Negatory
-
Posts
647 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Negatory
-
I will post this again for you guys. Double click it. Are you just ignoring this unintentionally or are you intentionally only responding to the parts that are convenient? By the way, Guardian, the way it works when someone claims wrongdoing is that THE ACCUSERS actually have the burden of proof. Not the other way around. If it’s set in stone, release the metadata.
-
Why do you all of a sudden believe something that the FBI has “had for over a year” (and they didn’t press any charges) is new information, when the CIA and leadership of the intelligence community says it’s overwhelmingly likely it’s disinformation? Why would Giuliani sit on the laptops for months if they showed clear wrongdoing? Oh it’s because he can release them 2 weeks in advance and get guys like you to say “yeah! They probably are criminals” and vote before the smoke clears. Reminder that your source (the computer repair man) is literally claimed to be someone who has a condition that doesn’t allow them to remember or recognize faces. Convenient. You so badly want to believe whatever supports your side, and it’s kinda sad.
-
Fox News and most other mainstream conservative news outlets also refuse to talk to the story. Why? Because there is almost no veracity to the outlandish claims. The truth is that these allegations are a hilarious Hail Mary to throw some dirt 2 weeks before the election. Heres your choice: take the red pill and believe the unbacked up claims of the NYP (who are hilariously biased, they literally just endorsed Trump on their front page). Or take the blue pill and recognize that multiple CIA directors, national intelligence directors, defense intelligence specialists, and leaders in that community have all stated that this is overwhelmingly likely to be Russian disinformation. When did the whole of the US intelligence machine become a liberal hoax? Conspiracy theory is putting it lightly. (Double click this to open the letter) As much as I don’t like the guy, someone like Biden was a really smart choice when it comes down to running against Trump. He is boring, old, probably a little slow in his mental capacities. But he’s not a pure criminal, and he hasn’t done too many shady things. Hearing Trump repeat the “Hillary for prison” chants at his rallies, just updating them to “Biden for prison” is honestly desperate and pathetic. This is the state of politics in 2020, and it’s a large reason why I’m voting the way I am. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/10/28/trump-conspiracy-theoryhunter-biden-433131
-
I misinterpreted both of your points and I apologize. Agree with your statements.
-
Relatively easy example with made up numbers. If straight couples are taxed at 20% and gay couples are taxed at 30%, how is that not a surcharge for being gay? It doesn’t matter how you spin it, sexuality should not be a discriminator when it comes to access to benefits. If you want to take away all the expected governmental benefits of marriage, then that’s totally fine.
-
And just to be crystal clear, yes I am equating advocacy for Christian marriage as all that is allowable in America to advocating for sharia law, at least when it comes to ethical arguments. Also, why do evangelicals never advocate for the abolition of pork products (Leviticus 11:47) or the illegality of wearing two different fabrics to a nightclub (Deuteronomy 22:11)? If we’re gonna try to oppress people based on the Old Testament, at least be genuine about it.
-
Sure. Another solution would be to get rid of the governmental benefits of marriage for straight people, but I dont see a lot of advocacy for that for some reason. You can’t financially and legally marginalize human beings and say that you aren’t treating them poorly. If the argument was “marriage is a religious ceremony, so we will disband that as a government entity. Everyone is entitled to the governmental benefits of a union so we support the union regardless of your sexuality.” But the right wing would rather further entrench religion into politics. I was fed the same BS and felt similarly to you all on this until my sibling came out as gay. It changes your perspective on what is malicious and what isn’t. I assume you guys aren’t for sharia law (although guardian probably takes offense to me assuming this), but it is a totally reasonable and understood opinion of society for a huge part of the world, so we should respect that amirite?
-
I mean, Pence has definitely treated gay people poorly, literally trying to take away basic rights. Just cause he didn’t literally punch one of them in the face doesn’t mean he didn’t treat them poorly. 2000: During his congressional campaign, Mike Pence said, “Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage.” 2004: Mike Pence co-sponsored a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Many more...
-
As someone who is, at least policy wise, leaning towards voting for Biden, I have to agree with Lord Ratner. When it comes down to VP vs VP, Pence is the one who seems like he has a moral compass and tries to stick to it, even if I don’t agree with some of his ideas. Harris comes across as extremely condescending and motivated by stupid shit like wokeness or dog whistle racism bs. I really didn’t like her act in their debate.
-
I’d be interested to read more about this if you have sources.
-
Stop just saying socialism with no context when you just don’t like a policy. It’s pointless. You debase literally the meaning of the word. This is what you sound like: Also, alternative reality to your “truth”: he led America through the Great Depression and WWII, ultimately giving America the ability to rise to be a world superpower. Sorry that the effects of his policies don’t fit your narrative. Do you think Ike and Nixon were also socialists since they presided over similar times?
-
I assume you are referring to the socialist United States of America of 1936-1980. 🇺🇸
-
I never came close to saying that. My point is literally in line with what you’re saying: you can have meaningful regulation and limit the free market and have it be our version of “capitalism.” But this point does require many people to concede that government intervention and limitations on the free market do not automatically equal socialism, and I feel like that’s the more common trope on this forum.
-
Antitrust judgments aren’t consensual and are often forced upon people and businesses who have acted within the bounds of the free market. The point is not that everything should be regulated, but some things should.
-
Pure unbridled economic libertarianism has been demonstrated a failure dozens of times as far back as steel or railroads. If you think the free market always works in America - just because that’s how it “was founded” - I’ve got news for you.
-
The government probably couldn’t provide healthcare efficiently. I agree that the VA is probably a good indicator of what could happen if we put our faith in the government to save us. But they could regulate and fix stuff like this. We pay more for everything than almost every other nation, even when we’re getting the same stuff. Get rid of the admins, make it criminal to price gouge on materials, encourage the production of generic drugs, and provide incentive to non profit insurance companies. The unbridled free market is failing here and needs some regulation.
-
I think you, as someone in good faith who is clearly trying to understand what I’m saying, understood that the word “impossible” did not literally mean that it was not possible. It meant that some people argue that it couldn’t possibly work in the US. Or am I missing something here?
-
Semantics. They have universal healthcare we do not. Oh and that’s with roughly the same quality of life that comes with living in a standard first world country.
-
Fine, I’ll concede Canada. There are bad examples, see my last post. But out of the 11 countries on there, 10 of them provide government healthcare. The US is the only one that says it’s impossible.
-
Actually, looks like you may be right on Canada using present day numbers, but you’ll notice that many countries on this list have very comparable numbers: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/health-care-wait-times-by-country
-
That’s a pretty exaggerated talking point: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/trumps-claim-about-canadians-traveling-to-the-united-states-for-medical-care/%3foutputType=amp
-
This is an extreme viewpoint. If your argument is that “treasure” should never be taken from someone to benefit someone else, I think you’re gonna have a tough time justifying the US military.
-
You guys are kinda falling into a trap with this argument, as I would say the vast majority of Americans are very thankful and happy with at least the interstate highway system. Arguing about poorly maintained city or state roads isn’t the point when I am 100% sure I can drive safely from New York to Washington with no fees. And that’s thanks to a federal spending program. And it was an example of something the government opened up for everyone to use equally as long as you have a drivers license. If you try to argue this point, I think you’re gonna lose people. Now if you are arguing that healthcare is different in that some people are unnecessary drains, that’s reasonable. Maybe healthcare cost should correspond to factors in your control (smoking, weight gain/loss with no underlying condition, drug usage)? It shouldn’t be an argument for no healthcare at all, though, in my opinion. The point is that it is absolutely possible to provide a service for the benefit of all effectively. Many other countries have actually demonstrated it, so this argument kind of falls flat in the new more global world where we can compare ourselves to everyone else.
-
Yeah, Jesus christ. Not only Republicans love America.
-
Haha, responses were perfect. Ad hominem my homies. Easy way out, but it's 100% what's happening. Nothing in the way of addressing the point of the text, just baselessly attacking the person/source. Which is pretty normal when you don't know what to say in response to the actual point. If all you can come up with is that I am "projecting" or I found my information somewhere else - or that it's no different for how republicans feel about the left (even though the point of the post is that it IS different) - then I'll assume you don't actually have a counterpoint. The sources show that groupthink happens significantly more on the right. And, based on your responses, you can't address it. Honestly, I'll bet you never get around to responding to the point of the post. You may literally even plan not to already. And saying stuff like "Biden doesn't know Biden's policies" is about as useful as saying "Trump doesn't know Trump's policies." It's meaningless.
