich every morning. I don't claim to be a vegan - I just have specific policy goals and I'm not ashamed to use any tool to achieve said goals.
> 
> To a casual reader it would appear that your principled stance is entirely dependent on circumstances - my stance is constant, it doesn't deviate from the plan based on arbitrary conditions. The difference here is that I'm willing to temporarily suspend a subordinate pursuit in order to achieve a more important primary goal, and I have no issues with stating that fact. You actively deny you'd do the same, even though you absolutely would.


The state legislatures in one or more red states could have refused to certify the electoral votes in those states on the basis of fake election fraud. It would have been technically legal for them to do so. If this causes neither candidate to get 270 electoral votes, the House would have chosen the president. Per your arguments, that would have been fine as long as your team wins. That's deplorable.

I don't think I'm the one being inconsistent.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The state legislatures in one or more red states could have refused to certify the electoral votes in those states on the basis of fake election fraud. It would have been technically legal for them to do so. If this causes neither candidate to get 270 electoral votes, the House would have chosen the president. Per your arguments, that would have been fine as long as your team wins. That's deplorable.
> 
> I don't think I'm the one being inconsistent.


It would also have to be evidenced.  The state legislature can't throw the results out arbitrarily, they're bound by their own election procedure that is not subject to change after the fact - Lex Prospicit Non Respicit.

The long of the short of it is that you *do not* dismiss the possibility of using the filibuster, or similar measures, to block detrimental legislation, in spite of your protestations and your (possibly genuine) desire to remove them from the system. This means that depending on the circumstances there's a possibility you'd use "authoritarian" and "undemocratic" tools to pursue your policy goals and our stance is *exactly* the same. The *only* difference is that I'm being honest about it whereas you're being dishonest in order to look holier than thou. I honestly admit that no tool is off the table in the pursuit of what I think is right. Clearly there are circumstances that, in your estimation, would justify the use of those procedures - I'll take that admission as the capper, since I have nothing else to add.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't think I'm the one being inconsistent.



It looks like you are both being consistent from my position--but you do appear to be stubborn and shallowly focused on appearances to the point that it seems a bit "Hollywood" when it comes to the active utility of the laws in question.  In the end, you are both willing to "exploit" the system for your "side". 

I could imagine the both of you passing a similar law (albeit it for possibly different reasons).  You would say something like Obama-esque,"it's truly a shame, the state of our nation, at this point in time, and it is with great reluctance that I do so... but the trying times leave no other alternative".  I don't know what @Foxi4 would say, but it seems like it'd be something like,"we are going to do this, because we want 'this' to happen".


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Former President Trump: Will gladly rape women, take creepy pedo pics with his daughter & say that he would be dating her if she weren't related, walk into under-age girls dressing rooms, grab em by the pussy, pay for adultery, party hearty with sex traffickers, take smiling photo ops with convicted pedophiles..... and brag about it all.



If you aren't concerned with Biden's treatment of children, you can say so without looking like you are saying it is okay because the previous president was worse.  It seems like you just want to say the nastiest things that you can "get away with" and that you find purpose in it.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It would also have to be evidenced.  The state legislature can't throw the results out arbitrarily, they're bound by their own election procedure that is not subject to change after the fact - Lex Prospicit Non Respicit.
> 
> The long of the short of it is that you *do not* dismiss the possibility of using the filibuster, or similar measures, to block detrimental legislation, in spite of your protestations and your (possibly genuine) desire to remove them from the system. This means that depending on the circumstances there's a possibility you'd use "authoritarian" and "undemocratic" tools to pursue your policy goals and our stance is *exactly* the same. The *only* difference is that I'm being honest about it whereas you're being dishonest in order to look holier than thou. I honestly admit that no tool is off the table in the pursuit of what I think is right. Clearly there are circumstances that, in your estimation, would justify the use of those procedures - I'll take that admission as the capper, since I have nothing else to add.


The filibuster should not exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it regardless of which party was in control. I don't know how clearer I can be.

You should also look into how the different states vote to certify election results. It could have been arbitrary. Plenty of Republicans did vote to not certify.

You should also understand that your precious Electoral College is arbitrary, and faithless delegates can exist. Should your team void the results of the popular votes of the states and put your team in power? It's legal.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The filibuster should not exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it regardless of which party was in control. I don't know how clearer I can be.



But you'd use the filibuster if it was "to protect democracy".


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> But you'd use the filibuster if it was "to protect democracy".


I'd have to know what you mean by that.

Morality and principles are not absolute. They are situational. Killing another human being is generally wrong, but there are exceptions like self defense. I generally wouldn't use the filibuster on principle, and I'd vote for its repeal, but I'm not going to say I'd definitely never do it.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'd have to know what you mean by that.
> 
> Morality and principles are not absolute. They are situational. Killing another human being is generally wrong, but there are exceptions like self defense. I generally wouldn't use the filibuster on principle, and I'd vote for its repeal, but I'm not going to say I'd definitely never do it.



Morality and principles could be absolute if the possibilities of situations were a known--which is why the law is constantly juggled.  Killing another human being is wrong, and unfortunately we find ourselves in the wrong situations.

What I meant wasn't confusing.  It seems like you understand.  You'd use an "anti-democratic" tool to "protect democracy".  We've been over this--just because the tool exists, and that it is commonly used, doesn't mean we don't want a better outcome situation.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You'd use an "anti-democratic" tool to "protect democracy".  We've been over this--just because the tool exists, and that it is commonly used, doesn't mean we don't want a better outcome situation.


I don't think the "anti-democratic tool" should exist, and as for whether or not I'd use an "anti-democratic tool" to "protect democracy," I can't say whether or not that's true without knowing the situation. I don't know what that would look like or if that would even be possible.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't think the "anti-democratic tool" should exist, and as for whether or not I'd use an "anti-democratic tool" to "protect democracy," I can't say whether or not that's true without knowing the situation. I don't know what that would look like or if that would even be possible.



I'm assuming that we are still considering the filibuster as being one of the said tools.  From a personal position, you have not utilized it.  However, you seem to often speak highly of the Democratic party, so instead of talking about future hypotheticals, what do you think about about their vigorous use of it in the past?


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm assuming that we are still considering the filibuster as being one of the said tools.  From a personal position, you have not utilized it.  But you seem to often speak highly of the Democratic party, so instead of talking about future hypotheticals, what do you think about about their vigorous use of it in the past?


I disagree with any existence of the filibuster in the past, regardless of which party has been in power.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I disagree with any existence of the filibuster in the past, regardless of which party has been in power.



Okay.  The Democratic party of today is built on the past.  How do you support a party that was built via salacious methods?


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Okay.  The Democratic party of today is built on the past.  How do you support a party that was built via salacious methods?


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I can tell we're getting off-topic.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I can tell we're getting off-topic.



You said you can't imagine rationalizing it in the future, so I brought up the past and wonder how you justify it having already been done.  Disagreeing with the existence of the past is irrational.

Tomorrow, yesterday will look so primitive.

It is tangential but it is to demonstrate an analogy to the topic.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The filibuster should not exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it regardless of which party was in control. I don't know how clearer I can be.
> 
> *You should also look into how the different states vote to certify election results*. It could have been arbitrary. Plenty of Republicans did vote to not certify.
> 
> *You should also understand that your precious Electoral College is arbitrary, and faithless delegates can exist. *Should your team void the results of the popular votes of the states and put your team in power? It's legal.


33 states in the Union *require* their electors to vote according to election results, 14 will even nullify faithless votes and replace them immediately. California will go as far as to imprison faithless electors for up to 3 years. I'm very familiar with how this works, I'm not so sure you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

If the state legislature has serious concerns about the legitimacy of the vote and could substantiate the concerns with evidence, it is well-within its authority to postpone certification, recount, audit or perform any other procedure to guarantee an accurate count. If such a situation were to occur and the legislature did find forged votes in numbers that would cast a shadow of doubt on the legitimacy of the entire election, I would be perfectly happy with them throwing the results in the trash and calling for a second election. Any reasonable person would say the same, sending electors on the basis of an election that is fraudulent would be asinine banana republic nonsense. Since forged votes were not found in numbers that would justify any such concerns, this did not happen.

Your hypothetical scenarios are entertaining, but I'm not the one here who needs to come to terms with their own internal inconsistency. From what you've outlined so far I have a pretty good understanding of your position - measures like the filibuster are "undemocratic" and "authoritarian" when someone like me uses them, they are only permitted to be used by Lacius in order to save the Republic. Perfectly consistent - with other Democrats, not your stated principles. 

As far as I'm concerned, we're done here. I genuinely have nothing else to add, my position on this couldn't be more crystal clear. We might continue this conversation during my Presidential run - sadly, this is a thread about Joe Biden, who appears to be flip-flopping on the matter as we speak. His current stance is "let's kill the filibuster without killing the filibuster", or more specifically, "it was better back in my day" - spoken like a true fossil. 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/03/joe-biden-talking-filibuster-support.html


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> 33 states in the Union *require* their electors to vote according to election results


Oof, you say that like it's supposed to be a good thing.  2-3 states flip elections, 17 states voting contrary to their results would cause mass riots and chaos.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Oof, you say that like it's supposed to be a good thing.  2-3 states flip elections, 17 states voting contrary to their results would cause mass riots and chaos.


Maybe you should check the article supplied.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Maybe you should check the article supplied.


Oh I see, I was confused by the wording.  14 OTHER states void the vote and replace the electors.  However, "33 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to vote for the candidates for whom they pledged to vote, *though in half of these jurisdictions there is no enforcement mechanism.*"  That means I was only one off, 16 states could vote contrary to their results without consequences for their electors.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Oh I see, I was confused by the wording.  14 OTHER states void the vote and replace the electors.  However, "33 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to vote for the candidates for whom they pledged to vote, *though in half of these jurisdictions there is no enforcement mechanism.*"  That means I was only one off, 16 states could vote contrary to their results without consequences for their electors.


Those rules are up to the individual states to decide, that's how the democratic process works in the union. The individual states joined the compact with a mutual understanding that each and every one of them will decide their own election laws and regulations without interference from the federal government. If the compact instead stated that it was the fed setting those standards, they would've (rightfully) never joined the union in the first place - state governments are, to a large extent, autonomous, and that's a good thing. If you don't like a given state's election procedures, you can endeavour to change them or you can move to a state that has election laws that are closer to your ideals. All I can see here is concern trolling over a highly unlikely hypothetical - individual states have never colluded with each other in order to overthrow an election, one civil war was enough to make it clear how those things shake up.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> one civil war was enough to make it clear how those things shake up.


One would certainly think so.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> One would certainly think so.


A lot of the confusion regarding how the system works stems from the fact that the U.S. was never meant to be this giant monstrosity of a federal state - the states were always meant to be autonomous first and federalised second. "The" government was supposed to be the state government in your individual state whereas the fed was just some distant body you sent your representatives to, which is why it's the state legislatures that, technically, elect the president. They do so on the advice of the general public, but for all intents and purposes there's no reason why they'd have to. Nobody should give two shits about who the president is - the president lives in Washington, not in your home state. But hey, never too late to fix it. Then again, the government never shrinks. Pickle jar.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> A lot of the confusion regarding how the system works stems from the fact that the U.S. was never meant to be this giant monstrosity of a federal state - the states were always meant to be autonomous first and federalised second.


Great in theory and/or in ages past, but in practice corporations would just insert themselves into that role instead, and things would be even more dystopian than they are now.  There's a reason we chose to become the _United_ States, apes together strong.  Individualized the states could be conquered or exploited by any number of entities.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Great in theory and/or in ages past, but in practice corporations would just insert themselves into that role instead, and things would be even more dystopian than they are now.  There's a reason we chose to become the _United_ States, apes together strong.  Individualized the states could be conquered or exploited by any number of entities.


United for very specific causes, and nothing else.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> United for very specific causes, and nothing else.


Right.  Mostly it's for security reasons, but it also has the added benefit of dragging certain states into the modern era, kicking and screaming if need be.  Given enough autonomy, states like Kentucky would have poison tap water, and children working assembly lines for five cents an hour.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Given enough autonomy, states like Kentucky would have (...) *children working assembly lines for five cents an hour*.


Oh man, at least wine and dine me first! Oh, you're moving too fast and I don't think it's right. I'm not giving up no love tonight!


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh man, at least wine and dine me first! Oh, you're moving too fast and I don't think it's right. I'm not giving up no love tonight!


Disgusting.  I'll take two federal governments if they serve as a double condom against this type of parasitic behavior from the bourgeois.  Exploiting children in any fashion is as scummy as it gets.


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 4, 2021)

djpannda said:


> soo a Random postal receipt in Galicia is proof of what? *Trolls making up shit.*.


First of all it's not Galicia, it's Madrid, if you're gonna debate at least make sure you know what you're talking about, though I don't blame you for your lack of knowledge since that seems to be the norm with american lefties nowadays. Secondly this incident is being investigated by the legal system so if anything it is at least evidence of fowl play. You're not gonna be smarter than police and judges no matter how almighty you think you are. This isn't just speculation like you claim to be, it's on the entire national news and there's more than one case of it.



djpannda said:


> lol Ayuso is projected to Win ( by the way another far right anti vaccer using phrases like "Communism or freedom" to justify all the Covid Death in the Region )


If Ayuso is far right then Biden is a 20th century conservative considering their political views. And where did you get the "antivax" thing from? Did you pull that out of your ass? Never have I heard about antivaxers anywhere in the Spainish government or any of their political parties in the entire spectrum. Only dumbasses in the street and they are a silent minority (more than 70% of our country is willing to get vaccinated). There's been a few antivax celebrities (like Miguel Bose) and they've been laughed out of their celebrity status. Madrid is doing pretty well vaccinating people, how the hell does that work if they have an antivax president acording to you?

And what problem do you have with "communism vs freedom"? You do know we have a self-declared communist party running for presidency? You do know this communist party has used violence against opposing parties? And since when is it "bad" to fight communism? That ideology should be erradicated just like we erradicated fascism back in the 20th century. There's no room for totalitarianism in our democracies (if you care in the least bit about democracy). But I'm guessing you're one of those idiots with no idea of what communism really is (you probably think there's a lot of sunshine and rainbows and everyone is happy), but let me give you a hint about this ideology that you seem to be defending: communism and fascism share about 90% of their ideology (they are both socialist authoritarian regimes). Think about that next time you try to defend communism.



djpannda said:


> ...EDIT: also ...WTF does a Constitutional monarchy in the other side of the world have to do with the USA election..


WTF does being a "constitutional monarchy" have anything to do with any of this? It's completely irrelevant (the King has nothing to do with politics, AT ALL) and only shows you have a lack of understanding of politics.



djpannda said:


> Even If all of Europe is Corrupt, that does not give any Evidence of US Election Fraud.. By the logic all Republicans are Pedophile because Matt Gatez paid off a 17 year old hooker.


Because it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that this past US election has been an inspiration for other countries with far left communist ideologies to do the same fraud. Or are you gonna tell me it's a coincidence that mail voting fraud has become an issue in another country just after it became an issue in the US? Is it also a coincidence that it's always a far left communist party involved?
Is it also a coincidence that BLM, antifa and many other radical left violent groups are being heavily funded by Venezuela and Cuba?


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> 33 states in the Union *require* their electors to vote according to election results, 14 will even nullify faithless votes and replace them immediately. California will go as far as to imprison faithless electors for up to 3 years. I'm very familiar with how this works, I'm not so sure you are.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
> 
> ...


Faithless electors can exist. Of the 33 states that require electors to vote the way their state does, half don't have any repercussions for not doing so, and many of the others only punish by fines. Considering this information was at the top of the Wikipedia page you posted, it sounds like you intentionally omitted this information. I suggest looking at the 2016 map for how common faithless electors can be, and I suggest doing research before making quips about how you're "very familiar" with how this works.

Some state legislatures can refuse to certify their election results. In some cases, they only need to justify their refusal so far as not wanting to face political repercussions themselves. If they delay the certification long enough, it could cause the House to vote on the election instead.

It is not a contradictory position to be against the filibuster, and even say I generally wouldn't use it, while also not saying I absolutely definitely would never use it. You might as well be trying to make a gotcha out of me condemning killing another human being while not saying I definitely absolutely would never kill another human being (or campaigning in Pennsylvania while condemning the electoral college). I condemn the filibuster regardless of which party is in power, I'd vote to remove it regardless of who was in power, I generally wouldn't use the filibuster, and it's hard to articulate a time I would hypothetically use the filibuster. It's not a contradiction, despite how desperate you might be for me to contradict myself. Funnily, I could also contradict myself all I want, and it wouldn't do anything to argue against my points that the filibuster, unrepresentative Senate, Electoral College, gerrymandering, etc. are undemocratic.

Saying you don't care how your team comes to power or how your policies are enacted, whether it's democratic or not, is authoritarian, it's anti-democratic, and when you're apparently against faithless electors and states not certifying their elections on the basis of fake election fraud, it's contradictory. You say principles should come after your team gets power, so maybe the same is true for logical consistency.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Faithless electors can exist. Of the 33 states that require electors to vote the way their state does, half don't have any repercussions for not doing so, and many of the others only punish by fines. Considering this information was at the top of the Wikipedia page you posted, it sounds like you intentionally omitted this information. I suggest looking at the 2016 map for how common faithless electors can be, and I suggest doing research before making quips about how you're "very familiar" with how this works.
> 
> Some state legislatures can refuse to certify their election results. In some cases, they only need to justify their refusal so far as not wanting to face political repercussions themselves. If they delay the certification long enough, it could cause the House to vote on the election instead.
> 
> ...


Now you're going in circles, and lying - that, or purposefully cherry-picking the parts that fit nicely in your spaghetti bowl. I've already mentioned pages ago that I never said that. Your attempt at mental gymnastics will not help you save face - you did a booboo and now you can eat it, or you can just continue being a hypocrite. I don't care which since I've already said everything I had to say on the matter. There's nothing for me to gain from this conversation, you've already said everything I needed to hear and then some. You still haven't even grasped which part of the exchange you tripped up on, but you keep digging regardless. Should I help? 

If you're going to condemn someone from all the way up there on your high horse for using means that you find "undemocratic" and "authoritarian" in the pursuit of their goals, be sure that you *wouldn't* do the same in the same hypothetical scenario. If you get caught saying that there's a chance you would, you're effectively condemning yourself from that point onwards and making a spectacle of yourself, which you've proven to be quite adept at. That is the point of contention here, not whether or not the filibuster or the electoral college are "authoritarian" and "undemocratic". I've already proclaimed my willingness to use methods that I may find distasteful otherwise in order to achieve political goals, should the need to do so arise - in my case it's not out of character. You've rejected that notion, and you did so by condemning me and my stance. If we *both* would've used *the same methods* to protect the Republic and, according to your estimation, the methods anti-democratic and I'm deplorable for using them, then by the law of transitive property *you* would use anti-democratic methods and you're *equally deplorable*. In fact, I would argue that you're *more* deplorable since I'm honest about it whereas you're trying to hide from that fact behind a shield of faux principles.

To put it in one sentence, you got Diogenes of Sinope'ed. Thank you for playing.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 4, 2021)

So the filibuster is bad but would use it if something egregious was happening and that was a (the only? the only viable non bullets involved?) way to stop it?

Two main issues.
1) Your particular political faction waxes, wanes, changes and otherwise has its level of political power change. This applies to every faction out there which may have their own thoughts and opinions on how the world works, should work, can be made to work, sacrifices acceptable to achieve things, interpretations of baseline concepts and also see their power levels wax and wane (short version any tool you have someone else will use when they have power, or indeed don't as the case may be here, and if you think future peeps will always be more of what you like and situations will always be favourable to it then... you are wrong or at absolute best then stoned out of your gourd levels of optimistic).
2) Slippery slope/thin end of the wedge. See also executive orders (originally a fairly radical thing, today almost banal and used in what might traditionally be normal debated policy), various spying ordinances (some were discussing patriot act, seems like a good example with parallels in many other countries -- RIPA in the UK for instance being a rough equivalent), the nature of court structures (while "the supreme court is making law" is often a cry of the clueless its changing nature as time goes on and activities they undertake are less of a thing that the existence of gets to be questioned) and the general trend towards often needless complexity you see for thousands of years in every political and economic stripe (new startup takes down lumbering dinosaur/gets bought up by dinosaur in lieu of them doing their own research, trend to monotheism in religion and then fracturing as communication gets tricky and localism asserts itself).

Personally I would sooner go after riders than filibusters if you are going after things with odd or often negative effects. Though I would be curious how much is the unspoken filibuster threat (can't do that as they will just) vs voiced threat vs actual filibustering.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Now you're going in circles, and lying - that, or purposefully cherry-picking the parts that fit nicely in your spaghetti bowl. I've already mentioned pages ago that I never said that. Your attempt at mental gymnastics will not help you save face - you did a booboo and now you can eat it, or you can just continue being a hypocrite. I don't care which since I've already said everything I had to say on the matter. There's nothing for me to gain from this conversation, you've already said everything I needed to hear and then some. You still haven't even grasped which part of the exchange you tripped up on, but you keep digging regardless. Should I help?
> 
> If you're going to condemn someone from all the way up there on your high horse for using means that you find "undemocratic" and "authoritarian" in the pursuit of their goals, be sure that you *wouldn't* do the same in the same hypothetical scenario. If you get caught saying that there's a chance you would, you're effectively condemning yourself from that point onwards and making a spectacle of yourself, which you've proven to be quite adept at. That is the point of contention here, not whether or not the filibuster or the electoral college are "authoritarian" and "undemocratic". I've already proclaimed my willingness to use methods that I may find distasteful otherwise in order to achieve political goals, should the need to do so arise - in my case it's not out of character. You've rejected that notion, and you did so by condemning me and my stance. If we *both* would've used *the same methods* to protect the Republic and, according to your estimation, the methods anti-democratic and I'm deplorable for using them, then by the law of transitive property *you* would use anti-democratic methods and you're *equally deplorable*. In fact, I would argue that you're *more* deplorable since I'm honest about it whereas you're trying to hide from that fact behind a shield of faux principles.
> 
> To put it in one sentence, you got Diogenes of Sinope'ed. Thank you for playing.


First, so much for you not wanting to continue the conversation. Nobody's making you reply, and continuously saying "I've said all I have to say on the matter" while continuing to say more on the matter is also contradictory.

Second, you are the one who made the argument, in response to my criticisms of undemocratic systems like the filibuster, unrepresentative Senate, Electoral College, and gerrymandering, that you don't care if these things exist so long as your team wins. Am I mistaken? Because you don't have to look farther than your most recent post that I'm responding to right now where you seem to be saying the same thing.

I also never called these undemocratic systems "authoritarian." I called your supposed view that you want your team to win regardless of whether or not it's democratic an example of authoritarianism.

I'm not advocating for the existence of these undemocratic systems, but you are. We're not the same, and you appear to have tripped where you thought I did.


----------



## djpannda (May 4, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> First of all it's not Galicia, it's Madrid, if you're gonna debate at least make sure you know what you're talking about, though I don't blame you for your lack of knowledge since that seems to be the norm with american lefties nowadays. Secondly this incident is being investigated by the legal system so if anything it is at least evidence of fowl play. You're not gonna be smarter than police and judges no matter how almighty you think you are. This isn't just speculation like you claim to be, it's on the entire national news and there's more than one case of it.
> 
> 
> If Ayuso is far right then Biden is a 20th century conservative considering their political views. And where did you get the "antivax" thing from? Did you pull that out of your ass? Never have I heard about antivaxers anywhere in the Spainish government or any of their political parties in the entire spectrum. Only dumbasses in the street and they are a silent minority (more than 70% of our country is willing to get vaccinated). There's been a few antivax celebrities (like Miguel Bose) and they've been laughed out of their celebrity status. Madrid is doing pretty well vaccinating people, how the hell does that work if they have an antivax president acording to you?
> ...


" heavily funded by *Venezuela and Cuba*?"
Thank God I read the last sentence before I read the whole thing.. because I would of Gotten mad if I went thru all that to End as Sydney Powell's "Hugo Chavez Zombie defense"


----------



## AmandaRose (May 4, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Because it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that this past US election has been an inspiration for other countries with far left communist ideologies to do the same fraud. Or are you gonna tell me it's a coincidence that mail voting fraud has become an issue in another country just after it became an issue in the US? Is it also a coincidence that it's always a far left communist party involved?


Is it coincidence that there was supposed mail voter fraud in the 2020 American election after there was voter fraud in Spain in 2019?? Hmm just wondering 


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eu...into-allegations-of-voter-registry-fraud/amp/

Or what about the voter fraud in the 2016 Spanish election

https://www.google.com/amp/s/archiv...llegations-of-vote-fraud-emerge-in-spain/amp/


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If you aren't concerned with Biden's treatment of children, you can say so without looking like you are saying it is okay because the previous president was worse.  It seems like you just want to say the nastiest things that you can "get away with" and that you find purpose in it.



But you're perfectly fine with YOUR side of the fence doing it & remain completely silent when they do. Have I ever told you you're a hypocrite? And regarding Biden, I have no concern for his treatment of children. If he was molesting children in plain sight, with video evidence to prove it, there would be lawsuits. To this day not one single parent has come forward with a lawsuit against Biden for inappropriate touching, molesting, or anything of the sort towards a single child.. So if all you have are more baseless conspiracy theories, you can just shut your mouth right now as Foxi has already stated there will be no more of that going on here.


----------



## djpannda (May 4, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Is it coincidence that there was supposed mail voter fraud in the 2020 American election after there was voter fraud in Spain in 2019?? Hmm just wondering
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eu...into-allegations-of-voter-registry-fraud/amp/
> ...


You mean to tell me it was the Españoles fault... I never Trusted their Ceceo! lol


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> First, so much for you not wanting to continue the conversation. Nobody's making you reply, and continuously saying "I've said all I have to say on the matter" while continuing to say more on the matter is also contradictory.
> 
> Second, you are the one who made the argument, in response to my criticisms of undemocratic systems like the filibuster, unrepresentative Senate, Electoral College, and gerrymandering, that you don't care if these things exist so long as your team wins. Am I mistaken? Because you don't have to look farther than your most recent post that I'm responding to right now where you seem to be saying the same thing.
> 
> ...


It doesn't really matter if you advocate for the removal of these systems or not - you stood on the dais and proclaimed that using them is deplorable. You have the option of walking that back by adding that use of systems you don't like is in fact conditional on the circumstances or you can continue arguing with yourself and looking a bit silly. It's all the same to me, I had my fill of laughs.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> But you're perfectly fine with YOUR side of the fence doing it & remain completely silent when they do. Have I ever told you you're a hypocrite? And regarding Biden, I have no concern for his treatment of children. If he was molesting children in plain sight, with video evidence to prove it, there would be lawsuits. To this day not one single parent has come forward with a lawsuit against Biden for inappropriate touching, molesting, or anything of the sort towards a single child.. So if all you have are more baseless conspiracy theories, you can just shut your mouth right now as Foxi has already stated there will be no more of that going on here.



It's not my own side of the fence.  I haven't made claims about Biden or Trump being perverts.  You, however, used the claim that someone else is a pervert to excuse allegations of another.  It's called "whataboutism" and you are pretending to be against pedophilia and exploitation as you use it as a opportunity in the same post.  It's despicable.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's not my own side of the fence.  I haven't made claims about Biden or Trump being perverts.  You, however, used the claim that someone else is a pervert to excuse allegations of another.  It's called "whataboutism" and you are pretending to be against pedophilia and exploitation as you use it as a opportunity in the same post.  It's despicable.



"It's not my own side....." = Lie
"I haven't made claims about...." = Lie
"You used the claim that...." = Lie
"You are pretending to be against blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....." = Lie


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It doesn't really matter if you advocate for the removal of these systems or not - you stood on the dais and proclaimed that using them is deplorable. You have the option of walking that back by adding that use of systems you don't like is in fact conditional on the circumstances or you can continue arguing with yourself and looking a bit silly. It's all the same to me, I had my fill of laughs.


I've said consistently that these undemocratic systems shouldn't exist and that they shouldn't be used. Please tag me if/when you work up the nerve to answer my question.

Edit: I never called their uses deplorable. I said advocating for anti-democratic systems because they benefit one's team is deplorable.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I've said consistently that these undemocratic systems shouldn't exist and that they shouldn't be used. Please tag me if/when you work up the nerve to answer my question.
> 
> Edit: I never called their uses deplorable. I said advocating for anti-democratic systems because they benefit one's team is deplorable.


I am in no way compelled to answer questions when your own answers are vague and non-committal. I can always pull the Lacius special - "well, I don't know, I'd have to know more details", the same trick you pulled earlier. Again, if using systems you find anti-democratic is deplorable, you yourself are deplorable by your own admission. Wiggle all you like.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am in no way compelled to answer questions when your own answers are vague and non-committal. I can always pull the Lacius special - "well, I don't know, I'd have to know more details", the same trick you pulled earlier. Again, if using systems you find anti-democratic to be deplorable, you yourself are deplorable by your own admission. Wiggle all you like.


Considering your positions, I don't blame you for not wanting to answer my questions (reminder: my question was just asking if I was wrong about how I characterized your position, so to refuse to answer my yes/no question can't be seen much else other than intentionally trying to obfuscate your position). As far as I can tell, I've answered every question asked of me to the best of my ability and as honestly as possible. I'm not going make absolutist statements with the kind of hubris that would be required for me not to acknowledge a possible failure of imagination on my part. If we pretend for a second that I would totally use the filibuster every other day as a Senator in the minority party, that also would change nothing about whether or not it's undemocratic and should be abolished.

I never called the use of the filibuster deplorable. I said advocating for anti-democratic systems because they benefit one's team is deplorable. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's desperate.

I'm fundamentally against undemocratic systems like the filibuster, unrepresentative Senate, Electoral College, and gerrymandering, and I've consistently said they should be abolished, regardless of who is in power at the time. Not only are you on record as being in favor of some or all of these anti-democratic systems, but you're also on record saying you pretty much don't care how your team wins or how your policies are enacted as long as it's legal, whether or not it's anti-democratic. If I am misrepresenting your position, please let me know. That's all I asked before you started getting unnecessarily catty about it.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> "It's not my own side....." = Lie
> "I haven't made claims about...." = Lie
> "You used the claim that...." = Lie
> "You are pretending to be against blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....." = Lie



You can call me a liar.  But all one has to do is look at the referenced quote to see if it is an accurate description.  I have noticed, only a couple of times, where people deflected from accusations of this atrocity using this same technique as yours.  To me, that communicates that you don't have a position against such acts themselves, but that they are acceptible as long as you can allege that someone else is worse.

Here's an example.  If someone called you a pervert, and you somehow knew that they were far worse--saying so doesn't make you not a pervert.  It makes you both perverts.

Now, defending someone by saying "what about that guy" is, in my opinion, worse.  Because it adds even more deceit into the equation of already nasty.

Also, I will note that I've only seen this happen a couple times by a select few people on this site.  One of them even apologized to me about it... though it is apparent that their attitude is the same.

If Biden and Trump are these monsters that people allege, I hope trust that they get justice.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Considering your positions, I don't blame you for not wanting to answer my questions (reminder: my question was just asking if I was wrong about how I characterized your position, so to refuse to answer my yes/no question can't be seen much else other than intentionally trying to obfuscate your position). As far as I can tell, I've answered every question asked of me to the best of my ability and as honestly as possible. I'm not going make absolutist statements with the kind of hubris that would be required for me not to acknowledge a possible failure of imagination on my part. If we pretend for a second that I would totally use the filibuster every other day as a Senator in the minority party, that also would change nothing about whether or not it's undemocratic and should be abolished.
> 
> I never called the use of the filibuster deplorable. I said advocating for anti-democratic systems because they benefit one's team is deplorable. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's desperate.
> 
> I'm fundamentally against undemocratic systems like the filibuster, unrepresentative Senate, Electoral College, and gerrymandering, and I've consistently said they should be abolished, regardless of who is in power at the time. Not only are you on record as being in favor of some or all of these anti-democratic systems, but you're also on record saying you pretty much don't care how your team wins or how your policies are enacted as long as it's legal, whether or not it's anti-democratic. If I am misrepresenting your position, please let me know. That's all I asked before you started getting unnecessarily catty about it.


I'm just waiting for a yes or no on whether it's permissible to use systems you don't like, meaning temporarily suspend following "principles" in service of what you consider to be the greater good, which is where the conversation started. Since neither one of us is a supervillain, it's fair to assume we believe our policies are positive for the country at large - we'll call that the "greater good", even though I hate the term. If the answer is yes then we are in agreement on pretty much everything else, if it is no then there's an internal inconsistency here that you'll have to tackle yourself, in your own time.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You can call me a liar.  But all one has to do is look at the referenced quote to see if it is an accurate description.  I have noticed, only a couple of times, where people deflected from accusations of this atrocity using this same technique as yours.  To me, that communicates that you don't have a position against such acts themselves, but that they are acceptible as long as you can allege that someone else is worse.
> 
> Here's an example.  If someone called you a pervert, and you somehow knew that they were far worse--saying so doesn't make you not a pervert.  It makes you both perverts.
> 
> ...



Again, have I ever told you you're a hypocrite? Pretty certain I have. And I've provided proof of it on several occasions. Your entire above comment is another.

You will receive zero apology from me. I've done nothing wrong towards you.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Again, have I ever told you you're a hypocrite? Pretty certain I have. And I've provided proof of it on several occasions. Your entire above comment is another.
> 
> You will receive zero apology from me. I've done nothing wrong towards you.



Yeah, calling me a hypocrite is far from absolving yourself as one, and specifically lacks context on this subject.  I get that you are mad at me, but it doesn't invalidate my point.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yeah, calling me a hypocrite is far from absolving yourself as one, and specifically lacks context on this subject.  I get that you are mad at me, but it doesn't invalidate my point.



Mad at you? In your dreams. All you can ever do is repeat back what was told to you by others. Have any original criticisms about me, or just the usual copy/paste?


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 4, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Is it coincidence that there was supposed mail voter fraud in the 2020 American election after there was voter fraud in Spain in 2019?? Hmm just wondering
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eu...into-allegations-of-voter-registry-fraud/amp/
> ...


Initeresting that it's always a radical left party behind it isn't it?



djpannda said:


> " heavily funded by *Venezuela and Cuba*?"
> Thank God I read the last sentence before I read the whole thing.. because I would of Gotten mad if I went thru all that to End as Sydney Powell's "Hugo Chavez Zombie defense"


Your point being? It's pretty much proven beyond any doubt that BLM and Antifa are marxist organizations with fundings and ties to those communist regimes.





I know you're gonna say this picture is fake news and that "real communism hasn't been tried" and bla bla bla.
It doesn't change the fact that american culture, politics, media and institutions have been infiltrated by communists, and by the time you will want to act on it there won't be much more you can do.
For now I will continue to laugh at you when you say "lets give more tax money and power to the government, nothing can go wrong!".


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Mad at you? In your dreams. All you can ever do is repeat back what was told to you by others. Have any original criticisms about me, or just the usual copy/paste?



Source please.  It only looks like you are intentionally deviating from the points that I have made instead of confronting them.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Source please.  It only looks like you are intentionally deviating from the points that I have made instead of confronting them.



Source = this thread. All anyone has to do is look to see that when you're confronted with something, most of the time all you do is repeat back to the person the same things they said about you. If you wish to continue this feel free to PM me, as soon these posts will be lost in the realm of needless banter.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> If you wish to continue this feel free to PM me, as soon these posts will be lost in the realm of needless banter.


I would also suggest this unless you two are planning on arguing about specific policies, ideally somewhat connected to the recent going ons. Personal disputes can stay in the personal messaging system, or ideally off the site.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Source = this thread. All anyone has to do is look to see that when you're confronted with something, most of the time all you do is repeat back to the person the same things they said about you. If you wish to continue this feel free to PM me, as soon these posts will be lost in the realm of needless banter.



This thread will show that every time you talk to me you end up throwing a fit.  I'm not sure if anything I have said has been repeated anywhere else, verbatim--that is unless you are cross referencing 2-3 word patterns.  For example "Source = this thread" gets over 500,000 hits in Google.


----------



## djpannda (May 4, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Initeresting that it's always a radical left party behind it isn't it?
> 
> 
> Your point being? It's pretty much proven beyond any doubt that BLM and Antifa are marxist organizations with fundings and ties to those communist regimes.
> ...


... oh  Nice, Hugo in a photo app with two African woman... I Guess? I don't know what that have to do with Voter Fraud.... Love the Conspiracy tactic of you do "  random meme or photo and just just say whatever you want  to fit the narrative and hope no-one questions you. " seem like you are used to people believing any Radom picture....
HEY I know Here some pictures for you

I have Proof the EX-President Trump Being a CHINESE Communist spy
I have PICUTRES of Trump having a Secret Meeting with his BOSS !!!!! CCP and North Korean,
 America has been played by CHINA as Trump was a secret agent


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm just waiting for a yes or no on whether it's permissible to use systems you don't like, meaning temporarily suspend following "principles" in service of what you consider to be the greater good, which is where the conversation started. Since neither one of us is a supervillain, it's fair to assume we believe our policies are positive for the country at large - we'll call that the "greater good", even though I hate the term. If the answer is yes then we are in agreement on pretty much everything else, if it is no then there's an internal inconsistency here that you'll have to tackle yourself, in your own time.


Using your own example, I can imagine a situation (albeit an unrealistic one, given political attitudes and the Thirteenth Amendment) where the filibuster is the only thing that stands in the way of slavery being reimplemented, and in that situation, using the filibuster to block slavery would be a morally justified use of the filibuster.

That being said, the filibuster should not exist, nor should the other undemocratic systems I've mentioned. That's not a contradictory position.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That being said, the filibuster should not exist, nor should the other undemocratic systems I've mentioned.



Supposedly %33 of Americans voted for Biden.  Would you argue that it is a Democratic system or just Democratic enough?


----------



## djpannda (May 4, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Initeresting that it's always a radical left party behind it isn't it?
> 
> 
> Your point being? It's pretty much proven beyond any doubt that BLM and Antifa are marxist organizations with fundings and ties to those communist regimes.


ALSO FIND RIDICULOUSLY hilarious that While you spewing whatever nonsense you claim.. 
WE found out that CCP was Trying to Damage American Government by Funding the Proud Boys* $86,000 to attack the Capitol.*... Ouch that has to sting 
*Proud Boys saw wave of contributions from China **before Capitol attack*


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Supposedly %33 of Americans voted for Biden.  Would you argue that it is a Democratic system or just Democratic enough?


Ignoring legislation that reduces access to voting, and ignoring the Electoral College, the 2020 election was a fair and democratic election. Joe Biden won with 51.3% of the vote. The right to vote includes the right not to vote, so the 34% number is irrelevant as long as 100% of eligible voters had the ability to vote if they wanted to.

Edit: We could have a conversation about how a ranked choice voting system is or isn't more fair, but we don't have to go down that road.


----------



## djpannda (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Ignoring legislation that reduces access to voting, and ignoring the Electoral College, the 2020 election was a fair and democratic election. Joe Biden won with 51.3% of the vote. The right to vote includes the right not to vote, so the 34% number is irrelevant as long as 100% eligible voters had the ability to vote if they wanted to.
> 
> Edit: We could have a conversation about how a ranked choice voting system is or isn't more fair, but we don't have to go down that road.


Plus the Fact Voter Suppression Bills has been popping up like Crazy is going to drive that 34% down ...just Like Repubs want


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Ignoring legislation that reduces access to voting, and ignoring the Electoral College, the 2020 election was a fair and democratic election. Joe Biden won with 51.3% of the vote. The right to vote includes the right not to vote, so the 34% number is irrelevant as long as 100% of eligible voters had the ability to vote if they wanted to.
> 
> Edit: We could have a conversation about how a ranked choice voting system is or isn't more fair, but we don't have to go down that road.



I see your position.  My point is "do you think it is democratic for a minority vote-holder to represent everyone who is not interested?"


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I see your position.  My point is "do you think it is democratic for a minority vote-holder to represent everyone who is not interested?"


Yes, because a person who chooses not to vote is effectively saying they're fine with either outcome. That means if Biden earned 34% of the vote (of all voters, not all votes), and 33.8% of eligible voters didn't vote, then 67.8% of eligible voters either want Biden or are okay with Biden (for the former president, it's 31 + 33.8 = 64.8% want or would have been okay with him). You can't force someone to vote.

We can't talk about Biden as a minority vote holder, since he earned a majority of votes. The better question is if someone who wins a plurality but not a majority should be president.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Yes, because a person who chooses not to vote is effectively saying they're fine with either outcome. That means if Biden earned 34% of the vote (of all voters, not all votes), and 33.8% of eligible voters didn't vote, then 67.8% of eligible voters either want Biden or are okay with Biden (for the former president, it's 31 + 33.8 = 64.8% want or would have been okay with him). You can't force someone to vote.



That's an interpretation, but I don't agree with that.  Is a pacifist region of people "effectively" saying that they are fine with being dominated by an imperialistic legion?


----------



## leon315 (May 4, 2021)

I grab the popcorn and scroll down very slowly the comments.........
Bit spectacle tho!

P.S. do anyone consider to bacome *socialist*? cauz the capitalism is EVIL.



djpannda said:


> Trump was a secret agent


Didn't everyone say Trump is Russian spy? and Biden is Chinese puppet? AKA Biden's son get multimillion bribe?


----------



## KingVamp (May 4, 2021)

The willingness to takedown an undemocratic law, but can't and still using it VS not even entertaining the idea unless it helps your side and even willing to add even more undemocratic laws, as long as you win, does seem a bit difference. 



Lacius said:


> Edit: We could have a conversation about how a ranked choice voting system is or isn't more fair, but we don't have to go down that road.


Do you prefer rcv or approval voting?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Using your own example, I can imagine a situation (albeit an unrealistic one, given political attitudes and the Thirteenth Amendment) where the filibuster is the only thing that stands in the way of slavery being reimplemented, and in that situation, using the filibuster to block slavery would be a morally justified use of the filibuster.
> 
> That being said, the filibuster should not exist, nor should the other undemocratic systems I've mentioned. That's not a contradictory position.


Okay, I'll take that as a "yes" then, happy days. As long as we both agree that it is permissable to use measures you yourself might consider to be "wrong" in the process of stopping a bigger wrong from being committed, all is well. You seemed to be against that train of thought, for whatever reason.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That's an interpretation, but I don't agree with that.  Is a pacifist region of people "effectively" saying that they are fine with being dominated by an imperialistic legion?


If a person chooses not to vote, then that person doesn't count. That's their choice. All that matters is a candidate earns a majority of votes cast.

This is all assuming voting isn't made inconvenient or impossible for some.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Okay, I'll take that as a "yes" then, happy days. As long as we both agree that it is permissable to use measures you yourself might consider to be "wrong" in the process of stopping a bigger wrong from being committed, all is well. You seemed to be against that train of thought, for whatever reason.


And you seem against democracy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> The willingness to takedown an undemocratic law, but can't and still using it VS not even entertaining the idea unless it helps your side and even willing to add even more undemocratic laws, as long as you win, does seem a bit difference.
> 
> 
> Do you prefer rcv or approval voting?


I think ranked choice voting, or some variation of it (jungle primaries, etc.) are the fairest and most democratic.

I have some problems with approval voting, but I think an argument can be made that it's better than the status quo.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If a person chooses not to vote, then that person doesn't count. That's their choice. All that matters is a candidate earns a majority of votes cast.
> 
> This is all assuming voting isn't made inconvenient or impossible for some.



So, in other words, assuming Democracy is good enough.

Imperialism it is then.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ALSO FIND RIDICULOUSLY hilarious that While you spewing whatever nonsense you claim..
> WE found out that CCP was Trying to Damage American Government by Funding the Proud Boys* $86,000 to attack the Capitol.*... Ouch that has to sting
> *Proud Boys saw wave of contributions from China **before Capitol attack*


Why are you lying about the contents of this article? Did you read it? The donations apparently came from Chinese Americans and (presumably) their families from the wider Chinese diaspora who are sympathetic to the Proud Boys and their cause, not from the Chinese government. At no point does the USA Today even suggest that the CCP funded anything, they even interview the donors.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Why are you lying about the contents of this article? Did you read it? The donations apparently came from Chinese Americans sympathetic to the Proud Boys and their cause, not from the Chinese government.


Shhh..  Don't make him look racist.


----------



## djpannda (May 4, 2021)

" random meme or photo and just just say whatever you want to fit the narrative and hope no-one questions you. " ..damn I guess it does not work both ways...


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

djpannda said:


> " random meme or photo and just just say whatever you want to fit the narrative and hope no-one questions you. " ..damn I guess it does not work both ways...



Aww Sadpannda.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

djpannda said:


> " random meme or photo and just just say whatever you want to fit the narrative and hope no-one questions you. " ..damn I guess it does not work both ways...


I mean, that's just straight disinfo. I don't see the funny, unless you mean making yourself look silly, in which case... Congrats?


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, that's just straight disinfo. I don't see the funny, unless you mean making yourself look silly, in which case... Congrats?



He did post pictures of Hitler and in a subsequent post commented how others are posting garbage.


----------



## djpannda (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, that's just straight disinfo. I don't see the funny, unless you mean making yourself look silly, in which case... Congrats?


really cause  I don't see you correcting the statement I was replying to .. Guess "misinformation" is based on points of view?
seem like the only different I actually put the link of the source rather have people take my work for it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

djpannda said:


> really cause  I don't see you correcting the statement I was replying to .. Guess "misinformation" is based on points of view?


Is there something that needs correcting? Until recently the BLM Network specifically identified itself as a Marxist organisation, they only took it off the site once right-wing commentators noticed. There are archived copies of their page that demonstrate as much.


----------



## djpannda (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Is there something that needs correcting? Until recently the BLM Network specifically identified itself as a Marxist organisation, they only took it off the site once right-wing commentators noticed. There are archived copies of their page that demonstrate as much.


Great MODDING!


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

djpannda said:


> really cause  I don't see you correcting the statement I was replying to .. Guess "misinformation" is based on points of view?



Anecdotal vs disinformation.  While anecdotal information is prone to bias, misinformation, or the lack of information, disinformation is malicious in intention.

But maybe you were just jumping to conclusions?


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> So, in other words, assuming Democracy is good enough.
> 
> Imperialism it is then.


There's no assumption of democracy. It is democracy.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's no assumption of democracy. It is democracy.


Life is democracy.  Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Great MODDING!


Posting an article and misrepresenting its contents purposefully is blatant disinformation. Saying that an organisation that, until recently, self-identified as Marxist in their mission statement as entirely Marxist is a generalisation at worst. I'm double-checking archive.org to make sure that I'm actually correct on this.

EDIT: Double-checked the claim, the moniker comes from the original founders calling themselves "trained Marxists" in interviews, I quote from PolitiFact:


> "We do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists. We are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many Black folks."
> 
> We didn’t find that Garza and Tometi have referred to themselves as Marxists. But the book publisher Penguin Random House has said Garza, an author, "describes herself as a queer social justice activist and Marxist."
> 
> https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/


PolitiFact rates the claim as "More to consider than just the statements" on the basis of how broad the movement is. It's very unlikely that each and every BLM supporter is a self-professed Marxist, so saying that is a generalisation. With that being said, the organisation was originally founded by Marxists.

The page I was referring to was the "What We Believe" section which has been modified and later removed from the website, an archived copy can be found here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200916234245/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

There's a couple of somewhat suspect statements here which possibly led to the deletion, such as:


> Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside *comrades*, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


Couple of nods, but inconclusive.

My rating? Half-true. Founded by Marxists, supported by large swathes of the population who are not all Marxist.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Life is democracy.  Couldn't have said it better myself.


What I was referencing when I mentioned assumptions are the draconian voter restrictions the Republicans are trying to pass to keep likely Democratic voters from voting. I'm also referring to effectively restrictive systems, like Tuesday voting, no early voting, and the fact that it isn't a holiday.

If voting is accessible but a person chooses not to vote, I have no inherent problem with that, and I have no problem with the results of an election as a consequence.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What I was referencing when I mentioned assumptions are the draconian voter restrictions the Republicans are trying to pass to keep likely Democratic voters from voting. I'm also referring to effectively restrictive systems, like Tuesday voting, no early voting, and the fact that it isn't a holiday.
> 
> If voting is accessible but a person chooses not to vote, I have no inherent problem with that, and I have no problem with the results of an election as a consequence.



Right, so Democracy your way.  I've already seen you ignore the imperialism vs pacifism point.  Considering that you cannot be forward about fudging simple math, I'll take that as an admission that "imperialism is good".


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

@Lacius  Are you waiting for Biden and the DNC to make an official position on the matter?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

I have to side with @Lacius on this one @tabzer. You have the right to vote, whether you choose to exercise that right is up to you, but you do not become a sovereign citizen in the absence of casting a vote, or casting a vote for the losing candidate. The president is still the president regardless of how you voted, or if you voted at all or not. There's an argument to be made that in order for an election to be legitimate and representative, it has to reach a specific threshold of turnout, but that would be subject to necessary legislation and poses a new question - how much is representative enough before you introduce the possibility of the population stonewalling the whole system by just not turning up. I'm pretty sure this has happened once or twice in democracies where minimal turnouts are implemented and led to government shutdowns, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I have to side with @Lacius on this one @tabzer. You have the right to vote, whether you choose to exercise that right is up to you, but you do not become a sovereign citizen in the absence of casting a vote, or casting a vote for the losing candidate. The president is still the president regardless of how you voted, or if you voted at all or not. There's an argument to be made that in order for an election to be legitimate and representative, it has to reach a specific threshold of turnout, but that would be subject to necessary legislation and poses a new question - how much is representative enough before you introduce the possibility of the population stonewalling the whole system by just not turning up. I'm pretty sure this has happened once or twice in democracies where minimal turnouts are implemented and led to government shutdowns, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head.



I know.  This is a point I disagree with you on.  The position to default the unrepresented to being represented by the military backed cult leader is imperialistic imo.   Let's say, in a vacuum, people were happy living life, and then some noisy people decided to say "we are a democracy" and nobody cared.  Centuries could go on where that noisy group became more and more prevalent and all of a sudden the actual majority is being gaslit.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I know.  This is a point I disagree with you on.  The position to default the unrepresented to being represented by the military backed cult leader is imperialistic imo.   Let's say, in a vacuum, people were happy living life, and then some noisy people decided to say "we are a democracy" and nobody cared.  Centuries could go on where that noisy group became more and more prevalent and all of a sudden the actual majority is being gaslighted.


That's a very odd hypothetical. I'm pretty sure that's how you end up with a crazy person in your village calling himself president for no reason, not a globally recognised state.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a very odd hypothetical. I'm pretty sure that's how you end up with a crazy person in your village calling himself president for no reason, not a globally recognised state.



I'm not so sure.  Can you please give more?  Perhaps you didn't notice my mention of "centuries".


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm not so sure.  Can you please give more?  Perhaps you didn't notice my mention of "centuries".


I mean, I'd love to be called The Prez in my family, and I'm happy to pass the title down to my descendants, but that's not a government. I'm pretty sure you need broad support to be recognised as a leader by your peers, let alone by the global community.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Right, so Democracy your way.  I've already seen you ignore the imperialism vs pacifism point.  Considering that you cannot be forward about fudging simple math, I'll take that as an admission that "imperialism is good".


There is nothing imperialistic about a democratic vote, whether or not there are members of a society who choose not to vote.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, I'd love to be called The Prez in my family, and I'm happy to pass the title down to my descendants, but that's not a government. I'm pretty sure you need broad support to be recognised as a leader by your peers, let alone by the global community.



Miniscule support would probably build over the ages.  And even then, only 33% of the regional populace will acknowledge you.



Lacius said:


> There is nothing imperialistic about a democratic vote, whether or not there are members of a society who choose not to vote.



Conflating terms to edge out of confronting the point?

I'm sorry guys.  I love you but I've been on a buzz all night and am about to crash.  I promise to follow up tomorrow, ok?  It's 4:25am.  Please acknowledge my dedication instead of making a claim that I am running away, ok?


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ALSO FIND RIDICULOUSLY hilarious that While you spewing whatever nonsense you claim..
> WE found out that CCP was Trying to Damage American Government by Funding the Proud Boys* $86,000 to attack the Capitol.*... Ouch that has to sting
> *Proud Boys saw wave of contributions from China **before Capitol attack*


Yeah that's kind of what I'm saying (but I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read what I wrote).
The US has been invaded by the CCP and other communist government and that must be stopped.
You seem to (incorrectly) believe I am a MAGA/Trump supporter despite the fact that the only few times I've mentioned Trump has been to call him an idiot.
I don't care if left wing or right wing is the winner, I care that communism has infiltrated the US and parts of Europe (specially Spain), causing an increase of violence and the general acceptance of such violence, which only deteriorates what were once strong democracies.


----------



## djpannda (May 5, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Yeah that's kind of what I'm saying (but I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read what I wrote).
> The US has been invaded by the CCP and other communist government and that must be stopped.
> You seem to (incorrectly) believe I am a MAGA/Trump supporter despite the fact that the only few times I've mentioned Trump has been to call him an idiot.
> I don't care if left wing or right wing is the winner, I care that communism has infiltrated the US and parts of Europe (specially Spain), causing an increase of violence and the general acceptance of such violence, which only deteriorates what were once strong democracies.


the issue is that You cant accept Fascism as a way stop Communism, 
The McCarthyism is starting to comeback, with the Repubs accusing anyone who Disagrees with them as Communist. 
In fact Blaming Communism for the Fuck up of the world is Shortsighted. 
(by the way, I am not a Communist, or even believe that Communism is even achievable, I just tried of People Being Racist,Sexist, and Over all Pieces of shit because the world is changing to something other then the 1950 American.  )


----------



## tabzer (May 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> the issue is that You cant accept Fascism as a way stop Communism,
> The McCarthyism is starting to comeback, with the Repubs accusing anyone who Disagrees with them as Communist.
> In fact Blaming Communism for the Fuck up of the world is Shortsighted.
> (by the way, I am not a Communist, or even believe that Communism is even achievable, I just tried of People Being Racist,Sexist, and Over all Pieces of shit because the world is changing to something other then the 1950 American.  )


Obviously you are passionate about the subject.  Perhaps you can recognize your overzealousness in assuming all Chinese people are affiliated with the CCP, as you did with your mischaracterization of the article?


----------



## Valwinz (May 6, 2021)

For some odd reason now Biden wants to stop the AZ audit how odd and strange I mean if nothing bad happen why are they shitting themselves #BREAKING: Biden DOJ may interfere in Arizona audit https://t.co/bQx5qcqm7p— Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) May 6, 2021


--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> For some odd reason now Biden wants to stop the AZ audit how odd and strange I mean if nothing bad happen why are they shitting themselves https://twitter.com/Wizard_Predicts/status/1390121316695650305


Dems don't want the signatures to be validated why ?????


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Dems don't want the signatures to be validated why ?????


I can only assume that the DOJ suspects AZ might be discarding legitimate ballots in their audit. It should be careful if it intends to obstruct the process, if they're wrong and the audit is in fact entirely legitimate, 18 U.S. Code § 595 explicitly prohibits government officers or their agents from interfering with nominations and elections. Presumably audits of said elections could conceivably fall under the same code. If the AZ audit *is* unsavoury, everyone involved could potentially be charged under the same code as it also encompasses state-level officials.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> For some odd reason now Biden wants to stop the AZ audit how odd and strange I mean if nothing bad happen why are they shitting themselves https://twitter.com/Wizard_Predicts/status/1390121316695650305
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Because they don't want to know that they did steal election of course. How are they supposed to get away with cheating if they get caught? lol


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> if they're wrong and the audit is in fact entirely legitimate


LMAO no worries there, it's a _Florida_ company led by a pro-Trump _conspiracy theorist_ conducting the audit, and they were found using blue pens instead of red.  In other words, the kind that could be used to _change_ votes.  That's why the audit was already suspended once by a judge.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jud...ffort-audit-2020-election-arizona-2021-4?op=1


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Obviously you are passionate about the subject.  Perhaps you can recognize your overzealousness in assuming all Chinese people are affiliated with the CCP, as you did with your mischaracterization of the article?


I would let to point out my Sig...


Valwinz said:


> For some odd reason now Biden wants to stop the AZ audit how odd and strange I mean if nothing bad happen why are they shitting themselves https://twitter.com/Wizard_Predicts/status/1390121316695650305
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


... as per the people doing the audit they don't really care bout signatures... what they are looking for is the smoking GUN!!  Bamboo fibers
NOO.. they're close to finding out my secret .. I was eating Bamboo while fixing the election...


----------



## KingVamp (May 6, 2021)

This overturn the election thing went from scary, to amusing, to just sad at this point.


----------



## tabzer (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> I would let to point out my Sig



Insinuating that my remark is racist doesn't make your action not-racist.

Also, that remark I made was specifically about you and the disservice you contribute.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

Xzi said:


> LMAO no worries there, it's a _Florida_ company led by a pro-Trump _conspiracy theorist_ conducting the audit, and they were found using blue pens instead of red.  In other words, the kind that could be used to _change_ votes.  That's why the audit was already suspended once by a judge.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/jud...ffort-audit-2020-election-arizona-2021-4?op=1


Or y'know, alternatively, they just used whatever pens they had handy because whoeber's on the floor was unaware that they're supposed to be red. Wouldn't be the first time someone used the wrong pen with no malicious intent - during the election one of the states was giving out sharpies which can potentially bleed through the ballot, which then requires curing as it potentially makes it unreadable by the counting machines. That doesn't signify bad intent, rather it signifies that one or more of the officers there are dumb-dumbs.


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Or y'know, alternatively, they just used whatever pens they had handy because whoeber's on the floor was unaware that they're supposed to be red. Wouldn't be the first time someone used the wrong pen with no malicious intent - during the election one of the states was giving out sharpies which can potentially bleed through the ballot, which then requires curing as it potentially makes it unreadable by the counting machines. That doesn't signify bad intent, rather it signifies that one or more of the officers there are dumb-dumbs.


but the issue is the Company was hired in a Extremely Volatile election inquiry and they are hired because they claimed they would check to everything by the book and find "mistakes" that were made (even thou it was checked 3 times already). This was not only   given national exposure  but also looked at by high priority from several Candidates (that were pictured "taking tours" of the audit.  For them to claim they were unaware of Auditing rules just shows how at the *VERY LEAST.  * they don't know what there doing ( if thats the case, we need to audit that actually audit). and  what would be the most likely scenario is they knowingly altering results. 
 I would not hire a mechanic that needs to look at the manual for every step to fix your car..Then why the hell are we allowing that in a ELECTION!!


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> but the issue is the Company was hired in a Extremely Volatile election inquiry and they are hired because they claimed they would check to everything by the book and find "mistakes" that were made (even thou it was checked 3 times already). This was not only   given national exposure  but also looked at by high priority from several Candidates (that were pictured "taking tours" of the audit.  For them to claim they were unaware of Auditing rules just shows how at the *VERY LEAST.  * they don't know what there doing ( if thats the case, we need to audit that actually audit). and  what would be the most likely scenario is they knowingly altering results.
> I would not hire a mechanic that needs to look at the manual for every step to fix your car..Then why the hell are we allowing that in a ELECTION!!


Using the wrong pen is not a big deal and doesn't demonstrate any wrong-doing, it's a minor procedural mistake. There's a difference between doing something maliciously and doing something absentmindedly.


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Using the wrong pen is not a big deal and doesn't demonstrate any wrong-doing, it's a minor procedural mistake. There's a difference between doing something maliciously and doing something absentmindedly.


really... Not in American,  because until recently "G*overnment* documents, like a passport application, will also require the *use* of black ink. In some countries, they are so strict on these policies that they will completely reject any *government* correspondence that are submitted in the *wrong color" 
and GOD FORBID *You use anything but a #2 pencil for the Standardize testing or the S.A.T..


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> really... Not in American,  because until recently "G*overnment* documents, like a passport application, will also require the *use* of black ink. In some countries, they are so strict on these policies that they will completely reject any *government* correspondence that are submitted in the *wrong color"
> and GOD FORBID *You use anything but a #2 pencil for the Standardize testing or the S.A.T..


For the specific reason that I've already mentioned. Mistakes like this happen all the time in all avenues of life and can be easily corrected, if there are any accusations of wrong-doing, they'll have to be evidenced. I'm afraid that using the wrong pen isn't a criminal offense.


----------



## tabzer (May 6, 2021)

He's explaining the difference between criminal intent and using invalid formatting.  If there is something wrong with the audit, the important aspects of it should come out, despite the buckling in protocol.  You mentioned something about mechanics.  If election audits had nearly as much foundation, it would actually be a bad reflection on the state of "democracy".  You should be proud that America has a lack of expertise in this field.


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> For the specific reason that I've already mentioned. Mistakes like this happen all the time in all avenues of life and can be easily corrected, if there are any accusations of wrong-doing, they'll have to be evidenced. I'm afraid that using the wrong pen isn't a criminal offense.


Heck the US Army still very Strict with how you fill out and correct items
black ink is only accepted for most things, black or blue for signatures
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32225-AR_25-50-003-WEB-6.pdf
and you get courtmartialed for using RED ! lol

This is not a raffle  or bake sales that you can do things half ass.. They knowly took the "audit" job  knowing that it was high priority not only to AZ but the whole Country. So going "OPPS wrong pen," does not cut it.


----------



## AmandaRose (May 6, 2021)

So are we really meant to trust Cyber Ninja to do an honest audit when one of the people doing the audit for them was part of the capital riot back in January?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.azcentral.com/amp/4918186001


----------



## tabzer (May 6, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> So are we really meant to trust Cyber Ninja to do an honest audit when one of the people doing the sudit for them was part of the capital riot back in January?
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.azcentral.com/amp/4918186001



No.  You will have to verify.  At least because of the audit, the public will have more information to work with.  If that person was apart of the "insurrection" then surely they should be in jail.



djpannda said:


> Heck the US Army still very Strict with how you fill out and correct items
> black ink is only accepted for most things, black or blue for signatures
> https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32225-AR_25-50-003-WEB-6.pdf
> and you get courtmartialed for using RED ! lol
> ...



Red pens matter.  Also, the fake news you submitted validates nothing about being court-marshalled for using the wrong ink.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Heck the US Army still very Strict with how you fill out and correct items
> black ink is only accepted for most things, black or blue for signatures
> https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32225-AR_25-50-003-WEB-6.pdf
> and you get courtmartialed for using RED ! lol
> ...


The Military recommends using blue or black pens, with a strong preference towards black. The document you posted is guidance in regards to filling out correspondence, it's consistent with that recommendation. With that being said, you will not get "court martialed" for using an incorrect pen colour - you'll get disciplined. I am unable to find a single reference to this being a court martial offense, or one case where a military officer was sentenced for using the wrong pen. I have found multiple references to soldiers being yelled at, which is not a big deal.


AmandaRose said:


> So are we really meant to trust Cyber Ninja to do an honest audit when one of the people doing the audit for them was part of the capital riot back in January?
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.azcentral.com/amp/4918186001


Is there any evidence that this individual entered the building at any point? They're entitled to go to a political rally, that's not illegal.


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The Military recommends using blue or black pens, with a strong preference towards black. The document you posted is guidance in regards to filling out correspondence, it's consistent with that recommendation. With that being said, you will not get "court martialed" for using an incorrect pen colour - you'll get disciplined. I am unable to find a single reference to this being a court martial offense, or one case where a military officer was sentenced for using the wrong pen. I have found multiple references to soldiers being yelled at, which is not a big deal.
> Is there any evidence that this individual entered the building at any point? They're entitled to go to a political rally, that's not illegal.


COME ON people! the Red Pen was a joke hence it was after the statement and link and even with ended with a "LOL"


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> COME ON people! the Red Pen was a joke hence it was after the statement and link and even with ended with a "LOL"


This is the second time the room is quiet after one of your bangers, I don't think you can blame us. I can guarantee that we're not a tough crowd.


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Is there any evidence that this individual entered the building at any point? They're entitled to go to a political rally, that's not illegal.


Here is former AZ lawmaker Anthony Kern (counting ballots)






and here is he is Trespassing and committing crimes 120ish days ago




and conflict of interest.. Here is 
Rep. Andy Biggs taking a Secret "Tour"


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Here


He's standing outside. Behind the barriers, perhaps, but hardly in the process of "overthrowing the government".  If the feds have any issues with that, they can contact him - they've been fairly lenient so far.


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> He's standing outside. Behind the barriers, perhaps, but hardly in the process of "overthrowing the government".  If the feds have any issues with that, they can contact him - they've been fairly lenient so far.


sorry but that is the Steps of the Capitol. Which would be Trespassing ..
Just because the Feds are only prosecuting people who entered the Building does not mean he did not COMMIT a crime by being part of a insurrection (or at the very least Riot)


----------



## tabzer (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Here is former AZ lawmaker Anthony Kern (counting ballots)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm confused.  You didn't end with LOL.  Am I to expect that you believe what you say or not?


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm confused.  You didn't end with LOL.  Am I to expect that you believe what you say or not?


I understand, We can see you have Trouble understanding Reality ..


----------



## tabzer (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> I understand, We can see you have Trouble understanding Reality ..


Honestly I am having trouble understanding your use of the English language.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> sorry but that is the Steps of the Capitol. Which would be Trespassing ..
> Just because the Feds are only prosecuting people he entered the Building does not mean he did not COMMIT a crime by being part of a insurrection (or at the very least Riot)


That's cool, my man. I find it unobjectionable, but if you want to impune him for trespass on a set of stairs, that's fine. He is there, you're not wrong, I just fail to see how it's a problem. It's not the first time protesters stood on the steps of the US Capitol. I'm old enough to remember when protestors were banging on the doors to stop Kavanaugh's nomination. That's a lot of people standing on a lot of steps. Different building, same complex, same rule.



In a fairness though, they did arrest around 300 of them, including Amy Schumer, which was hilarious.


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's cool, my man. I find it unobjectionable, but if you want to impune him for trespass on a set of stairs, that's fine. He is there, you're not wrong, I just fail to see how it's a problem. It's not the first time protesters stood on the steps of the Capitol. I'm old enough to remember when protestors were banging on the doors of the Capitol to stop Kavanaugh's nomination. That's a lot of people standing on a lot of steps.
> 
> 
> 
> In a fairness though, they did arrest around 300 of them, including Amy Schumer, which was hilarious.



yea but those people were not In charge of approving Kavanaugh because that would be conflict of interest.  The conflict of interest exist no matter how you look at it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> yea but those people were not In charge of approving Kavanaugh because that would be conflict of interest.  The conflict of interest exist no matter how you look at it.


If we have to discuss what a conflict of interest is again I'm going to have an aneurysm, so I'm not going there.


----------



## djpannda (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If we have to discuss what a conflict of interest is again I'm going to have an aneurysm, so I'm not going there.


fair enough but the optics don't look good by having him there, They had Hundreds of volunteers, They should not of used him or at the very least removed him when it was found out.


----------



## tabzer (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> yea but those people were not In charge of approving Kavanaugh because that would be conflict of interest.  The conflict of interest exist no matter how you look at it.



I'm sure that if someone didn't confirm Kavanaugh that it wouldn't be a conflict of interest simply because they didn't confirm Kavanaugh.

Keep trying though.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> fair enough but the optics don't look good by having him there, They had Hundreds of volunteers, They should not of used him or at the very least removed him when it was found out.


The optics are bad. As I said, you're not wrong. Still, slap on the wrist at best - chances are it will be ignored unless he actually breached the building which is *definitely* not permissable.


----------



## tabzer (May 6, 2021)

djpannda said:


> They should not of used him or at the very least removed him when it was found out.



So, you are unironically threatened by this man's location on the steps of the capitol? If the man believes in a cause, then why shouldn't he be allowed to verify his position?


----------



## Valwinz (May 6, 2021)

more good news to stop the Biden democrat nonsense education 
BREAKING: The Tennessee state legislature has passed a bill banning critical race theory indoctrination in public schools. The legislation, which now goes to @GovBillLee, will prohibit schools from promoting race essentialism, collective guilt, and state-sanctioned racism. pic.twitter.com/XpvWacWXZc— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) May 6, 2021


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Or y'know, alternatively, they just used whatever pens they had handy because whoeber's on the floor was unaware that they're supposed to be red.


Convenient excuse for a company supposedly specializing in audits.  People who were present at the capitol insurrection have also been seen helping them "count" votes.  The whole operation couldn't get any more illegitimate if the guy in charge was actually just five raccoons in a trench coat.


----------



## Valwinz (May 7, 2021)

This is Joe Biden's America and he supports it.
BREAKING: Heavily armed anarchist militia in Portland stop traffic, assault driver at gunpoint while he attempts to defend himself https://t.co/6RJNA8bCWa— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 7, 2021


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> more good news to stop the Biden democrat nonsense education


what part of critical race theory do you disagree with


----------



## Valwinz (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> what part of critical race theory do you disagree with


give me my gold back white man


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> give me my gold back white man


critical race theory is a series of theories regarding the role of racism in western society and the way it is perpetuated through the power structures that govern us

you are referencing a specific policy called reparations that is a proposed way to deal with extrapolated conclusions from crt, something that is not part of critical race theory itself
this is like saying that your least favorite show on netflix is sitting on an uncomfortable couch

you are so fucking stupid that it astounds me


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> critical race theory is a series of theories regarding the role of racism in western society and the way it is perpetuated through the power structures that govern us
> 
> you are referencing a specific policy called reparations that is a proposed way to deal with extrapolated conclusions from crt, something that is not part of critical race theory itself
> this is like saying that your least favorite show on netflix is sitting on an uncomfortable couch
> ...


God forbid we ban something that would only further divide us instead of actually moving on with life. Nope, gotta stay in the past and continue to hate.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> God forbid we ban something that would only further divide us instead of actually moving on with life. Nope, gotta stay in the past and continue to hate.


ah yes
facing the reality that the law as it exists inherently props up the wealthy is something that keeps us _"in the past"_
coming up with solutions to existing problems is not _"moving forward with life"_

you, also, are fucking stupid


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> ah yes
> facing the reality that the law as it exists inherently props up the wealthy is something that keeps us _"in the past"_
> coming up with solutions to existing problems is not _"moving forward with life"_
> 
> you, also, are fucking stupid


That's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it. If we're going to just result to name calling, then you're a fucking brainless and spineless cunt.


----------



## Valwinz (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> ah yes
> facing the reality that the law as it exists inherently props up the wealthy is something that keeps us _"in the past"_
> coming up with solutions to existing problems is not _"moving forward with life"_
> 
> you, also, are fucking stupid


Living in a fantasy I seen  sorry we wont be giving Biden racist education anymore


----------



## tthousand (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> what part of critical race theory do you disagree with


PART*S**

How about the beginning, the middle and the end? Unless you are all for communism taking over America, critical race theory is not the way to go. 

Here is some good research on the roots, current state, and future of critical race theory >>> https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/critical-race-theory-fight/


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> That's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it. If we're going to just result to name calling, then you're a fucking brainless and spineless cunt.


i love when people have no response so they fall back to _ol' faithful,_ tone policing



Valwinz said:


> Living in a fantasy I seen  sorry we wont be giving Biden racist education anymore


what makes critical race theory racist



tthousand said:


> PART*S**
> 
> How about the beginning, the middle and the end? Unless you are all for communism taking over America, critical race theory is not the way to go.


how will critical race theory make communism in america



tthousand said:


> Here is some good research on the roots, current state, and future of critical race theory >>> https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/critical-race-theory-fight/


HAHAHAHA
omg bro
i wasn't expecting much when i asked right-wingers to define their boogieman but my god mate
"_*Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.*_"

BRO WHAT
WHAT IS "IDENTITY-BASED MARXISM"
THESE ARE JUST WORDS BRO

This article deadass goes on to explain that a fuckin' university woman who is a proponent of crt is anti-capitalist, so therefore CRT IS THE OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISM

dude did you even read this article it's fucking hilarious, it doesn't even know what it's talking about
it unironically posits that crt is just anti-capitalism
this is one of the dumbest fucking things i have ever read, and it is made more hilarious only by the fact that i can imagine all the dumbfuck southerns out there reading it and going "_dang i knew it was them commies tryna destroy amurica_"


----------



## tthousand (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> bleh



you mad bra?


----------



## chrisrlink (May 7, 2021)

my god if stupidity can get you banned half of you would have been months ago, speaking of stupid Tucker carlton is a bloody hack job with his anti vaxxing rhetoric luckly it's probably their base (mainly republican) would believe it and probably die of covid 19 GOOD RIDANCE to racist trash


----------



## Valwinz (May 7, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> my god if stupidity can get you banned half of you would have been months ago, speaking of stupid Tucker carlton is a bloody hack job with his anti vaxxing rhetoric luckly it's probably their base (mainly republican) would believe it and probably die of covid 19 GOOD RIDANCE to racist trash


Biden voters everyone


----------



## tthousand (May 7, 2021)

intolerants calling others intolerant. welcome to the world of "as above as below", where down is the new up and out is the new in.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> My god, if stupidity could get you banned, half of you would have been out of here months ago.
> Speaking of which, stupid Tucker Carlson is a bloody hack job with his anti-vaxxing rhetoric. Luckily, it's probably their base of mainly Republicans that would believe it and probably die of COVID-19. GOOD RIDDANCE to racist trash.


@djpannda i didn't know you had an alt



tthousand said:


> intolerants calling others intolerant. welcome to the world of "as above as below", where down is the new up and out is the new in.


"you're saying i'm intolerant, but you're intolerant of my intolerance. checkmate."


----------



## tthousand (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> "you're saying i'm intolerant, but you're intolerant of my intolerance. checkmate."



"Not quite"  I may not agree with what you say, but I agree with your right to say it.

Now go out and grab the world by the pussy!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i love when people have no response so they fall back to _ol' faithful,_ tone policing


Dude you started it by wanting to insult and call people names, so don't get your unwashed pantie in a bunch when people throw insults back at you. If you wanna debate fine, if you wanna just name call, it'll happen too.



chrisrlink said:


> my god if stupidity can get you banned half of you would have been months ago, speaking of stupid Tucker carlton is a bloody hack job with his anti vaxxing rhetoric luckly it's probably their base (mainly republican) would believe it and probably die of covid 19 GOOD RIDANCE to racist trash


And you'd be the first one banned racist trash.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Dude you started it by wanting to insult and call people names, so don't get your unwashed pantie in a bunch when people throw insults back at you. If you wanna debate fine, if you wanna just name call, it'll happen too.


note the lack of response to the points, kiddos


----------



## Hanafuda (May 7, 2021)

tthousand said:


> intolerants calling others intolerant. welcome to the world of "as above as below", where down is the new up and out is the new in.



you forgot penis is the new pussy.


----------



## Valwinz (May 7, 2021)

Vote Biden destroy the economy Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1390672220712751110


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Vote Biden destroy the economy


what? wages are incredibly low and working conditions continue to decline? it's time to cut unemployment benefits!

10,000 IQ


----------



## AmandaRose (May 7, 2021)

This very statement shows the guy has no fucking clue what he is talking about.

"_*Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s.*_"


CRT actually originated in the mid-1970s as can be seen in the writings of several American legal scholars from that time including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams. And a few more.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Vote Biden destroy the economy https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1390672220712751110


You don't seem to remember the economic decline under the former administration, the fact the former administration and the Republicans passed very little with regard to economic recovery and didn't care to do more, the economic boom that immediately followed the Democratic bill, and the fact that some of the Biden recovery plan hasn't been fully implemented yet (child tax credit, etc.).

The low April numbers (which are still positive, by the way) only demonstrate the need to do more. They definitely don't mean to end something as economically stimulating as unemployment benefits. That would be like reacting to a severed foot by cutting off the other one.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> CRT actually originated in the mid-1970s as can be seen in the writings of several American legal scholars from that time including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams


this is taken directly from wikipedia, by the way
the first thing that pops up on google if you fuckin' _google_ crt


----------



## Valwinz (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> what? wages are incredibly low and working conditions continue to decline? it's time to cut unemployment benefits!
> 
> 10,000 IQ





Lacius said:


> You don't seem to remember the economic decline under the former administration, the fact the former administration and the Republicans passed very little with regard to economic recovery and didn't care to do more, the economic boom that immediately followed the Democratic bill, and the fact that some of the Biden recovery plan hasn't been fully implemented yet (child tax credit, etc.).
> 
> The low April numbers (which are still positive, by the way) only demonstrate the need to do more. They definitely don't mean to end something as economically stimulating as unemployment benefits. That would be like reacting to a severed foot by cutting off the other one.


got it Bad stuff no Biden fault good stuff is Biden

Funny since this whole mess is Biden people keeping everything lock and giving free money not to work


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 7, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> whole mess is Biden people keeping everything lock and giving free money not to work


having a social safety net is good, dumbfuck


----------



## AmandaRose (May 7, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> this is taken directly from wikipedia, by the way
> the first thing that pops up on google if you fuckin' _google_ crt


Thats exactly the point he couldn't even spend two seconds searching Google to get his facts right.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 8, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Here is some good research on the roots, current state, and future of critical race theory >>> https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/critical-race-theory-fight/



Let's talk about the article shared by @tthousand
Here is the part that tells the reader what CRT is, it will be spoiler texted to not flood the page



Spoiler: What is Critical Race Theory?



*Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.

There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.

In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”

One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since according to Kendi, “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end.

An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation—critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.*



Paragraph 1: CRT was made in the 90s and it is Identity-Based Marxism. It was a fringe concept, but recently it has become the premier ideological doctrine in public institutions. It appears through "Don't be racist" programs.

it wasn't made in the 90s
identity-based marxism is word salad that is not even a thing
crt concepts have been used as the basis for training related to not being a racist. not being a racist is good.
Paragraph 2: CRT is referred to by nomenclature that is popular to avoid admitting that it is actually Neo-Marxism. Actually, when people say equality, they mean to create a society based in bigotry!

no, idiot. crt is a _race_ theorum, it's in the fucking name, marxism is about economics and class divides
when we say equality, we don't mean the exact opposite of it, stupid
Paragraph 3/4: Equality actually means Marxism! Some people who are proponents of CRT have called for radically left-wing policies, so therefore the concept of CRT as a whole is actually a front for the overthrow of capitalism through the creation of a shadow government!

i'm impressed you are able to appear so alive when you don't have a brain
Paragraph 5: A hypothetical equity-based government could completely rewrite American society into an authoritarian government, which is bad! Therefore, CRT is bad!

annnnnd you've successfully said "1+1=2, therefore 1=2!
dumbass


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> got it Bad stuff no Biden fault good stuff is Biden
> 
> Funny since this whole mess is Biden people keeping everything lock and giving free money not to work


This all reminds me of when Republicans tried blaming Obama for the recession, despite spurring the recovery.


----------



## Valwinz (May 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This all reminds me of when Republicans tried blaming Obama for the recession, despite spurring the recovery.


So Biden is like republican blaming Obama


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> So Biden is like republican blaming Obama


After the recession, Republicans blamed Obama for the job losses that occured before the stimulus, and the slow job growth months that happened from time to time, despite the recession not happening under Obama.

You're blaming Biden for an economic downturn that happened under his predecessor's watch. Jobless claims skyrocketed, the initial relief bill added jobs, and then job increases slowed until actually going back into the negatives. Under Biden and the Democratic members of Congress passed their much-needed relief bill, and job additions went up again. Yes, April saw a slowdown, but it's still an increase, we don't know what the long-term trend is, it demonstrably would have been worse without the Democratic relief bill, and the April numbers are evidence for more stimulus, not less.

Even if we look at it from a moral standpoint and not an economic one, you're advocating for taking away jobless benefits when there are fewer jobs being added, lol.


----------



## Valwinz (May 8, 2021)

Cant say i blame the Asian community and I still don't know Why BLM  and Atifa is attacking Asian people 
I guess another day in Bidens america

Imagine my shock... pic.twitter.com/qdmbPpYFLR— Venom Rach - Myth Hunter Arc (@SocialNomadRach) May 7, 2021


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 8, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> note the lack of response to the points, kiddos


Because all you wanted to do was insult rather than debate.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 8, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Because all you wanted to do was insult rather than debate.


of course
schnookums can't handle the meanie weanie talk
off you pop, sweetie


----------



## urherenow (May 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> After the recession, Republicans blamed Obama for the job losses that occured before the stimulus, and the slow job growth months that happened from time to time, despite the recession not happening under Obama.
> 
> You're blaming Biden for an economic downturn that happened under his predecessor's watch. Jobless claims skyrocketed, the initial relief bill added jobs, and then job increases slowed until actually going back into the negatives. Under Biden and the Democratic members of Congress passed their much-needed relief bill, and job additions went up again. Yes, April saw a slowdown, but it's still an increase, we don't know what the long-term trend is, it demonstrably would have been worse without the Democratic relief bill, and the April numbers are evidence for more stimulus, not less.
> 
> Even if we look at it from a moral standpoint and not an economic one, you're advocating for taking away jobless benefits when there are fewer jobs being added, lol.


The previous administration saw the LOWEST jobless numbers and welfare cases in decades. The only reason those numbers jumped back up is because of COVID. That, and Democrats refused to approve stimulus that ONLY applied to the American people. The latest stimulus package  has a whopping grand total of 9% going towards actual COVID relief.

The "fact checker's" version, still shows more than 15% that doesn't have anything to do with COVID, While other things counted towards the COVID side: "However, there are quite a few economic provisions in the bill that could potentially be considered “COVID-related” as well". 

Potentially. lol. Even 15% of the 1.9 Trillion dollar package... is a lot of goddamn money. Your whole life is a lie.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 8, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> of course
> schnookums can't handle the meanie weanie talk
> off you pop, sweetie


Yes I can, I was just explaining what I've seen how people like to talk here, which isn't different from other places I've been about conversation about politics. I've learned you can't fix stupid or evil, but it's fun to watch and take pity on those who are.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 8, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes I can, I was just explaining what I've seen how people like to talk here, which isn't different from other places I've been about conversation about politics. I've learned you can't fix stupid or evil, but it's fun to watch and take pity on those who are.



Your holier than thou, finger pointing, gaslighting, hypocritical, narcissistic tactics are incredibly weak and you've freaked out in other topics over absolutely NOTHING.


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2021)

urherenow said:


> The previous administration saw the LOWEST jobless numbers and welfare cases in decades. The only reason those numbers jumped back up is because of COVID. That, and Democrats refused to approve stimulus that ONLY applied to the American people. The latest stimulus package  has a whopping grand total of 9% going towards actual COVID relief.
> 
> The "fact checker's" version, still shows more than 15% that doesn't have anything to do with COVID, While other things counted towards the COVID side: "However, there are quite a few economic provisions in the bill that could potentially be considered “COVID-related” as well".
> 
> Potentially. lol. Even 15% of the 1.9 Trillion dollar package... is a lot of goddamn money. Your whole life is a lie.


The previous administration saw no real increase in the rate of job growth between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit. It should also be noted that the previous administration's mishandling of the pandemic is a large reason why the economy was hit so hard, so give credit where credit is due.

Regarding the Democratic relief bill, about 30% alone went towards cash payments to individuals and unemployment benefits. 25% went to business loans, another 19% went to small business loans specifically, about 17% went to governmental COVID response, and about 9% went to public services like hospitals.

I don't see anything unrelated to pandemic relief. Even if I had been wrong, which I'm not, it would be laughably hyperbolic and absurd to say my "whole life is a lie." In other words, this kind of nonsensical hyperbole usually occurs when someone is overcompensating for being wrong.


----------



## tabzer (May 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It should also be noted that the previous administration's mishandling of the pandemic is a large reason why the economy was hit so hard



The lockdowns caused the economy to be hit "so hard", and Trump didn't order that.

Honestly I don't believe you on the claim that "there was no real job growth" after Trump took office.  It maybe true that the propaganda of such is effective, but why should someone believe you?


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The lockdowns caused the economy to be hit "so hard", and Trump didn't order that.
> 
> Honestly I don't believe you on the claim that "there was no real job growth" after Trump took office.  It maybe true that the propaganda of such is effective, but why should someone believe you?


The former president's mishandling of the pandemic caused it, and the economic consequences, to be much worse than they needed to be. In addition, the Republican recovery bills were inadequate in response to the economic issues the former administration exacerbated.

It is an objective fact that the monthly job gains were roughly unchanged between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit. I'm sorry if the facts are inconvenient for you.


----------



## tabzer (May 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The former president's mishandling of the pandemic caused it, and the economic consequences, to be much worse than they needed to be.



You are clearly avoiding saying how.  Is this one of those,"why are you making me do this to you?!" situations?



Lacius said:


> It is an objective fact that the monthly job gains were roughly unchanged between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit.



Okay, so now you are extending the definition to mean that there was no meaningful job growth under Obama.



Lacius said:


> I'm sorry if the facts are inconvenient for you.



Classic lacius.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 8, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> @djpannda i didn't know you had an alt
> 
> 
> "you're saying i'm intolerant, but you're intolerant of my intolerance. checkmate."


nope unless djpanda can hack accounts i doubt it i've been here since 09 WAAAYYY before the cestpool called the political subforum was incepted


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are clearly avoiding saying how.  Is this one of those,"why are you making me do this to you?!" situations?


The former administration denied the pandemic was serious, told people to go about their business as usual, denied masks should be worn,  peddled dangerous misinformation about the pandemic constantly, and never seriously promoted vaccine use (we didn't find out he even received the vaccine until after he left office). The former administration also barely had a vaccination strategy. It's no wonder the pandemic exploded in the United States, which comes with the economic consequences one would reasonably expect.

I've posted numerous times in the election thread a thorough, but not full, list of how the former administration failed in its response to the pandemic. I refer you to it, since I know you've already seen it.



tabzer said:


> Okay, so now you are extending the definition to mean that there was no meaningful job growth under Obama.


I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably jump to the conclusion that I'm claiming there was no meaningful job growth under Obama. His administration took us from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression to a booming economy.

The problem for the former administration is that the rate of job growth stayed where it was after Obama left office. In fact, if you want to get picky, Obama's last three years of job growth (2014-2016, well after the Recession) were all better than the former administration's best year. The only meaningful effect the former administration had on the economy was the economic downturn that was the result of the pandemic and the administration's mishandling of the pandemic.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 8, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> nope unless djpanda can hack accounts i doubt it i've been here since 09 WAAAYYY before the cestpool called the political subforum was incepted


so has djpannda
you both joined within a month of each other
coincidence?


----------



## KingVamp (May 8, 2021)

So, how's that audit going?


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> So, how's that audit going?


I'm just glad to see someone is focusing on the issues that matter, like bamboo.


----------



## Valwinz (May 8, 2021)

Bidens america 
BREAKING: Plano, TX police officer allows armed left-wing militia to illegally block traffic, reprimands driver who attempts to clear road, defend himself https://t.co/2YTE0dvo9S— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 8, 2021


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 8, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Bidens america
> https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1391080433232846852


did you even watch the clip
does it bother you that you're more interested in upholding your worldview than researching past an internet search for "content that agrees with me"


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Bidens america
> https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1391080433232846852





Darth Meteos said:


> did you even watch the clip
> does it bother you that you're more interested in upholding your worldview than researching past an internet search for "content that agrees with me"


This is coming from the same guy who said expanded unemployment benefits are why the April job numbers were low, even though the places with better unemployment benefits saw better job numbers in April, and places with fewer unemployment benefits saw worse job numbers in April. There probably isn't a lot of research going on.


----------



## KingVamp (May 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This is coming from the same guy who said expanded unemployment benefits are why the April job numbers were low, even though the places with better unemployment benefits saw better job numbers in April, and places with fewer unemployment benefits saw worse job numbers in April. There probably isn't a lot of research going on.


Sounds similar to this. Link


----------



## Valwinz (May 8, 2021)

The Biden Cheer brigade defending his failing presidency is the best


----------



## chrisrlink (May 8, 2021)

from wiki first paragraph about this guy
*"John Michael Posobiec III* (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ _pə-SOH-bik_; born December 14, 1985)[1] is an American alt-right[2][3][4] and alt-lite[5] political activist, conspiracy theorist,[6] and Internet troll.[7][8][9][10] Posobiec is best known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter, as well as using white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points, including the white genocide conspiracy theory.[11][12][13][14] He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring.[15] Since 2018, Posobiec has been employed by One America News Network (OANN), a far-right cable news television channel, as a political correspondant...."when will you EVER LEARN?


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden Cheer brigade defending his failing presidency is the best


I can't find any objective metric that would suggest Biden's presidency is a failing presidency.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 8, 2021)

so you like Nazi scumbags huh Valwinz? pretty much all you type here is alt-right garbage you don't use any fact checking laughable at best

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

funny how i was having an intelligent convo about  Marxism,Communism (and the apparent misuse of Communism as a term to describe totalerism/dictatorship as an apparent "fix" to the current PS5/series scalping crisis but i'm derailing this thread so I'll stop


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 9, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden Cheer brigade defending his failing presidency is the best


hell of a projection from a guy who's the exact opposite
dude, the only contributions you ever make on this thread are pieces of propaganda denouncing him


----------



## urherenow (May 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The previous administration saw no real increase in the rate of job growth between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit. It should also be noted that the previous administration's mishandling of the pandemic is a large reason why the economy was hit so hard, so give credit where credit is due.
> 
> Regarding the Democratic relief bill, about 30% alone went towards cash payments to individuals and unemployment benefits. 25% went to business loans, another 19% went to small business loans specifically, about 17% went to governmental COVID response, and about 9% went to public services like hospitals.
> 
> I don't see anything unrelated to pandemic relief. Even if I had been wrong, which I'm not, it would be laughably hyperbolic and absurd to say my "whole life is a lie." In other words, this kind of nonsensical hyperbole usually occurs when someone is overcompensating for being wrong.


Ok, then. You're smarter than all of the "fact checkers" and all of the career politicians who have done this since before you were an itch in your daddy's balls.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Ok, then. You're smarter than all of the "fact checkers" and all of the career politicians who have done this since before you were an itch in your daddy's balls.


I am not saying, nor implying, that I'm smarter than anyone. I'm saying you've got your facts wrong, and if you're someone who gets their information from conservative media, that's probably why. If there's something wrong with what I said, please tell me what the mistake is. However, everything I said in that post, as far as I can tell, is provably correct.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The former administration denied the pandemic was serious, told people to go about their business as usual, denied masks should be worn,  peddled dangerous misinformation about the pandemic constantly, and never seriously promoted vaccine use (we didn't find out he even received the vaccine until after he left office). The former administration also barely had a vaccination strategy. It's no wonder the pandemic exploded in the United States, which comes with the economic consequences one would reasonably expect.
> 
> I've posted numerous times in the election thread a thorough, but not full, list of how the former administration failed in its response to the pandemic. I refer you to it, since I know you've already seen it.
> 
> ...







You are saying that 2008 - 2016 is meaningful and everything after, up until the pandemic wasn't meaningful.

Also, it is a fact that shutdowns are what brought the economy down, and Trump could've been the one to enforce them tyrannically federally, and been responsible for it.

Your words are so full of spin and have no consistency to be considered as a real language.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> View attachment 262240
> 
> You are saying that 2008 - 2016 is meaningful and everything after, up until the pandemic wasn't meaningful.
> 
> ...


You do see that the rate of job growth is largely unchanged from about 2011 to 2020 (pre-pandemic), right?


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 9, 2021)

urherenow said:


> Ok, then. You're smarter than all of the "fact checkers" and all of the career politicians who have done this since before you were an itch in your daddy's balls.


if i had a buck for every strawman in this thread



tabzer said:


> You are saying that 2008 - 2016 is meaningful and everything after, up until the pandemic wasn't meaningful.


bro if obama was smooth sailing until a giant crash in 2012, you would not ever shut up about that crash
i was gonna ask you to be consistent, but you're tabzer



tabzer said:


> Your words are so full of spin and have no consistency to be considered as a real language.


you say that, and yet lacius' point was that taking a shit situation and making it good is more impressive than coasting on an upward trajectory
you're either deliberately ignoring that or you can't read, so take your pick


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> bro if obama was smooth sailing until a giant crash in 2012, you would not ever shut up about that crash



That's a red herring you can track by yourself.



Darth Meteos said:


> you say that, and yet lacius' point was that taking a shit situation and making it good is more impressive than coasting on an upward trajectory



Contextually, Lacius's point was to diminish a claim that urherenow made.



urherenow said:


> The previous administration saw the LOWEST jobless numbers and welfare cases in decades. The only reason those numbers jumped back up is because of COVID. That, and Democrats refused to approve stimulus that ONLY applied to the American people. The latest stimulus package has a whopping grand total of 9% going towards actual COVID relief.





Lacius said:


> The previous administration saw no real increase in the rate of job growth between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Contextually, Lacius's point was to diminish a claim that urherenow made.


And I succeeded. The previous administration saw no real increase in the rate of job growth between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit, and you provided the proof.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That's a red herring you can track by yourself.


It's an accurate assessment. I have seen nothing but partisanship from you.



tabzer said:


> Contextually, Lacius's point was to diminish a claim that urherenow made.


The purpose of the point has no relevance to what the point actually was.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> And I succeeded. The previous administration saw no real increase in the rate of job growth between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit, and you provided the proof.



You said it wasn't meaningful.



Darth Meteos said:


> It's an accurate assessment. I have seen nothing but partisanship from you.



It's not an accurate assessment to assume something that hasn't happened.



Darth Meteos said:


> The purpose of the point has no relevance to what the point actually was.





Darth Meteos said:


> THESE ARE JUST WORDS BRO


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> THESE ARE JUST WORDS BRO


ah yes
using my own words against me
of course, you've failed to use them correctly, so i can't give too much credit, but letting me speak for you does by definition raise the intelligence of this post relative to the usual ones
nice of you to admit you can't parse the english language, though, it explains a lot


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> ah yes
> using my own words against me
> of course, you've failed to use them correctly, so i can't give too much credit, but letting me speak for you does by definition raise the intelligence of this post relative to the usual ones
> nice of you to admit you can't parse the english language, though, it explains a lot



You were just mocking the overuse of strawmen and partisanship.  Now you are lecturing about "parsing" the "english language" with that butchered nonsense--while implying that @Darth Meteos is, by definition, "intelligence".  

"The purpose of the point was not the point because it doesn't support what I want to focus on.  You're stupid."

Funny guy.


----------



## urherenow (May 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I am not saying, nor implying, that I'm smarter than anyone. I'm saying you've got your facts wrong, and if you're someone who gets their information from conservative media, that's probably why. If there's something wrong with what I said, please tell me what the mistake is. However, everything I said in that post, as far as I can tell, is provably correct.


My initial source was debunking the "only 9% to the American people" claim, so your assumption of a conservative source is incorrect. It leans slightly to the left, in fact (https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 ) . Again, better than 15% of the bill can't even be spun in COVID's direction.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...own-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

Please read it and look at all of the fluff added. The 15% I said is FACT. "the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget" said it themselves.

Here is a conservative take on it, that I doubt you will read. And even if you do read it, you will likely see no problem with the fact that much of this money isn't even being spent this fiscal year, or the next...

https://reason.com/2021/02/18/biden...as-almost-nothing-to-do-with-the-coronavirus/


Hell, the OMNIBUS spending bill, as pretty much always, had shit slipped in that has nothing to do with the budget or spending whatsoever!  I'm sure most people here don't care... but take vape mail for example. Many shops who's livelihood depended upon internet sales (and my only way of getting my own supply while serving the country overseas), have had to close their doors. Because that was slipped into the budget and is now law. Mind you, this was a budget that HAD TO BE SIGNED, 'less you lot blame Trump for another government shutdown. The law may not have seen the light of day otherwise. So no matter your feelings on vaping... how the hell can you justify it being put into our BUDGET? This is how Democrats roll.

https://vaping360.com/vape-news/107...-mail-force-online-sellers-into-the-pact-act/


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> ah yes
> using my own words against me
> of course, you've failed to use them correctly, so i can't give too much credit, but letting me speak for you does by definition raise the intelligence of this post relative to the usual ones
> nice of you to admit you can't parse the english language, though, it explains a lot





tabzer said:


> @Darth Meteos is, by definition, "intelligence".



So you know, anybody can look at your signature and see the actual context.  You might want to get rid of that to hide the fact that you are using that as some sort of powerplay, which undermines the rest of your signature.   I know that you are impressed by me and all.


----------



## urherenow (May 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> And I succeeded. The previous administration saw no real increase in the rate of job growth between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit, and you provided the proof.


You didn't succeed with shit. I never said anything about the rate. He had the lowest unemployment. Period. Full stop. And yes, it was because of his policies, and incentivizing companies to have more presence in the US. Then COVID hit. And all the Democrats called him a racist xenophobe for trying to restrict flights from China. Oh, wait... What did Biden just to about India again? What did Pelosi do? Oh, that's right... got on the news, went to Chinatown, and told everyone to come on over and have a good time. Sure... all Trump's fault and his handling of the pandemic. https://khn.org/news/article/fact-c...on-vaccine-contracts-and-supply-not-accurate/


"Trump created 6.6 million jobs before the COVID-19 pandemic shut the economy down. The new jobs his policies created represented a 4.3% increase over the 152.2 million people working at the end of Obama's term."

All found here, cupcake, if numbers aren't too hard for you: https://www.bls.gov/data/#employment

Trump has done a lot more than you lot give him credit for. All while the Dems were biting at his ankles like the dogs that they are. THE. ENTIRE. TIME.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2021)

urherenow said:


> You didn't succeed with shit. I never said anything about the rate. He had the lowest unemployment. Period. Full stop. And yes, it was because of his policies, and incentivizing companies to have more presence in the US.
> 
> "Trump created 6.6 million jobs before the COVID-19 pandemic shut the economy down. The new jobs his policies created represented a 4.3% increase over the 152.2 million people working at the end of Obama's term."
> 
> All found here, cupkake: https://www.bls.gov/data/#employment



He knows.  He was just utilizing a strawman, which @Darth Meteos  called him out on.  It's good to see people like that who can be objective and non-partisan.


----------



## Valwinz (May 10, 2021)

another day in the Biden stupidity 
pic.twitter.com/gQTwkuTEAm— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) May 10, 2021


----------



## Seliph (May 10, 2021)

Just found this image of Joe Biden putting a gun in this woman's mouth because she dared to protest his socialist agenda. Why is no one talking about this????? The president of the united states puts a gun square in a woman's mouth (no trigger discipline btw) and the left would rather argue about pronouns and "racism"? What has this country come to???? This is exactly what those cultural Marxists want to happen to our country, we have a murderer as president while the government tries to keep us divided and distracted with socialist lies. This is the country that liberal communists want!!


----------



## KingVamp (May 10, 2021)

That's how the mafia government works.


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You said it wasn't meaningful.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an accurate assessment to assume something that hasn't happened.


I said the rate of job growth did not go up under the former administration, and that is factually correct. The rate of job growth (monthly job gains) remained roughly unchanged between when Obama left office and when the pandemic hit.


----------



## AmandaRose (May 10, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> another day in the Biden stupidity
> https://twitter.com/grandoldmemes/status/1391636860967993351


So so stupid of Biden for getting rid of Trump's draconian laws that discriminated against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

And if you actually study the law that has been rolled back it is all to do with making sure trans people are not discriminated against when it comes to health care it has NOTHING to do with pronouns so your little meme doesn't even make any fucking sense as to what Biden actually did.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1266823


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2021)

urherenow said:


> My initial source was debunking the "only 9% to the American people" claim, so your assumption of a conservative source is incorrect. It leans slightly to the left, in fact (https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 ) . Again, better than 15% of the bill can't even be spun in COVID's direction.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...own-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/
> 
> ...



Nearly the entire bill is related to the COVID-19 pandemic when you include the economic stimulus meant to help the economy recover from the effects of COVID-19. Your own sources debunk the idea that it's only 9%, 15%, etc., and they even say it's closer to 85-99%. I'm not quite sure what your point is.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> You didn't succeed with shit. I never said anything about the rate. He had the lowest unemployment. Period. Full stop. And yes, it was because of his policies, and incentivizing companies to have more presence in the US. Then COVID hit. And all the Democrats called him a racist xenophobe for trying to restrict flights from China. Oh, wait... What did Biden just to about India again? What did Pelosi do? Oh, that's right... got on the news, went to Chinatown, and told everyone to come on over and have a good time. Sure... all Trump's fault and his handling of the pandemic. https://khn.org/news/article/fact-c...on-vaccine-contracts-and-supply-not-accurate/
> 
> 
> "Trump created 6.6 million jobs before the COVID-19 pandemic shut the economy down. The new jobs his policies created represented a 4.3% increase over the 152.2 million people working at the end of Obama's term."
> ...


The fact of the matter is the former administration's policies had no effect on the economy and rate of job growth until the pandemic hit. The monthly job gains were unchanged after Obama left office, until the pandemic hit. I'm sorry if this is inconvenient for you.


----------



## Valwinz (May 10, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> So so stupid of Biden for getting rid of Trump's draconian laws that discriminated against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
> 
> And if you actually study the law that has been rolled back it is all to do with making sure trans people are not discriminated against when it comes to health care it has NOTHING to do with pronouns so your little meme doesn't even make any fucking sense as to what Biden actually did.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1266823


Did your country? Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode/status/1391831578607865862


----------



## Seliph (May 10, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Did your country? https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode/status/1391831578607865862


Unsure how that tweet is in any way relevant to her (correct) statement. Very lame of you.


----------



## AmandaRose (May 10, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Did your country? https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode/status/1391831578607865862


My country is Scotland not Britain and if you knew anything you would know our laws are totally different to the rest of Great Britain so nice try but you failed miserably


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> My country is Scotland not Britain and if you knew anything you would know our laws are totally different to the rest of Great Britain so nice try but you failed miserably


kinda funny to see people that don't live here worry about stuff that is none of their business when their own countries are a mess and going into collapse


----------



## FAST6191 (May 11, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> My country is Scotland not Britain and if you knew anything you would know *our laws are totally different to the rest of Great Britain* so nice try but you failed miserably


Please.
Most of the new law is inherited from the EU which the rest of the UK generally falls in line with (maybe fell in line one day but unlikely because trade ties and all that).
Prior to 2019 a fairly minor conversion course not out of line with any continued professional development
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/qualifyi...lifying-into-scotland/intra-uk-transfer-test/
Today it changed a tiny bit but you get several areas chopped off the list of necessary exams
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/qualifyi...cottish-solicitor/requalifying-into-scotland/
Much the same in reverse as well.
It is probably harder to go between states in the US than it to go between parts of the UK.

This is also not discussing the West Lothian thing.


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

For those that are interested in the audits there some odd things  happening
*Maricopa County Bombshell: Missing Passwords, Routers in Arizona Audit, Emergency Senate Session Called*
**Huge* election news.🔻https://t.co/o2phuZcG79— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 11, 2021
*


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> For those that are interested in the audits there some odd things  happening
> *Maricopa County Bombshell: Missing Passwords, Routers in Arizona Audit, Emergency Senate Session Called*
> *https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1391907550036119552*


The "audit" is a joke that you probably shouldn't be bringing attention to. There was already an audit that showed nothing, it's a fishing expedition solely because there were Democratic votes with no reason to think there was fraud, the so-called audit is being run by an organization with no experience with auditing elections, it's by a Q-anon believing conspiracy theorist, it's blocked off from the press, the methods of the supposed audit are being kept secret, election integrity was violated in part when the supposed auditors had colored markers that could alter ballots in a way that would affect how they're read, and now they're fishing for bamboo because of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. It's an embarrassment, and even some notable Arizona Republicans have admitted it


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

Some good news for the UK people here commenting on US stuff
citizens will be required to show photo IDs in order to vote in general elections In the UK
after the so call Biden steal is good other nations are upping the security of elections 
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1391866597510459400


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> another day in the Biden stupidity
> https://twitter.com/grandoldmemes/status/1391636860967993351


state of your crusade, mate
sharing cringe memes



tabzer said:


> You might want to get rid of that to hide the fact that you are using that as some sort of powerplay, which undermines the rest of your signature.


it ain't a powerplay, i just thought it was funny
you mad? you seem mad


----------



## AmandaRose (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Some good news for the UK people here commenting on US stuff
> citizens will be required to show photo IDs in order to vote in general elections In the UK
> after the so call Biden steal is good other nations are upping the security of elections
> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1391866597510459400


A rather pointless exercise considering at the last General Election there was only one voter convicted of voter fraud and zero evidence of any other fake votes occurring. When you also concider 25% of people (a lot of them youngsters) in the UK don't have any form photo ID then this new law is actually going to affect the amount of votes all parties receive.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-speech-photo-id-future-elections-social-care


----------



## Seliph (May 11, 2021)

Voter id laws suck ass boooo


----------



## AmandaRose (May 11, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Voter id laws suck ass boooo


The only good thing about it happening here is it makes it a lot harder for bad loser's and conspiracy nutters to make bullshit claims about voter fraud. Not that any political party here would ever be that dumb to stoop that low in the first place anyway.


----------



## Xzi (May 11, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Voter id laws suck ass boooo


Aw c'mon now, autocracy is only three letters away from democracy, it can't be all bad.


----------



## Seliph (May 11, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Aw c'mon now, autocracy is only three letters away from democracy, it can't be all bad.


hmmmm auto...

AUTObots...

I sure like them Autobots in those transformer movies. Sounds good to me!


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 11, 2021)

Seliph said:


> hmmmm auto...
> 
> AUTObots...
> 
> I sure like them Autobots in those transformer movies. Sounds good to me!


We are all playing checkers meanwhile seliph is playing 4d chess


----------



## Seliph (May 11, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> We are all playing checkers meanwhile seliph is playing 4d chess


It's my way of coping with this thread. Gotta have something stimulating or my brain will go to mush listening to the same inane political takes over and over again. I highly recommend it


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 11, 2021)

Seliph said:


> It's my way of coping with this thread. Gotta have something stimulating or my brain will go to mush listening to the same inane political takes over and over again. I highly recommend it


>implying your brain isn't already mush


----------



## Seliph (May 11, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> >implying your brain isn't already mush


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 11, 2021)

Seliph said:


>


My sense of humor has degraded to the point where this made me laugh


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

The Fail Biden Presidency is the gift that keeps on giving 
I'll take the mean tweets over gas shortages and inflation.
Video coming out of Asheville, North Carolina show the fuel shortage in effect. Some gas stations are completely out of supply, while others have lineups.  pic.twitter.com/7xrSoPA99G— Marie Oakes (@TheMarieOakes) May 11, 2021


----------



## Seliph (May 11, 2021)

My brain just got a bit mushier guys help

Need more nuance


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Fail Biden Presidency is the gift that keeps on giving
> I'll take the mean tweets over gas shortages and inflation.
> https://twitter.com/TheMarieOakes/status/1391914491726766089


In what way is the cyber attack the fault of the Biden administration, and how did the administration act inappropriately? Also, in what universe were the former president's shortcomings limited to just "mean tweets"? How absurd, even for you.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> it ain't a powerplay, i just thought it was funny
> you mad? you seem mad


It _is_ funny, and it was a powerplay.  What part of me talking about it made me seem mad?


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The fact of the matter is the former administration's policies had no effect on the economy and rate of job growth until the pandemic hit.



This is a speculative position that has no bearing on the fact of the lowest records of unemployment in recent American history.  You choosing a way to insert the words,"not meaningful" in response to that assessment is just petty.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It _is_ funny, and it was a powerplay.  What part of me talking about it made me seem mad?


i'm not even trying to make a play and i still come out with a _power_play
i'm the coolest



AmandaRose said:


> A rather pointless exercise considering at the last General Election there was only one voter convicted of voter fraud and zero evidence of any other fake votes occurring. When you also concider 25% of people (a lot of them youngsters) in the UK don't have any form photo ID then this new law is actually going to affect the amount of votes all parties receive.


also interesting to note is that a far-right party is in power in the uk right now
i wonder if that's correlated


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 11, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i'm not even trying to make a play and i still come out with a _power_play
> i'm the coolest





Scott_pilgrim said:


> We are all playing checkers meanwhile seliph Darth Meteos is playing 4d chess


----------



## Seliph (May 11, 2021)

What the hey you can't out-4d chess me

I have however many black belts @Darth Meteos has, plus one.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> This is a speculative position that has no bearing on the fact of the lowest records of unemployment in recent American history.  You choosing a way to insert the words,"not meaningful" in response to that assessment is just petty.


There was no change in the rate of job gains between when Obama left office and the pandemic. If you look at monthly job gains, they're all about the same. I say "about the same," because the former administration's best year for job gains was actually worse than any of Obama's last three years. That means if anything, the monthly job gains slowed under the former administration without taking the pandemic into consideration. And, again, we really must take the pandemic and the former administration's mishandling of the pandemic into consideration.

There is nothing speculative about this. It's a numerical fact.


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 11, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> also interesting to note is that a far-right party is in power in the uk right now
> i wonder if that's correlated


What exactly do you consider a "far right" party?
This keeps confusing the hell out of me as there's only two possible far right ideologies: Absolute Monarchy and Anarchism.
Yet every left-leaning voter uses "far right" to refer to fascism, which makes absolutely no sense at all considering fascism is a radical socialist ideology, fascism is far left, not far right.
In a historical sense, "far right" would be the people who defeated Nazi Germany from the perspective of fascism, except for the USSR which was also far left.
Considering this, would you say that the UK right now is leaning towards anarchism? I very much doubt it, so I wouldn't call them "far right" unless they actually start to dismantle the government to make it smaller and less powerful.


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> What exactly do you consider a "far right" party?


pretty anyone that they don't like is far right


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There was no change in the rate of job gains between when Obama left office and the pandemic. If you look at monthly job gains, they're all about the same. I say "about the same," because the former administration's best year for job gains was actually worse than any of Obama's last three years. That means if anything, the monthly job gains slowed under the former administration without taking the pandemic into consideration. And, again, we really must take the pandemic and the former administration's mishandling of the pandemic into consideration.
> 
> There is nothing speculative about this. It's a numerical fact.



Again.  Here is the context:



Lacius said:


> The fact of the matter is the former administration's policies had no effect on the economy and rate of job growth until the pandemic hit.




In response, I said: 

This is a speculative position that has no bearing on the fact of the lowest records of unemployment in recent American history. You choosing a way to insert the words,"not meaningful" in response to that assessment is just petty.

That's it.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 11, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Just found this image of Joe Biden putting a gun in this woman's mouth because she dared to protest his socialist agenda. Why is no one talking about this????? The president of the united states puts a gun square in a woman's mouth (no trigger discipline btw) and the left would rather argue about pronouns and "racism"? What has this country come to???? This is exactly what those cultural Marxists want to happen to our country, we have a murderer as president while the government tries to keep us divided and distracted with socialist lies. This is the country that liberal communists want!!



Love that Tabby "Liked" this one. Most likely believes it to be a factual photo. 

And @Valwinz Now about that video in which you insisted Biden was molesting a boy. It has since been debunked, yet I see no comment or apology. The video was from 2015, not something new. The child was  Robert Biden II, at his own fathers funeral. Joe is consoling a boy that just lost his Dad. And you fucking losers want to cry molestation. Pathetic and sick.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Again.  Here is the context:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't seem to understand the the following:

The low unemployment numbers were the result of unchanging job gains between the end of the Obama administration and the pandemic. Your argument is like saying that a guy should get credit for all the Bitcoin mined during a particular timeframe even though the last guy is the one who setup the mining rig and left it on. One of the best objective metrics with which to judge an economy is by monthly job gains and losses, and there was, factually, no meaningful change in the rate of job growth in this country after Obama left office. If you want to zoom in and check for any small difference, then the economy slowed and monthly job gains went down under the former administration. However, it wasn't a meaningful decline until the pandemic hit.
You want to focus on economic numbers pre-pandemic, which is a mistake for the reasons I stated above in #1, but it's also a mistake because the post-pandemic economic numbers are due in large part to the former administration's policies.
I'm sorry this is all inconvenient to your position that the former administration was somehow good for the economy, but none of the last president's policies affected the economy in any meaningful way until the pandemic hit, and that's a numerical fact. If the tax cuts that disproportionately affected the rich, for example, had been good for the economy, we would have seen an uptick in the amount of jobs created in succeeding months; we didn't see that. If anything, job gains went down slightly.

In summary, the former administration very slightly slowed the rate of economic growth achieved by the Obama administration, and then they flushed the economy down the toilet with poor or inadequate responses to the pandemic and the economic downturn.


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

Elect Jimmy Carter 2.0. Get Jimmy Carter-era gas shortages and unemployment.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Love that Tabby "Liked" this one. Most likely believes it to be a factual photo.



It's hilarious.  I don't even care if it's a real photo.



Lacius said:


> The low unemployment numbers were the result of unchanging job gains between the end of the Obama administration and the pandemic. Your argument is like saying that a guy should get credit for all the Bitcoin mined during a particular timeframe even though the last guy is the one who setup the mining rig and left it on. One of the best objective metrics with which to judge an economy is by monthly job gains and losses, and there was, factually, no meaningful change in the rate of job growth in this country after Obama left office. If you want to zoom in and check for any small difference, then the economy slowed and monthly job gains went down under the former administration. However, it wasn't a meaningful decline until the pandemic hit.



Again, your rationalization for the rate of employment is speculative.  Also, work on that Bitcoin analogy, because I understand how it works but I have no idea what you are saying.



Lacius said:


> You want to focus on economic numbers pre-pandemic, which is a mistake for the reasons I stated above in #1, but it's also a mistake because the post-pandemic economic numbers are due in large part to the former administration's policies.



It was you who chose the focus from Obama's end of term up to the covid flux to being "not meaningful". 



Lacius said:


> I'm sorry this is all inconvenient to your position that the former administration was somehow good for the economy, but none of the last president's policies affected the economy in any meaningful way until the pandemic hit, and that's a numerical fact.



I'm not interested what you think is meaningful and not meaningful in general.  "Numerical facts" aren't sentimental.  Trying to inject the sentiment that unemployment decreasing is somehow non-meaningful is just spin.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's hilarious.  I don't even care if it's a real photo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Monthly job gains did not increase between when Obama left office and the pandemic. In fact, they went down slightly. There is nothing subjective about this or anything else I've said.

Acting as though I'm arguing anything other than objective numbers isn't going to work.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Elect Jimmy Carter 2.0. Get Jimmy Carter-era gas shortages and unemployment.


The unemployment you're referring to happened during the previous administration (the economy is steadily recovering in part because of the Democratic relief bill that no Republican voted for but are trying to take credit for), and the cyber attack that may have affected gas prices might have happened in part because of no action on the part of the previous administration against cyber criminals based in Russia. The Biden administration is also doing everything in its power to mitigate the effects of the cyber attack on gas prices.

Biden has a 63% approval rating (71% approval on just his handling on all things related to COVID-19). The previous administration could not have even dreamt of those kinds of numbers. Thank you for reminding us how successful the Biden administration has been so far, and how much of a failure the last administration was.


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

Biden destroying the economy but at least  Lacius does it for free lol


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden destroying the economy but at least  Lacius does it for free lol


There is no evidence Biden is "destroying" the economy, in any sense of the word. April numbers were a little lower than expected, but we don't know yet if that's isolated or not. We also get revised numbers each month that could cause the April numbers to go up or go down. Long story short, we can't say much for sure about April.

Pretending the April numbers are final for a moment, they don't show Biden "destroying" the economy. If policies like extended unemployment benefits were slowing economic recovery, we'd see less job growth in places with more extended unemployment benefits, and we'd see more job growth in places with fewer extended unemployment benefits. In reality, we see more job growth in places with more extended unemployment benefits (because it acts as an economic stimulus in addition to it being the moral thing to do).

Whenever you talk about me doing something for free, I think about how the last president had to hire actors to pretend to support him during the 2016 election. How embarrassing.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden destroying the economy but at least  Lacius does it for free lol


I think your GI tract got reversed as you talk out of your ass and verbal diarrhea comes out of your mouth

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm saying that cause you don't fact check your shiit there is something called slander which is illegal if biden wanted to he could sue you (I
d actually pay money to see that)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


----------



## phalk (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden destroying the economy but at least  Lacius does it for free lol



Are you ok bro? Your words make you look you're a bit sick in the brain.


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

They're running out of gas, Joe.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> They're running out of gas, Joe.


The Biden administration has responded fully and appropriately to the cyber attack and the possible gas shortage. Please articulate a single thing the Biden administration could do but hasn't.


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Biden administration has responded fully and appropriately to the cyber attack and the possible gas shortage. Please articulate a single thing the Biden administration could do but hasn't.


out of gas, Joe.
Gas lines all the way down to the expressway. pic.twitter.com/D38kfpABuj— Fodder (@LoKeys910) May 11, 2021


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> out of gas, Joe.
> https://twitter.com/LoKeys910/status/1392201154554105858


Unsurprisingly, you don't seem able to answer my question.

You're out of gas, Valwinz.


----------



## Xzi (May 11, 2021)

> Private oil conglomerate continues to use Windows 3.1 for their entire operation until they get hacked by Russians

Valwinz:


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Monthly job gains did not increase between when Obama left office and the pandemic. In fact, they went down slightly. There is nothing subjective about this or *anything else I've said.*
> 
> Acting as though I'm arguing anything other than objective numbers isn't going to work.



Mostly everything else.  Specifically, your interpretation and sentimentalization.  But maybe you aren't saying anything meaningful.


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Unsurprisingly, you don't seem able to answer my question.
> 
> You're out of gas, Valwinz.


millions of Americans sit in gas lines


----------



## Xzi (May 11, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> millions of Americans sit in gas lines


Really makes you think about how tenuous our reliance on a single form of energy is, and how it's entirely controlled by tech illiterate, out-of-touch billionaires huh?

Or rather it would if you were capable of independent thought not spoon fed to you by alt-reich Twitter.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Mostly everything else.  Specifically, your interpretation and sentimentalization.  But maybe you aren't saying anything meaningful.


Monthly job gains from 2008 to 2019. That giant dip you see is the Great Recession, which happened in large part because of deregulation that occurred under George W. Bush. That uptick you see around February-March of 2009 is the direct result of the Obama stimulus bill.




From then on, Republicans blocked further stimulus, and the monthly job gains remained relatively constant all the way until 2020. The policies of the administration after the Obama administration demonstrably had no meaningful effect on the economy.

Monthly job gains from 2008-2021. As you can see, the poor response to the pandemic from the last administration caused a recession much greater than anything seen in 2008. You can barely see 2008 on the graph.




To summarize, this is the Obama economy:




This is the economy of Obama's successor:


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Monthly job gains from 2008 to 2019. That giant dip you see is the Great Recession, which happened in large part because of deregulation that occurred under George W. Bush. That uptick you see around February-March of 2009 is the direct result of the Obama stimulus bill.
> View attachment 262581
> 
> From then on, Republicans blocked further stimulus, and the monthly job gains remained relatively constant all the way until 2020. The policies of the administration after the Obama administration demonstrably had no meaningful effect on the economy.
> ...



Choosing a single metric to paint bleak pictures is willful ignorance of all other variables and does not change the fact of record unemployment during the Trump administration.

Nor does it indicate that there is no meaning behind the graphs that you chart.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 11, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> What exactly do you consider a "far right" party?
> This keeps confusing the hell out of me as there's only two possible far right ideologies: Absolute Monarchy and Anarchism.
> Yet every left-leaning voter uses "far right" to refer to fascism, which makes absolutely no sense at all considering fascism is a radical socialist ideology, fascism is far left, not far right.


Anarchism is the greatest expression of left-wing libertarianism, right-wing libertarianism's version is laissez faire.
On top of that, you're conflating the far-right with the extreme-right, which comes in many forms, predominantly in fascism today, but there is also feudalism, true laissez faire capitalism, and as you say, absolute monarchy.

As for your point that fascism is a socialist ideology, one of Hitler's first acts was to abolish unions, which are all but necessary to a socialist society. In Hitler's regime, the people never owned the means of production, it was solely controlled by the Nazi Party and their affiliates. It was not socialism, no matter what it called itself.

It's important to understand more about the subject of left-vs-right and not getting informed second-hand by partisans. At least read the Wikipedia page on it. It's the most basic research, and it will give you a broad understanding of what the world at large refers to as "Far-Right."



Valwinz said:


> pretty anyone that they don't like is far right


Untrue. Third Way Democrats are center-right, and they're by far the dominant force in the Democratic Party right now.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's hilarious.  I don't even care if it's a real photo.



And that is a very large part of the problem. People like yourself and Valwinz don't care whats real and what's not.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 11, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This is the economy of Obama's successor:
> View attachment 262585


From a left-wing perspective, these charts aren't great for portraying the state of the American citizen, or for accurately portraying what occurred in 2020. In these charts, a layperson would believe the economy boomed after a bit, but since the metric is "jobs added," it's misleading. Adding a job isn't relevant if it's a private sector job paying minimum wage, something that the chart is not equipped to explain, too. 2020 saw a wealth redistribution to the top of a magnitude unseen in the history of the United States, which is also not represented in a jobs chart.

Sorry, mate, but you can do better. This is a weak point that isn't a good response.

EDIT: Ah, I see you got mired in a quagmire, arguing a useless number against someone who'll never admit you're right. My point about the jobs number stands, but dear lord, Lacius, the state of the discourse


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> From a left-wing perspective, these charts aren't great for portraying the state of the American citizen, or for accurately portraying what occurred in 2020. In these charts, a layperson would believe the economy boomed after a bit, but since the metric is "jobs added," it's misleading. Adding a job isn't relevant if it's a private sector job paying minimum wage, something that the chart is not equipped to explain, too. 2020 saw a wealth redistribution to the top of a magnitude unseen in the history of the United States, which is also not represented in a jobs chart.
> 
> Sorry, mate, but you can do better. This is a weak point that isn't a good response.
> 
> EDIT: Ah, I see you got mired in a quagmire, arguing a useless number against someone who'll never admit you're right. My point about the jobs number stands, but dear lord, Lacius, the state of the discourse


You and I are in agreement about underemployment, low wages, etc., but that wasn't the topic. The point was @tabzer wants to say the economy was good under the former administration, but the only part of the economy the former administration had anything substantive to do with was the post-pandemic economy.



tabzer said:


> Choosing a single metric to paint bleak pictures is willful ignorance of all other variables and does not change the fact of record unemployment during the Trump administration.
> 
> Nor does it indicate that there is no meaning behind the graphs that you chart.


Putting aside problems with the unemployment metric for a moment, when jobs are repeatedly being added each month, the unemployment number is going to go down. Saying "but unemployment numbers" doesn't contradict my point the way you think it does.

Also, you and I are in agreement about there being record unemployment numbers during the previous administration. It happened after the pandemic hit.


----------



## Valwinz (May 12, 2021)

Like poetry Biden has taken us to the past 
How it started                 How it's going pic.twitter.com/nFPI6DNWoD— Jane Timken (@JaneTimkenOH) May 11, 2021


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> arguing a useless number against someone who'll never admit you're right.



Are you saying I should just accept his useless number?  I have admitted Lacius to being right, but he does that more than enough on everyone's behalf, so why bother?  If we are talking character, there is also the point that he won't admit when he is wrong over a simple blunder after ridiculing other people over "simple math". (Ref: signature)



Lacius said:


> @tabzer wants to say the economy was good under the former administration



I don't know that, and that wasn't my point.



Lacius said:


> but the only part of the economy the former administration had anything substantive to do with was the post-pandemic economy.


That's, like, your opinion man.  I'm just pointing out that you are willing to throw the working man under the bus if it means that you can give orange man an L.


----------



## JeepX87 (May 12, 2021)

Long car lines aren't new and it has been around since oil crisis in 1973 so y'all can thanks to OPEC.

Baby boomers, silent generation and early Gen X remembered about what happened.

Oil price goes up and down at mainly pleasure of OPEC but there are factors could affect the price.

5 years prior to oil crisis in 1973, you likely to see Gulf, Chevron/Standard, Amoco, Sinclair, Pure/Union 76, ARCO, Philips 66, Esso/Enco, Texaco and Shell in all part of the US at that time, but not much anymore.


----------



## omgcat (May 12, 2021)

huh, red states running out of gas. go figure i though CA would be out first according to the repubs who think California is Venezuela.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> And that is a very large part of the problem. People like yourself and Valwinz don't care whats real and what's not.



"People on the internet don't care about the things that I care about."

Not my problem.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> "People on the internet don't care about the things that I care about."
> 
> Not my problem.



Bullshit. You wouldn't be here commenting if you actually felt that way.


----------



## KingVamp (May 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Really makes you think about how tenuous our reliance on a single form of energy is, and how it's entirely controlled by tech illiterate, out-of-touch billionaires huh?


Yeah, besides climate change, this is just another reason not to rely on just one form of energy.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Are you saying I should just accept his useless number?


no, i'm saying that he's fighting a pointless battle against someone who will dogmatically continue to assert they are right even as their entire evidence base crumbles around them



Valwinz said:


> Like poetry Biden has taken us to the past
> https://twitter.com/JaneyMurph/status/1392208893720342529


pretty sure this is a bot you guys
it never adds anything to the conversation outside of trolling and cringe shitposts


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Bullshit. You wouldn't be here commenting if you actually felt that way.



That's where you are wrong, spaz.



Darth Meteos said:


> i'm saying that he's fighting a pointless battle against someone who will dogmatically continue to assert they are right even as their entire evidence base crumbles around them



"Fight a battle"?  He is saying something stupid.  You were right to point it out.


----------



## AkiraKurusu (May 12, 2021)

I was wondering why this non-funny months-old thread still appears on the front page, but _politics_. Also likely why this has 200 pages...the greatest argument is politics, I'd say.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> He is saying something stupid.  You were right to point it out.


he is saying something accurate about a number i think is irrelevant to the broader topic of the failings of the trump administration in an economic sense
you are denying the accuracy of his accurate statements about the number i feel is irrelevant
his sin is wasting time on a pointless debate, and i told him what i thought about the jobs growth number as a metric
your sin is being wrong, and you are somehow conflating my disagreement over tactics with an accusation of untruthfulness

no.



AkiraKurusu said:


> I was wondering why this non-funny months-old thread still appears on the front page, but _politics_. Also likely why this has 200 pages...the greatest argument is politics, I'd say.


feed my thread
give it your soul
become part of the sisyphean crusade against the dummy dumdums


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> your sin is being wrong, and you are somehow conflating my disagreement over tactics with an accusation of untruthfulness



Lol.  I'm not wrong.  Under the Trump administration, the US reached record low unemployment levels for the duration between the end of Obama's term and just prior to the epidemic.  That is a fact.  Lacius responds by inserting a strawman and boasting pride that it somehow refutes it.  But it was janky logic and spoke more about his personal sentiments.

Conjecture as to why it's all Obama's doing is speculative.  Calling the lack of sharp change in the rate of employment unmeaningful is just shit if you care about people having jobs.

If you share sentiments with Lacius, that's fine.  If you somehow think that there is only meaning in the lack of stability, that's fine too.  *I disagree with that point specifically*.

Do you honestly believe that the closer you get to 0% unemployment that it is reasonable or even possible to continually increase the rate of employment?  Do you expect unemployment to go negative while the rate of employment reaches infinity?   No, because that would make you fucking stupid.

A lot can be said about sustaining growth, but that is not even acknowledged or appreciated.  If you want to hate Trump so much, but supposedly love others, then you should argue that Trump failed at ruining the economy before Covid.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 12, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> They're running out of gas, Joe.



LOL. 

Apparently you don't recall the numerous times Biden said he's going to do away with fossil fuels and move us to depend on more cleaner solutions. Biden did indeed brag on national television that he's going to do away with gasoline. While the pipeline virus and panic buying weren't planned the rise in price right before that was. We will continue to see tactics by the Biden administration that will limit the amount of gas there is on the market for the time being. They are just getting warmed up. Remember, the goal is to get rid of using fossil fuels and the Democrats aren't going to care who they hurt in the process.

I also am going to have to laugh at loud when the price increases hit home. Biden is already planning on raising the minimum wage and taxing wealthy people and all of those new taxes and costs will be passed onto the working class consumer, just like has happened time and time again. What really cracks me up is Biden was campaigning on raising taxes and each time he addressed a crowd of people they'd cheer him on for doing so. I'm not sure what sort of stupid they are breeding these days, but Democrats who voted to raise taxes and love the fact that's going to happen are in a league of their own.

The gas prices, consumer goods prices and taxes are just starting to increase as it takes around 3 months after a President is gone from office for the next administrations policies kick into effect. So what we're all seeing is just the start of Biden's impact on the economy. It's going to get much, much worse than it is now as we're seeing the "the new normal", which is higher taxes and higher prices all around the board. Prices of good, services and taxes are going to get insanely bad under a Democratic leadership especially leadership that is implementing Liberal policies. If you need an example look at any of the major crime ridden larger cities that have been under Democratic leadership for years such as Chicago, Detroit or Los Angeles.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Are you saying I should just accept his useless number?  I have admitted Lacius to being right, but he does that more than enough on everyone's behalf, so why bother?  If we are talking character, there is also the point that he won't admit when he is wrong over a simple blunder after ridiculing other people over "simple math". (Ref: signature)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a numerical fact that job gains were unchanged between when Obama left office and just before the pandemic hit. It's not, like, "my opinion, man." See the charts I've provided. This is all I've argued, and it's provably right. I'm probably going to ignore any future "nuh uh" or "it's your opinion, man" posts from you.

I'm not sure what part of any of my posts could be reasonably described as "throwing the working man under the bus."



tabzer said:


> Lol.  I'm not wrong.  Under the Trump administration, the US reached record low unemployment levels for the duration between the end of Obama's term and just prior to the epidemic.  That is a fact.  Lacius responds by inserting a strawman and boasting pride that it somehow refutes it.  But it was janky logic and spoke more about his personal sentiments.
> 
> Conjecture as to why it's all Obama's doing is speculative.  Calling the lack of sharp change in the rate of employment unmeaningful is just shit if you care about people having jobs.
> 
> ...


If the former administration had done anything positive for the economy, we would have seen an uptick in monthly job gains; we didn't. What we did see from the former administration was record unemployment due in part to its bungled response to the pandemic and its economic consequences.

The former president inherited a booming economy from Obama, and we can see that the monthly job gains didn't substantively change until the pandemic. I refer you back to my Bitcoin rig analogy, because it applies. Since you didn't seem to get it: The rig is economic policy, the Bitcoin are jobs, Obama is the nerd who set it up, and the last president is the one who inherited that rig and did nothing to change it until he smashed it with a hammer when the pandemic hit.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2021)

Comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive as it neglects some of the key figures - Obama's stimulus package that was meant to jump start the economy (as well as a mountain of new "freebies" courtesy of the federal government) greatly reduced labor participation rates. People who drop out of the workforce and are no longer active jobseekers are not labelled as "unemployed" - they're not looking for employment. Labor participation rates at the beginning of Obama's presidency were measured at 65.7%, by 2017 they were at 62.7%. It's easy to drop the "unemployment rate" when your workforce participation also shrinks by 3% - you didn't get unemployed people employed, they just dropped out. This metric is useless in isolation. Not only did Trump "continue the trend" of decreasing unemployment, job participation rates have increased, not decreased under his presidency. Job participation rates peaked at 63.4% in January 2020, right before the pandemic hit and started negatively affecting the economy. More people overall were willing to actively seek for jobs *and* they managed to find them. Trump's economy was the first on record under which the amount of job openings has surpassed the amount of job seekers, it was unprecedented. The current administration is benefitting from a similar effect - the sudden "growth" is not caused by Biden's stimulus, it's caused by the receding pandemic and the job force returning to work. His policies haven't led to any amazing job creation, he's coasting on what the previous administration had already achieved prior to the economy shutting down on account of an external and uncontrollable factor. Of course, in all fairness, no administration "creates jobs" besides the jobs within the administration itself - private industry "creates jobs", and it is the job of the administration to create conditions where said private industry is incentivised to expand and create them. So far the current administration is slowing down the recovery, not accelerating it, by providing incentives *not* to return to the workforce as in many cases the unemployment benefits available are higher than the potential wages upon returning to work. This has been true since the introduction of the CARES act, and yet the Biden administration is still stacking relief bills on top of relief bills for some reason.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-unemployment-than-they-were-from-their-jobs/


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive as it neglects some of the key figures - Obama's stimulus package that was meant to jump start the economy (as well as a mountain of new "freebies" courtesy of the federal government) greatly reduced labor participation rates. People who drop out of the workforce and are no longer active jobseekers are not labelled as "unemployed" - they're not looking for employment. Labor participation rates at the beginning of Obama's presidency were measured at 65.7%, by 2017 they were at 62.7%. It's easy to drop the "unemployment rate" when your workforce participation also shrinks by 3% - you didn't get unemployed people employed, they just dropped out. This metric is useless in isolation. Not only did Trump "continue the trend" of decreasing unemployment, job participation rates have increased, not decreased under his presidency. Job participation rates peaked at 63.4% in January 2020, right before the pandemic hit and started negatively affecting the economy. More people overall were willing to actively seek for jobs *and* they managed to find them. Trump's economy was the first on record under which the amount of job openings has surpassed the amount of job seekers, it was unprecedented. The current administration is benefitting from a similar effect - the sudden "growth" is not caused by Biden's stimulus, it's caused by the receding pandemic and the job force returning to work. His policies haven't led to any amazing job creation, he's coasting on what the previous administration had already achieved prior to the economy shutting down on account of an external and uncontrollable factor. Of course, in all fairness, no administration "creates jobs" besides the jobs within the administration itself - private industry "creates jobs", and it is the job of the administration to create conditions where said private industry is incentivised to expand and create them. So far the current administration is slowing down the recovery, not accelerating it, by providing incentives *not* to return to the workforce as in many cases the unemployment benefits available are higher than the potential wages upon returning to work. This has been true since the introduction of the CARES act, and yet the Biden administration is still stacking relief bills on top of relief bills for some reason.
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-unemployment-than-they-were-from-their-jobs/




Wow, look at all these numerical facts that Lacius didn't account for when forming his _opinion._  Those must be inconvenient.



Lacius said:


> I'm not sure what part of any of my posts could be reasonably described as "throwing the working man under the bus."



The part referenced by the *bold *statement assessing my primary disagreement with you.



Lacius said:


> The rig is economic policy, the Bitcoin are jobs, Obama is the nerd who set it up, and the last president is the one who inherited that rig and did nothing to change it until he smashed it with a hammer when the pandemic hit.



Total shit analogy.  Stay away from Bitcoin (for your protection).



Lacius said:


> If the former administration had done anything positive for the economy, we would have seen an uptick in monthly job gains



Oh boy.  Let me repeat myself.

Do you honestly believe that the closer you get to 0% unemployment that it is reasonable or even possible to continually increase the rate of employment? Do you expect unemployment to go negative while the rate of employment reaches infinity? No, because that would make you fucking stupid. OOPS.

A lot can be said about sustaining growth, but that is not even acknowledged or appreciated. If you want to hate Trump so much, but supposedly love others, then you should argue that Trump failed at ruining the economy before Covid.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Wow, look at all these numerical facts that Lacius didn't account for when forming his _opinion._  Those must be inconvenient.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've already said this, but as monthly job gains continue unchanged, the unemployment rate is going to go down. The reason monthly job gains continued, however, is because the previous administration started with a booming economy left by Obama, and the amount of jobs gained per month didn't change until the pandemic. Mentioning the unemployment rate going down under the previous administration doesn't refute my point the way you think it does. In fact, it supports my point. To put it another way, we can look at the jobs numbers and unemployment numbers objectively, and we can predict what the unemployment number would become if monthly job gains continued unchanged. Spoiler alert: The unemployment numbers we saw during the former administration matched what we would expect if nothing changed. If the former administration had at all improved the economy, we would have seen steeper monthly job gains and steeper reduction of unemployment. You don't seem to understand that the number of new jobs added per month did not change between Obama leaving and the pandemic, and I don't know how else to explain this to you. However, based on the snappiness, I'm assuming you are getting far more frustrated than I am. I'm happy to drop this if it's making you mad.

You should also reread Foxi4's post. It doesn't say what you think it says. I agree with him that comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive. You're the one who doesn't understand why.



tabzer said:


> If you want to hate Trump so much, but supposedly love others, then you should argue that Trump failed at ruining the economy before Covid.


"Trump failed at ruining the economy before he ruined the economy."


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> As for your point that fascism is a socialist ideology, one of Hitler's first acts was to abolish unions, which are all but necessary to a socialist society. In Hitler's regime, the people never owned the means of production, it was solely controlled by the Nazi Party and their affiliates. It was not socialism, no matter what it called itself.


Unions are a communist idea, not socialist in the general terms. You're confusing theory and practice, which is exactly what differentiates communism and fascism (same theory, different practice).



Darth Meteos said:


> It's important to understand more about the subject of left-vs-right and not getting informed second-hand by partisans. At least read the Wikipedia page on it. It's the most basic research, and it will give you a broad understanding of what the world at large refers to as "Far-Right."


How about you read what fascism is from the point of view of their own creators rather than some wikipedia page?
Mussollini and Hitler both started within socialist parties (and got out of them to form their own because they considered them to be "far too weak").

You can read the "Nazi-Soci" (Manual of National Socialism), Mein Kampf and pretty much any history book about the origins of nazis and fascism as radical socialist ideologies.
The nazis considered themselves "the true socialists" which is why they were at war with communists (they considered communism to be an incorrect way to apply socialism, an unreachable utopia full of idiots ad illiterates).

The fascists hated democracy and capitalism, they controlled all media (used for propaganda and manipulation), they controlled all means of productions (VolksWaggen was even created under Hitlers command, not by pure luck of free market).
If the nazis and fascists are not socialist, then what the hell do you consider socialism then?

It seems to me most of you wanna-be socialists don't even know what socialism really is and how dangerous it becomes when radicalized (it literary either becomes communism or fascism and none of which are any good for anyone).


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I've already said this, but as monthly job gains continue unchanged, the unemployment rate is going to go down. The reason monthly job gains continued, however, is because the previous administration started with a booming economy left by Obama, and the amount of jobs gained per month didn't change until the pandemic. Mentioning the unemployment rate going down under the previous administration doesn't refute my point the way you think it does. In fact, it supports my point. To put it another way, we can look at the jobs numbers and unemployment numbers objectively, and we can predict what the unemployment number would become if monthly job gains continued unchanged. Spoiler alert: The unemployment numbers we saw during the former administration matched what we would expect if nothing changed. If the former administration had at all improved the economy, we would have seen steeper monthly job gains and steeper reduction of unemployment. You don't seem to understand that the number of new jobs added per month did not change between Obama leaving and the pandemic, and I don't know how else to explain this to you. However, based on the snappiness, I'm assuming you are getting far more frustrated than I am. I'm happy to drop this if it's making you mad.
> 
> You should also reread Foxi4's post. It doesn't say what you think it says. I agree with him that comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive. You're the one who doesn't understand why.



Lol.  Strong projection game.  Try telling me how we can have upticks in the rate of job gain as unemployment gets closer to zero?  (The point you missed twice now).  The lack of infrastructure to support these jobs and the lack of eligible workforce is going to cause the monthly rate to plateau and then decline if left alone.  If everyone is employed, you will see NO gains (or if we account for population growth and all those other kinds of variables it would still be considered neglible in light of the claim that "sustaining the employment growth rate at record highs is not meaningful") As per the facts that @Foxi4 mentioned, there was a lot of work internally to make more people eligible for employment, which mathematically should compound the "meaning" of the rate of growth being sustained.  I mean, if you want to live in a world where everyone being on welfare = no unemployment, then you are chasing the meme.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Try telling me how we can have upticks in the rate of job gain as unemployment gets closer to zero?


As more jobs are created, fewer people will be unemployed. That's the case regardless of whether or not the rate of job growth increases. The rate of job growth did not increase under the former administration; it was the same level it was when Obama left office (until the pandemic).


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> As more jobs are created, fewer people will be unemployed. That's the case regardless of whether or not the rate of job growth increases. The rate of job growth did not increase under the former administration; it was the same level it was when Obama left office (until the pandemic).



Dust off your calculus skills and acknowledge the limits imposed by the available workforce.  There is a parabolic relationship that you aren't grasping.

Also, I don't understand how you can agree with @Foxi4's statement that comparing Trump-era unemployment to Obama-era unemployment is intentionally deceptive, yet keep doing that.  The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are intentionally being deceptive.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Dust off your calculus skills and acknowledge the limits imposed by the available workforce.  There is a parabolic relationship that you aren't grasping.
> 
> Also, I don't understand how you can agree with @Foxi4's statement that comparing Trump-era unemployment to Obama-era unemployment is intentionally deceptive, yet keep doing that.  The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are intentionally being deceptive.


The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are confusing unemployment for monthly job gains.


----------



## Valwinz (May 12, 2021)

Really makes you think on the Biden disaster how all that way gain is now gone because Biden wants more wars 
Only 8 months ago... pic.twitter.com/37BSt0anMD— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) May 12, 2021


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are confusing unemployment for monthly job gains.



I'm insisting that there is a relationship between monthly job gains and unemployment you are stubbornly resisting to acknowledge.  You are persisting in injecting Obama.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Really makes you think on the Biden disaster how all that way gain is now gone because Biden wants more wars
> https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1392271698947366916


I hope you understand that present events demonstrate the former administration didn't actually accomplish anything eight months ago.



tabzer said:


> I'm insisting that there is a relationship between monthly job gains and unemployment


My entire argument is there's a relationship between monthly job gains and unemployment. I suggest you reread my posts.


----------



## Valwinz (May 12, 2021)

I dont know why people bother with Lucius is clear no matter what Biden does he is going to defend the  Biden disaster


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> I dont know why people bother with Lucius is clear no matter what Biden does he is going to defend the  Biden disaster


First, that's not my name. Second, you say you don't get why people bother with me, but you are bothering with me. Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to respond to me and/or talk about me.

I am not going to defend Biden "no matter what." I have plenty of criticisms of Biden. I'm merely pointing out what you've gotten wrong or omitted in response to, respectfully, what I think most people would call your shitposts.

As for "Biden disaster," Biden had an approval rating of 63% on May 10. The former president had a 38.6% aggregate approval rating when he left office. I think it's clear who the disaster was, which is probably part of why Biden defeated his predecessor. Thank you for the reminder.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I hope you understand that present events demonstrate the former administration didn't actually accomplish anything eight months ago.
> 
> 
> My entire argument is there's a relationship between monthly job gains and unemployment. I suggest you reread my posts.



You aren't being accountable to the fact I've plainly stated that there is a limitation of job growth to available workforce.  You suggest that job growth rate can and should continually accelerate, exceding available workforce, in a successful political-economic environment.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You suggest that job growth rate can and should continually accelerate, exceding available workforce, in a successful political-economic environment.


Never once did I make this argument.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Never once did I make this argument.


Oh, you saw it this time.  Does this mean you can acknowledge that there is a limitation of job growth rate to available workforce?  Or are you being coy?


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Oh, you saw it this time.  Does this mean you can acknowledge that there is a limitation of job growth rate to available workforce?  Or are you being coy?


There's no evidence that's what happened during the former administration, or the one before that.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There are no reports of her getting any mortgages though, so this is all in your imagination until proven otherwise.



There are no reports what she ate for breakfast, or the last time she took a dump.

It's the same thinking that results in black people being pulled over because police have no evidence that the black person could afford a nice car.



Foxi4 said:


> Don't hit the ceiling beams with this L you're carrying around, it's only getting bigger.



Like every other thought you have, it's delusional.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Remember, the goal is to get rid of using fossil fuels and the Democrats aren't going to care who they hurt in the process.



Is that worse than Trump whose goal was to continue using fossil fuels and didn't care who he hurt in the process? Do you care who you hurt by continuing to use fossil fuels?



Foxi4 said:


> Comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive



And still Trump did it.



It's good to see that the majority of the US people saw through the deception in the end.



tabzer said:


> Do you honestly believe that the closer you get to 0% unemployment that it is reasonable or even possible to continually increase the rate of employment?



Yes, you can keep hiring people at 0% unemployement because of immigration.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> LOL.
> 
> Apparently you don't recall the numerous times Biden said he's going to do away with fossil fuels and move us to depend on more cleaner solutions. Biden did indeed brag on national television that he's going to do away with gasoline. While the pipeline virus and panic buying weren't planned the rise in price right before that was. We will continue to see tactics by the Biden administration that will limit the amount of gas there is on the market for the time being. They are just getting warmed up. Remember, the goal is to get rid of using fossil fuels and the Democrats aren't going to care who they hurt in the process.
> 
> ...


The goal is to reduce and largely eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but nobody in the Democratic Party wants to do that by suddenly taking away physical access to gasoline. That would be an economic nightmare. What's going on now is the result of a cyber attack.

What we need to do is eliminate tax subsides for the oil industry, raise taxes on gasoline (this can be a slow process that speeds up over time), give more credits for purchasing electric cars, ban (or disincentivize with taxes) the sale of gas vehicles, and expand the EV charging infrastructure.

Note: The above specifically focuses on vehicles and not the larger issue of renewable energy.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I've never seen anyone show symptoms of spontaneous amnesia before. She purchased 4 properties in the US worth in excess of 3.2 million dollars altogether, however we only knew the value of the 3 properties bought in LA, as in the values at the time of purchase ($590k, $510k and $1.4m respectively).



The $1.4m is the total of the three, so I think you've double counted the first two properties.

_One of the Los Angeles properties cost $510,000 when Khan-Cullors purchased it in 2016. A second Los Angeles home ran her $590,000 in 2018, the Post reported. A suburban Atlanta property was purchased for $415,000 in 2020._

In terms of buy to let properties, that is totally reasonable.

Quite how you got to $3.2 million is another matter.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2021)

smf said:


> The $1.4m is the total of the three, so I think you've double counted the first two properties.
> 
> _One of the Los Angeles properties cost $510,000 when Khan-Cullors purchased it in 2016. A second Los Angeles home ran her $590,000 in 2018, the Post reported. A suburban Atlanta property was purchased for $415,000 in 2020._
> 
> ...


The amnesia strikes again - let me help. She bought 3 (that's t-h-r-e-e) properties in Los Angeles, California and 1 (that's o-n-e) property in Atlanta, Georgia. The LA properties (again, t-h-r-e-e of them) were purchased for $510k, $590k and $1.4m respectively, the first 2 (t-w-o) in 2016, the 3rd (t-h-i-r-d) this year. *In addition* to those 3 (t-h-r-e-e) LA properties she also purchased a 4th (f-o-u-r-t-h) property in Georgia in 2020 which we didn't know the value of - thank you for supplying it, it was $415k, that makes things easier. She spent a little shy of $3m.

We also know that her portfolio, at present, is valued at $3.2m due to appreciation. Are we done doing basic math here? Because I'm done talking about this. If you think a loan that size, or anywhere close to it, is sensible in any shape or form to a bank that exists on planet Earth then there's no point in discussing this with me, I don't deal with delusion and I'm done deliberating hypothetical scenarios of mortgages that you pulled out of a hat and have no evidence for. Oh, and before you say "but Foxi, she might have multiple mortgages", debt is cumulative. She would not be approved based on her known stated income, even with appearance fees and the proceeds from the book.

EDIT: As an interesting side note, Cullors' non-profit Dignity and Power Now has failed to supply an audited financial statement necessary to retain its status as a non-profit, as a result their 2019 tax filings were rejected and after being warned by the AG multiple times they're making moves to relocate to a different state, presumably North Carolina, instead of accurately reporting their financial to the IRS...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blm-patrisse-cullors-financial-records-nonprofit-california

...which makes it seem like there's financial impropriety going on. The organisation currently has delinquent status, but it seems that it's still operating regardless. Dignity and Power Now reported no payments made to Cullors in their rejected filings, which is very curious considering she's the chair of the organisation. If course she might be working for free and making no income from that organisation - likely story, and one that further undermines your imaginary mortgage theory.


----------



## Valwinz (May 12, 2021)

The Biden economy everyone 
Gas prices are rising. Auto prices are soaring. Consumer goods companies are charging more for household basics like toilet paper, peanut butter and soft drinks. All of which is resurrecting fears of an economic threat: Runaway inflation. https://t.co/OW1bhjpyd4— The Associated Press (@AP) May 12, 2021


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden economy everyone
> https://twitter.com/AP/status/1392540341040041986


You probably shouldn't be bringing attention to direct consequences of the March-April part of the pandemic in 2020, considering it happened under the former administration.


----------



## Valwinz (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You probably shouldn't be bringing attention to direct consequences of the March-April part of the pandemic in 2020, considering it happened under the former administration.



it only took Biden  6 months to rek everything

i preferred the mean tweets atleast the middle east wasn't turning into a warzone


----------



## AncientBoi (May 12, 2021)

Donald Trump is an awful [and smelly] piece of ! make that 2 pieces of  !


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 12, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> The fascists hated democracy and capitalism, they controlled all media (used for propaganda and manipulation), they controlled all means of productions (VolksWaggen was even created under Hitlers command, not by pure luck of free market).
> If the nazis and fascists are not socialist, then what the hell do you consider socialism then?


Bro, you said it yourself
The government owned the means of production in fascist Germany, socialism is the people owning the means of production
They are polar opposites


Acid_Snake said:


> Unions are a communist idea, not socialist in the general terms. You're confusing theory and practice, which is exactly what differentiates communism and fascism (same theory, different practice)


this is incoherent, dude
please, just understand that you are mistaken about so many things, and you can rectify this by doing just a tiny bit of reading about the difference between the concepts of fascism, communism and socialism

*socialism* is primarily about redistributing wealth and power to make the system bottom-up, where the masses control the means of production through direct democracy in workplaces and government

*communism* is a governmental ownership of most goods, services and properties, with the intent to eliminate classes in society through an equal distribution of wealth to all, headed by a ruling council, preferably of unions, but it has never been achieved, since the primary examples were two-class societies, rather than the end-goal of a no-class society

*fascism* is a totalitarian ideology held up by a single dictator with a cult of personality, all but a monarch, with a rigid hierarchy of citizens, usually divided by race more so than class

they are not compatible at all
all three are very different


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> it only took Biden  6 months to rek everything


The inflation you're referencing is a consequence of recovering from the worst economy since the Great Depression. You can, in part, thank the last administration for that.



Valwinz said:


> atleast the middle east wasn't turning into a warzone


This is probably the most absurd thing you've ever posted, and that's saying something.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You probably shouldn't be bringing attention to direct consequences of the March-April part of the pandemic in 2020, considering it happened under the former administration.


when you're thinking about responding to valwinz, here's a helpful acronym:
*D.O.N.T!*

*D*on't do it
*O*h, don't do it
*N*ever do it
*T*he hell are you still reading this for


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> when you're thinking about responding to valwinz, here's a helpful acronym:
> *D.O.N.T!*
> 
> *D*on't do it
> ...


I like responding to @Valwinz. It doesn't require a lot of thought, so it's like a mini-vacation for my brain.


----------



## djpannda (May 12, 2021)

Funny people want to Blame Biden for Trump's Sugar Daddy cyberattack and Blaming Biden results of the last Admin. What even funnier Is some claim The fact we are not defending Biden like a Cult Leader the reason he did not get 81mill votes.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I like responding to @Valwinz. It doesn't require a lot of thought, so it's like a mini-vacation for my brain.


yeah, but it also causes it to intensify its cringeposting
remember, _*D.O.N.T*!_


----------



## SG854 (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> yeah, but it also causes it to intensify its cringeposting
> remember, _*D.O.N.T*!_


I like my acronym better

*D.A.R.E!*

Do Always Reply Everytime

I D.A.R.E. you to reply. 

You need to not let these people have the last say or else they'll think it's a victory like you chickened out.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Funny people want to Blame Biden for Trump's Sugar Daddy cyberattack and Blaming Biden results of the last Admin. What even funnier Is some claim The fact we are not defending Biden like a Cult Leader the reason he did not get 81mill votes.
> View attachment 262691


It's like when conservatives, including some on this website, posted memes of violent protests, wildfires, etc., and said it's what would happen in "Biden's America." The ridiculousness was apparently lost on them, given it was "Trump's America" they were posting images of.



Darth Meteos said:


> yeah, but it also causes it to intensify its cringeposting
> remember, _*D.O.N.T*!_


I like the cringe posting. It serves to exemplify how ridiculous conservatives are.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 12, 2021)

SG854 said:


> You need to not let these people have the last say or else they'll think it's a victory like you chickened out.


that's stupid
they'll think they won if you obliterate their bloodline in glorious combat
it wants to generate angery responses, so... *D.O.N.T
*


Lacius said:


> I like the cringe posting. It serves to exemplify how ridiculous conservatives are.


what is your goal
it will look silly if you leave it to respond and everyone just ignores it
just... *D.O.N.T*


----------



## Seliph (May 12, 2021)

The worst thing about this is that Biden is the most boring-ass lame loser president in the world but Conservatives want to act like he's some sort of "far-left Marxist monster" and make absurd hyperbolic or simply false claims about him just because he's not a Republican. To simply prove these claims wrong makes it seem like you're defending Biden when you're just... stating facts to prove the absurd claims wrong... but at that point it doesn't even matter because now you're arguing on the other person's absurd terms where you're stuck proving dumbass claims wrong instead of having an actual meaningful discourse about Biden's real and actually important faults.

I think this video sums it up really well


Biden is just perpetuating the same agenda as the Trump administration and every administration before Trump, just with a cutesy liberal flair. Biden is not some "radical leftist" he's just another president acting out the goals and conquests of the American empire.


----------



## SG854 (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> that's stupid
> they'll think they won if you obliterate their bloodline in glorious combat
> it wants to generate angery responses, so... *D.O.N.T
> *
> ...


Responses don't need to be angry


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

Seliph said:


> The worst thing about this is that Biden is the most boring-ass lame loser president in the world but Conservatives want to act like he's some sort of "far-left Marxist monster" and make absurd hyperbolic or simply false claims about him just because he's not a Republican. To simply prove these claims wrong makes it seem like you're defending Biden when you're just... stating facts to prove the absurd claims wrong... but at that point it doesn't even matter because now you're arguing on the other person's absurd terms where you're stuck proving dumbass claims wrong instead of having an actual meaningful discourse about Biden's real and actually important faults.
> 
> I think this video sums it up really well



I prefer boring over what we had with the last president.



Darth Meteos said:


> that's stupid
> they'll think they won if you obliterate their bloodline in glorious combat
> it wants to generate angery responses, so... *D.O.N.T
> *
> ...


I guess my goal is to let it shitpost so much that it eventually shitposts itself.


----------



## SG854 (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I prefer boring over what we had with the last president.
> 
> 
> I guess my goal is to let it shitpost so much that it eventually shitposts itself.


I like how you call it an it


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I like how you call it an it


I'm not the one who started it.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 12, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I like how you call it an it


well, it's a bot
all it does is post catchphrases and shitposts


SG854 said:


> Responses don't need to be angry


after two hours of circling the same point, you will become angry
and you will have lost
there is nothing to be gained from conversing with it
just *D.O.N.T*


----------



## Seliph (May 12, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I prefer boring over what we had with the last president.



Oh certainly I agree, I just wanted to point out how dumb and stagnant this discourse has been and that functionally and materially Biden is not too different from Trump


----------



## djpannda (May 12, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I like how you call it an it


lol sorry What popped in my head was
"hello I am a Russian bot and I identify as it/troll"


----------



## SG854 (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> well, it's a bot
> all it does is post catchphrases and shitposts
> 
> after two hours of circling the same point, you will become angry
> ...


Apparently its creators forgot to give it Deep Learning A.I. 

Valwin failed its tests to incorporate itself successfully into human society. You would think the revision Valwinz would come back bigger and better then ever.


----------



## Valwinz (May 12, 2021)

Welp that explains it Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1392575130015080450


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> well, it's a bot
> all it does is post catchphrases and shitposts



It seemed to recognize Lucius.  Are bots programmed to interact with each other?


----------



## Xzi (May 12, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Welp that explains it https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1392575130015080450


Good, fuck Israel and their stormtroopers.  A Palestinian throws a rock at a fence and Israel murders a couple thousand children in response.  Netanyahu deserves to have pineapples shoved up his ass until he dies.


----------



## AmandaRose (May 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Good, fuck Israel and their stormtroopers.  A Palestinian throws a rock at a fence and Israel murders a couple thousand children in response.  Netanyahu deserves to have pineapples shoved up his ass until he dies.


And sadly Israel murdered the poor Palestinians with weapons supplied by past American governments. And yet some here see Biden in the wrong for giving support funds to the Palestinians go figure. 

Some people here really need to listen to the Clash song Washington Bullets.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Good, fuck Israel and their stormtroopers.  A Palestinian throws a rock at a fence and Israel murders a couple thousand children in response.  Netanyahu deserves to have pineapples shoved up his ass until he dies.





AmandaRose said:


> And sadly Israel murdered the poor Palestinians with weapons supplied by past American governments. And yet some here see Biden in the wrong for giving support funds to the Palestinians go figure.
> 
> Some people here really need to listen to the Clash song Washington Bullets.


Unfortunately, that will be as far as Biden's support for Palestine is allowed to go. We're back to the tired old line of Israel having the "right to defend itself" despite this being the complete opposite of what's actually going on. Same bullshit as always from both sides.

Biden says he spoke to Netanyahu and hopes for end to violence


----------



## smf (May 12, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> She spent a little shy of $3m.



So not $3m then. Your lies keep unraveling.

When you make a mistake you hand waive over it, when others disagree or make a mistake you pretend like you're a winner. How do you actually function in real life like this? Are you on disability benefits?

It's still racist to think she had to steal the money.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 12, 2021)

Seliph said:


> The worst thing about this is that Biden is the most boring-ass lame loser president in the world but Conservatives want to act like he's some sort of "far-left Marxist monster" and make absurd hyperbolic or simply false claims about him just because he's not a Republican. To simply prove these claims wrong makes it seem like you're defending Biden when you're just... stating facts to prove the absurd claims wrong... but at that point it doesn't even matter because now you're arguing on the other person's absurd terms where you're stuck proving dumbass claims wrong instead of having an actual meaningful discourse about Biden's real and actually important faults.
> 
> 
> I think this video sums it up really well




"Relax. They're not a steaming hot pile of shit. They've just got shit smeared all over them, that's all."



(BTW, I respect your right to think the last administration had shit smeared all over them too.)


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 12, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It seemed to recognize Lucius.  Are bots programmed to interact with each other?


this is such a sad attempt at comedy that i actually had to respond to tell you to seek help



SG854 said:


> Valwin failed its tests to incorporate itself successfully into human society. You would think the revision Valwinz would come back bigger and better then ever.


anything with misha on it is an improvement on the previous model



Xzi said:


> Netanyahu deserves to have pineapples shoved up his ass until he dies.


in the middle east, they generally use bayonets in place of the pineapples


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It seemed to recognize Lucius.  Are bots programmed to interact with each other?


In fairness, it recognized "Lucius," not me.


----------



## Valwinz (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Good, fuck Israel and their stormtroopers.  A Palestinian throws a rock at a fence and Israel murders a couple thousand children in response.  Netanyahu deserves to have pineapples shoved up his ass until he dies.


I had no idea gbatemp had antisemites making stuff up we got a Hitler youth here


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

smf said:


> So not $3m then. Your lies keep unraveling.
> 
> When you make a mistake you hand waive over it, when others disagree or make a mistake you pretend like you're a winner. How do you actually function in real life like this? Are you on disability benefits?
> 
> It's still racist to think she had to steal the money.


I'm going to ignore your attempts at flame baiting me to turn this conversation into a mud fight. I did not make a mistake, the cumulative value of the properties in question *is* $3.2m at the time of writing. That is their worth. What I *actually* said was that we didn't know what the price tag on the Georgia property was at the time the discussion took place, my educated guess was actually pretty spot-on. However, since that was an unknown variable, I generously assumed it cost *zero dollars* and the calculus still didn't make sense given her stated income. Now that we know the value at the time of purchase we can safely say that she spent $2.915m total, a little shy of $3m, on the four properties at the time of purchase, which is an extraordinary spend within the time span in question. I never said that she stole any money, I said that the transactions are suspect, especially considering the fact that her non-profit doesn't seem to be on good terms with the IRS. For all I care she could be magenta and my opinion on the matter wouldn't change - if all you have to offer as a rebuttal is the race card then you can take your big L and wear it around your neck on an equally big chain, I've lost interest in discussing Patrisse Cullors and her financials - California's AG can look into that, if she ever provides an accurate and audited record. As far as I'm concerned, the conversation is over, all the facts are on the table. You can pretend to be a goofball all you want - at the end of the day she somehow managed to conjure up approx. $3m out of thin air, or managed to convince a bank to loan her a sum close to that, while having no income from her non-profit and miniscule income from her consultancy firm and BLM, which makes zero sense for anyone who has ever applied for a mortgage in this universe. Speaking on hand-waiving mistakes, now would be the time to admit that you were muddying the waters by attempting to pass off the $1.4m purchase as some kind of cumulative amount as opposed to a fourth property. In all fairness, I'm not expecting you to do that since you seem to have some kind of unexplained vested interest in defending a stranger's name online, an interest that doesn't seem to be shared by her fellow BLM members who, as I stated earlier, also find her property binge to be exceedingly suspect.


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Good, fuck Israel and their stormtroopers.  A Palestinian throws a rock at a fence and Israel murders a couple thousand children in response.  Netanyahu deserves to have pineapples shoved up his ass until he dies.



And when USA does it to other countries, its fine and okay? Palestina and Israël should sit together and talk it out, the whole thing is about some divided ground. Israël doesnt want to give Palestina its own ground to stand on, thus the whole attacking thing to one another.

Im not a Trump fan, but when he was president there were no wars, talked to one big tyrant in North Korea and did his best to keep America safe. Even destroyed one of the most dangerous chief in the middle east who was commander of one of the most inhumane groups (Everyone knows who)

Biden is nothing compared to the 4 years that Trump was president, just a sleepy doll in the office. Again, i would never vote for Trump but at least there were no wars.

America have destroyed so many countries, Libya was a country were you could walk safely, nowdays its nothing like it was after America's involvement. I understand that some tyrants arent good, but look how the middle east is a mess now. Suddendly now that Biden is president we are hearing about those inhumane thugs who we didnt hear much from for 4 years.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> I had no idea gbatemp had antisemites making stuff up we got a Hitler youth here


That's rich coming from a member of cult 45.  News flash: any Jewish person with an ounce of sense hates the actions of Israel and Netanyahu just as much as I do.



DoubleDate said:


> And when USA does it to other countries, its fine and okay?


No, I never said or implied that.



DoubleDate said:


> Im not a Trump fan, but when he was president there were no wars


Uhh what?  We were still in Iraq and Afghanistan, he didn't get us out of either war.  And he was perilously close to starting a new one in Iran.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> In fairness, it recognized "Lucius," not me.


Autocorrect maybe?


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's rich coming from a member of cult 45.  News flash: any Jewish person with an ounce of sense hates the actions of Israel and Netanyahu just as much as I do.
> 
> 
> No, I never said or implied that.
> ...



Yes and he started slowly to withdraw the soldiers. Now that they are retreating look how the Taliban is slowly returning, a few weeks ago a woman was publicy flogged.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> And when USA does it to other countries, its fine and okay?


I don't think anybody is arguing it's fine and okay. That's whataboutism.



DoubleDate said:


> Im not a Trump fan, but when he was president there were no wars


This statement is patently false. Trump oversaw numerous wars, increased troop deployments to various countries, and increased drone strikes.



DoubleDate said:


> talked to one big tyrant in North Korea


How did that go?



DoubleDate said:


> and did his best to keep America safe.


Trump did nothing, for example, when Russia allegedly put bounties on the heads of American soldiers. No, he did not do his best to keep the United States safe.



DoubleDate said:


> Biden is nothing compared to the 4 years that Trump was preisdent, just a sleepy doll in the office.


Well, first of all, Biden hasn't been president very long. Second, he is not a "sleepy doll" in office.



DoubleDate said:


> Again, i would never voet for Trump but at least there were no wars.


There were wars.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DoubleDate said:


> Yes and he started slowly to withdraw the soldiers.


That's what he said, but it's not what he did.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Autocorrect maybe?


That wouldn't have happened if he had attempted to tag me.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's rich coming from a member of cult 45.  News flash: any Jewish person with an ounce of sense hates the actions of Israel and Netanyahu just as much as I do.


In all fairness, both sides of the conflict are crap so I'm not entirely sure why anyone would side with one or the other. Palestinian terrorists conduct attacks on Israel on a not-infrequent basis and indiscriminately shoot rockets and mortars across the border wall, Israel in turn is not shy about deploying snipers at the border wall, dropping bombs on suspected terrorist cells and flexing its administrative powers to push Palestinians further and further away while re-settling their villages with its own citizens, presumably without compensation. They both suck, they will always suck and they will never stop lobbing explosives over that wall - if anything, it'd be about time to stop funding either side so as to not further inflame the conflict in the Middle East. The U.S. politicians need to come to terms with the realisation that they can't fix the Middle East - that boat will continue to sink no matter how many dollars you stuff in the holes. It's wasted money that would be better spent on domestic issues, there's enough people suffering in the streets at home to worry about those who are suffering across the pond over what's effectively an old building standing on a pile of sand. They will fight over it until the end of time, nobody will ever change that.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> Yes and he started slowly to withdraw the soldiers. Now that they are retreating look how the Taliban is slowly returning, a few weeks ago a woman was publicy flogged.


So we keep a military presence there forever just to act as a local police force?  Destabilization of the region was always going to be the result of our invasion, and a ton of people said so well before GWB got us involved.  Did he or Cheney care?  Of course not, oil profiteering always comes first with neocons, and Trump was very much a continuation of that line of thinking.  Which is why he pulled our troops from protecting our Kurdish allies and instead stationed them in Saudi Arabia to protect refineries.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That wouldn't have happened if he had attempted to tag me.



I saw no @, what do you mean?


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't think anybody is arguing it's fine and okay. That's whataboutism.
> 
> 
> This statement is patently false. Trump oversaw numerous wars, increased troop deployments to various countries, and increased drone strikes.
> ...




Then you need to search for the dailymail news where the first soldiers were withdrawn from those countries a few years ago.

Sure there were a few minors things or two but things didnt escalate.

As of the thing with North Korea there was to be another talk and the dictator was agreeing to be part of that too, Trumps term ended and nothing came after that.

Also Russia never would make threats, everything was blamed on them during Trumps presidency. I remember always reading the news on daily mail and there was always a part were Russia was blamed for almost everything that went wrong, from cyber hacking to attacks.

Puttin doesnt even show the same respect to Biden as he did to Trump. Why? Because Trump was not afraid to do what he thought that was right. There are a lot of things that i dont agree with the Trump presidency, but around those times i didnt hear about those middle east murder group, now sometimes when i read the news there pops ups something about them carrying out an attack.

Wouldnt surprise me that war things will come up during this upcoming 4 years.

As i said im not a Trump fan, but the world spunned differently during those 4 years.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I saw no @, what do you mean?


That is my point. If he had used the @, and had the courage to tag me, the mistake probably wouldn't have happened.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, both sides of the conflict are crap so I'm not entirely sure why anyone would side with one or the other.


One side has almost all the power in this "struggle" and abuses that power constantly.  They've only continued to get more aggressive ever since Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, a wholly predictable outcome.  "An eye for a fingernail" is no way to govern or command a military.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> Then you need to search for the dailymail news where the first soldiers were withdrawn from those countries a few years ago.
> 
> Sure there were a few minors things or two but things didnt escalate.
> 
> ...


You're ignoring where the former president increased troops, and aside from a troop withdrawal that wouldn't go into effect until after the former president left office, he largely didn't withdrawal troops. The former administration has loosened restrictions preventing casualties, and civilian deaths from air strikes rose considerably. I'm sorry you've bought into various memes like the former president being peaceful or the current president being sleepy, but you are mistaken.

You're timeline of what happened with North Korea is nonsensical and wrong. Talks with North Korea did not stop because the former president didn't win a second term.

Russia demonstrably meddled on the 2016 and 2020 elections, and they're a safe haven for cyber criminals. That's why you heard about them often. The reason Putin isn't kind to Biden is because Putin meddled in the elections to help the former president and hurt Clinton/Biden. There's a reason why the former president never said anything critical of Putin, and it's because he was too busy sucking his dick.

You sound an awful lot like a fan of the former president, because you're spouting a lot of nonsense that's demonstrably untrue.


----------



## KingVamp (May 13, 2021)

The irony of Cheney possibly getting replace by someone that actually voted less with Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This statement is patently false. Trump oversaw numerous wars, increased troop deployments to various countries, and increased drone strikes.


Donald Trump was the first U.S. President that *didn't* start a *new* international conflict since Jimmy Carter. He can't be held liable for conflicts he inherited from previous administrations - his job as commander-in-chief was to oversee them. The long-term plan was always to withdraw soldiers, which may entail a brief increase in activity as a final sweep. In terms of withdrawal, the plan to remove close to half of the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq was announced in November 2020, in addition, he also announced a near-complete withdrawal from Somalia in December 2020:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54968200
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55196130

This is consistent with the coalition's strategy - NATO has already began transferring control over key military installations to Iraqi security forces. Coalition forces, including American troops, have been slowly withdrawing from the region throughout 2020.


Xzi said:


> One side has almost all the power in this "struggle" and abuses that power constantly.  They've only continued to get more aggressive ever since Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, a wholly predictable outcome.  "An eye for a fingernail" is no way to govern or command a military.


Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, I see no reason why the embassy *shouldn't* be there. The fact that the international community refuses to acknowledge the city's status doesn't mean that it suddenly stops being the capital.


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You're ignoring where the former president increased troops, and aside from a troop withdrawal that wouldn't go into effect until after the former president left office, he largely didn't withdrawal troops. The former administration has loosened restrictions preventing casualties, and civilian deaths from air strikes rose considerably. I'm sorry you've bought into various memes like the former president being peaceful or the current president being sleepy, but you are mistaken.
> 
> You're timeline of what happened with North Korea is nonsensical and wrong. Talks with North Korea did not stop because the former president didn't win a second term.
> 
> ...




Well agree to disagree. There is no 100% proof that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections. If Trump would've won the 2020 everyone would say that Russia would have rigged it again

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3770232001

Trump never said that he would've withdraw the soldiers all together but made terms in parts to when soldiers would come back and he did follow that. Of course it didnt happen fast but soldiers did come home, you can find it on Dailymail.

Im not a fan, and as i said earlier i would've never voted for him. Trump did a lot of things that i will never agree with, but we didnt hear about world comflicts that much, media was too busy trying to find the most possible dirt to have him removed from the office, neither did we hear about middle east problems. After Trump got elected those thugs groups together with Putin got eradicated, now they are slowly regrouping, they need to stay eradicated.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The fact that the international community refuses to acknowledge the city's status doesn't mean that it suddenly stops being the capital.


But it does mean that the international community recognizes the need for nuance in this case, and failing to recognize that need has resulted in what we're seeing now.  Whenever the situation called for a screwdriver, Trump would bring a jackhammer.



DoubleDate said:


> but we didnt hear about world comflicts that much, media was too busy trying to find the most possible dirt to have him removed from the office, neither did we hear about middle east problems.


In other words, he was too busy causing problems and conflict at home for the media to cover all the problems and conflict he was creating abroad.  That's not a positive thing, no matter how you try to spin it.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> I had no idea gbatemp had antisemites making stuff up we got a Hitler youth here


look at this
an obvious bait
do you understand why we _*D.O.N.T *_now?
this is not a point to be contested, it's an attempt to cause a flame war
you can be better than this


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Donald Trump was the first U.S. President that *didn't* start a *new* international conflict since Jimmy Carter. He can't be held liable for conflicts he had inherited from previous administrations - his job as commander-in-chief was to oversee them. The long-term plan was always to withdraw soldiers, which may entail a brief increase in activity as a final sweep. In terms of withdrawal, the plan to remove close to half of the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq was announced in November 2020, in addition, he also announced a near-complete withdrawal from Somalia in December 2020:
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54968200
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55196130
> ...


It's a little more complicated than that. The former president removed regulations in place to reduce the number of civilian deaths, and then he proceeded to increase air strikes and the number of civilian casualties. When Trump said he was withdrawing troops in October 2020, it blindsided the military who hadn't heard it before, and it was clearly an election stunt. He also said all Afghanistan troops would be home by the end of the year, but that clearly didn't happen.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DoubleDate said:


> Well agree to disagree. There is no 100% proof that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections. If Trump would've won the 2020 everyone would say that Russia would have rigged it again
> 
> https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3770232001
> 
> ...


There is 100% proof that Russia meddled in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

The former president promised to withdraw all Afghanistan troops by Christmas as an election stunt in October, and he lied.

There is no evidence the media was "too busy looking for dirt" to cover anything. They were covering the corruption, scandals, and criminal wrongdoings of the former president.


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's a little more complicated than that. The former president removed regulations in place to reduce the number of civilian deaths, and then he proceeded to increase air strikes and the number of civilian casualties. When Trump said he was withdrawing troops in October 2020, it blindsided the military who hadn't heard it before, and it was clearly an election stunt. He also said all Afghanistan troops would be home by the end of the year, but that clearly didn't happen.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Can you point out were it shows that there is 100% proof that Russia had anything to do with it? Because i remember the moment Trump was elected many people were looking for a way to remove him from office, even before his term ended 2 weeks prior people were looking a way to get rid of him. From the moment that he became president to the moment that his term ended people were doing everything to have him removed.

If the elections were rigged pretty sure Russia would have done everything to keep him as the US president.

He won in 2016 because people didnt want to have Hillary Clinton as the US president. She lied about a lot of things, including that she was attacked and shot  during a visit to Benghazi, were video's shows that nothing happened. Its simple, people didnt want her, it was either Hillary or Trump and people chose Trump. Its funny because there were other people who went for the US presidency and it was in the end a battle between Hillary and Trump, i guess all those votes who voted for Trump to battle Hillary in the end was rigged as well.

Thing is, when people dont get what they want they blame it on someone else. Russia gets blamed constantly when something bad happens, its tiresome.

Trump in many ways persuaded other countries to stay calm when things were about to get bad.

Media was very obsessed with Trump, there was always an article to read about him. With Biden, i dont hear anything that often because the media isnt that interested in Biden, you see the difference there.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> But it does mean that the international community recognizes the need for nuance in this case, and failing to recognize that need has resulted in what we're seeing now.  Whenever the situation called for a screwdriver, Trump would bring a jackhammer.
> 
> 
> In other words, he was too busy causing problems and conflict at home for the media to cover all the problems and conflict he was creating abroad.  That's not a positive thing, no matter how you try to spin it.


Palestine would be an internationally recognised and sovereign state by now if not for Yasser Arafat who was well-known for refusing to negotiate and rejecting any and all offers of statehood, including ones drafted by the UN. Bill Clinton has a pretty good recollection of what happened at Camp David - hate to link to The Guardian, but oh well:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

Trump didn't make Palestinians hate the Jews - they've hated the Jews since the state of Israel was conjured up into existence at the end of the British Mandate - a less-than-ideal solution, to be fair, but after WWII establishing an independent Jewish state seemed like a relevant priority. Trump didn't make them lob rockets and mortar shells over the border, they've been doing that consistently since the end of the Six-day war.

 Palestinian leaders have been offered land to govern as their own independent state on at least 5 separate occasions since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire:

in 1936 after the Arab Revolt, by the Peel Commission
in 1947, by the UN
in 1967 after the conclusion of the Six Day War, by the Israeli government
in 2000 at Camp David, by the Israeli government
in 2008, by the Israeli government
Israel accepted all offers made by third-parties, Palestinian leaders rejected all of them, and often answered with violence. As such, I have to conclude that the two-state solution is not viable and the argument is over a pile of rocks standing on a sand mound, and I can't sympathise with that too much.

With that being said, I also can't sympathise with Israel too much either - they are heavy-handed in their approach. It's the definition of a Jewish ethnostate, and it operates this way by design. The Jewish government is more than happy to use its military might against what amounts to insurgents with RPG's. The tragic part is that both sides are funded with the U.S. dollar and, if the last century is anything to go by, this conflict will continue for as long as the two sides have the means to continue it.

In short, both sides suck. Palestinians might be at a military disadvantage, however they've made it clear that they don't want peace, they want to win. If they keep refusing offers of a two-state solution, I see no reason why Palestine should be recognised as a state at all - technically it's all Israeli land. The Israeli government, in a pretty generous move, already bestowed autonomy to it and allowed Palestinians to govern it as they please in the Oslo Accords. That didn't stop the violence, so I'm under no delusion that a more passive response from Israel would when their citizens are regularly attacked with rockets, mortar fire and suicide bombers.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> Can you point out were it shows that there is 100% proof that Russia had anything to do with it?


If you won't take the word of every single US intelligence agency (most of which are fairly right-leaning), then there's nothing else that's gonna convince you.



DoubleDate said:


> Media was very obsessed with Trump, there was always an article to read about him. With Biden, i dont hear anything that often because the media isnt that interested in Biden, you see the difference there.


The difference is that Biden doesn't start a new scandal every day to distract from the previous day's scandal.  Constantly saying or doing things that are divisive and damaging to democracy makes for good TV, but not for good governance.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's a little more complicated than that. The former president removed regulations in place to reduce the number of civilian deaths, and then he proceeded to increase air strikes and the number of civilian casualties. When Trump said he was withdrawing troops in October 2020, it blindsided the military who hadn't heard it before, and it was clearly an election stunt. He also said all Afghanistan troops would be home by the end of the year, but that clearly didn't happen.


By the end of the year the U.S. Military had to comply with a new NATO plan aiming at training the security forces, this includes American forces which are part of the coalition. What's not that simple is coming to terms with the fact that every single American president since Carter poked at least one ant hill to build a nice war legacy for themselves. The fact that Trump *didn't* do that makes him a notable exception that's worth some acknowledgement.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> Can you point out were it shows that there is 100% proof that Russia had anything to do with it? Because i remember the moment Trump was elected many people were looking for a way to remove him from office, even before his term ended 2 weeks prior people were looking a way to get rid of him. From the moment that he became president to the moment that his term ended people were doing everything to have him removed.
> 
> If the elections were rigged pretty sure Russia would have done everything to keep him as the US president.
> 
> ...


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections


----------



## Valwinz (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's rich coming from a member of cult 45.  News flash: any Jewish person with an ounce of sense hates the actions of Israel and Netanyahu just as much as I do.
> 
> 
> No, I never said or implied that.
> ...


Hitlerjugend is lecturing me


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What's not that simple is coming to terms with the fact that every single American president since Carter poked at least one ant hill to build a nice war legacy for themselves. The fact that Trump *didn't* do that makes him a notable exception that's worth some acknowledgement.


Trump poked the shit out of Iran's ant hill, to the point where he was asking about authorization to go to war AFTER he had already lost the election to Biden.  There's no question what would've happened if he had won a second term.


----------



## Valwinz (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections


Wikipedia was not accepted as a source in al the schools I was


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Hitlerjugend is lecturing me


Continued membership of cult 45 requires either a confederate or swastika flag hanging inside your house, so yes, me > you.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Wikipedia was not accepted as a source in al the schools I was


Wikipedia is the greatest compendium of information on this planet. It wasn't accepted as a  source because it is, as I said, a compendium, not a primary source. In other words, your English class rightfully didn't accept it, but it wasn't because it wasn't factually correct. If you want to cite the information on Wikipedia, read what's in the sources at the bottom of the page, and cite that.

If you have a problem with anything on Wikipedia, change it and cite your sources.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Hitlerjugend is lecturing me


It's not anti-semetic to rightfully condemn bad policies and bad politicians. Israel is not immune to criticism.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Trump poked the shit out of Iran's ant hill, to the point where he was asking about authorization to go to war AFTER he had already lost the election to Biden.  There's no question what would've happened if he had won a second term.


Was there no question about it? Trump was well-known for moves like this in order to spook the other side - his treatment of North Korea wasn't dissimilar. "Play along or I will rain trouble on you like you've never seen" is a part of his play book, and since neither one of us has a crystal ball, neither one of us can speculate on any potential coulda shoulda woulda. As for poking Iran, I'm not too opposed to it as long as we're blowing up terrorists and war criminals. Soleimani had it coming, I won't shed a tear over a general that presided over literal massacres of civilians.


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> If you won't take the word of every single US intelligence agency (most of which are fairly right-leaning), then there's nothing else that's gonna convince you.
> 
> 
> The difference is that Biden doesn't start a new scandal every day to distract from the previous day's scandal.  Constantly saying or doing things that are divisive and damaging to democracy makes for good TV, but not for good governance.




Did you follow the 2016 elections well? Because i've seen so many people commenting that in no hell way they would have chosen Hillary Clinton, most of the people were convinced that Trump was a more better option than to go for Hillary Clinton.

As of your last part of the message, that is not true at all, didnt matter what Trump said, even if it was good the media was always there trying to mock him off make fun of him. Why? Because it made them money that is why, people are not that interested to see that wit Biden, most of the comments that i see even on Dailymail they are calling him an old senile man. I have nothing against Biden, but there is a huge difference between his presidency and that of Trump.

Trump did many things that other presidents are not even interested to do because they rather keep the enemies as their frenemies when it suits them.

Every move that Trump did you saw everywhere tabloids about it, while if Biden says something its news but not that big, again it doesnt sell, it doesnt benefits the media outlets.

If the 2016 elections were rigged, then why did many Americans choose Trump as one final candidate? As i said before people didnt want Hillary as the US president then.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Was there no question about it? Trump was well-known for moves like this in order to spook the other side - his treatment of North Korea wasn't dissimilar. "Play along or I will rain trouble on you like you've never seen" is a part of his play book


None at all.  He was obsessed with being a "war time president" and cosplaying in military uniforms, and the Soleimani assassination showed his willingness to escalate.  His treatment of North Korea was not at all similar, he gave Un everything he could've possibly wanted and the US received nothing in return.  There was no show of force involved, only a show of Trump's weakness and willingness to roll over for the "right kind" of dictator.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That is my point. If he had used the @, and had the courage to tag me, the mistake probably wouldn't have happened.


He was talking about you and not to you. I didn't read an attempt to tag you.  Maybe he was talking to people like me?


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> I have nothing against Biden, but there is a huge difference between his presidency and that of Trump.


Yes, there is.  Biden brings experience and stability to the table, even if he is a neolib.  Trump brought nothing but chaos, division, and idiocy to the federal government, his only prior experience being in reality TV (and even then the production crew had to treat him like he was brain dead).



DoubleDate said:


> Every move that Trump did you saw everywhere tabloids about it, while if Biden says something its news but not that big, again it doesnt sell, it doesnt benefits the media outlets.


It's not the president's responsibility to keep profits high for sensationalist media outlets.  This just furthers the point I already made: what makes for good reality TV makes for piss-poor governance, and vice-versa.  I don't want to give the Republican party any bright ideas, but for all the difference it would've made they might as well have nominated Ryan Seacrest instead.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

tabzer said:


> He was talking about you and not to you. I didn't read an attempt to tag you.  Maybe he was talking to people like me?


When you talk about someone, you should generally tag them, unless you're a coward.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> None at all.  He was obsessed with being a "war time president" and cosplaying in military uniforms, and the Soleimani assassination showed his willingness to escalate.  His treatment of North Korea was not at all similar, he gave Un everything he could've possibly wanted and the US received nothing in return.  There was no show of force involved, only a show of Trump's weakness and willingness to roll over for the "right kind" of dictator.


He was the first U.S. President to ever set foot in North Korea, period - it was an enormous diplomatic success. US-NK relations have greatly warmed since his visit. For years North Korean leaders have repeatedly stated that they will never agree to denuclearization, now this prospect seems far more achievable with Kim Jong-un pledging not to use or proliferate nuclear arms in his 2019 New Year's Address, in stark contrast to his previous statements. Say what you will about Trump, but he did ease tensions in the region. We'll see where that goes going forward, I don't expect little North Korea to cause anyone much grief, they're not a relevant player on the world stage.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> He was the first U.S. President to ever set foot in North Korea, period - it was an enormous diplomatic success.


It's the opposite, legitimizing a ruthless dictator and receiving nothing in return is an unequivocal failure of diplomacy.



Foxi4 said:


> Say what you will about Trump, but he did ease tensions in the region.


He really didn't, the relationship between Trump and Un had completely soured by the time the election rolled around.  For that matter, we can't even be sure Un is still alive, which would mean all that effort to butter him up was a total waste.



Foxi4 said:


> We'll see where that goes going forward, I don't expect little North Korea to cause anyone much grief, they're not a relevant player on the world stage.


They'll keep doing the same thing they've always done, puff up their chest and fire a 'test' missile every six months to a year.  I agree that it's meaningless and NK is just a bit player, but that's all the more reason Trump never should've bent over backwards for them.


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yes, there is.  Biden brings experience and stability to the table, even if he is a neolib.  Trump brought nothing but chaos, division, and idiocy to the federal government, his only prior experience being in reality TV (and even then the production crew had to treat him like he was brain dead).
> 
> 
> It's not the president's responsibility to keep profits high for sensationalist media outlets.  This just furthers the point I already made: what makes for good reality TV makes for piss-poor governance, and vice-versa.  I don't want to give the Republican party any bright ideas, but for all the difference it would've made they might as well have nominated Ryan Seacrest instead.



Looks like you have a vendetta againts Trump, you dont like him, can understand that, as i said i dont agree fully with all what Trump did but what you say that he brought chaos and things like that is not true at all. He fought for what he thought that was right at the time. If there were chaos was because The US was obssessed of removing him from office, seems like he was doing something right that the US politicians didnt like. For 4 years we didnt hear anything about a war, as the person mentioned above me Trump achived more than any other president could do in 4 years. I dont see Obama or Biden go to North Korea during their own presidency, that wouldnt fit their own agenda.

As to the media thing, its that it doesnt prove your point,  the US was so obsessed to impeach him and get rid of him that it made interesting for people to follow. No one cares about Biden the same way because most of people see him as another regular Joe president as it was Obama, and the most of all who takes the clown crown of dumb decisions Bush. At least Obama was very popular, and to be fair it was fine to have him as a US president.

Trump did made a difference, he didnt follow the kool aid system of all the presidents before him, he choose to do it differently and that pissed a lot of people.

As i said i would never voted for him, but you cant deny that things were different during his presidency.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> Looks like you have a vendetta againts Trump, you dont like him, can understand that, as i said i dont agree fully with all what Trump did but what you say that he brought chaos and things like that is not true at all. He fought for what he thought that was right at the time. If there were chaos was because The US was obssessed of removing him from office, seems like he was doing something right that the US politicians didnt like. For 4 years we didnt hear anything about a war, as the person mentioned above me Trump achived more than any other president could do in 4 years. I dont see Obama or Biden go to North Korea during their own predidency, that wouldnt fit their own agenda.
> 
> As to the media thing, its that it doesnt prove your point,  the US was so obsessed to impeach him and get rid of him that it made interesting for people to follow. No one cares about Biden the same way because most of people see him as another regular Joe president as it was Obama, and the most of all who takes the clown crown of dumb decisions Bush. At least Obama was very popular, and to be fair it was fine to have him as a US president.
> 
> ...


The former president only cared about himself and his interests. He was more than willing to set our democratic norms on fire with lies and conspiracy theories about election fraud because it suit him and his interests.

The media talked about impeachment because the former president committed impeachable offenses.

I don't think anyone here would argue the former president didn't make a difference. The problem is it wasn't a good difference.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> If there were chaos was because The US was obssessed of removing him from office, seems like he was doing something right that the US politicians didnt like.


He was doing shit that over half the country didn't like.  That doesn't mean he was doing things "right," it means he was a divisive jackass who appealed to other divisive jackasses.



DoubleDate said:


> For 4 years we didnt hear anything about a war, as the person mentioned above me Trump achived more than any other president could do in 4 years. I dont see Obama or Biden go to North Korea during their own predidency, that wouldnt fit their own agenda.


As I mentioned above, legitimizing Kim Jong Un was a failure, not a success.  It's almost as ridiculous as bragging about doing business with Stalin.



DoubleDate said:


> Trump did made a different, he didnt follow the kool aid system of all the presidents begore him, he choose to do it differently and that pissed a lot of people.


Different does not mean better when we're talking about a guy who greatly accelerated our decline toward autocracy/fascism.  Most of his tactics were lifted straight from Mein Kampf, the "fake news" circlejerk being the most notable.


----------



## Valwinz (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Wikipedia is the greatest compendium of information on this planet.


HAhaahh what


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> HAhaahh what


Do you have a substantive problem with Wikipedia, or are you just going to shitpost like normal?


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Do you have a substantive problem with Wikipedia, or are you just going to shitpost like normal?


I can see the problem with "depending on what day you visit it" being an issue.  I suppose timestamps and open archive access would be a good enough bypass.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I can see the problem with "depending on what day you visit it" being an issue.  I suppose timestamps and open archive access would be a good enough bypass.


You can already see a complete history of pages with timestamps.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You can already see a complete history of pages with timestamps.



Yeah, so referencing a timestamp in citation should be enough.


----------



## Valwinz (May 13, 2021)

Nobody tell Xzi
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1392580951935434756


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Nobody tell Xzi
> https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1392580951935434756



Oops there goes all his efforts about Israël


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Nobody tell Xzi
> https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1392580951935434756


Yeah, someone already mentioned Biden is trying to do the balancing act on this issue a couple pages back.  It's very disappointing, but not particularly surprising. It's not as though we're going to go to bat for Israel or Palestine militarily, but we've been financially backing Israel for a long time now so there's some ridiculous sunk cost fallacy going on there.  I have no problem with criticizing Biden over that, because I've never pretended he was my idea of the perfect president, and all presidents are meant to be scrutinized, not idolized.  They're public servants, and they're human.  Well, some were more orangutan, but for the most part.


----------



## Seliph (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> And when USA does it to other countries, its fine and okay? Palestina and Israël should sit together and talk it out, the whole thing is about some divided ground. Israël doesnt want to give Palestina its own ground to stand on, thus the whole attacking thing to one another.


It's not really that easy. How do you make peace with a government that wants to erase your existence? How do you "talk it out"? A compromise with the state of Israel is no compromise at all, it is erasure and genocide of the Palestinian people. Israel will not abide to a two-state situation, and even if they did that would still mean Palestinians have lost their homes and land. Think about South Africa or Northern Ireland or the Kashmir region or Colonial America under the yoke of the British empire (or for that matter indigenous America under the yoke of immigrant colonists). Is(was) there peace in these colonized regions? Is there any peace between colonizers and the colonized? No. Of course not. There is only apartheid and oppression and murder of the colonized peoples. None of these situations are good. The only solution that isn't genocide of the Palestinian people is that the government and state of Israel dissolve and the settlers who have colonized Palestinian land and stolen Palestinian homes return to their respective homes, but that will not occur willingly.

This interview with Ghassan Kanafani (who was murdered presumably by the state of Israel of course) sums it up pretty well.



This interview was conducted in the 60s, and 60 years (more than a century really if you think about how long this conflict has been going on for) later it is the same situation now as it was then.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> This interview was conducted in the 60s, and it is the same situation now as it was then.


Nothing ever changes, does it?


----------



## Seliph (May 13, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Nothing ever changes, does it?


War, war never changes.

Unless you're playing Metal Gear Solid 4


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> War, war never changes


I'm still amazed that such a deep quote came from fucking fallout of all places


----------



## Seliph (May 13, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I'm still amazed that such a deep quote came from fucking fallout of all places


To be fair the Fallout games developed by Obsidian (1, 2, and New Vegas) actually had some pretty nuanced takes on the politics of a post-apocalyptic wasteland, lots of interesting ideas. It's a shame Bethesda squandered it. Considering the quote is from the first game I'm not surprised that it's so good; post-Morrowind Bethesda could never have ideas that cool.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> To be fair the Fallout games developed by Obsidian (1, 2, and New Vegas) actually had some pretty nuanced takes on the politics of a post-apocalyptic wasteland, lots of interesting ideas. It's a shame Bethesda squandered it. Considering the quote is from the first game, I'm not surprised that it's good; post-Morrowind Bethesda could never have ideas that cool.


Fallout new vegas is a really good game, it's just a shame it requires 2000 mods to be somewhat playable


----------



## Seliph (May 13, 2021)

I finally found it. A tiger don’t change it’s stripes. https://t.co/VDjUz7qRav— Martin Luther Greens (@Blike_Dante) May 11, 2021
 interesting Biden quote btw. He's literally saying that Israel is important to the American empire because the state of Israel is a good colonial tool for keeping the US's influence active in the Middle East. Once a colonizer always a colonizer.

Also he seems to have fuller hair on the top of his head now than he had back then? That's pretty interesting. Also note the fire behind the way he speaks, you'll never see him speak like this again.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> https://twitter.com/Blike_Dante/status/1392210478462611470 interesting Biden quote btw. He's literally saying that Israel is important to the American empire because the state of Israel is a good colonial tool for keeping the US's influence active in the Middle East. Once a colonizer always a colonizer.
> 
> Also he seems to have fuller hair on the top of his head now than he had back then? That's pretty interesting. Also note the fire behind the way he speaks, you'll never see him speak like this again.


I'd say america is doomed but we've been this way for decades now


----------



## Seliph (May 13, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I'd say america is doomed but we've been this way for decades now


Hey, even Rome fell eventually

And uh

We're looking a lot like Rome rn


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Hey, even Rome fell eventually
> 
> And uh
> 
> We're looking a lot like Rome rn


*realization hits*


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

I too have been asking myself how Biden is doing mentally, he often mispoke himself, and even thought his son Hunter was alive in numerous occasions, sadly his son passed away. I think all of it is a polical played game to let Harris run. We are 5 months in and i think we will see more of things like this in the upcoming months. It would deff not surprise me if at one point Kamala Harris goes from Vice to the US president, i think something like that is going to play out. Nothing againts Mr Biden but something feels off.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...en-suggesting-wasnt-legitimately-elected.html


----------



## Seliph (May 13, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> and even thought his son Hunter was alive in numerous occasions, sadly his son passed away


Did you mean Beau Biden? Hunter is very much still alive.


----------



## DoubleDate (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Did you mean Beau Biden? Hunter is very much still alive.



Apologies, yes Beau. Made a mistake there.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, someone already mentioned Biden is trying to do the balancing act on this issue a couple pages back.  It's very disappointing, but not particularly surprising. It's not as though we're going to go to bat for Israel or Palestine militarily, but we've been financially backing Israel for a long time now so there's some ridiculous sunk cost fallacy going on there.  I have no problem with criticizing Biden over that, because I've never pretended he was my idea of the perfect president, and all presidents are meant to be scrutinized, not idolized.  They're public servants, and they're human.  Well, some were more orangutan, but for the most part.


Why would this be considered a balancing act though? Israel does have the right to defend Israel. It's an internationally recognised, independent, sovereign state.


Seliph said:


> It's not really that easy. How do you make peace with a government that wants to erase your existence? How do you "talk it out"? A compromise with the state of Israel is no compromise at all, it is erasure and genocide of the Palestinian people. Israel will not abide to a two-state situation, and even if they did that would still mean Palestinians have lost their homes and land. Think about South Africa or Northern Ireland or the Kashmir region or Colonial America under the yoke of the British empire (or for that matter indigenous America under the yoke of immigrant colonists). Is(was) there peace in these colonized regions? Is there any peace between colonizers and the colonized? No. Of course not. There is only apartheid and oppression and murder of the colonized peoples. None of these situations are good. The only solution that isn't genocide of the Palestinian people is that the government and state of Israel dissolve and the settlers who have colonized Palestinian land and stolen Palestinian homes return to their respective homes, but that will not occur willingly.
> 
> This interview with Ghassan Kanafani (who was murdered presumably by the state of Israel of course) sums it up pretty well.
> 
> ...


Palestinians have repeatedly rejected the two-state solution, they were offered as much as 92.7% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, as well as pockets of Jerusalem for the purposes of worship - they rejected the offer, along with many others before it. They don't want an independent Palestinian state, they want to expel Jews from Jerusalem because they consider it their holy land.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The Biden economy everyone



You think it's bad right now? Just wait. We'll be back to Obama economy status or worse very soon.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Israel does have the right to defend Israel. It's an internationally recognised, independent, sovereign state.


In the literal sense, sure, they have a right to defend themselves.  But Israel is much like the US in that, all too often, "defense" is a code word for "war," and in this case it borders on attempted genocide.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Palestinians have repeatedly rejected the two-state solution, they were offered as much as 92.7% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, as well as pockets of Jerusalem for the purposes of worship - they rejected the offer, along with many others before it. They don't want an independent Palestinian state, they want to expel Jews from Jerusalem because they consider it their holy land.


fair enough
i guess that makes the whole genocide thing okay, they're being pretty unreasonable


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> fair enough
> i guess that makes the whole genocide thing okay, they're being pretty unreasonable


When both sides want to push each other into the sea it's hard to side with either of them. Let's not forget that the neighbouring Arab states are not huge fans of Israel just existing, how many Arab-Israeli wars did we go through in the last century? Technically the conflict is still on-going since 1948. The Palestinians were offered a free, sovereign state five times - they rejected each and every offer and refused to negotiate. If they're not looking for a peaceful solution, they get no sympathy.


----------



## Valwinz (May 13, 2021)

imao Bidens America strikes again 
Colonial Pipeline paid hackers nearly $5 million in ransom. Scoop from @WilliamTurton and @michaelrileydc. https://t.co/yloW9HrFLt— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) May 13, 2021


----------



## AmandaRose (May 13, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> imao Bidens America strikes again
> https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1392848203935059978


So the fact a company that had nothing to do with Biden paid a ransom then they lied about paying the ransom is somehow the fault of the so called Biden's America? You are fucking hilarious


----------



## Seliph (May 13, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Palestinians have repeatedly rejected the two-state solution, they were offered as much as 92.7% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, as well as pockets of Jerusalem for the purposes of worship - they rejected the offer, along with many others before it. They don't want an independent Palestinian state, they want to expel Jews from Jerusalem because they consider it their holy land.


Of course they rejected it. Why would Palestinians give up their land and homes? Why would Catholics in Northern Ireland give up their homes to protestants? Why would South Africans give up their homes to the Dutch? Why would Kashmiris give up their homes to India? Why would Americans give up their homes to the British? etc. etc. etc.

Losing your homes is not a solution like I already said. A 2 state solution is the equivalent of someone forcing you to give them 7.3% of your home, no rent, no compensation, no nothing. Just vibes and the promise that *maybe* the IDF will stop airstrikes against children and innocent people. It's the equivalent of the school bully saying "hey give me 7.3% of your school lunch every day and I won't beat you unconscious". Why should the Palestinian people be content with being colonized? That 7.3% of land housed thousands of disposed Palestinian people who have nowhere else to go. Do they deserve this? Is this a fair solution? Palestinians who live in this land aren't going to be okay with losing their homes just because some governments decided on a 2 state "solution", they will fight to keep their homes just like anyone else would. In addition, Israel has more funding and firepower (thanks to the US) than the Palestinian people could ever have, Israel could easily force more than 7.3% if they wanted to and Palestinians could do nothing about it. I don't see this as a very fair situation.

The establishment of South Africa did not lead to peace, the establishment of Northern Ireland did not lead to peace, why would just another two-state situation lead to peace? Especially one where Palestinians are ejected from their homes and their cultures are erased?

Also, claiming that "they want to expel Jews from Jerusalem because they consider it their holy land" is silly. What about atheist Palestinians who are fighting for liberation? What about Jewish people who support the sovereignty of Palestine? This is about real people with real lives being uprooted from their homes by the government of Israel. Certainly, some people do regard it as a holy land, many great Islamic temples exist across the land (many that have been destroyed by the IDF), but to say this is the whole reason does not fit with the current or historical reality of the region. It's about the fact that Israel wants to create a Jewish ethnostate and the US wants to use Israel as a proxy government for when the US army "leaves" the region, "holy land" is only a pretext. In addition, it's not that Palestinians want to expel Jews necessarily, it's not that they want to create a Muslim ethnostate like Israel wants to create a Jewish ethnostate. Palestinians just want their homes back, their homes that have been stolen by the government of Israel. There can be peace between Muslims and Jewish people, but until Israel stops murdering Muslims and favoring Jewish people in their apartheid state - until dispossessed Palestinians get their homes back, we will not see peace.

It should be noted that many Jewish immigrants who have taken Palestinian homes are from the US, or other countries much richer than Palestine. They could easily go back to their homes the same way they came to Palestine. Palestinians do not have this luxury, they do not have homes to go back to since their homes are actively being occupied. Israel's occupation and eviction and apartheid is genocide, Palestinians evicting colonizers back to their home countries is not. This is not a situation of both sides "wanting to push their other side into the sea" this is a situation of people wanting to keep their homes and lives. Palestine does not have nearly as much power as Israel, they couldn't "push Israel into the sea" even if they wanted to. Israel can do that to Palestinians, and that's what they've been doing for decades. You cannot condemn both sides when there is so clearly a power imbalance between the two, with Israel as colonizer and Palestine as colonial subject.


----------



## djpannda (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Of course they rejected it. Why would Palestinians give up their land and homes? Why would Catholics in Northern Ireland give up their homes to protestants? Why would South Africans give up their homes to the Dutch? Why would Kashmiris give up their homes to India? etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Losing your homes is not a solution like I already said. A 2 state solution is the equivalent of someone forcing you to give them 7.3% of your home, no rent, no compensation, no nothing. Just vibes and the promise that *maybe* the IDF will stop airstrikes against children and innocent people. Why should the Palestinian people be content with being colonized? That 7.3% of land housed thousands of disposed Palestinian people who have nowhere else to go. Do they deserve this? Is this a fair solution? Palestinians who live in this land aren't going to be okay with losing their homes just because some governments decided on a 2 state "solution", they will fight to keep their homes just like anyone else would. In addition, Israel has more funding and firepower (thanks to the US) than the Palestinian people could ever have, Israel could easily force more than 7.3% if they wanted to and Palestinians could do nothing about it. I don't see this as a very fair situation.
> 
> ...


 Yea the Middle East Is all Types of mess up.
Let me start by the Fact, Israel is treating Palestinian like 2nd class and what worse is start to treat them inhumanly .
 The area of land  is a bit more complicated as you have to understand why its like this to start with.
1. Six day Wars started it as all the Arab nations that Surround Israel were planing to attack Israel to wipe it out by massing troops at Boarder (although people say they were not, President Nassar did state that was the plan as he created hostility for weeks leading up to it). Israel was able to make a preemptive strike and in 6 days were able to not only fight off 5 nations that surrounded but were able to capture land that was used in the planing of the attack. Multiple Peace Treaties were created to Return the captured land but must IMPORTANTLY the Arab Nations abandoned Palestinians by not helping them in the Treaties and refusing take control of the Areas. (both Egypt and Jordan refused to take Responsibility for the land) and infact were urging Palestinian to leave their homes in Israel.
2 But Israel have treated Palestinians horrible, and Keep changing the "Property lines". They claim that it is the Spoils of War that they won.

I do Believe a Two State Treaty is needed . I know if not Fair but the issue is that Palestine did lose a War and Need to accept that, ( Egypt, and Jordan accepted their loses) They can not demand the status Quo of 70years ago before a War. but Israel still needs to act Respectfully the Palestinians.
Both of them need to Get off their High Horse and deal with Reality.


----------



## Seliph (May 13, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Yea the Middle East Is all Types of mess up.
> Let me start by the Fact, Israel is treating Palestinian like 2nd class and what worse is start to treat them inhumanly .
> The area of land  is a bit more complicated as you have to understand why its like this to start with.
> 1. Six day Wars started it as all the Arab nations that Surround Israel were planing to attack Israel to wipe it out by massing troops at Boarder (although people say they were not, President Nassar did state that was the plan as he created hostility for weeks leading up to it). Israel was able to make a preemptive strike and in 6 days were able to not only fight off 5 nations that surrounded but were able to capture land that was used in the planing of the attack. Multiple Peace Treaties were created to Return the captured land but must IMPORTANTLY the Arab Nations abandoned Palestinians by not helping them in the Treaties and refusing take control of the Areas. (both Egypt and Jordan refused to take Responsibility for the land) and infact were urging Palestinian to leave their homes in Israel.
> ...


I see where you are coming from, certainly the situation is a mess and governments have made this more complicated than it should be. My perspective is of the people living on the land. They do not care about peace treaties or spoils of war, they care about keeping their homes. Sure, maybe between governments a two-state solution can be seen as equitable, but for the people living on the land? How can a solution that means the dispossession of thousands of now landless people be considered a solution? How can giving land to a state that is actively practicing ethnic cleansing be considered a solution for the 7.3% Palestinian people that would be erased in a two-state solution? Certainly, the state of Palestine lost a war many decades ago, but the current people do not deserve to endure the unjust consequences of a war they never fought in. At this point generations have lived and died in Palestine, it is the home of the Palestinian people. Giving up their home and their land to colonizers should not be something that happens if we want to ensure the safety of the Palestinian people and the stability of the region. I again bring up the case of colonized Northern Ireland, which is not a stable region. It is rife with poverty and inequality that is shouldered directly by the Irish people. Why do we expect a different outcome in colonized Palestine? This is about the lives of real people and their right to live where they have lived all their lives, not some decades-old drama between governments.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Of course they rejected it. Why would Palestinians give up their land and homes? Why would Catholics in Northern Ireland give up their homes to protestants? Why would South Africans give up their homes to the Dutch? Why would Kashmiris give up their homes to India? Why would Americans give up their homes to the British? etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Losing your homes is not a solution like I already said. A 2 state solution is the equivalent of someone forcing you to give them 7.3% of your home, no rent, no compensation, no nothing. Just vibes and the promise that *maybe* the IDF will stop airstrikes against children and innocent people. It's the equivalent of the school bully saying "hey give me 7.3% of your school lunch every day and I won't beat you unconscious". Why should the Palestinian people be content with being colonized? That 7.3% of land housed thousands of disposed Palestinian people who have nowhere else to go. Do they deserve this? Is this a fair solution? Palestinians who live in this land aren't going to be okay with losing their homes just because some governments decided on a 2 state "solution", they will fight to keep their homes just like anyone else would. In addition, Israel has more funding and firepower (thanks to the US) than the Palestinian people could ever have, Israel could easily force more than 7.3% if they wanted to and Palestinians could do nothing about it. I don't see this as a very fair situation.
> 
> ...


You should probably look into the original plan for the dissolution of the mandate which gave Palestinians large swathes of land - Israel was supposed to be a tiny morsel for a tiny nation. The same plan that Israelis accepted and Palestinians rejected outright, choosing war instead. They chose war a couple of times, actually - with the help of Jordan, Egypt and other Arab states. It's not Israel's fault that they kept winning repeatedly and accruing more land in the process. There was always a Jewish presence in the region, it's as much their ancestral land as it is Palestinian. In contrast to Israel, there was never a "Palestinian" state - it was the customary name for the region that was administered by different states over the years, it was always inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups. Before the land became part Israel, it was already occupied - not by "Palestine", mind, but by Egypt and Jordan. This apparently wasn't an issue until the Jews were in charge - now it's supposed to be an independent state. Funny how that changed all of a sudden. The solution is to split the land in half, accept the new territorial lines and sign a treaty so that each side minds their own business, but you need two for the tango. Borders move, it's a fact of life - if Palestine wants to be in a state of perpetual conflict with Israel, that's their deal. This conflict is a century old and it's not getting resolved anytime soon, here and now Israel was attacked by Palestinian forces and has an obligation to respond in defense of its citizens. Do I like the treatment of Palestinians under Israeli rule? No - they are pushing Palestinians out of their homes. Do I like Palestinians? No, they shoot rockets at civilians indiscriminately. They both suck.


----------



## djpannda (May 13, 2021)

Seliph said:


> I see where you are coming from, certainly the situation is a mess and governments have made this more complicated than it should be. My perspective is of the people living on the land. They do not care about peace treaties or spoils of war, they care about keeping their homes. Sure, maybe between governments a two-state solution can be seen as equitable, but for the people living on the land? How can a solution that means the dispossession of thousands of now landless people be considered a solution? How can giving land to a state that is actively practicing ethnic cleansing be considered a solution for the 7.3% Palestinian people that would be erased in a two-state solution? Certainly, the state of Palestine lost a war many decades ago, but the current people do not deserve to endure the unjust consequences of a war they never fought in. At this point generations have lived and died in Palestine, it is the home of the Palestinian people. Giving up their home and their land to colonizers should not be something that happens if we want to ensure the safety of the Palestinian people and the stability of the region. I again bring up the case of colonized Northern Ireland, which is not a stable region. It is rife with poverty and inequality that is shouldered directly by the Irish people. Why do we expect a different outcome in colonized Palestine? This is about the lives of real people and their right to live where they have lived all their lives, not some decades-old drama between governments.


That is why a 2 State Treaty is needed. As it would not only stop Israel "claiming" additional land but also return "some" Back to the Palestinian by establishing Strict boarder. Additional a Treaty should include Allowing existing home to allow Palestinians in Israel's land and vise versa. The Most Important Part it would Create New Laws to Recognize Palestinian sovereignty and Basic Human rights laws.   The Land will never return to 1948 before Israel. People need to Accept and realized the Reality of today, The position of now. Thats The Same Augment Republicans make, The want American to go back to the "ALL White" Leave it to Beaver" 1950s. That will never happen. The same Principle applies.  Palestinians have to understand  They lost a War and their Neighboring Nations ( that Provoked the War) Abandoned them. They are losing More Land and Rights every year. A Treaty and 2 States are need for Both Israel and Palestinians sake and Thats not to say they have to accept anything Israel throws at them but Them Must Understand they will not get 100% of that they want. as Many refuse any Negotiation that does not Include 100% of Jerusalem.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

..ewww Foxi4's Like, makes me feel dirty..


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2021)

djpannda said:


> That is why a 2 State Treaty is needed. As it would not only stop Israel "claiming" additional land but also return "some" Back to the Palestinian by establishing Strict boarder. Additional a Treaty should include Allowing existing home to allow Palestinians in Israel's land and vise versa. The Most Important Part it would Create New Laws to Recognize Palestinian sovereignty and Basic Human rights laws.   The Land will never return to 1948 before Israel. People need to Accept and realized the Reality of today, The position of now. Thats The Same Augment Republicans make, The want American to go back to the "ALL White" Leave it to Beaver" 1950s. That will never happen. The same Principle applies.  Palestinians have to understand  They lost a War and their Neighboring Nations ( that Provoked the War) Abandoned them. They are losing More Land and Rights every year. A Treaty and 2 States are need for Both Israel and Palestinians sake and Thats not to say they have to accept anything Israel throws at them but Them Must Understand they will not get 100% of that they want. as Many refuse any Negotiation that does not Include 100% of Jerusalem.


Shockingly sensible.

You're my dirty panda. I'll even give you another one, just to make you feel extra special.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 14, 2021)

I'm trying not to comment in here but I just want to point out that I find it funny that under the Trump Administration people would blame Trump for every single little thing, but under Biden it's, 'NOT HIS FAULT IT'S ORANGE MAN BAD'S" even though he's not the president anymore. Weird, huh?


----------



## Xzi (May 14, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm trying not to comment in here but I just want to point out that I find it funny that under the Trump Administration people would blame Trump for every single little thing, but under Biden it's, 'NOT HIS FAULT IT'S ORANGE MAN BAD'S" even though he's not the president anymore. Weird, huh?


Almost never do consequences for actions come back around to bite people in the ass instantly.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: we'll be dealing with the fallout from Trump's dumpster fire of an administration for at least a decade.  Those of us who lost friends or loved ones to the failed COVID-19 response will be dealing with it for a lifetime.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 14, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You're my dirty panda. I'll even give you another one, just to make you feel extra special.


Get a room, you two


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 14, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm trying not to comment in here but I just want to point out that I find it funny that under the Trump Administration people would blame Trump for every single little thing, but under Biden it's, 'NOT HIS FAULT IT'S ORANGE MAN BAD'S" even though he's not the president anymore. Weird, huh?



I try not to take sides and sit back and watch how us humans end up acting and the way things have played out have made it like this. If it's bad then it's still Trump's fault, but if it's good then Biden gets the credit even if Trump was the one who laid the groundwork for it and if it's bad Biden gets a pass.

An example would be the COVID-19 death toll. Under Trump the Left blamed every single last death on the President, but that stopped the minute their candidate took office. As a watcher of history I have an obligation to point out that in December 2019, right when COVID-19 hit the news Trump took actions to limit travel from affected regions and also formed task forces in different areas of the Government to deal with the potential pandemic. Then for the next two months the Left simply ignored the threat and called Trump racist for acting on it. The two months were spent trying to impeach Trump and downplaying the virus. Now who do you blame, the person in charge who took action or the people in charge who ignored the threat allowing many tens of thousands to die?

The thing is the virus was a world wide pandemic that didn't choose sides. Regardless of how deadly it was it didn't choose who it infected by political preference. If you're going to blame Trump for the deaths then you'd have to blame him for the entire world's reaction and that's just not logical. Of course, as soon as Trump leaves office Biden is now credited with the work Trump did and the action of blaming the President for the COVID-19 death toll stopped dead in its tracks. What makes me a laugh is the fact that Biden now gets the credit for the vaccine, when it was Trump who cut regulations that were in place to speed up the development and the vaccination plans were all his doing.

So in the end what have I observed? How have the humans acted? It's simple - the left lied, manipulated, played the blame game and became some of the largest hypocrites I've ever seen. So your insight from your original post still stands and is more true then ever. If it's negative Trump gets blamed and if it's positive Biden gets credit and this is happening even though Biden has passed the 100 day mark where he's now responsible for both the good and the bad. 100 days? Yes, it takes about 3 months for one Presidential administrations policies to kick in after they take office and we can clearly see early signs on how the economy is going to be under Biden and it's not good (skyrocketing prices and scarce availability of goods), but of course the Left completely ignores the bad now because it's their candidate in office.

So I thank you for having the courage to speak about what you see happening around you. The truth is in low commodity these days as the ones who speak it are shunned and thrown out of social circles. We live in sad times my friend.


----------



## Xzi (May 14, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The thing is the virus was a world wide pandemic that didn't choose sides. Regardless of how deadly it was it didn't choose who it infected by political preference.


You're correct here.  However, Trump implicitly and explicitly politicized both mask wearing and the science behind the vaccine.  Which is the reason why far more of his supporters died off from the pandemic than liberals, and the reason why so many of them are still hesitant to get the vaccine now.  Of course, Trump quietly got vaccinated himself in January, and didn't quietly announce his support of getting vaxxed until two or three months later.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> What makes me a laugh is the fact that Biden now gets the credit for the vaccine, when it was Trump who cut regulations that were in place to speed up the development and the vaccination plans were all his doing.


Neither president gets credit for the vaccine, that's moronic.  Biden only gets credit for the vaccine _distribution _because he's been in charge of the vast majority of it.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> If it's negative Trump gets blamed and if it's positive Biden gets credit and this is happening even though Biden has passed the 100 day mark where he's now responsible for both the good and the bad.


There's been some bad to the Biden presidency for sure, I won't pretend otherwise, but all this really tells you is that a pile of dog shit would've made a better president than an ex-reality TV star.  Almost the entirety of Biden's first hundred days was spent fixing or undoing shit that Trump broke or fucked up, because he had turned the presidency into one giant pyramid/MLM scheme.  So yes, he gets a pass on some stuff from liberals, and a pass on everything from neoliberals, but not from me.


----------



## Louse (May 14, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm trying not to comment in here but I just want to point out that I find it funny that under the Trump Administration people would blame Trump for every single little thing, but under Biden it's, 'NOT HIS FAULT IT'S ORANGE MAN BAD'S" even though he's not the president anymore. Weird, huh?


i feel that this is more a problem with platform. there are almost no leftist media groups/sites (no, breadtube doesnt count), so you just see bindo boot-lickers on liberal news and media or tuckster and the foxy friends on conservative stuff
even if trump is far more deplorable than biden, i still think both of them are worthy of criticism. you just dont see that on libtard news cuz they're getting pretty much exactly what they want.
same deal with trump, no criticism from cons media no matter what dumpo did. they either didnt care, or actively profited off the omission and reworking of information

communist news network when volvo?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 14, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You're correct here.  However, Trump implicitly and explicitly politicized both mask wearing and the science behind the vaccine.  Which is the reason why far more of his supporters died off from the pandemic than liberals, and the reason why so many of them are still hesitant to get the vaccine now.  Of course, Trump quietly got vaccinated himself in January, and didn't quietly announce his support of getting vaxxed until two or three months later.



You're wrong about him politicizing mask wearing, new tech (such as UV stuff that we see everywhere now), the vaccines or things like drugs that can treat or help with the symptoms. Trump would simply state something and then the Liberal left would attack whatever it is Trump had to say. It turned into a political shit show because the Left had to attack Trump's every word and action, including the two months they completely ignored the virus and claimed Trump was racist for acting and were in favor of impeachment over the virus. If the Left would have worked with Trump's administration there would have been less death.



> Neither president gets credit for the vaccine, that's moronic.  Biden only gets credit for the vaccine _distribution _because he's been in charge of the vast majority of it.



Trump cut the bureaucratic red tape and hindering scientific restrictions that were in place to speed up the development of the various vaccines that were created in the USA. The Liberals themselves including their coveted scientists were all over social media before he made changes stating we won't see a vaccine for years. Trump not only allowed for fast tracking the development, but his initial distribution plans are what Biden based his current actions on.



> There's been some bad to the Biden presidency for sure, I won't pretend otherwise, but all this really tells you is that a pile of dog shit would've made a better president than an ex-reality TV star.  Almost the entirety of Biden's first hundred days was spent fixing or undoing shit that Trump broke or fucked up, because he had turned the presidency into one giant pyramid/MLM scheme.  So yes, he gets a pass on some stuff from liberals, and a pass on everything from neoliberals, but not from me.



I see your hatred for Trump blinds you to the truth, so I won't spend much time on your comments here, but Biden is doing a bunch of exactly what Trump did and he doesn't get attacked from the main stream media or the Liberal social media for doing so. Remember, every single death from COVID-19 was Trump's fault and then suddenly when Biden takes office that's not how they treated him. The double standards, hypocrisy and misplaced hatred from people like yourself are reasons why it's really hard to take anything the Liberal left says or does with any real in-depth thought or concern.

Heck, it's like taking 1 instance of rioting from the Right with more concern then the 1,000+ instances of rioting on the left that were completely ignored.


----------



## Xzi (May 14, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're wrong about him politicizing mask wearing


Bullshit, his supporters got the message loud and clear.  Hell, Biden only won Georgia because so many Republicans died of the virus.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Trump cut the bureaucratic red tape and hindering scientific restrictions that were in place to speed up the development of the various vaccines that were created in the USA.


Which is the bare minimum that any president in his shoes would've been expected to do.  And were any of the vaccines actually created in America?  I know the Pfizer one was created in Germany by Turkish immigrants, not sure about the others.

Trump also disbanded the federal pandemic response team in year one of his presidency, because of course he did.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Remember, every single death from COVID-19 was Trump's fault and then suddenly when Biden takes office that's not how they treated him.


What else do you expect, Trump botched the response to the pandemic from the get-go.  Biden was just the one called in to clean up the botched response, all he could do is rollout the vaccine as quick as possible, which he did.  He can't take us back in time before exponential spread had begun, and before Trump ensured his own supporters would be the ones to suffer most from this virus.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 14, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Almost never do consequences for actions come back around to bite people in the ass instantly.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: we'll be dealing with the fallout from Trump's dumpster fire of an administration for at least a decade.  Those of us who lost friends or loved ones to the failed COVID-19 response will be dealing with it for a lifetime.



People die from other causes than just covid. People treat covid as if it's the first human disease to ever exist, when there are worse diseases people die from every day. If covid wouldn't have killed them, something else might've.

Besides, you only die from covid if you're incredibly unhealthy, like being morbidly obese, being incredibly old, having 16 other diseases inside you, or other causes like car accidents but they'll count it as covid if it was in your system when you died in the car crash.


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (May 14, 2021)

Louse said:


> i feel that this is more a problem with platform. there are almost no leftist media groups/sites (no, breadtube doesnt count), so you just see bindo boot-lickers on liberal news and media or tuckster and the foxy friends on conservative stuff
> even if trump is far more deplorable than biden, i still think both of them are worthy of criticism. you just dont see that on libtard news cuz they're getting pretty much exactly what they want.
> same deal with trump, no criticism from cons media no matter what dumpo did. they either didnt care, or actively profited off the omission and reworking of information
> 
> communist news network when volvo?


Fake news much? You obviously do not watch conservative news. One example of Fox, specifically Tucker Carlson criticizing Trump is when Soleimani was taken out. One example is all that is needed to destroy your narrative.


----------



## Xzi (May 14, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> People treat covid as if it's the first human disease to ever exist, when there are worse diseases people die from every day.


No, it's not the first pandemic the world or the US has ever seen, but that just makes it all the more pathetic that we weren't better prepared for it.  The Trump administration's "worst case scenario" was 200K dead by the end of the pandemic, and 500K were dead before the grifter was even out of office.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Besides, you only die from covid if you're incredibly unhealthy, like being morbidly obese, being incredibly old, having 16 other diseases inside you


This is simply a combination of bullshit and wishful thinking.  Even if COVID doesn't kill you, and it has killed people as young as 16, the odds of picking up long-lasting symptoms are not great.



BitMasterPlus said:


> car accidents but they'll count it as covid if it was in your system when you died in the car crash


Conspiratorial nonsense.  If anything we're under-counting COVID deaths, as home deaths don't tend to be added to the official tolls until much later.  A University of Washington study estimates there have been more than 900,000 COVID deaths in the US already.


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 14, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Bro, you said it yourself
> The government owned the means of production in fascist Germany, socialism is the people owning the means of production
> They are polar opposites


What the hell? People owning the means of production in a socialist ideology? Have you ever read Marx?
Private property (people owning the means of production) is capitalism.
In socialism everything is owned by the state.
This is bare basic elementary school economy.
You are literally swapping the meanings.
How can I even take you serious if you fail at the very basic idea behind socialism vs capitalism?




Darth Meteos said:


> *socialism* is primarily about redistributing wealth and power to make the system bottom-up, where the masses control the means of production through direct democracy in workplaces and government


Socialism is a dictatorship, Marx himself called it that. There's nothing democratic there, stop calling it names that don't apply and actually read a damn book about socialism from the people that created it. Crocodiles aren't flying creatures no matter how much your imagination wants them to be.



Darth Meteos said:


> *communism* is a governmental ownership of most goods, services and properties, with the intent to eliminate classes in society through an equal distribution of wealth to all, headed by a ruling council, preferably of unions, but it has never been achieved, since the primary examples were two-class societies, rather than the end-goal of a no-class society


The typical "it has never been achieved" fallacy. It's been achieved, countless times already, and it always fails cause there's a big difference between reality and idealism. It might work if every human being ever were mindless robots and everyone was an exact carbon copy (same knowledge, same potential, same phisique, same tastes, same thoughts and ideas, etc). Like I said, crocodiles don't fly no matter how much you want them to. People are different, they have different potentials, not everyone is Einstein, not everyone is Bezos, not everyone is Ussain Bolt. In communism you'd cut off Messi's legs so that everyone can be just as good as him in football, see why that doesn't work? It goes against how we as a society work.
"It's neven been done right because I wasn't the one doing it. If I was the one to do it then I'd be extremely succesful and everyone will be perfect and happy" <- There's a name for that: egomaniacs (which perfectly suits with every communist leader and follower).



Darth Meteos said:


> *fascism* is a totalitarian ideology held up by a single dictator with a cult of personality, all but a monarch, with a rigid hierarchy of citizens, usually divided by race more so than class


You mean like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che and every other communist leader? Or do you really believe that Kim Yong Un was an NBA superstar?
You mean like how every communist regime is divided between "those who rule" and "those who are ruled"? And those who rule are above the law.
You mean like how all communist regimes segregated between race, sexual preference and gender?
According to Che Guevara black people are black because they don't like to take baths and they are poor because they spend all their money on alcohol, parties and drugs. He also built forced labor camps for homosexuals because he firmly believed that "hard work will make a man out of them".
Why am I applying fascist ideologies to communism? Oh that's right, they are twin brothers of the same ideological roots that is socialism.



Darth Meteos said:


> they are not compatible at all
> all three are very different


Except when nazi germany was absorved by the soviet union so was the fascist ideology absorved into communism.
Fascism and communism are two (not that different) ways of applying the same theoretical background (socialism).

The simple fact that both Mussolini and Hitler called themselves socialists (and they both started their political carreer in a socialist party), the simple fact that fascism applies socialist ideas (goverment controls and owns means of production, very limited private property if any, expropriations, censorship, media control, etc), the simple fact that all fascist leaders wrote countless books explaining why they are socialists, the simple fact that the Nazi party's full name was National Socialist Workers Party, the simple fact that all historians, history books and accounts from the era point to this yet you still continue to deny it just means you are probably the most dense person to ever write anything down in this site.

The fight between fascism and communism is not about "left or right", it's more like the two bastard sons of a King (Socialism) fighting each other to inherit the throne.


Just to finish it off, a few key points:

- Fidel Castro (a Communist dictator) was a big fan of Francisco Franco (a Fascist dictator).
- All Fascists were against democracy and capitalism. Why do you think they attacked west europe and the US?
- From the point of view of fascism, democratic capitalist countries are the right wing. So be very careful when you use the term "extreme right" to refer to capitalism, as that was coined by none other than Nazi Germany. In a democracy, "extreme right" refers to absolute monarchy, while both fascism and communism would be "extreme left", all of which are outside the scope of a democracy due to their totalitarian nature.

Grab a god damn history book and learn about fascism/nazism and WWII and stop copy-pasting whatever you hear from people who have never done so.


----------



## 64bitmodels (May 14, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden voters are now burning an American flag as more tear gas and flash bangs continue to be fired


lol, good
america sucks ass anyways


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 14, 2021)

64bitmodels said:


> lol, good
> america sucks ass anyways


Based


----------



## ChrisMCNBVA (May 14, 2021)

I can't believe people would say america sucks, we're a free country, we watch what we want, we do what we want, we see who we want, we go to where we want or need to, and in other places you wouldn't have the same freedoms we have here in the usa and I just am very concerned with how people act


----------



## Xzi (May 14, 2021)

ChrisMCNBVA said:


> I can't believe people would say america sucks, we're a free country, we watch what we want, we do what we want, we see who we want, we go to where we want or need to, and in other places you wouldn't have the same freedoms we have here in the usa and I just am very concerned with how people act


Lol do you really believe the US is the only country on Earth with those (very basic) freedoms?  This is the same propaganda people would spread half a century ago, and it wasn't true then either.


----------



## KingVamp (May 14, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lol do you really believe the US is the only country on Earth with those (very basic) freedoms?  This is the same propaganda people would spread half a century ago, and it wasn't true then either.


Gay people literally could not marry just a couple of years ago.


----------



## smf (May 14, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> Did you follow the 2016 elections well? Because i've seen so many people commenting that in no hell way they would have chosen Hillary Clinton, most of the people were convinced that Trump was a more better option than to go for Hillary Clinton.



Except more people voted for Hillary, maybe not more people that you know but then you don't know everyone.



Xzi said:


> I have no problem with criticizing Biden over that, because I've never pretended he was my idea of the perfect president, and all presidents are meant to be scrutinized, not idolized.



You're not playing the game properly. You're supposed to pick a president based on the color of their party and then twist your thinking so that you always support them, no matter what bat crazy shit they spout.

Hmm, it seems I am not playing the game properly either ;-)



DoubleDate said:


> Apologies, yes Beau. Made a mistake there.



How are you doing mentally?



ChrisMCNBVA said:


> I can't believe people would say america sucks, we're a free country, we watch what we want, we do what we want, we see who we want, we go to where we want or need to, and in other places you wouldn't have the same freedoms we have here in the usa and I just am very concerned with how people act



What country have you traveled to that is less free than the USA?


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 15, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> snip


Dude, you're not correct. I'm sorry, but your understanding of the topics is flawed, and I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore. I hope you can learn a bit more about the things you purport to be against, because you can't effectively combat something you don't understand.



Acid_Snake said:


> Grab a god damn history book and learn about fascism/nazism and WWII and stop copy-pasting whatever you hear from people who have never done so.


As a side note, I find this to be particularly hilarious, being that my occupation is that of a history teacher.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 15, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Gay people literally could not marry just a couple of years ago.


Because lord knows getting dicked up the ass or rubbing tacos just wasn't the same without getting a marriage certificate was a big humanitarian crisis.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Because lord knows getting dicked up the ass or rubbing tacos just wasn't the same without getting a marriage certificate was a big humanitarian crisis.


I think it says more about you than gay people that you characterize loving relationships as being purely sexual before the law dropped. You're kind of a terrible person, and it's concerning. Please consider seeking professional help.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 15, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> As a side note, I find this to be particularly hilarious, being that my occupation is that of a history teacher.


You being a teacher of any kind doesn't excuse you for being an ignorant fuck. Most teachers are corrupt cocksuckers who are ruining education in the US and you are the prime example on why we need massive education reform in the US.

People, use this person as an example on why you should be afraid of the current education system and why you need to get involved with your kids studies as to not get indoctrinated. I don't want to pick fights here, but it's people like you why our future generations are gonna get fucked.



Darth Meteos said:


> I think it says more about you than gay people that you characterize loving relationships as being purely sexual before the law dropped. You're kind of a terrible person, and it's concerning. Please consider seeking professional help.


Another example of projection. No, YOU'RE the horrible person. Actual poison being injected through the eye sockets would still be less painful than reading your posts.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You being a teacher of any kind doesn't excuse you for being an ignorant fuck. Most teachers are corrupt cocksuckers who are ruining education in the US and you are the prime example on why we need massive education reform in the US.
> 
> People, use this person as an example on why you should be afraid of the current education system and why you need to get involved with your kids studies as to not get indoctrinated. I don't want to pick fights here, but it's people like you why our future generations are gonna get fucked.


It is my honor to ensure that a few kids escape the indoctrination of their parents and learn something about the world beyond the horribly limited and propaganda-infused understanding of their parents. I have centuries of study and understanding at my back when I teach. You have Louder with Crowder. It is my opinion that you are not being served as well as I am.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Another example of projection. No, YOU'RE the horrible person. Actual poison being injected through the eye sockets would still be less painful than reading your posts.


I repeat, please consider seeking professional help.


----------



## pustal (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Because lord knows getting dicked up the ass or rubbing tacos just wasn't the same without getting a marriage certificate was a big humanitarian crisis.



No but it is a huge discrimination from a citizen point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

Also, if you marry someone just because you have sex with them, boy, you are going to get disappointments in life.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 15, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> It is my honor to ensure that a few kids escape the indoctrination of their parents and learn something about the world beyond the horribly limited and propaganda-infused understanding of their parents. I have centuries of study and understanding at my back when I teach. You have Louder with Crowder. It is my opinion that you are not being served as well as I am.
> 
> 
> I repeat, please consider seeking professional help.


Get yourself help first. And you have no right to try to force your views or values on kids that aren't yours. You're supposed to teach them, not brainwash them into your twisted way of thinking. Who in gods name do you think you are?



pustal said:


> No but it is a huge discrimination from a citizen point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
> 
> Also, if you marry someone just because you have sex with them, boy, you are going to get disappointments in life.


I'm not gonna marry someone unless I love them, I'm not discriminating, you can do whatever, doesn't mean I have to agree or accept it.


----------



## pustal (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not gonna marry someone unless I love them, I'm not discriminating, you can do whatever, doesn't mean I have to agree or accept it.



Sure but don't claim you had freedom when people were treated by the State differently depending who they love and wanted to share their life with. Also accepting or not, doesn't mean you have the right to interfere with their lives.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 15, 2021)

pustal said:


> Sure but don't claim you had freedom when people were treated by the State differently depending who they love and wanted to share their life with. Also accepting or not, doesn't mean you have the right to interfere with their lives.


I just said I don't care what you do as long as you don't force me to accept it or agree with you.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Get yourself help first. And you have no right to try to force your views or values on kids that aren't yours. You're supposed to teach them, not brainwash them into your twisted way of thinking. Who in gods name do you think you are?


I am not brainwashing them. I am showing them footage/accounts of historical events and leaving them to come to their own conclusions. That is the function of a teacher. It is my hope that they look at the overwhelming evidence for and the horror of the Holocaust and come to the conclusion that it occurred and was bad, but I have to hope they can make that leap. It is my hope that presenting accounts of those living under cruel regimes and how those regimes came about will inform them on how to spot the next one on the horizon, and why they are bad, but I cannot make the decision for them.

I live in hope that people, properly informed, come to informed conclusions. That they can be good.


----------



## KingVamp (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Because lord knows getting dicked up the ass or rubbing tacos just wasn't the same without getting a marriage certificate was a big humanitarian crisis.


Aren't you arguing against marriage altogether?


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> I am showing them footage/accounts of historical events and leaving them to come to their own conclusions. That is the function of a teacher.



Lol.  That is not the function of a teacher.  That's the function of a documentary, or by extension, a media player.

The job of a "teacher" is spelled out by the curriculum and rules established by the nation and its subsidiaries (localized governments).  But a teacher is someone who "facilitates education" and often acts as a guide in their pupil's pursuits.

A rock can be a teacher for disciples of the stoic.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 15, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The job of a "teacher" is spelled out by the curriculum and rules established by the nation and its subsidiaries (localized governments).  But a teacher is someone who "facilitates education" and often acts as a guide in their pupil's pursuits.


Since you need it spelled out for you, it's the function of a history teacher to inform the student about history. My own opinions and conclusions regarding what is good and what is not must stay out of it as much as possible, since otherwise I can get in trouble for showing a political bias. I have seen a million parents who insist that my classes in which I disseminate data on historical events I am required to teach show my own political biases. Thus, my hope, being that the conservatives usually far outweigh the liberals, when their students come home and challenge their parents' views because Mr. Meteos did a class on lynchings.


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Since you need it spelled out for you, it's the function of a history teacher to inform the student about history.



What exactly do you think you corrected me on?   I pointed out that you oversimplified the role of a teacher.  Have some self-respect.


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 15, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Dude, you're not correct. I'm sorry, but your understanding of the topics is flawed, and I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore. I hope you can learn a bit more about the things you purport to be against, because you can't effectively combat something you don't understand.
> 
> 
> As a side note, I find this to be particularly hilarious, being that my occupation is that of a history teacher.


I pray for your students for having such an ignorant teacher that is even unable to have a decent discussion with facts and data (for which you have provided ZERO).
Now I'd like to know what sort of psychodelic substance you have to ingest in order to not be able to see "socialism" in "national-socialism".

*Snip*


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 15, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Now I'd like to know what sort of psychodelic substance you have to ingest in order to not be able to see "socialism" in "national-socialism".


breaking news: french fries now french by decree of acid snake


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 15, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> breaking news: french fries now french by decree of acid snake


Maybe you should eat less mcdonalds and more healthy food, it's starting to take a toll on your ability to distinguish etymology from politics.

PS: are you ever going to discuss the data I've provided or will you continue to resort to fallacies about fries and the french? Now I'm curious as to where you got your history degree, your way of discussing history details is kindergarden level at most.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 15, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> Maybe you should eat less mcdonalds and more healthy food, it's starting to take a toll on your ability to distinguish etymology from politics.


congratulations, your stupidity has levelled up to sad
impressive


----------



## smf (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I just said I don't care what you do as long as you don't force me to accept it or agree with you.



That seems kinda passive aggressive.

It's none of my business who you rub your genitals against, it should be none of the states business either (as long as they are old enough). And god (who probably doesn't exist either) would not have invented homosexuality if he didn't think it was a good idea.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 15, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> I am not brainwashing them. I am showing them footage/accounts of historical events and leaving them to come to their own conclusions. That is the function of a teacher. It is my hope that they look at the overwhelming evidence for and the horror of the Holocaust and come to the conclusion that it occurred and was bad, but I have to hope they can make that leap. It is my hope that presenting accounts of those living under cruel regimes and how those regimes came about will inform them on how to spot the next one on the horizon, and why they are bad, but I cannot make the decision for them.
> 
> I live in hope that people, properly informed, come to informed conclusions. That they can be good.


From the posts I've seen of you, that's exactly what you're NOT doing. You're supposed to teach them about the past, but you also want them to think like you, in a very twisted and evil way. Teach them about events in history without giving your opinion on how they should think for the future. Not saying I want the mistakes from the past to be repeated, but in the way I feel like you "teach" it'll happen.



KingVamp said:


> Aren't you arguing against marriage altogether?


Nope.



smf said:


> That seems kinda passive aggressive.
> 
> It's none of my business who you rub your genitals against, it should be none of the states business either (as long as they are old enough). And god (who probably doesn't exist either) would not have invented homosexuality if he didn't think it was a good idea.


Well, if that's your opinion on it, then you do you.


----------



## Valwinz (May 15, 2021)

More good news 
BREAKING: Wisconsin has become the next state to officially order an audit of the 2020 election.https://t.co/U71UnUrSbM— National File (@NationalFile) May 15, 2021


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> More good news
> https://twitter.com/NationalFile/status/1393598085440413699


"Good news, Trump can still win the election guys!"


----------



## Lacius (May 15, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> More good news
> https://twitter.com/NationalFile/status/1393598085440413699


There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and the Arizona "audit" is a joke.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and the Arizona "audit" is a joke.


I wish it was just a joke.  More likely there's a lot of criminal activity going on there with votes being changed and ballots being thrown out.  Not that they're going to change the officially certified numbers anyway, but they are gonna need to throw a bunch more MAGAts in jail.


----------



## KingVamp (May 15, 2021)

Stefanik is officially the new House leader.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> More likely there's a lot of criminal activity going on there with votes being changed and ballots being thrown out.




So some people think that's exactly what happened last fall, and you think that's what's happening now.

But _they're_ crazy & dangerous.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> So some people think that's exactly what happened last fall, and you think that's what's happening now.
> 
> But _they're_ crazy & dangerous.


Which tells you that they're master projectionists.  They think Democrats cheated during the count for Biden because it's what they would've done for Trump if given the opportunity.  And it's what they're still trying to do now, after the fact.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 15, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Which tells you that they're master projectionists.  They think Democrats cheated during the count for Biden because it's what they would've done for Trump if given the opportunity.  And it's what they're still trying to do now, after the fact.




"I know you are, but what am I?" 
                                             -- _Pee Wee Herman_


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> "I know you are, but what am I?"
> -- _Pee Wee Herman_


It's in the name.

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

Or if you prefer

Gross
Old
Pedophiles

Though that one isn't as relevant to the subject at hand.  Well...I guess QAnon is also projection on a grand scale, considering it comes from the party of Roy Moore, Matt Gaetz, and Donald Trump.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Teach them about events in history without giving your opinion on how they should think for the future.


I have written multiple messages stating that I do not share my opinions on historical topics in the classroom. Can you fucking read?



BitMasterPlus said:


> From the posts I've seen of you, that's exactly what you're NOT doing. You're supposed to teach them about the past, but you also want them to think like you, in a very twisted and evil way.


Of course I _want_ them to come to the same conclusions as me, I think they are the correct ones, but it's on them. Learning about history helped me understand the present in so many ways, I have to believe it will do the same for them. I certainly don't intervene and go "okay class, here's what conclusions you should draw"

And on top of that, you're on a fucking political forum. Are you saying you _don't_ want to propagate your way of thinking? You aren't looking for more people like you who'll vote in your leaders and fight for the issues you care about? What in the fuck are you doing here, otherwise?


----------



## smf (May 15, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well, if that's your opinion on it, then you do you.



It's not an opinion, it's none of my business.

It's also none of your business who I rub genitals with.
Or what I eat for breakfast.
etc
etc


----------



## chrisrlink (May 15, 2021)

let's see the gop is leading the recount? what can go wrong oh i know! GOP illegally messes with votes but i doubt if AZ flips as Xzi said makes no difference cause biden still won enough states if others do audit and flip i'd say foul play is involved especially if it's GOP led I mean the gop does gerrymandering which gives them a political edge. (should be fucking illegal on all levels of government as i said before), the world has gone to hell it's only a matter of time til the mother of all reboots happen Maybe nostradomus was a little off but i feel he's right bout WW3 being around the corer


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Which tells you that they're master projectionists.  They think Democrats cheated during the count for Biden because it's what they would've done for Trump if given the opportunity.  And it's what they're still trying to do now, after the fact.





Hanafuda said:


> "I know you are, but what am I?"
> -- _Pee Wee Herman_


I feel like most examples of voter fraud I read about in 2020 were people voting for the former president.



Darth Meteos said:


> I have written multiple messages stating that I do not share my opinions on historical topics in the classroom. Can you fucking read?
> 
> 
> Of course I _want_ them to come to the same conclusions as me, I think they are the correct ones, but it's on them. Learning about history helped me understand the present in so many ways, I have to believe it will do the same for them. I certainly don't intervene and go "okay class, here's what conclusions you should draw"
> ...


It's much easier for me teaching Science. We get to talk all we want about big bang cosmology, evolution, continental drift, the age of the Earth, climate change, heliocentrism, the Earth not being flat, etc., and it's not opinion.

Edit: Add COVID-19, masks, vaccine efficacy, etc.


----------



## smallissue (May 16, 2021)

Here to get 200 notifications of nerds getting triggered


BitMasterMinus said:


> I just said I don't care what you do as long as you don't force me to accept it or agree with you.


Yooo chibi robo doing polly's ticks thngs1!!1!!!1!


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I feel like most examples of voter fraud I read about in 2020 were people voting for the former president.
> 
> 
> It's much easier for me teaching Science. We get to talk all we want about big bang cosmology, evolution, continental drift, the age of the Earth, climate change, heliocentrism, the Earth not being flat, etc., and it's not opinion.
> ...



Yeah a lot of it's theory.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 16, 2021)

in other news AOC called a republican mentally ill,,,,,yeah some of those GOP senators don't need a diagnosis it's very clear as day some of them are unfit to hold any political office especially congress and this is coming from a guy with bi polar


----------



## Xzi (May 16, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> in other news AOC called a republican mentally ill,,,,,yeah some of those GOP senators don't need a diagnosis it's very clear as day some of them are unfit to hold any political office especially congress and this is coming from a guy with bi polar


Greene recently chased her down the hallway while frothing at the mouth and screaming incoherently about socialism.  It was only a matter of time until Republicans started electing certifiably insane people to congress, now it's only a matter of time until they're the majority within the party.  Boebert and Greene definitely represent a good portion of the people who have been filling plastic bags with gasoline lately.


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yeah a lot of it's theory.


Scientific theory and fact aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Scientific theory and fact aren't mutually exclusive.


the misuse of the word theory in the scientific sense is so fuckin' annoying
the scientific use of the word "theory" isn't the same as a layperson's use of the word
things with no credible dissenting sources like gravity, relativity and evolution are scientific theories, all three are entirely measurable and correlate with all our data



chrisrlink said:


> in other news AOC called a republican mentally ill,,,,,yeah some of those GOP senators don't need a diagnosis it's very clear as day some of them are unfit to hold any political office especially congress and this is coming from a guy with bi polar


the senator in question was heckling her through her door at work, chasing her down hallways, dear lord
it's kind of incredible that mtg even has a job, much less being a fuckin' senator
state of the republican party that single-digit iq reply gal can become a senator by saying "antifa bad qanon good stop the commies"


----------



## chrisrlink (May 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> the misuse of the word theory in the scientific sense is so fuckin' annoying
> the scientific use of the word "theory" isn't the same as a layperson's use of the word
> things with no credible dissenting sources like gravity, relativity and evolution are scientific theories, all three are entirely measurable and correlate with all our data
> 
> ...


more than that some knowingly aided in the insurection and some even called for civil war 2 god damn some of those jokers need to be slapped with a treason charge for their actions


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> the misuse of the word theory in the scientific sense is so fuckin' annoying
> the scientific use of the word "theory" isn't the same as a layperson's use of the word
> things with no credible dissenting sources like gravity, relativity and evolution are scientific theories, all three are entirely measurable and correlate with all our data
> 
> ...


I was going to use germ theory as an example of how a scientific theory can also be a fact, but there are a lot of people these days acting like germ theory isn't real, so...


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Scientific theory and fact aren't mutually exclusive.


Theory and fact aren't mutually dependent either.   Paradigm shifts happen.  They don't happen because of those who settle on theory as "being good enough" or "how we should look at something".



Darth Meteos said:


> gravity



My theory about gravity is that it is magnetism happening on a grander scale than that we are at a point of being able to verify.  Maybe in a hundred years the theory of gravity will "fall".  It's relative.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> My theory about gravity is that it is magnetism happening on a grander scale than that we are at a point of being able to verify.  Maybe in a hundred years the theory of gravity will "fall".  It's relative.


Interesting theory. Have you submitted your evidence and related findings for peer review? What measurements have you taken that do not correlate with our current understanding of gravity? Have you been able to replicate these results in multiple locations? What equipment did you use? How have you accounted for the thousand upon thousand astronomical readings that we have taken in the last half a millennium? How does your magnetic theory account for the dilation of time nearby particularly significant gravitational wells?


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Interesting theory. Have you submitted your evidence and related findings for peer review? What measurements have you taken that do not correlate with our current understanding of gravity? Have you been able to replicate these results in multiple locations? What equipment did you use? How have you accounted for the thousand upon thousand astronomical readings that we have taken in the last half a millennium? How does your magnetic theory account for the dilation of time nearby particularly significant gravitational wells?



Are you a bitter skeptic, or are you trying to finesse me of my intellectual efforts?  You don't have to like the example, but the point was that paradigm shifts happen.  If you don't want to contribute, then you can wait 100 years.


----------



## Xzi (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> My theory about gravity is that it is magnetism happening on a grander scale than that we are at a point of being able to verify. Maybe in a hundred years the theory of gravity will "fall". It's relative.


Wouldn't all fully-plastic and non-metallic matter float if this were a valid theory?  Humans would also feel weightless aside from the bottoms of our feet, because all the iron and trace metals in our blood would be pulling at them.  Sometimes you don't even need to test a theory if you can just poke holes through it with basic reasoning.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Wouldn't all fully-plastic and non-metallic matter float if this were a valid theory?  Humans would also feel weightless aside from the bottoms of our feet, because all the iron and trace metals in our blood would be pulling at them.  Sometimes you don't even need to test a theory if you can just poke holes through it with basic reasoning.



You think that you are poking holes in my theory by poking holes in whatever you the think the theory is.  The point is, that if a paradigm shift were to happen in this example, then your questions would look ignorant after the fact, not leading up to it.


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Theory and fact aren't mutually dependent either.   Paradigm shifts happen.  They don't happen because of those who settle on theory as "being good enough" or "how we should look at something".
> 
> 
> 
> My theory about gravity is that it is magnetism happening on a grander scale than that we are at a point of being able to verify.  Maybe in a hundred years the theory of gravity will "fall".  It's relative.


A scientific theory and a colloquial fact are, in fact, "mutually dependent."

A scientific fact is a colloquial observation.

A colloquial theory is a scientific hypothesis.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Are you a bitter skeptic, or are you trying to finesse me of my intellectual efforts?  You don't have to like the example, but the point was that paradigm shifts happen.  If you don't want to contribute, then you can wait 100 years.





tabzer said:


> You think that you are poking holes in my theory by poking holes in whatever you the think the theory is.  The point is, that if a paradigm shift were to happen in this example, then your questions would look ignorant after the fact, not leading up to it.


i love the dunning-kruger effect


----------



## chrisrlink (May 16, 2021)

sorry to burst your bubble trumpkins but the election cannot be overturned on many grounds too baked into the constitution (John Qunicy Adams even won through bribing the more corrupt EC back then in 1824)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...tion-was-a-fraud-the-constitution-doesnt-say/


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Are you a bitter skeptic,



I think he's trying to point out that a scientific theory needs more than just some random throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.



chrisrlink said:


> sorry to burst your bubble trumpkins but the election cannot be overturned on many grounds too baked into the constitution (John Qunicy Adams even won through bribing the more corrupt EC back then in 1824)



The way I see it, if you're happy that a fat orange man can lie his way into the white house then all is fair.

I don't think the election was rigged, but if Biden managed to rig the election against someone as rich and powerful as Trump then he seems like the type of person you would want as president.

Democracy is flawed, more people wanted Hilary. You don't get to pick and choose what flaws to keep based on how well they work for you (Trump was against the electoral college when he thought it would prevent him being president but then supported it when it allowed him to become president).


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> i love the dunning-kruger effect



Not only is it besides the point, it shows that you would have probably been no different than those who heckle inventors and scientists of the past.  It's ironic, seeing as that you are a history teacher but presumably knowing about the past doesn't seem to help you.  



smf said:


> I think he's trying to point out that a scientific theory needs more than just some random throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.



It's a strawman to bypass the point that I was making.  



Lacius said:


> A scientific theory and a colloquial fact are, in fact, "mutually dependent."
> 
> A scientific fact is a colloquial observation.
> 
> A colloquial theory is a scientific hypothesis.



I don't disagree.  Colloquial facts are relative to the age that they are accepted as facts, by definition.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's a strawman to bypass the point that I was making.



Your point being that you don't understand what scientific theories are and how they differ from random thoughts.

At least that is the point you've made.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

smf said:


> Your point being that you don't understand what scientific theories are and how they differ from random thoughts.
> 
> At least that is the point you've made.



The point I made was that paradigm shifts have happened and can happen again.  The example about magnetism replacing gravity wasn't intended to be taken as a serious proposal.  How difficult is it to imagine "what if" scenarios?


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't disagree.  Colloquial facts are relative to the age that they are accepted as facts, by definition.


Yes, now you're getting it. If our understanding about a topic changes, then what we understand to be a colloquial fact about that topic may also change. If our evidence about a scientific topic changes, then the scientific theory may also change. That's an advantage of the scientific method, not a defect.

This means you agree that scientific theories like germ theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, Big Bang theory, plate tectonics theory, climate change theory, etc., like all scientific theories, are facts.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Not only is it besides the point, it shows that you would have probably been no different than those who heckle inventors and scientists of the past.  It's ironic, seeing as that you are a history teacher but presumably knowing about the past doesn't seem to help you.


The point is that you have all but no competency, but your confidence is high. I am saying that you are making a fool of yourself without knowing it.

Scientists of the past did not speculate wildly, their every publication was dogged with people trying to shoot them down. Scientific theories survive trials by fire to earn the right to be called that at all. You do not understand the concepts you are trying to invoke in the slightest, and it is embarrassing.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The point I made was that paradigm shifts have happened and can happen again.  The example about magnetism replacing gravity wasn't intended to be taken as a serious proposal.  How difficult is it to imagine "what if" scenarios?



You can't use the fact that people have been wrong before as some kind of evidence that your unproven theories could be proven in the future.

You're the one building strawmen.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This means you agree that scientific theories like germ theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, Big Bang theory, plate tectonics theory, climate change theory, etc., like all scientific theories, are facts.




Facts "for now".  At least until a greater understanding can change how we view it.  Also, while evolution is fact, in my mind at least, I don't think we, as people,  are direct descendants of the evolutionary chain.  I think other things happened, too.




Darth Meteos said:


> The point is that you have all but no competency, but your confidence is high.




Competency in what? Convincing you to indulge, in a moment, that we are not at a collective endgame of understanding of everything?




Darth Meteos said:


> I am saying that you are making a fool of yourself without knowing it.




This is a low-to-non stakes situation where I have more to gain than to lose. I have no problem playing the fool if nobody else feels game to do so, for the sake of extrapolating information that would, otherwise, not be available.




Darth Meteos said:


> Scientists of the past did not speculate wildly, their every publication was dogged with people trying to shoot them down. Scientific theories survive trials by fire to earn the right to be called that at all. You do not understand the concepts you are trying to invoke in the slightest, and it is embarrassing




First, I'm not speculating wildly. Second, my "theory" is not a formal submission into the scientific community. Third, you aren't a representative.  I made a point. I provided a hypothetical situation where we could entertain  a scenario where the point would be understood. Your reaction is to blast the hypothetical so that you could, what? Bypass the understanding?



smf said:


> You can't use the fact that people have been wrong before as some kind of evidence that your unproven theories could be proven in the future.



I'm not.  I already assessed what I thought was true, and that was that paradigm shifts have happened and can happen again.  Deviations from that point are a distraction (via strawman).


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Facts "for now".  At least until a greater understanding can change how we view it.  Also, while evolution is fact, in my mind at least, I don't think we, as people,  are direct descendants of the evolutionary chain.  I think other things happened, too.


The theories of evolution and common descent are proven scientific facts. If you don't want to believe in evolution because it contradicts your religious beliefs, okay. I'm not here to have that debate with you. But, let's not pretend it's anything other than anti-scientific and anti-fact. It would very much be like refusing to believe in heliocentric theory because your religious beliefs include that the Earth is the center of the universe.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm not.  I already assessed what I thought was true, and that was that paradigm shifts have happened and can happen again.



Well done for realizing something obvious that everyone else already knew & certainly couldn't argue about.

But what was your reason for telling us that paradigm shifts can happen?


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The theories of evolution and common descent are proven scientific facts. If you don't want to believe in evolution because it contradicts your religious beliefs, okay. I'm not here to have that debate with you. But, let's not pretend it's anything other than anti-scientific and anti-fact. It would very much be like refusing to believe in heliocentric theory because your religious beliefs include that the Earth is the center of the universe.



Heliocentric "theory" was only a theory after Galileo.  Before that, it was a "colloquial fact" that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, or whatever the relative term; solar system, spheres, thing. 

If the "theories of evolution and common descent" are "proven scientific facts" then I believe someone missed something, or the verdict was forced.   Theory is theory, and fact is fact.  Why would the "theory of evolution" remain a theory if it is a proven fact?  This is a fault in the language used, not my understanding of it.



smf said:


> Well done for realizing something obvious that everyone else already knew.
> 
> How does that help your argument?



That was my argument.  If you agree, then click like and please subscribe.  Seriously, though, it would be great if you acknowledge what you DO agree with before shitting on shit.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That was my argument.  If you agree, then click like and please subscribe.  Seriously, though, it would be great if you acknowledge what you DO agree with before shitting on shit.



I agree that you're building strawmen.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

smf said:


> I agree that you're building strawmen.



Try reading before responding.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Try reading before responding.



I did, you made some half assed post about your theory of gravity and then built up a strawman about paradigm shifts to defend it.

Maybe you should try reading what you post before responding?


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Heliocentric "theory" was only a theory after Galileo.  Before that, it was a "colloquial fact" that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, or whatever the relative term; solar system, spheres, thing.
> 
> If the "theories of evolution and common descent" are "proven scientific facts" then I believe someone missed something, or the verdict was forced.   Theory is theory, and fact is fact.  Why would the "theory of evolution" remain a theory if it is a proven fact?  This is a fault in the language used, not my understanding of it.


You apparently ignored everything I said in my previous posts. Scientific theories are colloquial facts. Whether something is a scientific theory or a scientific fact has nothing to do with its truthfulness or how much it as been demonstrated to be true; it's about how simple or complex the claim is.

It does not matter how much more proven evolution or heliocentrism are. They are forever scientific theories, and they are colloquial facts. Broadly speaking, a scientific theory is the graduation point of a scientific hypothesis.

Heliocentric theory is as much as scientific theory as the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution is as much a fact as heliocentric theory is.



tabzer said:


> Try reading before responding.


No, you.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

smf said:


> I did, you made some half assed post about your theory of gravity and then built up a strawman about paradigm shifts to defend it.
> 
> Maybe you should try reading what you post before responding?



Eh.  Paradigm shifts was the lead.  Fudged theory was provided as a supporting scenario to imagine in role-play.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Eh.  Paradigm shifts was the lead.  Fudged theory was provided as a supporting scenario to imagine in role-play.



Just because you build your strawmans first, doesn't mean it's not a strawman.

Your theory of gravity does not support anything, it's an example of you not understanding how to make a valid point

I'm not convinced that your strawman was the lead point either.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> They are forever scientific theories, and they are colloquial facts.



But they are not forever "colloquial facts". 



Lacius said:


> Heliocentric theory is as much as scientific theory as the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution is as much a fact as heliocentric theory is.



And I think that in the future, they will become outdated.



smf said:


> Just because you build your strawmans first, doesn't mean it's not a strawman.
> 
> Your theory of gravity does not support anything, it's an example of you not understanding.



You are choosing to focus on something that doesn't matter so much, at least in the context of this conversation.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are choosing to focus on something that doesn't matter so much, at least in the context of this conversation.



When I focused on other points, you drew it back to you were only ever discussing that change happens. Even though that is an obvious lie, because nobody has ever argued with you that change happens.

You appear to be doing this on purpose either because you incorrectly think it helps you win an argument, or because you are trolling. I can't figure out which.

So your gravity theory is rubbish and you otherwise just stated something obvious.

I'm at a loss what point you're actually trying to make in the context of this conversation & that seems to be more of a problem with how you write your posts.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

smf said:


> When I focused on other points, you drew it back to you were only ever discussing that change happens. Even though that is an obvious lie, because nobody has ever argued with you that change happens.
> 
> You do this on purpose either because you incorrectly think it helps you win an argument, or because you are trolling. I can't figure out which.



Oh, the "you either agree with me or you are a troll" proposition.  Well, I provided an idea, the rest of the literature I supplied was support for the idea.  Not the other way around.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Oh, the "you either agree with me or you are a troll proposition".  Well, I provided an idea, the rest of the literature I supplied was support for the idea.  Not the other way around.



No, I am not saying you are a troll because I disagree.

I'm saying you're a troll because you're just throwing out random posts and when someone tries to disagree with you then you gaslight everyone who responds.

If you're not a troll then you just are clueless about how to have a discussion but are incapable of realizing it & instead blame everyone else


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

smf said:


> No, I am not saying you are a troll because I disagree.
> 
> I'm saying you're a troll because you're just throwing out random posts and when someone tries to disagree with you then you're gaslighting everyone who responds.



If I am successful at gaslighting anybody with my posts, then the idea of science was already out of the window.  My posts aren't random.  There is no random.  We try at random and fail.


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> But they are not forever "colloquial facts".


We are as confident that evolution is a fact as we are confident that the Earth orbits around the Sun. So yes, they are probably "forever colloquial facts."



tabzer said:


> And I think that in the future, they will become outdated.


Are you arguing the Earth does not orbit the Sun? When you're also discounting evolution, I guess you're at least being consistent.

We are always learning new things, and scientific theories are often revised when our understanding changes, but theories like evolution and heliocentrism are so substantiated that we can say with an extremely high level of confidence that no, they will not become significantly outdated. The Earth orbits around the Sun, and humans (like the rest of the species on Earth) evolved. These are facts.

The position that heliocentrism and/or evolution will "become outdated" is anti-science, anti-fact, and anti-reason. It's your prerogative to hold unreasonable views, but let's not pretend they're anything other than unreasonable.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If I am successful at gaslighting anybody with my posts, then the idea of science was already out of the window.



I didn't say you were successful at gaslighting.



tabzer said:


> My posts aren't random.  There is no random.  We try at random and fail.



You have just disproved yourself, with the meaningless "the idea of science was already out of the window".

It's just some random bullshit that means nothing and has no relevance to the first part of the sentence.

If you disagree with me then you are saying unicorns are real and talk to you (see I can pull the same crap as you)


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We are as confident that evolution is a fact as we are confident that the Earth orbits around the Sun. So yes, they are probably "forever colloquial facts."



"probably".  Can you handle a weather forecast?



Lacius said:


> Are you arguing the Earth does not orbit the Earth? When you're also discounting evolution, I guess you're at least being consistent.



I am not arguing that the Earth does not orbit the Sun* oops.  I would argue that the Earth and the Sun revolve around each other.  The Earth revolves around the Sun far more than the Sun revolves around the Earth, but both are true.



Lacius said:


> We are always learning new things, and scientific theories are often revised when our understanding changes, but theories like evolution and heliocentrism are so substantiated that we can say with an extremely high level of confidence that no, they will not become significantly outdated.


Okay.  I can agree with you on this point.  The theory will be "revised" to fit in what we learn.

But it is possible for a paradigm shift to alienate all of the terms we are using.




smf said:


> I didn't say you were successful at gaslighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are boring.  Shut up please.


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> "probably".  Can you handle a weather forecast?


We are much more confident that heliocentrism and evolution are true than we are confident about the average weather forecast. They aren't comparable. Evolution and heliocentrism are models about what happened and what's happening; the weather forecast is a statement about probability regarding future events.

The two theories can be used to make probabilistic predictions, but those are separate issues.



tabzer said:


> I am not arguing that the Earth does not orbit the Earth.  I would argue that the Earth and the Sun revolve around each other.  The Earth revolves around the Sun far more than the Sun revolves around the Earth, but both are true.


That was a typo on my part. I asked if you think the Earth doesn't orbit around the Sun. That's what it sounds like you're saying when you say heliocentrism theory is likely to become "outdated."



tabzer said:


> Okay.  I can agree with you on this point.  The theory will be "revised" to fit in what we learn.


The theory could be revised to fit new information, yes. However, a.) that's highly unlikely to occur, given the substantial evidence we already have, and b.) until that time in which new evidence presents itself, it's unreasonable to reject the theory as it is.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> That was a typo on my part. I asked if you think the Earth doesn't orbit around the Sun. That's what it sounds like you're saying when you say heliocentrism theory is likely to become "outdated."



Lol.  I believed in you, blindly.

I made the edit.  (look back).

Confidence is nice, but it wasn't earned, and I'm not sure that it is good for our situation.  Weather forcast = few days while science forecast = a century?  Time is relative, and the science is consistent, no?



Lacius said:


> that's highly unlikely to occur,



Until it occurs.


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Confidence is nice, but it wasn't earned, and I'm not sure that it is good for our situation.  Weather forcast = few days while science forecast = a century?  Time is relative, and the science is consistent, no?


The confidence we have in the theory of evolution and the theory of heliocentrism is very much earned. They both have overwhelming evidence supporting them, and zero evidence contradicting them. We know for a fact that evolution is real and heliocentrism is real.



tabzer said:


> Until it occurs.


It's unreasonable, unfactual, and unscientific to say it's going to occur before it occurs. All you have is the science and evidence available to you now, and I suggest you use them. You're lucky to have them.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> the theory of heliocentrism is very much earned



Look dude.  I just provided you with a claim that the Earth revolves around the sun AND the sun revolves around the Earth.  You should either acknowledge that, dismiss it, or gtfo.


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Look dude.  I just provided with a claim that the Earth revolves around the sun AND the sun revolves around the Earth.  You should either acknowledge that, dismiss it, or gtfo.


The Earth orbits around the Sun, not the other way around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric_orbit
The Sun orbits the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Earth orbits around the Sun, not the other way around.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit
> ...



So you decided to be a science "teacher" instead of a scientist.


----------



## Lacius (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> So you decided to be a science "teacher" instead of a scientist.


You can send me a PM if you're actually interested in my career choices. I'm also not sure why you put quotation marks around "teacher." I am a teacher.


----------



## smf (May 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are boring.  Shut up please.



Boring because I'm right, gotcha.



Lacius said:


> The Sun orbits the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy



Stop using provable facts to win arguments. He is clearly more entitled to win than you.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 16, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> I have written multiple messages stating that I do not share my opinions on historical topics in the classroom. Can you fucking read?
> 
> 
> Of course I _want_ them to come to the same conclusions as me, I think they are the correct ones, but it's on them. Learning about history helped me understand the present in so many ways, I have to believe it will do the same for them. I certainly don't intervene and go "okay class, here's what conclusions you should draw"



In the same post you said you don't share your opinions on historical topic yet you want them to come to the same conclusions as you? Which means sharing your opinions. Yeah, I think we're done here.



> And on top of that, you're on a fucking political forum. Are you saying you _don't_ want to propagate your way of thinking? You aren't looking for more people like you who'll vote in your leaders and fight for the issues you care about? What in the fuck are you doing here, otherwise?


Of course I'd like more people to think the same way of common sense, but I know how thick, stupid, and ignorant people can be so it's up to them if they want to change, and if they don't, then the possible consequences of the future is on them. I don't force people and try to shame them like a lot of people I've seen here do.
So why am I here? To study people, learn, and even trigger them for fun since it's so easy to.



smf said:


> It's not an opinion, it's none of my business.
> 
> It's also none of your business who I rub genitals with.
> Or what I eat for breakfast.
> ...


It kinda is an opinion in a way, but like I said, you do you.




smallissue said:


> Here to get 200 notifications of nerds getting triggered
> 
> Yooo chibi robo doing polly's ticks thngs1!!1!!!1!


The reason I'm on fire is from all the people I've triggered and how angry they get lol


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 17, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> In the same post you said you don't share your opinions on historical topic yet you want them to come to the same conclusions as you? Which means sharing your opinions.


leave it to a conservative to not be able to tell the difference between wanting something and actioning upon it


----------



## smf (May 17, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It kinda is an opinion in a way, but like I said, you do you.



I have a lack of opinion on what you should do in your private life.

It's actually rather creepy when people have an opinion, because it means you are thinking about them doing stuff.


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 17, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> congratulations, your stupidity has levelled up to sad
> impressive


I'm not the one who looks at a picture of a human being suffering and dying of starvation due to political ideologies and inmediately thinks of "french fries".
How are you any different from hollocaust deniers?
How are you any different from the people who commit genocides when you blatantly ignore the people suffering?
You're not a history teacher, you're a souless and twisted individual who should be nowhere near any school.

Edit: now I understand why you continue to twist facts about fascism, you're literally just hiding the fact that you are one by shifting the focus somewhere else.


----------



## tabzer (May 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The theory could be revised to fit new information, yes. However, a.) that's highly unlikely to occur, given the substantial evidence we already have, and b.) until that time in which new evidence presents itself, it's unreasonable to reject the theory as it is.



You are using "substantial" as a relative term in which we refer to our recollection of the past as a basis.  So as long as humanity doesn't mess that up, that should continue being the trend.

Like the Geocentric model was old thinking (ie colloquial fact), it was changed to Heliocentric and people never stopped calling themselves enlightened.  The "Heliocentric model" had also gone through revisions as it had claimed that the Sun was the center of the galaxy. 

To suggest that something is highly unlikely, you are entertaining a probability that you have no ability to quantify.  The fact is that changes in theory have happened, do happen, and probably will happen again based on the fact that such occurrences are proven to exist and presents itself as a pattern.  Given enough time, the "colloquial facts" of man inevitably shift.

The Earth, having gravity, also has its own pull on the Sun.  Everything revolves around each other.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 17, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> I'm not the one who looks at a picture of a human being suffering and dying of starvation due to political ideologies and inmediately thinks of "french fries".
> How are you any different from hollocaust deniers?
> How are you any different from the people who commit genocides when you blatantly ignore the people suffering?
> You're not a history teacher, you're a souless and twisted individual who should be nowhere near any school.


dude, look at this guy _mald _
it's fucking brutal, man

my favourite quotes:


Acid_Snake said:


> suffering and dying of starvation due to _political ideologies_





Acid_Snake said:


> How are you any different from hollocaust deniers?
> How are you any different from the people who commit genocides





Acid_Snake said:


> you're a souless and twisted individual



I've never seen someone so triggered that I wouldn't pay attention to them before. It is astonishing.
It is so far beneath me to actually respond to the message where you called me 'souless' because I held to my promise to cease wasting my time with you, but son of a bitch(!), ya got me. I had to respond to your psychotic rant, and here it is:



Spoiler: My Full Response!










Seek help.


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 17, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> dude, look at this guy _mald _
> - People have never ever being murdered for their political ideologies.
> - Denying that people have been murdered for their political views is not being a hollocaust denier.
> - Defending and protecting people who have commited genocide does not make me a potential genocidal.
> - Ignoring crimes against humanity perpetuated by a specific ideology means I have a bright mind and peaceful soul.


I just changed my quotes to the opposite so they better fit your view of life. Happy now?

And I ask again, where the hell did you get your history degree?


----------



## Lacius (May 17, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are using "substantial" as a relative term in which we refer to our recollection of the past as a basis.  So as long as humanity doesn't mess that up, that should continue being the trend.
> 
> Like the Geocentric model was old thinking (ie colloquial fact), it was changed to Heliocentric and people never stopped calling themselves enlightened.  The "Heliocentric model" had also gone through revisions as it had claimed that the Sun was the center of the galaxy.
> 
> ...


Just because our ways of looking at the universe have changed throughout history doesn't mean each scientific theory will inevitably shift. If your goal is to be rational, then you must accept each scientific theory until the day we have new evidence and a different understanding.

The effect of the Earth's gravitational pull on the Sun does not result in the Sun orbiting the Earth.


----------



## tthousand (May 17, 2021)

This is what suppression of information look like...


----------



## Lacius (May 17, 2021)

tthousand said:


> This is what suppression of information look like...


Information hasn't been suppressed. Databases haven't been deleted.

The "audit" going on in Arizona is a joke.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 18, 2021)

tabzer said:


> why doesn't gbatemp have a cringe emoji


@Lacius, my man, great work baiting this dude into sweatily listing off a bunch of googled facts about gravity to prove to all of us reading _"I'm not owned! I'm not owned!"_
Ten out of ten, well meme'd. Have a drink on me.



Acid_Snake said:


> I just changed my quotes to the opposite so they better fit your view of life. Happy now?


"Please Mr. Meteos, respond to my strawman!"


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If your goal is to be rational, then you must accept each scientific theory until the day we have new evidence and a different understanding.


if tabzer's goal is to be rational?
you think tabzer's goal is rationality?


----------



## KingVamp (May 18, 2021)

9-0 vote against warrantless home searches.


----------



## Lacius (May 18, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> if tabzer's goal is to be rational?
> you think tabzer's goal is rationality?


I wholeheartedly do not believe that to be his goal.


----------



## Valwinz (May 18, 2021)

BASED BIDEN
Biden approves $735M weapons sale to Israel https://t.co/dEdrfl9xyd pic.twitter.com/ieQQFDFc1R— The Hill (@thehill) May 17, 2021


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (May 18, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Gay people literally could not marry just a couple of years ago.


Fun fact: five nights at freddy's is older than legal gay marriage in the US


----------



## tabzer (May 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Just because our ways of looking at the universe have changed throughout history doesn't mean each scientific theory will inevitably shift. If your goal is to be rational, then you must accept each scientific theory until the day we have new evidence and a different understanding.
> 
> The effect of the Earth's gravitational pull on the Sun does not result in the Sun orbiting the Earth.



You are rephrasing my claims to say something that I am not saying.

My claim about planets orbiting each other (sun and Earth) points to the definition of barycenter which is the actual thing that planets orbit.  It is more accurate to say that planets revolve around each other than than it is to say the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the Sun.


----------



## tabzer (May 18, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> if tabzer's goal is to be rational?
> you think tabzer's goal is rationality?



Science, English, and history are not your strong suits but you are here.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 18, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are rephrasing my claims to say something that I am not saying.
> 
> My claim about planets orbiting each other (sun and Earth) points to the definition of barycenter which is the actual thing that planets orbit.  It is more accurate to say that planets revolve around each other than than it is to say the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the Sun.


bro shut the fuck up
you're like that kid in every grade 10 physics class that is learning about the three states of matter and goes _WhAt AbOuT pLaSmA_ to try and seem smart


----------



## tabzer (May 18, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> bro shut the fuck up
> you're like that kid in every grade 10 physics class that is learning about the three states of matter and goes _WhAt AbOuT pLaSmA_ to try and seem smart


Lol, who "learns" about the three states of matter in 10th grade physics?  What's the point of this analogy if you are aren't saying that I should treat you like you are in the 10th grade?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2021)

I don't have grenades big enough to clean this shit show of a thread. If we're done deliberating on what is and is not a scientific theory, and what that entails, we can return to the actual topic. In case anyone forgot (I wouldn't blame you), it's the Biden administration.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 18, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't have grenades big enough to clean this shit show of a thread. If we're done deliberating on what is and is not a scientific theory, and what that entails, we can return to the actual topic. In case anyone forgot (I wouldn't blame you), it's the Biden administration.


No problem, Captain. Watching tabzer making a fool of himself doesn't have to include science.

Instead, let's discuss Biden's uppers. Do you think he uses just a lot of one, or a bunch of different ones? Do you think they're consumer ones, or do you think he's using the secret rich people drugs that Big Pharma doesn't want us to know about?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> No problem, Captain. Watching tabzer making a fool of himself doesn't have to include science.
> 
> Instead, let's discuss Biden's uppers. Do you think he uses just a lot of one, or a bunch of different ones? Do you think they're consumer ones, or do you think he's using the secret rich people drugs that Big Pharma doesn't want us to know about?


This is obvious bait, but I'll respond regardless. I honestly don't know what kind of health Biden's in right now - if his doctor is to be believed, he's in peak condition. With that being said, at the end of the day he's 78 and had two brain aneurysms in the past, one of which had burst. The fact that he functions as well as he does is a medical miracle, so we'll call that peak physical and mental capacity - he's as well as he could be given his medical history. I'm sure he has the best and brightest medical staff on his case 24/7, which he'll need going forward. I suspect we will watch him gradually decline over the course of his presidency, which is a sad state of affairs. I won't make any definitive statements regarding his health since I'm not a doctor - all I know is that he's a dinosaur, and dinosaurs have dinosaur problems, I don't think that's particularly controversial to say.


----------



## Lacius (May 18, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are rephrasing my claims to say something that I am not saying.
> 
> My claim about planets orbiting each other (sun and Earth) points to the definition of barycenter which is the actual thing that planets orbit.  It is more accurate to say that planets revolve around each other than than it is to say the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the Sun.


The solar system's center of mass is roughly the surface of the sun (not the center of the sun), since the sun is approximately 99.8% of the mass of the solar system. So, you are correct that the planets orbit the solar system's center of mass, but that's where your correctness ends.

The planets in our solar system orbit around the sun, and the sun does not orbit around any of the planets. If you were to cease arguing for the sake of arguing, you would see there's no technicality that changes this fact. And, to get back to the point, you would see that heliocentric theory and the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, are also facts.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I don't have grenades big enough to clean this shit show of a thread. If we're done deliberating on what is and is not a scientific theory, and what that entails, we can return to the actual topic. In case anyone forgot (I wouldn't blame you), it's the Biden administration.


I didn't see this until after my response.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> This is obvious bait, but I'll respond regardless. I honestly don't know what kind of health Biden's in right now - if his doctor is to be believed, he's in peak condition. With that being said, at the end of the day he's 78 and had two brain aneurysms in the past, one of which had burst. The fact that he functions as well as he does is a medical miracle, so we'll call that peak physical and mental capacity - he's as well as he could be given his medical history. I'm sure he has the best and brightest medical staff on his case 24/7, which he'll need going forward. I suspect we will watch him gradually decline over the course of his presidency, which is a sad state of affairs. I won't make any definitive statements regarding his health since I'm not a doctor - all I know is that he's a dinosaur, and dinosaurs have dinosaur problems, I don't think that's particularly controversial to say.


Considering Biden famously had a stutter growing up that has affected him in his adulthood, it's pretty much impossible to make any claims about his health just by listening to him speak. In order words, he has always been gaffe prone, and he has always been known to stumble over his words from time to time.

It's also fair to say he will likely decline over the years, but whether that's ten years from now or one year from now is anybody's guess. There's no evidence the Biden administration has been anything other than forthright regarding Biden's health.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Science, English, and history are not your strong suits but you are here.


I don't think you get to say science isn't somebody's strong suit when you are the one who is rejecting overwhelmingly-established scientific theory and the scientific method.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Just because our ways of looking at the universe have changed throughout history doesn't mean each scientific theory will inevitably shift. If your goal is to be rational, then you must accept each scientific theory until the day we have new evidence and a different understanding.
> 
> The effect of the Earth's gravitational pull on the Sun does not result in the Sun orbiting the Earth.



So what you're saying is a lot of what we know now to be factual is actually wrong and eventually it'll change to be something else? That doesn't make me feel that confident in what we know now.


----------



## Lacius (May 18, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So what you're saying is a lot of what we know now to be factual is actually wrong and eventually it'll change to be something else? That doesn't make me feel that confident in what we know now.


I didn't say that.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2021)

Lacuis said:
			
		

> If your goal is to be rational, then you must accept each scientific theory until the day we have new evidence and a different understanding.





Lacius said:


> I didn't say that.



It sure seems like you did. If eventually we'll have new evidence then what we believe to be valid now will be proved to be wrong. It does seem there are some hard facts and a lot of theories floating around. Take for example the contents of a 1895 school science text book. Most of what's in it has been proved to be invalid due to advancements. You clearly stated that with new evidence we'll have a new understanding meaning the understanding we have now will be proved to be inaccurate (wrong). There, I did my best to explain my point of view, but if you still can't grasp what I'm saying then maybe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.


----------



## Lacius (May 18, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It sure seems like you did. If eventually we'll have new evidence then what we believe to be valid now will be proved to be wrong. It does seem there are some hard facts and a lot of theories floating around. Take for example the contents of a 1895 school science text book. Most of what's in it has been proved to be invalid due to advancements. You clearly stated that with new evidence we'll have a new understanding meaning the understanding we have now will be proved to be inaccurate (wrong). There, I did my best to explain my point of view, but if you still can't grasp what I'm saying then maybe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.


Our scientific theories may change if new evidence becomes available, and this has happened before. That's a benefit of science, not a flaw. That does not mean significant changes to our current scientific theories are likely or inevitable. If your goal is to be rational, you must accept current scientific understanding until a day in which new evidence is discovered that contradicts that understanding. With a lot of scientific theories, such as germ theory and the theory of evolution, that's nearly impossible at this point because they're so well-substantiated. Just because it's technically possible we are all living in the Matrix, for example, and some of our scientific theories could be wrong doesn't alone provide a rational basis for rejecting present scientific theories.

Edit: It has also already been noted that this is pretty off-topic. If you'd like to continue this conversation, start a PM or tag me in a relevant thread.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Our scientific theories may change if new evidence becomes available, and this has happened before. That's a benefit of science, not a flaw. That does not mean significant changes to our current scientific theories are likely or inevitable. If your goal is to be rational, you must accept current scientific understanding until a day in which new evidence is discovered that contradicts that understanding. With a lot of scientific theories, such as germ theory and the theory of evolution, that's nearly impossible at this point because they're so well-substantiated. Just because it's technically possible we are all living in the Matrix, for example, and some of our scientific theories could be wrong doesn't alone provide a rational basis for rejecting present scientific theories.



Whether or not you see it as a benefit or a flaw would be your personal opinion and I've stated mine. I view it as a flaw and it doesn't put much confidence in what we currently know if it will be proved to be wrong in another 50 years.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 18, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This is obvious bait... other stuff was here


It wasn't, just a joke. I pretty much agree with everything you said.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Whether or not you see it as a benefit or a flaw would be your personal opinion and I've stated mine. I view it as a flaw and it doesn't put much confidence in what we currently know if it will be proved to be wrong in another 50 years.


this is some concentrated cringe
some of the things we take for granted are going to be wrong due to the march of time, but as they exist now, they fit perfectly with our understanding of the universe
saying "oh, some of them are wrong," not only with no evidence for any particular thing, but simply so you can ignore science writ large... my man, this is some real dumbassery


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> this is some concentrated cringe
> some of the things we take for granted are going to be wrong due to the march of time, but as they exist now, they fit perfectly with our understanding of the universe
> saying "oh, some of them are wrong," not only with no evidence for any particular thing, but simply so you can ignore science writ large... my man, this is some real dumbassery



Well it's my opinion and I'm not going to call you nasty things because yours differs from mine.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> It wasn't, just a joke. I pretty much agree with everything you said.


Fair. I thought you expected me to say that the guy has dementia, which I have no evidence for besides him consistently forgetting what he was talking about and changing the subject to kettle corn or cranberries after 30 seconds, which is typical of dinosaurs anyway.


----------



## tabzer (May 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The planets in our solar system orbit around the sun, and the sun does not orbit around any of the planets. If you were to cease arguing for the sake of arguing, you would see there's no technicality that changes this fact. And, to get back to the point, you would see that heliocentric theory and the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, are also facts.



What I've described is the barycenter which you are _still_ disputing.  It's by definition that they orbit another.  It seems like your argument is shifting towards accepting that (the benefit, not the flaw?), but it still hasn't reached the threshold of the fact.  Maybe you are waiting for everyone else to embrace it so that it becomes colloquial enough?

"In astronomy, the *barycenter* (or *barycentre*; from the Ancient Greek βαρύς heavy κέντρον center[1]) is the* center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another* and is the point about which the bodies orbit. It is an important concept in fields such as astronomy and astrophysics. The distance from a body's center of mass to the barycenter can be calculated as a two-body problem.

If one of the two orbiting bodies is much more massive than the other and the bodies are relatively close to one another, the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object. In this case, rather than the two bodies appearing to orbit a point between them, the less massive body will appear to orbit about the more massive body, while the more massive body might be observed to wobble slightly."

Appearances do not change the facts.  A "wobble" of the sun still covers notable distance, if you are a human.

The math and the logic of the Barycenter is not dependent on Heliocentrism.  That's just you being dogmatic.

Biden says “Science is discovery. Not a fiction."


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 18, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Fair. I thought you expected me to say that the guy has dementia, which I have no evidence for besides him consistently forgetting what he was talking about and changing the subject to kettle corn or cranberries after 30 seconds, which is typical of dinosaurs anyway.


Isn't that one of the symptoms of dementia though? Yeah, I know memory gets affected as you get older, but some old people do have great memory regardless of age. And furthermore, if he's old and his memory is fading, um, why the hell is he president of the united states? One of the the most important jobs in the world? A job like that take a lot of physical and even more mental strain which, which it doesn't seem like he has. This isn't specifically targeted at you, but why vote in a frail old man with memory problems into a position where he has nuclear codes?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Isn't that one of the symptoms of dementia though? Yeah, I know memory gets affected as you get older, but some old people do have great memory regardless of age. And furthermore, if he's old and his memory is fading, um, why the hell is he president of the united states? One of the the most important jobs in the world? A job like that take a lot of physical and even more mental strain which, which it doesn't seem like he has. This isn't specifically targeted at you, but why vote in a frail old man with memory problems into a position where he has nuclear codes?


As a general rule you'd need to examine someone and have some degree of expertise in the field in order to make a diagnosis. You shouldn't throw around medical diagnoses if you don't have anything to back them up besides a hunch and you're not qualified to make them, especially when actual medical staff is saying he's fine - that could be considered slander. What you can say is that he has poor short-term memory and his mind likes to wander because you can see that when he speaks - that's evidenced by nearly every single public speech of his in the last few years.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 18, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> As a general rule you'd need to examine someone and have some degree of expertise in the field in order to make a diagnosis. You shouldn't throw around medical diagnoses if you don't have anything to back them up besides a hunch and you're not qualified to make them, especially when actual medical staff is saying he's fine - that could be considered slander. What you can say is that he has poor short-term memory and his mind likes to wander because you can see that when he speaks - that's evidenced by nearly every single public speech of his in the last few years.


That's fair, but for me, even if it is just a hunch, if I have the slightest doubts of putting a man in a position of great power, I wouldn't vote for them.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> That's fair, but for me, even if it is just a hunch, if I have the slightest doubts of putting a man in a position of great power, I wouldn't vote for them.


I wouldn't vote for Biden based on policy alone, the fact that he's a gaffe-machine dinosaur is a separate matter entirely, but I see your point.


----------



## Lacius (May 18, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Whether or not you see it as a benefit or a flaw would be your personal opinion and I've stated mine. I view it as a flaw and it doesn't put much confidence in what we currently know if it will be proved to be wrong in another 50 years.


Our scientific theories are based on evidence. If the goal is to have scientific theories that are correct, then being based on evidence is the only way to do that. I want scientific theories that are based on the evidence, and if the evidence changes, I would want scientific theories to reflect those changes in evidence. You aren't describing any sort of flaw with science; you're describing how logic and reason work. If there's some sort of dogmatic claim that has been disproved by evidence but continues to endure without changing, that's a flaw in that system.

We have ample evidence that well-established theories like evolution, heliocentric, and germ theory will not change in 50 years. If you care about being rational, and if you care about  evidence, then you must accept these theories and others as fact, because that's what they are. If you want to say science can't be trusted, then you're free to do that, but you're probably selectively believing the science you like and not the science you don't like, which is dishonest, and let's not pretend it isn't irrational and anti-science to arbitrarily reject proven facts like evolution and germ theory.



tabzer said:


> What I've described is the barycenter which you are _still_ disputing.  It's by definition that they orbit another.  It seems like your argument is shifting towards accepting that (the benefit, not the flaw?), but it still hasn't reached the threshold of the fact.  Maybe you are waiting for everyone else to embrace it so that it becomes colloquial enough?
> 
> Biden says “Science is discovery. Not a fiction."


I haven't disputed the concept of a barycenter. The problem is the solar system's barycenter is located on the surface of the sun, and in no way, shape, or form does the sun orbit the Earth. The sun orbits the barycenter, causing it to wobble slightly.

This is all also irrelevant, because you're trying to use heliocentric theory to argue for your points, meaning you've accepted heliocentric theory as fact. Theories like germ theory and evolution are also facts.

I agree with Biden that science is discovery, not a fiction. We have discovered that evolution, germ theory, heliocentrism, etc. are true. Rejection of these well-established scientific theories, with no reason to do so, is to embrace a fiction.

This will be my last post on the topics of science, unless there's a newfound relevance to this thread. I will see any responses to this post as an invitation for a private message from me.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2021)

@tabzer Don't bait people into continuing an inane, off-topic conversation when it was already indicated that it's off-topic and doesn't contribute anything to the thread. If you have a specific point to make that ties it to the Biden administration, now would be the time to make it. If you don't, you can make a separate thread about science and the movement of celestial bodies where this can be discussed in depth. I've warned everyone verbally once, deletion of off-topic content and official warnings will follow. This thread is off the rails already as it is, it doesn't need any help in getting lost in the weeds further.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 18, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> This isn't specifically targeted at you, but why vote in a frail old man with memory problems into a position where he has nuclear codes?


c'mon man, trump uttered a falsehood once every sentence
clearly this is down to a bad memory


----------



## KingVamp (May 19, 2021)

A bit random, but Larry Krasner has won reelection.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 19, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> A bit random, but Larry Krasner has won reelection.


just wanna thank you for keeping this thread pumped full of actual information
krasner is pretty cool

EDIT: Just realized the people who'll see this. Larry Krasner is the DA for Philadelphia, has been for a few years, interested in reforms like marijuana decriminalization and greater accountability. He has been surrounded with a truly ludicrous amount of corruption, and the police union specifically asked its members to switch blue to unseat him in the primary.
As you see, they failed. Fuck 'em.


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Lol, who "learns" about the three states of matter in 10th grade physics?


The same place where Darth Meteos got his history degree: in the dumpster behind Walmart. We're talking about a guy that quotes himself in his own signature, I wouldn't be surprised if he also thinks that plasma in blood refers to the state of matter.
According to his omniscient mind, fascism isn't radical socialism because french fries aren't french (and judging by that same logic, he probably believes the United States of America is in Asia). That's the level of knowledge this guy works with.


----------



## tabzer (May 19, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> The same place where Darth Meteos got his history degree: in the dumpster behind Walmart. We're talking about a guy that quotes himself in his own signature, I wouldn't be surprised if he also thinks that plasma in blood refers to the state of matter.
> According to his omniscient mind, fascism isn't radical socialism because french fries aren't french (and judging by that same logic, he probably believes the United States of America is in Asia). That's the level of knowledge this guy works with.



I'm not sure if American educational systems require degrees to teach, at large. My understanding is that primary education is undervalued as a career, and the system is desperate for "educators". I find it suspect that the role of someone being a teacher should be even mentioned here, on a political thread.

"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 19, 2021)

Acid_Snake said:


> The same place where Darth Meteos got his history degree: in the dumpster behind Walmart. We're talking about a guy that quotes himself in his own signature, I wouldn't be surprised if he also thinks that plasma in blood refers to the state of matter.
> According to his omniscient mind, fascism isn't radical socialism because french fries aren't french (and judging by that same logic, he probably believes the United States of America is in Asia). That's the level of knowledge this guy works with.



My reply got deleted even though it had nothing to do with any private PM's. I'll try again. Do you have any links to books or reading material that goes over what socialism, fascism and communism are, who created them, etc ... ? I was able to find this video after a quick search as I've seen it a while ago and it goes over the basics of fascism, but I'd really like to learn more about the subjects. Oh, please don't link to any Wikipedia pages as they change too often for my liking.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Fascism and Nazism are far-right authoritarian ideologies, by definition, so I'm not sure what you all are trying to accomplish.


Lacius, you dumbass
When Hitler left the Nazis in 1921 for allying with a socialism party, it was because he loved socialism too much
When he made big anti-socialism rallying cries in 1923 and 1926, it was actually reverse psychology
When he had a debate with a socialist Nazi in 1930, stressing the incompatibility of socialism with his vision for Germany, it was actually a 10,000IQ move to make the opposite occur
When Hitler banned unions and stamped down on worker's rights, he was really raising them up for the glory of the fatherland



tabzer said:


> Some would argue that it's a feature, and that it's irrational to get your information on political systems anywhere else.


ah yes
good faith actors frequently attempt to reduce the number of sources you consume mhm



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Do you have any links to books or reading material that goes over what socialism, fascism and communism are, who created them, etc?


I have a really good one.
Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco is widely considered to be a definitive work by political scientists in defining and identifying fascism. It outlines 14 points that typically exist in many fascist ideologies. Umberto Eco grew up in fascistic Italy, and it is a widely lauded work.

EDIT: It is included in his book, How to Spot a Fascist. It's required reading, I feel, for understanding why fascism is so ever present and so difficult to defeat.



tabzer said:


> I'm not sure if American educational systems require degrees to teach, at large. My understanding is that primary education is undervalued as a career, and the system is desperate for "educators". I find it suspect that the role of someone being a teacher should be even mentioned here, on a political thread.


Ignoring the aspersions on my learnedness, it was mentioned because I thought it was funny some random from the street is trying to tell a guy who studies this shit for a living what the real truth about history is. You remember this, of course, because you're not an idiot, you're just pretending to be one to reinforce your attempt to control the narrative.

Comical.


----------



## tabzer (May 19, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> Ignoring the aspersions on my learnedness, it was mentioned because I thought it was funny some random from the street is trying to tell a guy who studies this shit for a living what the real truth about history is. You remember this, of course, because you're not an idiot, you're just pretending to be one to reinforce your attempt to control the narrative.



An egomaniac who would advocate lying to students to undermine their confidence is using their status as a history teacher to leverage some imagined authority on a political forum over the rest of the ignorant plebs.  I'm simply amazed.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> An egomaniac who would advocate lying to students to undermine their confidence is using their status as a history teacher to leverage some imagined authority on a political forum over the rest of the ignorant plebs.  I'm simply amazed.


man, don't strain a muscle with that reach
i like that you just throw out accusations now


tabzer said:


> who would advocate lying to students to undermine their confidence


i have never said this
i will never say this


----------



## leon315 (May 19, 2021)

Kids above, this is topic about Joe Biden, it's time to stop off-topic arguments and stay on TOPIC!

This week the US blocked UN Security Counsel statement 3 times in a row! Biden helped bought time for Israel more days of pure killing and bombing of Palestine civilians. and USA prior the conflict sold 750 Million weapon to Israel and most of them are used in offensive actions against Gaza.

It's crystal clear that Biden give a shit about Innocent Palestinian women and children's lives compared to 750 Million dollar weapon deal, because who needs those deadly weapons if war doesn't escalate?


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 19, 2021)

leon315 said:


> It's crystal clear that Biden give a shit about Innocent Palestinian women and children's lives compared to 750 Million dollar weapon deal, because who needs those deadly weapons if war doesn't escalates?


As repulsive as the attacks on the Palestinians are, the United States will probably be one of the last to drop support for Israel. It's not like civilians casualties matter to us, the genocide in Yemen proves that.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 19, 2021)

leon315 said:


> It's crystal clear that Biden give a shit about Innocent Palestinian



Innocent, rofl? Innocent of what exactly?


----------



## leon315 (May 19, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Innocent, rofl? Innocent of what exactly?



Women and children casualties? dude, what else you need to understand those 2 simple words?

@JonhathonBaxster lemme slap those numbers to yer face, since your too retard to get them by urself.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 19, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> c'mon man, trump uttered a falsehood once every sentence
> clearly this is down to a bad memory


 i cant find bitmasters post from what you replied too but do you seriously want "trigger happy" trump to have them i feared that he would shoot his mouth the wrong way and we'd be all dead by now luckly that didn't happen but i applaud biden for calling out the isreal/Palistine war going on the should (the US) cut ties with Isreal and sanction them or is the US too deep rooted to hate all muslims not all are bad though it did feed off my anger when i was one (long story)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Innocent, rofl? Innocent of what exactly?


dude it's pure genocide it's been going on far longer than this it basicly the holocaust 2.0 but the roles are reversed


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 19, 2021)

leon315 said:


> lemme slap those numbers to yer face, since your too stupid to get them by urself.


The numbers are the sub-heading of the article in his signature. The dude knows the numbers.


----------



## Joe88 (May 19, 2021)

leon315 said:


> !
> 
> This week the US blocked UN Security Counsel statement 3 times in a row! Biden helped bought time for Israel more days of pure killing and bombing of Palestine civilians. and USA prior the conflict sold 750 Million weapon to Israel and most of them are used in offensive actions against Gaza.
> 
> It's crystal clear that Biden give a shit about Innocent Palestinian women and children's lives compared to 750 Million dollar weapon deal, because who needs those deadly weapons if war doesn't escalate?


He is just buying time, because he is going to have to pick a side. Last tuesday he said all the violence would soon come to an end, it didn't and continued to escalate. Now he is finally joining on other countries in calling for a ceasefire ... a week later.
I'm sure people are aware of certain politicians in congress picking sides, and even media outlets, thus creating even more problems for biden.

It's unlikely they will not side with israel but at the same time biden wants the iran nuclear deal back on, as well as trying to appease the far left wing of the party which going with israel will not do. No matter whose side biden picks he will lose and he knows it. Thats why you see nothing but stall tactics, thumb twiddling, and so forth, just trying to stay on the side lines.

Now as to the response that israel is continuing to launch missile strikes in gaza at selective targets, gaza is also launching missile barrages too all the time. The only difference is israel has the iron dome mds which has been shooting almost all the missiles out of the sky, where as gaza has nothing creating the huge difference in death counts (israel: 10 deaths, gaza: 220)
This is going to keep going on, a full blown war is right around the corner. Israel is trying to cripple hamas infrastructure as well as kill any high ranking military leaders they can, and hamas just keeps launching retaliatory strikes.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 20, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> It's unlikely they will not side with israel but at the same time biden wants the iran nuclear deal back on, as well as trying to appease the far left wing of the party which going with israel will not do. No matter whose side biden picks he will lose and he knows it. Thats why you see nothing but stall tactics, thumb twiddling, and so forth, just trying to stay on the side lines.


I think the way to look at it is that supporting Israel is the default, but what they're doing is such bad optics that Biden doesn't want to be seen around it. I wouldn't be surprised if he's just waiting for it to blow over so he can do the Democrat finger-wag at them after it's all done and dusted.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 20, 2021)

Is the right saying cut ties with israel?...fuck it doesn't matter left or right both sides are now pussies at this point tell me why do we support a genocidal country we sure as hell didn't support the Nazi's (well coca cola did those backstabbing bastards)


----------



## Costello -- POLL ADDED - VOTE FOR THREAD TO BE LOCKED (May 20, 2021)

hello,
for some people, this thread has outlived its usefulness
it's been 5 months and Biden is currently the president of the USA whether you accept it as fact or not, whether you think he's been elected legitimately or not.

I have added a poll to this thread. The poll will end 3 days from now.
You can decide to either lock the thread or keep it open and alive.


----------



## Xzi (May 20, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> Is the right saying cut ties with israel?


Nope for once this _is_ a both parties thing, I think the vote to sell Israel more weapons (after giving them the money to buy it) will pass unless it's delayed, and like Darth Meteos said, Biden will sign it while finger-wagging it away.  Probably gets 95% in favor on the Republican side, and at least 40% on the Democratic side.



chrisrlink said:


> why do we support a genocidal country


Christians.  The more extreme they are, the more likely they are to support Zionism and Netanyahu's forced evictions/apartheid state.  They want Isreal to seize that holy land because they think they can bring back Jesus ASAP by building temples and monuments on top of land soaked in fresh death.



chrisrlink said:


> we sure as hell didn't support the Nazi's


Gotta be careful about that, I found out the US government has and continues to classify those comparisons as "anti-Semitic."  Even if you're just talking about the Israeli government/military and Netanyahu.  Ridiculous of course, I have made and will continue to make such comparisons.  They're straight-up Stormtroopers, jack-booted thugs.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 20, 2021)

Costello said:


> it's been 5 months and Biden is currently the president of the USA whether you accept it as fact or not, whether you think he's been elected legitimately or not.


It's been four months, man
It's only May. For now.


----------



## KingVamp (May 20, 2021)

I say no, considering similar thread(s) will just be made right after.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> It's been four months, man
> It's only May. For now.


The problem here is that the thread has replaced the entire subforum. At present, it has less to do with Biden and his administration and more to do with discussions regarding science, astronomy, arguments about the political spectrum, nazism, fascism and 198 different, completely unrelated topics. It's even become a hub for discussing the conflict in Gaza which Biden has absolutely nothing to do with besides his fence sitting. He's elected and inaugurated, has been for months - you're not beating a dead horse, you're beating a fossil.


KingVamp said:


> I say no, considering similar thread(s) will just be made right after.


Threads about specific issues, sure. That's preferable than one mutated catch-all growth that results in cancerous discussions that are off-topic 9 out of 10 times.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The problem here is that the thread has replaced the entire forum. At present, it has less to do with Biden and his administration and more to do with discussions regarding science, astronomy, arguments about the political spectrum, nazism, fascism and 198 different, completely unrelated topic. It's even become a hub for discussing the conflict in Gaza which Biden has absolutely nothing to do with besides his fence sitting. He's elected and inaugurated, has been for months - you're not beating a dead horse, you're beating a dead fossil.


Now Gohan, you sit down and you EAT THAT HORSE


----------



## KingVamp (May 20, 2021)

lol Forgot how off topic things have gotten. 

Despite saying no, I admit it would be easier to stay on topic and less work on the mods trying to figure out what the topic even suppose to be, with separated threads.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 20, 2021)

> Gotta be careful about that, I found out the US government has and continues to classify those comparisons as "anti-Semitic."  Even if you're just talking about the Israeli government/military and Netanyahu.  Ridiculous of course, I have made and will continue to make such comparisons.  They're straight-up Stormtroopers, jack-booted thugs.


when i meant naz's  meant nazi germany not todays neo nazi scumbags

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> The problem here is that the thread has replaced the entire subforum. At present, it has less to do with Biden and his administration and more to do with discussions regarding science, astronomy, arguments about the political spectrum, nazism, fascism and 198 different, completely unrelated topics. It's even become a hub for discussing the conflict in Gaza which Biden has absolutely nothing to do with besides his fence sitting. He's elected and inaugurated, has been for months - you're not beating a dead horse, you're beating a fossil.
> Threads about specific issues, sure. That's preferable than one mutated catch-all growth that results in cancerous discussions that are off-topic 9 out of 10 times.


should've shurt down when all the conspiracy theorist came out of the woodwork


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 20, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> should've shurt down when all the conspiracy theorist came out of the woodwork


so... when it was first made?


----------



## Xzi (May 20, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> when i meant naz's meant nazi germany not todays neo nazi scumbags


Yeah either way can get you in "trouble," and of course I use the term loosely.  Last I checked, we still have freedom of speech in _this _country and Israel's lobbyists don't get to restrict that however they wish.


----------



## tabzer (May 20, 2021)

_"Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon on Sunday called on the Security Council to condemn the Hamas terror group for its use of children as human shields during mass protests along the Gaza border fence. Danon sent a letter to the top UN council calling on it “to condemn Hamas’s use of civilians and children"_

That was in 2018.

This is current.

It maybe true that this is a massacre and/or genocide, but you still have to consider the fact that we live in a world children are given guns and forced to fight in wars for the sake of cowards behind them.  Shouting "women and children" like it is only one side's fault can serve as positive reinforcement of such tactics, maybe even advocation.

The US, funding both sides of the conflict, seems only interested in drawing out the conflict with more suffering.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 20, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> so... when it was first made?


more recently to a few months back when tttthousand and valwinzcame and all those other wackjob theorist who began posting alt right propaganda and lies that was debunked time and time again


----------



## Acid_Snake (May 21, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> My reply got deleted even though it had nothing to do with any private PM's. I'll try again. Do you have any links to books or reading material that goes over what socialism, fascism and communism are, who created them, etc ... ? I was able to find this video after a quick search as I've seen it a while ago and it goes over the basics of fascism, but I'd really like to learn more about the subjects. Oh, please don't link to any Wikipedia pages as they change too often for my liking.


- Nazi-Sozi by Goebbels (considered to be the bible of nazism): https://www.amazon.es/Nazi-Sozi-Dr-Joseph-Goebbels/dp/1880881071
- The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini where he explains how fascism is a sort of "evolution" of socialism that fixes what he believed were socialism's biggest mistakes. The main key differences being classic marxist socialism and fascism are explained here.
- As for socialism and communism you can read Marx.

There's also the fact that they all started their political careers in the socialist party, where Mussolini was expelled since he was considered far too radical for the socialists of the time.

The Doctrine of Fascism is probably the best read since you can see the socialist roots of fascism but also why fascism ended up opposing socialism (or more like it ends up negating some aspects of socialism and changing it for others -> fascism).
The main difference between fascism and socialism is the cultural aspects.
Fascism is against cultural destruction, it uses cultural symbols for control (the swastika, the roman salute, etc) whereas socialism would rather have the entire country change its culture, history and everything other social aspect.
Socialism considers religion to be "the opium of people", thus in communism it is eliminated but in fascism it is used as another tool for control. This is also why fascism seems to be "far right conservative", but it's just an illusion as they are simply appealing to a countries emotions (historical, cultural and other facts) to gain control of people's mind. Remember that Nazism called itself "the Third Reich", despite it being the first and only Nazi regime in Germany, they were using to the historical facts to appeal to people.

Now when it comes to actual government, they are pretty much the same thing:
- Nationalized means of production. There's barely any private property or respect for it.
- Censored and manipulated mass media (propaganda).
- Full control of all economic aspects of the nation.
- Use of violence against political opponents.
- Use of military force and invasions to further spread the ideology.
I could go on and on and on about how they are pretty much two different ways to practice the same theory, but I think you get the point.


----------



## tthousand (May 21, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> more recently to a few months back when tttthousand and valwinzcame and all those other wackjob theorist who began posting alt right propaganda and lies that was debunked time and time again



you kids didn't debunk nothing... just either regurgitated your red bulls or dodged the topics. Speaking of wackjobs, at least you circle jerkers will get a break when this thread closes.

Cancel culture claims another victim. What a joke. Instead of closing a very popular thread, why not just adjust the topic a tiny bit to fit the thread narrative? Rename the thread to "All Politics, All The Time"... Problem solved!


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> you kids didn't debunk nothing... just either regurgitated your red bulls or dodged the topics. Speaking of wackjobs, at least you circle jerkers will get a break when this thread closes.
> 
> Cancel culture claims another victim. What a joke. Instead of closing a very popular thread, why not just adjust the topic a tiny bit to fit the thread narrative? Rename the thread to "All Politics, All The Time"... Problem solved!



To be fair most of the subjects being brought up are being brought up because of what Biden is doing. Sure, it's not about him winning anymore, but it is covering what he's done after his win. However, I believe dedicated threads to each of these would serve a better purpose as it would keep things less cluttered and more focused. Those are just my thoughts though.


----------



## tthousand (May 21, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> To be fair most of the subjects being brought up are being brought up because of what Biden is doing. Sure, it's not about him winning anymore, but it is covering what he's done after his win.



Yep, so even if things get a little off-topic, it mostly remains on-topic in nature.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> However, I believe dedicated threads to each of these would serve a better purpose as it would keep things less cluttered and more focused. Those are just my thoughts though.



I can see the reasoning behind your thoughts... while in the end it could bring more clutter as multiple threads either end soon and remain inactive, or threads with similar topics get recreated time and time again.

I am fine with keeping it as one thread... even with the clutter, it has been easy enough for everyone to respond to one another.

The thing that gets me is that there is 20 people who have voted... I doubt there is even 20 people participating in this thread. So that means people who do not even post in this thread want to silence it.

Well, the internet is a reflection of society... we have become used to having our voices silenced in the name of what is "right".


----------



## tthousand (May 21, 2021)

Here's an idea... why don't the 13 who voted to close the thread just leave this thread and never come back... and the 7 who want it open can remain to discuss our thoughts civilly?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Yep, so even if things get a little off-topic, it mostly remains on-topic in nature.
> 
> I can see the reasoning behind your thoughts... while in the end it could bring more clutter as multiple threads either end soon and remain inactive, or threads with similar topics get recreated time and time again.
> 
> ...



I've been lurking for a while before I signed up so I've seen how some members on this board are silenced for being critical or not agreeing with various left wing agendas (such as LGBTQ issues) and that would count as being silenced from cancel culture, but the people in this thread that are actively posting share a broad spectrum of political beliefs. I wouldn't view it as cancelling anything as you're free to go create other threads, just watch out about posting things that go against radical leftist agendas as I've seen plenty of people doing that on this forum that have indeed had their content deleted and/or accounts banned. Honestly, I'm scared to share my personal beliefs due to the fact I don't agree with the majority. Sorta sucks, but what can you do?


----------



## tthousand (May 21, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I've been lurking for a while before I signed up so I've seen how some members on this board are silenced for being critical or not agreeing with various left wing agendas (such as LGBTQ issues) and that would count as being silenced from cancel culture, but the people in this thread that are actively posting share a broad spectrum of political beliefs. I wouldn't view it as cancelling anything as you're free to go create other threads, just watch out about posting things that go against radical leftist agendas as I've seen plenty of people doing that on this forum that have indeed had their content deleted and/or accounts banned. Honestly, I'm scared to share my personal beliefs due to the fact I don't agree with the majority. Sorta sucks, but what can you do?



This thread has seen more and more members enter the conversation and oppose or question the mainsteam's views. I feel like a lot people are afraid to share their conservative views these days in fear of retaliation from the left side. The problem is the masses are being force fed hate and fear, and so they using these talking point to condescend others and ridicule their beliefs in the name of what is "right". Time and time again they get caught in lies, and people are waking up to what is really going on, slowly but surely.

Just look at this post by PBS's YT account, which is a left leaning platform with a left leaning audience. Even the left side is starting to see the veil lifting, and the seams coming apart on the stage.






FYI, it's not like I am friends with tons of people out here in the real world, but out of the small group I have, three lifelong democrats I personally know in the real world voted Trump over Biden... that speaks volumes to me.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> This thread has seen more and more members enter the conversation and oppose or question the mainsteam's views. I feel like a lot people are afraid to share their conservative views these days in fear of retaliation from the left side. The problem is the masses are being force fed hate and fear, and so they using these talking point to condescend others and ridicule their beliefs in the name of what is "right". Time and time again they get caught in lies, and people are waking up to what is really going on, slowly but surely.
> 
> Just look at this post by PBS's YT account, which is a left leaning platform with a left leaning audience. Even the left side is starting to see the veil lifting, and the seams coming apart on the stage.
> 
> ...



I sure as hell don't care for the us vs them mentality the left has chosen nor do I condone what they do when they attack people for having opposing views, but I really don't think this thread being closed is related to cancel culture or the left in general.

As for Biden's popularity, it seems he does get a pass for many of the same things people attacked Trump for specifically kids in cages and COVID-19 deaths. Under Trump it was all Trump's fault, but now that Biden is President it seems these sorts of things are overlooked. 

I'm glad though that Trump exposed how fake the mainstream media is and am glad that some on the left are starting to realize they've been being lied to for decades. Maybe that's not enough to get them to switch sides, but I'm an independent so I don't really care if you're left or right. I just don't like being silenced for having views that aren't popular or that small minorities deem offensive (as they simply deem them offensive in an attempt to control others and I don't like manipulative liars).


----------



## Valwinz (May 21, 2021)

Good news 
Judge Orders 145,000 Absentee Ballots UNSEALED in Fulton County, Georgia


----------



## tthousand (May 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Good news
> Judge Orders 145,000 Absentee Ballots UNSEALED in Fulton County, Georgia



Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling this guy will not be president this time next year.


----------



## KingVamp (May 21, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Good news
> Judge Orders 145,000 Absentee Ballots UNSEALED in Fulton County, Georgia


Did you give up on Arizona yet? Seems like all they have done is waste machines.


----------



## Lacius (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling this guy will not be president this time next year.


There is literally zero evidence to think there was any widespread fraud, and the results of the election in numerous states have already survived actually legitimate audits.

What's happening in Arizona is a joke, and despite it being the joke that it is, it hasn't found any evidence of widespread fraud.

If you seriously believe Joe Biden will not be president this time next year because of voter fraud, then I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## Xzi (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling this guy will not be president this time next year.


Not the way it works kiddo.  The window for providing evidence of vote discrepancies and/or fraud has long since closed.  "Audits" conducted by a bunch of nutjobs and conspiracy theorists cannot change the officially recorded results, and if there's too much deviation by their count then everybody will know they manipulated the totals.

It's all just one long con to try to erode trust and confidence in democracy.


----------



## tthousand (May 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is literally zero evidence to think there was any widespread fraud, and the results of the election in numerous states have already survived actually legitimate audits.
> 
> What's happening in Arizona is a joke, and despite it being the joke that it is, it hasn't found any evidence of widespread fraud.
> 
> If you seriously believe Joe Biden will not be president this time next year because of voter fraud, then I have a bridge to sell you.



If you are selling, I ain't buying.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Not the way it works kiddo.  The window for providing evidence of vote discrepancies and/or fraud has long since closed.  "Audits" conducted by a bunch of nutjobs and conspiracy theorists cannot change the officially recorded results, and if there's too much deviation by their count then everybody will know they manipulated the totals.
> 
> It's all just one long con to try to erode faith and trust in democracy.



Left wing libtards get a pass, but not right wing nutjobs. Check.


----------



## Lacius (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> If you are selling, I ain't buying.


My point was definitely not that you should buy a bridge from me. In fact, part of my point was that you shouldn't.


----------



## Xzi (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Left wing libtards get a pass, but not right wing nutjobs. Check.


It has nothing to do with getting a "pass," both groups were in all the rooms where ballots were counted and/or recounted.  _Trump supporters_ were unable to convince _Trump-appointed judges_ that _any_ evidence of widespread vote tampering or voter fraud existed.  The bar was literally on the floor and they couldn't clear it.

But hey, if the Republican party wants to keep wasting resources and spinning their wheels on fruitless vanity projects, it's no skin off my back.  That just means less time and energy they have available to put toward trying to rig the next election.


----------



## tthousand (May 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> My point was definitely not that you should buy a bridge from me. In fact, part of my point was that you shouldn't.



Yes, that is your opinion, isn't it?


----------



## Xzi (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Yes, that is your opinion, isn't it?


Well hey man, his offer for a bridge may be off the table, but I'll still sell you some oceanfront property in Colorado.  For some reason I can only get Trump supporters excited about it.


----------



## tthousand (May 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Well hey man, his offer for a bridge may be off the table, but I'll still sell you some oceanfront property in Colorado.  For some reason I can only get Trump supporters excited about it.


Like Obama's place. Nice!


----------



## Lacius (May 21, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Yes, that is your opinion, isn't it?


It's not an opinion that there's zero evidence of widespread voter fraud.


----------



## Valwinz (May 22, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Did you give up on Arizona yet? Seems like all they have done is waste machines.


Not really that also good news waiting for it to finish. but just pointing out  the domino effect and I hear something also happen on PA and WI


----------



## tthousand (May 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's not an opinion that there's zero evidence of widespread voter fraud.


 Sure guy. I suppose it's a law of science then. Talk about a joke LOL


----------



## djpannda (May 22, 2021)

As the Biden Administration states 
* the biggest domestic terror threat comes from white supremacists.*
 Man, I see these the Youths acting like literal Nazi. (see Charlottesville pics)





and I get worried for the Future.

 then I see These Kids and reminds me.... One of Girls are stronger then multiple skinheads combined

Don't mess with The Linda Lindas.Watch the full concert: https://t.co/Usv7HJ1lLR pic.twitter.com/pKZ5TKDdiA— L.A. Public Library (@LAPublicLibrary) May 20, 2021

“Racist Sexist Boy" - The Linda Lindas
Warms my heart that Punk is still kicking ass


----------



## Valwinz (May 22, 2021)

Since people wanted to know about arizona

*Arizona Official Was Just Sent a Death Threat to Halt Election Audit*


----------



## djpannda (May 22, 2021)

Since People wanted to know about Arizona
 (now with Actually sources)
*Arizona GOP's election auditors backtrack on deleted database claim*

*Arizona Republican Officials Call State GOP Election Audit a “Sham” and a “Con”*

*Arizona secretary of state says Maricopa County should replace voting equipment because GOP-backed recount compromised its security*


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 22, 2021)

Isn't the Arizona audit on ho.d because the place theyy were counting in was also booked for high school graduations so they had to stop for a week?


tthousand said:


> Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling this guy will not be president this time next year.


Oh we can only hope, but even if it's proven he might still be president because no one wants to stand up for what's right anymore. And to be fair, the reason why the Supreme Court constantly punks out is because they want to keep their cushy positions more than anything, even if they claim to "fear the backlash of this country being divided anymore than it is" which is already way to damn late. There is evidence waiting to be shown in court, but no judge has the balls or guts to take it up. If they evidence was shown outside of court, then it couldn't be used in court, as the laws and rules for the court goes. The evidence is waiting, and some it out, but it's all a unfortunate waiting game to see what happens, if it will get shown in a court of law or if not, get leaked to the public eventually for all to see as a last resort.

And as for the Israel and Palestinian thing, as easily I can pick I side, in the end, I really don't care for two groups of people spilling blood across half the world away from my country over sand and rocks that's been going on for thousands of years now.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2021)

tthousand said:


> Sure guy. I suppose it's a law of science then. Talk about a joke LOL


I agree that claims of widespread fraud in the absence of evidence of such fraud is a joke. I'd be laughing if it weren't making American democracy weaker.

The former president is literally trying to steal an election.


----------



## Xzi (May 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The former president is literally trying to steal an election.


He and much of the GOP tried their hardest on January 6th, that was their last "best" chance.  No surprise that the people who voted to overturn the election and used violent rhetoric don't want an investigation into themselves.

These various "audits" happening now are both pathetic and asinine, but also potentially dangerous and probably illegal in a number of ways.  They feed a collective delusion, and they'll surely tell the Trump crowd what they want to hear when it's all over, regardless of what the truth is or the fact that the official results will stand.


----------



## MurraySkull (May 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I agree that claims of widespread fraud in the absence of evidence of such fraud is a joke. I'd be laughing if it weren't making American democracy weaker.
> 
> The former president is literally trying to steal an election.


That is NOT true as he WON the election!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 22, 2021)

I don't know why ya'll are so against the audits. I mean, if your guy truly and legitimately won, you should be for the audits as even further proof to rub t in your faces, right? I mean, it's not illegal to do an audit. Are you scared they may find something you don't want them too? And before you say, "No, it's because they can alter the results to make it look like they won," no because the counting was shown live in a livestream and it's being looked over with a fine tooth comb by everybody. So like I said, let them do the audit and prove more that your guy won so you can shove it in our faces.


----------



## djpannda (May 22, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I don't know why ya'll are so against the audits. I mean, if your guy truly and legitimately won, you should be for the audits as even further proof to rub t in your faces, right? I mean, it's not illegal to do an audit. Are you scared they may find something you don't want them too? And before you say, "No, it's because they can alter the results to make it look like they won," no because the counting was shown live in a livestream and it's being looked over with a fine tooth comb by everybody. So like I said, let them do the audit and prove more that your guy won so you can shove it in our faces.


Mostly because people are requesting Audits only because they lost. Not because of fraud.. because you know the only people charged with voting fraud for 2020 elections were people who illegally voted for Trump. Requesting an Audit without real reason or proof is like having the cops break into your home to find reasons for a warrant. It does not work that way

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

By that token .. why are republicans soo against 1/6 commission 
*“Are you scared they may find something you don't want them too?”*


----------



## tabzer (May 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Requesting an Audit without real reason or proof is like having the cops break into your home to find reasons for a warrant. It does not work that way



Another illiterate analogy.  The fourth amendment would provide reasoning for audits into systems affecting everyone, not deny them.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 22, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> So like I said, let them do the audit and prove more that your guy won so you can shove it in our faces.


your proposition is that we waste a bunch of man hours and money for the privilege of going "narny narny nya nya" to people who'll never admit defeat?


----------



## Hells_Judge (May 22, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> your proposition is that we waste a bunch of man hours and money for the privilege of going "narny narny nya nya" to people who'll never admit defeat?



You mean like the Democrats after Trump won in 2016 and the whole ordeal with Russiagate? And the bioweapon attack of which Trump said we were at war for last year?


----------



## Xzi (May 22, 2021)

Hells_Judge said:


> You mean like the Democrats after Trump won in 2016 and the whole ordeal with Russiagate?


No, not like that.  There were no audits conducted by Democratic organizations after Trump had already been inaugurated.  Turns out conservatives were the bigger snowflakes after all.



Hells_Judge said:


> And the bioweapon attack of which Trump said we were at war for last year?


Well I guess he lost that "war."


----------



## Hells_Judge (May 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> No, not like that.  There were no audits conducted by Democratic organizations after Trump had already been inaugurated.  Turns out conservatives were the bigger snowflakes after all.
> 
> 
> Well I guess he lost that "war."



Ah, so people demanding legitimate audits and the Democrats distorting the truth and rioting (notice how the conservatives got up and went to work like responsible, civic members of society) and using it as the basis for prosecuting the duly elected president of the United States are not equal pieces of evidence to observe in regards to post-election reactions?

And why would you want audits conducted by Democratic organizations, specifically? Wouldn't it be better to hire an independent party free of bias to examine everything? Kind of like with Enron? You don't see the conflict of interest there of hiring only Democrats to conduct audits? Not that the users on this site seems to understand what a conflict of interest is given recent events I've observed as I lurked back here recently.


And as for the war, how many has COVID actually killed?

Kind of tells you it was less about killing and more about manipulating and controlling a population that who's men have become weak after years of propaganda have made them act less like who they would be without said propaganda's influence.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I don't know why ya'll are so against the audits. I mean, if your guy truly and legitimately won, you should be for the audits as even further proof to rub t in your faces, right? I mean, it's not illegal to do an audit. Are you scared they may find something you don't want them too? And before you say, "No, it's because they can alter the results to make it look like they won," no because the counting was shown live in a livestream and it's being looked over with a fine tooth comb by everybody. So like I said, let them do the audit and prove more that your guy won so you can shove it in our faces.



This is pretty much how I feel about the audit. If Biden won Arizona then recounting the ballots will solidify that win. I'm not sure why Liberals would be against making sure the election was fair. It sort of like how the claim they want safe and fair elections yet fight against laws being passed that would cut down on the fraud in them. You can't believe a word the Liberals say and it seems to me like they want to simply overlook any fraud if any took place.


----------



## Xzi (May 22, 2021)

Hells_Judge said:


> notice how the conservatives got up and went to work like responsible, civic members of society


That narrative went up in flames January 6th, bud.



Hells_Judge said:


> And why would you want audits conducted by Democratic organizations, specifically? Wouldn't it be better to hire an independent party free of bias to examine everything?


Yeah that was my point...it's strictly Republican organizations running all of the current "audits," which is why they're such a joke.  We don't even need to wait for them to finish to know what the results are gonna be.



Hells_Judge said:


> And as for the war, how many has COVID actually killed?


By some counts, more than 900K in the US.  Under-reporting is the name of the game worldwide, no nation's government wants to be seen as incompetent.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Mostly because people are requesting Audits only because they lost. Not because of fraud.. because you know the only people charged with voting fraud for 2020 elections were people who illegally voted for Trump. Requesting an Audit without real reason or proof is like having the cops break into your home to find reasons for a warrant. It does not work that way



Actually it does work that way. Need proof? Trump was targeted for impeachment regardless of guilt and the investigations in New York against Trump are being conducted just as you claim - there's no proof, they are searching for something to arrest him for. It's weird how it's okay for your side to do these things to the previous President of the USA yet the Right can't do the same.


----------



## Hells_Judge (May 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That narrative went up in flames January 6th, bud.
> 
> 
> Yeah that was my point...it's strictly Republican organizations running all of the current "audits," which is why they're such a joke.  We don't even need to wait for them to finish to know what the results are gonna be.
> ...



BLM and Antifa dressing up as Trump supporters and staging a false flag. How else would they do it?

Then why is it that a leftist organization is doing the audits in NH?

And it's even lower than that, I guarantee you.


----------



## djpannda (May 22, 2021)

Hells_Judge said:


> You mean like the Democrats after Trump won in 2016 and the whole ordeal with Russiagate? And the bioweapon attack of which Trump said we were at war for last year?





JonhathonBaxster said:


> Actually it does work that way. Need proof? Trump was targeted for impeachment regardless of guilt and the investigations in New York against Trump are being conducted just as you claim - there's no proof, they are searching for something to arrest him for. It's weird how it's okay for your side to do these things to the previous President of the USA yet the Right can't do the same.


....you don’t say.....


----------



## Xzi (May 22, 2021)

Hells_Judge said:


> BLM and Antifa dressing up as Trump supporters and staging a false flag. How else would they do it?


Man those redneck and white face masks were really convincing.  

So much for pretending you're anything more than just another Republican shill.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> ....you don’t say..... View attachment 263857



So you simply try to deflect from the fact that what you originally said wasn't true with a random picture of something that has nothing to do with what we're discussing? I'm not sure what you're trying to pull, but it's not working. Trump was targeted for impeachment before he was even elected and the investigations being conducted in New York against his companies are solely being done because Trump simply pointed out how crooked New York has become. Both of those things are dealing with the person who holds (or should I say held) the most powerful office in the world without any evidence of wrong doing.

So yes, you were wrong about your claims. It seems the bar has been set pretty low by your side in recent events. I however don't believe Republicans should stoop as low as Democrats have, but the audit is Arizona in another whole ball game. All they are doing is recounting the ballots to make sure there wasn't cheating going on. I'm not sure why the Left is so against common sense voter laws or simple things like recounts, especially if they're sure their side wasn't cheating.


----------



## djpannda (May 22, 2021)

Hells_Judge said:


> BLM and Antifa dressing up as Trump supporters and staging a false flag. How else would they do it?
> 
> Then why is it that a leftist organization is doing the audits in NH?
> 
> And it's even lower than that, I guarantee you.





Xzi said:


> Man those redneck and white face masks were really convincing.
> 
> So much for pretending you're anything more than just another Republican shill.


Yea false flag.. those damn lib.. infiltrated Qanon . Voted republican for all their lives. Live in deep red areas. post on far right groups .have countless amount of rift propaganda..
man these libs play the long con. Even after being arrested and public exposed they still claim they love Trump.
damn you BLM and you pesky dog too


----------



## Xzi (May 22, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Yea false flag.. those damn lib.. infiltrated Qanon . Voted republican for all their lives. Live in deep red areas. post on far right groups .have countless amount of rift propaganda..
> man these libs play the long con. Even after being arrested and public exposed they still claim they lose Trump.
> damn you BLM and you pesky dog too


Yeah if only they had since caught a bunch of the people involved in the attempted insurrection, so we could have some way of knowing whether there were truly any Trump supporters attending a Trump speech that day.  /s


----------



## djpannda (May 22, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So you simply try to deflect from the fact that what you originally said wasn't true.


. 


Hells_Judge said:


> BLM and Antifa dressing up as Trump supporters and staging a false flag. How else would they do it?
> 
> Then why is it that a leftist organization is doing the audits in NH?
> 
> And it's even lower than that, I guarantee you.


I see what you did there !!


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Actually it does work that way. Need proof? Trump was targeted for impeachment regardless of guilt and the investigations in New York against Trump are being conducted just as you claim - there's no proof, they are searching for something to arrest him for. It's weird how it's okay for your side to do these things to the previous President of the USA yet the Right can't do the same.


The former president was impeached because he demonstrably committed impeachable offenses. There are investigations against the former president in New York and Georgia because there is evidence even the public is aware of that he committed crimes.

There's nothing about these things that's a fishing expedition.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JonhathonBaxster said:


> This is pretty much how I feel about the audit. If Biden won Arizona then recounting the ballots will solidify that win. I'm not sure why Liberals would be against making sure the election was fair. It sort of like how the claim they want safe and fair elections yet fight against laws being passed that would cut down on the fraud in them. You can't believe a word the Liberals say and it seems to me like they want to simply overlook any fraud if any took place.


Because the fake audit in Arizona is being conducted by a Q-anon believing group with no election auditing experience who are on a fishing expedition for absurd fraud evidence like bamboo and, uh, stuff that would show up on a blacklight. The whole thing legitimizes the false allegations of voter fraud despite there having already been a legitimate adult of the election in Arizona. This sham audit is essentially a response by Arizona Senate Republicans to not liking the results of the election there.

They've used the wrong color marker that would easily allow anyone going through ballots to alter the ballots in a way that would change or void those ballots, they've blocked the press from witnessing what's happening, and they aren't revealing what all they're actually doing. It's expensive, and they've interrupted the chain of custody for the ballot machines, causing them all to have to be replaced, which will cost millions more than they're already spending. They've lied about finding things that they've had to go back and admit weren't actually found. They were supposed to be done by now but want to keep going arbitrarily because they haven't found anything yet, since it's 100% a fishing expedition where everybody in their right mind already knows there are no fish. It'd be one of the biggest jokes I've heard in a long time if it weren't so serious. Democracy is under attack, and that's not an exaggeration.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 22, 2021)

i just found footage of the right-wingers on this post writing about the audits


Spoiler: Footage








marvellous


----------



## KingVamp (May 22, 2021)

Anti-Asian hate crimes bill signed.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The former president was impeached because he demonstrably committed impeachable offenses. There are investigations against the former president in New York and Georgia because there is evidence even the public is aware of that he committed crimes.
> 
> There's nothing about these things that's a fishing expedition.



You're right it's not a fishing expedition, it's a witch hunt. The Democrats decided to impeach Trump before he even took office for simply winning the 2016 election and the investigations in New York didn't start until Trump called out the city and the state for their lies. So the logic should be if the Democrat's can just go around investigating people with no guilt or no evidence of a crime that the Republicans can to, but I don't agree with that logic. Just because the Democrats are shitty people doesn't mean the Republicans have to stoop as low as they did regarding these circumstances.



			
				Lacuis said:
			
		

> Because the fake audit in Arizona is being conducted by a Q-anon believing group with no election auditing experience who are on a fishing expedition for absurd fraud evidence like bamboo and, uh, stuff that would show up on a blacklight. The whole thing legitimizes the false allegations of voter fraud despite there having already been a legitimate adult of the election in Arizona. This sham audit is essentially a response by Arizona Senate Republicans to not liking the results of the election there.
> 
> They've used the wrong color marker that would easily allow anyone going through ballots to alter the ballots in a way that would change or void those ballots, they've blocked the press from witnessing what's happening, and they aren't revealing what all they're actually doing. It's expensive, and they've interrupted the chain of custody for the ballot machines, causing them all to have to be replaced, which will cost millions more than they're already spending. They've lied about finding things that they've had to go back and admit weren't actually found. They were supposed to be done by now but want to keep going arbitrarily because they haven't found anything yet, since it's 100% a fishing expedition where everybody in their right mind already knows there are no fish. It'd be one of the biggest jokes I've heard in a long time if it weren't so serious. Democracy is under attack, and that's not an exaggeration.



Legitimizes the false allegations? Haha, funny. The allegations are either true or false depending on the outcome of the count and not your personal choices regarding how you feel about it. Any allegations of fraud should be taken seriously. Democracy isn't under attack. Democracy just like Capitalism is working as intended ... it's just Democrats seem to have something to hide.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Anti-Asian hate crimes bill signed.



Now we just need an Anti-Hate crime bill signed for every other race there is in existence. That includes an Anti-White hate crime law. LOL. There is no such thing as hate crimes.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're right it's not a fishing expedition, it's a witch hunt. The Democrats decided to impeach Trump before he even took office for simply winning the 2016 election



The former president was not impeached for "simply winning the 2016 election." He was impeached the first time for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in relation to the Trump-Ukraine scandal. In short, the former president tried to extort Ukraine into helping him with his reelection. He was impeached the second time for instigating an attack against the Capitol with the Big Lie about election fraud.
The Democratic members of Congress did not "decide to impeach him before he even took office." The former president was elected in late 2016 and took office in early 2017, but he was impeached the first time in late 2019.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> and the investigations in New York didn't start until Trump called out the city and the state for their lies.


The investigations started when evidence of the former president's crimes became available, not before. We had Michael Cohen, for example, testifying and causing the former president to be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. This has nothing to do with the former president criticizing anybody.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> So the logic should be if the Democrat's can just go around investigating people with no guilt or no evidence of a crime that the Republicans can to


At the very least, we have more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation into the former president's alleged crimes, but there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud. I would agree with you that it would be a double standard if we didn't have any evidence of the former president's alleged crimes, but that's not the case.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Just because the Democrats are shitty people doesn't mean the Republicans have to stoop as low as they did regarding these circumstances.


Thanks for laying your biases out for all to see. In reality, there's only one political party that is actively trying to steal an election just because they didn't like that election's results, and are going on fishing expeditions to do so, and it is not the Democratic Party.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Legitimizes the false allegations? Haha, funny. The allegations are either true or false depending on the outcome of the count and not your personal choices regarding how you feel about it. Any allegations of fraud should be taken seriously. Democracy isn't under attack. Democracy just like Capitalism is working as intended ... it's just Democrats seem to have something to hide.


The allegations are false. There is no evidence of widespread election fraud. What is happening in Arizona is political theater orchestrated by the political right, and it does nothing but to slowly erode public confidence in American democracy.

What's happening in Arizona isn't a real audit, and it's pointless. We already have the results of actual election audits from across the country. It was a secure election in Arizona and everywhere else.

The Republican secretary of state in Arizona has decided to stop cooperating with the audit altogether, and rightfully so. The fake auditors and the Arizona Senate Republicans are demonstrably making things up (and in the case of the fake auditors, they've admitted it), and they've been called out on it. If you think the fake audit in Arizona is anything other than a sham, you're not paying attention.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Now we just need an Anti-Hate crime bill signed for every other race there is in existence. That includes an Anti-White hate crime law. LOL. There is no such thing as hate crimes.


Hate crimes exist, regardless of your "personal choices regarding how you feel about them." A law doesn't cease to exist just because you don't think it should exist.

As for your comment about drafting more hate crime bills, I think that's a perfectly good idea. Show me a vulnerable group that would benefit from hate crime legislation, and I'd support that bill.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The former president was not impeached for "simply winning the 2016 election." He was impeached the first time for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in relation to the Trump-Ukraine scandal. In short, the former president tried to extort Ukraine into helping him with his reelection.
> The Democratic members of Congress did not "decide to impeach him before he even took office." The former president was elected in late 2016 and took office in early 2017, but he was impeached in late 2019.
> The investigations started when evidence of the former president's crimes became available, not before. We had Michael Cohen, for example, testifying and causing the former president to be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. This has nothing to do with the former president criticizing anybody.
> 
> At the very least, we have more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation into the former president's alleged crimes, but there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud. I would agree with you that it would be a double standard if we didn't have any evidence of the former president's alleged crimes, but that's not the case.



You're wrong. As soon as it looked like Trump was going to win plans were being made by the Democrats to impeach him for whatever reason they could find. Discussions of the planned impeachment can be found before he even won the election or took office. Further replies about this subject by you will be ignored as it's factual history. I know Democrats like to rewrite history to their liking, but I'm not going to forget what took place.



> Thanks for laying your biases out for all to see. In reality, there's only one political party that is actively trying to steal an election just because they didn't like that election's results, and are going on fishing expeditions to do so, and it is not the Democratic Party.
> 
> The allegations are false. There is no evidence of widespread election fraud. What is happening in Arizona is political theater orchestrated by the political right, and it does nothing but to slowly erode public confidence in American democracy.
> 
> What's happening in Arizona isn't a real audit, and it's pointless. We already have the results of actual election audits from across the country. It was a secure election in Arizona and everywhere else.



My biases? I'm an independent. I don't like half the shit each side pulls. 

So you don't personally like the recount, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. If there is fraud it'll be found and if not then at least we made sure there wasn't any. I'm still not sure why the Democrats would be against making sure the election wasn't rigged. The entire voting thing is funny when it comes to Democrats because for some unknown reason they don't want you to have to prove who you are to vote, but then when it comes to purchasing alcohol, tobacco, watching a movie or driving a car they want you to have an ID. It's almost like they want there to be voter fraud and if any happened in Arizona we'll find out. The recount ends soon so in a week or so we should have an answer. It's fine that you don't like it, but you're not the center of the universe and many voters in Arizona think it's necessary. Are you even a voter in Arizona?



> Hate crimes exist, regardless of your "personal choices regarding how you feel about them." A law doesn't cease to exist just because you don't think it should exist.
> 
> As for your comment about drafting more hate crime bills, I think that's a perfectly good idea. Show me a vulnerable group that would benefit from hate crime legislation, and I'd support that bill.



I already did list another vulnerable group, White people. White people have become the target of organizations such as BLM (see my signature) and the Liberal media. If it's now a crime to speak badly to an Asian person then it also should be a crime to speak badly to a white person.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 22, 2021)

As we enter the twilight hours of this thread, I wanna draw attention to something:



Man18 said:


> Well. Jan20th we will see whats gonna happen. we have 4-8 years to get better or worse.



This was posted right after Obama's victory in 2008. A decent portion of the modern GBATemp users weren't active on the internet at all at that time, much less on this website.

Regardless of your opinions, it must be remembered that in 2008, people were as nervous and confused as they were 8 years later, and again now. This thread has been a dumpster fire, but it's nice to take a minute to step back and remember that this too, shall pass. One day, our words will be looked back on, too, by people who are as removed from our squabbling as Man18 all those years ago is to us now.

"We'll make it," is not a phrase I think of often anymore, I've seen too much and just feel too sad... But maybe we will. I hope we will, anyway.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 22, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> My biases? I'm an independent. I don't like half the shit each side pulls.





JonhathonBaxster said:


> I already did list another vulnerable group, White people.


do i even need to say anything
speaks for itself, don't it?


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're wrong. As soon as it looked like Trump was going to win plans were being made by the Democrats to impeach him for whatever reason they could find. Discussions of the planned impeachment can be found before he even won the election or took office. Further replies about this subject by you will be ignored as it's factual history. I know Democrats like to rewrite history to their liking, but I'm not going to forget what took place.


Impeachment didn't happen before late 2019, whether or not some people talked about doing it beforehand. If I remember correctly, there were attempts to impeach the former president before 2019, and they were voted down by the Democrats, so I'm not sure what your problem is, and I'm personally uninterested in anything other than the actual impeachment efforts.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> My biases? I'm an independent. I don't like half the shit each side pulls.


You just called Democratic politicians "shitty people" while saying Republicans don't need to stoop as low as them (suggesting they aren't inherently "shitty people" like the Democratic politicians are). I do not believe you are an independent, but that doesn't matter.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> So you don't personally like the recount


It isn't that I personally dislike the fake audit. The problem is the audit is expensive, led by Qanon conspiracy theorists, is a fishing expedition, the election has already in part been legitimately audited, and the fake auditors with no experience auditing have already broken chain of custody twice (once with the ballots and once with the voting machines). They've also spewed disprovable bullshit that they had to retract. Factually, it isn't a real audit. It is political theater and an obvious attempt to perpetuate a lie about the election because that's what one party of voters in this country has idiotically bought into. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> So you don't personally like the recount, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary.


It isn't necessary. The election results in Arizona have already, in part, been audited, and there is no evidence of any widespread fraud.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> If there is fraud it'll be found and if not then at least we made sure there wasn't any.


We already know there wasn't any widespread fraud, and we are well aware of the Qanon biases of the supposed auditors that may get in the way of getting a fair assessment of the Arizona election.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm still not sure why the Democrats would be against making sure the election wasn't rigged.


They've already made sure the election wasn't rigged, and it's not just the Democrats who are against the fake audit in Arizona. The Republican Secretary of State, as well as other notable Arizona Republicans, have called out the fake audit for what it is: a sham and an embarrassment to the Republican Party.

I've also listed all of the major reasons to be against the fake audit in Arizona. You're ignoring them.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> The entire voting thing is funny when it comes to Democrats because for some unknown reason they don't want you to have to prove who you are to vote, but then when it comes to purchasing alcohol, tobacco, watching a movie or driving a car they want you to have an ID.


There are already systems in place to mitigate against voter fraud. Voter ID laws are a way to disenfranchise voters who are less likely to vote Republican (urban voters, Black voters, Latinx voters, etc.). We don't even have to argue about the purpose of voter ID laws, because notable Republicans have already said the quiet part out loud: They exist to decrease voter turnout among likely Democratic voters so Republicans win.

When it comes to ID, you tried to list off a bunch of things that already require ID, but many or most voter ID bills exclude the kinds of identification that work for the items you listed. For example, a lot of Republican voter ID bills intentionally exclude college identification because college voters are more likely to vote Democratic, even though a college ID would work for almost everything else you listed. Your example backfired.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's almost like they want there to be voter fraud\


They don't want there to be fraud, and there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> and if any happened in Arizona we'll find out.


There was no widespread fraud in Arizona, and we already know that. We also know that the fake audit happening in Arizona right now isn't an impartial audit, so the results are pretty meaningless either way.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> The recount ends soon so in a week or so we should have an answer.


The fake audit was supposed to already be over, and I don't think anybody knows when it's actually going to end. There's talk about it continuing long into the summer, if not past the summer. It's a fishing expedition.

I would like it to be over, even though the results are probably going to be something like "we discovered some irregularities, but we aren't going to tell you what those irregularities were or provide any evidence of irregularities. The former president should still be president." Or, perhaps worse, they will find a handful of instances of fraud and use them as evidence of widespread fraud, even though they wouldn't be evidence of widespread fraud.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's fine that you don't like it, but you're not the center of the universe


I never said, nor suggested, that I was the center of the universe. I'm not sure why you'd even say that. It's wholly irrelevant to the conversation.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> and many voters in Arizona think it's necessary. Are you even a voter in Arizona?


Many voters in Arizona believe in debunked Qanon conspiracy theories, and vaccine microchips, and COVID being a hoax, and the moon-landing not happening, and think the former president should have won the 2020 election, etc. That doesn't mean it's right or should happen. A majority of voters in Arizona, and in the United States, believe Biden should be the president of the United States, and he is.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I already did list another vulnerable group, White people. White people have become the target of organizations such as BLM (see my signature) and the Liberal media. If it's now a crime to speak badly to an Asian person then it also should be a crime to speak badly to a white person.


White people are not a vulnerable population in this country. They're a majority, and they hold most of the power. There's no documented widespread violence against white people.

Violence against a white person on account of that person's race is already a hate crime, so I'm not sure what you want. The anti-Asian hate crime bill did things like make it easier to report hate crimes by including more Asian languages, increasing outreach with information, etc. I'm not sure what you want.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> do i even need to say anything
> speaks for itself, don't it?


Explain. According to Statista, there were approximately 4930 recorded victims of racially-motivated hate crime in 2019, 775 of which were victims of anti-white hate crimes. By pure head count it's the second most affected group after African-Americans. Perhaps not per capita, but it does happen, and apparently not infrequently. If we're supposed to legislate against hate crimes without racial bias, you'd think the race of the victim would be immaterial, no? If a crime is motivated by prejudice against a particular race or ethnicity then it's a hate crime by definition, the specific racial make-up of the population shouldn't matter, the crime does. For the record, I don't think racial prejudice is a relevant factor - the relevant factor is whether the crime is premeditated or not - the specific reasoning doesn't matter, unless you're interested in adding extra years to sentences based on the additional thought crime charge.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/737690/number-of-racist-hate-crime-victims-in-the-us-by-race/


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Explain.


all too happy to, mate
i'm saying he's a white supremacist

i'm not attempting to make a nuanced point, i'm pointing out that those are fairly common phrases for white supremacists to say
it's like when you see someone say "i have gay friends," i'm poking fun at how blatant and stereotypical it is


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> all too happy to, mate
> i'm saying he's a white supremacist
> 
> i'm not attempting to make a nuanced point, i'm pointing out that those are fairly common phrases for white supremacists to say
> it's like when you see someone say "i have gay friends," i'm poking fun at how blatant and stereotypical it is


Weird assumption to make, but fair enough - as long as you're consistent.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Explain. According to Statista, there were approximately 4930 recorded victims of racially-motivated hate crime in 2019, 775 of which were victims of anti-white hate crimes. By pure head count it's the second most affected group after African-Americans. Perhaps not per capita, but it does happen, and apparently not infrequently. If we're supposed to legislate against hate crimes without racial bias, you'd think the race of the victim would be immaterial, no? If a crime is motivated by prejudice against a particular race or ethnicity then it's a hate crime by definition, the specific racial make-up of the population shouldn't matter, the crime does. For the record, I don't think racial prejudice is a relevant factor - the relevant factor is whether the crime is premeditated or not - the specific reasoning doesn't matter, unless you're interested in adding extra years to sentences based on the additional thought crime charge.
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/737690/number-of-racist-hate-crime-victims-in-the-us-by-race/


Violence against a person on the basis of race, white or otherwise, is and should be a hate crime. I don't think anybody is arguing that one race should get hate crime status while another doesn't.

What I'm reading from your stats is that white people make up 73% of the population while only being 15-16% of hate crimes. That's pretty low. (Note: I don't know what did/didn't include white Hispanics as "white" in the stats, since they're behind a paywall).


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Violence against a person on the basis of race, white or otherwise, is and should be a hate crime. I don't think anybody is arguing that one race should get hate crime status while another doesn't.
> 
> What I'm reading from your stats is that white people make up 73% of the population while only being 15-16% of hate crimes. That's pretty low. (Note: I don't know what did/didn't include white Hispanics as "white" in the stats, since they're behind a paywall).


I don't think a per capita statistic is a relevant factor that somehow trumps incidence per annum in this case. I'm of the position that legislating "hate" is, in effect, legislating thoughts. They might be thoughts we don't like, but they're thoughts nonetheless, and the idea of thought crimes becoming a part of the law doesn't sit well with me. I'm perfectly fine with people hating anything or anyone, including myself - I'm only interested in whether they act upon those thoughts and how planned the act is, since there's a difference between randomly getting into an altercation and planning out an assault of a specific individual. With that being said, if you're of the opposite mindset, the only consistent and non-racist way to advocate for such bills is to include everyone under their umbrella, regardless of their race - not doing so goes against the equal protection clause.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't think a per capita statistic is a relevant factor that somehow trumps incidence per annum.


per capita is a much stronger statistic
your argument is that anti-white violence is significant
but, despite there being many, many more white people, there is significantly less anti-white crime than anti-black crime
with so many opportunities, you'd think white people would be targeted more if it was an issue of any significance


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> per capita is a much stronger statistic
> your argument is that anti-white violence is significant
> but, despite there being many, many more white people, there is significantly less anti-white crime than anti-black crime
> with so many opportunities, you'd think white people would be targeted more if it was an issue of any significance


In this specific case per capita is irrelevant - we have incidence that is non-zero, so this type of crime does occur. If it's a racially motivated crime you're interested in, anti-white crime is still racially motivated, even if there's only 1 per year, let alone 775. Are you legislating against a specific kind of circumstances that, in your mind, make a crime more egregious, or are you attempting to institute unequal protection under the law?


----------



## tabzer (May 22, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> per capita is a much stronger statistic
> your argument is that anti-white violence is significant
> but, despite there being many, many more white people, there is significantly less anti-white crime than anti-black crime
> with so many opportunities, you'd think white people would be targeted more if it was an issue of any significance



Saying that there being more potential victims makes it less of a big deal is the insinuation.  If black people tend to perpetuate more hate crimes per capita than white people do, the argument might be easily reversed.  Either way, I think both uses of statistics are not useful in diminishing racism or racially motivated crime.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> do i even need to say anything
> speaks for itself, don't it?



I'm an independant person of color that believes there is an active bias against white people. So, how does that speak for itself?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Explain. According to Statista, there were approximately 4930 recorded victims of racially-motivated hate crime in 2019, 775 of which were victims of anti-white hate crimes. By pure head count it's the second most affected group after African-Americans. Perhaps not per capita, but it does happen, and apparently not infrequently. If we're supposed to legislate against hate crimes without racial bias, you'd think the race of the victim would be immaterial, no? If a crime is motivated by prejudice against a particular race or ethnicity then it's a hate crime by definition, the specific racial make-up of the population shouldn't matter, the crime does. For the record, I don't think racial prejudice is a relevant factor - the relevant factor is whether the crime is premeditated or not - the specific reasoning doesn't matter, unless you're interested in adding extra years to sentences based on the additional thought crime charge.
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/737690/number-of-racist-hate-crime-victims-in-the-us-by-race/



I agree that it's pointless to create laws against hating color X, but not Y or Z. The law needs to take into account all crimes motivated by hate. I also agree with you that you cannot and should not try to outlaw emotions. People think all sorts of random shit every single minute and some people can't control their thoughts. Outlawing what you think or feel is asinine.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm an independant person of color that believes there is an active bias against white people. So, how does that speak for itself?


This reminds me of the "Black White Supremacist" sketch by Dave Chappelle. Never fails to squeeze a laugh out of me.


----------



## Valwinz (May 22, 2021)

*Georgia Judge Allows for Further Investigation of Fulton County Ballots After Large Discrepancies Uncovered*
But I was told the 2020 election was the most secure one in History this is IMPOSSIBLE
ICYMI: Georgia Judge Allows for Further Investigation of Fulton County Ballots After Large Discrepancies Uncovered https://t.co/oFRRiwoUAT— Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) May 22, 2021


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This reminds me of the "Black White Supremacist" sketch by Dave Chappelle. Never fails to squeeze a laugh out of me.



Chappelle's stuff is hit and miss and is usually mainly edgy as fuck, but this video was sort of dry. It did get me to laugh once, that's when the guy's head exploded. I still need to watch his recent Netflix comedy that was supposedly shunned and called for cancellation because it wasn't politically correct.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't think a per capita statistic is a relevant factor that somehow trumps incidence per annum in this case. I'm of the position that legislating "hate" is, in effect, legislating thoughts. They might be thoughts we don't like, but they're thoughts nonetheless, and the idea of thought crimes becoming a part of the law doesn't sit well with me. I'm perfectly fine with people hating anything or anyone, including myself - I'm only interested in whether they act upon those thoughts and how planned the act is, since there's a difference between randomly getting into an altercation and planning out an assault of a specific individual. With that being said, if you're of the opposite mindset, the only consistent and non-racist way to advocate for such bills is to include everyone under their umbrella, regardless of their race - not doing so goes against the equal protection clause.


Per capita statistics are pretty relevant in this instance. Hypothetically, if a group were to make up 15% of the population, and 15% of racially motivated violence was against that group, then you know that the group is targeted no more than random chance would suggest. If a group makes up 15% of a population but makes up 80% of racially motivated violence, then you've got a vulnerable population. If a group makes up 15% of the population, but only makes up 1% of the racially motivated violence, then you've got a group that's of least concern. Please don't pretend this isn't at all relevant. I am not arguing that the most vulnerable groups should be the only ones that hate crime laws apply to, but it means more should be done (outreach, language options, etc.) to make sure the violence doesn't happen and that it's prosecuted appropriately under current hate crime laws.

As for the broader topic, you and I disagree on whether or not motive should be taken into consideration with regard to racially motivated violence (there's far more than enough precedent for taking into account motive when prosecuting other violent crimes, but we don't need to derail the thread by talking about it), but you and I are in agreement that the laws should be consistent, and they are consistent.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Per capita statistics are pretty relevant in this instance. Hypothetically, if a group were to make up 15% of the population, and 15% of racially motivated violence was against that group, then you know that the group is targeted no more than random chance would suggest. If a group makes up 15% of a population but makes up 80% of racially motivated violence, then you've got a vulnerable population. If a group makes up 15% of the population, but only makes up 1% of the racially motivated violence, then you've got a group that's of least concern. Please don't pretend this isn't at all relevant. I am not arguing that the most vulnerable groups should be the only ones that hate crime laws apply to, but it means more should be done (outreach, language options, etc.) to make sure the violence doesn't happen and that it's prosecuted appropriately under current hate crime laws.
> 
> As for the broader topic, you and I disagree on whether or not motive should be taken into consideration with regard to racially motivated violence (there's far more than enough precedent for taking into account motive when prosecuting other violent crimes, but we don't need to derail the thread by talking about it), but you and I are in agreement that the laws should be consistent, and they are consistent.


Oh, but it's not relevant - not at all. If your focus is to increase the penalties for crimes that are racially motivated, that's all you need to say - you don't need to specify it further to protect all groups equally, regardless of how statistically vulnerable they are. You are correct though, we don't need to derail the thread.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, but it's not relevant - not at all. If your focus is to increase the penalties for crimes that are racially motivated, that's all you need to say - you don't need to specify it further to protect all groups equally, regardless of how statistically vulnerable they are. You are correct though, we don't need to derail the thread.


The conversation was about whether or not a specific population is vulnerable to racially motivated violence and if that vulnerability necessitates increased outreach and other mitigating factors. The conversation was not whether or not violent crimes against white people should be hate crimes.



Valwinz said:


> *Georgia Judge Allows for Further Investigation of Fulton County Ballots After Large Discrepancies Uncovered*
> But I was told the 2020 election was the most secure one in History this is IMPOSSIBLE


There weren't actually any discrepancies uncovered. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Fulton County or anywhere else in the country. 

All of the ballots in Georgia have already been recounted by hand. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Do not hold your breath. The issue regarding the judge unsealing ballots is due to an arbitrary demand to rescan them at a higher resolution. They already have them at a sufficient resolution, and as I already said, they've already been recounted by hand.


----------



## Valwinz (May 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The conversation was about whether or not a specific population is vulnerable to racially motivated violence and if that vulnerability necessitates increased outreach and other mitigating factors. The conversation was not whether or not violent crimes against white people should be hate crimes.
> 
> 
> There weren't actually any discrepancies uncovered. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Fulton County or anywhere else in the country.
> ...


So the Judge just made it up  who do I belive the Judge or Lacius in the GBA forums


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> So the Judge just made it up  who do I belive the Judge or Lacius in the GBA forums


The judge didn't say anything about there being issues with the vote count. I suggest you read what you post.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 23, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Mostly because people are requesting Audits only because they lost. Not because of fraud.. because you know the only people charged with voting fraud for 2020 elections were people who illegally voted for Trump. Requesting an Audit without real reason or proof is like having the cops break into your home to find reasons for a warrant. It does not work that way
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


But the Dems requested an audit in the 2000 election of George W. Bush when they lost, so why is this not allowed? So I guess when either side loses no audits should ever be allowed, possibly rigged or not, because said losing side should "get over it"? Really, if the positions were reversed here, you're telling me you wouldn't want an audit if you didn't think foul play was afoot? If you don't, that's fine, that's your right to have an opinion, but having audits is still legal and will be carried out by either side regardless if people think it's a waste of time. People will gladly waste that time if they think there's a small chance to preserve true election integrity.

Also, before I forget, how much time left before this thread inevitably shuts down? lol


----------



## Lacius (May 23, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> But the Dems requested an audit in the 2000 election of George W. Bush when they lost, so why is this not allowed? So I guess when either side loses no audits should ever be allowed, possibly rigged or not, because said losing side should "get over it"? Really, if the positions were reversed here, you're telling me you wouldn't want an audit if you didn't think foul play was afoot? If you don't, that's fine, that's your right to have an opinion, but having audits is still legal and will be carried out by either side regardless if people think it's a waste of time. People will gladly waste that time if they think there's a small chance to preserve true election integrity.
> 
> Also, before I forget, how much time left before this thread inevitably shuts down? lol


A recount was requested in Florida in 2000 because George W. Bush (ultimately) won the state by 537 votes (0.009%). In other words, a recount was requested (and mandated by Florida law) because of the closeness, not because of alleged fraud.

Side note: This all also occurred after George W. Bush's brother, Governor of Florida Jeb Bush, engaged in the purging of voters from voter rolls and disproportionately purged Black voters. This, combined with the closeness of the election, might have cost Al Gore the election.

If you're looking for a double standard here, you're unlikely to find one on the Democratic side.


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 23, 2021)

It is, at last, over.


----------



## tabzer (May 23, 2021)

I want a recount.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you're looking for a double standard here, you're unlikely to find one on the Democratic side.








Welp, I think we're done here lol


----------



## tthousand (May 23, 2021)

I can say it's been real... I can say it's been fun... but I can't say it's been real fun. #cancelcancelculture


----------



## Darth Meteos (May 23, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> It is, at last, over.


Or not...? @Costello, shouldn't this be locked?


----------



## Costello (May 23, 2021)

yes, the People of GBAtemp has spoken

my closing words: I just hope the results of this poll aren't going to be called a fraud


----------

