Total posts: 2,178
Posted in:
If Trump had gracefully conceded he would be a heavy favorite to win in 2024 IMO. He is still pretty likely to become President again at this point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So your position is that it’s immoral to ever put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, even to do what’s right. Your position is the elimination of courage as a virtue, and is textbook victim blaming
Created:
Posted in:
I’ll register a prediction: I don’t think Biden is going to run again. I could be wrong but in 2024 he will be 82 years old
Created:
Posted in:
Another beauty by the prosecutor was implying that the guy who pointed a pistol at Rittenhouse’s head after faking a surrender wasn’t a threat because Rittenhouse had a bigger gun.
Unrelated but faking a surrender is one of the most dishonorable actions imaginable. It’s literally a war crime
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Right. He is the one who was trying to engage in vigilante justice
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
This was my take as well last year, but after watching much of the trial it became clear that his Boy Scout acts (putting out fires, cleaning graffiti, and rendering medical aid) actually did occur. It also became clear that he retreated upon the first sign of confrontation multiple times. He didn’t behave in any way like someone spoiling for a fight.
I don’t understand how Rittenhouse deserves ethical blame for bringing along a firearm to protect himself from a dangerous situation—and he was indeed attacked, by a five time child rapist and then a mob. What you, and others including myself at one point (to my regret) are saying is that the mere act of peacefully being there as an other means you carry ethical blame for what happens. The rioters own the streets, not the citizenry.
However, I think if BLM protesters went to a Pro Trump protest, and in the process of being set upon by Trump supporters, ended up shooting one in self defence, then shooting a bunch more that appeared to be about to use deadly force in return after seeing them shoot the first - that would be legally self defence too.
Yeah if someone went to a pro-Trump riot where they were destroying a city and tried to clean shit up and got attacked by a mob I would give them a full throated defense…but there weren’t nationwide Pro-Trump riots last year in which dozens died and billions in damage occurred
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Even if it's self defense y'all r basically just saying it's OK that he went there to shoot people. Don't pretend that's not ur position cause its the only plausible position u could argue
Bullshit. He was running away and only shot after he was cornered against a few parks cars by someone trying to take his gun. How is that the behavior of someone who went there to shoot people? Again, you shouldn’t opine on the case if you haven’t watched any of the videos that show clearly what happened.
Created:
Posted in:
I will say the prosecutor in this case is an absolute cockroach of a "man." It is beyond clear that he does not truly believe that Rittenhouse did not act in self defense--his own evidence clearly shows it, and his cross examination consisted of inane questions such as "why did you fire at the man who was stomping on your face?" "Why didn't you stop to administer first aid to the person who had hit your neck with a skateboard and tried to take your gun?" He flagrantly ignored pre-trial rulings by the judge to not introduce certain evidence, tried to intimidate a witness into modifying their official police statement, and implied before the jury that the defendants 5th amendment privileges imply guilt, leading to the judge literally screaming at him. He should be disbarred and criminally prosecuted.
I was already cynical but this case has permanently destroyed the little faith I still had that there is such a thing as justice in the United States. Thank God the entire incident was caught on camera from multiple angles.
Created:
Posted in:
But since we are talking about morality and not legality frankly I don't think using lethal force to defend property is immoral. I wouldn't do it personally but I have zero sympathy for a vandal or a looter getting shot in the act of wanton destruction
I guess I should clarify this, because I would end up feeling sympathetic to shot looters. I feel sympathy for the people Rittenhouse shot, despite everything. But what happened to them was a consequence of their own decisions to commit crimes and attempt to maim or murder another
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I thought that was probably it. It was a revelation to me as well, definitely changed things for me. I still think he should have left the illegally possessed AR-15 behind and just brought the fire extinguisher and the medkit. To that extent I agree with 2020 thett. Sorry, 2021 thett.
We can agree to disagree but fwiw the gun was actually in Wisconsin the entire time and never crossed state lines. Since a man who twice threatened to kill him if he got him alone attacked him once he had him alone I'm glad he brought his rifle along. The gun charge is apparently a little less cut and dry than it would seem on the surface but I also dont care about it at all because it's such small potatoes....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
one of the main reasons he went there was to protect property. he testified that he knew lethal force isnt allowed to protect property... so what he was intending was if he had to, to wait for an attack on himself and then shoot people. it was a "come at me bro" attitude that he clearly had.
That does not follow at all. It is perfectly consistent to say you are there in the hopes that the presence of armed people acts as a deterrent (which it did) while acknowledging if the violent rioters did call your bluff and start vandalizing property anyway you wouldn't use lethal force to stop them.
But since we are talking about morality and not legality frankly I don't think using lethal force to defend property is immoral. I wouldn't do it personally but I have zero sympathy for a vandal or a looter getting shot in the act of wanton destruction
everyone knows the rioters aren't all that rational, they are just like lions, beasts.
And that's exactly my problem with it, including with what I myself said last year. Everyone is acting as if the presence of violent rioters and looters destroying a city is just a backdrop, something totally unworthy of a community response, and something that the people who live there or have ties there need to just lay down and accept. The rioters should not have been there either, and if Rittenhouse's mere presence there "provoked" them to the point that they would attempt to murder him...frankly, we would be better off if the whole community was like Rittenhouse and put their bodies on the line to stop this. I certainly don't have that courage
i do tend to be skeptical of his 'good citizen' acts like being a medic and such, as i think he was just telling himself he was being a super hero by doin all that.
You can second guess the motivation all you want, but the fact is that those good citizen acts actually did occur. The fact that he truly did clean graffiti, put out fires, and render medical aid corroborates his story that he was there to clean graffiti, put out fires, and render medical aid. My belief is that he really was as naïve as he and his attorneys are portraying him to be, which isn't something I believed last year. Lots of midwit right wing kids are exactly like this, good natured and totally deluded about the reality of America
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I learned more about the case. Namely, that he actually did put out several fires, clean up graffiti, and administered medical aid to at least two people. When I wrote that I had seen those defenses of him but personally didn't believe it. Having watched the trial, the evidence is clear that he really was doing those things before he was attacked. I also did not know that his first attacker, Rosenbaum, had twice threatened to kill him for doing those things. I also did not know that his father lived in Kenosha, and bought into the narrative that he came from out of town, as opposed to essentially being a local
People should still avoid these events, but that's not because he did anything morally wrong, but because these riots were state sanctioned and they will throw the book at anyone on the wrong side that they can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
But what about moral culpability? He shouldn't have been there that night and was looking for trouble... So he bears some moral responsibility. Its like if someone goes on a safari and messes wit the lions then has to shoot one. Yes it's self defense but ya shouldn't have been messin wit da lions to begin wit
Don’t agree at all. There shouldn’t have been a riot for him to go to to begin with. You should probably familiarize yourself with the case before posting, it’s been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason his initial attacker (Rosenbaum) went after him is because he was putting out a fire. Putting out fires and rendering medical aid is “looking for trouble?” Does someone “looking for trouble” flee upon the first sign of confrontation and only fire after being cornered?
Your position is the abrogation of citizenship itself. Every role must be bureaucratized and there is no right for the citizenry to put out fires or render medical aid to people attacked by rioters because the police and fire departments have abandoned their posts. This is “looking for trouble”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You implied that someone shouldn't be tried, for killing another person.Which from a British perspective, seems a rather shoddy application of law.Surely the facts need to be ascertained in a Court of Law.Perhaps you're only interested in selective and biased justice.
Self defense is legal in British law. I don’t think you’re familiar with the case, because there is no ambiguity whatsoever. There were videos from multiple angles showing the entire incident, and in each one it is clear that he was fleeing from his pursuers and only fired after they attacked him. Why should there be a trial when the defendants innocence is beyond a reasonable doubt simply from the videos?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I saw that. If I were the judge I would have dismissed the case with prejudice and told the prosecutors to never show their face in my courtroom again. But that’s why I don’t have the temperament to be in law lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Can you please be more specific? Are you saying you believe he should be convicted? If so, why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Have you watched the videos of the incident that have been publicly available for over a year? If so, what do you see happening?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I think a lot of people simply haven't even watched the videos that were available online within 24 hours of the incident, and the media has intentionally done a poor job portraying the case. But yeah the state should know better, it's appalling that it ever came to a trial
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone been watching this one? From what I've seen the case has not been going well for the prosecution at all. This is good because the entire incident was caught on video and it appeared to be clear self defense to me
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- The 40% stat gets tossed around often because that is the difference between US and European deaths per capita from the virus. That is, if Trump had only been as bureaucratic and slow to act and politically weak-handed as the average European politician, we would have seen 40% fewer deaths per million than we did.
“Europe” isn’t a country. European countries implemented different policies, which ranged from doing nothing (Sweden) to extremely draconian policies, such as in the Uk where people weren’t allowed to see their families. Deaths per capita varied greatly by countries in Europe and not in the ways you would necessarily expect (the Nordic countries, which were generally laxer had lower death rates than much stricter countries such as France, the UK, and Italy.)
Deaths per capita had way more to do with seasonality, population density, and the general level of health in the population than they did with policy. Only one policy matters in the long run and that’s vaccination. Now that dying from covid is completely optional there is no reason to have any restriction whatsoever
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you have a concern with massive government expenditures like planting trees in urban areas by the federal government considering the current US debt situation?
Not really, it’s a pretty small portion of the national budget for something that would tangibly improve a lot of peoples lives. The debt will eventually become an issue, especially if interest rates rise from their historical lows, but that will have to come through a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts IMO
Do you believe that Democrats are justifying policies that discriminate against white people with rhetoric like this? Or what do you mean by it being cringey specifically?
Yes I do believe that. In this case though, I think it’s cringe because they don’t know how to sell anything other than grievance mongering. Not everything has to be an oppression narrative. It’s really simple. Trees are:
Pretty
Environmentally beneficial
The shading lowers temperatures on the streets and side walks which make them more pleasant
Make people happy
Urban trees = good
This is a great example of why their rhetorical deficit is bad because planting more trees is something that most people would get behind but when they frame it this way people just oppose it. And I understand why—because they DO use this type of rhetoric to discriminate against white people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Trees are good and more should be planted in urban areas. The rhetoric used to justify the expenditure is extremely cringey but the left is a one trick pony these days, rhetorically speaking. Just because something is presented in a bad way doesn’t make it a bad idea
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I’m very excited. Hopefully there’s not a delay. For some reason I thought it was going up way later
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What you mourn for is relative to how your sensibilities are set, in terms of ideologies and moral selectivity etc.
Yes and since I think it’s a great moral wrong the prevalence of abortion in society depresses me. Why is this a problem for you?
Some people mourn for the millions of animals that a slaughtered every day.....Do you also choose this as a focus of your selective mourning?
No, because I don’t think slaughtering an animal to eat it is immoral. I do however think factory farming is incredibly immoral which is why I only buy grass fed/free range etc meats even though it’s twice as expensive
What about all the lives lost due to the U.S. led war on terror?
Sometimes when I think about the war on terror I get so angry that I can’t even put it into words. Bush could have done ANYTHING after 9/11 and what he is was start two stupid wars that killed a million people
Are you absolutely moral?
Not even close
Created:
How tf did this thread morph into a debate about impeachment lol
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Go read miscarriage, still birth and infant mortality statistics and you will be suicidal.
I know about that well, unfortunately. I don’t see why I can’t also mourn abortion though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Essentially, he’s just somewhere to the right of his opponent, which is good, but not necessarily meaning he’ll get anything close to what we consider “wins”.
Yeah but he will probably end the institutionalized child abuse of forcing toddlers and children to wear masks eight hours a day, or teaching them divisive political jargon in elementary school. That’s good enough for me!
Created:
Posted in:
I have my doubts that these state polls showing absolutely atrocious approval for Biden are accurate but we’re going to have a giant clue next Tuesday
For what it’s worth, the exit poll in Virginia had Biden approval at 45% approve and 54% disapprove. That’s about in line with what the pre-election polling was saying and suggests that his approval nationwide is even worse than the polling for dems.
Bright spot for dems: the Republican candidate only won by two points, meaning that a lot of people who disapproved of Biden still aren’t ready to vote for even a very good Republican candidate like Youngkin. However losing a state Biden won by double digits a year ago can’t be spun as good news in any way
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
A solid win in 2024 with something close to a filibuster proof majority is up for grabs if the Republicans can nominate a good candidate
At this point I think Trump could probably win again (did not think this before) but he would win an anemic victory that leaves lots of states and seats on the table and would probably be even less effective than he was in his first term. However like I've said before, him becoming President again would be one of the funniest things to ever happen so he has that going for him
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ciattarelli is also very close but I think he ends up losing because of the Newark and Trenton machines, but he put up one hell of a fight in a Biden + 16 state.
I had a nagging suspicion this one was gonna be closer than anticipated. Also, Republicans flipped a Biden +13, 70% Hispanic state house seat in south Texas. Hopefully the white/hispanic anti-left/woke alliance continues
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Yeah of course these are off year elections with a Dem President but these results are just embarrassing. These were both Biden double digit states. The fact that R’s can win Trumps rural margins without him on the ballot while also clawing back some Dem gains in the suburbs is massive and bodes extremely poorly for Dems. Losing once and barely winning a second time against Donald Trump should have been a giant warning sign as well. People really, really hate the woke freaks
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
looks like Big Glenn the suburban superman is gonna do it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think tiki-gate was a disaster for the establishment.
It’s always hard to tell what normal, sane people know about versus what us extremely online people know about. But if the average Virginia voter heard about it it’s definitely the type of the thing that would go over like a lead balloon. Enough that it probably did push some learners into Youngkin.
Personally I enjoyed seeing Clayton Bixby, the black white supremacist, come to life.
Created:
Posted in:
Thread for discussing these elections which occur tomorrow
I am predicting a win by Youngkin (R) in Virginia, because he is 6'7". He also has my full endorsement for that reason
Created:
-->
@949havoc
That is very sad to hear. Abortion is one of those things I can't think about too much or I just get extremely depressed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
A greater and greater number of Americans are starting to realize that inflation is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. I doubt Ciatarelli wins in New Jersey, but if Youngkin wins in Virginia, I’d be mighty scared if I were a Democrat.
I have my doubts that these state polls showing absolutely atrocious approval for Biden are accurate but we’re going to have a giant clue next Tuesday. I can hardly wait…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Even if the estate tax was raised to 100% (not saying I think it should be, I don't!) this would still be the case.
When people talk about raising the estate tax they often don’t mean keep the current (or in Double_R’s case the pre-2018) threshold that almost no estates qualify for but just raise the rate on those estates. They mean changing the inheritance tax to something akin to the UK where the tax kicks in around $450,000 or France where it kicks in at around $115,000.
This is what I was referring to, which isn’t actually Double_R’s position but is something that a lot of people would support. There are definitely lots of people who don’t believe someone should be able to inherit two million tax free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I would start the tax on estates worth about $5M (which is where is was before the Trump tax cuts) and make it progressive after that. Maybe 20% on the next $5M, 40% after that, etc. I wouldn’t cap it till like 80 or maybe even 90%.
Ahh okay that’s not really too objectionable in my mind then. A lot of European countries have inheritance taxes starting at like $300,000 or so which I think is way too low a cut off. I don’t think I would go up to 80% but a progressive structure wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. It’s certainly a way better idea than a wealth tax
How is it a good thing for wealth to be enjoyed by people who didn’t earn it? Isn’t that the complete opposite of conservative principals?
Well now that I know what your proposed threshold is my comment doesn’t really apply. What I mean isn’t that it’s a good thing for Elon Musks children to inherit $50 billion tax free. Rather that it’s good for a worker who saved and invested his entire life to be able to leave behind a sizable estate of one or two million dollars without the government coming in and taking a bite.
Created:
Posted in:
Another respected polling outlet showing Biden posting terrible numbers in deep blue states, this time in New Jersey. 43% approve, 49% disapprove. The state level polls point to a much bleaker picture than the national polls do. Biden needs to find a way to fix this or 2022 is going to be a complete bloodbath
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
True, I’m interested to see what he says. $11.7 million is an insane amount of money, at a safe 3.5% withdraw rate you’d get over $400,000 a year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yeah you can clearly see in the data that university quality does matter, within major. But if you had the choice to go to Harvard for psychology or random State U for economics you’d be better off going to a much worse on paper school…which I don’t think is something that most people understand when entering college, certainly the people I went to high school didn’t. The goal was to get into the “best” college no matter what and no one even talked about choice of major
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
According to Investopedia the federal estate tax in the U.S. as it stands now does not apply to any estates worth less than 11.7 million dollars. Even if this was slashed down to half this hardly seems to me like any kind of barrier to the kind of generational wealth that helps working-class people rise in society.
Yes but the OP is talking about increasing the estate tax
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What do you think the threshold should be, and what should the tax rate be? Generally speaking, I know you're not writing a policy paper
My question is, is there anyone who can provide an actual meaningful defense of not raising estate taxes?
I'm not super against it but a big part of my opposition comes from something nobody else seems to share, which is that I'm against double taxation. When someone works, their income is taxed. In many states (including mine) if they buy something with that post tax income, it's also taxed. Invest the income wisely, and earn capital gains? Taxed! Save up and buy a house? Property taxes (also, the miniscule interest you get in the bank is taxed!) The idea of saving and investing post tax income wisely, using the fruits of your labor to buy a house with post tax income, being taxed for owning it the entire time, passing it along when you die and having that transaction also be taxed really rubs me the wrong way. Just tax me at a higher rate once and get it out of the way!! But as I said, I don't see too many people making that same complaint so I could just be weird
I also believe generational wealth is a good thing that should be encouraged and not discouraged. I know speaking for myself it's something I want to leave behind, and if I wasn't able to do so I would just stop working as soon as I saved up enough to retire, and no longer contribute to the economy in a meaningful sense. There's also the risk of ruining family businesses and farms, which have lots of high value fixed assets, but that's probably a relatively easy problem to avoid with a well written policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I personally think his approval rating will be from 43-45%.
If his approval follows the same pattern as Trumps it will recover to around that number by November 2022, and on the higher end. Maybe 45-46%. There’s no telling if he will follow Trumps pattern but Trump was also at an all time low around this time in 2017
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yup my mistake.I think the environment will be R+4. Should be more than enough to flip those seats.
I don’t want to get too optimistic. But right now the state level polls are even worse for Biden than the national polls are. Almost all of the Virginia polls have him -10 or more, even though he won there by 10. And yesterday two polls came out in Connecticut and Maryland, two states he absolutely dominated in, showing his approval as 48% and 53% respectively. If those numbers are true he has absolutely cratered. We will get a better idea on next Tuesday if the state level polls are more accurate or if the national ones are
Things could easily change between now and November 2022 of course which is why I’m cautious. But if the election were held today it would be a red wave
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Maybe it’s nativity, maybe it’s wishful thinking, maybe it’s confirmation bias, but a big part of me still thinks the dems will hold both or at the very least one house.
They have a decent chance of holding the senate since this map is pretty maxed out for Republicans having last been contested in 2010 and 2016, pretty good years
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Pennsylvania seat is already Republican. That’s why I think getting to 54 would be very difficult, any one of Az, GA, NH or NV could flip but flipping all four without losing any of their own vulnerable seats would be an amazing night for R’s
Of course if this winter goes like people are saying it will (it probably won’t since nobody knows anything) things will just be getting worse for Biden
Created:
Posted in:
the senate situation is much, much worse for Dems than most people realize and their current majority comes from some truly ridiculous luck and some exceptional candidates. here is the current configuration, which only results in a 50-50 senate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#/media/File:117th_US_Congress_Map_corrected.png
Dems have:
Three senators in very red states Trump won twice (Montana, Ohio and West Virginia)
Both senators in Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona, states Trump won once and barely lost the second time
Both senators in New Hampshire, Nevada, and Minnesota states Trump lost twice but which were close
Republicans have...
One senate seat in Maine, a state Trump almost won in 2016
Both senators in Florida and North Carolina, states that stuck with Trump both times
Swing states Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have one senator from each party. One party has way more low hanging fruit to pluck while the other is all but maxed out, and it's only 50 seats
Created:
Posted in:
If 2022 results in the GOP gaining four senate seats (not impossible but would take a big storm) a good candidate in 2024 (read: almost anyone other than Big Donald) would probably get a filibuster proof majority. The map is so brutal for Dems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elections
Created: