All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

That's not the reason, Trump 'living' there and thus able to vote by mail is.

I was thinking that by being a red state, the Yellow Snowflake trusts them to keep those damn dirty Dems/minorities away from voting.

[PaulBullion]

That just means people will have to be ready to vote against President Alex Jones come 2024, and every other election before and after to keep the GOP out.

But if Nina Turner loses the 2024 primary, will they HAVE to vote against Tucker Carlson?

[GindyPosts]

No they won't. They will cheer.

And that's the frustrating thing. Like, you'd think they would be okay with themselves being able to vote easier, but nope; gotta make sure them "illegals" don't tamper the votes, ignoring the virtually nonexistent cases that it has legitimately happened and that any other times it has happened was purely "he said/she said" talk.

Bottom line is, Republicans are willing to put up with anything to vote for Republicans, because they don't know better or willingly believe whatever nonsense about "voter fraud", but if you're Democratic or vote moderately, you're more likely to face adversity on the election process since you're required to head to a polling place, show multiple forms of ID, wait in line, and deal with a process that can more likely to be tampered with than a freaking letter.

[shooshoomanjoe]

With the GOP stacking the courts in their favor and the craziness of the Tea Party spilling all over conservative America, I feel like things in the US are about to take a downward turn.

[Dalak]

I was thinking that by being a red state, the Yellow Snowflake trusts them to keep those damn dirty Dems/minorities away from voting.

That's probably part of it, but I'm sure that any case with a potential personal benefit for him in it makes that the primary reason in his mind.

[Mister Mets]

What I wonder is, what is the GOP supporting "all is fine it's my politics" folks like Mets and his bed sharing extremists will most fondly remember about this Election Year the most?

I used to think Trump not being able to make Mexico pay for his heap of garbage, not beautiful, useless border Wall was going to be what would define the failure of modern American conservativism. Not the Soylentizing of their own citizens for the sake of an economy they aren't even secure or affirmed that they've gained.

As I've said before, I support Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee. I have done so for several years and have been open about it on this forum.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...en#post3986608

Unlike most of the people here, I dislike Trump so much that I'm going to vote for a different party than I usually do. So I'm not going to fondly remember anything about Trump's campaign.

Something had to be done, the Democrats may not have got rid of him but it did stain his legacy and hurt his ego. Doing absolutely nothing with the power they have because they can't win would demoralise their voters. Trump must be fought at every level, he's destroying this country.



Nowadays a more relevant question is whether America needs immigration and Trump thinks it doesn't. Which is both terrifying and stupid.

Most of the conservative proposals call for some immigration, so this isn't really an accurate criticism of the GOP.

Responding to conservative agitrprop and hokum about 'limiting principles' is kinda silly at this point anyway. The only 'limiting principles' that conservatives have proven they will accept is one that enshrines and protects white supremacy.

The point on limiting principles came from left-wing discussions. I first heard it on the Ezra Klein show.

Thats some Trump level narcissism right there. "It cant possibly be their pointing out my flaws, it has to be that I'm right"

You chat ridiculous garbage that irritates people, talk about the trees whilst ignoring the forest and barely even ackowledge that your party does some pretty awful ****. No mets, no one here thinks your right.

Do I go after you guys personally? My comments are about the argument, and not the person making it. I don't think I've ever done anything similar to accusing anyone here of narcissism.

As for the benchmark that people consistently point out flaws in arguments, that's not how it often goes. Sometimes the response is just a non-sequitur or a response to a different argument. To use your metaphor, I'll make a point about a tree, and the response will be to pretend as if I was talking about some different tree, or the forest.

[Mister Mets]

Why you seem to think asking the same "loaded question" over and over again doesn't do anything but further reveal your hypocrisy.

"A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.

A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question, but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife" [or Democrats have never legislated for open borders and both Obama and Clinton increased border security].

This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic.

However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question."

Constantly trying to frame the argument within your own limited terms just proves you have absolutely no interest in addressing the obvious racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption and incompetence within the party you continually defend via transparent attempts at deflection.

-----
"It’s because civility is a weapon to them. Conservatives never argue in good faith. They will lie to your face about anything and everything, and they have no problem coming across as hypocrites. It’s all about power by any means for them, and if they think they can bludgeon you into silence and acceptance of their rule with calls for “civility” they’ll do it in a heartbeat.

Never trust a conservative."

[–]Leftfielder303Virginia [score hidden] 5 hours ago

"Never trust a conservative.

If 2016 taught me anything it's this. After seeing the levels of hypocrisy from conservatives they went from a group I disagree with to a group I don't trust around my children."

[–]ting_bu_dong [score hidden] 5 hours ago

"They will lie to your face about anything and everything, and they have no problem coming across as hypocrites.

And, yet, we keep pointing out their hypocrisy for some reason. Like it matters.

No, the double standards aren't a mistake; they are the point."

[–]passnba2k [score hidden] 5 hours ago

Getting people riled up is the point. Like you said it doesn't help to point out their hypocrisy. We're talking about this story instead of the fact we're fastly approaching 100k dead from covid-19 along with 20% unemployed which will linger for some time to come."

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/co...obese_i_didnt/

I disagree with the contention that "What is a more important question on immigration than what the limiting principle should be?" is in any way a loaded question.

There's no controversial assumption to disagree with.

One can answer if they think there is a more important question, if they want less immigration, if they want the same level of immigration, if they want significantly more immigration, etc.

I can also appreciate the argument that there should be no limiting principle. We do call that one open borders, although the argument is that this isn't what Democrats want.

I'd laugh, but then I realize you still won't acknowledge the fact that white nationalists are welcome guests, White House Staff, and elected officials in your party, let alone show that it's something inherently wrong with that.

And that's why this isn't a comedy, and it's a tragedy.

I don't think there are a lot of white nationalists (IE- people who believe that Ben Carson and Elaine Chao's race makes them poor fits for cabinet, that Jeb Bush, Clarence Thomas and Mitch McConnell are wrong to be in interracial marriages, that segregation in schools should be mandated by law, etc) in the White House staff.

I get that some people have a more expansive definition of white nationalism, but that may be an example of category creep, extending the definition of something extreme so far that it no longer means the same thing, while trying to stick with the exact same negative associations of the earlier meaning.

We've had this discussion more than once. I'll remind you again of the bipartisan-authored bill submitted to Trump two years ago wherein limiting principals would be established through negotiation between both parties. Trump threw it back and continued to abuse children.
That was a Democratic attempt to establish limiting principals. It's dishonest of you to continue to use that excuse when you know it isn't true.

This is addressing a different question.

It's also more of a mechanism for compromise, rather than any sort of explanation about what Democrats would do if they didn't have to worry about a Republican President or a Republican Senate.

[PwrdOn]

This is addressing a different question.

It's also more of a mechanism for compromise, rather than any sort of explanation about what Democrats would do if they didn't have to worry about a Republican President or a Republican Senate.

It's pretty obvious that most Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, most of them probably have similar views on it as the GOP, but just want to put a friendlier face on it so as to not scare off Latino voters. I wish the party were secretly hiding some radical left agenda that they'll finally reveal after they get into power, but unfortunately that's not really in the cards with the current bunch.

Besides, open borders isn't some scary bogeyman, it is really the only morally defensible position. Nobody who has ever actually gone through the immigration system would ever argue that it's a fair or just system worth preserving.

[aja_christopher]

There's no controversial assumption to disagree with.

We'll agree to disagree.

I prefer to focus on factual Republican actions more than your hypothetical words, regardless.

I'll add that it's pretty obvious why you wouldn't.

[Vic Vega]

Recently, my husband told me (reminded me) that years ago one of his doctors prescribed HCQ to him for reasons I won't go into. He tried taking it for a few days and ended up with severe leg pains. At which point he stopped, under his Doctor's supervision of course.

Bottom line, yes the drug is useful for some medical conditions, and it's useful for some people, but it's a potentially dangerous drug with potentially dangerous side-effects, and it's not for everyone. if Trump is taking this and hasn't had any side effects, I'd be surprised. The Doctor must have given it to him at such a low dose, it's practically a placebo.

I'm betting on placebo. Can you imagine the shitstorm of
trouble the attending Physician would get if Trump were to die due to side effects of that stuff?

Losing his license would be the very least of it.

They could charge him for possible treason, murder. You'd have to be some kind of fanatic or a moron to deliberately mis-perscribe a sitting president like that.

[PwrdOn]

I'm betting on placebo. Can you imagine the shitstorm of
trouble the attending Physician would get if Trump were to die due to side effects of that stuff?

Losing his license would be the very least of it.

They could charge him for possible treason, murder. You'd have to be some kind of fanatic or a moron to deliberately mis-perscribe a sitting president like that.

[Steel Inquisitor]

It's pretty obvious that most Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, most of them probably have similar views on it as the GOP, but just want to put a friendlier face on it so as to not scare off Latino voters. I wish the party were secretly hiding some radical left agenda that they'll finally reveal after they get into power, but unfortunately that's not really in the cards with the current bunch.

Besides, open borders isn't some scary bogeyman, it is really the only morally defensible position. Nobody who has ever actually gone through the immigration system would ever argue that it's a fair or just system worth preserving.

Can you back this up with evidence? I'm going to need more than your word that this is true. The immigration system is terrible, that's why it needed to be improved not abolished. Borders are popular as a concept in every country, that's why we have borders.

[Mister Mets]

I'm betting on placebo. Can you imagine the shitstorm of
trouble the attending Physician would get if Trump were to die due to side effects of that stuff?

Losing his license would be the very least of it.

They could charge him for possible treason, murder. You'd have to be some kind of fanatic or a moron to deliberately mis-perscribe a sitting president like that.

I suspect Trump isn't taking hydroxy***********. He's probably making that up. It is irresponsible for him to take it or pretend to take it, given the limited evidence that it wards off COVID-19, and the fact that this kind of speculation can create shortages of a medicine used by people with chronic health conditions.

However, it would be a stretch to charge a doctor for treason and murder for prescribing a medicine that is legally available for off-label use. The studies about the side effects are a bit exaggerated, since the evidence we have is from sick people with a medical condition that does sometimes have fatal outcomes (it's also potentially skewed by the ways the population of COVID-19 patients prescribed a particular drug may be sicker than average.)

This wouldn't be Conrad Murray level prescription drug abuse.

We'll agree to disagree.

I prefer to focus on factual Republican actions more than your hypothetical words, regardless.

What's an assumption in the question "What is a more important question on immigration than what the limiting principle should be?" that a person being questioned might disagree with?

It's pretty obvious that most Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, most of them probably have similar views on it as the GOP, but just want to put a friendlier face on it so as to not scare off Latino voters. I wish the party were secretly hiding some radical left agenda that they'll finally reveal after they get into power, but unfortunately that's not really in the cards with the current bunch.

Besides, open borders isn't some scary bogeyman, it is really the only morally defensible position. Nobody who has ever actually gone through the immigration system would ever argue that it's a fair or just system worth preserving.

I understand the argument for open borders.

However, it is really unpopular as a position.

As of 2018, over half of Democratic voters were opposed to any increase in legal immigration.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

https://www.people-press.org/2018/06...-into-the-u-s/

So it seems unlikely Democratic officeholders are secretly moderate, and worried about conveying to voters that they hold popular positions on a contentious issue.

Regarding Hispanic voters, it's worth noting that strong majorities favor tightening security at U.S. borders, requiring business owners to check the immigration status of workers they hire, and think that it is essential for immigrants to learn English.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

[PwrdOn]

I suspect Trump isn't taking hydroxy***********. He's probably making that up. It is irresponsible for him to take it or pretend to take it, given the limited evidence that it wards off COVID-19, and the fact that this kind of speculation can create shortages of a medicine used by people with chronic health conditions.

However, it would be a stretch to charge a doctor for treason and murder for prescribing a medicine that is legally available for off-label use. The studies about the side effects are a bit exaggerated, since the evidence we have is from sick people with a medical condition that does sometimes have fatal outcomes (it's also potentially skewed by the ways the population of COVID-19 patients prescribed a particular drug may be sicker than average.)

This wouldn't be Conrad Murray level prescription drug abuse.

What's an assumption in the question "What is a more important question on immigration than what the limiting principle should be?" that a person being questioned might disagree with?

I understand the argument for open borders.

However, it is really unpopular as a position.

As of 2018, over half of Democratic voters were opposed to any increase in legal immigration.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

So it seems unlikely Democratic officeholders are secretly moderate, and worried about conveying to voters that they hold popular positions on a contentious issue.

Well if my ancestors had come to this country, murdered all the people there, and claimed all the land and resources for themselves, I would also probably be pretty wary of sharing my stolen wealth with anyone else too.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Well if my ancestors had come to this country, murdered all the people there, and claimed all the land and resources for themselves, I would also probably be pretty wary of sharing my stolen wealth with anyone else too.

We didn't murder all the people! Just...90%-ish?