Total posts: 3,901
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you honestly think life is so easy as a white man?
in a vacuum? no. Life is hard for everyone. Compared to being black, yes. Black people have all the same troubles and problems white people do, but with the extra ones of discrimination based on their race.
How happy are you amdmhow easy is it to get there? Bet it has nothing to do with your race.
It's hard to say if had anything to do with my race. Maybe if I had been black I wouldn't have gotten into university? Maybe if I had been black I wouldn't have been hired for the jobs I have had. Maybe if I had been black a cop would have decided he didn't like the look of me and trumped up charges against me. Maybe if I'd been black, when I reached for my license on a traffic stop I would have been shot.
On a separate note, affirmative action punishes white men the most, objectively.
this is objectively true. But that's like saying democracy punishes royalty and nobility. The nobles lose power and influence when you allow commoners to have power and influence. But that power and influence was based on the discrimination against the "commoners". A more equal society has to take away from those who monopolize power over society.
White men have always been in the position of having hugely over inflated wealth and power. Anything that makes society more equal, by definition, will take away from white men. If you want to cling onto a world where you are the dominant race and are able to discriminate against others to protect your status, you can try. but it wont end well for anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
One is genetic (race), the other is genetic (autism based intelligence).
no, one is genetic (race) the other is having a subject matter expert living in your house to help teach you.
So you can be proud of privileges that are objectively good (being born smarter) but not privileges that are objectively neutral (being white)? That seems like a fair standard.
no, you can be proud of privileges that are objectively good. You can't be proud of privileges that are based on you hurting other people.
It would be more like, "Highly funded school privilege" which I would be proud of if I had it since I want schools to be better funded to increase national average IQ.
better funded schools are a good thing. But the system we have means that "white" areas tend to have better funded schools. I would fully support better funding all schools.
I have a sister. My dad helped her out and he helped me out. Only one of us is very good at math (me; not my sister). I believe at math, I am genetically smarter than my white sister. Dad was helping us both out.
It's possible your genetics played a part. But personality also likely played a big role. As an example, I have siblings that were very good at science. So I didn't want to focus on science classes and focused on things like history instead. Maybe your sister saw you were really good at math and focused on something else. Maybe she was mad at your dad and associated math with him. Maybe she just didn't like school at all and was a poor student. There are a million things that could have affected that outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Alright; so then what is the point of appeals of the Supreme Court can refuse to have your case anyways?
the supreme court isn't there to decide whether or not you committed a crime. They are there to decide on issues of law. Like, did the cop who stopped you and searched you do it illegally. They only take cases where there is such a question to decide. For example, Trump is trying to argue that the President has the king like power to be completely immune to criminal prosecution forever. The Supreme court took that case so they can definitively say that he does not.
Are you willing to spend all of your excess money sponsoring starving children? If yes, then become broke. If no, then you are the same as I am (except that I'm more honest).
you are changing the subject. The point isn't whether or not I want to spend all my money "sponsoring starving children", the point is that anyone who says that a tax cut for themselves is more important than children starving to death, is an asshole.
All fiscal conservatives support cutting taxes for themselves even if it means a starving kid would die.
I'm going to guess that this is a lie. Most would agree they want to cut taxes, but would shy away from actually looking at the consequences of their actions. If you actually pinned them down and asked them if the government should allow poor children to starve to death, most would say no.
ok? and right wing states get no where near that. what's your point?That I believe public school teachers should get paid more and it can be supplemented by cutting spending on prisons by executing murderers and ra**sts. The prison population would get reduced by about 20%. A huge win for criminal justice reform advocates.
then your point is stupid. Teachers could be paid more tomorrow if that is what you actually wanted. Connecting the 2 issues is a common shitty tactic the right uses. What they actually want is to cut funding for policy A, so they whine about how it could be better spend on policy B. But then when more funding for policy B gets suggested, they oppose it anyway. That is exactly what you are doing.
South America is a shithole; and there is no need to follow the herd with a bunch of small EU nations vs the 2-4th largest nation in the world.
lol we are talking about the majority of nations in the world and almost all of the developed world. America and Japan are the only western nations I can think of that actually use the death penalty. Everyone else abolished it because it is pointless.
Nope. They are totally related. More money for prisons means less money for teachers (unless you raise taxes, which is a 3rd rail in the US).
they are in no way related. That's like saying if your neighbor eats a sandwich, you have to starve to death. There are enough sandwiches for everyone. You don't have to illegally kill a bunch of people to give teachers a raise.
My tax cuts > innocent stranger's life > murderer's life. If you disagree with that, then become poor by giving your money to stranger kids in Alabama or Harlem. Poor people's suffering is not my problem.
lol most people would disagree with that. I mean, it is just straight up cartoon villain evil. Even trump would denounce that as stupid and evil, and he's pretty stupid and evil.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
a year ago bernie sanders said he thought 17 an hour was a good idea, or maybe more. i actually thought that by now he'd want it to be a lot higher, given in 2016 he thought 15 was good. i wonder what his current thought is?
yeah, this is kind of the problem with national minimum wage. It doesn't make alot of sense. The amount of money you need to live in new york is very different the amount of money you need to live in a small town. The cost of living is drastically different. So forcing them to have the same minimum wage is silly. No matter what you set it at, it will almost certainly be too high in some areas and too low in others.
