Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
History is on the side of the GOP. It’s very clear. Then again, when has history ever mattered if it isn’t politically convenient
are you serious? it has never happened? so Merrick Garland is on the supreme court? oh wait, no. because the republicans whined that a year away from an election was just too close. they needed to wait till after the election to fill the position.
If they hadn't blocked Obama's picks for the courts then you would absolutely have a point, but they did do that. Then rushed to fill all the vacancies they created once trump was elected. That is court packing. Years of playing political games with the courts have made them political. Republicans have no moral high ground to cry about it when the democrats respond. I know republicans will cry about it anyway (they do love to play the victim). But the republicans started this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
For the non-lazy, here is right wing propaganda explaining why HB is wrong about the term "court packing"
well you were right about right wing propaganda. Jesus, do people actually believe that bullshit? I mean just in the 1st 60 seconds it is all bullshit. The republicans have been packing the courts with hard right wing judges so they can use the courts to bypass congress. IE if you get the courts to interpret the constitution in a far right wing way, then congress can do little about it and republicans can get their way by subverting democracy. He somehow has twisted it to pretend that the democrats are trying to do this, when republicans have been doing it for years.
How does anyone take this seriously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, really, and if you didn't know that, then you really haven't been listening to the science.If you infect a million kids and quarantine 100,000 seniors from those kids, then you have zero deaths.
dear god.... no. that is not how it works. Yes, seniors are more at risk and Not alot of kids have died. But alot of people between 18-65 have died. If you spread it across the population then alot of people will die.
So yes, who you lock down and who you infect makes a big difference.
i never said who gets infected makes no difference. I said that infecting a larger group of people is a terrible thing. Because they will spread it to others, and so on. That is how a single case turns into a cluster, then a huge spike in cases. And therefore a huge spike in deaths. If you can keep people from spreading as much as possible, then you save the most lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's fine. Nothing shouts fucktard lazy liberal than someone too shallow and uncaring enough to even listen to left wing propaganda anymore.
this is sad. You asked if I knew what it meant and I did. I then answered you. So I am somehow lazy for knowing the answer to the question you asked?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point is who you infect is far more ghastly than how many you infect.
not really no. If you infect 10 people, those people will pass it on to friends, family etc. So if I infect 1 elderly person that is bad. If I infect 10 young people, they will pass it on to god knows how many other people leading to lots of pain, misery and death.
When you infect 100,000 elderly and kill 20,000 of them like Cuomo did, you should go straight to hell, do not pass go.\
I don't know why you are beating this dead horse. Cuomo is shitty. But at least he didn't tell the entire american public to ignore a public health crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands of americans. We will never know how many of them might have been spared if the US government and republican party had actually taken this seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
We disagree. I made my case for Trump here, if you’re interested in my thoughts. But I’m much more interested in talking about the election itself than trying vainly to convince someone who will never agree with me
fair enough. We can leave trump's massive deficiencies as president out of the discussion directly.
But they have a bearing on his election chances. The polling shows Biden is more trusted to handle every single thing they tested for except the economy, which is still pretty close. Trump's failures as president have caused them to see Biden as more trustworthy to handle every aspect of american life than Trump. And for Covid Biden was trusted more by a huge margin. Since Covid is, by far, the most important election issue, that is really bad for trump.
also, this is an edit cause I went and checked that post. That is a SUPER low bar of success. I grant not starting wars is a positive, but he publicly bragged that he ordered an act of war on Iran and cancelled it at the last minute. Appointing activist judges is not a good thing, it will only deepen the culture war because now democrats will have to pack the courts too. That is a deeply bad thing. And his trade wars have only caused more damage. they have not been positive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't give a fuck about "cases." or rates of infection.
that is a really bad thing.
New York had the highest Covid DEATH RATES of those that did get infected with Covid than anywhere on the planet.
yeah, because they were the 1st area in the country to get hit. they had less time than anywhere else to adapt and prepare. that combined with their high population is going to make for a big problem since the US healthcare system is a complete shit show.
That's absolutely not Trump's fault since New York is anti-MagaCountry.
ok, Trump says don't take the virus seriously. he has lots of government officials and fox news tell people don't take it seriously. Then people don't take is seriously which results in thousands and thousands of deaths. Trump is absolutely culpable for that.
There's a huge difference between infecting a million school kids and having maybe 1 Covid death and infecting 100,000 Elderly people where 20,000 die from Covid.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
What New York did to the elderly is a fucking horror show.
I agree. At what point did I, or anyone else, ever disagree with that? Why do you keep bringing this up over and over? It is irrelevant to conversation we are having. You are just deflecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I can look past Trumps behavior and actually think it’s funny and way less relevant than his policies (which have been great for the most part
no, they really haven't. they have been terrible. What policies are you even talking about?
but I can see how it turns off tens of millions of people who would otherwise be amenable to a platform of protecting blue collar jobs, ending overseas adventures, protecting the border, etc.
but he hasn't done any of those things. His trade wars have hurt millions of people and destroyed jobs. He hasn't ended any overseas adventures, and he came damn close to starting a new one with Iran. He has done shit all to "protect the border".
All these things you claim he's done are things he has lots of rhetoric on, but very little positive action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Admit you were too lazy to read the left-wing propaganda ABC article I linked.
nothing in your statement required me to open a link. you asked if I knew what the term means. I do. so why would open a link? Also, a large percentage of your links are to right wing nut jobs, so i generally don't look at them unless I need to to disprove your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you don't even know what that term means.
it means using whatever games you can find to prevent the opposing party from successfully appointing judges so that you get to pick them. You do this for the express purpose of twisting the courts to benefit yourself and your ideology. That is exactly what the republicans have been doing for years and the democrats haven't been doing anything about it. Now that the democrats are talking about doing something about it, the right screams and cries about how it's unfair that after years of republicans fucking with the system, now the democrats might fight them at their own game.
The republicans have left democrats little choice. by playing games with the courts to pack them with far right wing activist judges, they have forced the democrat's hands and now they are going to have to respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
yeah, because america's medical system is a shit show and dumb people believed assholes claiming the virus wasn't serious, like trump.
Official New York policy is this (well was this until they couldn't hide the results)
yep, this was a really stupid policy. Do you see me defending Cuomo? How is that relevant to the completely shit job trump did?
MAGACOUNTRY didn't do this.
umm, you do know the virus is spreading rapidly in "magacountry" right? And they might not have done this specific stupid thing, but they are doing lots and lots of other stupid things which is causing a large surge in cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i didn't get very far into this video because it was stupid. Republicans have been actively packing the court for years while democrats did nothing about it. now, the democrats float an idea (note they haven't done anything at all) and right wing loons lose their fucking minds. They can watch republicans pack the courts for years and cheer, if the democrats respond, then they are evil. It is really sad.
When the republicans refused to hold hearings for Merrick garland, that was seriously fucked up. When they then rushed to fill a seat much closer to an election now (even though this was their sole reason why they wouldn't even have a hearing for garland) they proved what despicable little shits they are.
Republicans have already shit all over the process to pack the courts. Of course democrats are going to respond to that. What else did you expect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
a handful of people on here say that. That is a very long way from being an important trend that could affect an election. How would you determine this except via polling? Or are you just making this up?This just makes it obvious you know nothing about polling lol.
so you throw out a claim with absolutely no evidence provided. When I ask how you would know that without evidence, your response is essentially "you know nothing about evidence". Do you not see how stupid that answer is?
So I reiterate. How would you know if people feel better off without polling?
recent polling shows biden pretty close, if not leading, in this category now. As well as winning in literally every other category.Ok dude. Keep it up.
keep trying to get you to pay attention to reality? I'm trying, but Trump's cultists are pretty impervious to reality.
People hated Trump in 2016 too. His approval rating is higher than on Election Day 2016. Will the polling that shows Joe winning in a landslide diminish voting against Trump is the question you should be asking. Trump voters will vote no matter vote.
this isn't 2016. In 2016, 2/3rds of undecided voters broke for trump and that was enough to eke out a victory in a few critical states. That isn't the case this time. Trump is down by like double what he was in 2016. Even if virtually all undecided voters broke his way, at the moment that would not be enough.
Say bye bye to your college town margins in MI, WI, and PA. Lack of concentration doesn’t do y’all a favor. An average student’s vote at UMich matters more than his vote in Massachusetts.
lol Biden is up by 10 points nationally as well as winning in most battleground states. There are also some contentious states that are not supposed to be in danger too. I have no idea where all this delusional confidence is coming from, but it is sad. All available evidence says trump is getting is ass kicked, hard. But you just seem to be digging your head further into the sand to avoid it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you had your nose glued to the MSM TV, you probably didn't hear a single Covid rate statistic that made Trump look good.
ok, but what trump policies actually did anything good? All I've ever heard from any trump supporters was he closed the border with China. Which, yeah that's good. but then he spent months undermining the seriousness of the situation and any attempts to get people to take safety precautions. At the end of the day, even if you can provide good stats about the US, trump actively tried to sabotage any attempts to take the virus seriously, so why would anyone think positive stats (assuming they exist) are because of trump?
Like New York is "Maga Country"
no, new york is one of the largest cities in the world with a high population density. In that kind of scenario controlling the virus is extremely difficult no matter what you do.
If you took the outlier deaths from failed Cuomo out of the statistics, the country looks pretty damn good comparing national Covid rates.
provide evidence for this claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Liberal run countries were not immune to the effects of the Virus regardless of the level of lockdowns, social distancing, quarantine of the elderly in retirement homes, mask wearing, and travel restrictions.It's just another classic Orangemanbad argument.
no one ever said they were immune. But they did better than the US. Unfortunately, there are stupid right wing people all over the world who fought against the protection measures and continued spreading the virus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
People feel they are better off than they were 4 years ago.
a handful of people on here say that. That is a very long way from being an important trend that could affect an election. How would you determine this except via polling? Or are you just making this up?
Trump is trusted on the economy far more than Joe Biden.
recent polling shows biden pretty close, if not leading, in this category now. As well as winning in literally every other category.
Trump has almost record levels of enthusiasm compared to Joe.
having a small group of very enthusiastic supporters is good. But when the bulk of the population is sick of him and wants him gone, those enthusiastic supporters matter for less. No one is excited by Biden, ALOT of people are excited to be rid of trump.
College campuses are ghost towns.
so all those college kids will be voting in their home towns. What is your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I think him getting covid might have actually made it worse. Because he got a level of medical care which is not available to anyone else on the planet and he appears to have recovered fairly quickly, he is now even more convinced that the virus doesn't matter. It doesn't seem to occur to him that literally no one else gets the kind of medical care he does.
Poll after poll shows Covid is the #1 issue, but he keeps doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on his losing bet of downplaying the virus. This is causing him alot of damage, but he just keeps pushing forward with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
HB and the Election Mafia are glorified poll readers who don’t know how polls are conducted and the various errors that compound results. Even the averages are inaccurate because the methodology is different which is a horrible comparison of polls.
so despite the fact that I have provided stats (in our other conversation) showing that the polls in 2016 were quite accurate in most states, you just continue to repeat the mantra that they were wrong, even though they weren't. I cannot understand this cult mentality of just repeating the same lie to yourself over and over when the facts prove it isn't true.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Actually, I just want the poor to be taxed like they do in Nordic countries, It's harder to pander when it's your own money purchasing your own vote.
I absolutely agree. The Nordic model is better than america's. The poor should pay in their fare share and get back proper services like universal healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why don’t you give actual numbers lol. Can’t find em?
I gave you sources. Hell, I used stats from your own source. I won't continue this line of discussion when you lie about what my sources and your own sources say.
Glad we agree that the critical rust belt states had insane margins of error
well you seem to not understand what I'm saying, probably intentionally. But lets give this a shot.
Some of the polling was wrong. but alot of it was quite accurate. The general trend was trump did 2% better than his polls. In Michigan he did 4% better. Which is certainly higher, but definitely not an "insane margin of error". In Pennsylvania he did about 3% better than his polling, definitely not an "insane margin of error".
But I will also acknowledge that there were isolated cases where the polling was further off. For example in Wisconsin where he overperformed by about 7%. But these were the exceptions, not the rule. Most of the polling was pretty accurate. But because the race was so close (4% nationally) small margins of error were enough to carry him over the line in a few critical states.
The race is very different this time. He isn't looking at being down by 4%. He is down by 10%. The polls would have to be much further off now than they were in 2016. If the polls had the same margin of error as they did in 2016, trump would get absolutely slaughtered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Why do you think your polls indicate Trump will lose, and should have lost in 2016?
The polling in 2016 actually showed a pretty tight race. By the end, there was only about a 4% gap nationally. In general trump over performed polling by about 2%, but polling was more off in a few key states. So even though the polling was pretty accurate overall, because trump managed to squeak by and win in a few critical states, primarily the rust belt, he was able to lose the popular vote by millions of votes, but still win the electoral college. This is why he won.
Objective political analysts in 2016 would not have thought that a 4% lead was somehow a guaranteed win for HRC. But trump was just such a repugnant candidate to the neo-liberal establishment (which most news pundits sort of fit into) that this caused them to think Trump couldn't win, even though the polling suggested it was very possible for him to win.
Any questions why political polls are inaccurate?
just the 1. In 2016, as a general trend, trump overperformed his polls by about 2%. there were isolated cases where the polling was further off. But on the whole, they were actually pretty accurate.
So why are you arguing that polling isn't accurate, when history indicates that most of the time, they are? And yes, I accept that there are certainly specific examples where polling can fail or be intentionally skewed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No you haven’t. Your link shows November numbers. Click on your own link dude.
alright, i give up. The top is a chart that shows numbers for months.
Which cases are you talking about? The critical states were the ones I mentioned in my post especially the Rust Belt.
there were cases that were more off, that is true. But i'm not getting into the nitty gritty of polling with someone who straight up lies that 6% is the same as 10%
I know he’ll win lol. You rely on polls at your own peril.
whatever. Feel free to be surprised as trump goes down in flames. Don't say you weren't warned. But I'm sure you will scream and whine that it was rigged after trump loses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I literally showed it was much more than that lol. Why are you lying?
I literally showed you how the polling was a 6% difference in 2016. You then repeat over and over and over that it was 10. Even though your own stats disprove your point.
There were isolated cases that were further off than 2%. I said 2% was the general trend. But why would I engage with you on a break down of statistics when you can look at a 6% difference and straight up lie that it was 10%? You are deluding yourself and will say and believe whatever reinforces your worldview. You want to believe that trump will win, so even though he is losing pretty much everywhere that matters, you insist that all the available evidence is wrong and your own extremely biased opinions are the only things that matter.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Everyone now has private property. Not everyone pays taxes on it though.
true. And the nobles in the 19th century said if you didn't own a sufficient amount of land then you shouldn't get a vote. I mean, if you don't at least 2 large estates, are you even paying taxes?!?!?
You are now making the exact same argument. You want the poor or people with less education to be forced into a sub-class that can be safely ignored. This way, the government only needs to listen to the rich and powerful and can safely ignore and step on the poor because they don't get a voice. You are advocating for an elitist society where only a certain chosen group of people are worthy of having an opinion on how their country will be run.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, polls only skew one way since 2016. The left isn't afraid to virtue signal with polls.
lol, some polling was off by 2%, so now the right screams RIGGED POLLS!!! THEY ARE OFF BY 8% OR MORE!! It just helps them to dig their heads into the sand so they can ignore reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Surety has naught to do with it. You do not understand how polls work. The fact is, they rarely do.
What are you even talking about? They are usually pretty accurate. In 2016 Trump overperformed his polls by like 2% in a couple areas. Because the race was tight and the way the electoral college works, he was able to use this to win the electoral college. But the polls were pretty accurate. I don't know why right wingers insist that polls that were really close are somehow completely fake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I meant for the HRC data. The link you used shows the polls for November not October.
again, no. Here is the link again. That graph at the top is showing you the average of polls between june and november. HRC gets about 6 points ahead. She is never even close to 10 points ahead.
There’s only one poll that showed Trump winning and that was an LA Times tracking poll. Everything else was HRC up 6-12 which is pretty much what’s going on right now.
again, no. There are a bunch of polls that show 4 points between HRC and trump. A bunch of polls that show 6 points. a couple that show up to 10. But the average of polls is about 6% lead. Joe's showing polls up by 16%. the average is 10%. that is a very big difference.
Not to mention 538 doesn’t even use every poll. They’re actually trash in their projections.
I think they remove some of the very poorly rated survey companies that are shown to be unreliable or who intentionally mess with their data.
Why waste resources in an area where you’re up by 7 instead of going on the offensive in places like Texas lol. You flip Texas, you win the election.
because he doesn't need Texas. If he got it, then yeah that is a landslide. But he doesn't need it to win. If he drives home his advantage in Pennsylvania then Biden wins. If you spend millions in Texas you could endanger winning in Pennsylvania and cost yourself the election.
Polls only show Joe a couple of points behind or ahead by 1 or 2 right.
in texas? sure. but he doesn't need texas.
Joe Biden knows the polls are way off because his internals say the same thing.
are you just going to keep making things up? How would you possibly know that?
You and I both know how the polls turned out in 2016 and 2018.
Generally speaking, trump overperformed his polls by about 2% in critical areas. He would need to overperform by about 4-5 times that much to win now. The polls would need to be several times more inaccurate now than they were in 2016 for him to win.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bullshit. There are millions of non-taxpayers voting on how to spend taxes. That's a large reason why pandering is a contact sport in DC.
Your argument is exactly the same one that the rich and powerful used to keep the poor from voting in the 19th century. IE , they don't have a stake in the state because they don't own land. Therefore they should not get a vote. This was used to ensure that only the rich and powerful were represented in government and the government would virtually never do things to help or protect the poor.
You want the same thing. To create a sub-class that has no right to a voice because you consider them to be unworthy of being heard. It is super elitist and exclusionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you're assuming the polls are off by only 8%
why would anyone assume the polls are off by 8%? In 2016 the polling was much more accurate than that. it was off by a couple points in critical states, but not 8%. Also, if the polls are off by 8% then Trump could also actually be down by like 18%.
Giving Biden a 2% actual lead.
this seems to be entirely wishful thinking on your part. There is no reason to think this is true.
People are genuinely afraid to poll, especially with all the unreported violence against Trump supporters.
if they are too afraid to tell people what they believe, then they aren't likely to actually show up to vote. Especially in a pandemic. Seems like this would not be a statistically important factor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Where are you looking lol.
I provided links to exactly what I was using. Did you not look at the evidence I provided?
literally every poll has Hillary up by 8-10 right after Access Hollywood.
Again, no. I am looking at the link you provided. Some of them show her up by as much as 10 points. some show a tie or trump winning. some show 5 point lead. The average of these polls is about a 6 point lead. The polls show biden winning by an average of 10 points. in some of them he is up by 16 points. In absolutely none of them is trump winning or even close to winning. Biden is much further ahead than hilary ever was.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter. There’s no way Joe is up 10 nationally and is tied in Florida or up 1-2. If he was up that much he’d be campaigning in Missouri, not Pennsylvania.
This statement says alot more about you than the election. Basically, you refuse to believe reality because you don't want it to be true. Biden doesn't need to win Missouri to be president. If he gets Pennsylvania (which the average of polls gives him a 7 point lead in) then he is very likely to win the election. Why waste resources in an area where that will be a tough fight if you don't need to win it? You put your resources into the areas you are more likely to win that are critically important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
[unless the election is rigged, he hasn't a chance]
lol, so unless the election is rigged then the guy who is up by 10 points and winning in most battleground states has no chance of winning? I'm not sure you understand how elections work.
Never was there a more deflated balloon of an anticipated announcement than Nancy Pelostomy's invocation of the 25A. Pelostomy fails to recognize there is already "a process" established, and she needs no "commission" to make recommendations.
I'd say it's one of 2 things.
1) she knows this will never go anywhere and it is just a stunt to take a potshots at trump. All she is looking for is to remind people how unsuitable for office Trump is and take some of the news spotlight away from him.
2) she is using Trump to try to sneak through a measure to allow congressional leadership (ie her) to have more control over the presidency. If someone she doesn't like wins (like bernie sanders for example) she can use the mechanism to just force them out of office. Thus helping her to protect her Neo-Liberal rich asshole club who controls the democratic party.
Personally, I would guess it is the former rather than the latter. Someone would have to be really bad for it not to seem extremely shitty removing them this way. Not that I would put it past her, but it would be pretty damaging if she used this even on Trump. And to use it on someone other than Trump would probably be much more damaging. And since Trump is about to be voted out, I would guess it's just a stunt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Hillary was ahead by the same margins in the polls after Access Hollywood and we all saw how she ended up winning
nope. The access Hollywood tape came out october 7th 2016. on that day they were 5 points apart. a week later they were 6 points apart, which is as far as the spread between them ever really got. certainly from that point on it only got closer.
Biden is presently about 10 points ahead. I don't think hilary ever even got close to that kind of a lead. if the polls are anywhere near accurate, Trump is going to get slaughtered. Keep in mind that the polls in 2016 weren't actually off by all that much. They were a couple points off in some critical states which allowed him to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, but on the whole, they were pretty close. If they are the same amount off as they were in 2016, trump is really screwed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Biden is the same spread Hillary was right cause of Access Hollywood. We all saw how that ended up
i'm not really sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. What spread are you talking about? what about access hollywood? I'm guessing whatever this is is well known in right wing circles, but i don't know what you mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
only 10 points? Hillary was 50 points ahead at this time.
hilary was only a couple points ahead at this point in 2016. And i'm not going to try to defend hilary. She wasn't a good candidate. Biden isn't either. But they are both much better than trump. And it is looking more and more likely that Biden will be the next president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
CNN already declared Biden the winner in 2016.
well, given that biden is winning by about 10 points nationally in the average of polls as well as winning in most of the battle ground states, that is the likely outcome.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well damn, guess you consider 5 year-old to not be people because you don't think they should be allowed to vote. I guess voting is validation of your humanity.
5 year olds do not have the legal right to make decisions for themselves. They have a legal guardian for that. If they can't decide what they will eat, they obviously can't decide who to vote for president. You are advocating for taking the vote away from adults of sound mind who should have every right to a voice in decisions that will very much affect them.
Well, we were never meant to be a democracy because that amounts to "mob rule". You learn to read in like first grade. If you are an adult and cannot read at a fifth grade reading level for some literacy test, then I'm sorry but you have shown such little care for yourself and have neglected your civic duty to not be an imbecile.
ahh, so it's victim blaming time? gotcha. Most people who can't read have reasons that is the case. They couldn't attend school, their school failed them, a medical issue etc. It does not mean they are are incapable of deciding what is best for themselves.
I don't think anyone is expecting you to read Shakespeare to be allowed to vote. If you are at the age at which you can work, and you cannot trudge through a few sentences (I don't know how you are getting jobs to feed your family if you are illiterate), then who is to even say that you will be voting correctly?
Why not require shakespear? Or an IQ test? or a DNA test? I mean you don't want "the wrong people" voting. You are saying that we need an arbitrary cutoff line where anyone under that line is not good enough to have a say in how their country is run. It used to be that natives and women were under that line. Obviously slaves were under that line. You now want to add a new one.
They can fill out ballots completely wrong by not understanding directions. Seems quite hazardous to me.
lol tons of people (who can read just fine) fill out ballots incorrectly. If that is your concern, then we should work on improving the voting process to make it clearer, like say with a photo or something. But we both know that isn't your real concern.
Created:
Posted in:
It was an extremely boring, pointless debate that won't change anyone's minds about anything. i'm not sure there was a winner. But since Biden is now winning by a pretty large margin, a debate that continues the pre-existing trend benefits him.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lmao, I thought you were a history buff. Didn't you know that only White landowners could vote when the country was founded?
yes, because they were the only one's they considered to be people. So unless you are considering illiterate people to be non-persons, your point doesn't have much merit.
I plan on barring stupid people from voting. If you can't even do something as simple as read, why should you impact highly complex issues by voting?
because the power of the vote is the primary thing that gives people a voice in a democracy. Politicians have to at least pretend they are listening to you because your have power over them. As soon as a group is removed from the voter pool, they lose all importance. No politician is going to lift a finger to help someone who has neither the money to help them or a vote they can cast for them. It guarantees they have no voice and no power. It ensures that they are forced into an underclass that no one will help and no one will listen to. A free society should not allow that to ever happen.
I am not against the government funding education. In fact, I support school choice, so my policies would result in better literacy than whatever you would propose.
that makes no sense. People who are forced to or choose to drop out of school are not going to be in a position where whether or not they will be able to vote will be a critical factor. If you have to drop out of school to get a job to feed your family, then losing your right to vote in the future is a small price to pay to protect those you love. You aren't going improve literacy by punishing those who fall through the cracks.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Daily mantra on CNN is that your life will be better exponentially as your hatred toward the Orangeman increases.
trump has hurt alot of people and significantly damaged america. I agree they are WAY over the top with it. but the underlying point that trump is a terrible person and is a threat to america is accurate.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Now that women serve, I think a standard of having fought in our military sounds good... While mostly joking, this is to point out other standards of earning a right (a right, not a privilege... it shouldn't have to be earned). Each might have some benefit, but would probably be unfair. If you're born blind, you could never read or join the military. Heck if you're a man, you cannot ever give birth, so a voting standard of being a mother wouldn't be good either. Even the age one is tricky.
Assuming I understood your point correctly, I agree. I don't think we should have any undue restrictions on voting. I think not allowing minors to vote is reasonable. They are not legally allowed to make most decisions about themselves or their own wellbeing, so it is reasonable for them not to be able to vote. However, I think virtually any other restriction should be unacceptable.
It's a free market, they can both be daycares!
that's fair. the are both complete shills for their chosen political side.
Admittedly, Fox News employing Chris Wallace (third hobo in that dumpster fire of a presidential debate last week) has made me dislike them even more.
ironically, Chris Wallace is one of the Fox employees I despise the least. He is one of the very few people working for fox who will ever, under any circumstances, even lightly criticize trump or the republicans. Virtually everyone else employed there are non-stop republican sycophants who do nothing but ass kiss. Wallace isn't alot better, he ass kisses about 95% of the time. But that's better than almost everyone else on fox.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree, fix education first before making it a requirement.
totally agree on fixing education. Totally disagree on making it a requirement. It is just creating an underclass that has zero representation. America fought a revolution to guarantee that citizens would get representation in their government. So advocating for stealing that right is deeply unamerican in my view.
CNN shouldn't be daycare for the stupid.
that would be fox news, as highlighted by the fact that people with lower education tend to be trump supporters.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
However, education is important to making an informed voting choice, so I see little problem with telling every citizen that we have some bare minimum requirements for being able to substantially impact how the country is run.
so your argument is that you want to make an underclass who have no representation because you don't think they are worthy of having a voice. I think America fought a revolution to put a stop to that.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
My question is: WHY? It didn't suddenly become virtuous to be an illiterate voter. It is still bad to have illiterate people voting, but because a racial, cultural, or ethnic group is impacted more, we have to disregard a good, logical law.
in what way is that a good law? You are talking about disenfranchising people because the system has failed them. If the system worked properly, there wouldn't be any illiterate people. How does removing what little voice those people have in society benefit anyone except those that want to completely ignore them?
Created:
-->
@Barney
IMO it would be fair to decrease the magnitude of any offenses the longer ago something was (with some exceptions, like murder doesn't have a statute of limitations).James Gunn made bad jokes before Disney hired him. His actions since have shown that he has grown as a person (particularly the whole apologizing thing). However, if he made those same jokes five minutes ago, gave no apologies, and acted like it was ancient history, that would be be a laughable defense.
Absolutely. People are certainly capable of change. And if Trump had acknowledged his racism and was working to change that would be a totally different story. But he hasn't. He still consistently says and does racist stuff. He is just a touch less direct in his racism now that he is a politician.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you want to play a semantic game instead of engaging with what you know I am arguing, then that's cool and all. Not very productive, though.
you are the one playing semantics. You are trying to separate out some racist actions from other racist actions. I am being quite clear. Any racist action is racist. Saying racist things is a racist action. There is no semantics about it.
And if by "racist" you mean "things I disagree with because I like having wrong opinions" then yes, he says a ton of racist stuff.
no. By racist I mean comments that are intended to spread hate or be disparaging to an entire group of people. And trump does that stuff all the time.
He is asking about Trump supporters, which is implying Trump as president. If you could pinpoint some overtly racist policies and not "muh disproportionately affects" types of policies, I'd be happy to hear them.
Again, you are engaging in semantics in order to undermine the point. If trump had murdered children right up to the point he was elected, would you say "well that was before he was elected so who cares he's a child murderer?" No, obviously who has been his entire life is relevant to who he is now. So trying to cut out the decades of racism is silly. He has been a racist his entire life. He is still a racist now.
Created:
Posted in:
just as a quick follow up to this. The trend for the polling since the debate has Biden pulling further ahead. The average of polls shows trump down since the debate. So the idea that trump lost the debate but was somehow up in the polls is now clearly debunked. He lost the debate and is now sinking again.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
saying something racist is an action.Actions speak louder than words. All he does is pander to minorities.
saying something is, by definition, an action. So your sentence is basically, actions speak louder than actions. When trump spews racism out to his millions of cult followers, that is a racist action.
This is a question about Trump as president. You are referencing a 1973 lawsuit that was settled out of court. Are we assuming that everyone is static and that nobody can change opinions or attitudes after almost 50 years?
This is a question about Trump as a person. He didn't come into existence the moment he became president. He was racist before he was president and he still is. I am referring to actions trump took that are undeniably racist.
Created:
I agree the tone is a bit inappropriate. But the underlying message is accurate. This forum is mostly a right wing echo chamber.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Again , no evidence. You never ever support what come from you own mouth do you.
i already did. you don't read much do you?
lmao, you responded to a comment I made like a year ago. Trump does horrible shit on a weekly basis. that was like 100 scandals ago.Then you shouldn't just throw shite out there without knowing wtf you are talking about.
you responded to a post from a year ago and are now whining that I don't remember exactly what scandal i was referring to. That is like 100 scandals ago. Do you remember everything you've said a year ago and exactly what context you meant it in? You know what, don't answer. You will just lie anyway.
Find me a case where he advocated for executing white teenagers who had been proven to be innocent.I don't have to . I haven't claimed he did or didn't. It is you that has made all the unsubstantiated claims.They are not unsubstantiated. I just didn't realize you were too lazy to an absolute basic amount of effort.Yes they are unsubstantiated. You haven't proven anything... at all. When one makes a claim , one is also required to support that claim with facts and evidence. You have failed. Instead you deviously claimed Trump - as in the US President - was involved in a racist scandal when it was his father at a time when Donald the President was just a boy.
this is getting sad. Trump paid for ad's to be run attacking the central park 5. they were innocent. He continued advocating they were guilty even after DNA evidence proved they were innocent. And I already provided evidence of trump's illegally lying to black people to keep them out of his buildings he was managing.
One of those cases that you put forward was about his father , Fred and not the 17 years old son Donald, now president of the USA. So here you lied purposefully while intending to blindside anyone that may have been to idle too read your so called ' proof ' for themselves.
what are you talking about? Those practices went on for years, which included while donald was managing the buildings. I have no idea why you are suggesting this happened once when donald was 17.
Was this then a racist attack on this defenseless white woman because she was white? Or just a random opportunistic predatory attack that could have happened to any woman of any colour that happened to be there at that time and that place?
you've completely missed my point. The case had racist overtones, sure. But my point was that donald took out ads against them. He continued attacking them after they were PROVEN INNOCENT. Show me cases where he did that with white kids.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I would think to consider him or anyone a "racist", it isn't merely just holding a racist belief. To let that be a defining feature of you (to actually be a "racist"), you must allow it to guide your actions.
saying something racist is an action.
Like not hiring someone because of race would make you a racist.
trump illegally lied to black people to keep them from living in his buildings. That seems to easily meet your definition.
Created: