@zeke5123a's banner p

zeke5123a


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 March 06 04:28:27 UTC

				

User ID: 2917

zeke5123a


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2024 March 06 04:28:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2917

Me think she doth protest too much.

I dont think ought is all that interesting. Or rather, I think focusing on oughts lead to utopian thinking which lead to disaster. Much rather have some basic ideas of the good while focusing on marginal improvements of “is”

No you have to force economic conditions to suck for immigrants. Strictly enforce e verify. Heavily tax remittances. Harshly restrict benefits to immigrants. Turn off chain migration.

I’ve made this point a million times. Deny all benefits to illegal immigrants. Strictly enforce their inability to work. Tax remittances heavily. Put a harsh jail sentence for catching an illegal. Turn off chain immigration.

Illegals go bye bye.

I think the framing is slightly incomplete. It wasn’t that Russia simply out of the blue decided to invade Ukraine. The relevant areas have been essentially disputed for a decade with low level attacks against Russians in the relevant provinces and Russian agitation in the same. You have the color revolution in 2014. The whole thing was messy and then Russia decided to turn it up to 11.

Also re nuclear weapons Qaddafi was the impetus.

But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”

Why do you think Clinton talked about 3m votes? What another other shenanigans? It’s quite clear she is strongly hinting without saying that she did in fact win.

Also, keep in mind Clinton knew the Russia shit was bullshit that her own campaigned came up with and that she signed off on.

Sure but if the UK is implementing EU policy, then UK can be used as an example of bad EU policy.

Well, the point is that free speech is important because it can be ugly while telling important truths. I agree the speaker in this context was not polite but he shined a light on the evils of Islam.

But this illustrates why free speech is important. Let’s assume ad arguendo that Muslims are in fact making Britain worse. If you categorically remove the ability to question problems (eg increasing Muslims and encouraging Muslims to stay is making Britain worse), then you either (1) end up with a worse country and/or (2) remove it from a political discussion into a violent one.

I think your comment says more about the Muslim community than anything.

Minus the association (eg ECHR)

Why mention winning by 3m votes coupled with saying the election was not on the up and up if all you meant was Trump was a Manchurian candidate? There really isn’t anything in there about Manchurian candidate. That’s motivated reason to avoid the obvious truth.

That’s just an unreasonable interpretation and I suspect bad faith.

You don’t mention winning by 3m votes while claiming the election was not on the up and up / saying something isn’t right here simply to mean “Trump is a Manchurian candidate.”

The whole point of mentioning the votes is to to suggest you were actually elected but something “not on the up” happened.

Here is the quote from the article:

“There was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level. We still don’t know what really happened. There’s just a lot that u think will be revealed. History will discover. But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on about come away with an idea like, ‘Who’s, somethings not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”

That’s fucking clear as day election denialism. Care to recant?

Your claim was nonsense. You claim there was no election denialism. Yet Hillary made points about downstream votes making you scratch your head? What do you think that is? What do you think she meant when she said he wasn’t the legitimate president? Of course she is claiming the election was not on the up and up. Just because you have a specific definition doesn’t make your claim reasonable.

Hell Trump admitted that Biden was the lawful president. See he didn’t deny the election.

This is just not true. People like Clinton claimed Trump did not legitimately win. See https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html

See also Stacey Abrams.

I suspect most people are mind body dualist.

They are so shackled by their blank slatism and fear of racism. Pro immigration in the year of our lord 2025 is the idea that genes and culture don’t matter.

Seems to me the easy change is to cut social spending to immigrants. State in six months the spigot is turned off but will pay an additional six month lump sum + moving costs if they leave.

Sure. But when videos are 30 seconds long, you could have one ad per ten videos and still end up with a decent ad return.

Also ads shown to customers are not the only important monetization stream.

My prediction is that the second kind of grade inflation causes the first kind of a grade inflation.

Yeah that’s my biggest problem. The field is inherently unserious. Yet many people “tut tut” about someone bringing in a non academic point of view when the entire field is non academic.

Did you read the essay? It wasn’t good but your claim that she spent most of the time talking about non binaries instead of gender roles fails reading comprehension

Wasn’t the assignment read this piece and react to it?

There was a communal aspect to it that I still miss—especially for comedies.