It would probably be a better system if you could tie it to something more local.
i often associate you with bernie sanders type of voters, is why i make the points in the last post .
this is probably fair. I agree with him about alot of stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not sure about that.
you aren't sure that appeals are part of due process? That is a really basic fact about the legal system.
Otherwise the Supreme Court would weigh in on every murder charge because all convicted murderers would want to appeal.
they could if they wanted to. You know the supreme court can refuse to take cases right?
I'm just being a fiscal conservative; advocating for cutting government spending and accepting the logical consequences of that; children starve.
yes, and this is what makes you a gaping asshole. saving yourself a little money is more valuable to you than children's lives. that's psychopathic.
You are calling all fiscal conservatives giant assholes by calling me one based on this quote
I'm not saying all fiscal conservatives are giant assholes. I am saying that anyone who says a tax cut for themselves is more important than children's lives is a giant asshole. If all fiscal conservatives agree with that statement, only then would they all be giant assholes.
I believe the minimum teacher salary should be $80K/year. But every left wing state wants to get to that and they haven't.
ok? and right wing states get no where near that. what's your point?
government that complains that teachers aren't getting paid enough money while blowing money on murderers is a government that makes no sense.
you're back to making ridiculous statements again. These two things are completely unrelated.
And the EU is in good company with Kenya, Cameroon, and South Africa.
and canada, and the UK and mexico and almost all of south america, and pretty much every western nation.
No need on the US copying the EU. America is a better place to live than the EU.
lmao. You said western countries have the death penalty. When I point out that no they do not, you go "well I didn't like them anyway!!!". that is so childish.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Projection.
lol whatever you say. I can read that his findings were that he could not prove that Joe biden broke any laws. He might have personally believed joe biden retained the documents illegally, but he found insufficient evidence to support that claim. That is why he didn't charge him. The only reason he chose to describe it that way is that he was a republican operative that wanted to spin "there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with anything" in a way that slandered Biden.
And ultimately, all of this side conversation is just a diversion. Biden gave volunteered the information he had the documents. He gave them all back willingly and complied with investigation. Trump didn't do anything of that. All of trump's charges stem from him refusing to comply when ordered to give the documents back and then obstructing the investigation. No charges like that are possible for biden because he gave them all back as soon as it was revealed he had them.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Executive summary, second paragraph, page 1.
some basic reading comprehension would help you out here. I asked you to show me where he engaged in "willful retention" of the documents. IE that he knew he wasn't allowed to have them and he kept them anyway. You showed me a quote where he said he willingly showed documents to someone. IE, he showed someone his own hand written notes that he thought he was allowed to have.
do you see the issue? That isn't willful retention of the documents.
Nowhere does Hur bring up the possibility "nobody asked for them back" as a defense to "willful retention"
you haven't even shown willful retention, and yet you are describing defense to it lol. Biden thought he was allowed to keep them. For it to be willful retention, he has to have known that he wasn't allowed. Hur could not find evidence that would show that biden did this. Therefore he did not press any charges.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If that is what "willful retention" means then why did Hur say Biden willfully retained classified documents?
the report was quite long, so I don't know what part of the document you are talking about. Please provide a reference to where exactly he said it, or stop repeating it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would rather get all the evidence needed the day of the trial
that is not how the law works. Part of "due process" is the appeals process. Denying it to people based on your emotions is not okay.
My tax cuts matter to me more than the life of a starving kid in America that we know is innocent; I'm fiscally conservative.
yes we know you are a giant, gaping asshole. I'm not sure why you like repeating it so much.
why are people willing to spend $25.2 billion/year on convicted murderers and r***sts when 96% of them actually did one of the worst crimes in our legal system?
Your question is stupid. The alternative would be letting them go, or executing a bunch of potentially innocent people. Both are unacceptable.
Fiscal conservatism means some poor people are going to have to die and I and all fiscal conservatives are alright with that to save money on taxes.
it also means you don't give a shit about the constitution or people's rights apparently.
I'm alright with that because I don't believe human life (even innocent human life) is priceless and the people that believe innocent human life (IHL) is priceless have not thought it through.
I didn't say human life was priceless. I said that compensation cannot be given. If you accidentally imprison the wrong person, you can't give them their years back, but you can give them a money amount in compensation for what they have lost. If you've killed them, there is no compensation possible.
The bluest states in the country with the highest teacher salaries still have any teachers there wanting more money.
teachers are underpaid everywhere, yes.
f the government wanted to pay teachers more money, then why haven't they done so?
this is exactly my point, and exactly why your point was stupid. You don't want to give teachers more money. You said that just try to make your argument sound better. I'm glad you have acknowledged your point was completely irrelevant and just an attempt to win pity points.
Well abolishing the death penalty is something rouge Latin American states would do.
it's something most modern nations do. 56% of countries in the world have banned the death penalty. only 27% of countries use it. So the US is in good company with countries like Saudi arabia, afganistan and Iran.
There are both western and non western countries that both have and don't have the death penalty.
there are almost no "western" nations that have the death penalty. Almost all have banned it.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If that is what "willful retention" means then why did Hur say Biden willfully retained classified documents?
The critical difference is that biden believed he was allowed to have them since they were his own personal notes. He didn't know having them was wrong. Once he found out it was, he gave them back.
Trump was told having the documents was wrong. He refused to give them back. He hid them. He lied about having them. And they weren't his own personal notes. There were random classified documents like invasion plans for foreign countries.
Created:
The charges against trump is all based on his refusal to give them back and what he did with them after he wasn't allowed to have them.False:Trump is charged separately for each of 32 documents under the Espionage Act.
lol, you repeated what I said, then said false. those 32 charges under the espionage act are for willfully retaining the documents. IE after he was told he wasn't allowed to have them and that he needed to give them back, he "willfully retained them". Which is exactly what I said. He wasn't charged for taking the documents. He was charged for not giving them back. If trump had just given the documents back when he was told he had to, he never would have been charged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What's the difference between white privilige and smart privilige?
one is based on your race. The other is based on your dad teaching you math. You really can't see the difference between those two things?
Me getting a good score means I'm more egilable for jobs that caused someone else to be disqualified.
uh huh. but you took the same test. They could study hard and get the same score. You doing well is not white privilege. now, if you go to a school that is well funded, has lots of one on one teacher/student time and that caused you to get good grades, but black students a few miles away have to go to a run down school where 1 math teacher is teaching 50 kids and has no time to help them individually, then that would be white privilege. You see the difference?
So it's ok to be proud of whatever privilige you have.
unless it is based on repression of others. then it isn't.
I'm not saying me being white made me good at math. But my genes I think had a lot to do with it (by genes, I think I mean high functioning autistic genes; not white genes).
there is certainly a genetic component to intelligence. but you know what is an even bigger component to being good at math? Having a math teacher for a dad. He was likely available to help teach you. That's not genetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Random people being strangled don't have their due process.
appeals are part of due process. But you are fine with denying that.
Electric chair doesn't violate the 8th amendment.
I mean executing people without giving them their right to appeal.
My tax cuts matter more to me than felon's lives.
your tax cuts matter more to you than a potentially innocent persons' life. Without the proper appeal process, you can't know if you are executing an innocent person. But that doesn't matter to you.
I just don't think electric chair counts as cruel and unusual punishment.
I never said it was. I haven't really looked into how cruel each type of execution method is. It's not really my point. My point is that executing people is stupid and pointless. It has no value. It doesn't benefit society. It is time consuming and expensive. And if you try to make it faster and cheaper, you massively increase the risks that you are executing innocent people. Life in prison is cheaper and always leaves open the possibility that an innocent person will be able to be released. It is the better option in pretty much every way.
But imprisonment costs too much money and our teachers deserve the money more than murderers.
this is a common fake argument right wing people use. I don't like policy A, so I argue we should defund it and give the money to something popular (teachers, soldiers, puppies, whatever). But this is a fake comparison. There is nothing about the prison system that takes money away from teachers. If the government wanted, they could give money to teachers tomorrow. This argument is very, very stupid.
It costs more to execute people because death row inmates often spend 30 years in prison before execution. I would eliminate that; if convicted, then they get executed by electric chair in the courtroom; saving the taxpayer money. They wouldn't spend 30 years in prison; but 0.
it would also be unconstitutional to deny them their right to appeal. It would also lead to many innocent people being executed. This is the kind of thing saudi arabia or other totalitarian states would do.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Refusal to cooperate with the government is not inherently a crime in a free nation.
actually it is. If you lie to investigators that is a crime. If you refuse to return stuff you don't have any right to have, that is a crime too.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Refusal to cooperate is a separate crime. The classified doc cases are nearly identical.
nope. In neither case are they charged with taking the documents. The charges against trump is all based on his refusal to give them back and what he did with them after he wasn't allowed to have them.
As soon as biden realized they were there, he gave them back and fully cooperated with the investigation. All of trump's charges are based on stuff Biden never did.
You realize that all this apologizing for the corrupt actions of the establishment Democrats is the main reason why people like Bernie and RFK are never allowed to sit at the front of the bus....
lol what? What corrupt actions are you even talking about? You haven't established any corruption from democrats in this discussion. I'm not saying there isn't any, but you haven't brought any up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is this Hur's words or your fiction?
The primary thing he had taken was his own handwritten notes. Hur's findings was that he legitimately believed that he was allowed to take them since he had written them. He provided an example where another president (I forget which one) had done the same thing. If he believed that he was allowed to take them because he had written them, then it would be impossible to prove that he knowingly did anything illegal. And if he didn't know, it wasn't illegal.
Trump, by comparison, was told over and over and over that what he was doing was illegal and refused to comply.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It was never put to trial. Alternate electors isn't a criminal conspiracy.
on it's own? no. In Hawaii they had a legitimately hard situation. The vote was so close that different counts gave different outcomes. no one could legitimately say they knew what the outcome was. That is not true of 2020. There was absolutely no evidence the outcome was illegitimate. Trump had many chances to argue in court and provide proof of fraud and he provided none. And now, 4 years later, there still is no evidence of fraud. The situation is entirely different.
The end.
if only it had been. Trump did LOADS of illegal shit. he tried to convince election officials to "find" enough votes for him to be declared the winner. He tried to pressure his VP to illegally prevent the electoral college votes from being counted. There's a long list.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He probably will eventually lose many of the cases, but the criminal convictions won't come before November.
I meant he will lose the election. He obviously lose the criminal cases. He committed the crimes very publicly and there is mountains of evidence.
The optics for rushing the cases through before November and without due process have resulted in the current polling against Biden's DOJ.
I don't think they are rushing the cases through. It shouldn't take years to bring his cases to trial. The reason it is taking so long is that trump is doing everything he can to delay them.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I previously challenged you to demonstrate people going to prison for the Hawaii alternate electors and you failed so it's not like it's the first time you've been exposed to clues.
because i instead proved how the 2 scenarios were different. In hawaii, different counts of the votes came up with different outcomes. There was legitimate and proven doubt about the outcome. Trump was unable to come up with a single shred of evidence that there was fraud that affected the outcome. His own investigators told him there wasn't. So the 2 events are very different.
He legally took the classified documents. He legally stored them. He then forgot about them.Very legal and all.
I'm not sure what your point is. There is nothing illegal about that.
Trump took the documents. Whether he was allowed is a little bit of a grey areaIt wasn't so grey when every other president and executive lackey did it.
Trump took the documents after he had already lost the election. He was days, if not hours, away from no longer being president and therefore not being allowed to have the documents anymore. At the moment he packed the documents he was allowed to have them. At the moment they arrived in Mar-a-lago, he was not allowed to have them. That is not the same as any other case I am aware of.
but that's not what he's charged with anywayYes it is.
no, his charges are about illegally possessing the documents, and refusing to give them back. Basically, everything he did after he left office. Not what he did while in office.
The national archive spent a year and half telling trump he had documents he wasn't allowed to have and asking him to give them back.They don't get to decide. They weren't even allowed to ask Clinton what documents he had.
they very much are allowed to decide. That is what their job is.
Biden not only lied to investigators but to the entire world when he said he did not share classified information with his ghostwriter.
please show evidence he lied to the republican investigator tasked with investigating his documents.
Said that he didn't think a jury would convict so he wasn't charging. Very different, also clearly corrupt.
that was one thing he said he considered. he also said "We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter,". He found no evidence that biden had committed a crime. Right wing news outlets chose to focus on specific quotes to try and paint is a a corrupt cover up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
Look at people who are white and male and you will see that they are overwhelmingly normal ass dudes who don't have anything special going for them.
what? That doesn't even make sense. I never said they were special. I said they get treated as if they are special. Look at the percentage of white males in america, then look at the percentage of white males that make up the government. Or that make up manager level positions in companies. They are WAY over represented.
But the fact remains that it is no longer normal for whites to be racist and it is still normal for everyone else to be racist when it comes to actual hate of other groups and not just some slight subconscious bias.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "normal". Another guy is currently arguing with me on this site about how he is proud that he gets treated better than black people. So you may want to re-evaluate that opinion.
I'm talking about the ones who hate me by default for being a white male.
I have no idea what your experience is. I don't know if that is even true. But even if it were true, it wouldn't really be relevant to a discussion about society as a whole. Maybe you live in a racist town. Or maybe you just interpret people hating you as racist, when they hate you for you. I can't know that.
It has to do with pretty privilege, height privilege, neurotypical privilege, "normal" privilege and female privilege.All of these are more pervasive and severe than white privilege.
All of those except "female privilege" I would concede definitely do exist and are also an issue. Female privilege, I would need to know more about what you are talking about. For example, females are often favored in divorce or custody proceedings. That is certainly privilege. But in most respects, women are treated worse than men in our society. So saying they are privileged as a group, I would strongly disagree with.
And I would definitely not agree that any of these are as pervasive or severe as white privilege.
You don't care about my experience but you care about black people's experience even if they aren't experiencing shit.
I care about your experience in the same way I care about any one individual black person's experience. It is a single data point in a much, much larger picture. You can't take one person's experience and extrapolate that out to a society. Maybe you are unlucky and know lots of racist people. Maybe you live in a racist area. Maybe you engage in behaviors that put you in contact with racist people (for example, being friends with KKK members would significantly increase your odds of coming into contact with racism), maybe you are doing things that are triggering these kinds of responses (like saying you are proud of your white privilege like another person on this site is doing).
any of those things could change your experience as well as a million other factors. Which is why you can't use your own personal experience, or any other one persons' experience, as the basis for your opinions on societal issues. You have too look at the experiences entire groups of people are having.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
if the meticulous standards and novel interpretations of law being used against Trump were applied equally.
lol I wasn't aware that "don't steal classified documents and refuse to return them" and "don't try to illegally overthrow the results of an election" were meticulous standards. It's kind of the absolute bare minimum.
Biden "stole" and shared classified documents just as DJT is being accused of doing.
nope. He legally took the classified documents. He legally stored them. He then forgot about them. when he became aware of their presence, he immediately returned them and cooperated will all investations into the matter (the investigation was done by republicans).
Trump took the documents. Whether he was allowed is a little bit of a grey area, but that's not what he's charged with anyway. The national archive spent a year and half telling trump he had documents he wasn't allowed to have and asking him to give them back. He refused. He lied, saying he didn't have them. Then he gave some back, said that was all of them when he was still hiding a bunch more. He refused to co-operate with investigations. He ultimately had to have his home raided by the FBI to get the documents back. He ordered employees to destroy evidence of his crimes to hide what he had done (he ordered security footage destroyed to hide the fact he was hiding the documents). Comparing the two things is laughably weak.
