|
No mention of the biggest crisis facing the nation this December. For shame.  https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1465704609997983766?s=20
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Bugsy posted:If the districts stay the same it will be 45% of the votes getting 64% of the state legislature. Hell it probably be worse. The Majority Opinion posted:Claims of political unfairness in the maps present political questions, not legal ones.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:So half the problem is that there is no reporting out of Virginia and we just have half remembered posts from two half remembered posters to go on. I'm sorry, what? Link Link Link Link quote:For the third straight year, Del. Lee Carter (D-Manassas) filed a bill to repeal Virginia’s ‘Right to Work’ law. And for the third time, it sat in committee without a vote... Filed back in December, the bill never made it on the committee’s docket to be discussed in more than a month. The committee doesn’t plan to meet again before Crossover Day, effectively killing the proposal for this session. Friendbot's whole diatribe was based on the idea that the bill was otherwise passable if Carter hadn't maneuvered to get it passed, and despite all the times this has come up, I have never seen a single person who is blindly repeating FB's assertions actually put in the work to verify those claims. I don't know if FB was lying, or if they were just wrong, but FB was wrong, verifiably so. Here's the bill: HB 1755. It was assigned to the Labor and Commerce Committee on 12/16/20. Everything you need is right on these pages: the dates of motions on the bill, the dates of committee meetings, and the date of crossover. I don't even particularly care about Lee Carter. By all accounts he is an abrasive dick and I can't imagine I'd enjoy his company. What really gets to me is the sheer incuriosity that grips this subforum. I remember wandering in here for the first time 9 years ago, and trying to debate some folks with some shoddy reasoning and some half-remembered facts. I got absolutely curbstomped and retreated to GBS in a hurry, but it made me confront my politics and to never take a position without making my best attempt to be informed. That culture is nothing like what exists now, where folks (and I catch myself doing it too) are content to gorge themselves on nothing but article headlines and 140 character hot takes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
The Sean posted:The concept is that there are correlates that trlate to behavior that can be predicted by generation. Outliers are not the focus, but correlates are and they are important. Incorrect. The concept is that these specific 20 year periods are significant and not just arbitrary. If you clump a population by any 20 year period, you're going to make any gradual change seem sudden. Consider my mspaints: If there were any legitimacy to generations as a predictive tool, we should be seeing trends that resemble this (green lines as a supposed generational divide):  Instead, this is what we actually see:  But don't worry, we can just use the unscrupulous statistician's favorite tool: Bar graphs!  There, now that we have averaged everything out and the data look significant, we can write braindead thinkpieces about people younger/older than us!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Uh. So in your "counterexample", there is a literally perfect linear correlation between age and whatever is being measured, which means generations are highly relevant but precise boundaries are not -- in other words, there is a considerable difference between a boomer and a millennial, but not between a younger boomer and an older gen Xer, which... nobody talking about generational differences is ever talking about. The concept of generations *is* the concept of precise boundaries. It’s the idea that there are noticeable shifts that occur along generational divides. If you throw out the idea that the locations of the boundaries are relevant, then all you have done is make the grand discovery that attitudes and actions change over time. The linear correlation doesn’t support the argument you’re making, because the results would be exactly the same if you split it into two generations or 50.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2021 05:56
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Some states declaring themselves sanctuaries where oppressed people from other states can go to avoid having their bodies forced to do things against their will... There's a good video in the Alt-Right Playbook series that discusses what you're doing here, namely: "the means becomes an end in itself." In other words, you have resigned yourself to accept poor outcomes because you are trapped by your own world view that has labelled a specific tactic to be bad because people you don't like used it. e: Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A Baronash fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Dec 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:It is completely unconstitutional, though. “In a 5-4 decision…”
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The reason that voters "all too often" don't respond to Dems' economic message is bc they see the party's fealty to capital while seeing through the its thin veneer of populism. Based on what? The researchers profiled asked people for their opinions, and apparently those were the responses they received. If you are arguing this is not the case, then someone is lying. Is it the researchers lying about what the people said? Did they lie about what questions they asked? Did the people lie about why they don’t vote for Democrats?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The vast majority of elected Dems have denounced Abolish Ice, Defund the Police, & have pointed out that CRT is a GOP fiction. Are you a chatbot? Are you even bothering to read what people say, or do you just see “CRT” and activate one of your 3 subroutines? Nobody here is saying CRT as Republicans talk about it is anything except a fantasy. When people are actually asked about voting for Democrats, they have not been pointing to means testing, they instead laser in on stuff like Defund and CRT. For half of your post, you’re loving agreeing with the premise of the OP you’re trying to argue against.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What exactly do you believe I was agreeing with? You responded to "dems don't support Defund, and CRT is a boogeyman" with "dems don't support Defund, and CRT is a boogeyman." Support for Democrats among certain subsets of the population is eroding, and when those groups are asked about why, as they were in the article we're talking about, they highlight imaginary Democratic positions as their reason for voting against them. You can argue that they're secretly very concerned™ about means testing and material conditions, but that argument is gonna require a lot of heavy lifting and thus far you have provided nothing but your own opinions to back it up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The easy answer here is that guns are an explicitly protected right under the Constitution and abortion isn't. Private gun ownership is not protected by the Constitution. This is a modern fiction that is literally younger than many of the posters here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Yes it is, and no it's not. Solid argument. How interesting that a, in your opinion, fundamental bedrock of American civics would not be referenced in an opinion of the Supreme Court until 2006. This reinterpretation was started in the 1980s by the NRA, but was considered incredibly fringe well into the 90s. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, even called the notion of individual rights stemming from the 2nd Amendment a "fraud on the American public."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The history of the Supreme Court is rife with rulings that follow the cultural norms of the day. This is the same entity that declared that black men could not be citizens, that separate but equal was a valid doctrine, and that protesting the US involvement in WW1 is the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. I’m not sure that “the Supreme Court is nakedly partisan but this specific 2008 decision on gun ownership is beyond reproach” is the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is. As for the piracy comparison  , the Constitution doesn’t limit private gun ownership, it simply doesn’t take a position on it at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:On the 2nd point, it does explicitly take a position on it. It says that the right of the people to own guns shall not be infringed upon. Cute how you’re ignoring the first half of the sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” We have militias, and if you want to go off and join the National Guard then by all means go ahead. What do you think is more likely: Everyone, including the actual folks who wrote the document, misinterpreted the Constitution for nearly two hundred years until the NRA set them straight. OR The NRA funneled a bunch of money into advancing a niche view of the Constitution in order to achieve their political goals.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The people who wrote the Constitution owned people but you seem to think that they didn't believe that people had a right to own guns. These were the same people who wrote in a provision that allowed the Congress to license people who owned ships and cannon to act as pirates on behalf of the country. These people thought nothing of the wealth raising and equipping their own troops. They were very big on personal rights. I... what? Are you just throwing a bunch of talking points in a bag, shaking it up, and posting whatever comes out? Please respond to my actual point, not the series of invented beliefs you seem to be responding to: If the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect personal rights, why did nobody behave like it did for 200 years? It's a mind-bogglingly simple question.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I reject the premise of your question and you've shown nothing to support your premise. As a matter of fact I did, you just didn't read it. In my second post, the article by a constitutional scholar posted on Politico. quote:There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” PeterCat posted:Let me turn it around on you. If the Constitution guarantees a woman's right to an abortion, why did nobody behave like it till 1973? e: SubG posted:politico (lol) Baronash fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
SubG posted:Which doesn't change the fact that claim that he "called the notion of individual rights stemming from the 2nd Amendment a 'fraud on the American public'" is false. That is unambiguously not what he was calling a fraud, as I explained at length. I was just responding to you laughing at the source. The Burger quote is kind of window dressing to the point, but I appreciate the extra context to it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
birds posted:I always thought the voter ID thing in theory was fine but the difficulty is ensuring CHUD states don’t just make the nearest place to get your ID an hour away and limiting appointment times to once a week or something. It's not fine, because it's just a barrier for its own sake. There's no actual problem it would be aiming to solve, or rather, the problem they are solving is that Republicans feel they are at a disadvantage in high turnout elections.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:What exactly is she in the position to do about the debt? Her boss is the one who famously went off script and forced Obama to do a public reversal on gay marriage. Baronash fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Dec 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:yeah the NYAG is going to nail him any day now... any day now.... The indictments are coming, just give it a bit longer. Maybe pass the time by watching a documentary on Qanon, which is a hilarious story of a bunch of people getting conned into believing the enemies of democracy would be rounded up and thrown in prison. Those feeble minded chuds and their ridiculous conspiracy theories, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
Vorik posted:If by 'take' you mean 'what actually happened'. Manchin has been making noise about CTC for months now, and his latest counter offer was BBB without the CTC. The progressives refused to concede on CTC, not even the work requirements, phaseouts and other things that Manchin was talking about a few months ago. None of this stuff is new. Were you in a coma while Manchin and others whittled a $3.5 trillion bill to a $1.7 trillion bill claiming that would be the concession that would get their vote?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
haveblue posted:Nixon even got rehabilitated on these forums. Did you know he created the EPA? Acknowledging reality is not “rehabilitating,” jesus christ. And what’s more, a refusal to treat people with more depth than “thing bad” (on a dead discussion forum with zero real life influence, no less) is not evidence of moral fortitude.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2021 15:27
|
|