Politics 2020

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, 213374U said:

Well, the long-winded response was predictable (didn't read it) but no videos? I mean, don't stop on my account.

seven sentences and a shrug?  am seeing the problem if you find such to be mentally taxing or daunting.

if it makes you feel better, we will happily provide a video response if you take another civil rights icon and quote him/her out of context. kinda gotta work with what you provide. 

as for oro

your insights into our background is intriguing. do continue.

with the scholarships gone, at the very least we woulda' been back at the rez for a year or two, and statistic that is not a good start to a post high school career. similar, tell us how great non-college opportunities are ignores just how much better college educated americans has done post recession .  we do not measure our personal success by our degree, and have noted we believe a degree is overrated, but ignore statistics in favor o' gut is not compelling. american companies don't agree with Gromnir, by a large margin, new jobs post recession has been for folks with college.

oh, and 

Job Losses Hit Workers Without College Degrees The Hardest

thanks to trump's inept handling o' the pandemic, his constituency (and underprivileged minority groups) has been hit particular hard by covid job losses. 

which brings us to the following...

2 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

I know this whole has been anecdotal

am glad you recognize the problem. didn't stop you.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 23, 2020 by Gromnir

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

To be fair politics, history, philosophy  and academic books are quite tend to be quite verbose and meander with abstractions rather than with concise example. That might be why the most successful academic books tend to be the ones with analogues and metaphor or those that have clear real life examples. They can be quite tough to get without projecting your own experiences to the subject.

I appreciate the sentiment, but almost all of my reading falls into these categories (currently reading Michael Sandel's new book). My recollection was that the book just was just poorly written. If I spot too many logical fallacies in the opening pages, I tend to cut my losses early.

Quote

That's mostly why I skipped the last chapter of the Leviathan but I'm thinking that it would be interesting to go back to it because I'm now more familiar with the English civil war and have a better background on that chapter....I suppose I should explain it deals with the Ecclesiastic and their authority...and that the English Civil war was fought because taxes and other economic reasons but as any other war it was framed as religious, I mean I'm sure it contributed but I'm also sure that modern revisionism helped emphasize that aspect

Leviathan is good and worth reading. Have you read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker?

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

I am curious how many of Thomas Sowell's books his fans have actually read? I have six here. Basic Economics, Knowledge and Decisions, and A Conflict of Visions are all required reading at Guard Dog U.

why on earth would you read more than one? if you think Gromnir is repetitive...

and sure, the democrats would be doing the exact same thing. we have repeated many times how the whole current Court problem is a democrat legacy o' their killing o' filibuster, a fail which obama clear learned nothing from given his john lewis eulogy.  wanna go back further? scalia had unanimous senate approval in 86. unanimous. one year later and democrat borking forever changed Justice appointments. had many decades where President's Justice appointment and senate confirmation were merit based and curiously non-political. democrats went and f'd that up and they did so to reject one o' the most impressive American legal minds o' the 20th century.

however, like it or not, this situation is the hypocrisy o' mitch, lindsey graham and others and not the democrats. IF the republicans in february o' 2016 had stated they had the votes and were gonna sit on an obama nominee come hell or high water, then they would not be facing the scorn and ridicule o' justa' 'bout every non hardcore trumper today. we will let the voters decide, rings hollow at the moment, no? the republicans tried to legitimize their power grab 'cause they didn't want torpid and indolent democrat voters to come out in numbers to reject what we all knew were gutlevel wrong at the time, but it were legal and Constitutional. don't like the Constitution? tough noogies. solution is to vote.

is nothing illegal 'bout what the republicans is doing. is skeevy and a bit underhanded, but am suspecting In The Current Political Environment, democrats would do the same. the thing is, this is not an insular choice. republicans need to win this November 'cause if democrats take back both houses o' Congress after republicans forced through a new supreme court justice in october, or worse as could be a lame duck appointment in december, there will be a reckoning come January 4, 2021. that reckoning will be Constitutional and legal.

and so the cycle will continue until somebody has the sense and courage to say, "no more."

we keep telling folks that legal and Constitutional is NOT same as right and moral. unconstitutional is never okie dokie, but Constitutional is not same as good or right or just. Constitutional gives republicans the power and the right to make a choice, and their choice will be judged, perhaps quicker than  they would hope.

"“You’ll regret this and you might regret it even sooner than you might think,” McConnell warned."

mitch were right in 2013.  the thing is, as mitch 2020 pushes ahead, he should listen to his 2013 self...

just to make #s qq

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 23, 2020 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

16 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I think you and I are on the same page for the most part. I think the original argument was "anyone can make it here". It sounds like you and I agree that isn't the case and that the ones that do probably have some advantage over those that don't.

I think where we disagree is that this is evidence against systemic racism. Someone who didn't grow up under the influence of systemic racism is probably not going to internalize it the way that someone who did would. Similarly, the fact that some minorities are wealthy and successful isn't evidence that systemic racism isn't a thing, only that some people (possibly exceptions to the rule) make it against all odds.

See that's my problem with "making it", it is such a nebulous term that it just means nothing.
My favorite definition of success comes from Dave Chappelle when talking to his father "If I can make a teacher's salary doing comedy, I think that's better than being a teacher."
Rags to riches isn't the norm but is the cultural definition for a lot of people. For my part I was arguing against the idea of systemic racism being the only form of racism. People like to throw big terms to lend credence to their argument without understanding. They will say systemic when it really just meant that they were acting  in aggressive manner and everyone reacted. The biggest problem I see with black culture is how little they hold each other accountable for bad behavior. That however might be just black celebrities that are protecting their image.

 

29 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I hear you, but again it's hard for me not to view this through the lens of learned helplessness via systemic racism. The idea that their only way out is through sports or entertainment is supported by history. It's tempting to chalk it up to a lack of character, but I think people tell themselves stories to make sense of their plight. Once enough people adopt the story, it be comes common sense.

My take is simple, who are black people most likely going to listen to: Black people or White people? Black Americans have a bigger impact on black communities simply because they gone through some of those experiences and have a better understanding of how to communicate to them. I remember Kevin Hart (I think it was the Joe Rogan Podcast) talking about how the best way to help youth in these afflicted neighborhoods is by having people that can speak to their life experience.

Making it out through sport or entertainment is only the most visible way. If you get a black lawyer or a black business owner to do community outreach, that will have a great impact. It is just that the most visible black role models are in sports or entertainment.

 

37 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Right, but which tax(es)? It sounds like you're speaking primarily about sales tax. Are the flat, meaning that everything is taxed evenly, or are something exempt and other not? I genuinely don't know as I've only paid for things in california and new york while visiting.

Look, I don't live in one of this state so my views come from far away observation and second hand anecdotal evidence. I watch a lot of Youtube and form my views from both the fact that a lot of Tubers living in these states have spoken about the subject of high taxes as well as seeing through my workplace people that have left these states. With Joe Rogan, Elon Musk and others quite visibly leaving California because of the conditions of the place, as well as all the strange problems borne out their policies. It paints a picture of  States with a high cost of living whose extremely ideological policies have devastated their States. A good example would be how California Green policies contribute to the yearly wildfires because of their refusal to do controlled fires. They also are experiencing rolling blackouts because of their switch to exclusive solar power sources. People that I know that live there are very much looking to move.

[Orogun01]

43 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Leviathan is good and worth reading. Have you read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker?

Nope, but just after reading the summary it seems right up my alley. Thanks.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

Nope, but just after reading the summary it seems right up my alley. Thanks.

You're welcome. It's probably my favorite of his books.

His sister writes also, if you like the social sciences. Don't care much for his wife's stuff though

Edited September 23, 2020 by Achilles

[Orogun01]

47 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

as for oro

your insights into our background is intriguing. do continue.

I'm not talking specifically about your background but more of the general views on this topic. If you care to share something specific we could learn more as everyone is different and have very unique life experiences. I'm mostly trying to understand where you're coming from rather than speak for you, it just seems as an outsider that you had your sights set in a very competitive field and that might have shaped your views. That was me at one point, I had my eyes set on one particular field and after failing I found other avenues along the same lines that I actually enjoy more.
Again, one of the reasons why I love this country's wealth of opportunities

 

55 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

with the scholarships gone, at the very least we woulda' been back at the rez for a year or two, and statistic that is not a good start to a post high school career. similar, tell us how great non-college opportunities are ignores just how much better college educated americans has done post recession .  we do not measure our personal success by our degree, and have noted we believe a degree is overrated, but ignore statistics in favor o' gut is not compelling. american companies don't agree with Gromnir, by a large margin, new jobs post recession has been for folks with college.

oh, and 

Job Losses Hit Workers Without College Degrees The Hardest

I don't know about your particular field and the era that you come from my own workplace and former college experience there's a wealth of knowledge online that people pursuing performative jobs can benefit from. E.G: A graphics designer or a welder isn't strictly defined by their academic record as much as they are by their portfolio or their job skills. There are a lot of world class artistic talents that made into the top of the game industry without a degree, because they can do the job better than those that went to college for it. There's no one size fits all

I find the overwhelming trust in statistics a bit disingenuous,  for one what we usually get is an interpretation of statistics rather than the raw data or the full picture with alternate studies. I say that anecdotally bad jobs are a dime a dozen and the former trucker is now working at a supermarket. You can't measure low skilled labor the same way you measure careers.

BTW, what are your thoughts on a preponderance of anecdotes, so much that they can be considered statistics? You can have reliable data; like numbers of firings, but there are also nuances specific to each sector that can only be contextualized through anecdotal data.
 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

See that's my problem with "making it", it is such a nebulous term that it just means nothing.
My favorite definition of success comes from Dave Chappelle when talking to his father "If I can make a teacher's salary doing comedy, I think that's better than being a teacher."
Rags to riches isn't the norm but is the cultural definition for a lot of people.

One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Thoreau:

"The life which men praise and regard as successful is but one kind. Why should we elevate any one kind at the expense of the others?"

I think there are lots of ways to define success and part of our collective problem is that we buy into the idea that there's only one.

With that said, I think societies in which people are free (loaded term here) to pursue the lives they want are better than ones in which the circumstances of birth cut you off from some or grease the wheels for others at the expense of someone else.

Quote

For my part I was arguing against the idea of systemic racism being the only form of racism. People like to throw big terms to lend credence to their argument without understanding. They will say systemic when it really just meant that they were acting  in aggressive manner and everyone reacted. The biggest problem I see with black culture is how little they hold each other accountable for bad behavior. That however might be just black celebrities that are protecting their image.

I can agree to that. I may be used to hearing people trying to make the argument that systemic racism isn't a thing.

As for black people holding each other accountable for black behavior; I don't think that's a black thing.

Quote

My take is simple, who are black people most likely going to listen to: Black people or White people? Black Americans have a bigger impact on black communities simply because they gone through some of those experiences and have a better understanding of how to communicate to them. I remember Kevin Hart (I think it was the Joe Rogan Podcast) talking about how the best way to help youth in these afflicted neighborhoods is by having people that can speak to their life experience

I've heard sociologist refer to this as the importance of "similar others". But there's more to your point.

Quote

Making it out through sport or entertainment is only the most visible way. If you get a black lawyer or a black business owner to do community outreach, that will have a great impact. It is just that the most visible black role models are in sports or entertainment.

I agree that this is true, but it's also consistent with the "similar others" argument; if I'm black and l look for example of successful black people, I'm probably only seeing athletes and entertainers. Society tells me "what I am good for" long before I'm able to rationalize that question on my own.

 

Quote

Look, I don't live in one of this state so my views come from far away observation and second hand anecdotal evidence. I watch a lot of Youtube and form my views from both the fact that a lot of Tubers living in these states have spoken about the subject of high taxes as well as seeing through my workplace people that have left these states. With Joe Rogan, Elon Musk and others quite visibly leaving California because of the conditions of the place, as well as all the strange problems borne out their policies. It paints a picture of  States with a high cost of living whose extremely ideological policies have devastated their States. A good example would be how California Green policies contribute to the yearly wildfires because of their refusal to do controlled fires. They also are experiencing rolling blackouts because of their switch to exclusive solar power sources. People that I know that live there are very much looking to move.

This is good info. Thanks for sharing it.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

I find the overwhelming trust in statistics a bit disingenuous,  for one what we usually get is an interpretation of statistics rather than the raw data or the full picture with alternate studies.

 

[Orogun01]

5 minutes ago, Achilles said:

With that said, I think societies in which people are free (loaded term here) to pursue the lives they want are better than ones in which the circumstances of birth cut you off from some or grease the wheels for others at the expense of someone else.

Yeah and that's why you need entrepreneurship and a variety of options, so that if the most qualified person gets fired they can compete against their former employer and beat them.

 

7 minutes ago, Achilles said:

As for black people holding each other accountable for black behavior; I don't think that's a black thing.

Hey now that's racist talk! but seriously, there are attempts made. The biggest issue I find is the media selectively picking which black tragedy to exploit.

Speaking of which
Chris Rock Bring the Pain and Never Scared are some of our all time favorite stand ups.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

Yeah and that's why you need entrepreneurship and a variety of options, so that if the most qualified person gets fired they can compete against their former employer and beat them.

Or maybe someday we have a society that rewards people for being teachers or artists

Quote

Hey now that's racist talk! but seriously, there are attempts made. The biggest issue I find is the media selectively picking which black tragedy to exploit.

My point was is that if we asked white people to hold each other accountable for their bad behavior, the response would be something along the lines of, "wtf are you talking about".

 

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

just to make #s qq

Cute, but I'm not the one going on a long, boring rant at the drop of a hat multiple times per page, or moaning because someone used an abbreviation.

(btw, like anyone who wants to browse the internet for longer than five minutes and remain sane, I use an extension, so I don't actually see your videos -- just think it's a weird idiosyncrasy)

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Cute, but I'm not the one going on a long, boring rant at the drop of a hat multiple times per page, or moaning because someone used a shibboleth.

 

there. fixed that for you. welcome.

our rants do stay on-topic though. is curious how this and other board rulez only apply to non mods. 

58 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

I find the overwhelming trust in statistics a bit disingenuous,  for one what we usually get is an interpretation of statistics rather than the raw data or the full picture with alternate studies. I say that anecdotally bad jobs are a dime a dozen and the former trucker is now working at a supermarket. You can't measure low skilled labor the same way you measure careers.

don't trust statistics and analysis from multiple reputable sources, instead trust anecdotal... and trump?

okie dokie.

the biggest myth about college graduates and the recession: busted

Workers with low levels of education still haven’t recovered from the Great Recession

Not only have less-educated groups not recovered as fully from the recession, they started at lower levels of employment rates prior to the crisis such that at this point, amongst those aged 25 and higher, 72.5 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree work compared to just 55 percent of those with only a high school degree.

College Graduates Fare Well in Jobs Market, Even Through Recession

The unemployment rate for college graduates in April (a 2013 article) was a mere 3.9 percent, compared with 7.5 percent for the work force as a whole, according to a Labor Department report released Friday. Even when the jobless rate for college graduates was at its very worst in this business cycle, in November 2010, it was still just 5.1 percent. That is close to the jobless rate the rest of the work force experiences when the economy is good.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf

Mobility by Race
Blacks have a harder time exceeding
the family income and wealth of their
parents than do whites.

■ Sixty-six percent of blacks raised
in the second quintile surpass their
parents’ family income compared
with 89 percent of whites.

■ Only 23 percent of blacks raised in
the middle surpass their parents’
family wealth compared with over
half (56 percent) of whites.
Blacks are more likely to be stuck in
the bottom and fall from the middle
than are whites.

■ Over half of blacks (53 percent)
raised in the bottom of the family
income ladder remain stuck in the
bottom as adults, compared with
only a third (33 percent) of whites.
Half of blacks (56 percent) raised
in the middle of the family income
ladder fall to the bottom two rungs
as adults compared with just under a
third of whites (32 percent).

■ Half of blacks (50 percent) raised
in the bottom of the family wealth
ladder remain stuck in the bottom as
adults, compared with only a third
(33 percent) of whites. More than
two-thirds of blacks (68 percent)
raised in the middle fall to the
bottom two rungs of the ladder as
adults compared with just under a
third of whites (30 percent).

Mobility by Education
A four-year college degree promotes
upward mobility from the bottom and
prevents downward mobility from the
middle and top.

■ Almost one-half (47 percent) of
those raised in the bottom quintile
of the family income ladder who do
not earn a college degree are stuck
there as adults, compared with
10 percent who do earn a college
degree. Similarly, 45 percent without
a college degree are stuck in the
bottom of the family wealth ladder
compared with 20 percent with
a degree.

■ Having a college degree makes a
person more than three times more
likely to rise from the bottom of the
family income ladder all the way to
the top, and makes a person more
than four times more likely to rise
from the bottom of the family wealth
ladder to the top.

■ Thirty-nine percent raised in the
middle of the family income ladder
who do not get a college degree fall
from the middle, compared with
less than a quarter (22 percent) of
those with a degree. Similarly, 39
percent raised in the middle of the
family wealth ladder who do not
earn a degree fall down the wealth
ladder, compared with 19 percent
with a degree.

etc.

it ain't all lobster *insert eye roll*and champagne for those w/o a college degree and is even tougher if you are a minority.

considering your willingness to share stats and studies in the past, call us suspicious o' your sudden cynicism.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, Achilles said:

You are aware she won the popular vote, right?

By about three million votes. But as we're both aware, and as you'd have to presume Hillary was aware, raw vote count is not how you win the US Presidency and she could have literally won 100% of the Ca vote without it effecting the outcome at all.

You can make an argument that a tennis player who loses a match 0-6 7-6 7-6 is a better player than the winner because they won more games, but end of the day that isn't how winning is determined.

Quote

Also, I like to think "being popular" isn't the same thing as "being qualified".

They aren't, but ultimately the only 'qualification' you have to have to be President (well ok, apart from age/ birth location etc) is enough popularity to beat your opponent. If you can't do that all the literal qualifications, experience, competency etc you bring to the table is for naught.

That is certainly a reductionist approach to the matter, but that is because the fundamental aim of the whole process is to win.

[213374U]

6 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

45 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Cute, but I'm not the one going on a long, boring rant at the drop of a hat multiple times per page, or moaning because someone used a shibboleth

there. fixed that for you. welcome.

our rants do stay on-topic though. is curious how this and other board rulez only apply to non mods.

Who's "qq"'ing now? The report button is that-a-way. Feel free to use it.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

By about three million votes. But as we're both aware, and as you'd have to presume Hillary was aware, raw vote count is not how you win the US Presidency and she could have literally won 100% of the Ca vote without it effecting the outcome at all.

You can make an argument that a tennis player who loses a match 0-6 7-6 7-6 is a better player than the winner because they won more games, but end of the day that isn't how winning is determined.

Right, but that wasn't your argument (and you make it again below). You can't be the less popular option and win the popular vote. The electoral college isn't the popular vote...as we're both aware.

Quote

They aren't, but ultimately the only 'qualification' you have to have to be President (well ok, apart from age/ birth location etc) is enough popularity to beat your opponent. If you can't do that all the literal qualifications, experience, competency etc you bring to the table is for naught.

No, you have to get 270 electoral college votes. Which Trump did. While losing the popular vote.

You either need to stop using the word "popularity" or tell me how you're using it. Because you not using it as it relates to the popular vote.

Quote

That is certainly a reductionist approach to the matter, but that is because the fundamental aim of the whole process is to win.

Dog chases car. Dog catches car. Dog doesn't really know what to do next.

Fundamental aim was catching the car?

The fundamental aim of the process is to win so that you can govern. Coincidentally, Trump hasn't done much of that. So maybe the moral of the story is that winning for the sake of winning is the reductionist argument.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Achilles

[Gromnir]

6 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Who's "qq"'ing now? The report button is that-a-way. Feel free to use it.

would be pointless. as we noted, you are a mod. have seen this sad little drama play out where we embarrass a mod and next thing you know, the poor dear is forgetting board rules and abusing shiboleth. see, another mod is the one who uses the qq shibboleth, which is precise why we brought it up this time. honest didn't expect such a quick strike at the bait.

that said, am recalling a few james baldwin quotes am itching to use. they probable exist in video form. next time you wanna misrepresent somebody to advance one o' your kookie positions, we would appreciate using baldwin. 

thanking you in advance...

but to swing this back around to the topic, since am needing be the one to do so...

will observe how we recent predicted the trump nominee for the Court would be as unpalatable as possible to current democrats and we guessed it would be a woman evangelical. amy coney barrett is the current fox frontrunner. 

we mentioned ms. barrett a couple times previous on the board as she were a possible nominee to replace kennedy.

the following is a non lawyer article which hits most relevant issues and is from before all this nominee crazy, which makes it a bit more trustworthy in our estimation... from 2018.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/08/amy-coney-barrett-what-possible-supreme-court-nominee-has-said-roe-v-wade-and-other-issues/759076002/

ask us about barbara lagoa and we can't tell you much. she ain't been a fed judge long enough or made some kinda impact such that she would be on our radar.  résumé is a bit thin for SCOTUS inclusion.  

HA! Good Fun!

[Darkpriest]

4 hours ago, KaineParker said:

I'm not sure why anyone was expecting consistency, these are the same people who will wax on about freedom and call for mass arrests in the same breath after all. I doubt it will matter to their supporters either.

I think, it's more aimed at upholding the same standards of protests. 

 

Did you see and experience mass voilence and looting during protests in defense of 2nd amendment rights (i think that was the one about guns) 

 

There is also a large dose of hypocrisy, saying that protests against lockdown or other gatjerings are forbidden due to covid19 threat, yet you have other protests being encouraged.... Logic and consistency please. Unless you agree now, that rular area citizens can come up to your city and make a complete pogs breakfest from your neighbourhood and use voilence against anyone opposing their protest for more funds to poor and unattended rural areas? 

[Darkpriest]

8 hours ago, Achilles said:

I'll try to coherently take these in turn:

A) Yes, you're absolutely right and I probably should have done a better job of calling this out (and will try to do better in the future). There's enough political nuance to track in the U.S. that I would defer citizens of other countries to speak to their own current events.

B) Operative word here is "should". Consider this hypothetical situation:

1. I'm a member of a particular religious tribe
2. My tribe is in the majority in my country
3. Because my tribe is in the majority my government makes all of my religious observances national holidays
4. Members of all other tribes get "my" holidays off as well, however they have to use vacation time (assuming that is a benefit offered by their employer) for their religious observances 

This is a privilege of being a member of my religious tribe.

If my tribe were ever to lose its majority status and some other religious tribe rose to prominence, then it stands to reason that their religious observances would become the national holidays and then that would be a privilege of being a member of that tribe.

"Should" this be the way things are?

C) In my analysis, it's not just a race thing. There is a class component as well, though the two mingle in ways that make it difficult to track one without influencing the other.

D) Agreed. That's a good assessment of where things are at in the U.S. Estimates say that whites will be the racial minority here within the next 30 years. This really freaks some people out and I think that's where a lot of this tension is coming from. Interestingly, "immigrants from vastly different cultures becoming the majority" is more commonly known as "white people" here

Regarding C - hence i added a note that this should not be limited to skin color part only. It starts as early as me vs world, my family vs others etc. (whatever groups you can define where people form them out of own will) 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I think, it's more aimed at upholding the same standards of protests. 

 

Did you see and experience mass voilence and looting during protests in defense of 2nd amendment rights (i think that was the one about guns) 

 

There is also a large dose of hypocrisy, saying that protests against lockdown or other gatjerings are forbidden due to covid19 threat, yet you have other protests being encouraged.... Logic and consistency please. Unless you agree now, that rular area citizens can come up to your city and make a complete pogs breakfest from your neighbourhood and use voilence against anyone opposing their protest for more funds to poor and unattended rural areas? 

Important information you should read

[Darkpriest]

8 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Important information you should read

How is that relevant, when my point was about equal treatment of similar behaviors and opportunities for similar acts? 

Unless you advocate that some part of populace should be held to different standards and have different rights than the others? 

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

How is that relevant, when my point was about equal treatment of similar behaviors and opportunities for similar acts? 

Unless you advocate that some part of populace should be held to different standards and have different rights than the others?

The sub-thread KaineParker is responding to is the group of U.S. senators who recently had a sudden change of heart regarding whether or not a president should fill a supreme court vacancy in an election year (reminder below)

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Assume for a moment Hillary Clinton is President and Chuck Schumer is the Senate Majority leader. The election is less than 40 days awa and it's looking like Clinton will loose to the Republican challenger and there is a better than average chance the Senate will flip. RBG passes away. Is there any doubt in anyones mind the goddamned Democrats will move heaven and earth to get a left wing activist justice nominated and confirmed in the remaining time?  You bet they would. And all of the "media" that is wailing and gnashing their teeth over what Trump and McConell are about to do would be cheering the way Clinton and Schumer siezed the opportunity. 

It rats calling out other rats for being rats. 

Ignoring that to talk about protestors are doing is text book whataboutism:

Person A: *talking about X*

Person B: *completely ignores X* "Oh yeah? Well is it fair what happened with Y?"

EDIT: And yes, I do think that elected senators ("some part of the populous") should be held to different standards. After all they swore oaths of office agreeing to do precisely that.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Achilles

[Darkpriest]

2 minutes ago, Achilles said:

The sub-thread KaineParker is responding to is the group of U.S. senators who recently had a sudden change of heart regarding whether or not a president should fill a supreme court vacancy in an election year (reminder below)

Ignoring that to talk about protestors are doing is text book whataboutism:

Person A: *talking about X*

Person B: *completely ignores X* "Oh yeah? Well is it fair what happened with Y?"

If looking from that point, I can admit I did pay attention to a specific post due to it pointing to 

these are the same people who will wax on about freedom and call for mass arrests in the same breath after all.

Reading walls of text about politicians doing partisian things and using procedures as they see fit is about as pointless to me as reading about water being wet. I might have missed the context of that post then. 

[Darkpriest]

@BruceVC

This is probably more to your domain

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-23/jpmorgan-to-move-230-billion-assets-to-germany-in-brexit-shift?srnd=premium-europe

 

But perhaps some people following BREXIT might be interested in this as well

[Darkpriest]

And I do not like the idea of such an instrument. Not with the current helicoper money policies. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cme-nasdaq-to-launch-water-futures-contract-11600853401