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

[smf]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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]

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.

If the properties were mortgaged then you would need considerably less than $1.5 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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 ---------------------------

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]

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]

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 ---------------------------


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 ---------------------------


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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

You consider 750k insane? High yes, but more manipulative language.

I've never had the chance to study someone that shows the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect as much before.

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

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]

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]

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.

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.