Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Greyparrot
still waiting for you to name a regulation that has tripled the cost of energy...
Alaskans are so furious about being shackled by the tyranny of a majority of "eco conscious warriors" in California who have never set one foot on Alaskan soil, much less spent a single day in the environment they think they are "saving."
uh huh. Basically, your argument is that Alaska should be free to make huge profits and then make everyone pay the costs. Pumping and burning huge amounts of fossil fuels affects Californians just as much as it affects Alaskans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
After reading Oliver's post, do you think he is a "cultist?"
I have no idea. He says he is against biden and corruption in DC. That could mean he is a liberal, that could mean he is a trump cultist, that could mean he is a libertarian. It doesn't really tell much about him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So as a judge, wouldn't it make sense to NOT have him in court the very day before Super Tuesday? I mean, there are plenty of other days out of the year....
why? that's like saying "wouldn't it make sense to not have a court date because it's the defendant's birthday?". The judge should not take politics into account, in any way, while running the trial.
In fact, trying to bend the law to benefit a politician, that would be political interference. What you are suggesting she should do, is the offense you are accusing her of.
Why give the people a reason to suspect the Deep State is doing something shady....unless maybe the Judge is doing it on purpose...
it literally does not matter what date she picked, she would be accused of exactly the same thing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's a ton of regulations that double and sometimes triple the energy bills of poor people for electricity and gas.
what regulation would that be, exactly. I'm guessing it's regulation that prevents catastrophic failure or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have no objection to fighting against corruption. But the how is critically important. For example, trump cultists think the solution to corruption is to put one of the most corrupt presidents in modern history back in power. That is just bonkers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you guys think?
I think that trump's campaigning has absolutely nothing to do with the case. He is charged with serious crimes (many of which he has basically admitted to). It doesn't matter if he is running for office, or even if he holds office already. It is simply not a consideration the courts should take into account.
It didn't matter what day the trial started on, trump and his sycophants would scream election interference. They would find some primary date, or rally, or debate or something to point to near the date and cry about it.
I find it very strange that republicans are so caught up on what date these things are on, when he will probably be in prison by election day.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You shouldnt do so much research. In 99% of cases I dont even click on links here.
that is a very fair point. But i'm curious what question they asked. It was probably something like "do you think trump's arrest makes it harder to run for president" and they went "see!! 100% of people think it's election interference!!!" when that is not at all what they asked.
Obviously democrats removed the poll because it makes them look bad.
I mean, i don't see any other news outlet talking about it nor the poll itself. It's not impossible they made it up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd like to hear from Democrats on this site if they agree with the Democrats polled by Newsweek.
It wasn't a newsweek poll. It is reportedly a Redfield & Wilton Strategies survey. However, I can't seem to find what survey the article is talking about. The link in the article just goes to their main website, and I can't seem to find any poll results on this topic on their website.
Are you able to find the poll they are talking about? If not, there really isn't much point in discussing a non existent poll.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Really, should just defeat him again in elections and that would be it.
why would you think that would be the end of it? He has already been defeated and his supporters believe he won. If he ran again and lost, he supporters would believe it was stolen.
His crazy supporters are going to act crazy no matter what. I think showing the country all of his crimes and punishing him for it is the better solution. Then the ones who can be reached can see he is a criminal, while the ones who can't be reached were going to be crazy and potentially violent no matter what.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
you say it affects the wealthy. what about the poor? if there's limits on who can drive gas cars, that affects poor people the most.
we are already replacing internal combustion engines with electric vehicles. There are some cheap options now for these, but they get cheaper every year.
i'm not saying we should do nothing, but it needs to be well crafted policies.
this is fair. It is certainly possible for idiots to ignore suggestions of what would be useful and just try to ram through destructive, useless nonsense.
we should double down on alt energy, and maybe figure out how to reduce existing or prevent future carbon with technology, but i suppose i'm skeptical about limits on emissions. i dont know what the right policy would be, so that it doesn't affect poor people.
agreed. Solar energy is already the cheapest form of energy on the planet. We need more investment in this, and other forms of renewable energy. We also need investment in energy storage. One of the handicaps of many renewable energies is they aren't entirely consistent. If you have a coal power plant you can produce the exact amount of energy you want, whenever you want. Solar doesn't work that way. So we need to be able to produce lots of energy while the sun is shining, store it, and release it when it's needed.
Created:
the consequences of trying to slow emissions will be reduced growth. That will cut into profit margins for the wealthy. It will slow the economy. But that's pretty much it. And given that this requires us to push hard into new technologies, it could even increase economic growth as we ditch old, inefficient technology.
The consequences of global warming we can't know entirely for certain. But even the things we are seeing now are bad. There are record setting wildfires year after year. I have family in an area that has had flooding repeatedly in the last few years in an area where flooding is uncommon. And the degree of flooding was extremely rare. There are large chunks of the US that are slowly becoming uninhabitable because insurance companies are more and more hesitant to insure houses there since it is extremely likely they will be damaged by natural disasters.
The costs of global warming are going to be incalculable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A fitting punishment would be the removal of his name from the Presidential Records.
I don't particularly disagree with your discussion of his crimes. But how does removing him from the books do anything? We want people to remember him. we want people to know what happens to a criminal president. If you try to wipe out memory of him, people will just do it again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A President and his followers that commit crimes against Humanity must be punished.
Ok, a prison sentence is a harsh punishment. Pretending he wasn't president is.... nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I mean, he won the electoral college in 2016. It's a bad system that needs changing, but that is the system used to pick the president. He might now be a disgrace and potentially a traitor, but he still was president. I don't see how this does anything other than intentionally try to piss people off. I don't see how that is constructive.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Socialism isn’t perfect, capitalism isn’t perfect, feudalism isn’t perfect.
true. I was using the quotes around it to imply that it is intended to be a "perfect", as in everyone is equal, we all get along etc. But in practice it turns into a shit show.
But the number one failure of government is greed/corruption. You know absolutely nothing about history if you think otherwise
I mean, that is literally what I said. "because socialism is "perfect", but humans are not. We are greedy and self centered." I was saying that greed and being self centered makes the system not work. IE corruption.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And why would that be?
because socialism is "perfect", but humans are not. We are greedy and self centered. So creating a political system based around a philosophy that runs contrary to human nature is doomed to failure.
And Monarchy is/was just another variation on a theme of hierarchical society.
ok, but all society is hierarchical. It doesn't mean monarchy and democracy is the same thing, or even similar. It means they have 1 basic building block in common.
Though I would suggest that most modern States headed by a ceremonial monarch, these days fall into the general category of social democracy.
I mean, most modern nations are. If they have things like a minimum wage, free primary education, democratic elctions, etc, then they are probably a social democracy. In a true capitalist system, the government would not provide any of these things.
Created:
What you said goes without say, That question is one of personal significance and has nothing to do with the larger picture of reality for humanity on the whole. BUT! Depending on what God (or gods) one believes in, could demonstrate how/what kind of leader he would be based on the teachings of his religion.
his statement was "god is real". That is most likely not true. There are dozens or hundreds of gods worshipped on this planet, plus thousands that have been worshiped historically, and they all say theirs is the right one. So saying god is real is certainly not a factual statement. You could say, belief in god is important, or faith is real, or something. But god is real is wrong.
LOL!!! It is a factually accurate statement! Nature only intended for two genders/sexes in order for the respective species that need procreation in order to continue to exist and evolve. Anything else is pure fantasy and wishful thinking (fallacy)!!!
you are confusing gender and sex. Sex is the biological orientation. Gender is the social construct. So no, there are as many or as few genders as we say there are. And even referring to sex, there are lots of people born who don't qualify as male or female, and lots who qualify as both. So saying there is 2 genders is dumb.
“Before it” we did not have devices that required fossil fuels to operate them. So yeah, like DUH 🙄!!! The only thing that matters is the here and now, not 50, 100, or 4,000 years ago. Such a fine display of a liberal ignorant reply on that point on your part.
wow, my point went completely over your head apparently. My point was that hundreds of years ago horses were critically important. But then we developed better technology and replaced them. Fossil fuels are important today. We are already implementing the technologies to replace it. so saying humans need fossil fuels it flourish is like saying we need horses to flourish. At one point in time this sentence is correct. 50 years from now, 100 years from now, it wont be.
Oh bullshit!!! The democrats and Biden have advocated for an open boarder since 2015. Get with the times. So called history buff.
biden's border policy is almost indistinguishable from trumps. when he fires all border agents and puts up a "we're open" sign, then you can tell me he is for open borders. Until then, this is just right wing bullshit.
LOL!!! You clearly do not understand the social-psychological dynamics of a nuclear family. So much for being a history buff, err, bugg.
uh huh. So a family unit is governance? did your father beat you with a belt or something?
His statement is a truism. Your reply is 1/4th of a truism,
no, his statement is propaganda. For example, if I said, "medicine cures disease", that would be true. But then I tried to use that to sell you piss in a bottle. Capitolism does alot of good. It also does alot of damage. It raises some out of poverty, it shoves others into it.
HA HA!!! No one uses the Constitution to attack anyone’s rights.
so no bakery has refused to serve a customer because they are gay? What world do yo live in?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
It creates a de facto “B tier” pay scale system with various positive and negative ramifications for individuals and society. Is that sort of system a net benefit overall? I doubt anyone could agree for sure on that. It is a generally accepted hypocrisy in any case.
I agree. The current system certainly creates winners and losers. And those winners and losers have been that way for decades. People are used to it. The system could be "fixed", but changing the status quo changes who the winners and losers are. And the "losers" will be angry. It's alot easier for politicans to whine about the problem and refuse to do anything to actually address it. Or, just pass increasingly draconian laws to try to attack, degrade or outright torture illegal immigrants, while not trying to fix the underlying problem.
For example De Santis passed laws in florida that would crack down on illegal immigrants. Then, when it became apparent that this would drive away workers into other states and do serious damage to the florida economy, he started telling businesses to tell their illegal immigrants not to worry about it. It wouldn't affect them. He basically started begging illegal immigrants to stay. He wants to look like he is tough on immigration, but not actually drive away the illegal immigrants.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Indeed, it is a complex issue. You said, “I think there are some security measures that would make sense,” and I was just wondering what those proposed measures were.
border security isn't a particularly important issue as far as I am concerned. So I don't have strong opinions on what additional measures would be helpful. Current measures seem to be mostly what is needed. I'm sure there are areas of improvement, but it's hardly an issue worth changing voting patterns over.
As for a more specific question, in what certain areas does fencing make sense?
in high traffic areas. In areas where it makes sense geographically. Building fences in the middle of nowhere isn't always easy, for example. Or over rocky areas, or near rivers etc.
I am making the point that tariffs aren’t absolutely required for trade to occur.
ok, but this is kind of a useless statement. I can say that communism is a perfect system where everyone shares everything equally and gets along. But in the real world, it does not work that way. You can say that trade does not require tariffs, and that is technically true. But in the real world, the one inhabited by humans, they are a requirement. No country has ever existed, and probably never will exist, that does not have some kind of tariffs or regulations on what good may enter.
as a random example that popped into my head that isn't a tariff, but is another reason you need border checks, there is a type of cheese made in Sicily that is quite dangerous to eat. It is legal in sicily, but illegal in most other countries. You need border checks to make sure no one is importing a potentially poisonous food.
Tariff policy is actually a whole other can of worms.
very true.
Recall that you were asking me what constitutes a “looser border,” and I answered.
my apologies, I went back and re-read your answer and I was not placing your answer in the correct context.
Ok. I just find that the US is often criticized devoid of any meaningful larger context. I am a believer in learning from other people’s mistakes and successes.
this is fair. The US situation is a bit unique though. A very large, sparsely populated border. One side has a highly advanced economy where even low paying work is would be "good" by the standards of people on the other side. It is very hard to secure. And even if you could, the ramifications would be dire. Much of the US' food production is reliant on imported labor, much of it from illegals. If the border were magically secure tomorrow, american food production would plummet, companies would go bankrupt, and food prices would jump.
Like yourself, I’m no expert on this subject. I am beginning to wonder if there is such a person.
there are many who would say that they are. But they don't agree with each other and usually have a political axe to grind.
I think our border should be more secure than it is, with more agents who are properly supported to do their job effectively. I think illegal immigration is too incentivized and that those incentives need to be reduced where possible. I think immigration should be a matter of national enrichment, not a show of global charity.
I think a core of the problem here is that the legal immigration path is broken. It is possible to immigrate legally of course, but there are many hurdles to jump though and it takes lots of time and money to do so. So if you only want doctors, mechanics, engineers etc, then the current system is cumbersome, but workable. But for people who want to move to america to do low end jobs, (janitors, working on farms etc), the system is a shit show. You aren't going to be able to stop people from trying to come illegally as long as it is effectively impossible for them to come legally. People want a better life, and if you tell them you will never be allowed to have one, they will find their own way.
The legal immigration system can be fixed of course, but there is no political will to do so. Both republicans and democrats benefit from the status quo. The democrats can point to those heartless, racist, republicans and use it to fundraise. The republicans can point to the open border, illegal loving, communists and use it to fundraise and fear monger. Neither side actually wants any sort of fix to the problem.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Would ranked choice voting fix this?
I think it would be better than 1st past the post. It could potentially have other problems though. For example in Canada like 10 years ago, they were looking at election reform. The biggest party which is the centrist party (the liberals) wanted ranked choice voting. But every other party said no. This would have basically guaranteed they win every election. A proportional system would be better I think. One where if party A gets 40% of the votes, they get 40% of the seats in the legislature. It has other flaws, but it allows people to actually vote for what they want instead of just voting against what they hate.
What would you say to a complete ban on any campaign funds and all candidates (that meet a set minimum support threshold) get an equal share of public funds to campaign with?
this would be an improvement over current systems, but would be a bit wonky I think. For example if the threshold were at say, 5%. Then a small party with little support would get the same funding as a major party with lots of support. It would amplify fringe voices over the voices of the majority. And if you set the threshold higher, then you are effectively silencing those who can't hit that threshold since they can't get any funding to get their ideas out there.
This why I like the idea of everyone having a small amount they can choose which party to give it to. That way the parties that actually try to appeal to people are the ones who get funding.
My usual go-to solution to this is to remove a lot of the regulatory the powers the government wields to trade for wealth, but some regulation is necessary, and it would be really hard to flesh this out.
Regulation is always necessary. If you don't want companies poisoning your water, working children to death etc, you need regulations. And as long as regulations exist, companies will want to lobby to get the government to make these regulations benefit them. As an example, Joe Manchin's family owns coal mines and he fights against any attempt to regulate the coal industry to stop them from polluting. This is just blatant corruption.
The only way I can see to do this is to basically just ban any way politicians can profit off of their office. term limits would probably also help. That way these corrupt politicians that have been bought can't sit there and continue their corruption forever, like Joe Manchin.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How would you give power to the people instead of what we have today?
it's a complicated question and I don't pretend to know the perfect answer. Here are a couple ideas though.
1) I'd say you would need more representative democracy for starters. IE no 2 party system where you can lock voters into voting for you as long as you are a little less evil than the other guy. A system where if 1 guy gets 40% of the votes, he gets 40% of the political power.
2) Banning all private funding of politicians and elections. Allowing the rich and corporations to donate to campaigns just gives them power to buy politicians. I think publicly funded elections would be much better. For example, the government allocates a certain amount of money, let's say $100, to each person and they can give it to whichever candidate(s) they want. That way political campaigns couldn't be run trying to appeal to rich donors.
3) banning all the legal, but super corrupt grifting methods used by politicians. IE serving on the boards of companies after you leave office, allowing them to trade stocks while in office (and while they have access to insider knowledge). Being an elected official should not be something that gets you rich. Allowing this to happen just encourages politicians to serve the wealthy and corporations while screwing over the people voting for them.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Social structure is always essentially the same.
this is nonsense. A representative democracy in a society where people have rights and all get an education is nothing like a monarchy where people are essentially property of the crown.
My general point is, that people will always fall into line whatever the system.
so your point is that we are communal species? that's it. Any 5th grader could tell you that.
And for sure, history shows us that attempts at socialism have a tendency to become oppressive and restrictive
I would argue that this isn't true. I would argue there hasn't ever really been a true socialist country. There have only been dictatorships masquerading as socialism. Just because a dictator owns and controls all the means of production doesn't make it socialism, even if they say it is.
Though I might add, that social democracies are often plagued with corruption, which might also lead to oppressive and restrictive practices.
all countries are plagued with corruption. Humans are easily corrupted. In social democracies it is just alot easier to see and expose the corruption.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wouldn't be jumping through hoops to defend a bad journalist. It's not a politician's job to forgive them either.
the journalist didn't do anything bad though. He is well known to be a right wing troll. He dog whistles all the time. Asking him to comment on it isn't bad journalism. So there is nothing to forgive them for. Poilievre is just a dick.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I am simply trying to ascertain what it is you believe about border security devoid of the partisan hackery, so you needn’t waste the keystrokes on my account. If you simply need to shake your fist rhetorically and often, then by all means…
It is a very large issue with alot of nuance. I think there should be border checkpoints. I think fencing in certain areas makes sense. I think there should be checks on goods passing through the border. You will need to be more specific on your question.
Tariffs are not required for trade. To the contrary, they are intended to be a restriction on trade.
ok. And all countries have tariffs and/or trade restrictions. There isn't a single country on the planet that allows unrestricted trade. So yeah, they are a requirement.
Token security, if any, outside of ports of entry;
The US has miles and miles of border fencing, border patrols etc. That is hardly "token security".
Which nations have nearly the ideal level of border security in your view, and is it possible and desirable to be emulated by the US?
there is no answer to that. Switzerland's situation is very different to the US'. Mexico's situation is very different to Canada. Trying to boil it down to "which country has the right amount of security" is not going to work. No two countries have the same situation.
what is the level of security you think is correct? what specific policies do you think would achieve that?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok, so the journalist was just incompetent. Noted.
No, the politician was just a jackass. If you ask someone why they jumped off a bridge they go "Did I?!?! who discovered gravity!! who is the expert who discovered gravity!!!" and then proceeds to ramble about something completely unrelated, you would not think "wow this guy is intelligent". You would think "this guy is a moron". That is basically what he is doing.
He just wants to distract from the question and hope people fall for it. But this whole thread is proof it works. There is a segment of the population that will cheer, as long as you act like a dick.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If they were not, then the Congress would just give 100 billion to Ukraine and 100 billion to Maui. But they can't.
they literally can do this.
There's no infinite money supply, and choices have to be made to decide who gets the money.
it is true that money is not infinite, but they can easily raise the money by issuing bonds and either cut it from the budget somewhere else, raise additional revenue or any number of other things.
In this case, Ukraine gets far more than Maui.
this is a bullshit argument. the government could give any amount of money they want to maui. pretending like giving to Ukraine somehow limits the amount that goes to maui is a bullshit argument that is intended to try to justify cutting spending in one area without the person having the balls to just come out and say it. You don't have to make it about maui. You can just say you want Ukraine to be conquered and ethnically cleansed. You don't have to play these silly games by bringing maui into it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So next time, the Journalist shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims about experts when pushing a narrative. Then there can be no excuse.
it isn't an unsubstantiated claim, it is easily substantiated. I've personally shown you examples of him dog whistling. The fact that the reporter couldn't or didn't want to name a specific person making the claim when they asked the question doesn't make it unsubstantiated. A 30 second google search substantiates it.
The thing there is no excuse for is a politician who would rather attack journalists than answer simple questions. I know you wont see it that way since trump is the king of this kind of bullshit.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
People who threaten “basic safety” are getting into the country now. Do we need more effective border security?
this is a common argument for disingenuous people. they point some of sort of problem, sometimes it's made up, sometimes it's wildly exaggerated, sometimes it's even legitimate. But usually they don't make a legitimate argument for addressing that problem. Take trump, he drummed up fear of evil convoys that were invading america. This was wildly exaggerated, almost to the point of being made up. But his solution, building a wall in the middle of nowhere, was stupid. It wouldn't actually address the issue, and the issue itself was wildly overblown just to make people afraid.
Do we need more effective border security?
I think there are some security measures that would make sense. But I also think that people that loudly argue more security is needed are almost entirely political shysters who are just looking to make people afraid to profit themselves.
How is border security a requirement for trade?
you need to be able to control what goods flow into and out of your country. For example, China uses government money to subsidize specific industries. This is harmful for other countries. So establishing tariffs to try to balance this out is helpful. If you don't know what goods are coming into your country then these tariffs cannot be enforced.
Some think tanks want looser borders (I know you don’t care for that phrase, but I simply don’t know what terms you will respect on this subject) to invigorate trade.
what does looser borders mean to you? for most right wing people it is a meaningless term to attack people. Do you use this to mean higher legal immigration numbers? Do you mean less enforcement on illegal immigrants? Do you mean reduced border checks on goods? Do you mean lower or non existent tariffs on incoming goods?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Journalist refused to answer his question too.
his question was stupid. The sole purpose of his question was to deflect. He wanted to attack the journalist so that when the journalist was offput by his attack he could reframe the conversation into the question he wanted and he could just grandstand. And then people, such as yourself, would look at his stupid answer and go "oh wow, he owned the libs" even though he was just being a dick and dodging a valid question.
There are tons of people who say he dog whistles. Journalists, politicians, regular people. The fact that the journalist didn't have a specific name of one of them on hand when they asked the question doesn't mean they refused to answer. They were taken aback at being attacked on the premise of their question rather than the candidate attempting to answer it.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Here’s one organization which you apparently don’t believe exists:
you successfully located a tiny fringe group that few people have ever heard of who advocates an extreme view. Congratulations.
You think the above cited organization is a right wing asshole organization? It uses the term “open borders.”
no, I think they are a ridiculously tiny fringe group who speak for almost no one. I think 99.9% of people who use the term "open borders" are rightwing assholes. And they use it in an incredibly disingenuous way. for example, by saying biden is for open borders when his border policy is extremely similar to trump's. It's just a meaningless phrase they use to attack people.
Seeing as how you don’t like the words I used in my previous question, I’ll rephrase it: why have border security?
every country in the world has border security. It is a requirement for basic safety, trade etc. The right uses "border security" to fear monger and try to paint immigration as a bad thing and immigrants as some sort of boogey man.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
“Literally no one”? Or do you mean “no one of import,” as in not “literally”? There are several think tanks and organizations which advocate for open or “loose” borders.
a loose border is not an open border. I mean, i suppose there are people out there who murder and eat people. So I guess you could find people who believe almost anything. But there is virtually no one who advocates for an open border.
In any case, why not have open or loose borders?
there are certainly arguments for a loose border. But that is a very vague term that could mean almost anything. An open border is 100% just a political term. It's something rightwing assholes say that means whatever they want it to mean. Like saying someone is "woke". It's just a term used to attack people without saying anything substantive.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Perhaps you need to watch the video again. The media claims there are Experts that deal in these "dog whistles"
uh huh. And lots of people say it. Politicians, journalists, regular people. It is a common thing to say and believe. So regardless of what an "expert" is to you, there are lots of them that believe and this and say it. This guy has been dog whistling for literally decades.
All he did in this clip was refuse to answer the question and try to attack the person asking so that he could list off talking points instead.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just asking what expert. If I click your link, will it tell me what expert?
what? your question doesn't make sense. I am pointing out things he has done that are dog whistles. Why would you want me to find you an "expert" to tell you he dog whistles, when I've already shown you some examples.
I didn't think Canadians have libertarians. And libertarians are hardly far right.
Canada has lots of far right loons. I have no idea if they refer to themselves as libertarians.
I made this thread to point out how media uses fake sources to drive their narratives. That's concerning no matter what team you choose to side with.
google search Poilievre and dog whistle. you will find tons of articles about it. It's not like they are making up fake people with fake opinions. The fact that he dog whistles is widely known. Most of the people who interview him probably think he dog whistles. I'm sure that reporter could have pointed to a random reporter in the crowd and said that person thinks so, and they would probably have been right.
And I mean, what even is an "expert" on dog whistling? The prime minister says he does it. Journalists say he does. Normal people say he does it. What kind of "expert" are you looking for?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So overall it was a stupid declaration
For a normal person reading it, definitely. Any person who isn't really right wing would see many of those as stupid or nonsensical. But this declaration isn't aimed at people are aren't really right wing. It is aimed at right wing assholes. He needs to try to beat trump in a primary and the only way to do that is to outflank him on the right. If he somehow managed to do that, i'm sure he'd walk back some of this nonsense for a general election.
Created:
I get that there are people that want to support both Maui and Ukraine, but shouldn't the public have a say on whether or not the vast majority goes to Ukraine over domestic issues?
why are you still pretending the 2 things are mutually exclusive. The US government has vast amounts of money, the amount they give to Ukraine has no impact on the amount given to help maui. If you want more money for maui, say that. Phrasing it this way it a shitty right wing tactic of trying to create a false connection. Like when they point to veterans getting screwed over and so they say give less money to X and give it to veterans. They don't actually care about veterans, they just want to cut funding to something else, but are too cowardly to just say so.
Why does it have to be a package deal? and not separate bills? I think you know why.
both things are popular. I don't see why it is at all controversial to tie them together. Both will pass.
No, I am saying we are in fact screwing over America and Maui to get money for Ukraine.
how so? The US government can spend whatever it wants on maui and on Ukraine. Giving money to one does not remove money from the other. This argument is a tired right wing tactic, and it's bullshit.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
According to what expert?
I mean, this isn't hard. Google search Poilievre and dog whistle. There's lots of results, he's been doing it for 20 years.
Here is a tweet of him threatening to pull funding for schools that don't give in to his demands on what "free speech" is. The only ones thinking this is an issue is the far right. Basically, they want the right to spread far right(in some cases full on nazi) propaganda at schools. Schools keep banning nazi speakers from coming there and they are pissed about.
He routinely attacks ‘globalist Davos elites’, which to the right is a synonym of Jewish conspiracy.
He regularly promises to be anti-woke which is just a blanket term for anything right wing assholes don't like. Attacking "wokeness" is just a way to say you'll do things the far right wants without having to confirm what that is, since most people would be appalled.
I realize that you won't see most of this as dog whistling, because you are the kind of person he is trying to dog whistle to.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most people would rather have Maui have at least as much money as the Ukraine. not 100 times less.
why are you pretending the two things are mutually exclusive? If you want maui to get more money, say that. Don't pretend you need to screw over Ukraine to get money for maui.
And again, you haven't shown why your title isn't a lie. You haven't provided any evidence that attaching the two things has caused any slowdowns at all.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
1) it's Poilievre, not Paliov
2) this isn't "based", this is classic dodging of the question. Poilievre is a right wing troll who has never held a real job in his entire life. His entire life, his job has basically been to troll people. To try to get them upset and then dance away from any kind of actual questioning. He's really good at it.
He won't actually answer the question because the answer is yes. He does dog whistle to the far right. That is the main reason he is the leader of the conservatives.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He didn't say I was stupid. He said I shouldn't be alive, plus he implied he might do something to make that happen.
he definitely did not say that. He asked how you are alive and said he doesn't know how you are alive. The implication is that you are too stupid to keep yourself alive, not that he is going to do something to harm you. Again, i'm not saying you're stupid, just confused by your response to his message.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Uniparty in action.
lol, so if both parties agree on good policy, it must mean they are the same party.... What if they both like puppies? does that make them to same party too?
Created:
1. God is real
I mean, this is objectively not the "truth". since no one can possibly know for sure, saying it is the truth is dumb.
2. There are two genders
This is just an objectively false statement.
3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels.
Humans flourished before it, we will flourish after it. It's like being in the 1800's and saying human flourishing requires horses. I mean it did at the time, but is a very short sighted statement.
4. Reverse racism is racism.
there is no such thing as reverse racism. As a concept this is stupid. Racism is racism, period.
5. An open border is no border.
since literally no one has advocated an "open border", this is a stupid thing to say.
6. Parents determine the education of their children.
there are always limits. but this might be the least stupid of his points.
7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.
this doesn't even make sense. A family is not a form of governance.
8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty.
it can, it can also shove people into poverty. For example, capitalism incentivizes companies to offshore jobs to cheaper places forcing people who used to have good jobs into poverty. So saying it this way is stupid.
9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four.
I'm not sure what the implication of this is.
10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.
no. Because people also like to use it attack other people's rights. For example by saying your right to practice your religion can be used to infringe on other's people's rights to live.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol. So sad. I don’t know how you survive. How are you still alive?Please take care of this now. Threats to a person's life can't be ignored.
umm, he didn't threaten you. He insulted you for sure by implying you were stupid (im not endorsing, just clarifying). But he definitely didn't threaten you.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Essentially society is the same today as it always was,
what? that is so wrong as to be ridiculous. A few decades ago black people could be barred from voting. Women couldn't vote until 1920. Elections didn't exist until relatively recently, historically speaking. During the industrial revolution your employers could beat you and work you to death if they wanted to. They regularly employeed small children who had little to no protections and were regularly maimed and killed in these jobs.
I could go on and on about how society has changed in the last 200-300 years. It is drastic. Society today is incredibly different. So saying society is the same as it always was is just painful to read and shows a wild misunderstanding of history.
And history should tell you that so called attempts at socialism, never tolerated critics.
what? most of the developed world uses some sort of social democracy. These are the freest countries on the planet.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
this is exactly what republicans do all the timeGlad you recognize the Uniparty.
what? Because 2 different parties use the same tactic it makes them the same party? One uses it to help the rich and destroy the poor, the other uses it to save lives. But sure, it's the same....
2) The bill to add funds to FEMA is tied into funding for Ukraine, meaning you have to approve both for it to pass.
It does appear that the 2 are tied together. But could you explain how this is holding anything up? Both measures have bipartisan support and will pass. So I don't see how anything is being held up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
umm, your video link is for a "dramatic cat"....
even if this story were true (which I have no idea if it is or isn't), this is exactly what republicans do all the time. They hold the government hostage until they get what the want. But what they want is almost always to help the rich and/or screw over the poor in some way. So do you actually care about when politicians do this, or just when democrats do it?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A socialist society, with a nanny government and a social elite.Exactly what we have now.
I guess you want to go back to the 1700's where companies literally worked their employees to death. Personally, I find being enslaved by corporations for just enough money to avoid starving to death to be a bad thing. But to each their own I suppose.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The building blocks to ones future status are education and diligence.
those certainly are important. But if you want to be truly successful, having money, connections and a degree from a school that costs 100's of thousands of dollars matters more.
Just like the slave reference, it's hopeless extending arguments backwards.
no, it's very useful to extend a silly argument to help to highlight how silly it is. You are telling people to just be content with whatever the rich and powerful see fit to let you have. That is the exact argument used by slave owners. Modern americans aren't slaves, but they are controlled by the rich all the same and have little to no way out.
And an inherently incapable person given capital, will most likely squander it rather than make shrewd investments for the future.
are you aware that financial advisors are a thing? Most rich people don't manage much of their own money. They pay people to do it for them.
Nanny State only works if there are people to do the nannying.
you say nanny state, I say functional society. Things that are critically important to the functioning of society used to be ridiculous notions that the rich spat upon. For example, free education for poor people. And now giving all children a primary and secondary education is the backbone of the modern workforce. Without it, we would be nowhere near as prosperous. But the idea of extending this to post secondary education is still spat upon by the rich and they call is socialism. God forbid poor people have equal chance to succeed as they do.
Perhaps the only way for the unemployable working classes to make a living, will be as cannon fodder for the National elites.
or, more likely, we will need a much more socialist society. One where the government provides for their people even though their labor is no longer required. Because if they don't, there are alot more poor people than rich people....
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s just not true. There has been polling that shows 20-30% of Trump supporters won’t come out to vote GOP or will write in Trump.
ok. and when it comes down to Biden or some other republican, most of them will vote anyway since they have been fed lies about biden being corrupt.
Meanwhile, even after every indictment, Trump is running on par with Biden in the polls. Even if he is sent to jail, there’s no guarantee that it will affect him in the polls. 4 indictments haven’t so far.
lots of people don't tune into the news cycle. Or if they do, they hear nonsense from fox saying these indictments are a joke (which is of course a lie). As the trials get going and trump gets convicted it is going to be harder and harder to pretend the charges are a joke. As people get more and more visibility on the scope of his crimes and his guilt, it will hurt his support.
It is a sham. Him being convicted in 92-8 liberal Washington D.C. means nothing. People in DC would convinct a ham sandwich if they were told to.
even if that were true, it is irrelevant if he is guilty. And he very clearly is. But he is also going to be convicted in Georgia. Are you going to try to tell me Georgia is also liberal?
Then you just haven’t been paying attention. Ever heard of the big guy? How about Hunter Biden? On the board of a Ukrainian gas company without any knowledge of energy, doesn’t even know the language, etc.. You know why he got that position? So he could sell the “brand.” And look
It is a common practice for companies to hire people with some prestige to be on their board. The point of them is just to look good and bring some extra prestige and legitimacy to the company. Hunter is absolutely scummy. He traded on his father's name in a way that is, sadly, totally legal. There is no evidence that Joe biden was ever paid a single penny or ever took a single action that would benefit Burisma.
You’re arguing whether it’s a crime or not. It isn’t. Saying the election was stolen is not a crime.
I totally agree with you. Saying the election was stolen is not a crime. However, no one has been charged for saying the election was stolen. They have been charged for trying to steal it. Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to force the states to send fake electors and to force pence to not count legitimate electors in an attempt to hold onto power. These are crimes.
You’re welcome to believe that there’s nothing there. But just know that impeachment trials will be blasted on TV, where every American can hear just how exactly Biden corruption happened. It’s just a matter of turning Independents against Biden even more than they already are.
I really hope they go through with it. It will ruin them. Impeaching a president for absolutely nothing doesn't hurt the president, it hurts the people attacking him. So far the republicans have failed to provide a single shred of evidence that biden has done anything illegal. Impeaching him without any specific crime they say he has done and no evidence to back it up will ensure Biden wins.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Slaves was a few hundred years ago.You're clearly a person that likes to live in the past.
I was extending your argument to show you how absurd it is.
It's the inherent capabilities of the individual that dictates their place within a capitalist system.
no, it absolutely is not. Their capabilities play a role. But their access to capitol, their connections etc are equally if not more important.
It is impossible to enforce social equality.
that depends on what you mean by social equality. If you mean every person has the same amount of money, same resources etc, then of course that is impossible. If you mean every person has access to the same tools and advantages, then no you are wrong. A society can provide all the building blocks of success. Like free education, healthcare etc. Then all children have access to success. Our system does not do that. If you are poor, you are handicapped by that. Rich people are almost guaranteed success by going to the best schools, having the right connections. Poor people aren't guaranteed to fail, but the deck is stacked against them. And our system is pushing more and more people into the poor category as the middle class is crushed.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes, because Trump supporters will not turnout or will write-in Trump. No GOP candidate can win OH and IA besides Trump.
you're not understanding me. can trump supporters tank another gop candidate? sure. but they also might not. whereas trump is pretty much guaranteed to lose no matter what he or the GOP do.
Trump has better odds of winning because of third-parties anyways. No Labels will be on the ballot. Green Party will be on the ballot. Even if they jail him, he has a better chance to win. Americans know this whole thing is a sham.
some americans still think it is a sham. the trials will show them it is not. him being convicted will show them it is not.
It’s a blatant attempt to cover up Biden’s own corruption and prevent him from campaigning.
there is no evidence joe biden is corrupt, the GOP has been saying that nonstop for years and have nothing to show for it. Also, there is a mountain of evidence that trump committed these crimes. They have admitted some of them in public. He is guilty. You can argue they are pursuing the charges because of politics, but you can't really argue he didn't do it.
All announced one day after something comes up about Biden corruption.
Republicans have been whining and making up nonsense about biden pretty much non stop for years. You could pick pretty much any day of the year and republicans would say the exact same thing. But not because the timing is suspicious, because they literally never shut up about biden and his non existent "corruption".
Created: