Total posts: 1,080
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Could you explain the key features in your view of a democracy such that the the term "democratic republic" cannot be applied to the US?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That specific case was about this guy. Curiel is an American with recent Mexican heritage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't give a flying fuck what Trump believes. Calling someone a Mexican doesn't make any person a racist.Mexico isn't a race.
In popular usage there is generally an equivalence between racial and ethnic discrimination. Apparently the UN doesn't make a distinction between the two either. And of course this makes sense, because race and ethnicity are both fundamentally divisions based around heritage.
That said, "Oh, this bigoted behaviour isn't racism because technically mexican isn't a race" isn't a great defence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wikipedia is definitely a great place to get a grounding on a particular topic. I'm not sure where your claim of it being a radical leftwing cesspool of misinformation comes in, but that phrasing alone reeks of nonsensical hysteria.
Created:
Posted in:
Few people have wikipedia articles dedicated to their racial views, however Trump is lucky enough to have one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
What does affirmative action have to do with academic achievement? You aren't going to magically get an A+ just by entering a university. Affirmative action provides opportunity. Actually getting good grades takes talent and perseverance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Maybe in a degree mill? But in accredited institutions they represent academic achievement and are indicative of academic ability. They have a large impact on the perception of employers (on graduate hires), as well as trajectory of future study.
Flexing them is pretty douchy if unwarranted, but using them as a defence against accusations of dumbassery seems reasonable. And more to the point, does seem like something Trump would do if they were good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You may note that I used disapproval ratings to express dislike of Trump. While it is certainly true that disapproval is a mirror of approval, to me, a lack of approval also conveys people who are simply neutral or ambivalent, while disapproval is quite clear.
You may also note I used the plural form, "ratings", over the singular form. The goal of that post was to express that Trump was indeed an unpopular president. As such, my intention was to examine disapproval over entire presidencies rather than just the maxima, which of course may be indicative of overall performance, but not necessarily so.
You will note this by way in that while you have demonstrated presidents who have at some point attained a lower approval rating over Trump, you haven't demonstrated that they are actually less popular. Which is of course the entire point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I fail to see how that poll negates my hypothesis.
To be clear, there is no "alleged" dislike of Trump. Trump has held the highest disapproval ratings among US presidents in modern history. Does there need to be a downtick in approval, when disapproval was already at such a high?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That has two reasonable explanations:
1. Much of Biden's popularity is derived from disliking Trump as a option rather than enthusiasm for Biden himself.
2. Biden supporters took the threat of a pandemic far more seriously than Trump supporters.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
@oromagi
I'm completely unfamiliar with methodology of determining gerrymandered states, but a (naïve) approach from my perspective would be to determine the ratio of party affiliated voters in a given state, and then compare this to the party apportionment ratio of the congressional districts.
Are there major issues in this approach that make it unsuitable for determining fairness of districting from your perspectives?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They are control freaks who don't like me being political.
Do you know why they don't like you being political specifically or are they just controlling in general?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
How were the voters identified as republican?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Would this pine needle tea work via an enema? I like the idea of a vaccine cure, but I imagine having tree bits as a tea must taste dreadful
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Physicist absolutely proves Trump won the majority vote
We can dismiss this one straight off.
Mathematician proves with math that there was fraud during the election
Needs to release his data and methodology for review. But my assumption is that this one can be dismissed, by the reasoning that no new source seems to have leaped on this "evidence" of the first instance of widespread voter fraud.
Even if one were to accept that Colorado, Michigan and Arizona went to Trump, Biden still would've won. Your statement that Trump would've won the popular vote as well as the entire election seems to be inconsistent with your provided evidence. I can only assume that you've assumed that Trump won, and are working backwards to find anything that supports this view. Hence the evidence that does not support the conclusion, and flawed evidence that hasn't been scrutinized in the slightest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Laws are not magical barriers that prevent any and all described behaviour. Laws may be bypassed, challenged or ignored. Case in point, the funds were successfully blocked for a time.
Moreover even if you go down the line of argumentation, it completely ignores the ethical and moral concerns. Intent matters.
Moreover even if you go down the line of argumentation, it completely ignores the ethical and moral concerns. Intent matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The point isn't the ultimate outcome. The point is the intent and actions taken with regards to the intent.
If someone does his very best to murder someone else, but ultimately fails, this would still be a crime. In a similar fashion here, it's true that money apportioned to Ukraine must go to Ukraine eventually from a legal standpoint, but this doesn't really address the manner in which the aid was attempted to be used as leverage.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
What in your opinion is the strongest piece of evidence that indicates fraud in the 2020 election?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't know where these studies are, but if that is the case, we would have to see how much speed limits reduce the accident rate and if the restriction in how fast you can drive on the road is worth the lives saved.
Do you need studies to tell you this? Vehicles moving at higher speeds impact with higher force. Apart from this, vehicles moving at higher speeds give less time for the driver to react to road hazards
If only 1 life worldwide gets saved by making the speed limit 10 kph less, it's not worth it. Freedom is a trade off.
How much life is a reasonable trade off? Before with assault, no lives were lost and yet you deemed this as an unacceptable trade off.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate#/media/File:Road_traffic_accidents_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2013.svg states that Europe and Australia have lower car accident rates than the US and they are the places that have higher speed limits.
You stated on one hand that speed limits "barely" reduce the car death rate. Your evidence here implies that higher speed limits actually decrease road accident rates. These statements are contradictory.
However at the same time, if you look closely, China has more road accident rates despite supposedly having higher speed limits. In addition, there exist various studies that definitively show that higher speed limits result in increased accident rate and accident severity.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
In that case, it would be perfectly ok to legalise assault, no matter how severe as long it does not result in death?
speed limits only barely reduce the car death rate.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What about laws related to bodily harm against others, up to and including murder? Should these actions be freedoms that Americans can enjoy but not "communist nanny state China"?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
To be clear, Germany's roads are not only comprised of autobahns. For urban areas, a speed limit still applies and as far as I understand it, was put in place because of automotive accidents.
This isn't anything new. Faster speed limits result in increased incidences of accidents as well as more severe injuries, while the opposite is true for the reverse.
But despite this, you are for abolishing speed limits?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Germany in general does have speed limits. You're thinking of the autobahn, but even then, speed limits are enforced for about 30% of the sections.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So why shouldn't society do away with speed limits entirely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Biden is pushing 80. You telling me that an old person is exhibiting signs of being old is exactly the type of fluffery I don't particularly care for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Referring to oromagi's continued serialized bible, i suppose the daily harassment of Trump was okay because, well, it was Trump, wasn't it?So, now it's the Slo Joe and Kammie show, and some are just not going to abide by it.
Trump's personality and general ineptitude made him a magnet for criticism. And while some of that criticism was fluff, a lot of it was fair.
I don't mind an attempt at fairplay, but the reality is, by and large, your criticisms are mostly fluff and portray you as a bully. The nicknaming is especially juvenile.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Not just the internet. Anything coming from anyone's mouth or hand is either a second-hand source, or in the event of a first-hand source, subject to human bias. Everything you know is quite possibly a lie.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not random. That correlation has been valid for decades. If you defund the police and reward criminals, the unintended consequence is more crime and murders, regardless of how many gun-free zones you allocate. No sane person with the means would willingly choose to live outside a gated community in a Democrat dystopian city.
Oh well in that case my correlation is quite valid as well. Clearly, if you let uneducated hillbillies play with guns, the consequences are higher rates of gun violence. And before you say but local vs state..., I should remind you that local ordinances do not supersede state-level laws and most significantly, conservative policy.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Which just means that gun violence is a complicated issue that can't simply be explained by pointing at numbers and latching on random correlations (what greyparrot has done).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Username
Oddly enough places with more concentrations of people also tend to be more liberal in ideology
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Statewide it seems to be correlated with how long republicans have been in control of the state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Certainly cleaner than the alternative plan of sitting on one's own thumbs and incessantly whine and criticise without offering anything constructive.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Freelancers are not employees.
2. It was the best that CNN could do to cut ties once they became aware of his views.
3. This appears to have little to do with Islam, and in fact bringing it up shows your own prejudice.
2. It was the best that CNN could do to cut ties once they became aware of his views.
3. This appears to have little to do with Islam, and in fact bringing it up shows your own prejudice.
Created:
-->
@coal
As an aside, I think FauxLaw is an imbecile. So don't assume I agree with the stupid shit he tends to say about things.
Impossible. Fauxlaw is a six sigma black belt with years of experience behind him - a veritable master of statistics. What are your credentials next to his?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Let's suppose there are two news sources. One consistently posts accurate and factual new reports, the other does not. One day the one that posts accurate and factual news reports makes a mistake and posts a report without all the facts having come to light. A retraction and apology is given after the fact.
In your eyes are these two news sources equally credible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The question is to what extent and how much this impacts the credibility of a given news source.
Saying all news sources is nonsensical, because there is a spread of factual reporting among news sources. Likewise saying no credibility is also nonsensical, because the spread of factual reporting lends itself to degrees of credibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Soo, when a supposedly credible news source refuses to give the source of their news it has no credibility then. Got it.
The main factor for credibility in a news source is a history of accurate reporting. Omitting a source for whatever reason does not negate a history of accurate reporting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I don't think you're crazy. I just think you post dumb shit under the excuse of "I'm not saying this is true or that I believe it" which in itself is a thin veneer for you seeking validation for conspiratorial nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The GND is after the wrong GHG, period.
The GND is not after any GHG in particular. The idea that the GND specifically focuses on CO2 and not CH4 is nonsensical fiction.
And, GND ignores that the primary source of atmospheric CH4 is NOT fossil fuels, but microbial activity, i.e. every living thing on Earth farts, including rice paddies more than cows.
The GND indicates that agriculture (and by agriculture, not tractors as you seem to think) is a specific concern when targeting a reduction of greenhouse gases. Unless we have redefined what agriculture is, it's fair to say that emissions related to rice paddies (not excessively relevant to the US I would assume) and cows are covered under the green new deal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
2. The resolution's second stated purpose is "Achieving net-zero green house gas emissions." Net-zero does not mean complete elimination [but tell that to Joe Biden, who does not understand the difference between net and gross, and I wonder if the resolutions sponsor, AOC is as confused]. Regardless, the specific GHG everyone targets is CO2. Yes, according to the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data it is responsible for 65% of all GHGs, but ignores that methane [CH4] is 16% [roughly 4x less], but that ignores that CH4 is a much higher influencer to GHG issues than CO2, by roughly 30x. So, why isn't the GND target CH4? Answer: an agenda, to wit:
It seems that CO2 is still the largest contributor to the warming effect. Hence why there is a focus on greenhouse gases in general rather than any particular gas.
3. The resolution calls for "removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors." Fine, but by singling out transportation and agriculture, transport makes sense: its engines are primarily GHG producers from fossil fuel. Why agriculture? Because it also uses a variety of engines, as well - planting, cultivating, and harvesting equipment, all using fossil fuels. However, one may think [and the generic inclusion of "agriculture" conveniently ignores that the natural [as opposed to cultivated] side of agriculture includes a huge portion of GHGs produced by... natural means, such as fermentation of wetlands [natural and cultivated, such as rice!] and microbial emissions, having naught to do with fossil fuels, and the elimination of fossil fuels will do nothing to curb these natural sources, will it? https://e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions, https://theprint.in/environment/why-methane-is-a-far-more-dangerous-greenhouse-gas-than-carbon-dioxide/378858/
When one thinks of agriculture as a producer of greenhouse gases, one thinks of cows that fart, not tractors. At anyrate the GND focuses on sustainable farming and land use practices which addresses your gripes I think.
4. The GND ignores that even green-energy turbine [hydro, geo-thermal, tidal, wind, plus solar panels, plus electric vehicles] use fossil fuel products [oil] to lubricate the moving parts, and fabricate all plastic parts, and all of them would literally seize if fossil fuels were to be eliminated, because nobody has yet invented AlGoreGooeyJuice.
The GND does not assert that all fossil fuels should be eliminated. This concern doesn't even make sense.
5. The GND states in the the text: "(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses;" This sounds subtle and innocent enough, but the basis of HR109 is another production of AOC, from the Green Party's suggested framework that became HR109, https://www.gp.org/gnd_full which includes in its text, "Create a Commission for Economic Democracy to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory. We will strengthen democracy via participatory budgeting and institutions that encourage local initiative and democratic decision-making." Note the bolded text, and take a guess what "participatory budgeting" means relative to "businesses," i.e., private enterprise: government intervention in private enterprise budgeting in the name of GND. Does Congress have the right to meddle in private industry budgeting. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8... nope. But, does the GNS give a rip about the Constitution? Nope.
Nonsensical mumbo jumbo.
There's more, but that's enough to soundly oppose the GND. The whole thing is an agenda, and it does squat for the environment. It isn't green, it isn't new, and it is no deal. It's a power-grab of monumental proportion.
Not that I'm advocating for the GND, but your justifications for opposing it are intellectually bankrupt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
For me personally, I think the mastery of multiple languages over several different language families is an amazing feat, and does much to offset the air-headed stereotype of those who choose modelling as their profession and negative character traits associated with choosing to partner yourself with a character as repulsive as Trump. Alas, beyond tabloids that baselessly assert so, there seems to be little actual evidence that supports such a claim.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are also consequences for not acting on good intel but as always, hindsight is 20/20.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, even if we excuse the plastics issue, all of it still employs lubrication of machinery parts, whether engines, or not, and the only lubrication agent available for industry or residentially is fossil fuel-based, and will continue to be sourced as such until you have AlGore Gooey Juice.
I feel like we're retreading old ground. This has no bearing on what the green new deal proposes.
But I have cited just Biden [you want more?] that fossil fuels are to be eliminated, not just reduced. Yes, the idiot said, and repeated it, so one should admit that he has not denied it [although he's done that, too.] So, in the end, you have a proponent that does not have his own mind. I think that's a more serious problem we face than the potential that we are on a path of near-future extinction.
Personally I don't take much stock into hyperbolic statements said in the moment, even if I were to believe they were to apply to all fossil fuel products. I believe since then his position has been refined into something that is more agreeable to you so this point seems to be moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The context seems to be in reference to fossil fuels as direct sources of energy rather than the indirect use cases referenced in post 3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who is demanding that *all* petroleum uses be eliminated? I'm aware of the push towards "green" energy sources and phasing out other forms of energy sources. However that is not of course equivalent to eliminating all petroleum uses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
To be clear, "net-zero" does not mean that no carbon emissions should be produced at all. It means that the ratio of carbon emissions to carbon absorption should be 1:1. It is acknowledged that petroleum-based products play an important role in our society, so the goal is to reduce the use where it can be while mitigating the impacts of where it cannot.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Actually, IT IS when something is completely made up and the liberal elite establishment promote it for their gain
Hoaxes require a willful intent to deceive. You may not like the "liberal elite establishment", but it's clear they were running on the same information that everyone else had at the time - Trump seemingly kowtowing to Russia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well, if that's you're main concern then allow me to instantly relieve you. The IRS does not accept stock certificates in lieu of cash. Section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act prohibits the US Govt. from owning any stock.
From the 3rd post in this thread. Also,
Annually, the stock market rises about 10% annually. An 8% wealth tax causes the stock market to only rise by 2% a year.
I'm not informed in the slightest on economics, but intuitively, there are several fundamental flaws in your logic in that
1. Billionaires do not own the entirety of the stock market
2. Wealth taxes are invariably progressive taxes
3. You can't directly add or subtract percentages of different "things".
Created:
A broken clock is right twice a day
Created: