@FlyingLionWithABook's banner p

FlyingLionWithABook

Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 25 19:25:25 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1739

FlyingLionWithABook

Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 25 19:25:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1739

Verified Email

I would imagine the trade off is still worth it. Billions of East Asian peasants lived off almost nothing but rice for thousands of years. They weren’t at optimal health, but they managed.

In the sense that it’s made up of people who are not the President, yes. Should it act like independently? I’d say no, but that is the question.

But we would be cavalry horses in the American army!

If the SS can’t do basic communications and planning then it tells me that our enemies can assassinate the US POTUS at any time assuming they can find one competent guy willing to die for the cause.

They kind of can? Reagan got shot by a lone nut, it's not actually that hard to shoot at the president if you don't worry about your own personal safety.

I had heard that they did send someone from local PD to check it out, he peeked his head up on the roof, the shooter aimed the rifle at him and he dropped down, then the shooter started shooting at trump.

I doubt it was that fast, if it did happen. The AP is currently vague on what exactly happened, writing "Outside, a local officer climbed up to the roof to investigate. The gunman turned and pointed his rifle at him. The officer did not — or could not — fire a single shot. But Crooks did, firing into the crowd toward the former president and sending panicked spectators ducking for cover as Secret Service agents shielded Trump and pulled him from the stage. "

The BBC has more detail: "A local officer with the Butler Township Police Department attempted to check the roof. He was hoisted up by another officer when he "made visual contact with an individual who pointed a rifle at him", Butler Township Manager Tom Knights told CBS. The officer was in a "defenceless position" and couldn't engage the suspect, Mr Knights said. The officer "let go and fell to the ground" then immediately alerted others to the armed suspect's location. Moments later the shooting began."

Seems like the shooter was getting ready, possibly building up his nerve, when a cop's head popped up over the side of the roof. He pointed the rifle, the cop dropped in fear, and then the shooter likely (and quite reasonably) thought "The jig is up, it's now or never" and went for it.

I was getting increasingly angry before I realized the joke. Well done sir.

Political parties exist to win elections and gain power. If the party doesn’t think a candidate is likely to win then that’s the most legitimate reason for a party to force that candidate out.

Shoot, I was looking forward to winning. I really hoped the Democrats didn’t have the capacity to force Biden out.

I can only hope they lack the competence to choice a “generic Democrat” candidate who has a chance of winning.

A party breaking with their own internal practices because they’re afraid they’ll lose is, again, the most legitimate action for a party to take because the entire purpose of political parties is to win. They only started doing “democratic” primaries like this since the fiasco with Hubert Humphrey, if they think going back to the smoke filled room this time around increases their odds of winning then why shouldn’t they?

Oh please let it be Kamala. She’s a purely lateral move in terms of actually winning as far as I can see.

Functor, by implication.

Governments should be terrified of riots. Unless you’re capable of sending in the troops and shooting to kill (like China or North Korea) no government has the ability to stop a riot when it gets large enough. 100 police cannot stop 1,000 rioters, much less 10,000. I believe that many in government on the left treated left wing protests with kid gloves partly out of knowledge of how difficult it is to control riots, but mostly from ideological commitments that favored the rioters cause. Now those same officials think they can crack down on right wing rioters successfully, and they will find they’re sorely mistaken. The best way to stop rioters is to stop the riot from beginning in the first place: if you let it get this far, with this much built up resentment, and having shattered the cultural value that rioting is wrong (which might have otherwise kept normies from jointing in), there may be no way to put the genii back in the bottle. At this point there may be nothing they can do but hunker down and try to mitigate the damage until the riots burn themselves out.

Yes, it is.

Copyright literally is the right to make copies. If little Timmy draws a picture of Mario for his fridge, it’s within Nintendo’s legal rights to issue Timmy with a takedown notice and threats of legal action if he does not comply.

Now nobody does that, because you’d have to be nuts, but copyright law is way more extensive than you’d think.

Yeah, they’re notably aggressive about enforcing their copyright. The fact that most companies don’t have the resources or don’t prioritize enforcing their copyright as much has led to a lot of people underestimating how extensive copyright actually is.

Cui bono? Who would benefit from orchestrating two assassinations in this case? I’m inclined to believe it’s coincidence without that.

Kamala is happy to fight in the dirt with Trump, because she too can have a full debate without saying anything substantial.

Then why hasn't she done any interviews, answered any questions from the media, or agreed to more debates? She's terrified of being put on the spot. Remember, this is the woman who was so nervous about having dinner with a big doner that she had her staff put on a practice dinner for her.

give them a job that's subsidized by the government so it's less brutal than most minimum-wage jobs, but still gives them some responsibility and spending money

Subsidization is not necessary. I started working part time minimum wage jobs when I was 14, high schoolers are more than capable of handling minimum wage work. It’s not like they’ll be sent to the salt mines (for one thing, salt mining pays a lot more than minimum wage).

True, but was there anywhere better to be poor in than London in 1900? I doubt Paris or New York was much better.

I suppose I would agree with that!

I dunno, one of the main things that marked Christians out in the first and second centuries was that they took in babies left out to die. That's a long time before 1890.

You mean they believe the lack of policing and the lax standards the democrats are okay with are designed to keep them poor and clients and are harming the black communities

Yes

and that they believe a higher amount of paternalism would make the situation better ?

No, they generally believe that it's mostly welfare's fault that the poor black community is screwed up. The standard narrative is that blacks were doing well and making their way up in society before LBJ's Great Society ruined them by trapping them on the dole. So the general solution is to get rid of the dole; when they have to work for a living they'll actually have an incentive towards virtue.

Having read the link, the baby farmers neglecting or killing the children they adopted was not societally acceptable. That wasn't the point, the actual point was a decentralized societal foster care system. It certainly seems to be the case that the vast majority of children fostered this way were not deliberately killed or died of neglect.

On whether voting is a duty, I would first ask: does a sovereign have a duty to his nation? It seems yes, he has a duty to rule well.

I would ask second: who is sovereign in the United State of America? The answer to this is well known: the people are. "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So then, as one of the United States of America's many sovereigns, do I have a duty to rule well? Yes; and in this country the sovereigns rule by voting.

Therefore, voting is a duty.

As Patton once said, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time." If you think your candidate is probably going to lose, then you're less likely to vote at all. There are a lot of people who would be motivated to vote if they thought their candidate had a good chance of winning. Who wants to be on the losing team?