We disagree. You are not my enemy.

Nicely put, but unfortunately we are at the point of no return. Communist mentalities now rule the government and anyone that disagrees with them is their ENEMY.
Want proof? Just take a look at all the vindictive, disgusting threads on this forum. Look at the "democrats must solidify power" thread. All 3 branches aren't enough for these people. THEY WANT BLOOD.

Sorry to say, national peace is over. I will always respect my neighbor regardless of their beliefs, but civilized people like me are a super small percentage of America.

American dream = dead

 

No one is claiming both sides do not have faults.

But one side is being convicted of crimes far in excess of the other.

There is a difference between the two parties, one is rife with crime and faults, the other just has faults

 

It's a simple and incontrovertible fact that repub administrations have far more criminals in their ranks

I cannot help it if that fact is inconvenient to you. You are just struggling for anything that can mitigate that fact.

Sorry, the facts speak for themselves.

I can't imagine what repubs would be doing if the shoe were on the other foot.

Y'all been calling Obaman, Biden, Clinton, corrupt for years, but the evidence proves it's republicans who are corrupt.

I"m just going with the hard data, and repubs rely on whispers and conspiracy theories.

 

I know the truth as it is given me to know.
You disagree, demonstrates
I'm better than you!


Moi

psst, y'know the truth of
don't you?​

 

Wasn't it brute force the right wing extremists used when they attacked the Capitol last week?

 

I don't think they all want blood. Certainly there are true believers on both sides who think nothing of committing violence against their adversaries. But the statistics would indicate they are the outliers, basically hooligans who have no use for the rule of law but who instead believe it is their role in this life to violently impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Consequently, these also tend to be the most extreme beliefs at either end of the political spectrum. YMMV.

 

There are thugs on both sides. Boogaloo Bois and 3%ers who wear 6MWE patches are no different than ANTIFA BLACK BLOC. Their tactics are nearly identical, and frankly so are their objectives. The only differentiator is the ideology, IMHO.

 

It's a good thing that AOC doesn't speak for the majority of Democrats. It would take her decades, if at all, to sway the centrists. She only needs to read the public service life of Sanders to know that. He was exactly the same early in his career, and conservative's fears at the time were for naught. Nothing new here.

The government buys private property all the time, and always has. Usually in the form of land they need for infrastrjcture projects. In this case, it would be completely voluntary. Sell the rifle to the government, or register in accordance with the National Firearms Act. If caught somehow with an unregistered rifle that falls within the assault rifle category, you would again be given that choice, along with a fine. And fyi, "Freedom to keep and bear arms," as you stated, implies a prohibition against confiscation, so even if you didn't use that word, "keep" implies it. Banning gun makers from manufacturing more of these rapid fire, high capacity weapons is not a bad thing, in my opinion, but is a reasonable response to the many times that such weapons have been used in mass shootings, the least we can do to lower the body count. You may not like it, but I do.

"... illegal to sell a gasoline-powered vehicle after 2035." But not illegal to continue driving the old car. I'm a car person, my father was a race mechanic, I essentially grew up at race tracks. We had a 1963 Shelby 427 Ford motor in our boat. The sound of a deep-breathing, growling V-8 is like mother's heartbeat to me. So believe me when I tell you, this is SO not a cause for concern. Even today's Formula 1 cars are hybrids, and they've managed to set new track records all over the world, records from the old days of screaming V-10s, using about 32% less fuel. I see nothing bad about that!

The bit about batteries being more polluting is untrue. Yes, there are toxins in batteries, and toxins from the manufacture of them, but it is miniscule compared to the tons of CO2 that combustible engines spew into the atmosphere, and the cleanup is far easier. And no, electric vehicles do not have polluting emissions. If you have proof that they do, please provide a link. (Your claim, your burden of proof.)

(BTW, we're not trying to save the planet, we're trying to save the human habitat, not to mention that of the millions of other creatures living here. The planet will survive whatever we throw at it, but our species will not,)

As for Biden's corporate tax plan: again, worrying over nothing. We are still the richest country on the planet, with the most consumption of goods, and if corporations have to pay a little more in taxes to do business here, be assured that they'll do that. "They collect them -- from their customers." -- that's you and me, paying their taxes as well as our own. If they pay more into the federal treasury, we all benefit. And btw, data entry is a dead profession. We're all online now, and WE are entering all the data corporations and governments need. Biden's plan is to teach coal miners how to build windmills, etc. Win-win.

$15 per hour is barely above subsistence level. Even a minimum wage job should pay a person enough to live on, pay for food and shelter. Right now, it falls far short. "And you disincent low wage earners from substantively increasing the value of their labor by obtaining a skill valued by employers." -- I disagree. Some may rest on that, but most humans want more. Not just more money, but more knowledge, and more of the feeling one gets when one's ingenuity is rewarded by a bonus, a raise, a promotion, or a new job with a better employer. I worked my own way up in high tech to a six figure income by ceaselessly sticking my foot into door after door, and I did not go to college. (Was that supposed to be disincentivize?)

Biden's plan is to reform the way in which tax breaks are awarded to those who save for retirement. I haven't looked into it because I no longer have a 401k (I used it to buy my house), but is very hyperbolic to suggest that Biden plans to do away with the system.

How and why would the government mandate that doctors, or any other professionals, would no longer accept cash? Sorry, but that's just ridiculous and I think you know that.

"Biden wants to force all workers to join a union ..." -- simply not true. Encourage and urge and incentivize are not synonomous with "force."

No offence intended, I'm trying to be nice, but I feel compelled to say that opinions based on false information are not valid opinions.

 

The corruption of the duopoly should be obvious to any objective observer. For as much as the two sides pretend to hate each other for our amusement and mollification, there is no doubt they collude to insure theirs are the only voices heard. The fix has been in for a long time. They own us and they know it. And there is no incentive for them to even consider changing the status quo.

 

You asked me specifically to substantiate my claim regarding AOC and her extremist contingent. I have done so. Now you are trying to move the goalposts.

False equivalency: Real property purchased under eminent domain =/= "voluntary" surrender of firearms. The Biden gun plan is pure authoritarianism and will have ZERO impact on violent crime. Politicians are unwilling to address the causes of violent crime -- which is NOT firearms. Any politician who does dare to propose crime abatement measures is quickly cancelled in today's "we see you" culture.

The untruthful differentiation of "assault rifle" is deployed solely to appeal to the emotions of those ignorant to the features and functions of modern firearms. It is a made-up term (by the Clinton people) to advance the fallacy that citizens are walking around with military hardware. This then allows them to coin the term "common sense gun control" which they now call "gun safety" and assure us is "reasonable." They figured out "control" carried negative connotations. Now who could ever ever oppose "reasonable common sense gun safety" ? Except they don't know the first thing about gun safety.

Oh I thought we were going to have a good faith discussion here. Straw man fallacy: Please do not tell me what your imagination needs me to have stated to substantiate your position.

There's that word reasonable. Your suggestion that prohibiting law-abiding responsible adult citizens from possessing certain inanimate objects and prohibiting the manufacture of same will "lower the body count" is a fallacy with no scientific evidence, backed only by wishful thinking. In fact, I can cite decades of data that easily disprove the theory that disarming responsible adult citizens has no impact on violent crime: It is window dressing that does nothing to address the intent of those wishing to inflict harm on others. The cause of violent crime is? Wait for it... violent criminals. I can kill a person with a piano string. Since I wish not to kill anybody, you are safe around me with a piano string. And we already refuse to hold bad actors accountable for their misdeeds, choosing instead to explain away bad behavior by citing all manner of "contributing factors" and refusing to say "Bob is solely responsible for murdering Joe because Bob stock a gun in Joe's face and squeezed the trigger."

For now. If the end goal is to eliminate hydrocarbon powered cars, it is naïve at best to assume the car-grabbers will stop until they have succeeded in eliminating gas-powered cars from the roads. This is a very important distinction here: My position states consistently that individuals should be free to make their own choices, and not to have them imposed on them through force by a small group of self-appointed elitists who presume to know better than the masses. The market should decide. But because the elitists know the market will not accede to their desires for control (there's that word again), they will instead resort to the organized violence of the state to force the citizens into submission with their insatiable desires to contrive a society in their own image.

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. You are not the topic of this thread.

Fallacy. I did not make this claim. I stated they are highly toxic. Which is a fact.

Fallacy. I did not claim "electric vehicles have polluting emissions." I claimed -- correctly -- that they do not eliminate emissions, they only concentrate them. I should not have to explain this. But tell me how electric vehicles obtain their EMF. Then we may have a basis for further discussion.

Pedantry noted.

I disagree with your position that "we all benefit" from more money in the federal treasury. In fact, I will take the exact opposite position and argue we all benefit from more money in our personal treasury. The problem with excessive corporate taxation is two-fold: 1. Tax liability is built into the cost of the product. Corporations do not pay taxes. They only collect them. There should be no corporate income tax -- the dollars that flow into corporate revenues are already post-tax dollars. Frankly this is a much larger discussion. But the competitive environment has a direct impact on economic activity in a given jurisdiction. The velocity of money is the true determinant of economic growth and increased prosperity for more people. A low-tax environment increases the velocity of money; a high-tax environment decreases the velocity. Evidence of this can be found by looking at the record federal revenues subsequent to the modest Trump tax cuts. Can you figure out how the government can actually collect more money after lowering the tax rate? I'm happy to explain it to you if need be.

Sidenote: Not an endorsement of Trump, but objectively: nearly $2 trillion in liquidity was repatriated in 2017 and 2018 by some of the largest American corporations specifically in response to Trump's corporate tax cuts. That is money that these companies had legally sheltered (stashed) to keep it out of the hands of the previous tax-loving administration. These monies were directly invested into the economy through a variety of means, all increasing the velocity of money -- why you had record low unemployment, and the best economy of my lifetime (pre Wuhan Corona).

You can massage it any way you wish, but the fact remains that min. wage does not help low-wage earners advance. All it does it promote stasis. If you truly want to help the "working poor," encourage them to obtain a skill that an employer will value. You could set the wage at $15,000/hr. and those at the bottom will still be at the bottom. See: Price elasticity of demand for further explanation.

LOL "reform." Code for soft-tyranny.

We operate under the rubric of "fairness." Now it is patently "unfair" for people with money to have the ability to "pay cash" for better medical care than, say, your $15,000/hr. min. wage millionaires who have to rely on the largesse of the state for their basic medical needs. That's why.

See: right to work state and understand that Democrats fundamentally oppose them.

Your opinion on this matter is both irrelevant and off topic. And I could say the exact same thing to you, but will not because I would rather we stick to the facts.

Thank you for an interesting discussion thus far.

 

I notice your quest to prove my posts and I thank you kindly for that effort

 

Any narrative that attempts to include other than actual cabinet members and higher as "crimes by an Administration," by wrongly including consultants, contractors, operatives, volunteers, hold-over underlings, attorneys, AND even hold-over, or promoted hold-over cabinet members who also served in prior Administrations, absent direct POTUS direction for such contractor-type underlings to engage in crime, is a fallacious, partisan propaganda lie narrative intended to deceive.

This is because 1. the legal principle of "respondeat superior" does not apply to contractor-type hirelings who are not actually under the direct control of a POTUS; unless 2. A POTUS personally ordered or authorized the crimes. Even then, any such crimes would not be accurately characterized as "crimes of an Administration" but rather "crimes for which a POTUS is indirectly or directly responsible."

What you and other partisan propagandists are doing is fudging the definition of "Administration" fallaciously in print for all to see. Examples of the purposeful dishonesty include Stone, Cohen, Gates and Manafort, none of whom had any position in the Trump Administration whatsoever, and Flynn who was a holdover from the Obama Administration. Not surprised at the repetitive dishonesty. Get honest.

 

.5% or less of otherwise peaceful protestors present entered the Capitol and committed crimes therein. Some of those were ANTIFA/BLM/Professional agitators, and no idea how many of the remainder among the violent could be accurately called "right wing extremists."

As far as whether the crimes committed by those few involved any form of authoritarianism, you can certainly push that fallacy if you like.

 

I'll file ALL of that crap in the 'distinction without significance" file. the buck stops at the resolute desk.

All you are doing is trying to weasel the argument. It's really bullshit.

They are all minions and entourage, and you can't handle the fact that republicans have more criminals in their ranks and entourage than democrats.

It's because republican presidents, too, are criminals, but getting a conviction on a president has historically proven to be an elusive butterfly.

 

Boogaloo Boys was a government honey trap, not a real group. No idea about the other groups. There is no equivalence possible between the numbers and crimes of LW v RW rioters in 2020 and to date. Sadly, there will likely be more equivalence in the future though.

 

You can file it however you like. The distinction was not for your benefit, you are ineducable. It was for the benefit of others who may be fooled by dishonest propaganda falsely defining "Crimes by this or that Administration" to include other than actual crimes by an actual POTUS Administration. Contractors, attorneys, consultants, other examples previously provided, etc., are not part of ANY POTUS Administration, whether Trump, Obama or any other.

What you are attempting is analogous to a court finding you liable for the spousal abuse of a guy you hired to paint your house, and that's ridiculous unless you personally directed the painter to hit his wife.

 

Perhaps the dystopia vision is your own. I do not see America as being brought to its knee through globalism, but rather America’s opportunity to lead the world. I really do believe in American exceptionalism. The whole world would be better off if every country adopted American ideals.

Look what we did to Japan and Germany. They where our most fierce enemies. Once defeated, we made them adopt our ideas and values. Made them our friends. Today they are among the most fair minded, honorable countries in the world.

I think that if the US invaded Central America and Americanized their cultures, that they too would become steadfast allies and we would no longer have the immigration issues that we now have.

 

It is very possible I am not adeqautely articulating my position: There are extremists at both ends of the continuum, and radically different as they are, they share a singular objective: total submission to their pogrom. What they call themselves is irrelevant.

I suppose these are people I would consider enemies -- not merely people with whom I share a difference of opinion. Enemies of freedom, enemies of my automomy... real jerks, and I don't use that term lightly.

 

Of course you dont. What an entertaining notion.

 

Oh, twaddle.

Like I said, you just can't handle the fact that it is your side that is committing all the crimes, i.e., your nitpicking reminds me of the lawyer who, without facts and evidence on his side, resorts to pounding the table and nitpicking on unimportant facts.

At some point you'll have to reconcile with the truth, you can't go on through life in denial, it's not healthy.

 

Evidence?

 

Sorry, but you've resorted to personal insults too many times and I refuse to continue a battle of wits with someone so obviously unarmed. I've been civil with you, but I have limits.

 

Including crimes of contractors, consultants, hold overs from other administrations and the other categories of associates previously listed as "Crimes of X Administration" is a propagandistic, partisan LIE. Doesn't matter which Administration, Obama, Trump, any. If you don't like getting called on it, then don't repeat it.

You -could have- claimed "Trump Associates" instead of "Trump Administration" and been honest, but you and others who peddle this particular partisan propaganda canard don't, abhor honesty, and we know why. You know that if "associates" are included, the crimes go drastically up for Democrats, and all manner of people like Soros, Ayers, Sharpton, etc. would be included in "Associates." So instead, you inaccurately attempt and fail "Trump Administration" and include people who aren't actually IN the Trump Administration in addition to holdovers and other categories.

 

No, that's on you. Until you can evidence some arrests, actual crimes committed, known members, video, riots, etc. Boogaloo Boys was a combination Fed honeypot and internet LARP, meme, not a real movement, and that's why it simply faded out as memes tend to do over time. Contrast to ANTIFA with numerous riots, other criminal acts, terabytes of video, known members arrested en masse at the same riots.

 

Personal insults? Excuse me? Will you kindly point to these alleged insults? Thank you.