These facts cannot be evaded. It isn't necessary to prove unequal application of the law, but the fact that they could not find a crime or a liability for which Biden isn't just as 'guilty' is the utmost pinnacle of pathetic desperation.
a republican investigated and found that biden didn't break the law. I described why above. Actually read about what trump did for the year and a half between him leaving office and the FBI raid. It's really easy to see all the differences between what biden did and what trump did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I took the SAT and got a 690 on it for the math section (98th percentile). I got many privileges based on that (and I believe my math smartness is largely genetic as my Dad taught it for 20 years or so). I am proud of that privilege. Does it make me an asshole? No.
that isn't white privilege. It has nothing to do with being white at all. And there is certainly a genetic component to intelligence sure. But that is not why you do well in math. You do well because your father knew the subject material. He likely helped you study. Or, that you studied harder in that subject knowing he would be critical if you did poorly. That has nothing to do with your "heritage" or genetics.
Being proud of your privilege doesn't make you an asshole.
being proud of white privilege does. In your example, you being good at math didn't make anyone else worse off. You getting a good score doesn't give them a bad score. But you getting picked for a job because of the color of your skin does make them worse off. Being proud of that makes you an asshole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The cheapest way to do the death penalty is cheaper than the cheapest way to do life imprisonment.
lol the cheapest way to do the death penalty is just to strangle anyone you suspect committed a crime. that's cheaper than literally any other option. That doesn't mean it is a good or even possible option.
They both require a trial, and I would be fine with putting the convicted murderer in an electric chair in the courtroom and turning it on if guilty; it's a quick execution that is cheap.
this would be wildly unconstitutional. But right wing people don't actually care about the constitution, so that doesn't surprise me.
I looked up the stat you referenced, and I think it's bullshit.
what stat? That isn't more expensive to execute people? It is an established fact. I don't understand what you are questioning. The fact that you had to look it up but immediately dismissed it because it contradicts your point shows me you don't actually know anything about the topic, your argument is purely emotional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
so your post is that being a complete asshole upsets people?Is it being an asshole or is it just the pro Black position taken to it's logical conclusion?
you are proud of your privilege. IE you are proud that you are treated better than other people. Yes, that is being an asshole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
There are tons of black people who hate white people while also thinking that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because their definition only includes systemic racism and they delude themselves into thinking they are so oppressed as an excuse to act like entitled SJW douche bags.
uh huh. there are racist black people. I don't know how you think that supports your point.
No, affirmative action and the inclusivity policy of most companies make it so that they are more likely to think about increasing the hiring of every group other than white/straight/cis/male.
lol, no. It makes it more likely they hire a few token people from minorities. But look at powerful positions at most companies and you will find they are overwhelmingly white and male.
How do you know?
statistics, research studies.
My experience is that blacks are currently more likely to hate whites than whites are to hate blacks.
and that means exactly nothing. That is one person's biased opinion. If you want to actually look at the topic, you need peer reviewed research.
Everyone is more likely to treat people who look like them better.
yes. we call that racism. That is my point. White people get treated better at all levels of society. Is that an admission that you are wrong?
All I see is blacks who are angry at me
based on the arguments you are making, the smart money would be on that you said something racist.
and women who think I'm subhuman because I'm not attractive and normal enough.
You being unattractive and unlikeable doesn't really have anything to do with this subject. But it does shed some light on why you believe these things and play victim.
I am literally dehumanized on a regular basis.
I can't really comment on your personal experience. I don't know anything about you. But even if I did, one person's experience is not really relevant to a discussion on societal racism. Maybe you just live in a bad area. Maybe you're a jerk and people don't like you and you choose to interpret that at racism. I couldn't really say.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In the real question Biden is the one stopping Trump.the question is badly written.I'll take that a concession.
what concession? You interpret the question to mean one thing, when it can very easily be interpreted to mean something else. The fact the pollster wrote it this way (as well as the fact that he is a hack right wing pollster) shows it was designed to give people like you a talking point based on nothing. If you ask questions like this, the results are useless.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In the real question Biden is the one stopping Trump.
the question is badly written. Probably intentionally so. He's a republican pollster that has been hired by trump in the past. I'm not sure if he's working for him now. By starting the question with "if he is convicted" skews the question. Because if he is convicted, of course he should go to prison. If they wanted to accurately gage whether people believed jo biden was behind the charges or whatever, they should have just asked that. They wrote it this way on purpose because they were trying to get a specific result.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
you should also consider some things that are not included as "inflation". Housing being the primary example. In 1974, a median priced home cost about 3.7 times the median income. So if you could somehow put 100% of your income into paying for your home, you could pay it off in less than 4 years. Today this about 7.6 times and still climbing.
Because houses are treated as an investment, this isn't included in inflation statistics. Someone earning 15 dollars an hour probably would never be able to own a home. Maybe somewhere super rural they could. 15 dollars an hour still wouldn't be enough for someone to chase the american dream of owning a home.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
So your argument is that they want to be treated like white people are, but they don't want white people to be treated that way
no, they want to be treated like white people. Full stop. They aren't saying they want white people to be treated badly. They are saying they want to be treated well. The problem is that how white people are treated is directly related to how they are treated. For example, a white person is more likely to be hired for a job than a black person even if they are equally qualified. If the black person was treated equally, then the white person wouldn't have an advantage in being hired. So by treating black people equally, white people would lose their advantage, and that could been seen as being treated worse.
so you're basically admitting it's about changing which group is oppressed and which is privileged rather than equality.
no, I am not saying that at all.
It's true that there is a disproportionate number of whites who are wealthier and shit, but there are also whites who aren't. The privilege is "rich privilege" and not "white privilege".
It seems like you are trying to use specific examples instead of looking at trends. It's like saying that I rode my bicycle without hitting my head, so it must be safe to do so. But in order to actually look at the issue, you have to look at the broader trends. How many people hit their head and get injuries etc. You only want to skim the surface of the issue. If you want to look at real "white privilage" you would look at how black people are much more likely to be charged with a crime than a white person who took the same action. How a black person is much more likely to be sentenced harshly for the same crime. How black people are much more likely to be denied access to a rental property based on their race (trump's company was found guilty of doing this). How white people are much more likely to be hired than a black person with the same skills. I can go on and on. The issue is systemic and found across all levels of society.
Most people nowadays don't think whites are superior or deserve better treatment
This is fundamentally untrue. And you only have to look at statistics to see it is untrue. People may not consciously decide to treat white people better, but they do.
The biggest privileged/oppressed dynamic is gender/sex imo rather than race. Women are treated way better than men and just have it way easier in every way.
It's astounding to me than white men can play the victim this hard. They have literally all the benefits. They make more money than all other groups. They have an easier time getting hired than any other group. That have the vast majority of political and financial power. But they love crying about how downtrodden they are. I always find it hilarious. And the funniest part is that the people crying about it the hardest are usually the ones who think they are an "alpha male".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
The most intersectionally oppressed group is straight, white, cisgender males specifically because they are the only group that isn't seen as oppressed.
lol, the group that gets the most power, money and best treatment in society is the most oppressed group. That is the most white nationalist statement I have ever heard.
Nobody cares about them, whereas every other group has a pity party in their honor.
are you insane? Everyone cares about them, that is the whole point. They hold the vast majority of wealth, power and status. Those other groups get a "pity party" because they are systematically mistreated while white people aren't. Those other groups just want to be treated the way white people are.
Everyone else can be treated better and get away with more because not being racist against whites is racist and not being sexist against men is sexist etc.
being treated like white people is what they want. It's what they have been fighting for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Idk what you're talking about at this point. I have heard it with Nazis and Germans or something but generally you don't get people going up to randomly associated ethinicities and holding them responsible for the atrocities done in the past by their ethnic ancestors except for white people.
my point is that the discrimination of those people is still ongoing. The nazi's actions towards jews was a one time event and then it stopped happening. White people mistreating black people happens constantly to this day. The slaves may have been freed, but they have never been treated as fully equal.
To anyone who is proud of their ethnicity their ethnicity has to be somewhat superior in their prideful mind
this is just objectively false. You can be proud of your history and culture without deciding it is superior. It's just that the people who shove that pride in your face believe that.
How exactly? At the moment they're committing disproportionate crimes and if that's due to systemic poverty and fatherless households that's a separate argument to saying the system is still rigged against them actively rather than passively.
This is a bigger debate. But they also get charged disproportionately. A white person might get a warning or charges dropped, while a black person gets the book thrown at them. Saying they are charged with more crimes does not prove they commit more crimes.
Unless you support completely eradicating inheritance and forcing all people in the nation to be collectively parented by state upbringing, there will always be an unfair edge to whoever is raised better and that is somewhat correlated with having wealthier parents not that wealthy parents can't be shit-tier parents.
again, this gets into a bigger argument, but it's alot deeper than that. Black areas tend to have poorer schools. They less likely to be hired for jobs, be approved for renting a home etc. Trump himself had a scandal where his company was systematically refusing to rent to black people. Arguing the only problem black people have is upbringing is super shitty.
Yes there will always be an unfair edge. But our society systematically increases this edge in countless ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Another example of selective morality.
my answer didn't even reference morality at all. I don't see the purpose of executions. They have no value. They are expensive, time wasting endeavors whose only upside is revenge. I'd rather the court system focus on processing cases faster instead of countless appeals for people on death row.
So you had consensual sex with a woman.Then she goes to the Police and claims rape.She pops the morning after pill.Tough shit for both you, and your zygote.
I have no idea what this has to do with this conversation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"President Trump has been indicted on a total of 91 counts by supporters of JoeBiden and his Justice Department."
and countless people were charged with crimes while trump was president. Do you think trump was telling them to and charge people? The president has no authority to order investigations or charges against people. And there is no evidence he has done so. It's just more conspiracy theory nonsense so that trump cultists can explain away his crimes without thinking about it.
Well except the verb changed. The verb there is "win", when the verb in the question was "stop" or "wants to stop"
ok. and? if your opponent is a criminal who is finally being brought to justice for his crimes, I'm sure you'd be happy he is being stopped by going to prison. It makes your life easier.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, because winning an election is not a crime.
no, the dozens of crimes he committed are crimes. And he used the powers of the president to help him commit a bunch of them.
It's like "if a private prison makes $100,000 off someone being convicted of rape, and hires and directs prosecutors, does that private prison want to convict people"
it's actually nothing like that. Biden does not make decisions about criminal cases.
"do you think that Joe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by putting him in jail"
uh huh. I don't see how this is confusing you. Another way of saying that is "would you like to win by trump going to prison after being found guilty for all those crimes he committed."
The poll didn't ask "do you think biden ordered trump to be arrested and sent to prison". It didn't ask "do you think trump is innocent of the charges". I'm sure many of the people who answered yes to that question would be perfectly happy to see trump in jail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You have to pay more money because so many opposite it that appeals end up disproportionately driving up the price.
see, this is definitely a debate that can be had. You clearly either already knew information about the topic, or looked it up. We can have a discussion about why the cost is so high and if it is justified. The OP however clearly doesn't know anything about the topic and is just pulling shit out of his ass.
As to your point, yes you are right. The cost is high because of the number of appeals they get. The danger in reducing their ability to appeal is that there is no undoing the damage you do if you get it wrong. If you imprison someone for 5 years and then they manage to prove their innocence on appeal, you can't give back the 5 years, but you could potentially compensate them financially for their loss. If you've executed someone and then find out they were innocent, there is no compensation that can change that. This is why there is so much emphasis on appeals for death row cases. I personally don't know if you could shorten it without increasing the risk of execution innocent people. But I don't find that the death penalty adds any value anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you are Nigerian, Indian or whatever else, nobody at all who isn't racist would hold you at all accountable for what some corrupt people of your race even if in your family's ancestry did.
I don't think this is true. Holding people accountable for what family members have done is sadly quite common. Banks do it every day.
It's wrong and unfair.
agreed.
Yet this is what is being done to white people. We don't hold all Japanese responsible for what some Samurai psychopaths did, not do we to Peruvians for cannibal tribes nor rapist invaders of the past if they're down that bloodline. It makes no sense to specifically target white people for this bloodline guilt.
you are comparing a one time event, to something that has gone on for centuries. The nazi's were horrible. After the war, the Germans admitted their guilt. Made attempts at restitution and haven't continued those types of things. Black people are still systematically mistreated in America to this day. They get arrested at higher rates. They get longer prison sentences for the same crime than white people. I can go on and on. This isn't some historical event that happened hundreds of years ago that people won't let go. This is an ongoing issue that has it's roots hundreds of years ago. Your examples are simply fundamentally different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There's racist pride all over the world for the majority tribe/race and natives in general.
this is equally wrong. Being proud that other people are "less than" you is wrong. Whether the person doing it is white, black or chinese.
It's literally the privilege of being the 'in-crowd' that your pride is based on.
you have accurately described racism, yes. is your point that racism is good?
Why are you proud to be anything unless it's a winning thing to be in your eyes?
lots of people are proud of their heritage without it being a "winning" thing. Irish history is not exactly full of winning, but there are millions of people proud of irish ancestry. I'm sure lots of people are proud of the "winning", but many people are just proud of knowing where they come from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think where his point falls off is " I'm proud to have this privilege." You can be proud of being white. But being proud of the fact that other people get treated like shit makes you a shitty person. If everyone got treated the way white people get treated, then white people wouldn't have any privilege. So being proud of your privilege means you are proud that others are discriminated against.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I didn't distort anything. I put the exact question asked.and then you distorted it by leaving off Biden's motivation.
No, the original post distorted it. saying "56% of all voters think Biden really wants to stop Trump from winning by putting him in jail." is a lie. That is not what the question asked. It asked if he was convicted of a crime, does he want to stop trump from winning by putting him in jail. It's like saying, "if a rapist is convicted of rape, do you want him to be put in jail to stop him raping again". Of course you do. Everyone wants that. Trump is criminal. He used his office to help him commit those crimes. If he is convicted of those crimes, he should go to prison. And I'm sure biden would be happy to watch the cell door swing shut and cruise to an easy victory. Why wouldn't he?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What happens when the cult is bigger than the non-cult?
it becomes a religion. But trump cultists make up about 35% of the country. And since trump is going to lose the election and then probably go to prison, thankfully we will never have to find out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
they would favor executing them to save taxpayer money.
ironically, the opposite is true. It costs far more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. If the goal is to save taxpayer money, then you would ban all executions.
If one is AUP, then they want more money going to help teachers. Enough money is spent taking care of murderers and those that commit r*** in jail to give every public-school teacher an $8400/year raise. Even one that is AUP would want to help our teachers and students more than murderers and those that commit r***, so the logical penalty would be death. Every state, even the bluest ones have many of their teachers wanting a higher salary and the state can't afford to give them one. An $8400/year raise by not spending on murderers and similar frees up a lot of cash.
obviously, all of this is bullshit since your underlying point is wrong. Trying to execute more people would mean you have to pay way more money.
Although the republicans have no core ideology, I believe they are mostly correct on this issue.
since you didn't bother to look up whether what you were writing was true before writing it, it doesn't surprise me you would agree with republican talking points since factual information obviously isn't important to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
so your post is that being a complete asshole upsets people? my god.... this is a revelation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't know what kind of idiot you expect to impress with that kind of obvious distortion.
I didn't distort anything. I put the exact question asked. Then said that most of the country wants to see him convicted, which is a fact.
Which is a microcosm of the 91 indictments themselves, 56% are saying "what kind of idiots do you take us for?"
what are you talking about? everyone knows he is guilty of many of those charges, if not all of them. For example, that he stole classified documents. That isn't even debatable. The FBI had to raid his property to get them back after he swore he returned them all. No one who isn't a cultist can say he didn't commit those crimes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
False:Trump has already been convicted and he is still set to win 6 out of 7 swing states with the 7th one being a coinflip.
Trump hasn't been convicted of anything... yet. He has been found civilly liable. That is not a criminal conviction. And the republicans have underperformed in pretty much every election since 2016. Democrats have been out performing polls by large margins since then. Remember when every republicans was getting ready for a "red wave" that would give them a huge majority in the house? then they got a tiny majority. And they used that tiny majority to be the least productive congress in all of american history (not an opinion, a fact).
Trump is going to lose.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You may want to put the full context. Here is what they were asked.
"President Trump has been indicted on a total of 91 counts by supporters of JoeBiden and his Justice Department. If convicted of these charges, do you think thatJoe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by puttinghim in jail?"
So the question was, if he is convicted of crimes, do you think biden would want him put in jail. And of course biden wants him in jail if he is convicted. So do most of the country.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep. Because the wealthiest districts in the country also tend to have the best education in the country.Thank you.
you're thanking me for pointing out that smart people don't vote republican? The less education you have, the more likely you are to believe the nonsense republicans spew.
They are the same party, it's just that the Democrats have gotten better about lying about taking care of the rich.
lol no. There are definitely places where they overlap. Taking care of the rich is certainly one them. But in most ways that matter, republicans are basically just evil.
Trump makes the rich nervous, but it has nothing to do with "protecting Democracy"... the wealthy care about something else entirely.
Of course they care about democracy. In large part because their wealth and power guarantee them a say in democracy. Who knows what their position would be in a trump dictatorship. Of course that makes them nervous. It should make everyone nervous.
the republicans are every bit as bad. They talk a big game, but refuse to actually address the issue.Correct. This is why the establishment GOP fears Trump. Because he might actually do what he promises.
you are serious? trump was president for 4 years. He accomplished nothing. Trump doesn't do almost anything he promises. He only keeps the promises that benefit him personally. Like tax cuts for billionaires.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats represent only the wealthiest districts in the country.
Yep. Because the wealthiest districts in the country also tend to have the best education in the country. The more education people get, the more they see through republican lies. But a district being wealthier, does not mean it is "elite". A wealthy district means it has more middle and upper middle class people. Is that who you mean when you say "elite"?
The latest research on where the Democrats are getting their campaign funding shows they have around 2 to 3 times more 2000+ dollar donors.
because Trump is a psycho that tried to overthrow democracy. People who aren't coolaid drinking cultists see that and don't want to support him. Also, trump has been bleeding money from the republican party and funneling it into his own campaign. He then spends that money on his lawyers for all his criminal and civil trials. Lots of donors don't want to fund trump's lawyers.
If you break down every policy passed in the last 50 years, you can clearly see that the policies have only helped the poor and lower middle class in name only while the actual outcomes helped the ultra- rich.
by all means. Tell me which republican policies have helped the poor. The dems do things like pass healthcare, student debt relief etc. The republicans do things like cutting taxes for the rich.
The best example of this is illegal immigration, a policy that only helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
lol the republicans are every bit as bad. They talk a big game, but refuse to actually address the issue. For example, when they pass laws to go after illegal immigrants, they never target the businesses hiring them, just the immigrants. Because the businesses hiring them are the republican donors. They want to drum up hate against immigrants, but they don't want to undermine the profits of their donors.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nobody really denies the Democrat party is the party of the wealthy elite.
most intelligent people deny that. The current leader of the republican party is literally a billionaire who was handed a fortune by his father. He is the definition of "wealthy elite".
Also, republican policies are heavily designed to make the rich richer and screw over everyone else. The democrats are often rich assholes who look out for themselves. But they occasionally do helpful things for average people. The republicans never do anything for average people other than try to stoke up hate. The entire party platform is designed to give the poor people something to hate so that they don't notice the republicans are giving more tax breaks to billionaires while cutting anything that helps regular people.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Now that the american justice system is a battleground I don't care about precedent. I care about counter-attacks.
lol now there is some logic. The candidate you support is a criminal. Therefore he turns the courts into battlegrounds as he is tried for his crimes. And you believe that means that you can break the law in support of the guy on trial for breaking the law.
No, more like I wasn't convicted of anything because it was a civil case. Also there was a line item that say "battery" and the jury said "He didn't do it". Also there isn't a shred of evidence.
what? The jury said he did it. That is why he is liable for the sexual assault. And the actions he was found liable meet the definition of rape.
Except I was charged with battery, and found not to be liable. And you knew it. You just don't care what the legal definition of battery is and decided that chewing gum now meant "beating up a guy"
what are you even talking about. Trump was found to be liable. IE the jury found he did it. So you are just rambling about nonsense.
That's rape.Strange that the pseudo-jury disagreed.
they did not. That's why trump was found liable.
Soon all facts will be "legal" facts as it becomes clear that authority of partisan juries is simply another weapon in the culture war.
Man trump cultists are sad. It doesn't matter what trump did, you will defend him no matter what. You just believe it's the "deep state" is out to get him each time his crimes are exposed.
Say the democracy trashing dangerously deranged soon to be owners of a mountain of regrets...
no idea what any of that means. Trump is the one who tried to overthrow democracy.
Created:
In DC or New York maybe.This is in Florida.
and? he has no case. A journalist said something about a politician. It is extremely hard to ever successfully sue a journalist for defamation against a public figure. And in this case, the journalist said something truthful. Something that was stated outright in a legal decision of a court of law. Trump has absolutely no case. This case isn't intended to win. It's the same as most of his lawsuits, a distraction. He will lose. His case might even get thrown out early if he doesn't get a trump loving judge.
Created: