Total posts: 4,222
I guess this sort of depends on on what kinds of laws you have in mind.
Like Death23 pointed out, there are some crimes where you might not have hurt someone, but your actions could have harmed someone and by sheer luck didn't. In that case I would think that would need to be illegal. I would think speeding would be a good example. People speed literally every day and for most people doing it, it doesn't cause a problem, ie it would be victimless. But the more you speed the greater the risk to yourself and others, therefore it needs to be illegal.
There are also crimes where the victims would not be readily apparent. For example, dumping toxic waste into the ground. It could take a long time for people to start noticing the effects of this. Longer still to tie it back to the company that did it. If dumping toxic waste weren't a crime until it harmed someone, it would make it much easier to get away with. especially if the health effects are relatively mild or difficult to find the source of.
But I agree that there are victimless crimes that make no sense. The war on drugs for example. arresting a drug addict does not help anyone. You are spending large amounts of money to lock them up, ensuring it will be harder for them to get clean when they get out (as they now have that criminal record), and then tossing them back out onto the street to start taking drugs again. I think decriminalizing possession or taking of drugs would be a good idea, but trafficking still being illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Death23
It is also important to consider the the market. France is a reasonably large economy, but they are part of the EU. So french businesses can hop across a border to spain, italy, etc and poof, tax rate gone but they still have full access to the french market.
To make something like this work you need a large enough market that simply leaving the market would do more damage than paying the tax. IE the entire EU, or the US. Those economies are so large that leaving would hurt them more than staying.
Created:
Posted in:
I think both Death23 and Sum1hugme summed it up well. Even if we took all money from all the billionaires. They, or someone else, would just re-take their place and become obscenely wealthy. The system is designed to allow, and encourage, individuals to amass as much wealth as they can, often at the expense of the working class and the poor.
So it isn't that billionaires exist that is the problem. It is the system that has been designed to help them hoard as much wealth as possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Most people consider taxes to take away their earnings. I noticed you have a different approach, where "cuts" give what was not theirs.
No, I do not mean that tax cuts give what was not theirs. I mean that taxes are a requirement of a society. Without then, we do not have a society. Therefore it is a civic duty, and an expectation of citizens to pay taxes. So to give a massive tax cut to the group that already has massive amounts of resources, the group that can most easily pay these taxes, is a gift to them. And it will likely be paid for by people with much less resources. To give those tax cuts, trump increased the deficit by a large amount. That either has to come with more taxes or cutting services for the poor and working class.
What I cannot find is where you picked up the language from. Noting that it's not an intuitive approach, I can only assume you must have learned it from someone.
ah I understand. I was a bit confused by your line of questioning. I'm not certain where I originally pickup that up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1.no evidence again
we've been through this before. I don't care that you want to pretend it doesn't exist.
I can't seem to access your link without a subscription. I had to find other articles about this.
this has been going on and the dems keep blocking them in the senate so why wont republicans do it to the dems?
you don't seem to understand the trend. The dems passed a 3 trillion dollar package, the republicans blocked it. The dems passed a 2.1 trillion dollar package, the republicans blocked it. The dems pitched a 1.3 trillion dollar package in july, the republicans blocked it.
This one bill the democrats refused was about 500 billion. It was far too small to actually address the problem. The republicans knew that. Even trump has said he supported a relief bill over 1 trillion.
The problem isn't that the republicans really wanted to pass something and the dems wouldn't let them. It was that the republican ideology is against government spending. they kept blocking the democrats because they didn't want to spend any money. The republicans blocked all attempts to get a real relief bill passed.
So i ask again. why would this be the democrats' fault?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ah, so electing right-wing senators and a right-wing president, whose combined job it is to elect Supreme Court justices is “undermining democracy”. Intriguing.
and if they were behaving in the same way as the democrats, then fine. However they did not. They actively blocked a democratic president from appointing judges (and lying about why they were doing it) so that they could pack the court under a right wing president. It's not illegal, but is fucking with the system to attempt to get the courts to do what they cannot do in the legislative branch.
Two options: give rural voters a little bit of power or give them no voice at all. I’d choose to give them some. Their states are only worth like 3-8 votes while California is like 55.
no, the options are to give them the same voice as everyone else, or to give them a louder voice than everyone else. You want to give them a louder voice. You want to make their votes matter more than someone in California or New York.
If it was popular vote, who is going to actually represent the interests of people in states with 200k people? Nobody
their state. that is what the state is there for. They have congressmen and senators for that. they don't need to have an outsized voice in picking the president to have a voice.
I mean, I doubt the results will be overturned, but it is possible. Depends on if there was significant fraud and what routes are taken to remedy that.
true, if there was significant fraud that could happen. However, recounts and investigations have been ongoing for weeks and no one has found any evidence of that.
here are people coming forward and signing affidavits.
and that means precisely nothing. You can sign an affidavit saying the moon doesn't exist. Unless you can back that up with something, it is meaningless. There is no evidence of fraud, so an affidavit is a complete waste of time. and most of them are worthless anyway. One woman signed an affidavit saying someone told her to "go back to the suburbs karen". They actually entered that as evidence in a lawsuit lol.
Also there is always the wildcard of faithless electors.
1) if the republicans tried that, it would be the death of democracy. that is outright, blatant, theft of an election. that would definitively lead to violence.
2) most of the swing states have already confirmed they are not doing that.
I would say that the GOP is very representative of your average American.
by definition, no. If you lose the popular vote and your only way to win the election is the electoral college then you do not represent the average american. You represent the states with oversized representation in the electoral college.
If you look at county-wide elections for president, the vast majority of them are red.
all that means is that rural voters are more likely to vote republican. Rural does not equal "average". in fact here is a link. "About 46 million Americans live in the nation’s rural counties, 175 million in its suburbs and small metros and about 98 million in its urban core counties." so the average american is definitely not rural.
Well the others are “ignored” during election season. But Trump held rallies in tons of safe red states during his presidency like Mississippi to meet the people there. And traveling to swing states is just all for election purposes.
so? he yelled at them on a stage. that doesn't benefit them in any way whatsoever. Actually, since he spread covid at those events, he actually killed people with those visits.
Each state has its own culture, distinct economy, environment, etc and it isn’t a good idea to bulldoze them all simply because they don’t have a massive population. Iowa could still flip either way and not change the chances of winning the presidency that much.
the current system is designed to make specific states the only ones that matter. It keeps critical issues stuck. If you know that voters in a specific swing state won't like something, but the majority of the rest of country do want it, then they wont do it. Because 50,000 people in a swing state matter more than a million in California.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1.please provide the citations and evidence, ukranian witnesses denied this ever happening, it was a sham
there's no point going through this again. trump committed impeachable offenses and was impeached for it. There's no point going over this again.
that article shows how pelosi planned to put pro choice garbage in a relief bill!
here is an article also says that when the white house rejected that it was taken out. Specifically, the quote is:
Politico confirmed after this article went to press that the Hyde Amendment provision was eventually removed from the stimulus later on Thursday and will hit the House floor as a separate bill.
so she wanted to include health funding in the bill. was blocked from doing so, and then took it out. My god, what a monster. Republicans still blocked all relief bills for months.
So I ask again, how is this not the republicans' fault?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
the time to answer my question from last spring comes due: Who will be the President if Joe Biden is elected?
that's easy. joe biden. you said it yourself.
2. The Progressives occupy the majority of the House and Senate Democrat seats.\
since when? I can think of like half a dozen progressives in the senate and house. maybe a dozen, tops.
4. Joe Biden faces a wall of manipulating Progressives [including his VP pick] who demand that he bend to their will.
lmao, Kamela a progressive? definitely not.
Do you honestly think Joe Biden's ordinary liberalism will push back against the pressure of the Progressive [read Socialist] agenda?
I seriously hope not. If he gives in to what the people actually want he could do some real good.
Has your utter hatred of Trump blinded your vision of the next four years?
that a president might finally actually do something good for the poor and working class? god forbid....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
all false, what evidence? none was presented
what are you talking about? of course there was evidence. Trump ordered aid to be stopped. Trump told them to announce an investigation of biden. They were going to do it, until the story blew up right before their announcement. Then suddenly the money was released as the trump team tried to pretend nothing happened. These are all well established facts.
republicans blocked things because of huidden secrets like planned parenthood funding
ok, so you now acknowledge that it was the republicans who blocked relief bills for months. So why didn't the republicans counter off a comperable bill without those "hidden secrets"? they didn't do that. They sort of suggested they might be willing to pass something like 1/3 the amount that the democrats were looking for and like half of what trump said he wanted. but even then, never committed to passing it.
so again, pelossi made multiple offers of relief bills which the republicans refused. So why would it be pelosi's fault that a relief bill wasn't passed?
Created:
Posted in:
The website doesn't need you stalking me. I already have a girlfriend and I'm definitely not interested in you. Go away, you creep.
aww, poor little racist can't handle people pointing out his racism? perhaps you need to find a safe space. I'm betting the only place you would be able to talk about your beliefs without being challenged is probably a klan meeting though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Please stop responding to every post I make. I've made it clear that I don't want to talk to you. You are being creepy now.
you make wildly racist comments, I make sure it is very obvious to anyone (including you) that your comments are wildly racist. you don't need to respond if you don't want to. But honestly, you are the definition of a racism. Either see that and change your ways, or own your racism. Don't try to pretend you aren't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
The truth is, differing races don't get a long, and pretending that they leads to bloodshed.
ah, more words of wisdom from the local racist. We should just have apartheid then? because that has always worked so well. lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1.no he did nit
lol i explained how he did and your response is "no he did nit". how eloquently argued.
2.no that was the dems
Here is an article about it. The dems passed a 3 trillion dollar relief bill. The republicans blocked it. Pelosi came back with a 2.2 trillion dollar bill. The republicans blocked it.
I agree that as the election got close Pelosi stopped trying to get shit passed. But the republicans have been blocking the passage of a relief bill for months and months before that.
So I ask again, why is it the dems who are to blame when the republicans refused to pass anything?
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
It's a scientific fact that some races have traits that are better than comparable traits other races have.
that statement definitively proved you are a racist.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
ALL lives Matter is racist too.
I like to explain why this is racist like this: a house is on fire. the neighbors insist that the firefighters shouldn't help with that because "all houses matter", even though their houses aren't on fire. So one firefighter should go to each house to make sure they are all treated the same. Meanwhile, the house burns to the ground.
no one has ever disputed that white people's lives matter. However, lots of people really don't care about the lives of black people. So if you hear about issues that are being faced by black people and respond with "all lives matter" that is a racist response. Because it is an attempt to distract from the very real issues faced by black people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What is your definition of Social Justice?
Why are you asking? you are the one who started a thread asking a question. I am asking you to clarify what exactly you mean by your question. you are now answering my question with a question.
Please explain what you mean by "So what is the merit of trashing equality of justice for tribal justice?". Ideally with a specific example of how this actually happens to that I can look into it and respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Social Justice jurisprudence revolves around the idea that your identity should be considered.
could you be more specific? I'd like to make sure I understand your argument. I'm guessing you mean things like it being illegal to discriminate against people for being gay, for example. But that is absolutely being treated equally under the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what is the merit of trashing equality of justice for tribal justice?
could you clarify what this question means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
How were Republicans undermining democracy?
packing the courts with right wing judges so they can make the courts swing the law to the right even though that is not what the people want. That is undermining democracy.
There is a pretty big difference between not voting on a justice and fundamentally changing the court.
The republicans used political games to pack the courts with right wing judges. Now the democrats are thinking of doing the same. But in your mind the republicans are fine, but if the democrats do that, that's wrong. That is some hyper partisan bullshit.
It is not an antiquated system. It gives rural voters a voice.
no, they have a voice either way. What it does is make a rural (mostly white) votes matter more than a vote for a person in a city.
I suppose they could get rid of the electoral college if they felt like it and had the votes. It is just a really stupid idea and an obvious power grab.
there is some twisted logic. Having everyone's votes count for the same amount is a "power grab". having rural people's votes count for way more than urban people's votes is totally fine though....
they did win. both by millions of votes and by the electoral college.Still disputed, but probably. If you win through the electoral college, good on you.
lol just because someone disputes something, doesn't mean they are right. I can dispute that the moon exists, but that doesn't change that it is there. Biden won, that is extremely clear. Trump can dispute all he wants, he's an idiot.
If you win the popular vote, literally couldn't care less.
this says alot about the republican party. They recognize they do not represent the majority of americans. They know that they are attempting to force a minority of people's wishes on the majority, and they are ok with it. They actually enjoy it. Its a bit perverse.
In America, we have states, and allowing all areas of the US to matter electorally is important. I'd secede if I was in the Midwest and would be constantly taxed and neglected in Congress.
That happens now. The only states that get paid attention to are the swing states. Any state that is "safe" is ignored. All the system does is change which states get ignored.
Meanwhile, California still has a huge voice under the current system even though their votes "matter less".
yes. California has more people than many countries.
California has about 40 million people. That is about 12% of the US's population. they have 55 of 538 electoral college votes. that is a bit over 10% of the electoral college vote.
Iowa has 3.15 million people. That is about 0.95% of the US population. They get 6 electoral college votes. That is about 0.11% of the electoral college.
So yes, California should have a bigger say in the electoral college than they do. A vote in california is worth less than a vote in Iowa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Due to your ridiculous actions which are explained in this post https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=3&post_number=67 , I will no longer be responding to anything you writ
fair enough. It is pointless to try to discuss things logically with a man who thinks black people have lower IQs because they are genetically inferior. There is no reasoning with someone like that.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
So, originally, you asked this question: "do you actually believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people?"You have, somehow, turned my "no" into a 'yes'. Due to this, you've proven that you are incapable of rational discussion, and thus our conversation terminates here
lol you also said that black people had lower IQs than white people because they are genetically inferior. So you think you are smarter than black people for genetic reasons, but that isn't racist? lol you are such a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Donald Trump's "Repeal and replace" pitch essentially meant that the Affordable Care Act must finally go through a bipartisan process, ensuring a lasting legacy of nationalized healthcare and bringing about some semblance of national consensus.
lol no. The republican slogan of "repeal and replace" is just a slogan. They are very interested in the "repeal" part. But they have absolutely no plans on the "replace" part. They have been talking about repealing obama care since the minute it was passed, but they will not give an actual plan of what could replace it. They don't have a replacement. They just want to repeal it and kick people off their healthcare.
It was a massive giveaway to the rich, and the poor pay for it? What do you mean "the poor pay for it"?
the republicans will push to balance the deficit by cutting social spending, like they always do. Most of them have signed a pledge not to increase taxes. If they are able to successfully cut social spending, then they would have successfully made the poor pay for it. IE give money to the rich via tax cuts, then balance the budget by cutting programs that help the poor.
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, "the rich" ought not to exist. There should be a wealth cap equivalent to a 100% tax rate.
the higher their income the higher their tax rate should be. I don't think it makes sense to ever make it 100%. but since it has never been anywhere near that, it is a bit of a moot point.
Do tax cuts also "give to the poor"?
they can, but typically the benefit is minor. If you don't make very much money, then you aren't paying much taxes.
It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.Did you learn this from school or did you have to find it on your own?
I already answered this question. Read pretty much any analysis of trump's tax cuts. the answer is no, i didn't learn it in school as I am not a teenager. I learned it by reading about it.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Ahh, nothing shows you aren't a racist like trying to defend chattel slavery, an inherently racist system.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
so the purpose of this thread is to prove you don't know what racism is? here is a definition of racism:
"the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another."
Therefore, saying things like "Blacks have lower I.Q's than Whites" is textbook racism. You are espousing the belief that black people have distinct characteristics that make them inferior to white people. It doesn't really get more racist than that.
The fact that you think that isn't racism proves you don't know what racism even means. .
That's the issue with the terms. They are catch-all and don't house necessary distinctions required for nuance, AND THEN they slander and destroy factual work in various ways.
you're right, they are a catch all word. If you believe that black people are lesser than white people, if you discriminate against people based on race, you will definitely get "caught" by these words. And since you very clearly do, you are a textbook racist. I'm guessing that is why you don't like the word. You must hear it alot, because it is accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nope, there was no crime
he abused his office to extort a foreign country into smearing his political opponent. That is an impeachable offense. And he was impeached for it.
pelosi has blocked hundreds of billions of dollars for american relief
again, that was the republicans. The freedom caucus blocked relief for months. Pelosi and mnuchin were negotiating a deal and the republican senators torpedoed it. Why is that pelosi's fault?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
The deficit implies that tax rates are bound to be raised in the near future.
no. The republicans love to play this game. They cut taxes to drive up the deficit. They then point to the deficit and use it as evidence that they need to cut social spending. They manufacture a problem (by funneling money to the rich), then make the poor pay for it.
Most people consider taxes to take away their earnings.
ok, that's the definition of a tax. No one disputes that. But since a nation cannot exist without taxes, it is moot point. They are a necessary evil, without them you don't have a country.
I noticed you have a different approach, where "cuts" give what was not theirs.
the rich disproportionately benefit from the system. They use public roads to ship their products. Their workforce is trained for them at no expense to them from public education, etc. They use these public benefits to make lots and lots of money. Since they benefit the most from society and they have the most resources with which to support our society, they should contribute more back to that society.
For every tax cut you give the rich, you increase the burden on the working class. So trump's tax cut was a massive middle finger to the working class.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
No. In regards to I.Q, yes. But there are instances wherein black people are genetically superior to white people (and other races).
I don't think there is any point in continuing this. If you honestly think you are genetically superior to another race then there is obviously no way of reaching you with logic. That kind of thinking was disproved a long, long time ago.
you are using a wildly racist argument do argue that racism isn't an issue. that is some serious irony.Please keep the toys in the pram.
lol, no response huh? You use a wildly racist idea to argue racism isn't an issue. You are disproving yourself before you even finish typing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
The majority of initial settlement in America was European, hence the term "founded". Clearly, there was no reference to subsequent immigration.
ok. but you recognize that over the course of American history a large percentage of Americans were not European? They are as American as anyone else.
"Racist" isn't sufficient or worthwhile criticism. If you had logical issues with my arguments, you would use rationale and data/papers to disprove what I am saying, instead of pejorative labels. If you cannot muster the former, then meaningful discussion isn't for you.
discriminating against people based on race is stupid. They are no different than you are. It is little more than skin pigmentation. So any conversation where race is a determining factor in someone's value is pointless. the racist has a fundamentally broken outlook on reality.
There are cases where that is true. Often because the ruling class discriminates against these people and causes them to have no loyalty to the state or it's ruling class. So it often isn't the immigration that is the problem, but the discrimination causing immigrants to become a problem.No, every empire for the last 2800 years (minus the most recent 50), since the Assyrian to the British, has experienced this difficulty
imagine that, empires that conquer people by force encounter difficulties in controlling people who don't want to be subjects of that empire.
In fact, if I were to afford you this argument, you prove that immigration is the problem, because it causes the ruling class to discriminate against them, and therefore create unloyal people. You have actually argued against yourself here.
that's like saying if a abuse a man until he attacks me, that man is the problem. He attacked me so he must be evil. If you discriminate against a group of people and force them to resist you, they aren't the problem. you are.
Lol. You stating that they "could not have survived", when we have no account of them not surviving, begs the question. In other words, your argument requires historical evidence that didn't occur.
Roman policy for centuries was to absorb large numbers of immigrants. By the late empire, a large percent of their military was German, not Italian. Rome was a very diverse empire.
I would welcome foreigners, of any colour, with first world genes, so long
your racism is extreme enough that I have no idea what you are even talking about. What the hell is a "first world gene"? There is no difference between you and any other race. Genetically, they are virtually identical.
as the native population remained a racial majority.
in that case america better throw out all the white people. They are not a native population. They are immigrants too. And they violently displaced the native population.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Unfortunately, African Americans are far more likely to be disadvantaged than Whites because there is a large, negative genetic component (i.e. not racism).
holy shit. do you actually believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people?
you are using a wildly racist argument do argue that racism isn't an issue. that is some serious irony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
trump's tax cut was a terrible thing. it opened up a massive deficit. It gave the rich and power big, perminent tax cuts.Deficits and permanent tax cuts cannot both be true.
I don't understand your statement. Trump gave the rich a huge payday. As a result the government is taking in considerably less money. Thus creating a a bigger deficit. Tax cuts lead to deficits.
It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.Did you learn this from school or did you have to find it on your own?
Umm, basically every break down of the tax break say the same thing. Generally speaking, the richer you are the better the tax breaks were for you. Low income people saw small benefit. Middle class people, it was mixed. Some benefited, some were actually worse off since they cut some tax deductions for the middle class. The rich got lots of benefits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing
that would be a bad thing. Doing that essentially guarantees peace is impossible in the middle east.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
umm, north korea? i'm guessing. trump did absolutely nothing about north korea. He talked to them. the talks went nowhere. North korea now has nuclear weapons and is still working on their missiles to carry them.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
trump's tax cut was a terrible thing. it opened up a massive deficit. It gave the rich and power big, perminent tax cuts. It gave the poor small cuts that expire in a few years. It was a massive giveaway to the rich.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
lol trump did not lower black unemployment. why would you even think that?
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
trump inhereted a presidency where america had a viable path to peace with Iran. Instead he blew up the deal and further increased tensions with them. He, by his own admission, was a matter of minutes away from carrying out an act of war on Iran. Trump has been a trainwreck where iran is concerned.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
again, trump made no improvements with north korea at all. So that are you even talking about?
Oba'a could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
you're kidding right? Under Obama the US economy made a huge recovery. Obama inherited an economy in crisis from his republican predecessor. Trump inherited a booming economy from Obama. Do you think that happened by magic?
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Yeah, that's all fucked up. For you. Sorry about you.
basically your entire list are bad things or things trump didn't do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
democrats impeached a president for false reasons
they weren't false. he was guilty of what he was accused of.
they refuse to take up stimulus bills from the president,
what? the republicans refused to consider a stimulus bill. I admit pelosi eventually decided against it as well. But there was months where the demcorats wanted a big stimulus bill. the president swung wildly between supporting it and opposing it. It was the republicans in the senate who were consistently blocking it. Why are you blaming democrats for what mitch McConnell and the "freedom" caucus did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry if I replace "humble" with "weak." He espouses leading from behind.
what exactly do you think "leading from behind" means? And how does biden do that?
Gen. Eisenhower demonstrated the results of that kind of leadership with a simple length of string on a table. With the string laid straight, he pushed on one end of the string. Does the string move forward? No, it gathers up in a confused jumble. One leads from ahead, or one does not lead. Period.
it's a good thing people aren't made of string lol.
From behind, one has a weak leader and a useless gathering of fools. One would have thought that was obvious in the Oba'a/Biden jumbled gathering one calls an administration.
as opposed to trump, who bravely leads the charge but has no fucking clue what he is doing and colossally fucks everything up. I'll take someone working with a team over leading from the front when they are not an expert on that area.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
lol he is advocating for republicans throwing out the results of a democratic election because they don't like the results. Apparently attempting to destroy democracy is "courage".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ah yes, from the people who want to expand the size of the Supreme Court because we legally voted for a new justice.
ok. so the republicans refused to allow a sitting president to pick a supreme court judge, which is not illegal, but extremely unusual and their reasons for doing it were lies. They then rammed through a supreme court judge like a month before losing an election. Also not illegal, but still pretty obviously playing games with the system.
Some dems want to expand the court, which is not illegal.
So the republicans playing games with the courts to undermine democracy is totally fine with you. but if the democrats try to respond suddenly it is totally unacceptable. That is some hyper partisan bullshit.
Or the people who lost because of the electoral college and now want to get rid of the electoral college.
the electoral college is an antiquated system which is designed to make some people's votes matter more than others. It is, by design, a discriminatory system. Even with that system, the dems won. If the dems want to get rid of the electoral college, why shouldn't they pursue that?
Can't win? Just change the rules!
they did win. both by millions of votes and by the electoral college.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
It's actually a fact based on mountains of research and statistical analysis.America was founded on European immigration.
lol, no. There were large waves of immigrants from lots of places. Asia, africa etc. The idea that america is founded on Europeans only is a literal whitewash of history.
his is very distinct from general immigration (i.e. immigrants of every race allowed access) because different races have different abilities and in-group biases.
I really wanted to avoid having to say your opinions are racist. But saying "different races have different abilities" pretty much closed the door on that. That is some clear cut racism.
Historically, every empire that has suffered immigration of differing/races cultures inevitably experiences bloc politics which degenerates the empire into being weak enough to be trampled by invasion or implode.
There are cases where that is true. Often because the ruling class discriminates against these people and causes them to have no loyalty to the state or it's ruling class. So it often isn't the immigration that is the problem, but the discrimination causing immigrants to become a problem.
But some of those empires he talks about could not have survived as long as they did without immigration. The romans for example relied on immigration to survive. Without it they would have collapsed centuries earlier than they did. The military basically required germans to function.
Whatever short term benefit you gain from having immigrants do the low-status jobs the native population doesn't want to do, you will suffer tenfold when the ancestors of those immigrants become complacent and expect the same lifestyle as the native population, thus creating the same problem they supposedly fixed.
why are you assuming that immigrants "do the low-status jobs the native population doesn't want to do"? immigrants come with all sorts of educational backgrounds. There are tons of doctors, nurses, lawyers etc who are immigrants. This seems like more racist assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
America was founded on the assimilation of diverse cultures into a melting pot seeking liberty from the tyranny of government.
And that has changed how?
Not today's tribal cutural saladbowl falling at the altar of the government elites for table scraps.
what has changed? people move to america and their cultural and ethnic heritage is added to the make up of america. The same as it always has. The irish were hated by americans when they started moving to america. People didn't want them coming to america. But now they are a core part of what america is. You are no different than the people who despised the irish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
most of them.CNN claims all of them. Is CNN lying?
maybe it is all of them by now. they are getting thrown out so fast it is hard to keep track. But regardless of that, assuming there are any left, they don't contest enough votes to change the outcome. There is no longer any doubt that biden won the election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, why has the Democrat House lost seats, and the Senate leadership depends on a run-off race if all the above are true?
Biden was never popular. Trump is despised.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Whatever economic band aid immigrants provide for the U.S. economy is many-fold outweighed by the cultural and spiritual destruction it causes.
holy shit that is some jingoistic bullshit. America was founded on immigration. Virtually every single American is an immigrant or a descendent of an immigrant. Almost certainly including you.
The U.S. needs immigrants like a man with gangrene needs a chainsaw -- you'll get rid of the gangrene but you'll kill the man.
this comparison doesn't make sense. If anything, it is the opposite. without immigration the U.S. will die. The population will dwindle and the economy will shrink. And then America drops out of it's status as a super power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are all the lawsuits thrown out?
most of them. And the remaining lawsuits don't contest enough votes to change the outcome. even if trump won every single lawsuit that is still unresolved (which is highly unlikely), Biden is still the winner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't trust the courts to handle the evidence?
I do, and they are throwing out lawsuits that have no evidence left and right. You are claiming that there is evidence of fraud. Trump can't provide any. the courts are throwing out tons of lawsuits because no one seems to have any.
I do not understand how anyone looking at the facts rationally could come to the conclusion that fraud played a part in this election, because people are being paid huge sums of money to look for something, anything that could back up a fraud claim and are coming up with nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
This topic is basically republicans saying "we think the democrats cheated even thought we don't have evidence, so now we are going to cheat even more!!!"
It is a weird dynamic I see from republicans where they accuse democrats of doing something (often without any evidence) and then use that to justify republicans doing the shitty thing they seem to think democrats are doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am sure there is a good reason why they are keeping evidence from corporate media.
I have no idea what you are quoting. I don't think that is a quote from me.
Please provide evidence that there is a gag order preventing Trump from giving evidence. Because so far all they have shown is a bunch of lies, people who don't understand how the election process works, and nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes that is what she said "under NO CIRCUMSTANCES", didn't she.
yes, i suppose it is possible to interpret her words in different ways. but she is essentially a nobody in this equation. She was not the candidate so her comment ultimately means nothing.
My guess is that he would have taken Clinton's advice
There is no evidence this is true. You are, again, choosing to believe something because it suits your preconceived notions. IE it's fine for trump to do something dangerous because a democrat might hypothetically have done that.
as Trump has done and has every right to do.
Trump has every right to insist on investigations of accusations of fraud. No one denies that. However, since there is no evidence that there is any fraud and it is now extremely evident that Biden won, it is damaging to democracy to continue to pretend like Trump somehow won.
If trump was able to point to cases of fraud, and those fraudulent votes could have potentially swung the election in his favor, then absolutely it would be fair to wait to concede until that was resolved. However, his team have failed to present any evidence of fraud. Even if he won all the lawsuits he still has ongoing, Biden would still win. At this point, trump has no path to winning, he should concede.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
She is saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Joe Biden concede the election.
traditionally, people concede on election night or the day after. She was saying under no circumstances should he do that. Since the votes were going to swing in bidens favor after the mail ins were counted, she was right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hilary has stopped crying over the fact that she lost and still is. She says she won and has been saying so since 2016.
more lies. Here is her concession speech.
and see what she advised Biden >>>>
she is saying what most pundits were saying before the election. Everyone knew that there was way more mail in ballots that a normal election. Those mail in ballots heavily favored democrats because the demcorats pushed for people to mail in ballots early while republicans pushed for in person voting from their supporters. Everyone knew that trump would jump out ahead in the early hours of the election because in person ballots are counted 1st in many states, and only then do they count mail in ballots. She was saying not to concede until everything is counted because the votes were going to swing to biden as the mail in ballots were counted, which is exactly what happened.
those ballots have now been counted and we know, definitively, that biden is the winner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Would the Dems have conceded ?
lol, you're kidding right? Yes. Hilary conceded and Obama did a peaceful transition of power. Now trump is in the same situation and is screaming and whining about it like a toddler.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That's correct. I have no reason to believe she is incompetent or crooked in any way.
you have no reason to believe she is trustworthy either. So why are you defaulting to believe she is a paragon of virtue? Do you not see how your preconceived desire to believe trump is coloring your interpretation?
she is making dangerous accusations without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.And just how the Fk would you know that? You see you are making more claims the you simply cannot defend. You may well believe the shit your are saying, but it doesn't make it true.
I haven't said anything I can't defend. In that sentence i made 2 claims.
1st, that what she is saying is dangerous. This is absolutely true. She, and people like her, are convincing millions of americans that the election was "stolen". This will delegitimize the rightful president in their eyes. It is likely to spark violence and further destroy people's belief in democracy which helps to legitimize authoritarianism. IE if we don't have a legitimate democracy anyway, why not take power with violence?
2nd, that she has no evidence. Watch that video. Show me where she provides evidence. If you can do that, then i will take that statement back. But since she doesn't provide any evidence, that statement stands.
Are you then suggesting that Trump should concede and hand over the reigns?
of course. He lost the election. He should do what every single president before him has done in that scenario. He has a choice about whether he concedes, it would be extremely childish and dangerous not to, but he can choose that. He has no choice about handing over the reigns. That is going to happen no matter what trump does, because he lost the election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are you not Trusting Authority enough? Do you need to be reminded again how important it is to trust authority?
trump and his lackies have lied thousands of times since he became president. I'm not discounting the possibility that he could tell the truth, he does sometimes do that. But he is making wild claims, saying he has evidence, but then is totally unable to provide any. So there is no reason to take him seriously since he is completely unable to back them up.
Also, "authority" has been clear. There was no fraud. Everyone actually in charge of the voting process agrees, it didn't happen. So people who trust in authority should absolutely do that. But that is officials in charge of the voting process, not trump.
Created: