Total posts: 1,499
think of the guys who tried to kidnap the michigan govenor, or the capitol insurrectionists. these folks are brain washed and radicalized into crime. their issue is their own stupidity. they didn't have malicious intent for the sake of malicious intent. all that line of thinking, i confess, makes me think of them as less culpable than they could otherwise be thought of. of course they should be punished, i'm not saying otherwise... but just sayin is all.
do you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
well, the beauty with slaves, is you dont have to pay em.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
if liberals were serious about what they're talkin about with this incitement stuff... they'd be talkin about criminal penalties against trump. i mean, id think inciting a riot is a crime isn't it? but, i think the liberals know deep down, that all this incitement stuff amounts it, is just politics... it's all political masturbation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so if someone tells a crowd to do something about injustice, and tot take back the country with strength.... you are responsible for inciting a riot if that crowd turns riotous?
i can't believe you can't see how the first thing is no where near causing the second thing. your position is irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
do you think he should have been impeached today? why or why not?
Created:
Posted in:
now, trump is the only president to have been impeached twice. i disagreed with both impeachments incidents, though.
they said he incited a riot. i disagree. at most he egged them on, but he didn't say to riot. in fact, at one point he told them to 'peacefully' and 'patriotically' go to the capitol.
the liberals can't rationally defend impeachment. the actions of the president dont match up with the charges. all liberals care about is makin trump look bad, and kicking him on his way out the door. facts be damned.
Created:
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
u keep deflecting. it doesn't make it ok for parler to do bad, just because liberals do bad.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
what's your knee jerk, irrational response to this issue?
Created:
is anyone surprised that a bunch of conservatives jumped in to give knee jerk, irrational responses? the conservative stance is that parler shouldn't have been banned, so that's what the conservatives here think. even though it can't be defended rationally. but, since people are primarily tribal, instead of rational, they take the bait and can't defend their position.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
so it's okay for parlor to allow people to plot terrorist attacks?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
even if big tech is wrong on that point, it doesn't change anything regarding parler. u r just deflecting.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
so it's all well and good that folks on parlor were conspiring to attack DC, and other violent attacks across the country? parlor didn't wanna do anything about it... and that's the way it should be?
Created:
this link lists a bunch of the examples of threats of violence
Created:
apple and google both gave parler an ultimatum to start cracking down on threats of violence, and parler refused to do so. so both those big tech companies banned them from their platforms, dealing a huge blow. folks say they shouldn't have been banned, due to free speech. but, i say, they should have been banned, cause threats of violence have no place in the realm of free speech. most lay people just hear 'conservative platform banned from free speech', but they dont realize the part of all the violence and threats to the government.
Created:
on the one hand, we have all of mainstream media, including the most credible sources of news and even conservative sources like Fox news. we have all of the courts in the country, including the supreme court who is packed with trump appointees. we have the bulk of congress, and all fifty states including republican states.
on the other hand, we have trump, a con man and a pathological liar.
which one should we choose??
if you trust trump, you're just stupid. there's no way around it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
trust a con man and pathological liar to tell you the truth regarding the election
Created:
my understanding is that this is an example: some states have laws that allow absentee voting if a ballot is requested, and that's the law. but the govenors of some states took it upon themselves to send ballots to everyone. this seems to be the best i can imply as a possible wrong doing, but i dont know if this is what actually happened. it's hard to get good info on these sorts of claims.
now, even if the states did do wrong, that doesn't mean that millions of voters should have their votes voided or have the elections over turned. the people spoke, period. the voters and candidates and everyone involved have their own constitutuional rights. it's not right to invalidate millions of voters due to a technicality, bottom line.
but i am curious what kind of arguments there are that states violated their own election laws.
all the bogus fraud claims i dont buy. no one can provide reputable sources that show widespread fraud that would change the outcome of the election.
Created:
he's gettin banned from all social media.
do you think the lovers and haters will go through trump withdrawal when they can't see his every thought at every second of the day? and withdrawal when he finally ceases to be president? what will happen when the antagonist of our story isn't there any more?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
@Dr.Franklin
do you have any evidence to back up trump's false claims?
do you even pretend that trump is trying to win fairly?
Created:
the biggest reason we shouldn't print money for most things, is because it devalues the monetary supply, which especially hurts people who are saving money. think of an old person who doesn't invest but does save... their money would be impacted. but the thing about stimulus checks, is everyone who is not well off gets one, so it doesn't matter if there's some devaluing going on, because inflation would affect everyone the same and those savers of money would be getting a check too so they are balanced out. perhaps government shouldn't be printing money too much, but at least during a serious downturn in the economy, it makes sense to some extent.
Created:
i think it's a mix of both, obviously. but it could be argued either way if you had to choose.
so which party's politics is dominant in the USA?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
u guys do realize that texas isn't a country?
and, every developed country in the world has universal healthcare. looks like the only ideal country for conservatives, are third world countries.
Created:
do you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
there's plenty of room for both tax cuts, and increases. the average Joe doesn't know the details, so most people just revert to general partisan talking points.
here's a way to get an idea where to cut and increase taxes....
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it's very rare to see someone as brainwashed as u r
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
two justice on the supreme court said they would have took the case instead of throwing it out. but they also said they wouldn't have let trump win. it was a technical point regarding the standing to sue, in the case.Politics
do you have the ability to understand the above quote? that trump didn't have two justices that wanted him to win the case? or, are you too brainwashed to comprehend?
Created:
especially you liberals of the forum, do you acknowledge that some folks hate trump so much that they become irrational?
trump derangement syndrome or TDS is where someone hates trump so much that they become irrational in how they perceive him.
Created:
Posted in:
it'd prob be easier just to divvy up the 30 billion between the bottom quarter of people, as a housing voucher.
Created:
Posted in:
the problem with section 8 housing currently is so much money is tied to a single person or group of persons. this means it becomes a lottery if you are lucky enough to get assistance. the program should be shifted to following the house that the government rents, not the person. and then all houses are expected to be filled, so mandatory roommates would be a thing.
here is my back of the envelope math. HUD currently spends thirty billion on section 8. tenants are expected to chip in a third of their income and HUD covers the rest of the rent. the bottom quintile of households average about 13k in income. that means, they would be chipping in 333 per month in rent on average. there are 66 million people in these households, with a 330 million total population. there are 2.6 people per household in the USA. that means, (66million divided by 2.6) there are twenty five million households. 25 million times 333 equals 8 billion. that means the total that HUD can spend on housing is 38 billion, 30 billion from the government and 8 billion from the individuals.
now we take the 38 billion and have the government rent a bunch of three bedroom houses. the average rent for these is 1500 per month. 38 billion divided by 1500 is twenty five million households that the government rents. at three rooms per household, that's a potential of 75 million people that can get a subsidized room, if each person gets a room. the thing is, it is actually higher than this, cause some children and some couples will double up in their rooms.
75 million people is a quarter of the population, all with the current revenue that the government currently spends. people will just be forced to get roommate situations, and landlord will have to deal with the different personalities living in one roof.
Created:
"nah bro" pretty much sums up dr franklin's entire message throughout all his debates in the forums
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
two justice on the supreme court said they would have took the case instead of throwing it out. but they also said they wouldn't have let trump win. it was a technical point regarding the standing to sue, in the case.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
please, tell us why you support trump declaring martial law? or do you only reserve your unbridled support of him, only after he pulls one of his many antics?
Created:
some trump supporters, including some high ranking government officials, thinks trump should declare martial law. some say he should do it just to do a recount, some say to do a re election, and some say to do it permanently or at least for a long time indefinitely. i'm also embarrassed that i have relatives who think he should as well.
given the trump supporters here would suck his dick, i mean, support him, no matter what..... does that mean you would also support him declaring martial law?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i see that there is a dissimiliarty in that a single gathering can kill a lot of people, but the bottom line is that the life time risk for everyone is worse with driving than it is with the virus. even if everyone at a party got in contact with the virus, their odds dont suddenly go up. that is, they all still have a .7 percent chance of dying if they catch it. so basically, if there was no chance of a vaccine, i think socieity would just shift its expectations.... it will assume everyone must accept a lifetime one percent ish chance of dying if they are going to socialize much at all, just as we accept a lifetime one percent chance of death from driving if you drive much at all.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
well for every analogy's similarity there is a greater dissimiliarity. but that's for all analogies. i maintain the similiarities are greater than the dissimilarities. point nine percent is greater than point seven percent, so driving is overall on average more dangerous than the virus. now, to your point... if a person can catch it several times, that does change everything, cause then their risk jumps by a lot, but it sounds like the science on this point isn't very conclusive so we cant say one way or the other on this point. i would concede my analogy fails if the science was as you say.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the only way my analogy can work, is if we assume a hypothetical that experts dont think a vaccine is possible. in that case, your lifetime risk is safer in driving to socialize than it is from your lifetime risk of the virus in socializing... for the average person. so the only way a person would be consistent in not socializing because of the virus, is if they stopped driving to socialize too, or at least asked others not to drive to visit them too.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i messed up my question to you.... i should have asked, shouldn't the average person in an average situation stop driving to socialize even when the pandemic is over? based on your logic.
Created:
i will concede that given the vaccine is imminent, maybe everyone should be extra safe in the mean time. but i still maintain that if the vaccine was uncertain, and for some average people in average situations, it's not so far fetched to think we could still socialize with healthy people.
Created:
-->
@Death23
the risk from dying from a car accident is spread out over a lifetime. so take 40k car deaths, and multiple it by 78, which is the average life expectancy. covid only looks intimidating cause it's happening all at once.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you had three main points worth addressing.
one you said that a person could be permenately damaged by by the virus. that's true, but it is also true with driving. so this point is a wash, it's a moot point in trying to differentiate my analogy.
two you said hospitals might be overstaffed. that's true, but i did say a person might want to be extra safe if their local hospital is over staffed. the main reason hospitals are getting overstaffed, is due to the virus... but it's mainly due to them already being pushed to the brink, and the virus putting them overboard. i think i heard once that it was like only one in four people at some overstaffed hospitals have the virus. that means it's just a structural problem, not that socializing is inherently too dangerous.
your last point was decent... you said some people choose to drive safe, so their risk isn't .9%. so from that i would say, yes maybe i personally wouldn't want to socialize too much, and extra cautious people might not want to, but what about the average person with an average amount of risk taking and an average driving ability? well, on average, they're less safe from driving to socialize than they are from the virus in socializing.
i can see you are extra cautious, so i'll change the question to you.... why should the average person stop socializing with healthy people when all things are considered?
Created:
i googled the stats. you have a .9% chance of dying in a car. you have a .7% chance of dying from the coronavirus, and that's assuming you catch it.
so what can we concluded? well, we should still wear masks, and if someone is vulnerable, they should social distance for sure. if your local hospital is over crowded, you should be extra safe too. but what about everyone else? should you not socialize with your friends and family, if they are not vulnerable? that would be like saying "i'm not going to socialize with my friends and family, because i might die in the car on the way there, or vice versa".
so basically, if you think about it, if you dont want to live in fear, you might as well socialize with your healthy friends and family
if you disagree with this approach, why dont you stop socializing with your friends and family due to the car ride involved too?
Created:
i think dr. franklin is mentally ill, in the same way cult members are mentally ill.
Created:
Posted in:
plus look at all of mainstream media who says there's no widespread fraud or reasons the election was rigged. and it's not just mainstream media, it's sources like PBS, sixty minutes, new york times.... the most objective sources out there. and, even trump's attorney general said the election was not rigged and that there isn't widespread fraud.
the only people who think it was rigged, as the types who are cultist towards trump, in their overall behavior. they ignore good sources of news. they only believe their cult leader. they believe random youtube videos, that half the time are fake sources of evidence. or undocumented facebook posts, or random off kilter websites. there is an active misinformation campaign going on, as our government even has noted. it's ironic, the side of politics who is always crying 'fake news', is themselves relying heavily only on that fake news.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
well, the way trump drug out this election in the courts, you got your wish.... trump lost like a bitch. i mean, it could have been respectable given how close he was, but he insisted on banging his head against the wall, so the courts could tell him over and over, that he lost... like a bitch.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
while i dont like his stupidity of not caring about the virus, he has a point. the odds of dying in a car crash is .9%. last i knew, the odds of dying from covid is .7%, and that's only if you catch it to begin with. so, driving a car is more dangerous than covid. obviously precautions should be taken in both cases, though.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
new zealand has strict gun laws and universal healthcare. that's anathema to conservatives.
Created:
also, every developed country except the USA has universal healthcare, so i guess that automatically rules out the developed world for conservatives. LOL
Created: