Individual-1 (Donald Trump)

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #1  (isolation #0)  » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:06 am

His presidency will be entertaining.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7815  (isolation #1)  » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:28 pm

In post 7815, karnos wrote:A few bad words in this video, but dammit, I really think Milo nails it in the first few minutes re: bias in media.

NSFW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTxSAjXpnqo

Speaking of Milo and bias in media...media is always gay this gay that...EXCEPT when they link Milo to the alt right. They rarely mention that he's gay. Doesn't fit the desired alt right narrative.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7818  (isolation #2)  » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:33 pm

In post 7817, Not_Mafia wrote:Glad to see you back Persivul

Thanks...but don't think we'll be sharing warm showers or anything...

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7820  (isolation #3)  » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:35 pm

In post 7818, pisskop wrote:You know, I really liked alt right. Some of their stuff is really quite good, or at least a good attempt at being more intellectual

Yep, which is why the left has to paint them not as just garden-variety racists, but actual white supremacists.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7839  (isolation #4)  » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:58 pm

In post 7830, Kublai Khan wrote:Can we start with how you even evaluate whether a source is liberal or conservative?

Nope. If you can't tell the difference, I'm not wasting my time with you. :P

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7957  (isolation #5)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:00 am

I was born white, male and middle class in the US in the 60s. As such, I've had more opportunity than 99%+ of the people who have ever lived. I recognize that and support affirmative action.

The problem is people who equate that position with voting Democrat. Dems have no interest in doing more than paying lip service to helping blacks.

Similarly, I agree that wealth inequality is getting out of hand, and taxing the hell out of the 1% is a good idea. The problem again is equating that position with voting Democrat. The Dems have no interest in taxing the hell out of the 1%, as those are some of their biggest contributors. Why do you think Hillary talked about the basket of deplorables during a fundraiser, rather than taxing the hell out of the wealthy? Because she was addressing a bunch of wealthy contributors. They could feel good about themselves because they weren't deplorable, thereby excusing/avoiding their income inequality.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7959  (isolation #6)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:20 am

In post 7959, chamber wrote:On race I think you are completely wrong. The democrat's do clearly care about identity politics.

Sure, they definitely care about identity politics. That's not the same as helping.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7960  (isolation #7)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:23 am

As it is:

Dems don't have to help blacks, as they get a huge percentage of the black vote even though they don't do much to help them.

Republicans have no incentive to help blacks, as they'll likely vote hugely Democrat anyway.

The only way for blacks to get action is to increase their Republican vote.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8003  (isolation #8)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:10 am

In post 7991, xRECKONERx wrote:Also, regarding affirmative action: I don't think it's something that will be a permanent fixture, and I sort of agree with the idea that there's a shift on the horizon where AA has done its job and we'll need a new system to ensure diversity and proper opportunity access for everyone. But that won't happen yet, because there's still too much institutionalized racism in business and education. We're not there yet. We've got more work to do.

Why?

Shouldn't we be working toward a post-racial society where we don't even think about such things?

If you institutionalize opposition to racism, you prolong racism.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8010  (isolation #9)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:37 am

In post 8009, theplague42 wrote:
In post 8004, Persivul wrote:Shouldn't we be working toward a post-racial society where we don't even think about such things?

First things first. Do you disagree with this position?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8039  (isolation #10)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:08 pm

In post 8018, theplague42 wrote:I don't think it's possible to know if a post-racial society can be achieved.

It's a matter of extent. Would you say we're less racist now than when slavery was legal? If you say yes, then a post-racial society is something we can work toward, even if we may never be 100% there. Do you agree?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8041  (isolation #11)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:13 pm

In post 8037, Ranmaru wrote:We've done the 'let's not talk about it' thing for a while now

When did we do this?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8043  (isolation #12)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:16 pm

In post 8041, theplague42 wrote:There's a difference between an end to racism and post-racial.

Is there?

As long as we refer to black people as black people, we're implying that there is a difference between black people and others, and that's racism.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8055  (isolation #13)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:48 pm

In post 8047, Ranmaru wrote:What do you propose?

First, note that I was replying to a scenario in which AA had achieved its goals, i.e. races are reasonably equal socioeconomically.

At that point I would propose that we just drop race as a parameter in policy. We can't force people not to discuss it, but as far as government goes: crime stats, no race; education stats, no race; etc.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8265  (isolation #14)  » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:47 am

In post 8252, Aeronaut wrote:If anything is ensuring the end of the republican party, it's these next four years.

In post 8254, Aeronaut wrote:yeah. I mean it was already a joke at the start of this train wreck and it got us this idiot, so i guess it's shit anyway

Go to this page and click on the 2010, 2012 etc. trifecta maps. These are states where one party controls both houses and the governor. Watch the blue shrink. Trump's riding a wave that started years ago.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8309  (isolation #15)  » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:48 pm

In post 8267, Aeronaut wrote:A) that link doesn't lead anywhere

Yeah that's weird. It's easy to find other sources though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmen ... rical_List
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8311  (isolation #16)  » Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:02 pm

In post 8307, Aeronaut wrote:Isn't it a fun fact that a republican hasn't won the popular vote for 29 years?

It's an irrelevant fact. If the presidency were determined by popular vote, the campaigns would have been different. There's no way to know which side, if either, would have benefited.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8313  (isolation #17)  » Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:06 pm

So it's neither a fun nor irrelevant fact, as it's not a fact.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8323  (isolation #18)  » Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:06 am

In post 8322, Aeronaut wrote:Not if it was a proportional system. If 51% of the vote in one state didn't win you the whole state, but 51% of it's delegates, then candidates would both run the same campaign (because they still need not-just-california), but would be represented fairly instead of this silly spectacle of "winning states" we have now. The reason that hasn't been changed is that the people who could change it are in power because of that system.

Yes, campaigns would have been different, and voting would have been different. If it's proportional, Trump spends more time in NY and CA. Also, a Republican in a blue state may not have even voted as is but would in your system, and vice versa.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8324  (isolation #19)  » Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:07 am

In post 8321, Aeronaut wrote:those sources are of who was elected to our government, not citizens of the US. conservative citizens v conservative government officials is a different story

Huh?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8325  (isolation #20)  » Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:15 am

In post 8306, Aeronaut wrote:I think what is more important than "saving jobs" (which arguably, Obama has done more effectively than bush 43 ever did) is the kinds of jobs that the "president saves".

For example; if we as a nation focus on creating many more low-wage factory/type jobs for everyone, then that's not a sustainable nation. Those factory jobs won't be here in twenty years. We as a nation should be trying to focus on education and creation of more high-tech/intellectual jobs.

This would be fine if people were only limited by their education. Fact is that people are also limited by their innate intelligence. Those people need jobs too. We need something in between McDonalds and high-tech.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8364  (isolation #21)  » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:18 pm

In post 8346, Accountant wrote:What would you call someone who hates and discriminates against gay people if not a homophobe

Uh...someone who hates and discriminates against gay people.

I'd call someone with an irrational fear of gay people a homophobe.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8491  (isolation #22)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:30 am

In post 8491, karnos wrote:As an aside, you also didn't prove that there is actually a problem. The earth has gone through many phases of temperature change over billions of years.

^This.

Someone said earlier that there's no middle ground on this issue. You're either on board with the panic or you're a science denier. This is one middle ground - even if you're right...so what? Temperatures and sea levels have supposedly varied drastically in the past:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago.

As the seas moved, so did land life, and life went on.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8495  (isolation #23)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:37 am

In post 8494, theplague42 wrote:http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/coasts/living-in-coastal-areas/
At a rough estimate more than 200 million people worldwide live along coastlines less than 5 metres above sea level. By the end of the 21st century this figure is estimated to increase to 400 to 500 million.

I'd imagine they'll move when their toes are wet, or before.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8501  (isolation #24)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:02 pm

In post 8499, Aeronaut wrote:they literally did influence the election

By releasing things Dems actually wrote...which they obtained because Dems are incompetent with cyber security.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8520  (isolation #25)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:53 pm

In post 8504, Kublai Khan wrote:They also hacked the RNC, but didn't release anything. Weird, huh?

No. Other countries have interests in our elections. Other leaders openly supported Hillary. Was that weird?

They had the opportunity to embarrass/damage both parties, but only did it to one to the advantage of the other.

So to repeat Aeronaut's point: they literally did influence the election.

Yeah, I didn't dispute it.
Why are you okay with this? Party before country?

Why shouldn't I be? Were you okay with lots of other leaders endorsing Hillary?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8523  (isolation #26)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:04 pm

In post 8523, Psyche wrote:
In post 8521, Persivul wrote:No. Other countries have interests in our elections. Other leaders openly supported Hillary. Was that weird?

the national security establishment isn't mad because russia "supported" trump

Why are they mad? Because private citizens had their email accounts hacked? Happens all the time.

Do you think our national security establishment has hackers?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8534  (isolation #27)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:02 pm

In post 8529, Psyche wrote:obviously there's a difference between hacking a private citizen and what the national security establishment is worried about

Aren't we talking about private citizens? Podesta, DNC...those weren't government servers, were they?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8536  (isolation #28)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:31 pm

So....why do you bring in what the national security establishment is supposedly worried about, since that's something different?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8539  (isolation #29)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:26 pm

In post 8539, Kublai Khan wrote:You think that "I think this candidate would do a good job" is the EXACT SAME as "here is some dirt on this candidate"???

Exact same? No. Did both influence the election? Probably.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8540  (isolation #30)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:58 pm

If an American did the hacking and gave it to wikileaks, what difference would it make?

Or what if an inside whistleblower did it?

Pussy grabbing, deplorables...what you and your team say is fair game. Doesn't really matter who finds it or releases it.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8542  (isolation #31)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:03 pm

In post 8542, theplague42 wrote:You don't get it do you

Apparently not.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8548  (isolation #32)  » Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:50 pm

In post 8545, theplague42 wrote:Nobody is saying "oh no how dare somebody leak information."

What people are saying is that it's clear Russia wanted to hurt the Democrats specifically. Do you disagree with that statement?

No, I don't disagree. Go on...

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8553  (isolation #33)  » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:16 am

Instead of whining about the Russians, read this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/m ... ump-232547

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8566  (isolation #34)  » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:22 am

In post 8560, Psyche wrote:
In post 8554, Persivul wrote:Instead of whining about the Russians, read this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/m ... ump-232547

why not both???

Because I have yet to hear the point of whining about the Russians.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8569  (isolation #35)  » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:28 am

In post 8569, Psyche wrote:because it's so mindnumbingly obvious

Not to me. Feel free to explain it.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8578  (isolation #36)  » Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:23 am

In post 8571, Psyche wrote:cmon im using the socratic method here

Just use your big boy words and make your point.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8599  (isolation #37)  » Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:26 am

In post 8579, Persivul wrote:
In post 8571, Psyche wrote:cmon im using the socratic method here

Just use your big boy words and make your point.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8603  (isolation #38)  » Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:52 am

In post 8601, Psyche wrote:i'm not going to try if you aren't

Apparently it's not an issue anyway, as Assange says it didn't come from hacking.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8606  (isolation #39)  » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:01 pm

In post 8606, Psyche wrote:i mean, i can understand doubting the intelligence community; their track record isn't the best
but deciding assange is more reliable?

I'm not doubting the intelligence community, as I haven't seen anything actually released by the intelligence community yet.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8613  (isolation #40)  » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:25 pm

In post 8608, theplague42 wrote:Do you watch or read or listen to or pay attention to the news

In post 8610, theplague42 wrote:Assange is a partisan hack with an agenda against Obama and anybody associated with him. During the DNC leaks he came out and said yeah we have Trump docs but we won't release them. So either he was lying or partisan.

Which news isn't partisan?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8618  (isolation #41)  » Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:36 pm

In post 8615, Psyche wrote:persival would you consider reading this before making more posts: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/ob ... .html?_r=1

Done.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8628  (isolation #42)  » Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:32 pm

In post 8619, Persivul wrote:
In post 8615, Psyche wrote:persival would you consider reading this before making more posts: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/ob ... .html?_r=1

Done.

Sooo....what points did you plan on making from that article?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10183  (isolation #43)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:41 am

In post 10182, Wraith wrote:1. Black people are less likely to have a Driver's License, the most common form of photo identification

Yabut you can get an ID that isn't a driver's license. Noting that a driver's license is the most common form of photo ID is just a bullshit smokescreen.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10207  (isolation #44)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:48 pm

In post 10187, Psyche wrote:They looked for the forms of ID that black people disproportionately used. And then made them ineligible.

https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/id/

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10220  (isolation #45)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:08 pm

In post 10213, Wraith wrote:His point is that you're not reading opposing arguments at all and you're just making shit up based on classic conservative rhetoric in a poor attempt to simultaneously discredit the opposing argument and keep up the appearance that you yourself have an actual argument.

Referring to an argument as "classic conservative rhetoric" is an attempt to discredit the opposing argument. Amazing that you culdn't see that as you typed it.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12764  (isolation #46)  » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:47 pm

In post 12763, theplague42 wrote:Apologist much?

Butthurt sore loser much?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20556  (isolation #47)  » Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:56 am

Trump sucks. This economic prosperity thing is getting out of control. It needs to be stopped. Blue in 2020!

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20566  (isolation #48)  » Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:06 am

In post 20557, Papa Zito wrote:I too enjoy watching the rich get richer.

Why do you watch the rich?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20569  (isolation #49)  » Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:28 pm

In post 20568, Papa Zito wrote:They're all the media talk about.

Then why watch the media?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20572  (isolation #50)  » Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:01 pm

In post 20571, AniX wrote:The same reason I watch out for pickpockets? If someone is profiting at my expense, I should like to know about it.

You watch for pickpockets in the media?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20578  (isolation #51)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:43 am

In post 20576, T-Bone wrote:Persivul is a conservative

On that 4 quadrant political quiz, I come up less than one block right of center, and dead even vertically.
and is being sarcastic. Its safe to assume that he both makes near six figures

140 salary and another 20 in benefits.
and works for a fortune 500 company that gives him things like stock options,

No, I work for a small privately held firm.
as that's the only way you could benefit the wealthy tax cuts.

(and Persivul I'm not saying that to disrespect you.

No problem. Even if you were, I'm not ashamed of success.
if you benefited from the tax cuts, tariff wars, etc., I'm happy for you, but understand that is not the experience of the majority of Americans, and certainly not the experience for most of the MS community)

Most Americans benefited from the tax cuts. High wage earners in high-tax states are about the only people who didn't.

Note that I'm not at all against taxing the hell out of the 1%. I wouldn't mind seeing graduated rates going up to 60 or 70%. That just hasn't been an option in recent elections. The Democrats pay lip service to taxing the 1%, but they never actually do it.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20586  (isolation #52)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:56 am

In post 20584, T-Bone wrote:By and large, people making under 75K-100K did not see any benefits to the tax cut bill.

Yes, they did.
https://taxfoundation.org/tcja-one-year-later/

Go down to the map and set it to 25 - 50K.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20590  (isolation #53)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:15 am

OK, how about the NYT?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/busi ... x-cut.html
In 30-50K, 69% got a tax cut.
In 50-75K, 81% got a tax cut.

Most of those who didn't get a cut stayed the same - "not even one in 10 households actually got a tax increase."
If you’re an American taxpayer, you probably got a tax cut last year. And there’s a good chance you don’t believe it.
...
To a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on the tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained — and misleading — effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20592  (isolation #54)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:20 am

In post 20591, Psyche wrote:everyone here knows taxes fell for most people
i think

Are you skipping posts?
In post 20584, T-Bone wrote:The average wage in America is ~50K. That means half the country is making less than that. By and large, people making under 75K-100K did not see any benefits to the tax cut bill.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20602  (isolation #55)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:03 pm

In post 20596, Psyche wrote:dude said "by and large"

Yes, which indicates majority. He also said "that is not the experience of the majority of Americans." Those statements are false.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20603  (isolation #56)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:07 pm

In post 20598, T-Bone wrote:I mean, if you're being literal, fine.

Let's take my income, I'm in the lowest quintile, so I should have received a 0.4% tax cut. That's....64 dollars. Sure, literally, the TCJA gave me 64 extra dollars. Would I call that a benefit? Not really, I'm pretty sure inflation has wiped out that 64 bucks.

I don't know what quintile your 140K salary falls in. At my cut of 0.4%, that's 560 bucks. At the 2.9% which was the top quintile, that's 4,010.

There is a big fundamental difference between what low income earners got, vs. high income earners. You are absolutely correct that the tax cut benefitted you. To say it benefited someone with low income, isn't correct.

Yes, the interactive map I linked to shows the lowest earners getting pretty much no benefit. That's not surprising, as they're paying little if any federal income tax as it is.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20604  (isolation #57)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:10 pm

BTW...again...I'm not a fan of the tax cuts either. I would like to see higher graduated rates on the wealthy (like most people, I consider that to mean anyone earning more than me :) ). I'm just noting the outright lies about the tax cut that have been put forth.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20606  (isolation #58)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:18 pm

In post 20599, Untrod Tripod wrote:I can only speak for my industry, but freelance musicians are able to write off far less in expenses (mileage, for example) than we could previously. We got absolutely hosed by the new tax bill and we didn't even get an actual reduction in tax rates. I understand that's probably a niche industry from your POV, but it was a noticeable QOL decrease in my world.

but there's a comparable number of musicians in the US to the number of people in the entire US coal mining industry so if coal miners get to be a weather vane....

How are you reporting your freelance income? I would think on Schedule C, and mileage is still deductible there.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20615  (isolation #59)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:48 pm

In post 20607, Psyche wrote:but they aren't

Yes, they are. I've posted two links showing that.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20617  (isolation #60)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm

In post 20611, T-Bone wrote:
In post 20606, Persivul wrote:
In post 20599, Untrod Tripod wrote:I can only speak for my industry, but freelance musicians are able to write off far less in expenses (mileage, for example) than we could previously. We got absolutely hosed by the new tax bill and we didn't even get an actual reduction in tax rates. I understand that's probably a niche industry from your POV, but it was a noticeable QOL decrease in my world.

but there's a comparable number of musicians in the US to the number of people in the entire US coal mining industry so if coal miners get to be a weather vane....

How are you reporting your freelance income? I would think on Schedule C, and mileage is still deductible there.


Nope, mileage was eliminated for all but one type of contractor. I can't remember the term off my head.

Wrong. If you're freelance, i.e. paid on a 1099 rather than a W-2, you can still claim mileage and other expenses on Schedule C. Here's a link to an article specifically about artists:
http://www.artstaxinfo.com/actors.shtml

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20618  (isolation #61)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:57 pm

In post 20612, T-Bone wrote:Also, I said most Americans didn't get a benefit from the tax cut. Not that they didn't get a tax cut.

Yeah, 0.4% tax cut is actually a tax cut. But people aren't really benefiting from that.

Can you support that most Americans got a tax cut of .4% or less?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20619  (isolation #62)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:58 pm

In post 20616, Untrod Tripod wrote:several different ways,

Such as? How is the income reported to you?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20621  (isolation #63)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:03 pm

In post 20620, shaft.ed wrote:
The performer may also have extensive W-2 income (this is the case with Equity actors) that will often have extensive expenses that sadly are no longer deductible starting in 2018 under the 2017 TCJA tax bill. This means that a performer with BOTH W-2 and self-employment income will only be able to deduct those expenses associated with their self-employment income:

Yes. He specifically said freelance income. Expenses related to that are still deductible... and eligible for the 199A deduction in many cases.

If you're an employee, negotiate with your boss to be reimbursed for your mileage.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20624  (isolation #64)  » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:12 pm

In post 20622, TDC wrote:
In post 20584, T-bone wrote: The average wage in America is ~50K. That means half the country is making less than that.

No.

The median household income in America is ~59K, so it was a reasonably close statement.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20629  (isolation #65)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:33 am

In post 20627, T-Bone wrote:Yeah, if your only point is that most Americans received a tax cut, sure, I concede, 0.4% is a cut.

Again, can you support that most Americans got a tax cut of .4% or less?

My contention was that people weren't really benefiting from it. My contention is that while the economy may be good, by and large the only people benefiting from that are the wealthy. I don't know if you view yourself as wealthy, but at six figures I definitely do.

But you also stated that you think the TCJA wasn't great either, so I'm not sure why you are planting your flag here?

I'm not. I mentioned "economic prosperity." Median household incomes are up. Unemployment is down. Poverty is down. Those indicate that the lower economic tiers are benefiting as well.

Someone else jumped to the tax cuts, and I've just been correcting the misinformation put out about it. Just because I'm against it doesn't mean I think people should lie about it.

If you think six figures is wealthy...what's your plan to get there?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20630  (isolation #66)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:04 am

In post 20566, Persivul wrote:
In post 20557, Papa Zito wrote:I too enjoy watching the rich get richer.

Why do you watch the rich?

Getting back to this...

There's one productive answer to the question. That is: To learn how to get rich myself. Watching the rich in the media probably isn't going to help much. But, for those of you who see a six figure income as being rich, yeah, you can watch those people, and talk to them, and figure out how to get there yourself.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20632  (isolation #67)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:38 am

In post 20631, Psyche wrote:there are plenty of productive reasons to watch the rich besides w/ effort to join them

In general, yes. In this context, none that I can see. Dwelling on income inequality doesn't seem to make people any happier, or reduce the inequality.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20634  (isolation #68)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:58 am

In post 20633, Psyche wrote:you said yourself that higher taxes on the wealthy would be better for the whole country...

Yes, and?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20636  (isolation #69)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:18 am

In post 20635, Psyche wrote:what do you think dwelling on income inequality "in this context" is generally aimed at

I don't think it has a concrete aim. It seems mostly like bitching by people with an external locus of control. I try to give them a kick toward an internal locus of control.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20637  (isolation #70)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:20 am

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 4213506215
The results indicate supporters for the two major parties are wired differently, in line with previous findings about ideology. Democrats were driven by an external locus of control and Republicans by an internal locus.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20639  (isolation #71)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:35 am

In post 20638, Papa Zito wrote:I'm already there.

How did you get there?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20641  (isolation #72)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:40 am

In post 20640, Psyche wrote:...the aim is generally redistribution through taxation and other regulations like a higher minimum wage

For the typical individual, personal effort will have a far greater impact on their situation than such measures. Time spent bitching here is an extremely inefficient way to get more money.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20643  (isolation #73)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:59 am

We're not talking about self-sufficient people putting in plenty of effort. We're talking about largely lower-income people (so I'm told) bitching on the internet.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20644  (isolation #74)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:02 am

In post 20641, Persivul wrote:
In post 20640, Psyche wrote:...the aim is generally redistribution through taxation and other regulations like a higher minimum wage

For the typical individual, personal effort will have a far greater impact on their situation than such measures. Time spent bitching here is an extremely inefficient way to get more money.

Do you disagree?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20648  (isolation #75)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:50 am

In post 20647, shaft.ed wrote:
In post 20643, Persivul wrote:We're talking about largely lower-income people (so I'm told) bitching on the internet.

soo...that's what you think this discussion has been?

Yes. People are arguing that lower-income people didn't benefit from TCJA, and T-Bone said most people on this forum didn't benefit from it, hence the lower-income conclusion. And, yeah, people are bitching about income inequality on the internet.

Personally I'd rather it be about opportunity and success, but that doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20653  (isolation #76)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:10 am

In post 20649, zoraster wrote:It's kind of infuriating to have these discussions because (1) "I got mine through only my own hard work" and "everyone could do it if they'd just try" are both such pernicious lies

In the U.S. if you have a certain level of intelligence, plan well, and put in the work, you can be successful to the level we're discussing. I think that scummers tend to be smarter than the average bear. It will be easier for some and harder for others, but IMO personal effort has a far greater effect on one's well-being than government programs.
(2) six-figures (i.e. $100k) isn't usually the major line that left policy-makers target as the turning point between, say, the redistributed from and the redistributed to.

Yeah, I was surprised that someone considered that to be wealthy.
(3) Adding on to that, squabbling between those making 50k a year and those make 150k a year is only helpful to those who either make $1M+ a year or (more powerfully) those who don't "make" much of anything because they are already incredibly wealthy.

Because the guy making $150k a year has quite a lot in common with the person making $50k a year and not that much in common with the person whose net wealth is $100M and who can easily live off that without ever even touching the principal of that amount.

Yep. When I was 23 I was working for 50 cents over minimum wage.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20656  (isolation #77)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:19 am

In post 20655, Psyche wrote:and he's still got the dumb idea that the only reason someone itt could favor re-distributive policy is bc they're mad they personally don't make six figures

I think people favor redistribution of wealth largely because they have an external locus of control, as I noted.

I'm also trying to encourage people who want more to look internally, as that's much more likely to be effective.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20658  (isolation #78)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:22 am

I also think that there are successful people who claim to favor governmental redistribution of wealth because it makes them feel less guilty about not personally redistributing more of their own wealth.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20659  (isolation #79)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:23 am

In post 20656, Persivul wrote:
In post 20655, Psyche wrote:and he's still got the dumb idea that the only reason someone itt could favor re-distributive policy is bc they're mad they personally don't make six figures

I think people favor redistribution of wealth largely because they have an external locus of control, as I noted.

I'm also trying to encourage people who want more to look internally, as that's much more likely to be effective.

In post 20657, Psyche wrote:this contrasts with your recent posting where you made the insightful argument that posting in this thread about disliking donald trump is not an efficient way to make money

No, that's part of the second statement above - encouraging people to do something more productive with their time.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20695  (isolation #80)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:59 am

In post 20692, Psyche wrote:the thing is, circumstances shape a person
from birth until the end they shape not just if someone's gotten a decent education but also personality traits tied to success like conscientiousness, industriousness, and openness to experience
you can't really cleanly separate a person from their circumstances and treat that as a basis for blaming most failure on the people failing
and again, this is a massive distraction from the possibility of worthwhile discussion

If you're going to be deterministic there's NO possibility of worthwhile discussion. you can't blame people for failing. You can't blame Trump for whatever he does. You can't blame Trump followers for following. It's all determined by genetics and circumstances.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20698  (isolation #81)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:32 pm

You can consider determinism and personal agency however you like, as long as you're consistent. Rationalizing why you can blame Trump supporters, but can't blame people for failing financially, doesn't hold up.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20702  (isolation #82)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:46 pm

In post 20692, Psyche wrote:the thing is, circumstances shape a person
from birth until the end they shape not just if someone's gotten a decent education but also personality traits tied to success like conscientiousness, industriousness, and openness to experience
you can't really cleanly separate a person from their circumstances and treat that as a basis for blaming most failure on the people failing
and again, this is a massive distraction from the possibility of worthwhile discussion

^Here. Unless you're now going to claim you were referring to any kind of failure except financial?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20703  (isolation #83)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:48 pm

In post 20679, Psyche wrote:imo this discussion has taken a useless course and i blame persival for it

You're blaming me? Aren't my responses a result of my past experiences, genetics, etc.?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20710  (isolation #84)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:55 pm

In post 20705, Psyche wrote:i said you can't used that flawed worldview as a basis for near-universal blame
please man why do you keep doing this
why do you misread every other post you respond to?

Because you're a crappy communicator maybe? :P

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20711  (isolation #85)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:56 pm

In post 20708, Psyche wrote:i know im being a bit coarse but you've got to understand how annoying it is to apparently have to repeat myself over and over again to an audience i believe to consist mainly of educated adults

Maybe it's you then...just sayin...

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20714  (isolation #86)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:00 pm

If you were actually using paragraphs and punctuation and such, maybe I'd be able to break it down.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20725  (isolation #87)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:14 pm

In post 20722, Psyche wrote:Okay! All I'm saying is, we can juggle two ideas in our heads at the same time! We can understand that events are caused by past events. And! And we can understand that people and their values, beliefs, decision processes are *among* the events that cause events! It's possible to take a long view of what shapes a person without ignoring the person's agency. A guy can join the KKK because of a lifetime of grooming and inculcation into a racist ideology and be blameworthy for choosing to join the KKK.

That's a pretty NSS observation.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20731  (isolation #88)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:54 pm

In post 20728, Psyche wrote:But I raise this question: what is blame for, here? To me, it looks like blame is used as an excuse to avoid action about the situation beyond condemning the person blamed!

Yes, there's some truth to that. Once you acknowledge that individuals can in fact better themselves through hard work and smart choices:
- There's not much responsibility to help them
- Helping them can actually be counterproductive, as it counters the message that they're capable of such action themselves.

A lot of the #blacknotdemocrat posts last week were by blacks who are insulted that white liberals treat them as incapable of succeeding on their own.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20734  (isolation #89)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:15 pm

In post 20732, Flubbernugget wrote:Lmao stop blaming others and learn to read.

There's plenty of people who write semantic/syntactic messes on this site but psyche isn't one of them

Congrats on showing how intelligence doesn't follow success tho

Oh please, there's a difference between and . If he had just given the clarification without the snark it would have been fine.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20737  (isolation #90)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:22 pm

I get that people are often in a hurry and/or on their phones when posting, and quality suffers. No problem. Just clarify, instead of whining or insulting.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20739  (isolation #91)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:56 pm

In post 20738, Flubbernugget wrote:Use your locus of control to get over it

Wow, I somehow struck a nerve.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20741  (isolation #92)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:57 pm

Don't bother on my account, I'm probably done.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20743  (isolation #93)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:59 pm

Rather, your prior life experiences are FORCING you to bother.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20748  (isolation #94)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:20 pm

In post 20747, Psyche wrote:If I had any feedback, I'd just ask for maybe the posting be a little less terse. There were a few times, especially early, where I thought you were trying to troll because it seemed you were just trying to elicit a response rather than have a real discussion.

The questions and anticipated responses were intended to lead to real discussion. But, people made false claims about the tax cuts, one thing led to another...

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20822  (isolation #95)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:16 am

Funny thing is that Trump will win again because you guys can't admit that he knows what he's doing, and so won't develop effective counters.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20837  (isolation #96)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:36 pm

In post 20826, shaft.ed wrote:also continuing to support Trump after his overt racism and mob rallies makes me question your humanity

Yabut the thing is...IDGAF about what you think of my humanity. This was tried once already - remember the basket of deplorables? Didn't work.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20838  (isolation #97)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:38 pm

In post 20833, shaft.ed wrote:who's taking what too far?

SJWs are taking identity politics and demonization of their opponents too far.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20844  (isolation #98)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:12 pm

In post 20839, Psyche wrote:trump is, like, 80% identity politics and demonization of his opponents, though

That's how you see it, because you see everything through identity. He's fine with people of the same races, gender etc. if their positions are reasonably close to his.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20854  (isolation #99)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:21 pm

In post 20846, Psyche wrote:he literally picked out four brown women from a congress of hundreds of people and said they should "go back to their country" because they uh criticize america

Yes, he literally picked out 4 out of 47 women of color, which shows that it's about their positions, not their identity.
https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2019
47 of the 127 women serving in Congress in 2019 are women of color: 22 are Black, 13 Latina, 8 Asian American/Pacific Islander, 2 Native American, 1 Middle Eastern/North African, and 1 multiracial.

And not a week goes by that he doesn't criticize white males.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20857  (isolation #100)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:23 pm

In post 20850, kuribo wrote:ah, so people of color only have the right to exist if they agree with him?

I'm pretty sure that's called racism.

Aside from the hyperbole - no, when you base your opinion of someone on their beliefs and actions rather than their skin color, that's the exact opposite of racism.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20860  (isolation #101)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:25 pm

In post 20856, kuribo wrote:he literally defended the white males who murdered a fucking counter-protester while waving torches and nazi flags and chanting about "the Jews."

No clue what you're talking about.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20873  (isolation #102)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:31 pm

In post 20862, RadiantCowbells wrote:Good people on both sides, both sides.

Oh that? Debunked ages ago. Need the quotes?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20881  (isolation #103)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:36 pm

In post 20863, Psyche wrote:trump literally said a judge couldn't impartially decide a case because the judge was latino

No, he said that one particular judge was biased because he was very proud of his mexican heritage. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's certainly possible.
but im the one who sees everything through identity

Yeah, pretty much.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20884  (isolation #104)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:38 pm

In post 20864, kuribo wrote:Oh, I guess it's easy to be stupid as hell when you're a fucking liar.

He said "There are fine people on both sides" when one of those sides was THE FUCKING NEO NAZIS.

You doorknob.

That's been debunked many times. Trump went on to say: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 39815.html

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20891  (isolation #105)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:42 pm

In post 20867, Psyche wrote:also what does the count of women of color in congress have to do with what i said..?

If it's about women of color, he would say such things about all of them. He doesn't. He talks about 4, because it's not about gender or color, it's about their positions.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20902  (isolation #106)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:51 pm

In post 20880, Psyche wrote:do you genuinely believe trump has never said anything publicly that a reasonable person would interpret to suggest racial or gendered animus

No. He's talking constantly, and there are some comments that in isolation could be interpreted that way. His overall record shows otherwise.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20905  (isolation #107)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:53 pm

In post 20887, kuribo wrote:
In post 20884, Persivul wrote:
In post 20864, kuribo wrote:Oh, I guess it's easy to be stupid as hell when you're a fucking liar.

He said "There are fine people on both sides" when one of those sides was THE FUCKING NEO NAZIS.

You doorknob.

That's been debunked many times. Trump went on to say: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 39815.html



So when someone says something that they're roundly criticized for, they should be taken at their word when they make half ass excuses?

Dude just admit your President is a fucking cum rag

Read the link. The quote condemning them is from the same press conference: "After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:"

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20907  (isolation #108)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:01 pm

In post 20893, chamber wrote:I'm blown away here. What kind of people do you think go to an event like that? Him paying lip service to not meaning the neo-nazis or white nationalists after the fact doesn't change that that was -everyone- on that side.

It doesn't matter what I think or you think, and neither of us knows. Trump thought there were people there who weren't neo-nazis or white nationalists but rather were concerned about preservation of history.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20911  (isolation #109)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:06 pm

In post 20903, kuribo wrote:If you're talking constantly, and you say enough racist things to compile a list of racist things, guess what dingleberry?

THAT PERSON IS A FUCKING RACIST

Sure - but I haven't seen such a list. Most of the examples given don't stand up to scrutiny.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20915  (isolation #110)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:11 pm

In post 20910, Irrelephant11 wrote:Genuine question, not from an angry place: Do you believe that Trump was politely requesting three of these four women step down from their positions to "return" to the United States?

Actually I went back and looked at the tweet, and he doesn't specify a number. He said progressive democrat congresswomen who came from another country. Omar is from Somalia. Tlaib was born in the US to Palestinian immigrants. So, you can charge him with being loose on Tlaib being from another country.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20916  (isolation #111)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:14 pm

In post 20912, kuribo wrote:If you think that Trump thought people at a neo-Nazi rally for a racist traitorous General weren't also neo-Nazis, then you're making the case that president Trump is an idiot. Like straight up you're telling me he so fucking stupid he thought not everyone at a neo Nazi rally was a neoNazi.

An intelligent person can be mistaken. Happens all the time.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20927  (isolation #112)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:30 pm

In post 20914, Irrelephant11 wrote:Again, genuine question: To use the word "racist" in reference to Trump is it important to you that more than one example stand up to scrutiny?

Yes. I think pretty much all people are racist. It's a matter of extent, and more importantly, a matter of action. Here's a study showing that white college students are more afraid of blacks than whites:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 7211408617
We're hard wired to sort people by appearance, be it race, age, clothing, etc. and to be more wary of likes than unlikes. So, if someone has isolated statements that don't include obvious slurs but could be interpreted as racist, I'm not crying racist, I'll give them a pass and look at their actions.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20929  (isolation #113)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:32 pm

In post 20921, chennisden wrote:trump is far from intelligent these days

We have a great economy, and the only wars we're in were preexisting, so I'll take Trump's stupidity for 5 more years.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20935  (isolation #114)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:49 pm

In post 20931, Irrelephant11 wrote:By "it's a matter of extent", do you mean that the word "racist" should only be used to publicly describe a person whose words and actions are racist over and above a certain threshold?

Yes. When everyone's racist, no one's racist.
If yes, do you also believe that for anyone below the threshold, to describe them as "racist" is morally wrong?

Morally I'd say it's a matter of consistency. Look at yourself, look at your own groups, and judge them the same way - that's fine. But hell, we have lefties who say that one can't be racist against whites. Yeah, I'd say that's morally wrong. I think it's wrong to say all supporters of Trump are racist because some KKK people endorsed him (and I was actually told that). It's even more wrong when David Duke praises Ilhan Omar, and you don't then call all her supporters racist.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20939  (isolation #115)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:54 pm

In post 20934, kuribo wrote:Saying racist things is a racist action.

This is a good example of the same principle. The expression actions speak louder than words has been around for a long time and all or most of you understand my meaning. But, yes, technically you can argue that words are actions.

That's the point where you start losing people in the middle.
Last edited by Persivul on Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20944  (isolation #116)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:00 pm

I think part of the problem here is generational. I was born shortly after the I Have a Dream speech, in which the goal was a society in which race wasn't even considered. Today's left rather wants to view everything through the lens of race (and gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20948  (isolation #117)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:03 pm

In post 20942, shaft.ed wrote:appreciate your concern
but you have the wrong side losing people in the middle
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politic ... back-tweet

it's the racists

According to the polls, Hillary is president. Go figure.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20957  (isolation #118)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:10 pm

In post 20949, kuribo wrote:And what happened to the guy that made that speech?

Oh right he got murdered by a white supremacist.

Yes, actually that made the people of that generation more committed to his message, so I don't see your point.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20962  (isolation #119)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:13 pm

In post 20952, Irrelephant11 wrote:Okay - I think President Trump is in the top third of racists in our country, given he has certainly said some racist things in very public forums (take your pick on which ones you find legitimately racist vs. overblown)

Before you leave - do you therefore consider all Trump supporters to be in your tier of blatant racists?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20965  (isolation #120)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:15 pm

In post 20955, kuribo wrote:Actions absolutely speak louder than words, and his actions include defending racists [i.e.words] and saying racist things [i.e. words].

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20969  (isolation #121)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:18 pm

In post 20959, shaft.ed wrote:who's calling all white people evil?

No one. It's just white cis hetero males.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... be-epithet

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20972  (isolation #122)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:22 pm

In post 20966, kuribo wrote:You're being intentionally disingenuous if you're trying to claim that speaking isn't an action indicative of intent.

But hey, why should we assume the people in Charlottesville were racist just because they shouted about Jews not replacing them? Why should we assume someone is racist just because they shout "Heil Hitler?"

You're not even arguing in good faith. Typical republican.

I said that explicit slurs indicate racism, and I think people get that I consider those things count as explicit.

Those are the people who Trump said should be totally condemned.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20974  (isolation #123)  » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:24 pm

In post 20970, Irrelephant11 wrote:I'm not sure "tier of blatant racists" is quite the same thing as what I meant, but giving you the benefit of the doubt on that rewording: No. I don't think every person who supports Trump is racist to the same level as Trump, and I think there are more than zero actively anti-racist Trump supporters.

And that's reasonable.
At the same time, I do think the average Trump supporter is more racist than the average American. kbye

Maybe if you accept the notion that one can't be racist against whites.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21192  (isolation #124)  » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:28 am

Good news - racism has declined since the election of Trump:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3378076
We find that via most measures, white Americans' expressed anti-Black and anti-Hispanic prejudice declined after the 2016 campaign and election, and we can rule out even small increases in the expression of prejudice.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21200  (isolation #125)  » Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:47 am

In post 21197, Fluminator wrote:For the record I suspect that scientific study is garbage and biased, but I remember the last time someone posted a heavily biased study in favour of a liberal viewpoint here, and I doubted it, people came in saying I shouldn't doubt science and that people like me was why public opinion was moving against science in general.
So...

It's from a reputable university. It's longitudinal, which is a big plus. They're not biased toward Trump - they went into it expecting an increase in racism, and they try to spin it so that Trump is racist, but his racism somehow led to a decrease in the nation.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21205  (isolation #126)  » Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:53 am

FWIW they broke it down by Republican v. Democrat and found declines in both groups.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21242  (isolation #127)  » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:27 am

Mueller testifies, and not a single post in the Trump thread... wonder why... :lol:

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21262  (isolation #128)  » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:24 am

In post 21255, GreyICE wrote:Man it's so weird seeing Percy support Trump. He cheated on his wife. He had sex with prostitutes. He's been on the cover of playboy and has a long history with them and Hugh Hefner. He supported abortions. He clearly supports sex before marriage, promiscuity, and frequent sexual liasons. He's been recorded discussing sexual assault

Nothing besides the sexual assault and the prostitutes bothers me, but it's interesting to see that so-called "Christians" give exactly zero shits about this stuff when the chips are down. It's what I've always suspected, their morality is as fake as their god. I mean which of the "deadly sins" does he actually miss? Pride? Wrath? Greed? Gluttony? Lust? Envy? Sloth? He pulls a hat trick on the seven. Yet they're fine endorsing him, because in the end, the only value of religion is to give you a team to root for, and he's on Team Jeebus.

Just root for a sports team. Healthier in every way than a religion.

Yeah, the guy's a slimeball personally, but he's doing a great job as president. I can recognize the good that a person despite the evil that they do. Otherwise, I'd never have anything good to say about anyone, myself included.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21265  (isolation #129)  » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:16 am

Lots of things that I don't feel like listing - but Christian role model isn't one of them.

Heck, I've said that Bill Clinton had a successful presidency and he's a rapist.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21267  (isolation #130)  » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:46 am

Apparently.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21269  (isolation #131)  » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:20 am

Not really. I doubt your sincerity.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21271  (isolation #132)  » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:37 am

I've got to ask, what has Donald Trump done?

Booming economy. Extremely low unemployment. Big losses in territory for ISIS. Standing up to China on trade. Talks with North Korea. Corporate tax cuts putting us on par with the rest of the world. Big boost to business optimism.

Because putting aside moral judgments of what he's been trying to accomplish, it's inarguable he's crap at accomplishing it. His border wall fence is a two/ten/whatever mile section of fencing on a 1,954 mile long border. While I'm fine with it coming out of defense spending - it's a giant waste of money, but that's our defense spending in general, and once a new president comes in we can end it and automatically reduce defense spending in one move - I can't see how anyone can argue that makes us safer. A couple miles of fencing is not going to affect a border that's almost two thousand miles long in any way.

He just got cleared by SCOTUS to use those funds on the wall three days ago.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21274  (isolation #133)  » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:52 am

In post 21273, Maruchan wrote:On second thought you doubted my sincerity because you knew your statement was inaccurate and expected me to be calling you on it rather than being genuinely curious as I was.

Guilty conscious much my guy?

No, I doubt your sincerity. If you follow politics and were around during the Clinton years, you heard of Juanita Broaddrick's allegations. If you don't believe her, that's fine. But I'm not going to dick around with someone who's playing dumb.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21275  (isolation #134)  » Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:01 pm

Sorry - missed this:
In post 21272, Maruchan wrote:
In post 21269, Persivul wrote:Not really. I doubt your sincerity.

I'm sorry I'm 25
I wasnt alive and reading the news during the clinton presidency like you were.

OK, look up Juanita Broaddrick.
I have never once been anything but 100% genuine on this site and I dont understand why you by default paint me with a brush of dishonedty.

People anywhere to the right of center on this site tend to assume they're being baited with every question. Most of the time they're right.

However, I googled it and I didn't miss anything. He hasn't been convicted of any crimes apparently which is what I thought you were implying. He's as much a rapist as trump is, so yeah they're both bad guys. (Y)

Exactly. I can consider their presidencies apart from their personal faults.
Sorry for assuming you were making your statements in good faith and based on the court of law and not vilifying an innocent until proven guilty American in the court of public opinion.

Won't happen again, I'll stop giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just spouting rhetoric and hyperbole to stick to your preconceived notions.


Oh and fuck you.

I wasn't talking to you in the first place you know. I was talking to people who quite freely make charges against (Republican) presidents even though there's been no conviction on such charges in a court of law.

In the future, don't jump into the middle of a conversation using different standards than those employed in that conversation. You'll avoid confusion that way.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21292  (isolation #135)  » Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:10 am

In post 21279, Maruchan wrote:I didnt jump in the middle of a conversation, I completely ignored the conversation, because I wasnt a part of the dogpile on you, and asked a simple question about a statement because I took your words at face value. And they confused me and I question my knowledge constantly instead of assuming I know better than everyone around me. So I thought you had knowledge I could benefit from, and ignored any political differences we have (which you are unaware of because you dont know my political leanings and ideals) to ask you a simple question and was attacked for it

My apologies - although I don't think calling you insincere is much of an attack, and doesn't warrant your response.
Last edited by Persivul on Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21293  (isolation #136)  » Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:12 am

In post 21280, Maruchan wrote:So being a rapist doesn't disqualify oneself from the presidency. What does?

Being under 35, not born in the US, or anything that a majority of the house and 2/3 of the senate can agree on.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21294  (isolation #137)  » Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:17 am

In post 21283, T-Bone wrote:I'd be interested in hearing what you think 'the economy booming' means. Because people at the lower end of the country economically are consistently seeing their situations get worse. 48% of people in the country could not survive an unexpected expense of $400 without having to borrow from family and friends or take out a loan, and that number continues to grow.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/eme ... index.html
Four in ten Americans can't, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Board. Those who don't have the cash on hand say they'd have to cover it by borrowing or selling something.

The bright side? That's an improvement from half of adults being unable to cover such an expense in 2013. The number has been ticking down each year since.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21298  (isolation #138)  » Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:44 pm

In post 21295, T-Bone wrote:Okay, I'm glad that the number has been updated slightly. Looks like the gains from President Obama's policies, but that's neither here nor there.

Still, whatever number it happens to be, we can agree that the economy doesnt work for those people right?

No, we can't agree on a vague term like "doesn't work."

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21300  (isolation #139)  » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:53 am

Good increases in GDP. Very low unemployment. Strong stock markets. Increases in wages - with lower earners increasing more than the higher as a percentage.

http://www.aei.org/publication/wages-ri ... e-workers/

Image

Image

one figure in my post (which was a valid! figure if not updated a few percentage points)

No, 40% and falling for years is a lot different from 48% and rising for years.

Where did you get your numbers BTW?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21328  (isolation #140)  » Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:07 am

In post 21323, theplague42 wrote:Imagine thinking that "our guy is the only one not being transparent, so this transparency law is a political attack" is a good defense.

Pretty sure it's unnecessary, as I doubt it's legal for a state to add to the requirements for a national office, but: as an addition, yeah, it's a pretty good defense.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21348  (isolation #141)  » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:46 pm

In post 21346, Garmr wrote:I shake my head in disappointment when trump tries to blame violent video games for the shootings. It's like trying to blame them for sexism it's been proven that video games don't increase tendencies for either.

The APA's 2015 resolution strongly disagrees with you.
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21353  (isolation #142)  » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:33 pm

Yeah - other countries don't have the second amendment. We do. It's not going anywhere.

Trump's trying to get some legislation passed that will help to decrease these acts, but still, with the number of guns we have - they're not going away either.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21357  (isolation #143)  » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:40 pm

In post 21355, chamber wrote:Most people that talk about gun reform aren't talking about removing the second amendment. The types of weapons that can be owned is already limited in may ways.

Most people that talk about gun reform aren't talking about anything specific at all. They're just expressing outrage after a recent shooting.

Obama recently said there are laws that could prevent or reduce such shootings. Well...what are they, and why the fuck didn't he pass them during the two years he had a Democrat congress?

Illinois is highly Democrat. Why the fuck don't they pass laws to stop all the gun deaths in Chicago?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21384  (isolation #144)  » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:53 am

In post 21363, Kublai Khan wrote:We'd have a whole less mass shootings if we had more socialism.

Yep. People wouldn't be able to afford guns.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21560  (isolation #145)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:14 am

In post 21387, Panzerjager wrote:Healthcare + no guns, sign me up

If you guys really thought that Trump was a fascist dictator who intends to remain in power after 2024, you wouldn't want to take guns away.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21561  (isolation #146)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:24 am

In post 21389, kuribo wrote:Jesus was a long-haired, dark-skinned Jewish

Yes.
socialist

No. A number of his parables portrayed capitalism favorably.
who lived in a hippie commune

No. He traveled about and stayed with followers.
with twelve unmarried men

No. Paul said, "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the other Apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" And in the gospels, Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law.
and gave away free food and free healthcare

Yet, when the people wanted to make him king due to the free food, he rejected them.
while advocating non-violence and telling the rich to get rid of their wealth.

Yes, he advised private charity.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21563  (isolation #147)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:28 am

In post 21390, Psyche wrote:don't really remember much socialism in the bible

There was one socialist period - in Acts, when the mystery of the gentiles had not yet been revealed and the believers thought the end was imminent. Therefore, it made sense for them to sell their lands in order to support evangelism. Other than that, it was basically capitalism with regulaations, such as prohibition against usury.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21564  (isolation #148)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:32 am

In post 21391, shaft.ed wrote:dont remember guns either

There weren't guns specifically, but there were other weapons. David, one of the greatest figures in the Bible, was an accomplished warrior, and the line to the messiah ran through him. OTOH, it's interesting to note that David was then not allowed to build the temple because he was a man of blood. That went to Solomon.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21565  (isolation #149)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:36 am

In post 21397, GreyICE wrote:Socialism specifically isn't a charity, it simply means that workers own the means of production.

Consider the parable of the vineyard owner. The bad guys were the workers, who seized the vineyard (the means of production) from the owner. Jesus wasn't socialist.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21566  (isolation #150)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:55 am

In post 21532, Skygazer wrote:i for one find straight marriage immoral and should b banned

Why?

Everyone's approaching marriage as if it's only to be judged by personal opinion. Does anyone consider the effects on society?

Banning straight marriage would be catastrophic to society.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21569  (isolation #151)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:04 am

In post 21540, GreyICE wrote:I dunno man, I have trouble taking moral lessons from a book that says "deformed people are evil". It just seems like there's a problem where it's obvious horseshit.

First, it doesn't say that. Second, the Bible seems to be a better source of guidance on the subject than modern secular western thought, which is moving toward deformed people are inconvenient - kill them before they're born.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21571  (isolation #152)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:14 am

In post 21567, Panzerjager wrote:So let me get this straight. Your plan in the face of autocracy is to fight the most well-funded military, as well as one of the most well-trained ones, with a militia armed with gunshow assault rifles?

Yep. I think 100 million people with private guns could beat 1 million trained soldiers, particularly considering that most of those soldiers would probably refuse orders to forcibly occupy their own country.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21576  (isolation #153)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:18 am

In post 21573, chamber wrote:I think it's actually fair to say gorilla warfare would be effective (it's been effective plenty of times vs the US army without the obvious moral issues that would exist in turning it against its own country). My question is why is his first thought that the most effective way to oppose a would be dictator trump is with physical force rather than politics.

If he's going to abide by politics, he's not a would-be dictator.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21578  (isolation #154)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:49 am

In post 21577, chamber wrote:He's only one man. Others need to listen to him.

Are you arguing that his rabid racist gun-totin' following really isn't a significant thing?

If so, I agree.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21580  (isolation #155)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:02 am

So, not a significant thing in context of this discussion, which is about Trump being/aspiring to be a dictator.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21587  (isolation #156)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:05 am

In post 21581, Ginngie wrote:I quote Bill Barr
"We need to get back to basics. We need public voices, in the media and elsewhere, to underscore the need to “Comply first, and, if warranted, complain later.” This will make everyone safe – the police, suspects, and the community at large. And those who resist must be prosecuted for that crime. We must have zero tolerance for resisting police. This will save lives."


That's a police state

No, a police state is when you're not allowed to complain later.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21600  (isolation #157)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:18 pm

In post 21593, Psyche wrote:why are all you guys accepting persival's premise that trump's a fascist dictator who intends to remain in power after 2024...

That clearly isn't my premise.

My premise is that there are those on the left who claim to think that Trump is or intends to be a fascist dictator. Here's a couple examples:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ough-laugh
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/26/politics ... index.html

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21606  (isolation #158)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:47 pm

What exactly are you guys suggesting?

If you're driving and the police are behind you with flashing lights, do you think pulling over should be optional?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21609  (isolation #159)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:14 pm

In post 21606, Persivul wrote:What exactly are you guys suggesting?

If you're driving and the police are behind you with flashing lights, do you think pulling over should be optional?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21620  (isolation #160)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:57 pm

In post 21610, Skygazer wrote:yes that is exactly what im suggesting and not at all a bad faith misrepresentation of our arguments

I really don't know what you're arguing. Barr said people should obey the law and cooperate with police - that that would reduce harm on both sides. I don't see what's wrong with that. I'm not sure that you guys even have a real argument. It just seems like outrage.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21631  (isolation #161)  » Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:24 pm

In post 21623, Skygazer wrote:im saying that even people who cooperate w the law/police are harassed, beaten and even killed by cops so clearly cooperation isn't helping

I think it's reasonable to assume that people who don't cooperate have a much higher chance of being killed.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21650  (isolation #162)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:49 am

In post 21635, GreyICE wrote:I'm suggesting that you do not have a duty to follow an illegal order. For instance if a cop tells you not to film something with your phone, you can pull your phone out and start filming the cop. If the cop tells you to strip naked and give him a blowjob, you do not have a duty to follow that order. If the cop tells you to "just keep walking" when you see him beating someone, you don't have to walk away.

If you're driving a car and a cop pulls you over, you have a duty to pull over (in a safe and reasonable manner).

Grasp the difference? Compliance is NOT a requirement when cops issue an illegal order.

NSS.

Do you seriously think that Barr meant that you have to give a blow job to a cop if he tells you to?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21656  (isolation #163)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:21 pm

In post 21652, Psyche wrote:think of it this way: just like socialists generally don't mean to slow down the economy or whatever with their policies, the blowjob scenario is something that becomes more plausible in a country where noncompliance w police is more dangerous.

If we're going to argue slippery slopes, we can also say that crime will be more prevalent in a country where noncompliance with police is less dangerous.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21657  (isolation #164)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:23 pm

In post 21653, Psyche wrote:He's inarguably saying we should obey cops even when we believe their orders aren't lawful

No, I'd argue against that.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21658  (isolation #165)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:25 pm

In post 21654, GreyICE wrote:Do I believe that Barr meant "Stop filming cops when they tell you to stop filming them?" Do I believe that Barr wants you to allow cops to search without a warrant? Yes.

You can believe whatever you'd like. He didn't actually say that. From my POV, there's just a lot of TDS on this forum.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21663  (isolation #166)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:47 pm

In post 21659, Psyche wrote:ok go ahead because i don't see how his comments can be interpreted as anything other than "comply with orders you disagree with now and complain about those orders later" i feel like i'm literally just paraphrasing him

He was referring to "a suspect’s violent resistance to police." I disagree that it's paraphrasing to stretch that to videotaping police, or any unlawful order in general. To me, even if a cop unlawfully orders someone to stop filming, that doesn't give the person the right to violently assault the cop.

He also said "I am not suggesting there are never abuses. As with all human institutions there are sometimes bad apples; and we will deal with that. But these are very much the exceptions, not the rule. If anything, I continue to be amazed at the professionalism of our police officers in the most extreme circumstances." I don't read this as a license for cops to kill people.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21664  (isolation #167)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:52 pm

In post 21661, GreyICE wrote:Okay, so your view is that when Barr said "comply first, and, if warranted, complain later." what he meant was "you have no duty to comply with unlawful orders given by a police officer, only lawfully given ones."

See above. He was referring to instances of violence against police. If you think that a person's belief that an order is unlawful gives them the right to violently resist, you're advocating anarchy.
I guess being a Christian primes you to hear words and interpret them as meaning exactly the opposite of their clear meaning when it's convenient to do so. If you're not used to doublethink the entire religion makes no sense.

I'd say that being an angry atheist primes you to hear snippets and draw broad (and incorrect) conclusions, rather than actually reading and contemplating full texts.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21665  (isolation #168)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:53 pm

In post 21662, Ginngie wrote:Anything you dont understand is conveniently always because you're too stupid to understand god

No, it's not about intelligence. It's mostly about judgment.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21666  (isolation #169)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:55 pm

Previously, it was well understood that, regardless of the circumstances, physical resistance is unacceptable because it necessarily leads to a spiral of escalating violence that endangers the safety of the officer, the suspect, and all in the vicinity. For that reason, virtually all jurisdictions have made resistance a serious crime.

I don't see this as an extreme statement, and it's the root of the comments you guys posted.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21670  (isolation #170)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:28 pm

In post 21668, chamber wrote:physical resistance isn't the same thing as violent resistance, which is how you re-framed it.

I didn't re-frame anything. I took it from the actual speech.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21672  (isolation #171)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:36 pm

In post 21669, GreyICE wrote:That's ridiculous. If a police officer is acting unlawfully, they are no longer an agent of the law.

Except in egregious circumstances, you're wrong. A cop doesn't lose authority the moment they make an incorrect assessment of a situation and give an order which turns out to be unlawful.
If the idea is that there are specially empowered agents with the ability to determine "law" on the fly, that's not rule of law, that is a police state.

You're proposing just that - that citizens have the ability to determine law on the fly.

And the really amazing thing is that this isn't some hick from Kentucky with a family tree that looks like a vine, this is the attorney general of the United States of America. If there's anyone who should understand these distinctions, it's him - in theory. Yet here you are, once again having to explain what one of Trump's brilliant appointments "really meant." Does it ever get tiring apologizing for so many people who have no respect for the constitution or the rule of law?

One of Trump's brilliant appointments? Are you aware that this is his second stint in the position? The first was under the first Bush, when he was confirmed by a Democrat majority senate.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21673  (isolation #172)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:40 pm

In post 21671, Psyche wrote:people are saying barr said that cops' orders should be followed and then complained about later if one thinks they're improper or unlawful

and i think you're overcontexualizing when you say the quote is just in reference to violent resistance to police; the quote mentions "complain" rather than something more violent. I think it's pretty clear he's espousing a general principle that would address the specific case of violent resistance.

Have you actually read the full speech?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/atto ... lices-64th

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21680  (isolation #173)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:49 pm

In post 21674, Psyche wrote:and yeah, i agree with greyice that self-defense is self-defense
if a cop tries to use physical force to execute an unlawful order, it's completely appropriate for someone to resist it, even violently
god save them in the courts though

You're proposing just that - that citizens have the ability to determine law on the fly.

no, citizens have the ability to interpret the law on the fly
they're accountable for misinterpretations just like a cop is

In post 21676, Psyche wrote:
In post 21672, Persivul wrote:Except in egregious circumstances, you're wrong. A cop doesn't lose authority the moment they make an incorrect assessment of a situation and give an order which turns out to be unlawful.

i'm unsure if this is true or not. can you provide any evidence?

Sure - all those court cases you're referring to. :)

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21681  (isolation #174)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:57 pm

In post 21679, Psyche wrote:if we interpret barr's statement in the most charitable way possible (which is respectful to do) to refer to situations of 1) genuine ambiguity 2) where stakes are low (e.g. a lit or unlit cigarette) then his advice is sound. Maybe he really is terrible, maybe he screwed up and left out these caveats, whatever. Let's be charitable.

Yes, and further, let's consider his audience - cops in a professional organization. In that context, it's natural that he would leave out such caveats. His audience presumably understands them already and don't need them spelled out.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21682  (isolation #175)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:15 pm

In post 21677, Kublai Khan wrote:Can you square Barr's recommendations of compliance with situations like the Eric Garner incident in New York?

Yes, that's pretty obvious. If Garner had complied first and complained later, he'd probably be alive today.
Did you know there is a history of minorities being harassed and terrorized by police that we are only recently getting documentation of because of cell phones being widely available? Did you know that for decades if minorities complained against police the most likely course of events is that harassment would escalate? Lives have been ruined because racist cops have used their authority as a weapon. Then they've been backed up by a organization that favors their word over a complainant's word.

In the Garner case, it was a grand jury, not an internal police board. Some jurisdictions have citizen review boards. Some jursidictions are using body cameras so that there's objective evidence of encounters. These are all good ideas. Physically resisting cops isn't a good idea.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21694  (isolation #176)  » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:27 am

In post 21683, kuribo wrote:
In post 21682, Persivul wrote:Yes, that's pretty obvious. If Garner had complied first and complained later, he'd probably be alive today.


I mean, or we could have punished the police officer who killed the man in broad daylight what what even his own superiors called an "illegal chokehold."

The job of police is not to escalate a situation to the death of a citizen. Regardless of anything else, NYPD did not allow the use of the chokehold.

You'd rather have Garner dead and the policeman punished, than Garner alive, just so you can bitch about police?

Again, a grand jury was convened. That's citizens, not cops. They didn't find evidence to indict.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21695  (isolation #177)  » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:39 am

In post 21685, Kublai Khan wrote:No charges at all and the cop was never punished. Complaining afterwards didn't seem to help get justice.

Or justice was served and you just refuse to believe it. A grand jury, with more information than you, decided there wasn't evidence to indict.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21696  (isolation #178)  » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:41 am

In post 21687, theplague42 wrote:What's the point of the second amendment if citizens don't have the right to determine when it's time for violent resistance

They can determine that whenever they like. But, until it's more than a fringe element, it's not going to work.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21698  (isolation #179)  » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:50 am

In post 21690, kuribo wrote:Are you white? If yes, your second amendment rights should never be infringed.

If not, If you've ever committed the most minor offense from simple possession to selling bootleg cigarettes, you deserve to die if you question a cop.

Last year, more whites were killed by cops than all other races combined.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21699  (isolation #180)  » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:54 am

In post 21697, Psyche wrote:the grand jury could have totally decided correctly and there could still have been injustice if the laws or policing policies on the books are themselves unjust

The laws on the books are a reflection of what we as a society consider to be just. There will always be fringe elements that disagree. But, if enough people think a change needs to be made, there are ways to make the changes.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21702  (isolation #181)  » Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:15 am

In post 21701, Psyche wrote:we know, that's like what this whole conversation is about

Doesn't seem that way to me. There's no specifics being discussed. No one cares that this was indeed taken to a grand jury. It's just vague outrage.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21710  (isolation #182)  » Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:30 am

In post 21709, kuribo wrote:Yeah, I don't think "The justice system will always get it right" is a hole anyone wants to go down here.

Of course not, and Barr acknowledged that.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21721  (isolation #183)  » Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:37 pm

In post 21714, GreyICE wrote:A complete farce. What do you suppose a grand jury is?

A group of citizens who determine whether there's enough evidence to indict someone for a crime. They don't face the same evidence rules as a trial jury does, so they get to see more and ask more questions of witnesses. They presumably got more evidence than we have, and a majority of them decided there wasn't evidence of a crime. This is unusual in that grand juries almost always indict. Makes sense, as a prosecutor doesn't send a case to the grand jury unless he has evidence to indict. That suggests that this case may have gone to grand jury despite lack of evidence purposely to show that there wasn't sufficient evidence.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21727  (isolation #184)  » Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:42 pm

In post 21724, AniX wrote:It is possible he felt there wasn't enough evidence but brought it to a grand jury anyway because of public pressure, but that's different from "deliberately bringing a bad case to a grand jury to prove it is a bad case".

That's pretty much what I meant - he didn't have enough evidence but sent it anyway due to public pressure.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21728  (isolation #185)  » Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:49 pm

In post 21726, GreyICE wrote:To not get an indictment out of the Grand Jury, the prosecutor has to be actively working with the defense to try and avoid indictment.

There is no defense in a grand jury proceeding, and the grand jury is free to call for whatever evidence it wants. It's not at all limited to what the prosecutor presents.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21734  (isolation #186)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:18 am

In post 21729, GreyICE wrote:I see Percy is going to get lost on fine points, and ignore the obvious fact that in America cops murdering black people is considered a non-crime.

Blacks are killed in a higher ratio compared to their representation in the population, but again, many more whites are killed than blacks. I can't find evidence showing that officers who kill whites are more likely to suffer consequences than those who kill blacks. Do you have that? If not, what's your charge based on?

This study looked at the race of the officer involved rather than just using statistical benchmarks, and did not find racial prejudice in shootings:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
There is widespread concern about racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings and that these disparities reflect discrimination by White officers. Existing databases of fatal shootings lack information about officers, and past analytic approaches have made it difficult to assess the contributions of factors like crime. We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21753  (isolation #187)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:08 pm

In post 21736, Ginngie wrote:I love the fucking idiots that go oh white people are dying too

like that fixes the fucking problem of police brutality

like okay buddy, you've established that police brutality is across all races, not just black.

but no, still gonna sit on your hands and do nothing because the police are knights in shining armor.

I've said I support body cameras and civilian review boards. What exactly do you suggest? What exactly are you doing about it?

Less than a thousand people were killed by police last year. Presumably most of those were justified. It's just not that big of a problem.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21754  (isolation #188)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:09 pm

In post 21737, Ginngie wrote:
Spoiler: Important parts from study he linked
On a voluntary basis, departments report the number of justifiable homicides by on-duty law-enforcement officers. Not only are these shootings underreported (by ∼50%; ref. 2), such reports do not provide information about the officers or circumstances surrounding these shootings

Thus, it is important to be clear at the outset that our analyses speak to racial disparities in the subset of shootings that result in fatalities, and not officers’ decisions to use lethal force more generally.


The database they use is heavily unreliable

They talk about racial demographics, and don't get into racial bias.

Also, the study is a very narrow window of what they term as FOIS, Fatal Officer Involved Shootings. It doesn't account for the times where it was not fatal, nor when it was used at all.

So it's really a big ball of nothing

That's how it usually is here. You guys give nothing but opinion, and nitpick the quality of the actual evidence I present.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21755  (isolation #189)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:12 pm

In post 21738, GreyICE wrote:Percy, the grand jury ruled that a cop killing a black man has no possibility of being a crime. That is what they’re for, after all. We just said so. They are to see if it’s possible that a crime was committed. And as we both agree they ruled, a cop strangling a black man to death has no chance of being one.

Is your brain just a squirrel cage of canned responses?

They found insufficient evidence to charge the cop with strangling the man. It's not surprising - you generally can't strangle someone in the 7 seconds that the cop used the hold, and the target had asthma, diabetes, a grossly enlarged heart, and weighed 395 pounds.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21756  (isolation #190)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:12 pm

In post 21740, Ginngie wrote:Also Uncle Toms

Aaaaaannnnnd....there it is. The real racists show their colors.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21757  (isolation #191)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:14 pm

In post 21743, GreyICE wrote:I mean all you have to be is a fucking asshole, and realize that being an asshole to black people is easier than being an asshole to white people. It's not like black people are miraculously free of the great plague of flaming jackasses that is the human condition.

According to the study I linked, it's easier to be an asshole to white people in counties with more crime committed by white people, and easier to be an asshole to black people in counties with more crime committed by black people. Go figure.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21760  (isolation #192)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:44 pm

In post 21758, Ginngie wrote:advocate for getting rid of guns that cause the killings,

How exactly? The second amendment isn't going anywhere.
police training reform where you go non-lethal before lethal methods,

Pretty sure they already do that but if not, sure, I'd support that.
mental health checks for police academy as police force and really any position of power attracts people who love to abuse power, automatic suspension or termination of employment if you're involved in a possible crime and you had the body camera off while on duty.

Sounds good.

Also, other civilized countries don't have the police killing their citizens. they struggle to either have a policeman kill someone, or reach double digits. YOU might not care about people dying unjust; doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't understand how fucked up it is.

Other countries don't have the second amendment.

You guys don't like that amendment, but pretending it isn't there doesn't help things.

also, "probably most of those were justified" is loaded and you should know that because your own study you shared with us showed that half of police actions aren't reported.

what do you suppose is the reason they're justified killings

Because in most instances the person killed had a gun or other weapon.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21761  (isolation #193)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:45 pm

In post 21759, Ginngie wrote:I used a term I didn't think was harmful, informed that it was, and stopped.

that's not racist, that's being mistaken.

but go off

One problem is that you guys go on what you've heard without taking a minute to google things all the time.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21763  (isolation #194)  » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:50 pm

In post 21762, Flubbernugget wrote:I've never seen a conservative praise a use of the second amendment that was actually just

And?

The point is that it's there and it's not going away, so saying get rid of guns has no value.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21845  (isolation #195)  » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:40 am

In post 21775, popsofctown wrote:It only takes 34 state legislatures to get a constitutional amendment passed. I feel like that could happen for the second amendment in my lifetime. Florida and Texas are full of people and would be pro-gun but each only count as 1.

38 states. Good luck with that.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21847  (isolation #196)  » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:00 am

In post 21825, AniX wrote:Yeah, it is weird phrasing if it doesn't have some sort of impact on the following right. No other Amendment, including those by the same author written at the same time, have this sort of language. It would be incredibly odd to the point of absurdity if they decide the second amendment, and the second amendment alone, required some sort of flavorful preamble that has no impact whatsoever on the language that follows.

If you're really interested in how the prefatory clause affects the operative clause, read this SCOTUS decision and opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #22012  (isolation #197)  » Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:06 am

In post 22000, T-Bone wrote:The US is actually an awful country, hate to break it to you.

An awful lot of people want to come to the US. So, what does that say if the US is awful? Those other countries are shitholes?

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #22014  (isolation #198)  » Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:52 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ation_rate

I'd say awful should be reserved for those countries in the negatives.

Persivul
His Majesty the King
 
User avatar
Joined: May 04, 2015
Pronoun: He

Post Post #22022  (isolation #199)  » Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:31 am

In post 22016, Psyche wrote:
In post 22014, Persivul wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

I'd say awful should be reserved for those countries in the negatives.

flum's whole point has been that imperialism like the US's has contributed to many of these countries' negatives. It doesn't really advance a conversation to reply to a claim like that w a list of countries in the negatives.

It wasn't a reply to flum, it was elaboration on my prior post.

Next
[ + ]

Return to General Discussion