Total posts: 98
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. Is it possible to rent a room where you live? It might cost you 250 a month, and sometimes the houses or buildings have laundry facilities and things like that.
What has being homeless taught you, if anything about government? Charity? Survival? Faith? Money? Relationships?
Some things I love to do to relax are fishing and reading outdoors. Fishing is very meditative, especially if it is quiet and especially if you are by yourself. I try to take in everything around me- the sounds, smells, the feel of everything on my skin. It helps you stay in the present moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Tucker Carlson is certainly speaking to and for the Trumpists, which makes a good-sized mob but hardly "the masses"- just under half of Republicans, or 1 in 5 voters or about 13% of Americans overall.
Trump still has a hold on the republican party, though it's smaller than before. 53% of republicans view Trump as the real president which is just insane. There hasn't been any proof, and each person sticking to those claims is crazier than the next like the my pillow guy Mike Lindell and lawyer Sidney Powell. They appear erratic and unhinged. If half the republican party truly believes the whole government is so thoroughly corrupt at every single level of government in and out, through and through in every state and party, I'm surprised there hasn't been a coup. I think they know deep down Trump didn't win and they just really want him to be president so they go along with these crazy things. That's what I was saying in the OP, I doubt if you polled Republicans now in July 2021 that 43% would say Joe Biden doesn't have enough power and should be able to bypass congress and the courts. They are not consistent, nobody is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A white supremacist nation wouldn't allow flag burning minorities to participate in the Olympics.
Are you referring to that girl who turned her back during the anthem? I haven't heart about this. I don't think someone who turns their back on the anthem or flag should be in the Olympics though. Unlike professional sports, where one could argue free speech, the whole point of the Olympics is to represent your country. That isn't the time to protest your country. Or maybe it is, I haven't though about it like that yet. But for the most part I think you should not be burning the flag on the world stage. If an Olympian wants to burn the flag at home, I'm fine with that. That's their free speech, that's the whole point of what's great about America.
America is objectively today run by minorities who wield the majority of power collectively, and it's unlikely to change before a massive Balkanization of the nation as has happened every time in history when a nation becomes hyper tribal. Half of the white population actively professes to hate their skin color, but won't actually go any further than that such as give up their property and job to a non-white. It's a sure recipe for Balkanization; especially as the political parties have taken nearly every policy and labeled a religious condemnation to anyone that questions those policies. A regression to a nation of competing tribes is inevitable baring the emergence of a common enemy.
I very much doubt that half the population hates their skin color, but what does any of this have to do with executive power? I said before Trump, 14% of republicans thought the executive branch had too little power and during Trump, 43% of republicans though the executive branch had too little power. What does that have to do with what a nation of competing tribes or white guilt?
Many of the self-hating whites are reminiscent of the Jewish collaborators with the Germans thinking it would somehow stave off their own extermination.
I still don't see what self hating whites, whoever those people supposedly are, has to do with the checks and balances of the United States government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no, that overtunred by the court, not overturned by like the president
I don't know what you're talking about, none of those cases were overturned by the president. They were court cases that the supreme court overturned later on, though it's possible to have congress undue some court decisions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Anybody who supports, excuses, or forgives that violent interruption of Legislative power on behalf of the discharged Executive stands in opposition to the Constitution's balance of powers and endorses the supremacy of one man over and above the State's representatives and the duly appointed Judiciary.
I agree with this entirely, and most of your whole post, except for the below.
There are almost no Conservatives left in the Republican Party, indeed little evidence of any political principle at all beyond the naked acquisition and retention of power.
I think this is where you get an interesting debate, and this is what I was getting at in the OP. The republican party has changed. The republican party is no longer defined as open markets and small government. There's a lot of populists in the party now, a lot of people who want big government to run the markets and consider themselves the real conservatives of traditional, American, conservative values. If you ask people like Tucker Carlson, who now speaks for the masses, as I think he is still the most popular host on Fox News, the republican party of the past was not really conservatives but elites masquerading as conservatives. I think there is real tension in the party, which is funny, because people always talk about how its the democrats that are divided and they certainly are, but so are the republicans over what real conservativism means. It uses to be conservatives were one thing, but now they see the other branches of government as corrupt and so if they think all government is corrupt and you can only trust one man, I don't know, it's interesting how definitions may change. The democrats used to be the party of slavery, now they're the ones fighting white supremacy, vocally at least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I think it makes sense to conclude that, while of course not completely immune, the more moderate members (of either party) are less prone to partisanship.
Ok but what does that have to do with republicans suddenly wanting the president to have more power to go against the other branches of government?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You claim it is republicans who claim greater executive power, yet, in Trump's first year in office [2017], according to the Federal Register office https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2021
What I said is that according to the Pew Center, 43% of republicans in 2019 believed that presidents could operate more effectively if they did not have to worry so much about congress and the courts. A link about Joe Biden's executive orders does not disprove that, and I don't see how it's relevant to the statement at all.
55 EOs were signed by by Trump according to the Register in hgis first 12 months. Whereas, Biden, in 6 months, has already signed 51 EOs. well ahead of your criticism of Trump. Care to use some official stats in your stated opinion as to presidential thought on the matter?
I never said that Trump signed more executive orders than Joe Biden, nor did I criticize Trump in my post. I don't have any opinion on the number of executive orders either one has signed because off hand I do not know the nature of what those orders are. Usually I support a separation of powers, so I am mostly against executive orders except in rare circumstances.
Not to mention that your cited Pew Poll includes some information you ignore:1. The polled used an insufficient sample size to be statistically significant, using only 1,500 samples when it should have been a minimum if 2,400.2. The poll also distinguished both liberal and conservative repubs, and the data demonstrates a decided advantage toward liberals among the Rs.
It is a good point that good polls should use more people, but I don't see how the data demonstrates an advantage toward liberals among the Rs. What does that have to do with my questions about how before Trump, republicans wanted separation of powers and after Trump, they wanted the president to have more power to override the other branches of government?
3. The poll also demonstrates a generally declining view of the public of both parties taking a dimmer view of Congress.
Actually I did not ignore that, in the OP I wrote " The republican party has gone to shite, along with the dems. But congress has become so ineffective, and the courts so partisan, there's no wonder so many people have little faith in them. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm not saying your argument is entirely without merit but if you are going to go after wasteful charity or selfish extravagance, there are a whole lot of far worse public cases to target than Geffen's donation here.
These are two separate issues. I do not deny he could have chosen to buy something more frivolous rather then make a donation, however, you can appreciate a donation and still be disappointed at the same time. If a restaurant messes up my order and gives me steak instead of pizza, I enjoy the steak and it could have been worse but I really wanted the pizza. I am not trying to say this man has not been generous in the past, or that he couldn't have made a worse decision, because I do appreciate this and see why he might value the arts, especially if it made him rich. I am just saying there are kids out there dying of cancer, kids in Africa who can't afford basic water to drink. I know the arts are important, and you can spend your money however you want, and all donations to charities are better than nothing, but getting someone a doctorate in the arts from Yale for 100,000 doesn't seem as meaningful as bringing water to a village for 25,000 or making sure small babies don't die of malaria, but maybe that's just me. Maybe if I were a failed actor I would understand the value of a Yale arts masters degrees. I thought the arts was supposed to be about feeling and creating and a range of human experience, not prestigious degrees from top tier universities, but what do I know. I'm sure those people will appreciate doing their 100,000 acting warm ups for free, and good for them. I'm happy for them, just a little disappointed at the same time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Nearly 100 supreme court cases have been overturned, here is a list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I wouldnt know how to explain that secular ideals are better than Islamic ones if I don't know much about Islam.
I am more of an agnostic than atheist, but I do not think that matters for defending atheisms existence.
I am ok to debate democracy or western democratic state whenever you are, thank you for the potential challenge. It will be my first real debate on this site as I messed up my first and didn't finish.
Created:
Posted in:
The ancient Greeks noted different types of love, which is helpful because it shows how love comes in different forms. There are different words for different things, but they all describe an experience of connectedness among people, so I think love is about connection.
Eros- romantic love, sexual passion
Philia- deep friendship, shared connection
Ludus- playful love, like flirting or having a crush
Agape- empathy, unconditional love for everyone
Pragma- long lasting love that is nurtured over time
Philautia- self care, and compassion for ones self
Storge- love between family members or a community
Mania- obsessive or codependent love
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
The only topics I have a good grasp on, as I am not familiar with Islam, would be
Atheism is unattainable
The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state
When you say democracy is terrible, I think it would have to be related to something else. Would you be willing to propose something that is better than democracy? That might be a better framework for a debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
make it so that the President just has more power over at least congress and it make so that the SCOTUS ruling can be challenged
A supreme court decision can be overturned, such as when gay marriage was legalized eventually, or when you create a new constitutional amendment, which is done by the congress. Where should a president have more control over congress? If Joe Biden wanted to confiscate all guns, and the supreme court and congress was both against that, you think he should be able to do it anyway?
Created:
Posted in:
What do you think of nepotism and should it be prohibited in business or government? The college admissions scandal got me thinking. There's a lot of people out there on their high horse about how wrong it was for two rich celebrities, and other rich parents, to pay money to get their kids into good colleges. But how is that any different than Trump's children becoming executives at his company right off the bat, or even being appointed to government positions?
Some people with family connections have experience and insight that makes them qualified for the job, but the Trumps are one famous example, though obviously they are everywhere, where someone gets where they are solely for family connections and money. Would the Obamas daughter have gotten into those ivy league schools if not for her famous father?
Of course, there is a difference between nepotism and fraud, which is what the college admissions scandal was where they fabricated qualifications and went to lengths to lie and cheat. But it doesn't feel as bad as Jared Kushner being in his thirties with no political experience negotiating foreign affairs in the Middle East and Asia. Should legal lines be drawn in the sand, and if so, where? I don't think there is much you can do with private companies, especially ones not publicly traded, but should we be shaming this more? Do you think the college admissions scandal was that bad? I don't, though I am glad rich people got held accountable to the law for a change.
Created:
Posted in:
Yala drama school is now tuition free thanks to a $150 million donation by billionaire David Geffen. Not to be one to criticize a good deed, but is this the best way you could spend $150 million? He did not choose to spend it on the poor, he chose to spend it on people who can already afford to go to Yale. The people who attend Yale are going to be successful regardless if they major in drama, acting, or what have you, and they already have so many connections just by being there.
He didn't donate it to public colleges, he didn't donate it to underfunded youth, or inner city schools. He did not donate to arts programs for kids who can't afford to attend acting classes, but to adults who already have enough talent to get into Yale drama.
If he wanted to donate $150 million, what about $25 million to Yale drama and maybe 125 million split for kids with cancer or kids without parents? Firefighters, cops, and others who have died on the job, maybe their kids might need money for college? Or if you feel like donating to Yale in particular, maybe the science department or other programs could use some help too?
Forgive me, I know I should be happy about this donation (even if it was likely done for tax purposes) but if you are going to donate for tax purposes or charity, I can't help but feeling like the money could have been better spent. Billionaires throwing $150 million at elite private drama programs, just speaks so much about what's wrong with our society and government in one gesture some could interpret as kindness, but I interpret as something negative, almost like a cruel slap in the face.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i agree with these republicans, the executive branch needs more power and the SCOTUS has way too much, 9 people in robes cant just strike down anything they dont like
They are supposed to be following the constitutional and legal precedent, and their clerks provide them with all the information they use to make a decision. If they do not decide if something is constitutional or not, who should be deciding that, the president? The president is sometimes the one being challenged in court, like when they do something unconstitutional that shouldn't be enforced. If Biden decided to round up every gun in America, the supreme court would be the ones to rule that illegal. In what ways do you think the president should have more power?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Communities being 'communities, and solving their own problems.But maybe I underestimate town councils, and neighborhood associations.My baseless 'assumption though, is that people often don't solve their own problems.
I'm talking about the branches of power in the U.S. government- the executive branch, which is the president, the legislative branch, which is congress, and the judicial branch, which is the courts. Republicans under Trump, and especially the conservatives, said the executive branch should have more power, which is typically the opposite of what conservatives and republicans believe. I'm asking if this poll was done today how the parties would respond, and how we could improve the branches of government so people had more faith in them again.
Created:
Posted in:
According to the Pew Center, 43% of republicans in 2019 believed that presidents could operate more effectively if they did not have to worry so much about congress and the courts. That number has increased from 14% when Trump took office. That means under Trump, 30% of republicans which is almost 1/3 of the party changed their view on the roles of the branches of government. Huh.
Of course when Trump is in power, democrats were opposed to so much executive privilege, and such partisanship is to be expected. But what I found interesting is that it is the most conservative republicans that supported expanded power. 52% of conservatives agree that many of the country's problems could be dealt with more better if U.S. presidents didn't have to worry so much about congress or the courts, and 68% of liberal to moderate republicans say it would be too risky, so it is the more moderate republicans that want to put a check on executive power.
If republicans and democrats were polled today, would these numbers look the same? Do 43% of republicans still believe that a president should be able to bypass congress and the court to carry out their agenda? Why is it the conservatives who most believe in the consolidation of power to be under one man, one authority, rather than support separation of powers? It looks like the far right wants to live under some type of communism, with economic populism and one superior head of state, where anybody who challenges the supreme ruler is an automatic lemming because supporters of the supreme leader are the only ones you can trust. The republican party has gone to shite, along with the dems. But congress has become so ineffective, and the courts so partisan, there's no wonder so many people have little faith in them. What is the solution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
True, but the irony of this complaint is that you only know of this because of the media. You want to complain that all media is fake and can't be trusted, at the same time pointing us to media saying we are taking down Iran sites and should be outraged by that. Maybe it's fake news trying to feed the outrage machine for clickbait. This story is also featured in The guardian, ABC news, Reuters, and so on. Why trust the Biden justice department saying they did this in the first place? Sounds like all media and government is fake news unless we agree with it or believe it ourselves, a really intelligent standard used only by independent thinkers.
Created:
Posted in:
You can't have free speech without fake news, they go hand in hand. On social media you can write anything without fact checks and that gets picked up and shared. Even when Fox News was sued for sharing stories of election fraud, even though there's no credible evidence at all, they backtracked and said THEY aren't saying there's election fraud, but other people are saying it and they're just reporting what other people are saying. I would rather have free speech where we can have fake news then censorship, but there is nobody who wants completely free speech, or should I say almost nobody.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
This is from the website you shared-
"In October, the US seized 92 websites it said were being used by Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) to spread political disinformation."
Donald Trump was the president in October. Why is this a Joe Biden problem? More partisan nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You know we developed a system that gets rid of voter ID and is completely secure but liberals reject it, because it would make fraud impossible. It is based on blockchain technology
Why do you think the left needs fraud to win an election when they are in the majority? Can you name an election where fraud has impacted an outcome, outside the 2020 presidential election for which there has not been any verifiable evidence. You did not answer my question when I asked if you thought the slew of frauds who were proven to all be liars when they claimed to witness vote tampering impacted your view of the claims. Does it matter to you that all of the lawsuits have been thrown out by judges of every political affiliation, that secretaries of state and voter board members of every political orientation found no fraud after several audits, that voting machines are carrying on lawsuits to prove the claims about their machines are unfounded, etc, or will you just believe that there is voter fraud despite all the ways it has been disproven or rather never been proven? iLikePie5 said neither Democrats nor Republicans can be trusted, which is just another way of saying he has shifted the goal posts in such a way that nobody can ever disprove his belief. It is very silly.
I am also curious why "the elites" allowed Donald Trump to win in 2016 but suddenly decided to chime in and cancel the votes of 2020? There has been no widespread indication of fraud, no people claiming that others voted on their behalf, and all research into it found people do not vote on behalf of dead people or whatever else. It seems like a very silly thing to obsess over, a meaningless distraction trying to undermine the elections.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I saw an internal democratic memo about it. Basically half of his policies are not a part of the republican platform and therefore something Democrats would support
If half of his policies are not a part of the platform why do you think so many Republicans embraced him? If Democrats rejected it because of the R behind his name, then isn't it also true that Republicans accepted it just because there is an R behind his name? Isn't that saying Republicans are just as brainwashed and ideologically driven as the other side? Thankfully I am not one of them.
I dont think it's true that Trump had a lot of Democrat policies. Democrats opposed Trump giving tax cuts to the rich and corporations, they opposed him wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country, they opposed him withdrawing from the climate agreement and rolling back climate regulations, and he did not get healthcare done which is a big priority for them. I am not sure there was much for Democrats to approve of besides minor improvements to criminal justice reform.
Created:
you can read ex-slave narratives that were recorded in the new deal era. There are hundreds of them and they are publicly available. Lots of Stockholm syndrome type stuff “my master was so good and kind, he only beat us when he had to!” Reading a lot of those for the first time really blew me away. I guess even slaves are nostalgic for their youth.I don’t see why anyone would ever defend slavery, even saying something like “the slaves loved their masters” while that was (surprisingly) true in a lot of cases it’s not really in good taste to bring up
I agree with this post. It reminds me of saying an 8 year old girl is in love with a 20 year old man and calling that relationship complicated. You have to question the relationship dynamics. What is love to a slave? The relationship is inherently lopsided, the slave is inherently dependent on the master and needs them for survival, plus it's the only life they've ever known so I am not sure you could call that love, but maybe that is a more philosophical question than political one.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I don't disagree, but you have no room to talk. It is funny how half of Trump's policies were popular with liberals until he put an R behind his name and then we had liberals in congress vote against stuff they were pushing for just a few years before and conservatives opposed to things now pushing for them just because it was Trump.
I agree with this on the border and tariffs, what other policies are you speaking of?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Just noticed number 5Number 5 is stupid also. We don't need more apathetic voters. Only ugh people who give. Fuck about policy should vote
They would be registered to vote, but would have to actively vote if they wanted to. Why do you like gerrymandering?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
So because he 'might have influenced the American people in the future to riot a bit at Capital Hill, he should have been impeached early on, even though what he was being impeached for then, had not enough behind it, to impeach him?
" I did not think they had enough evidence for the first impeachment and I was strongly against that ordeal"
But I 'still found the press and media 'too against him.
There is fair reporting out there if people care to look for it, but most do not want that kind of media, they want to be entertained.
I 'also didn't appreciate the media and the Left's utter pushback against near all of his policies.In particular the border.
The left is pushing back against everyone, I'm not sure just Trump when many were threatening to not vote for Joe Biden even though they hated Trump. With many issues like the border the left makes it too emotional, makes it too much about Trump being a bad person or incompetent person, rather than focus on the issues and many people saw through that and turned on them for that.
Created:
Posted in:
With the Olympics qualifiers on tv, it got me thinking what is the best country in the world today, and what is that based on?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
The Democrats caused division from the start of his presidency, to it's end.
I agree with that, but its like the question if you could go back in time to stop Hitler would you kill him if you saw him as a baby. The Democrats and media were very critical of Trump, and did not give him the benefit of the doubt, but it looks like their obsession calling him a divider in chief, narcissist, dangerous criminal was right all along even if their facts were shaky. I did not think they had enough evidence for the first impeachment and I was strongly against that ordeal, but the second impeachment after the capitol riot should have led to his removal from office, even if it was just symbolic. By that time everyone was tired of Trump and did not want to deal with the political repercussions knowing he would be stepping down soon anyway, but to me, that was one of the worst things a president has ever done, because it could have turned out a lot worse. Not only the civil division and loss of life, it exposed our weaknesses to enemies.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
1. Make election day a public holiday
I do not see the need for this, it wouldn't help many of the people who struggle the most to vote. People who get off for federal holidays are public employees, like workers at schools, banks, and government jobs where they do not usually work late hours and have paid time off, and those people usually have transportation to voting sites. What happens when schools are off, is parents can't find childcare for their kids sometimes making it even harder to vote.
2. Mandate at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections (include 2 weekends)
Yes, voting should not be only on one day!
3. Ban partisan gerrymandering and use computer models.
I do not see how people can argue with this.
4. Require voter ID with allowable alternatives (utility bill, etc.) to prove identity to vote
Minimal ID should be fine, but if I have a utility bill how can I prove my name is the same name on the bill? A lot of people who have no ID have no utilities. It's homeless people, or maybe some teens without a license, but this looks like a funny compromise that doesn't serve much purpose.
5. Automatic registration through DMV, with option to opt out.
I do not see a problem with this if it is through the DMV, because you're already proving your identification there, and the opt out option is good. What about states where they want to give drivers licenses to non citizens?
6. Require states to promote access to voter registration and voting for persons with disabilities and older individuals.
This sounds good, and maybe access to voting like transportation services, handicap services at the voting machines or help producing identification if they need it.
7. Prohibit providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation.
How would this be enforced?
8. Require states to send absentee by mail ballots to eligible voters before an election if voter is not able to vote in person during early voting or election day due to eligible circumstance and allow civil penalty for failure.
Yes, voting should be easily accessible to all eligible persons
9. Require the Election Assistance Commission to develop model training programs and award grants for training.
What is this?
10.Require states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before election, if his/her polling place has changed.
- Absentee ballots shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage.
- Require the Attorney General to develop a state-based response system and hotline that provides information on voting.
Yes, we should not be discouraging voices being heard.
11. Allow for maintenance of voter rolls by utilizing information derived from state and federal documents.
As long as they are accurate, ok
12. Establish standards for election vendors based on cybersecurity concerns.
Very important! We need to have faith in our elections!
13. Allow provisional ballots to count for all eligible races regardless of precinct.
Will have to look more into this- depends on voting security and accessibility
Created:
-->
@Lemming
The capitol riot was the last straw of why I could not vote for him in the future. I do not see how he could be the lesser of two evils unless the other side was calling for a civil war or socialism or communism, not just Bernie Sanders social programs or free college, since it seemed Trump would be fine with civil war if it gave him a shot to stay president, which is criminal in my opinion. To me, he showed that if people had gone along with it, he would have broken the law, ignored all protocols and precedents, ignored all rightful procedures, and started a coup based on no solid evidence. He tried, and failed. He was willing to endanger the lives of American people and turn us into a third world non democracy to stay in power, which proves he was always unfit for office. Before that you could say the Democrats were being irrational, but that seemed to prove they were right to obsess and look to impeach him all along. Everything else is politics, but that shows where his head and heart are at which is not with the American people, just ego and obsession of power.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Maybe I hadn't been paying attention to politics closely, maybe it shouldn't have surprised me.But I was surprised when he was elected, surprised when they kept supporting him so closely,Surprised he still has so much support now.
Same here. As a Republican I did not take him seriously, I thought he was embraced by the party to an extent for publicity, to draw attention to the primaries and give the media a chuckle. I did not expect so many people to gravitate toward Trump, though a backlash against the mainstream parties was imminent hence the rise of Bernie Sanders. Not a lot of people in the Democratic Party embrace Sanders though as embrace Trump on the right, which tells me a few things. It tells me that Democrats are more ok with the status quo than Republicans, and that Republicans are willing to accept the lowest of the low just for a promise to change things. I can understand that but it is not as aspirational or inspirational as someone like Obama offering hope and change previously. I am not willing to vote for someone like Trump in the future, but may be open to one of his lemmings, depending on the extent they seem dependent on him for their political success. I do not want to vote for someone that Trump controls. I do not think he has the best interest of the working class at heart. He might have that intention but at the end of the day will not screw himself over and will not push for policies that hurt the rich like himself, his peers of fellow elites, and that is the truth but I understand why people want to believe in someone like him. I think it is a tragedy he has convinced many people he is anything other than a politically active, tax evading, corrupt politician befriending Manhattan socialite.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why the Obsession over the GOP?The GOP has no power to fix anything at the present. Why not figure out how to convince the Democrat party to do the right thing?
The Democratic party is moving further away from what I believe in, and I can't see myself voting for a Democrat in the next few elections unless the Republican party continues to be blinded by Trumpism.
Milton Freidman was a strong believer in the idea that it's unlikely to get the right person elected to a position of power but it is far more likely to get the wrong person to do the right thing through social pressure.
I do not know him but could see how it makes sense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? the status quo is stronger than ever today. Complaining about Trump isn't actually helping.
I disagree, there is still reason to bash Trump. He has millions of supporters that believe he won the election and that he is being kept out of office by the elites. There is no evidence he won the election and no evidence that he is for the little guy. If the Republican Party could move on from Trump I would be happy to leave him behind. I was looking forward to seeing what the GOP could evolve into, but with the obsession of Trump and the false narratives about his greatness, there is only hope he may run in 2024 or handpick a successor, so there is only regression and I dont see how the little guy ever gets helped.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
The problem is their vote being stolen, not discounted. Yes we should have safe guards so that way neither party cheats
We should also make it easy to let people vote that may not be in circumstances where it is easy for them to vote, like people without transportation, who can't take off work or can't find child care or update their expired drivers license. We should have mail in voting, or some type of electronic voting that is very secure, or figure out a way to make sure everyone's vote is properly counted, but Republicans have no interest in that, I'm sorry to say, because we are still the minority party as far as numbers go. Am I correct the only instances of voter fraud they found were votes for Donald Trump? What do you have to say about all the frauds who were exposed lying about their experience witness vote tampering?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which you flopped and failed miserably, probably dislocating a knee in the landing. Here is a helpful reminder. Trump has no power right now to fix the lobbying and the elites in DC right now, so bringing in Trump to discuss real solutions today is an objective deflection.
I did not say Trump has the power to do anything now, I said he had the power to do something then and chose to make a fool out of everyone who believed in him. Trump took the side of lobbyists, hands down. It is one of many things disproving the false narrative about him wanting to end cronyism or take down the elites, people he actively empowered. He did nothing to help the little guy but validate their anger at rich people he was helping every step of the way. He took no meaningful action to make any lasting change, nor did he ask Congress to, and because that might make you feel ashamed for believing in him, you changed the subject to demand that I defend Joe Biden. That was quite the tumblesauce you took off the balance beam, but there is no need for you to deflect and change the subject to Joe Biden because I agree Joe Biden should put back in place the policy that Trump reversed. The policy Trump reversed proves he does not care about what you think he does. The policy Trump reversed proves he only cared about being anti elite to the extent he could trick workers into thinking he was on their side. Ultimately he revealed he is just another self serving, lying politician who went back on their word and deed at the expense of the little guy, and I feel sorry for those still doing his bidding, it is quite painful to watch.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Signs were held up at at least one place to block people from watching poll watchers. You're naive if you think n.v politics is fair.The right tends to suppress low IQ voters (because they tend to vote left) and the left encourages voter fraud by trying to make it easier through no ID voting places and mail in ballots. They know liberals are more likely to help their grandma fill out her mainline voter form but accidentally they mark the democratic candidate because, well they know that their senile grandma won't know and that the fraud is undetectable.
Poll watchers are not supposed to be able to see how people are voting, they are there to make sure people are not intimidated or prevented from voting. To my knowledge not a single person has come forward to say they were intimidated or prevented from voting, with the exception of Democrats complaining about barriers to voting. There was one mix up where a poll worker was hassled somewhere, and once he showed his credentials, he was let in without further issue.
Everyone that came forward claiming they witnessed voter tampering has been exposed as a fraud. When someone's affidavit was looked into, all these liars recanted their stories and walked back their claims once they were investigated and pursued. That's why all the lawsuits were thrown out.
There has been very little voter fraud with Republicans caring more about the optics than something being a real problem of any significance. I do think people should show ID to vote, but I do not think that would have changed the outcome of any election.
I am not the sure the vote of a senile grandma should be valued. Are you also concerned about the low IQ leftist voter who might have their vote manipulated and discounted, or only the mentally ill person that you assume is a Republican? I think we should take measures to make sure every citizen of age and sound mind has their vote counted properly without hassle.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Explain to me EXACTLY what is stopping Biden right now and today from banning lobbyists in Washington DC without going through the usual tropey Orangemanbad mental gymnastics.
I do not care about his skin color. I voted for Trump in the 2016 general election. I was happy when he rescinded the lobbying ban and thought he was off to a great start. Now, when I point out to you that Trump did not do anything long term to hurt the elites, and actively empowered them such as rescinding the lobbying ban when he left office, you cannot refute that, and because you cannot refute that you changed the subject to ask me to justify something about Joe Biden rather than address Trump's action.
Not only did you change the subject, but you asked me not to resort to mental gymnastics in my answer even though you did a cartwheel followed by a backflip to change the focus from Trump rescinding his own lobbying ban to Biden not putting it back. Bravo, that was a Mary Lou Retton worthy performance.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
All I know is that there were suspicious activities. Enough that it puts doubts on ballots.
No you dont know that. You saw some people say it on Youtube.
Created:
Posted in:
If Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 presidential election, how would things be different today, and would society or you personally be worse off than you are now?
Created:
Posted in:
How does this video prove that Trump won?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Ya tell that to the people who live in the countless war zones across this country. The safety net you speak of is a complete failure and unsustainable. You haven't even begun to see the suffering this safety net is going to cause. This country is now 30 trillion in debt. In ten more years there will be no safety net. But hey, keep doling it out until the end and blame me the taxpayer and the guy who plays by the rules.
I do not dispute that safety nets have had their problems, but that does not mean we are better off without them. When people are in dire circumstances with nothing to lose, they are more likely to commit crime. Without homeless shelters you have squatters and loiterers. Without food banks you have people robbing to put food in their kid's stomachs. Without unemployment you have people kicked out of their homes, affecting the housing market, freezing to death. Without social security you have old people dying in the street, we already have problems caring for the elderly. We have chosen, Democrats and Republicans, to use safety nets to care for the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Democrats would like more services provided, but even conservatives agree that human beings, specifically Americans, are worthy of provisions provided for by our society as a collective. We should question where our money goes, and focus more on the rich who exploit and evade their financial responsibilities and break the law to amass a vast amount of wealth, rather than focus on shaming the poor who have close to nothing and all kinds of other problems.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I can’t help you if you haven’t realized the GOP and Democratic Establishments are buddies after all these years. Their enemies are Trump and the left wing progressives. Both of these groups represent a threat to them.
I agree the establishment of both parties are friendly and both hate Trump, but saying we can't trust anyone but Trump supporters to prove Trump's claims are correct creates a ridiculous standard.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ultimate Authority is most decidedly the Elites in Washington DC along with the army of elite lobbyists.
Explain how Trump proved he was against the army of elite lobbyists by rescinding the lobbying ban he enacted at the beginning of his presidency. Lol.
All he did was distract his supporters by whining about the media a daily basis while continuing to empower the rich and ruling class. He did nothing to take down the elites and barely pretended to try. You won't be able to name a single lasting impact Trump made at improving the status quo. I'd call him a failure, but know he never made an effort. It was always all about power and ego. Still is.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Okay so neither Republicans or Democrats can be trusted. ONLY people who support Trump i.e. only those who stand by whatever he says can be trusted to tell the truth. Lol welcome to the clown show.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Defense contractors are paid far in excess of the labor they are putting into their jobs. It's often based on corruption through artificially inflated costs and other deceptive measures. But I'm saying we typically shame those who abuse the system if they're poor. We might resent the rich who do so, but we do not portray them as parasites who should be sterilized even if they take more taxpayer money or use it in more egregious ways like buying a third home. Forget just the ultra rich like bankers - what about all the cops and firefighters engaged in overtime scams, where they defraud taxpayers a ton of money through lies about their work schedule... are we going to sterilize them too? Or just those who apply for food stamps?
I generally agree with what you are saying about shame, but wanted to point out that maybe we have bigger fish to fry in the white collar crime and tax evasion arena than is worth getting all fired up over some single mother getting rent subsidies in a shitty neighborhood. I feel conversations like this are meant to distract from those larger issues by creating division among the lower classes. The OP didn't even try to hide using it as an excuse to complain about brown people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Then I as the taxpayer get to tell the parents how every single dollar they receive will be spent and on what. No more checks with no strings attached. No checks, just food and housing and what the children need. Not one dime of it spent on anything for the parent. That is my compromise.
Fortunately, that isn't how it works. Anti-war liberals still have their tax dollars spent on the military whether they like it or not. LGBT people still have their tax dollars go toward religious groups that discriminate against them whether they like it or not. We don't get to specify where every one of our tax dollars goes under any circumstance, so I don't know why you think your feelings and outrage somehow matters more than everyone else's.
On balance society also believes in a safety net for adults. That is why we have social security, homeless shelters, unemployment and FEMA. In addition to moral obligations, it creates safer conditions for society. If poor, desperate people are fed and housed they are less likely to commit crimes. Hopeless people don't have much to lose.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a pretty stupid question since no policy can originate from Trump alone, and I said nothing about "taking freedoms away from Americans" so I don't know why you are asking me anything about that. I said Trump loves authority, order and hierarchies (evidenced by his love of military, law and order, and deference to his presidential rank as well as economic class), and he resents everyone who feels that he is not the supreme authority, especially when he was president. That has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with him being an egomaniac. His "anti authority" supporters cloaked in Trump paraphernalia from head to toe while chanting his name in a hysteric frenzy feed right into that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is decidedly anti-authority. Every Elite in DC was his enemy.
Trump loves authority, order, and hierarchies, and resents everyone who feels he is not or was not the supreme authority on everything.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
If we look at possible motives and take into account how convenient the break in was for democrats, I think it is a fair question to ask. I am asking what other motive would exist for the break in? If there are multiple motives than maybe it can be dismissed as an unrelated coincidence
You can ask a question about motives without setting it up as a fallacy where you expect someone to disprove something for which you have provided no evidence for. If oromagi can't rely on the genetic fallacy, you shouldn't pat yourself on the back for relying on an appeal to ignorance regardless of how logical you think your point is. I'm sure oromagi thinks it's logical to discount the "news" stories from right wing sources like the ones referenced in the OP, but it's still fallacious.
To be honest, I have not heard the news about someone breaking in so I cannot comment on alternative motives or possibilities, but I do know that lack of evidence for something is not proof that something occurred, and neither is motive alone. What happened with the break-in? The last I heard, a judge in GA agreed to another audit.
Created: