Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh yeah, you remember many accounts of Democrat politicians repeatedly getting robbed and shrugging it off? Name some of them.
Created:
Posted in:
I was annoyed I couldn't find the meme about "what people think NY is" (a cartoon with chaos and street fighters everywhere) but that quip by Pie was *chef's kiss*
NYC is such a horrific place to live that the average rent is now $5,000 per month because NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE HERE! It's so awful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Elitists looking down on middle America. What’s new?
"If they did, they’d know their cities are absolutely fucked"
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I never suggested that my statement was a reply to you. I made that remark all on my own to remind you of yet another reason why Trump is not advancing any value that you claim to care about.
Of course I wouldn't expect you to bemoan Trump for that, because some trans person somewhere that you'll never interact with in your entire life wants to pee behind a closed bathroom stall for privacy. That really gets your long johns in a bunch so you'll embrace Trump since you have to and I get it. We can't have some young girl washing her hands next to a tranny in the ladies room. Imagine if they make eye contact?! I shudder at the thought. What's next, a 5 year old learns that his friend Tommy has two moms?! NO MA'AM, NOT ON OUR WATCH! #SaveOurKids
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nope cause they don't do anything even when they get Congressional power. Patriot act was very bad but that was long ago.
Well they politically maneuvered to make sure they appointed judges to overturn Roe v Wade (priorities!) which was supposedly "settled law" that is supported by most of the country. And conservatives will have a majority on the SCOTUS for years to come, so there will probably be some big changes in store regardless of what Republicans are able to do Congress. The Court's recent ruling that made federal agencies impotent to regulate going forward is pretty huge.
So far the GOP has been able to maintain some semblance of power even when they're in a Congressional minority, especially with the filibuster. But power doesn't equal helping the working class. I agree they haven't done anything to that end even when they have a majority because that's not their goal. Their goal is to stay in power by cozying up to rich people who bank roll their campaigns, while they highlight and catastrophize culture war issues to distract voters from the fact that they've never actually done anything to improve people's lives - especially poor people in rural states. That's why those folks are so obsessed with their guns. "Come and take it over my dead body!" Yeah cuz that's all you have are your guns, Earl. Too bad you don't have a 401 K or any savings.
If you can't get a coalition to reduce government power, electing retarded Republicans that won't expand government power as much is the next best worst option.
Right so then what is the appeal of Donald Trump? He's a police state enthusiast which no champion of liberty would celebrate, and he doesn't call for less regulating and less spending. On the contrary, he cut taxes while calling for more spending; he supports the government regulating markets antithetical to capitalism and more in line with Bernie Sanders' protectionist trade policies; and he celebrated the pandemic stimulus checks while fighting with Mitch McConnell because Trump wanted MORE money printed and added to circulation. Crickets on Trump's role in that from the "omg inflation" crowd since they took his side over Establishment Mitch and the results were disastrous.
The only way Trump fights the Establishment is by attacking his critics via firing, or endorsing rival loyalists against detractors in their primaries. As you know he didn't reduce government in any way, shape or form and grew it instead.
Actually I can think of one thing he did to shrink government which was to fight the renewal of the Patriot Act, but that's only because he thought it was being weaponized against him lol. He'd be thrilled if the FBI promised to only spy on Muslims and blacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point I'm making is that government seizure is bad and some government seizures are worse.
Judges are beholden to the Constitution, not precedent.
Created:
Posted in:
Answer to the OP: DeSantis is a bigger threat than Trump because DeSantis can win a general election (easily, in my opinion).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not watching your videos and giving revenue to whatever batshit crazy channels you follow.
Created:
Posted in:
Trumps achievement was the extreme radicalization of the Republican base. To such an extreme that they will support almost anything.
I agree. Liberals (the media, late night television, fellow Democrat politicians and the majority of Democrat voters) are admonishing Biden, while most Republicans would still literally eat shit if Trump told them it would upset the left... and this is even after he tried to defraud the United States, meddle in elections, and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power while publicly mocking his VP as a pussy for not doing it lol. The Republican response has been "Haha it's not a big deal - nobody cares!" as if that is somehow some kind of really deep dig at liberals (their #1 goal in life) and not a really sad and scary state of government and politics in a country that is supposedly Leader of the Free World.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think the left is so fucked up with the crazy fringe people
"I'm sick of the party of crazy fringe people!" - the party of Marjorie Taylor Greene (self professed Christian nationalist), Lauren Boebart, Elise Stefanik, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz et. al.
I'm curious: what exactly do you consider crazy fringe ideas?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Democratic Party establishment is the problem.
Can you one thing the Republican Party is doing to radically transform this country aside from the call to erode privacy rights?
Created:
Pregnant women have rights and the unborn do not and should not have rights.
There was a case similar to this in the U.K. where one conjoined twin had a high chance of survival if separated, while the other would certainly die. But not separating them would have them both die within six months. The Catholic parents wanted to let nature take its course and allow both kids to die, but the court stepped in and ruled in favor of separation so one twin lived.
I'm curious if people think the doctor is a murderer for saving the only girl's life that could have survived between them. Tough case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Uh huh. None of that word salad explains or justifies why the government telling someone they can't grow wheat is somehow more egregious than telling someone they can't have a procedure done on their own bodies because other people don't like it.
I've already said that the Wickard decision was bad. Do I think it's on par with the Trail of Tears and Japanese internment camps? No. Criminalizing abortion is more analogous to those things (though still not as bad, obviously) considering it involves the government controlling people's bodies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Explain please?
You said more lawsuits mean less monopolies. Some companies use lawsuits and the threat of litigation specifically to protect their monopolies, like Monsanto.
When you gave central planners under Democratic Socialism that power, they can label anything as pollution to justify the taking from the minority and giving to the majority.
No they can't. I think the constitutionality of administrative agencies is an interesting debate, but not when it relies on hyperbole.
One of my favorite things to say to people who advocate for eliminating all federal agencies is to tell them we should start with ICE lol. "Well, that's different..."
So what? We can live without things like the Patriot Act.
Highlighting one law you don't like doesn't explain how we would prosecute federal crimes that you do believe warrant prosecution without the Commerce Clause, nor does it negate that the Dormant Commerce Clause is a constitutional barrier against state regulations used to discourage and punish interstate commerce.
A right to Privacy should make the commerce clause illegal.
Just wrong, sorry.
Wickard V Filburn should be considered the most heinous policy in all of American Government
It genuinely and truly boggles my mind that the government telling someone they can't grow wheat is somehow more egregious to you than the government telling someone they can't make decisions about their OWN BODIES. Wild.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And you've ignored the fact that the Commerce Clause is what allows the DOJ, FBI and other federal agencies to go after crimes like wire fraud, human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc.
There are good reasons not to repeal the Commerce Clause just because the Court under FDR was cray cray.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I was referring to regulatory agencies. The constitution limits what the government can regulate.
Yes, regulatory agencies have the power to decide between the haves and the have nots, but going forward they will have far less power in that regard. Per the SCOTUS ruling in June the agencies are no longer able to implement regulations unless Congress has explicitly voted for them. In other words there will be no new regulations considering Congress can't agree on dick.
Let the states manage it where the regulatory agencies are not easily purchased.
It gets a little murky when it comes to pollution which is why I think the Commerce Clause can be invoked in some situations. One state's pollution can affect another's pretty directly, and I think we both know a lot more people in this country deny the dangers of dirty air and water than deny the morality of rape. Pollution is one of the things I've always thought libertarians and especially an-caps didn't have a sufficient remedy for.
Lol, more lawsuits mean less monopolies.
What makes you say that? Look at Monsanto.
More regulations, lawsuit protections, and barriers to the market mean more monopolies, but you already know this.
Yes I'm familiar with market functions, but what does that have to do with the utility of the Commerce Clause to thwart lawsuits by establishing what is and isn't allowed as far as state regulations on out of state businesses? That is a good thing.
You haven't explained why New York should be allowed to prohibit me from ordering wine from a California winery, or why New York should be allowed to prohibit a ferry boat business from New Jersey to transport citizens to NY (Gibbons v Ogden). It's specifically because of the Commerce Clause that NY's regulations and monopolies in these cases were deemed unconstitutional.
Look up Wickard v Filburn. This is clearly not what the government is using the clause for.The clause does not say the federal government has the power to deregulate. If it did, then I would be all for such a clause.
I just gave you two examples where the dormant commerce clause was used to protect citizens and businesses from excessive regulation, and there are plenty more examples. Just because you aren't familiar with them doesn't mean they don't exist. Google it.
Wickard v Filburn via the Commerce clause is the reason why the government has the authority to use the full force of the federal government to take from the minority and give to the majority in countless instances today.
I'm familiar with the case and obviously I think the ruling was dumb as hell. Haven't you ever seen me bitch about Gonzales v. Raich? The decision was predicated on Wickard. Justice Scalia, god smite his soul, totally abandoned his originalist interpretation of the constitution and agreed that people should not be allowed to grow medical marijuana for personal consumption in states where it's legal (California in this case) because that might impact the prices of pot on the illegal drug market across states. Eye roll.
But just because a SCOTUS decision has utilized shitty reasoning doesn't mean the basis for their ruling isn't a justified principle or should be totally scrapped. Consider that anti-choicers believe Roe v Wade was a horrible decision while still recognizing the basis of the Court's rationale (the right to privacy and due process) as reasonable and good aspects of the constitution generally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let me expand on that. There should never be a system where central planners have the right and the authority to take with brutal force from the minority and give to the majority under Democratic Socialism.
I don't see what this has to do with the commerce clause but yes I oppose socialism and democratic socialism.
Wickard V Filburn should be considered the most heinous policy in all of American Government up there with the Japanese internment and trail of tears.
Agree to disagree lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They will always have some power to decide between the haves and have nots.
All politicians do
There should be no market barriers that can be bought and sold by the highest bidders.
Yes but I do like the Clean Water Act lol
What exactly do you think would happen in todays global economy if the commerce clause were repealed?
A lot more lawsuits and a lot more monopolies. But it's not just about the economy. Without the Commerce Clause the FBI wouldn't exist. Federal crimes like human trafficking couldn't be investigated. How would the DOJ prosecute crimes like wire fraud? All of that is done under the Commerce Clause.
Look up Dormant Commerce Clause. It protects the free market by not allowing states to punish or create barriers from out of state businesses. For example 20 years ago I could order wine directly from a winery in New York but not from California (the CA winery would have to sell it to a NY wholesaler who sold it to a retailer who sold it to me). The court held that these laws violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state wineries. There are lots of examples like that which punish businesses and consumers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would not be a good thing to repeal the Commerce Clause.
You don't have to worry about the EPA and other regulatory agencies anymore since the SCOTUS has rendered them impotent.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I bring it up because I think it cuts into the common narrative that black people are oppressed.
Yeah but saying we can't scrutinize the plight of black America because some benefit from affirmative action is like saying we can't assess the plight of poor, rural whites because so many white people are rich and thriving.
I think the most common narratives around race today are "black lives matter" and that racism still exists. Too many people want to pretend that because we have affirmative action or because we've had a black president that racism is no longer a problem, and that's just wrong.
Random sidebar but I was just thinking about when I came out to a friend as gay in HS, and she assured me that she was totally cool with it by letting me know that she had kissed a black guy before. At the time I was like wow, you ARE taboo you little rebel you! It was definitely understood by all of our peers that a white girl kissing a black guy was still something "shocking" or inappropriate -- in other words something our parents would raise their eyebrows over and not be happy about. And this is in New York City. So it seems really obvious that racism still exists beneath the surface of inclusivity, and that's what I think people are speaking about today. A lot of grievances or references to white supremacy these days aren't about some sort of absolute or obvious oppression like we saw under slavery or Jim Crow. It's more about the underlying racism that still permeates society outside of plain sight, which in some ways are even worse. Someone might benefit from affirmative action insofar as it helps them get into Harvard let's say. But if that black Harvard grad still gets called a n!gger, still has presumptions made about them or people feel weird around them etc. then there is still a place to talk about racism and "oppression" in society today regardless of affirmative action.
If you really think affirmative action benefits aren’t valuable
I do think it's a valuable benefit and I think it may be the only reasonable form of reparations that some on the left are calling for.
I texted my ex who is a Director of college admissions to see if she had any insight. For transparency she works at a state school in NY so it might be different at private colleges. But she said she never heard of that stat before (+310 SAT points for being black) though she "wouldn't be surprised" if it's true. She stated that GPA weighting is more common. For example, they don't admit students under a 90 average, but they will admit low income minorities with a 78 average. This year her university was given enough state funding to admit 150 low income minorities. They don't say it's for "black" students though; they say "underrepresented" students. I asked if an Asian would ever be considered underrepresented and she said yes IF they have an estimated family income under $65K. So it looks like they're not looking to help middle or upper class minorities if that makes you feel better. As far as resources for poor white kids, she said that most guidance counselors don't do a good job directing students at what they may qualify for.
I think a lot of people dismiss the idea of affirmative action for Asians because this country doesn't have a history of oppressing them (outside of not being allowed to immigrate here). We don't have generational wealth today that can be traced back to work being done here by Asian slaves. But there certainly is a good amount of racism against Asians and I agree they would dominate if given the kind of benefits that other minorities get. My teacher friend always feels so bad that all her Chinese students still go to voluntary summer school. Culturally they're on another level. But we can look at reasons their culture is the way it is the same way we can for low income blacks in America.
The extent to which all this "makes up" for anything is a different question--but it can't just be dismissed!
Right but how much of an impact does it have on scale? I do understand your point that if the ROI on college is high, and blacks have an easier time getting into college, then theoretically they have an advantage when it comes to long-term salary. However this doesn't account for other factors that may stifle someone's career or college success. The race gap has narrowed in college enrollment but not in college graduation.
I think there is decent reason to suspect that all else being equal things like police policy, tough or weak on crime policies, making people feel like victims, huge cultural changes etc all have some sort of impact
Agree but a lot of the "tough on crime" policies failed or the blowback wasn't worth it. Conservatives love using this talking point when it comes to criticizing Joe Biden for the crime bill, but then turn around and advocate the same policies within which I think is weird.
I would agree that it's totally obvious that if for some reason Africans were brought to the country in the 1700s and immediately treated as full citizens their descendants would be better off today than todays black people. But I don't think that's an excuse for violent crime. The culture can, and should be expected to, change for the better
I agree completely. I don't think it's an excuse so much as an explanation. But if you think legitimate genetic differences exist that predispose black people to violence, then how can they be expected to change?
A full and honest assessment of the causes of group differences would also HAVE to account for genetic differences in things like intelligence and impulse control caused by ~70,000 years of divergent evolution, which even most people on the right aren't interested in doing...and I understand why.
Someone's read Guns, Germs and Steel 😉 I agree with this too, but I think the impact is pretty limited. Nurture just seems way more important than nature when it comes to crime. I'd be interested to look up stats on middle or upper class minorities and their propensity for crime. A black athlete who was impoverished their entire lives until age 22 wouldn't count.
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
For one, he is quite correct about that.Secondly, I want to inquire about my debate proposal. Do you accept?
Who is correct about what?
My concern with the debate is that we're going to be talking past each other in a way that's not constructive. I'd essentially be arguing that current racial disparities exist in large part as the result of past racism. I wouldn't be arguing that racism today is the cause. If you're down with that I guess we can move forward.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Last but not least, Martin was no saint. Evidence was collected of his social media that included photos and texts outlining how his mom was kicking him out of the house to live with his dad because he kept skipping school.
LOL dear lord. You have a great evening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is why you can't depend on the central planners to preserve anything much less a planet.
True but fossil fuel companies have been some of the biggest opponents to nuclear for obvious reasons.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Where’s the untruth? Are there not 5x as many black on white crimes as there are white on black despite whites outnumbering blacks 4 or 5 to 1?
I honestly have no idea from the top of my head, but I'll assume it is true.
I wonder how many other oppressed groups in history committed five times as much violent crime against their oppressors than was visited upon them and got extreme affirmative action benefits…
Black people were historically oppressed, and I'm sure the stats about them committing violent crime against whites aren't from those days -- so no they were not rewarded with affirmative action in response to their criminality like you're suggesting. And I'm curious what "extreme" affirmative action benefits you think they are privy to. I'm more of a merit-based kinda person myself, but there's no way that AA has been more problematic than general nepotism.
For what it’s worth I don’t think whites are “oppressed” or anything silly like that. And I don’t think most black people are criminals because they aren’t…but it’s clear which group has a larger violent crime problem. And it’s also true that this information is suppressed
It is very clear which group has a bigger crime problem, but nobody is suppressing that information. They may be suppressing some of the narratives associated with that information (i.e. that black people are inherently predisposed to crime for simply being black) because it tends to fester in racist circles with bad intentions, but I have never seen anyone deny criminality in the black community. In fact criminal justice is like the #1 thing black rights activists talk about, which first requires them to acknowledge just how many black people are affected by the system either directly or indirectly.
When you say "black culture" promotes crime, what kind of culture are you talking about: rap music that highlights living in the ghetto? What is the origin of ghettos? How and why did poor black people all wind up congregated in the same public housing? Why did so many wind up in jail in the 80s and 90s and how did those parent or fatherless homes impact black youth? Exploring questions like these isn't giving a pass to black criminals, nor is it vilifying white people and suggesting they should pipe down and accept being victims of black crime today. It's simply taking an honest deep dive into history and sociology for a better understanding so we can address it, the same way people want to analyze white supremacists or trumpkins and see why they are the way are. Simply writing off black people as morally inferior (as these conversations always seem to do!) isn't helpful and isn't honest, that's all I'm saying.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
To correct the prevailing narrative that has been pushed since Floyd's death. That's why. It is a false narrative
What narrative?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
But Danielle is a fundamentalist who likely has Ben Crump and Shaun King at the top of her liked/friends list, so she won't listen to reason.
I'm sorry, do I know you?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
More like a bloodlust. The lacerations on Zimmerman’s head and grass stains on his back proved that.
No it doesn't. I would love for you to try and explain how you think it does. How can you prove it wasn't self defense?
There's no evidence that Trayvon Martin would have ever engaged with Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't approached him for no reason.
There were protests. But the story doesn’t stick around when MSM ignores it.
Two useless points. Who attended the protests - conservatives? No. And did conservative media run with the story? No.
But the MSM certainly did considering it was all over the TV and news articles like CNN, Wash Po, NBC, CBS, The Atlantic, etc.
Maybe if he had taken fentanyl and had different parents, people would have cared.
Actually it was Black Lives Matter activists who called his death an outrage. The All Lives Matter crowd said nothing.
I detest those terms. “Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are specific abortion euphemisms, not political ideologies.
I agree, but the point remains: people who allegedly value human life so much should be highly suspect about needlessly killing people.
They are claiming miracles where Floyd died and calling it sacred ground.
I can't defend that. Evangelicals are batshit crazy and many of them should probably be committed.
And I can’t speak for you personally, but the presumption always seems to be against the cops before any information comes out.
To be honest I'm pretty wary of cops lol. I've been a police skeptic / critic / activist since my college days long before BLM was a thing. There are just so many examples of god awful, horrific and unjustifiable police brutality (not just killings but general abuse and rights violations) that have historically been ignored and unpunished. So while I agree that within the last ~5 years people have become way too quick to fault cops, we can't ignore that this comes after centuries of them getting away with murder - literally. And if cops really believe that their shootings and actions are justified, they should be thrilled about wearing body cams 24/7 and surveilling themselves as much as possible to prove their innocence in questionable situations. Instead, time and time again police unions are pushing to NOT wear body cams or NOT release the footage or NOT allow themselves and their whereabouts to be recorded, etc. Time and time again we see the Blue Wall of Silence protect bad behavior. And I think after so much evidence of corruption people have a right to be suspicious and have high demands. You're probably too young to remember all the abusive cop cases like Rodney King and Amadou Diallo that people are still upset about, and rightfully so.
Almost every high-profile police black killing was justified and/or reasonable based on circumstances. It’s clear that these are just blatant attacks on cops, and recognizing that isn’t boot licking
I disagree. First off many killings and abuses don't make it to a "high profile" case status, so we don't know how many are justified or not. But I do think many of the more famous recent killings aren't justified -- i.e. Trayvon Martin, obviously, Philando Castille, Eric Garner and yes George Floyd among others. Insisting that cops are justified in kneeling on someone's neck to the point they asphyxiate for a crime like selling loose cigarettes or whatever is batshit crazy. The penalty for that is supposed to be a small fine. Cops shouldn't be shooting people for running away from them either. Again it's amazing to me just how little people seem to care about due process when it comes to certain suspects.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Why on earth would anyone waste a single minute of their time watching videos of black people act stupid?
Anyway I don't doubt that people have a hard time with statistics, but I do suspect you weren't blocked on social sites for simply presenting the data lol. You probably said something problematic along with the numbers. It's not racist to cite the stats, but it is racist to suggest that black people have a predisposition to immoral behavior or something like that. People aren't hardwired for violence based on the amount of melanin in their skin. I'm sure you know that.
What is your point in discussing how much crime blacks commit? Are you advocating for or against a specific policy or something?
Created:
-->
@thett3
@Novice_II
"THBT the majority of current racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism."
I feel like it's obvious that racism and bigotry are the root of many disparities in the U.S. I mean tell me that our immigration laws haven't been bigoted bullshit from the moment we went from a century of open borders to a ban on Chinese women in 1875, right up through the quotas and Muslim Bans of yesteryear. Tell me that our drug laws -- and criminal justice system in general -- were not built around a desire to spite the Others and "protect" WASP society from their participation in it. Tell me our foreign policy of endless illegal occupations and wars and apartheid in majority black and brown countries isn't bigoted. Tell me there's not an entire political party right now whose entire electoral strategy is to make it harder for black people to vote, so they might actually win a popular vote more than once every 30 years. Tell me a country founded by white supremacists, one that practiced the most evil institution of slavery for centuries, can simply snap its fingers and make all of that go away. I mean if you can't tell me these things, then what basis do you have for chiding the idea that bigotry plays a significant role? What if it really does explain a great deal about why things are the way they are?
Please link me to the debate also if it ever happens.
Created:
-->
@thett3
We’re supposed to accept that the actions of white racists anywhere from fifty to over a hundred years ago committed against people who are mostly dead left a long lasting scar that still impacts people born half a century later…I actually DO believe that is true to some extent.
It is. And it's not just about a scar per se; it's about discrepancies that led to racial disparities in financial and social status for years to come. Cultural too.
But we’re also supposed to believe that literally hundreds of thousands of excess violent crimes per year committed against whites that are happening right now are meaningless and don’t have any adverse effect on white people? Those beliefs cannot be held simultaneously. So one has to be suppressed.
Lol and it just so happens that you choose to accept the belief that victimizes white people instead of black people - what a surprise.
Who says crimes against white people are "meaningless" and have no adverse effect though? I've never heard that. But the reason the situations are not remotely analogous is because black people were specifically discriminated against and the victims of racism from society at large. White people aren't being oppressed by black people, and the idea that black people are wantonly attacking white people in some sort of quiet race war is an untruthful and damaging narrative.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Helps if you include the entirety of the statement to give it proper context. Otherwise, you're just being disingenuous.
Oh I was laughing because it was just such a stupid and useless comment to make. Who cares if you can find examples of black people "acting a fool" online? What is that supposed to prove? You can find examples of anyone from [insert group here] acting a fool.
I'm curious though - when you say leftists "deny data that clearly demonstrates that black Americans . . . commit over 50% of the entire nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters" along with other violent crimes, what exactly are those people saying in response to the statistics? Are they challenging the numbers?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The issue isn’t police violence against civilians, it is police violence against anyone but whitey that’s the problem
Oh please. When have you or conservatives generally ever taken a stand for white people being victimized by cops? Stop pretending that you give a shit about ANYONE being killed or harassed by police just because you're tired of hearing black people complain about it. Ya'll lick boots like nobody's business.
Yet somehow nobody remembers him while we immortalize deadbeats like Floyd and wannabe murderers like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin.
Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old kid walking home with Skittles that led to his being harassed and killed -- but you're describing him as a wannabe murderer? Is there a reason other than being a racist piece of shit that you would presume Trayvon Martin had an interest in killing people?
Look people aren't glorifying the lives of Mike Brown and George Floyd because they want to commemorate their criminal behavior. Instead they are trying to humanize victims of police that they believe are needlessly killed. Just because someone is a criminal or piece of shit person doesn't mean the state has carte blanche to murder them. There's this little thing we have in the United States called DUE PROCESS, and when cops kill people unnecessarily (especially if they're unarmed) it should draw scrutiny and backlash to ensure we're holding law enforcement accountable to the standards and rights that we are all afforded in this country. Cops have more rights than regular citizens and should be held to a higher standard when it comes to violence by government actors. That doesn't mean they should be vilified in every instance of aggression, but they should welcome all scrutiny and investigation as should anyone that cares about the law and our constitutional rights. It seems odd that the "pro life" crowd would be so hostile to society wanting to make sure people aren't being unjustly killed.
Created:
Nearly every single day there is a video posted online across various social media platforms of some black person acting a fool,
lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Germany has the highest electric prices in the world, but their relatively high wages offset the burden for consumers. It's worse for people in Eastern Europe.
I've always been pro nuclear. Germany and the few other countries in Europe still hostile to it are gonna be left behind. The EU just voted to allow natural gas and nuclear energy to be labeled as "green investments" too, so Europe continues to lean into nuclear as they (and everyone else) move further away from petroleum and coal. That's just the way of the future whether people like it or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ending oil is a local phenomenon with Biden's administration at the helm.
No that's not true at all. First of all every Democrat presidential candidate in 2020 committed to reaching 100% renewable energy within the next 20 years or so. Some were more ambitious (delusional) in their goals than others.
And second of all sustainable energy and low-carbon solutions top national and corporate agendas all over the world. It's not a uniquely American thing - I'm not sure why you think that. Nineteen countries in Europe accelerated their decarbonization in response to Covid-19, Russia's aggression and the current gas crisis. The EU is already beating its renewable energy targets, and under the latest plan they will reach 63% of renewables by 2030, so they're only getting more and more ambitious in shifting away from oil. The same thing is happening in Asia. In fact renewable energy in Asia Pacific has mostly outpaced that of Europe and the U.S. in recent years.
The most callous President,
Lol, stop.
the most uncharismatic, the most demented,
If Biden is so demented then how is he single-handedly responsible for everything that's going wrong in this country? It sounds like he has a lot of power and influence despite being so cognitively impaired.
I do not understand why he just does not reverse his policies.
You don't? It's the same reason Republican politicians won't shift their policies on abortion despite what the majority wants: they're doing what's in their political self interest. Remember that in 2020 almost 90% of Democrats considered climate change a significant threat, and Dem voters along with left leaning independents are the people that candidates like Joe Biden are campaigning to. The WashPo recently had an article about how voters are caring less these days about the burning planet, so Dems may very well change their messaging on this issue. They're already shifting strategies cuz of U.S. court rulings and other current events.
let Alaska increase the oil coming from the pipeline, we can return to energy independence and all of this inflation will reduce dramatically.
He is already going against what he campaigned on (which is politically problematic) as his administration recently drafted a plan to increase offshore drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. He's called for more oil output.
For those of you out there who believe in "green new deal" or clean energy, think of this, our consumption has not reduced
I don't support the GND but bow would you propose that we encourage less oil consumption? You'll probably ignore this question but I'm curious what you think.
Joe and his Eco Team that doesn't mind putting the cart before the horse and watching us suffer. Notice how they aren't suffering.
Is that why the GOP won't help their constituents get healthcare - because they don't mind watching people suffer? Half the country has medical debt (I'm still opposed to national healthcare btw - I'm just making a point about these appeals to emotion in saying that Biden wants people to suffer). Obviously Biden doesn't want people to suffer. Obviously the economy being bad isn't good for the incumbent party even though they usually have very little influence over the economy.
I'm curious, when you say 'they' aren't suffering who are you referring to? And also, when you lament the amount of money being pumped into the economy over the last decade which is very significant re: inflation, how much blame do you ascribe to Trump and the GOP for that? The national debt under Trump was MASSIVE even before the pandemic, and that will have an impact for years to come. Coupled with the spending + tax cuts, Trump's Congress oversaw the third-biggest deficit increase under any president despite Trump's promise to reduce it. Man it never ceases to amaze me how quickly people get amnesia when it comes to economic and monetary policy (which most people confuse and don't understand anyway but I digress).
Anyway there's no doubt the country would be much better off if we scaled back government to give people more economic and personal freedom, but unfortunately politicking always gets in the way of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You may not like Trump as a person, but you don't need to.
Yes but it's a lot easier to brush aside and undermine the influence of his rhetoric or actions when they don't impact you at all. Why would you care if he embraces racist tropes? Why would you care if he appointed people to the Court that threaten gay marriage or abortion rights? The social and financial implications don't affect you. For some reason you think that only the interests of uneducated white Christians working paycheck to paycheck in the coal industry should be prioritized. But what would be the incentive for someone like me to vote for Trump?
You have to accept that it's not just that Trump's obnoxious personality is off putting. It's that his total disconnect from reality and extreme narcissism show he can't be trusted. No one should assume that his self-interest will necessarily align with the interests of the country. I mean you say "I can't believe this guy [Biden] is president" while hand waving away the fact that Trump has (after lots of violations and questionable behavior) totally ignored and/or disregarded the facts regarding the election for fucks sake. He willfully disregarded all of his closest family members, supporters, advisers and staff, proving he is either totally deranged, unfit for basic decision making or methodically evil. His plan all along was to declare himself the winner of the election despite the outcome. Yet because you hate liberals so much (for reasons that remain unclear) people like you come up with dumb ass excuse after excuse justifying his totally insane behavior and dereliction of duty. Do you value the constitution or not? Why give allegiance to one person over the country?
It is baffling to me that at the absolute very least Democrats and Republicans can't come together and say just for the love of fucking god let's not have a rematch of Biden v Trump which nobody wants. I'm already convinced Biden is not going to run in 2024. He may not even be alive at that point, and he's totally lost the confidence of the DNC and Democrat voters whereas by contrast Trump is (in your words) more popular despite being a total disgrace. Why can't the GOP just nominate DeSantis, take the W and move on? Trump was 100% right when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and his supporters wouldn't care. That's not pro-America. That's not pro-worker. That's a cult, plain and simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
My favourite part of this thread was bdmrocks likening having sex to mystical powers. Bunch of shut-in virgins moralising about sex and the same clowns are filling their socks with life essence every night.Not gonna lie, I cannot remember the last time I wore a condom lol. Done a lot of daydreaming of kicking women in their bellies day after. Am I a good person? No. Life on earth is a great tidal wave of rampant sex and death. An unwanted pregnancy is potentially a life sentence for some girl makes an all too human mistake. And the guy with her.If you don't get it, don't know what to tell you. Yes, every girl you ever have sex with will want to abort your ugly child. Have a look into your sock and ponder eternity.
This is your best post.
Created:
Disgusting. And this is supposedly the party of small government, economic freedom and personal liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah and priests will probably dole out a more reasonable punishment. One Hail Mary for every week the fetus was alive. That seems fair.
Created:
-->
@badger
Most gun rights advocates are not capable of having a reasonable conversation on this topic. They actually think that gun violence in cities is somehow a good point against gun control generally which is so silly. But to be fair the arguments I see from both sides of this issue are usually pretty bad. Lots of statistical fallacies.
I understand the point you're making about the correlation between number of guns and number of gun related deaths. However one person can own 600 guns and never shoot another person (in fact that's usually the case), which is one reason why the number of firearms Americans own isn't a great point for gun grabbers.
I think there should be reasonable barriers in place to buy almost whatever guns you want. There's nothing (realistic) we can do about all the guns already in circulation at this point. There are some things Congress can do to deter gun crime going forward. The 2nd amendment should be revisited. If not they can consider repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. That's actually a pretty libertarian position considering (1) it doesn't involve government stopping you from buying guns and (2) virtually every other business is open to that kind of tort litigation.
These days families are suing TikTok because their kids participated in some dumb ass challenge that's being circulated on the platform. Imagine being able to sue a social media site for their alleged role in your kid's self-inflicted death, but not being able to sue a gun dealer that sold guns to someone with a bunch of red flags, even nicknamed School Shooter that shot up your kid's school shortly thereafter? I mean I love my guns, especially the fun ones I have to keep out of state at my in-laws house, but it doesn't really make sense to have higher standards for every industry other than the one that literally deals in manufacturing deadly products that are designed to kill.
I still think it'll be another decade at least before we have significant gun reform in the U.S. Five more school shootings should do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Gay marriage is fine and moderate.
And yet only 22% of House Republicans voted on Tuesday to codify the right to same-sex marriage into federal law. Kenya imagine that.
Fortunately we only need 20% of Senate Republicans to vote yes. Come on, scumbags! You can do it!
Created:
Posted in:
I can't believe how crazy things are and we're only just getting started. By now everyone's heard about the 10 year old rape victim that had to travel across state lines to receive an abortion. The doctor who performed it is getting a lot of backlash (can you imagine).
There's also the woman in TX who miscarried (allegedly self-induced) and was initially charged with murder which got some national attention. She went to the hospital and shared information with her medical provider that led to them calling the authorities on her. Of course this is going to lead to people being wary of what kind of information they share with their doctors going forward, even if it's potentially life-saving information. Is that the goal of "pro lifers" or is it just to delay women's abortions so the babies are further along by the time women are able to get one?
Anyway then there was that other TX woman who was forced to carry around a dead fetus inside of her for two weeks, because apparently conditions around the state's abortion ban are unclear. I mean yo what kind of fuckery is this shit in a 2022 first world country?
I am disgusted by this backwards ass Court and people shirking the significance of this ruling. I actually donated to Stacey Abrams last night (ugh) just because I got so annoyed that Georgia's six week abortion ban went into effect yesterday. I had to put my phone down before I started going state by state and mindlessly giving money to Democrats, which is not at all what I would like to be doing with my money.
But women should not be losing their right to choose before they even know they're pregnant. And rural states like GA which are more likely to implement early bans already have shitty medical care. More than half the counties in Georgia don't even have an OBGYN, and now women in that state will have to travel over 200 miles to get an abortion. Who knows for how much longer that will even be an option considering opponents are wanting to make it illegal to cross state lines for a procedure (IN-SANE!).
A citizen's right to bodily autonomy should not be determined by the state we live in. The states should not be able to vote on whether or not people can cross state lines for a medical procedure either. Ya'll anti-choicers are crazy. Does anyone want to debate the constitutional right to abortion? I'm asking here because I don't want some rando to accept and start screeching about "murder." I don't want to debate the morality of abortion; I want to discuss the extent to which this issue should be left to the states to decide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, there's nothing Dems can do at this point. The idea of Republicans legislating the right to abortion until fetal viability is pure fantasy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s amusing to me that people will go from “we have unlimited gun rights cuz the founding fathers did not support standing armies” in one minute to saying the federal government should be able to forcibly conscript you into a standing army the next minute.
Since this has to be clarified - your personal support for a draft does not disprove that progressives support equal rights in abolishing the draft for both sexes.
I hope you weren’t one of those people whining about liberal hippy draft resisters and draft dodgers in the 60s and 70s. Surely by now you recognize those prolonged wars were a bunch of bullshit.
Don’t worry the next war big enough to warrant a U.S. draft won’t be fought with soldiers on the ground, so another one won’t be necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Progressives don't think anyone should be drafted. Another example of them being right.
Created:
Everyone knows that the number of guns in the U.S. is not to blame for gun violence. That doesn't justify letting everyone have access to any guns they want as soon as they want them with no regulations. If that's the case then we should allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers to the same extent that every other manufacturer (except vaccines) can be sued for product liability.
Created:
Posted in:
No! It was wrong to blame Trump for anything that went wrong but it makes sense to blame Biden for everything that is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am glad you agree with me that creating an effectively unisex society with equal protections for all biological sexes and with societal expectations for none is not very well thought out at all.
I do believe in equal rights and protections for all sexes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Society can accommodate religious freaks without structurally falling apart.
This kind of catastrophizing is ridiculous. Trans people aren't going to be the downfall of society lol. I have trans friends and they are otherwise "completely normal" human beings. They have jobs, they pay taxes, they follow the law, and they aren't hurting anyone. You probably wouldn't even notice some of them were trans if you saw them out and about.
What will cause society to fall apart structurally is to remove every unique protection for biological women by granting it to men.
Such as what???
that will be nowhere near as devastating when biological men are given the same social protections in all areas and society then falls apart when women will no longer be able to rely on men to perform the tasks a functioning society demands men do.
It's interesting to see the same people who say "robots will take our jobs" suggest that we need men to do certain jobs as if men are particularly irreplaceable. As curious as I am which jobs you think men must do, I really don't feel the need to go down that road because I neither deny nor care that gendered preferences exist for different roles in society (although I do have some feelings on it, working in a male dominated industry myself). I agree with you that society need not disavow biological or cultural differences in gender. I just don't agree that we need to abuse or diminish trans people, and you never explained why we should.
It's very weird to me that you are blaming women and/or trans people for men choosing to not support their families and choosing to get useless degrees by the way. This seems like another example of men shirking responsibility for their own shortcomings. Aren't fathers supposed to be super important, especially in the development of young men? Why then are social progressives to blame for father's failures in creating responsible male citizens if this is such a significant problem? Saying "women should have equal rights" is not saying men should be shitty dads. Men are not being emasculated by women voting or having jobs. Nor are men being emasculated by someone being born female and then identifying as a male later on or vice versa.
Creating a unisex society isn't something we have properly thought out enough.
I agree and most people do not want to live in a unisex society. Many like myself just feel that people should be able to identify however they want without persecution. And while I value and recognize gender distinctions (I am a lesbian after all... meaning I obviously do not think men and women are the same) I think it's obvious as time go on that gender is more flexible than boomers realized.
g2g for now, it's too nice to be inside.
Created: