Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 200 of 841
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by creepycrawler View Post
    This make complete sense. I mean, what says peace more than burning private properties and looting businesses.

    From Fox News - Black Lives Matter movement nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
    Black Lives Matter movement nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

    https://www.foxnews.com/world/black-...el-peace-prize
    That's just sick! Perhaps Bin Laden needs such an award Posthumously? Not much more ridiculous!
    God Forgives, Rock's Don't www.ucora.org
    1973 Bronco, 351 SEFI, Locked, discs, 35's ZF-5spd and Atlas 4spd. 235:1 Crawl Ratio

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by 74BuckinBronc View Post
    Everyone loves a hand-out. Too many Americans don't care where it comes from so long as it benefits them immediately. This seems like the tactic the left uses to garner votes (well, that is before they could control the voting machines).
    So one thing - there's no debate on who gets the most money from the Fed. It's an actual, inarguable fact, that left-leaning states pay more into gov't funding than right-leaning states. That's a long-winded way of saying that conservative states get more tax dollars then they pay into the system. That's a slightly less-long-winded way of saying that is sure does seem to me that conservatives are bunch of hypocrites about mooching off the gov't.

    So I have a question here:

    Do people really believe that "the left" stole the vote by controlling voting machines and perpetrating massive fraud last November?

    I'll be honest - if "the left" stole this election, "the left" sure as hell wouldn't have left Mitch McConnell in power, nor would we have let the PoS Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene get elected.

    It's easy to spout this BS off the cuff, but I'm directly calling you out and asking you to prove these two things:

    Quote Originally Posted by 74BuckinBronc View Post
    ]Too many Americans don't care where it comes from so long as it benefits them immediately. This seems like the tactic the left uses to garner votes
    and

    Quote Originally Posted by 74BuckinBronc View Post
    ]This seems like the tactic the left uses to garner votes (well, that is before they could control the voting machines)
    Because in the context of this thread, you seem to be absolutely spewing out the same "partisan politic speaking points" that supposedly started this whole conversation.

    - mike

  3. #163
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    Mike, why are Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene a “POS?” I think AOC is a delusional fruitcake but I wouldn’t call her a POS. Disagreeing with someone on politics is one thing, calling them a POS is another and IMO over the line.

    (Not over the line here, over the line for any reasonable adult and civil discourse.)

  4. #164
    Clod Hopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    The Big Prairie, Colorado
    Member #
    816
    Images
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    (Not over the line here, over the line for any reasonable adult and civil discourse.)
    Thanks for the clarification. I started to worry the expectations of this place had escalated to a point where I would not fit in anymore. Whew.
    Proudly un-offended.

  5. #165
    Clod Hopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    The Big Prairie, Colorado
    Member #
    816
    Images
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    So one thing - there's no debate on who gets the most money from the Fed. It's an actual, inarguable fact, that left-leaning states pay more into gov't funding than right-leaning states. That's a long-winded way of saying that conservative states get more tax dollars then they pay into the system. That's a slightly less-long-winded way of saying that is sure does seem to me that conservatives are bunch of hypocrites about mooching off the gov't.

    While it is often thrown around to be a partisan thing, and almost always statistically presented as such, there is a lot more going on with the relationship than just the liberal states are generous and conservative states are lazy moochers. But put all that aside, the one thing it does show is the Federal Gov has effectively inserted itself into way too many programs that it was never meant to be a part of, much of which was done to force individual states to bend a knee to keep the funding many have become dependent upon.

    But I guess if it furthers the right-left war, we wont worry about how things got to where they are. Carry on.

  6. #166
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by Clod Hopper View Post
    Thanks for the clarification. I started to worry the expectations of this place had escalated to a point where I would not fit in anymore. Whew.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    So one thing - there's no debate on who gets the most money from the Fed. It's an actual, inarguable fact, that left-leaning states pay more into gov't funding than right-leaning states. That's a long-winded way of saying that conservative states get more tax dollars then they pay into the system. That's a slightly less-long-winded way of saying that is sure does seem to me that conservatives are bunch of hypocrites about mooching off the gov't.
    To that I would say as a "right winger hypocrites" I believe that the govt should be less involved in our personal lives so they have less control over us. Those on the left seem content with breeding people who depend on them. And for those mooching off the govt...how do you bet they vote? I mean, if my paycheck came to my door every month without me having to do a darn thing to earn it I'd...well that isn't how I was raised. Who knows, there may be a time when I need a handout, but I will be busting my tail to get back to standing on my own two feet not sitting back going "this is nice. I don't do a darn thing except smoke a pack of cigs a day, drink whiskey, live a trashy existence and the money just rolls in. Wait, we get more money if we keep having kids?!?!"

    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    So I have a question here:

    Do people really believe that "the left" stole the vote by controlling voting machines and perpetrating massive fraud last November?
    - Yes! A trusted friend of mine compiled two emails everyday leading up to the election linking to story after story; many with video proof, of vote switching, rescanning ballots, blocking R poll watchers, etc. I didn't keep all those emails, but even if I were to post the links here would it change your mind?

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Mike, why are Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene a “POS?” I think AOC is a delusional fruitcake but I wouldn’t call her a POS. Disagreeing with someone on politics is one thing, calling them a POS is another and IMO over the line.
    I can see how someone might see that as over the line in regards to civil discourse, but I don't believe that either should be engaged in any sort of civil discourse. I literally see (at least) those two reps as being completely unfit for office and beneath contempt for how they've proven themselves to interact with other human beings. It's my personal reflection/estimation of their value as public servants. In the sense of them being valuable public servants, I don't see them as being any better than a pile of dog crap. Take that as damning as you may - I'm completely comfortable with being accused of being too extreme with my rhetoric or whatnot. I fully and truly believe that politicians like them have been elected into office because not enough people have called them out on their bull crap up to this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch McConnell
    "Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday after questions about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

    “Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane is not living in reality," McConnell said.
    Too little, too late, GOP. You've let those people become the voice of the party through yearsof letting outright lies and conspiracy theories fester among conservatives in order to pander to the right.

    We Came Really Close to Seeing Gov't Officials Lynched since people like Zip Tie Guy were there along with a gallows.

    To be clear: I think Boebert is a complete hypocrite for how she touts herself to be a candidate in favor of law-and-order while also having multiple failure-to-appear arrests. It's obvious to me that law enforcement is fantastic as long as it's not directed towards her. And GTFO with her insistence on bringing weapons onto the floor of Congress. Maybe she wouldn't feel so threatened if she hadn't been egging on terrorists on 1/6.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene won't even stand up for what she's publicly posted about how space lasers started wildfires in California that killed 70 people. And she's a clown for claiming that conservatives are being censored (while speaking on live TV).

    Conservatives are not being censored - I know this, because I keep reading and hearing from conservatives about how much they're being censored. Like, in the news, on TV, on the radio...

    But her biggest, hands-down most gigantic piece of dog crap move has been to agree the that Parkland school shooting was a "false flag planned shooting". She is below contempt.

    How far do you go to try and engage people who will never ever respect you or come to some sort of compromise on reality? There are tons of people that - even when given lots of great opportunities - use their energy to erode our country. These are two of those people. They are enemies of our country, and if you honestly believe that they are worthy of representing the US I would consider you an enemy of our country as well.

    - mike

  9. #169
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    How far do you go to try and engage people who will never ever respect you or come to some sort of compromise on reality? There are tons of people that - even when given lots of great opportunities - use their energy to erode our country. These are two of those people. They are enemies of our country, and if you honestly believe that they are worthy of representing the US I would consider you an enemy of our country as well.

    - mike
    I'll just address this last part Mike. First though, I asked because I don't know who those women are or their views. Are there wicked and idiotic people in Congress? Yup, on BOTH sides of the aisle. When their constituents elected them, what should the respective party do, or what should the rest of us do? A coup to remove them from office isn't the right answer, or Pelosi and AOC would get the boot along with them. Far too many in Congress on both sides are there for pure self interest and to enrich themselves. They don't represent their constituents and they don't do what's best for the country.

    I'd be in favor of a Constitutional amendment to limit those in Congress to no more than two terms. Unfortunately Congress would have to vote for that so it will never happen. So, short of that, how do we fix this mess?


  10. #170
    ASCTLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Black Forest
    Member #
    1416
    Images
    5
    Equating stories about someone on the news, t.v., and radio being the same thing as allowing someone to speak their peace without being targeted for cancellation or harassment. Now that's some laughable shit right there!! Whatever twist of the English language you can twist :LMAO:

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by 74BuckinBronc View Post
    I don't do a darn thing except smoke a pack of cigs a day, drink whiskey, live a trashy existence and the money just rolls in. Wait, we get more money if we keep having kids?!?!"
    Well, you are using stereotypes and tropes to make the connection between "the left" and what some people might refer to as "welfare queens". That's fine and all, and it's your opinion, but it's (currently right here) not backed up by any facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by 74BuckinBronc View Post
    And for those mooching off the govt...how do you bet they vote?
    We actually know at least part of the answer to that question! I have presented you with actual verifiable facts that US states that traditionally and recently have voted for Republican candidates overall receive more in federal funding than states that vote Democrat.

    Again, you can have your opinion, but please don't think that I will confuse an opinion with fact when I see overwhelming evidence that supports the opposite of your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by 74BuckinBronc View Post
    A trusted friend of mine compiled two emails everyday leading up to the election linking to story after story; many with video proof, of vote switching, rescanning ballots, blocking R poll watchers, etc. I didn't keep all those emails, but even if I were to post the links here would it change your mind?
    Absolutely if evidence were produced that Democrats rigged this election it would change my mind. How could it not?

    The problem lies in the details, and you and I probably differ on what we call "evidence". There's a basic primer on courtroom vocab that (while a .PDF file) is helpful.

    Hearsay and speculation are most often not allowed in legal procedures, and for good reason. It's not to be bound up in legal knots, it's because during logical assessment of a situation you most often cannot rely on anything that isn't verifiable.

    • Are you saying that all those emails have verifiable proof in them?
    • Your friend, in basically reporting on these things, has fact-checked these claims/videos/accounts/whatever with other sources?
    • Your friend has presented these in an non-opinioned way, allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions?

    Let's hear from someone who I actually would have feared might be swayed a bunch more to the right, seeing that he's a federal judge appointed by Trump:

    Quote Originally Posted by americanbar.org
    In a Nov. 27 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia rejected a bid to decertify Pennsylvania’s election results by the Trump campaign. The author of the opinion was Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee.

    “Charges of unfairness are serious,” Bibas wrote in the nonprecedential opinion. “But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
    Or this guy:

    Quote Originally Posted by Attorney General William Barr
    Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
    That's the beauty, in my eyes, of this fantastic process that was kicked off after the election during which many allegations of massive voter fraud were brought to our courts. Several dozen judges, including judges appointed by Trump, have not found the charges of widespread voter fraud to be credible.

    So if you want to dismiss me as coming at this from a subjective point of view, I'm guilty as charged. I fully believe that while there were some very serious, direct actions taken to sway the outcome of this election, overall none of them succeeded enough to "effect a different outcome in the election.” And I don't think that any of the "evidence" that's been presented up to this point can stand up to legal scrutiny - because they actually have not stood up to legal scrutiny.

    In regards to my original question (roughly: does anyone really thing the left stole this election) I'm not looking to have anyone change my mind on it. There could be plenty of other reasons for me to ask about this, to ask the question. Most importantly, there is a need to understand how other people think. Understand more of how people think is a basis for better, more effective communication.

    - mike

  12. #172
    ASCTLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Black Forest
    Member #
    1416
    Images
    5
    I had you (Sweater) blocked for a while but unblocked you when I saw through Reply With Quotes that CC had you coming around to actually "discussing" things. Well that didn't last long because you, and doggie, did what I typically see of hateful people...call for and act like you're genuinely interested in discussion then once things start moving along you revert back to the same ole hateful spewing of the absolute irredeemable qualities of those who don't agree with your interpretations of issues...yep, trolling to suck someone in to engaging with you then unload the hate.

    Time to get back to ignoring that stupid crap.

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by ASCTLC View Post
    I had you (Sweater) blocked for a while but unblocked you when I saw through Reply With Quotes that CC had you coming around to actually "discussing" things. Well that didn't last long because you, and doggie, did what I typically see of hateful people...call for and act like you're genuinely interested in discussion then once things start moving along you revert back to the same ole hateful spewing of the absolute irredeemable qualities of those who don't agree with your interpretations of issues...yep, trolling to suck someone in to engaging with you then unload the hate.

    Time to get back to ignoring that stupid crap.
    OK.

    - mike

  14. #174
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    We actually know at least part of the answer to that question! I have presented you with actual verifiable facts that US states that traditionally and recently have voted for Republican candidates overall receive more in federal funding than states that vote Democrat.

    - mike
    And what is the rest of the story Mike? Where do those dollars go? Do they go directly to people in the form of welfare, or do they go to infrastructure, military bases, and all manner of other things that have nothing to do with "mooching?" It's easy to give a tiny bit of the story and spin it to suit your narrative, but that's what both sides do. It's far more difficult to dig deeper and objectively look at actual facts without emotion or an agenda.

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    And what is the rest of the story Mike? Where do those dollars go? Do they go directly to people in the form of welfare, or do they go to infrastructure, military bases, and all manner of other things that have nothing to do with "mooching?" It's easy to give a tiny bit of the story and spin it to suit your narrative, but that's what both sides do. It's far more difficult to dig deeper and objectively look at actual facts without emotion or an agenda.
    Hey - I was responding to this bit of "emotional narrative" during which zero facts were brought up:

    Quote Originally Posted by 74BuckinBronc View Post
    To that I would say as a "right winger hypocrites" I believe that the govt should be less involved in our personal lives so they have less control over us. Those on the left seem content with breeding people who depend on them. And for those mooching off the govt...how do you bet they vote? I mean, if my paycheck came to my door every month without me having to do a darn thing to earn it I'd...well that isn't how I was raised. Who knows, there may be a time when I need a handout, but I will be busting my tail to get back to standing on my own two feet not sitting back going "this is nice. I don't do a darn thing except smoke a pack of cigs a day, drink whiskey, live a trashy existence and the money just rolls in. Wait, we get more money if we keep having kids?!?!"
    So in this case, IMHO, one side brought up zero facts and the other brought up facts that seem to contradict the idea that "the left" seems to breed people to depend on the gov't.

    And if you'd like, we can go over some of the analysis of that Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government study:

    The federal system concentrates grants and funding to states with highest poverty rates for their residents, according to the report. The four major categories of federal spending examined and used in the balance-of-payment calculations are:

    • direct payments for individuals under programs such as Social Security and Medicare;

    • federal grants to state and local governments;

    • contracts and other federal procurement; and

    • wages of federal workers.

    Payments to individuals under the Social Security and Medicare programs are concentrated in states with large elderly populations, and states with large defense contracting sectors and more military bases get more federal defense spending. Federal wages are concentrated in states with a large federal employment presence, and has a significant impact on determining which states have the highest and lowest total per capita federal expenditures.
    Me, personally, I'm zeroing in on this part:

    The federal system concentrates grants and funding to states with highest poverty rates for their residents
    - mike

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    And what is the rest of the story Mike? Where do those dollars go? Do they go directly to people in the form of welfare, or do they go to infrastructure, military bases, and all manner of other things that have nothing to do with "mooching?" It's easy to give a tiny bit of the story and spin it to suit your narrative, but that's what both sides do. It's far more difficult to dig deeper and objectively look at actual facts without emotion or an agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    Hey - I was responding to this bit of "emotional narrative" during which zero facts were brought up:
    Is that an answer or a deflection of a question that sweater doesn't want to answer? Your "facts" remind me of this:
    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.- Mark Twain
    I started with nothing, and I've got most of it left.

  17. #177
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    And I'm zeroing in on this part of your last post Mike:

    Payments to individuals under the Social Security and Medicare programs are concentrated in states with large elderly populations, and states with large defense contracting sectors and more military bases get more federal defense spending. Federal wages are concentrated in states with a large federal employment presence, and has a significant impact on determining which states have the highest and lowest total per capita federal expenditures.
    So, states with large defense contracting sectors and more military bases get more federal dollars, and states with lots of federal employees get lots of federal dollars. Gee, imagine that, it's not really linked to either liberal or conservative welfare recipients.

    Facts are such pesky things.

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    So, short of that, how do we fix this mess?
    Term limits yes yes yes.

    Ranked choice voting, which IMHO:

    Take the last presidential election, for example. In 2016, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton received less than 50% of the total vote in 12 states, with the remainder going to third-party candidates. Under the current system, in each of those states, the candidate with the most votes was declared victorious. If the U.S. had a ranked-choice voting system, voters would have been asked to choose a second choice, third choice or more. (If Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a voter’s first choice, for instance, she would have been given the option of choosing a different candidate—Clinton, Trump, etc.—as her second choice.)

    Ranked-choice voting advocates argue that the plurality system doesn’t always reflect the true will of the people. It can lead to vote-splitting among candidates with similar positions, resulting in a candidate who is less popular overall being elected, experts say. That’s called the “Nader” effect or the “spoiler” effect.
    I believe that ranked-choice voting encourages people to be able to vote for 3rd-party candidates. It's also already set up in Maine, and we all know Maine's awesome.

    F'n nuke and pave partisan gerrymandered districts already. Like Maryland Gov Hogan (R) has been working towards, among many others.

    As for discourse around all of this? Oh hell that's a much harder topic.

    I think that we've been able to see a lot more people for who they really are these past few years. "Basket of deplorables?" I mean, I think we had an idea that she looked down her nose at certain people living in the US, and then here she was actually saying the quiet part out loud. And shortly thereafter I feel like the floodgates were opened. I think you'd argue that both sides do it just as much but I disagree. My opinion is that the rhetoric coming from conservatives/the right is much more concerning and I'm pretty sure that the FBI agrees with that sentiment.

    So part of it? I fully 100% support private companies kicking people off their platforms for what those companies view is hate speech, misinformation, and whateverthehell you want to call this Q-anon bull***. There are plenty of other companies out there that will be happy to pick up those users and let them have their audience on other platforms - and if there aren't? There isn't a single law telling you you can't build your own platform.

    But really, the thing that I think will help fix this mess? The next several generations gaining more of their voice:

    There are two key findings from these scenarios.

    First, the underlying demographic changes our country is likely to experience over the next several elections generally favor the Democratic party. The projected growth of groups by race, age, education, gender and state tends to be more robust among Democratic-leaning groups, creating a consistent and growing headwind for the Republican party. This will require the GOP to improve their performance among key demographic groups, election after election, just to keep their vote share competitive as illustrated by our first, age-based simulation that includes no generational effects. That simulation finds Michigan and Pennsylvania moving Democratic in 2020, with later elections in the 2020s adding Florida, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina to the Democratic column.

    Second, incorporating generational cohorts into this analysis dramatically accelerates the rate at which America’s political terrain could potentially shift, as shown by our second, generation-based, scenario. That scenario finds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona moving Democratic in 2020, with later elections in the decade adding Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Ohio to the Democratic tally.

    Even under scenarios where cohorts grow more conservative as they age or younger generations are substantially more conservative, these changes are still far faster than with simulations that consider only age groups and ignore the way generational changes can reshape the electorate.
    I'm not here to rub anything in about "demographic changes our country is likely to experience over the next several elections generally favor the Democratic party". I just think that younger generations - like every generation before them - are growing up to be more empathetic, and better informed than we are, and the generations before us.

    I think we're already in pretty big correction where we're stepping away from this mess, especially as we see pockets of extremism crumble.

    - mike

  19. #179
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    If that demographic shift proves true we'll have one party rule. I, for one, think that's a horrible thing for the country, regardless of which party it is. I'm sure democrats will disagree.

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Gee, imagine that, it's not really linked to either liberal or conservative welfare recipients.
    OK, this site correlated all the state-by-state info from this site to get a listing of which states have the most people on public assistance:

    The ten states that have the highest number of SNAP recipients are:

    California - 3,789,000
    Texas - 3,406,000
    Florida - 2,847,000
    New York - 2,661,000
    Illinois - 1,770,000
    Pennsylvania - 1,757,000
    Georgia - 1,424,000
    Ohio - 1,383,000
    North Carolina - 1,298,000
    Michigan - 1,180,000
    The states with the highest percentage of SNAP recipients are New Mexico (21%), Louisiana (17%), West Virginia (17%), Alabama (15%), and Mississippi (15%). New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Rhode Island all have 14%. In Wyoming and Utah, only 5% of residents are SNAP recipients, the lowest in the U.S.

    Here are the 10 states with the most welfare recipients:

    New Mexico (21,368 per 100k)
    West Virginia (17,388 per 100k)
    Louisiana (17,388 per 100k)
    Mississippi (14,849 per 100k)
    Alabama (14,568 per 100k)
    Oklahoma (14,525 per 100k)
    Illinois (14,153 per 100k)
    Rhode Island (13,904 per 100k)
    Pennsylvania (13,623 per 100k)
    Oregon (13,617 per 100k)
    What I found interesting about that was a state like NY - very high in # of people on assistance, but also very high in the amount of tax $ it sends out to the rest of the country. In effect, supposedly left-leaning NY has no problem paying its own way.

    I don't really care to talk about military bases or federal employees when the statistics will continue to show that the states with the highest number of people getting assistance from the gov't are most often:

    living in a state that traditionally leans conservative politically

    and

    living in a state that pays less back to the Fed gov't in terms of tax receipts.

    "Pesky facts" and all that.

    - mike

  21. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    If that demographic shift proves true we'll have one party rule. I, for one, think that's a horrible thing for the country, regardless of which party it is. I'm sure democrats will disagree.
    It's not saying that we're all going to become Democrats in a single party. From that article:

    First, not all generations start out equally liberal and Democratic leaning in their youth. Notably, Millennials and Generation Z appear to be far more Democratic leaning than their predecessors were at the same age. Even if today’s youngest generations do grow more conservative as they age, it’s not at all clear they would end up as conservative as older generations are today.

    Second, it’s clear that younger generations are on a different trajectory than older generations when it comes to some of those conservatizing life events such as home ownership, marriage, and raising children. All of those milestones are, on average, occurring later in life for these cohorts—if they are occurring at all. Hypothetically, this means that the conservatizing effect of aging apparent in some earlier generations may be muted. To date, this is consistent with the data we have. For example, there has not been a significant shift among Millennials, the oldest of whom are now in their late 30s.

    Third, America’s youngest generations are more racially and ethnically diverse than older generations. This is important because it would appear that nonwhite Americans are somewhat less affected by cohort effects than white Americans. Thus, the kinds of changes and effects we are accustomed to talking about among generations that are overwhelmingly white may not apply cleanly to more racially and ethnically diverse generations.
    I think what this article is saying is that currently, and possibly into the near future, there is one party that younger people seem to feel represents our younger generations more than the another party.

    Any of the parties here in the US are totally capable of branding themselves, or changing, or organizing differently in order to represent these up-and-coming generations of Americans. It's just that, currently and up to this point, one party has been able to welcome these generations more effectively than the other.

    TL;DR - this isn't about younger people more often becoming Democrats, it's about younger people expressing less conservative ideals now, and not becoming as conservative as they grow older.

    - mike
    Last edited by sweater; February 2nd, 2021 at 12:36 PM. Reason: typing too fast and making dumb spelling mistakes

  22. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by SamFromCO View Post
    Is that an answer or a deflection of a question that sweater doesn't want to answer? Your "facts" remind me of this:
    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.- Mark Twain
    Nope, not deflecting anything - I think I did a pretty good job of backing up my opinion at the least, and the fact at the most, that there are many more people receiving federal assistance (aka: handouts) per 100k in conservative areas of the country than there are in liberal areas of the country. And quite frankly I think that when conservatives call out blue-state bailouts they seem to forget how much blue states bail out conservative states annually.

    - mike

  23. #183
    Clod Hopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    The Big Prairie, Colorado
    Member #
    816
    Images
    80
    Pretty sure no one is going to change an opinion on any of this.


    I will say I recognized the irony of the individual stumping for more government control through higher taxes and redistribution is stamping his feet because he disagrees with how the redistribution occurred.

    My experience is when govt gets involved, no one is happy. YMMV.

  24. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Clod Hopper View Post
    I will say I recognized the irony of the individual stumping for more government control through higher taxes and redistribution is stamping his feet because he disagrees with how the redistribution occurred.
    Never said that and completely disagree with that notion. I am purely trying to point out the extreme hypocrisy of conservatives trying to paint the left as a bunch of welfare-dependent mooches.

    My feeling about gov't assistance is that people who need government assistance MOST OFTEN NEED IT and don't generally abuse it. If you infer shouting there, please be my guest. The myth of the welfare queen having more kids so she can get more money from the gov't is a nice little story that came out of the Reagan era. And we all know how well all those Reagan-era policies panned out.

    I have absolutely zero problem when states that make a buttload of money for our country

    like Connecticut, which sends out more than $2200 per resident than it gets back

    are able to pick up the slack, so to say, for other areas of our country. We're supposed to work on this country thing together.

    And if the left is "breeding" people to live off government assistance, the left is really really badly screwing this up because those people that the left are breeding seem to vote for conservatives, apparently.

    Of course:

    Taking money from states that pay more into federal aid programs and sending it to states that pay less into federal aid programs sure sounds like socialism. And it sure does seem to me that the biggest benefactors of those social programs are the people receiving public assistance who live in conservative states.

    Bunch of hypocrites.

    - mike
    Last edited by sweater; February 2nd, 2021 at 01:55 PM. Reason: bold-ing things and clarifying a sentence in the middle there

  25. #185
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
    John F. Kennedy

  26. #186
    Clod Hopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    The Big Prairie, Colorado
    Member #
    816
    Images
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    And it sure does seem to me that the biggest benefactors of those social programs are the people receiving public assistance who live in conservative states.

    Bunch of hypocrites.

    - mike

    Just so I understand, people receiving Fed Gov support in red states are conservative while the people receiving Fed Gov support in blue state are liberal? Maybe I misunderstand. Last I checked most every state has a nearly balanced number of liberals and conservatives. Red states have a little more of one while blue states the other. Well, some blue states have A LOT of the other.

    The Gov taxes, takes a cut to pay all the gov employees and then distributes it back to the states in whatever manner that best benefits the dorks in charge at the time the arrangement is drawn up. I would bet if you were to ask, most states would be more than happy to cut the feds out of the arrangement and take care of things themselves, even if it means a reduction from current income levels. Doing so would also lift many of the Fed mandates that the states may or may not agree with but can be horribly expensive. Example, highway system. I dont think many will disagree that the interstate system has been beneficial for the growth of the country. However, the cost to construct such a system is not the same burden for different states. Connecticut, lots of people, not many road miles. Montana, few people, many road miles. Left to the individual states, some may build and others not so much. If the system benefits the country as a whole, and the roads need to extend through all the states to be useful, the only way to make it work is to build it through the Fed Gov. It is really much more complicated in the manner it is actually funded, but the concept is correct. Is Montana being a hypocrite because the Fed Gov MANDATED the construction of the highway system through Montana and arranged a large chunk of the funding to get it built even though that funding came from states like Connecticut?

    Go back an look at your list of items identified in the study that constituted the Fed Gov spending. Welfare is only one. Oh, by the way, welfare systems and benefits, while typically paid through state systems, are required to follow Fed guidelines and minimums. The others are all direct Fed spending on things that the Fed wants. The fed disbursements to local governments is a bit grey in description, so sure there may be some pork there brought home by the state congressmen, and that shitty part of congress is abused by both blue and red teams.... the gd fookers.

    I get your point to a degree. But there is a lot more going on than just hypocritical behavior. I suspect many of the mouthy red state boasters you are referring to dont even really understand what they are boasting about anyway.

  27. #187
    Sweater keeps touting the relatively short snapshot of states that pay vs states that take, carefully crafted from select data points to support a narrative, as evidence that states that "historically vote republican" are the benefactor. Just curios how you arrive at that conclusion? During the short data period represented, it would appear that both the biggest payer and the biggest taker states are both historically left leaning (NY & VA) and the taking seems to pretty equitable regardless of how those states vote.

    There is plenty of credible evidence that there was widespread fraud during the last election. Because the courts chose not to hear the cases does not mean that there is no evidence. It's more likely that those judges didn't care to be the guy in the history books that changed an election.

    Social media platforms like the book of feces and twatter are not private industries. They used government protections to create their platforms under the agreement of equal access for all. Clearly there is a double standard for acceptable speech, if you can't see that you have simply chosen to shut out the facts that don't suit your worldview. And when people have tried to create competing platforms that do afford equality of speech, those have been de-platformed and removed from the internet.

    What I find the most concerning, is that people are willing to totally ignore the faults of their own party, while pointing out those same faults on the other side.

    Processing this second round of PPP loans I will say that I have lost my last remaining faith in humanity. Plenty of D's and R's coming with their hand out for free .gov cheese
    " A mans rights rest in three boxes; the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box" Fredrick Douglass
    "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them" George Orwell

  28. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by noahfecks View Post
    carefully crafted from select data points to support a narrative
    Well here's the thing. Someone on here tried to make this point:

    Quote Originally Posted by 74BuckinBronc View Post
    Those on the left seem content with breeding people who depend on them.
    I called BS on that, and not a single person here has brought up anything that counters my point. Lots of opinions, sure, but not a single bit of any sort of data or studies that rebuts my assertion:

    The states with the highest number of people receiving public assistance live in states where the majority of voters choose conservative / Republican during elections.

    I'm not talking about roads, or federal jobs, or military bases. I'm talking about people receiving SNAP benefits and Medicare/Medicaid benefits. Show us all the data if you think otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by noahfecks View Post
    There is plenty of credible evidence that there was widespread fraud during the last election. Because the courts chose not to hear the cases does not mean that there is no evidence.
    No there isn't. This is firmly in the realm of conspiracy theory and you cannot back it up with verifiable facts.

    If you'd like, you can peruse this very long list of court cases regarding the election. Do me a favor - post the court transcripts of the cases where judges said there was no evidence. And post the parts where the judges said that that evidence was not allowed to be introduced. The burden of proof is on YOU on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by noahfecks View Post
    And when people have tried to create competing platforms that do afford equality of speech, those have been de-platformed and removed from the internet.
    You cannot be more wrong on this one.

    The founder of the Pirate Bay:

    "The Pirate Bay, the most censored website in the world, started by kids, run by people with problems with alcohol, drugs and money, still is up after almost two decades," Kolmisoppi said. "Parlor and gab etc have all the money around but no skills or mindset. Embarrassing." [...] Platforming white supremacy and hate speech is a tougher proposition than serving users pirated copies of the Prince discography. But Kolmisoppi was quick to laugh at the fact that despite being backed by billionaires and parts of the US government, Parler didn't seem remotely prepared for the justified firestorm it found itself at the center of. "The most ironic thing is that The Pirate Bay's enemies include not just the US government but also many European and the Russian one," he said. "Compared to gab/parlor which is supported by the current president of the US and probably liked by the Russian one too."
    And here's the thing: Parler is very much online and on the Internet.

    Again, all those "pesky facts" getting in the way of this conversation.

    - mike

  29. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by noahfecks View Post
    What I find the most concerning, is that people are willing to totally ignore the faults of their own party, while pointing out those same faults on the other side.
    Well, I'll go on the record and say that I am not ignoring faults within "my" party: Democrats.

    But I think Democrats are screwing things up a lot less than Republicans are, so they've got my vote (for the most part) currently.

    - mike

  30. #190
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    What - exactly and objectively - is "hate speech?" Who decides who or what gets censored or prosecuted for such speech? When did a crime, any crime, become subject to worse penalties because of what the perpetrator was thinking at the time? Anybody want to attempt to answer those in the context of free speech and the U.S. Constitution?

    I'll wait.

  31. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    When did a crime, any crime, become subject to worse penalties because of what the perpetrator was thinking at the time?
    Looks like the FBI has been working on those sorts of cases for over the last 100 years:

    The FBI investigated what are now called hate crimes as far back as World War I. Our role increased following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before then, the federal government took the position that protection of civil rights was a local function, not a federal one. However, the murders of civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, near Philadelphia, Mississippi, in June 1964 provided the impetus for a visible and sustained federal effort to protect and foster civil rights for African Americans. MIBURN, as the case was called (it stood for Mississippi Burning), became the largest federal investigation ever conducted in Mississippi. On October 20, 1967, seven men were convicted of conspiring to violate the constitutional rights of the slain civil rights workers. All seven were sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to 10 years.
    But do not forget this part:

    A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
    My emphasis added.

    - mike

  32. #192
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    Mike, while the FBI says that, it's clearly not true. There have been court cases that have upheld enhanced (worse) sentences for hate crimes. That means what a person may be thinking when they murder someone makes it worse than if they were thinking about something else when they did it. How on earth does that make any sense? Is a murder or assault somehow worse if the perp hates the victim?

  33. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Is a murder or assault somehow worse if the perp hates the victim?
    Legally: yes.

    Wisconsin v. Mitchell basically upheld, at the Supreme Court level, in part, that

    (b) In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt, including a defendant's motive for committing the offense. While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into consideration a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment.
    Philosophically: maybe?

    When two guys strung up Matthew Shepard on a fence in Wyoming in 1998 it felt abhorrent and terrible and evil to me. When it became clear that Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson killed Matthew Shepard, in part, because he was gay it made the situation feel worse to me. I feel that committing a crime against someone because of something benign that they cannot control should carry a heavier sentence.

    Socially: yes. Wholeheartedly yes.

    Committing a crime against someone because of something benign that they cannot control is just shy of terrorism. When blacks get lynched by white supremacists in the 60's, that's not only taking the life of an individual but it also sends a powerful message to the community that that individual lived in, and to people that share in that benign trait. Hate crimes are prosecuted as such when the hatred is not just directed towards the individual victim, but when that hate is directed at a larger community that that victim is an "example" of. That is how a hate crime can have influence far beyond the micro level of the crime itself.

    - mike
    Last edited by sweater; February 3rd, 2021 at 10:22 AM.

  34. #194
    Captain Radon Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    On the beach
    Member #
    1311
    Images
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post

    When two guys strung up Matthew Shepard on a fence in Wyoming in 1998 it felt abhorrent and terrible and evil to me. When it became clear that Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson killed Matthew Shepard, in part, because he was gay it made the situation feel worse to me. I feel that committing a crime against someone because of something benign that they cannot control should carry a heavier sentence.

    Huh? If a husband kills his wife out of rage because she had an affair, that murder isn't as bad as two guys killing a gay man? Where is the logic in that? Murder is murder. I don't think the dead victim cares much what the reason was.

    Laws shouldn't be based on "feelings."

    There are "hate speech" laws on the books in various places now, where you can be prosecuted for a crime for something you say. Do you support those too?

    Don't get me wrong Mike, there are evil people in the world. People say hateful and hurtful things that should never be said in civilized society. That doesn't make saying them a crime subject to criminal punishment IMO.

  35. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Laws shouldn't be based on "feelings."
    Then thank god I mentioned my feelings in the sense of the philsophical part of my answer and most definitely NOT the legal part of my answer. I feel that it was worse, but I thought I made it clear that my feelings are separate from the legal and social aspects of my answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    There are "hate speech" laws on the books in various places now, where you can be prosecuted for a crime for something you say.
    Here in the US? Where? Exactly which US laws are in place "where you can be prosecuted for a crime for something you say."

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Do you support those too?
    No.

    But I sure do agree with the ruling handed down in SNYDER v. PHELPS:

    Westboro had been actively engaged in speaking on the subjects addressed in its picketing long before it became aware of Matthew Snyder, and there can be no serious claim that the picketing did not represent Westboro’s honestly held beliefs on public issues. Westboro may have chosen the picket location to increase publicity for its views, and its speech may have been particularly hurtful to Snyder. That does not mean that its speech should be afforded less than full First Amendment protection under the circumstances of this case. Pp. 8–10.

    That said, “ ‘[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times.’ ” Frisby v. Schultz , 487 U. S. 474 . Westboro’s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government’s regulatory reach—it is “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288 .
    The old example of "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" holds very true to this day. But if I'm supposed to be arguing about laws regarding being "prosecuted for a crime for something you say" I'm having a hard time finding any examples of that.

    - mike
    Last edited by sweater; February 3rd, 2021 at 10:40 AM.

  36. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    If you'd like, you can peruse this very long list of court cases regarding the election. Do me a favor - post the court transcripts of the cases where judges said there was no evidence. And post the parts where the judges said that that evidence was not allowed to be introduced. The burden of proof is on YOU on this one.
    Not sure if your response was a typo or just talking in circles, but it was my point exactly that no judges said there was no evidence but rather that they simply refused to hear the evidence.

    I didn't have to read very far, from the second link you posted:
    concluding that the court could not decertify a state’s election results, and that accusations of election fraud “that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.”
    Again they didn't say that there was no evidence, just that they refused to hear it. They did however label it hearsay without ever allowing the evidence to be presented.

  37. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by sweater View Post
    I called BS on that, and not a single person here has brought up anything that counters my point. Lots of opinions, sure, but not a single bit of any sort of data or studies that rebuts my assertion:

    The states with the highest number of people receiving public assistance live in states where the majority of voters choose conservative / Republican during elections.

    I'm not talking about roads, or federal jobs, or military bases. I'm talking about people receiving SNAP benefits and Medicare/Medicaid benefits. Show us all the data if you think otherwise.
    Actually, I used your own link to counter your assertion that it was "R" states that took more than they give. It appears that the taking states know no political lines. But it was my mistake to think that you would exercise any objectivity.

  38. #198
    creepycrawler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The land of free bacon.
    Member #
    5806
    This may be the best example or proof yet on how the elite left think.

    Yes i pollute with lots of carbon emissions but i offset my carbon pollution by telling everyone else that they can't do the same.

    The scary part is that they actually believe it to be a legitimate excuse and can't believe anyone would question them on it.

    From Fox News - Republicans hammer John Kerry for taking private plane to accept environmental award
    Republicans hammer John Kerry for taking private plane to accept environmental award

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...onmental-award
    From the only state in the USA where O'dumbass failed to carry a single county. :hail:

  39. #199


    If Trump really didn't win then most sane people would want any and all evidence of his loss blasted out to every court in the country to prove that Biden won. This isn't what is happening and everyone around the globe sees it. I don't think this is over by a long shot and it may get really ugly before it gets done.

  40. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Sound_Man View Post
    Thank you! I ran across that a long time ago and forgot about it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •