Nordstroms, a US retailer, happily sells "The future is female" T-shirts [shop.

Spiritwomyn comments on May 31, 2019:

First what you choose to wear is your business, maybe we all need to stop being mini dictators. Second it does not necessarily mean, without men, but that women are finally becoming the powerful beings they have always been but had to suppress because their power frightens men.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 31, 2019:

@chuckpo **Bone-headed, divisive rhetoric that simply has zero value in a relational world.** Uh huh.

I hope Nikki Haley is considering a run for President in 2024. [politico.com]

iThink comments on May 30, 2019:

Me Too! I've been saying Haley would be a perfect candidate for the Repubes to nominate. I really wish we could rid ourselves of the two legacy political parties somehow. Nevertheless I'm a big fan of Nikki Haley!

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@iThink Yeah that is one downside (for them--re: pollsters and pundits)--and in some states and municipalities where it has been implemented it took longer to count the vote, leaving some uncertainty on and after election night.

I hope Nikki Haley is considering a run for President in 2024. [politico.com]

iThink comments on May 30, 2019:

Me Too! I've been saying Haley would be a perfect candidate for the Repubes to nominate. I really wish we could rid ourselves of the two legacy political parties somehow. Nevertheless I'm a big fan of Nikki Haley!

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@iThink https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgo-eJ-D__s

I hope Nikki Haley is considering a run for President in 2024. [politico.com]

iThink comments on May 30, 2019:

Me Too! I've been saying Haley would be a perfect candidate for the Repubes to nominate. I really wish we could rid ourselves of the two legacy political parties somehow. Nevertheless I'm a big fan of Nikki Haley!

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@iThink No that's national popular vote. Ranked choice is just an instant runoff--it lets you vote for your top choice first (e.g., a third party) without throwing your vote away.

I hope Nikki Haley is considering a run for President in 2024. [politico.com]

iThink comments on May 30, 2019:

Me Too! I've been saying Haley would be a perfect candidate for the Repubes to nominate. I really wish we could rid ourselves of the two legacy political parties somehow. Nevertheless I'm a big fan of Nikki Haley!

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

We need ranked choice voting IMO. https://www.fairvote.org/rcv

I wonder how many walls we could've built with the tax payers money, if we didn't spend it on all on...

WilyRickWiles comments on May 30, 2019:

Manafort and others' asset forfeitures mostly offset the expense of the Mueller investigation.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@PalmThis Manafort's not a Democrat.

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@Chicago That is literally the job of the Census, which it has been doing for centuries.

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@Chicago I've elaborated on this in response to Varga's comment above. But the bottom line is that the Constitution and immigration law are pretty clear on the difference between "Persons" and "Citizens." You're arguing a change in interpretation--the same one that motivated the citizenship question in order to facilitate a future lawsuit. Legal precedent is not on your side.

Deceased G.

Varga comments on May 30, 2019:

“But after he died last summer, his estranged daughter discovered hard drives in her father’s home that revealed something else: Mr. Hofeller had played a crucial role in the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.” So could you explain your ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

Here's my position, as I've posted on here before: I do not support the inclusion of the question. It is a nativist scare tactic designed to produce an undercount and a means to collect data that would facilitate a lawsuit challenging the interpretation of Census-related language in Article I of the Constitution--both of which are motivated by an intention to discriminate based on race and party to advantage the GOP--as demonstrated by the actions of the Republican strategist mentioned in the article. Moreover, I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years (I'm flexible on the number of years) should be extended to women and non-whites. Even when the Constitution was written, all free persons and 3/5 of other persons (slaves) were included in the Census in keeping with Article I of the Constitution. And there weren't immigration laws until the Chinese Exclusion Act and other similarly racist legislation in the late 1800s, ironically just as the Statue of Liberty was being dedicated. Here's what the Declaration of Independence says on the matter: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Here's what the 14th Amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." State laws aide, non-citizens weren't barred from voting in federal elections until the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. I think the fact that a right to vote is not made explicit in the Bill of Rights has made it easier to infringe. So too perhaps has the use of the word "citizens" rather than "persons" in parts of the aforementioned 14th Amendment and the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th.

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@Chicago Your analysis misunderstands the Constitution. Regardless, here is a direct answer to your question from the article, citing the Republican strategist in question: "The documents cited in the Thursday court filing include an unpublished August 2015 analysis by Mr. Hofeller, who was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet financially backed by Paul Singer, a billionaire New York hedge fund manager and major Republican donor. Mr. Hofeller’s charge was to assess the impact of drawing political maps that were not based on a state’s total population — the current practice virtually everywhere in the nation — but on a slice of that population: American citizens of voting age. At the time, the study’s sponsor was considering whether to finance a lawsuit by conservative legal advocates that argued that counting voting-age citizens was not merely acceptable, but required by the Constitution. **Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.** **The reason, he wrote, was that the maps would exclude traditionally Democratic Hispanics and their children from the population count. That would force Democratic districts to expand to meet the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement. In turn, that would translate into fewer districts in traditionally Democratic areas, and a new opportunity for Republican mapmakers to create even stronger gerrymanders."**

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@Chicago As I clarified in my comment preceding yours, we're not talking about the voter pool here--we're talking about representation of minority citizens. Non-citizens aren't voting in federal elections.

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@Boardwine @Chicago But that's the thing--it's not a "census of US citizens." Consult Article I of the Constitution.

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@Boardwine By my loose use of the term "voter suppression," I was referring to how the effort would dilute the impact of minority votes and their resulting political representation.

The Criminalization of Abortion Began as a Business Tactic - HISTORY

Bonez comments on May 30, 2019:

Interesting spew. Literally zero references.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

I count 13.

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@Boardwine Keep in mind that these details were filed in court, so it's public information.

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

@Boardwine I'd recommend reading the article, checking the sources if necessary, and deciding for yourself.

Deceased G.

Boardwine comments on May 30, 2019:

Whatever. The government has an absolute right to ask about citizenship. It's a simple question. If illegals don't want to answer it maybe they should think about not committing a felony offense by sneaking into the country.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 30, 2019:

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor and visa overstays are a civil violation. Moreover, it is important that this effort was undertaken with an intent of race-based voter suppression and a dishonest legal strategy.

How the IDW Can Avoid the Tribalist Pull - Quillette

RobBlair comments on May 29, 2019:

I've been actively seeking out intellectual interviews with people that are not on the right. How about a list of thinkers to listen too (instead of a preachy article)? The Weinsteins, Pinker, etc... Giving Rubin short shrift for listening to challenging perspectives is not a thing with me. Sure...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 29, 2019:

For the record, the posted article doesn't represent my POV, though I do appreciate some of the criticisms it makes. I think there are less celebrities on the left and they are more specialized. The Majority Report does a lot of great interviews with left-wing authors. You can find their episodes listed here. https://majorityreportradio.com/episodes They're on YouTube too. Here are some book lists that people have compiled: https://www.goodreads.com/group/bookshelf/827154-the-majority-report-podcast-goodreads-group https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/76373.Majority_Report https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/76374.Majority_Report_II I could mention what's on my reading list right now, but I think you'd be better off following your own curiosity.

Bernie Sanders is not that rich for someone his age.

RichardD comments on May 29, 2019:

Is he in favour of people getting rich or against it?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 29, 2019:

@RichardPD Maybe, maybe not, but Buffett is.

Bernie Sanders is not that rich for someone his age.

RichardD comments on May 29, 2019:

Is he in favour of people getting rich or against it?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 29, 2019:

@RichardPD And yet even Bill can't give faster than his wealth grows. Thus inequality worsens. Meanwhile the billionaires are focused on weird obsessions like overpopulation and failed school reforms. And their less charitable peers are electioneering across the globe. Better to use taxes and solve public problems democratically while tackling inequality.

Bernie Sanders is not that rich for someone his age.

RichardD comments on May 29, 2019:

Is he in favour of people getting rich or against it?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 29, 2019:

@RichardPD Correct me if my assumption is wrong, but it seems that The Tax Foundation used dynamic scoring to make that projection. If that method is sound then we should expect the Trump budget deficits to shrink any day now!

Bernie Sanders is not that rich for someone his age.

RichardD comments on May 29, 2019:

Is he in favour of people getting rich or against it?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 29, 2019:

@RichardPD Which is why their heirs still get to keep over half of their unearned inheritance.

Bernie Sanders is not that rich for someone his age.

RichardD comments on May 29, 2019:

Is he in favour of people getting rich or against it?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 29, 2019:

@RichardPD Regardless, that still gives heirs a pretty good start on wealth creation and is in the spirit of a rough billion dollar threshold.

Bernie Sanders is not that rich for someone his age.

RichardD comments on May 29, 2019:

Is he in favour of people getting rich or against it?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 29, 2019:

@RichardPD Oh, didn't know you were talking about dead people!

Bernie Sanders is not that rich for someone his age.

RichardD comments on May 29, 2019:

Is he in favour of people getting rich or against it?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 29, 2019:

I think he might only take issue with people accumulating in the ballpark of a billion dollars or more.

"I'm a far-left Christian activist - like Jesus Christ.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 28, 2019:

Left politics aren't inherently athiestic or Marxist for that matter. It's easy to forget that after decades of Cold War propaganda and McCarthyism that have conflated the two. My grandfather was part of a secret Catholic cell as a young person. They sought to ferret out leftists in society ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 28, 2019:

@Naomi Haha, no he is not.

[cnbc.

chuckpo comments on May 24, 2019:

Trump is just what Democrats deserve. The behavior you see has existed for the last decade on the Dem side. Democrats just can't stand to see themselves in Trump, nor are they interested in losing power to someone who's willing to do what they've done themselves. Trump is a mirror to the Democrat ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 25, 2019:

I'm not a mental health professional, so I don't have a professional diagnosis, but I have observed that Chuck is Dr. Jekyll-like as long as IDWC provides him a right-wing safe space, but as soon as the merest dissent presents itself he transforms into a Mr. Hyde-like troll!

[cnbc.

chuckpo comments on May 24, 2019:

Trump is just what Democrats deserve. The behavior you see has existed for the last decade on the Dem side. Democrats just can't stand to see themselves in Trump, nor are they interested in losing power to someone who's willing to do what they've done themselves. Trump is a mirror to the Democrat ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 25, 2019:

@chuckpo The one thing I want to know about Kavanaugh is why did he have to lie? Why couldn't he just own up to the fact that he did some things he's not proud of when he was young and he's grown since then? The message I received from him was: "All these years I've been following the rules of elite society as I understood them, hell I even hired diverse clerks, so how dare you impugn my integrity and try to take this away from me!" Such entitlement! Yeah, "Renate Alumnus" was just about showing affection for a good friend. Every man in America knows what a mountain of bullshit that is. And so does Renate.

Brexit turns on itself as a Twitter meltdown breaches containment. [youtube.com]

Exposethecorrupt comments on May 24, 2019:

The current approach used by Social Media in the intentional management of information to users is in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. The citizens of the UK have guaranteed rights and freedoms under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Social Media companies in their active ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 24, 2019:

Dude, why are you spamming this on multiple posts?

Kushner replied 'on it!' after Manafort sought post for banker

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

So, are you calling out nepotism? Here? In America? Say it ain't so!

WilyRickWiles replies on May 23, 2019:

@govols Ah. Pending additional information, I don't see any reason to single out Kushner more than any other administration member--and it's entirely possible the administration was ignorant of the bribe--but even poor vetting is a bad look for the administration.

Kushner replied 'on it!' after Manafort sought post for banker

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

So, are you calling out nepotism? Here? In America? Say it ain't so!

WilyRickWiles replies on May 23, 2019:

Banker Stephen Calk was indicted today for giving Manafort millions of dollars in loans as a bribe for a position post. Kushner cooperated the same day that the loans were arranged but may not have known about the bribe. Calk went on to be considered for various posts but only received an appointment to the Council of Economic Advisors.

Is MILO a 4-letter word? [youtube.com]

RobBlair comments on May 22, 2019:

Excellent interview! Milo - "Most of the problems with the church is that there are no men in it." Jordan - "Well good, nothing controversial there" - 1:23:00+ Now that homosexuality has been relegated to the back of the political bus, its good to actually hear discussions regarding ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 22, 2019:

@RobBlair You know it's possible to identify problems with the world, even to adopt a worldview with elements of collectivism, while not being personally miserable and rudderless, right?

Is MILO a 4-letter word? [youtube.com]

RobBlair comments on May 22, 2019:

Excellent interview! Milo - "Most of the problems with the church is that there are no men in it." Jordan - "Well good, nothing controversial there" - 1:23:00+ Now that homosexuality has been relegated to the back of the political bus, its good to actually hear discussions regarding ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 22, 2019:

Progressivism is particularly common among young people, who practically aren't even having sex anymore. They are probably leading more ascetic lives than the right-wing culture warriors who whine about them. They are progressive not because of an immoral lifestyle (or vice versa), but because they are unhappy with their social atomization and have identified modern capitalism as the cause.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@jneedler Alrighty then. Notice that I kept my cool and pinned myself down on several issues despite a rather uncivil start to this comment thread and your own rude interjections, none of which addressed the substance of the original post. I'll be honest, though, I was OK with that because I didn't quite feel like writing an essay tonight. I just wanted to post a few articles that were educational to me and might challenge the leftist caricature I keep seeing in this community. Moreover, gun laws aren't my top priority and I'm OK with ceding ground on things like public carry to states and local municipalities as long as advocates don't try to impose it universally. That last word, "universally" is the key word here. The world isn't black and white and it's not "inconsistent" to support different solutions in different situations, or "point scoring" when one doesn't reveal every facet of their positions in their first reply to an inflammatory comment. Have a good night!

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@jneedler Forgive me if I didn't set up enough context for my offhand comment, leading you to read it as a universal truth. What was the context, though? It was the everyday experience of riding on public transportation. I don't tend to spend much time in the handful of gun violence hotspots in my city, where there is a need to re-establish rule of law. By your implication, we should spoil all places with more guns because there are a few problem areas.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@gmanglk Umm... to be clear I'm not implying that guns commit crimes.

I think we should strip the Constitution down to it's bare form as the founding fathers wrote it.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 21, 2019:

Why is that? Not a fan of equal protection under the 14th Amendment? Or maybe you want there to be less democracy? Surely you don't want to bring slavery back! Perhaps this is about taxation.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@Dutch What can I say, we like our slavery abolition, desegregation, and direct election of Senators around here. They used to like that stuff up in Wisconsin, too!

I think we should strip the Constitution down to it's bare form as the founding fathers wrote it.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 21, 2019:

Why is that? Not a fan of equal protection under the 14th Amendment? Or maybe you want there to be less democracy? Surely you don't want to bring slavery back! Perhaps this is about taxation.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@Dutch There may be nothing supporting slavery (though the 3/5 Compromise hints at it), but there is no right preventing slavery, either.

I think we should strip the Constitution down to it's bare form as the founding fathers wrote it.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 21, 2019:

Why is that? Not a fan of equal protection under the 14th Amendment? Or maybe you want there to be less democracy? Surely you don't want to bring slavery back! Perhaps this is about taxation.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@Dutch I didn't say that we are a direct democracy. I implied that we have some democracy.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@gmanglk "There is no such thing as gun violence or gun crimes" Say what?

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@jneedler First, I think we should make a distinction between non-gun crimes and gun crimes. Attempting to manage non-gun crimes through carry laws is counterproductive, as I touched upon previously. When we talk about gun crimes, we're talking about crimes that are concentrated in places where rule of law has broken down, or acts of extreme violence. I generally don't go to places such as the former, and the latter are rare, so having universal carry laws doesn't make much sense to me. I could come around on carry in places such as the former, but I think we should focus on re-establishing rule of law. Moreover, limiting the supply of guns and other regulations, which would be done through the law by the way, can help with both problems.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@Boardwine We would do well to adopt the Swiss model. For the most part, guns are government-issued, ammunition is regulated, training is mandatory, there is a gun registry, public carry is limited, and the system is designed around defensive militia membership.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@jneedler I didn't say anything about "a criminal committing a crime." I was talking about people who carry in public. I've observed racially charged confrontations between hot-tempered people on public transportation, for example. I can't imagine how those confrontations would have been any better if the parties had guns that they could use to potentially bully the other person with. I'd rather not be in public spaces with people who carry. Rule of law is working just fine at managing crime--adding vigilantes to the equation won't help anything.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

@Boardwine I'm not calling for guns to be taken from you. Not sure how else what I'm calling for could be construed as taking your rights away. Also, it's kind of hard for me to run away from someone with a gun when I'm on public transportation, for example, or on a busy city street. Rule of law works better there and contributes to a higher standard of living, IMO.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

I mean, that's how we successfully confronted other products that caused social problems--e.g., the drug known as "Quaaludes" in the '70s and '80s.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

Aside from that, I am completely against public carry and stand your ground laws.

Here are some nuanced left-wing takes on gun laws [thebaffler.

Boardwine comments on May 21, 2019:

Which of the hundreds of gun laws now on the books aren't working? Here's what the left doesn't seem to understand. 1) Anything. 2)Guns 3) Laws don't stop criminals. 4) With over 310,000,000 weapons in the US, if legal gun owners were the problem, you'd know it.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 21, 2019:

I would say that the main gun law we need is one that would regulate the manufacture of guns, in order to start cutting down on the proliferation you mentioned.

I have never understood the logic of liberals who admit crony capitalism is a problem and yet ...

WilyRickWiles comments on May 18, 2019:

Well here's an example. IRS enforcement against wealthy tax-dodgers pays for itself, but at the moment their funding has been cut so much that they can't afford to do it. Instead, they end up having to focus on poor and middle-class people who make simple and obvious mistakes. Funding the IRS more ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 20, 2019:

@RafaelMspt My point was simply that government size is not correlated with corporate corruption.

I have never understood the logic of liberals who admit crony capitalism is a problem and yet ...

WilyRickWiles comments on May 18, 2019:

Well here's an example. IRS enforcement against wealthy tax-dodgers pays for itself, but at the moment their funding has been cut so much that they can't afford to do it. Instead, they end up having to focus on poor and middle-class people who make simple and obvious mistakes. Funding the IRS more ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 20, 2019:

@RafaelMspt Was there some specificity in your original post that I'm missing? It seemed to me that you were clubbing liberals with generalities about big government, crony capitalism, and bureaucracy. How else to counter that than to get into specific examples--unless I'm overlooking your own examples...

I have never understood the logic of liberals who admit crony capitalism is a problem and yet ...

WilyRickWiles comments on May 18, 2019:

Well here's an example. IRS enforcement against wealthy tax-dodgers pays for itself, but at the moment their funding has been cut so much that they can't afford to do it. Instead, they end up having to focus on poor and middle-class people who make simple and obvious mistakes. Funding the IRS more ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 19, 2019:

@RafaelMspt It seems to me that the military industrial complex works differently than other "crony capitalist" industries. For military, the cronyism comes in the form of the defense budget--which there is basically a bipartisan commitment to perpetually increasing. For other industries, e.g., energy, finance, and technology, the cronyism comes in two forms: legislation, which doesn't have much to do with bureaucracy, and deregulation, which decreases the size of government. The parties are more at odds here and there are less appropriations involved. Moreover, I'm not sure how one would curb big tech influence, for example, without antitrust enforcement, which is a form of big government. Then there are the well-established social insurance programs, which many might think of as the best examples of big government, e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, that are mostly government-run (i.e., no cronies involved), and more efficient than their corporate counterparts. Because big government can be used to describe different dynamics, I don't think it is fair to make sweeping generalizations about its efficacy.

I have never understood the logic of liberals who admit crony capitalism is a problem and yet ...

WilyRickWiles comments on May 18, 2019:

Well here's an example. IRS enforcement against wealthy tax-dodgers pays for itself, but at the moment their funding has been cut so much that they can't afford to do it. Instead, they end up having to focus on poor and middle-class people who make simple and obvious mistakes. Funding the IRS more ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 19, 2019:

@RafaelMspt Isn't funding an analogue for size?

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 19, 2019:

@chuckpo I guess we have to agree to disagree on the definition of the word "you" as well.

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 19, 2019:

@chuckpo What do you call this? **I would NEVER expect you to accept what I'm saying--or even understand where I'm coming from.** And earlier: **I know you won't like that or agree** I may have escalated my tone, and only in response to you making it personal, but that is not the same as name calling and "raging."

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 19, 2019:

@chuckpo Nope, I only return fire, never initiate.

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 19, 2019:

@chuckpo Seems like a politically-motivated copout from having a coherent worldview. Despite your dislike of labels, you say you're anti-left, pro-equality, quite Libertarian, and pro-culture-war. And you refuse to define what those labels mean to you, how they interrelate, or what otherwise defines your supposed transcendent philosophy. Moreover, you dodge any discussion of whose interests are served by the right. I wonder why you even brought up the concept of a class struggle if you only have time to talk about how bad the left is. I guess I'll have to wait for that other post to learn what you think the correct approach is toward equality.

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 18, 2019:

@chuckpo Isn't the right's culture war its mirror version of the left's propaganda, and doesn't it serve its electoral interests? And if those interests aren't those of the wealthy and powerful, then whose are they? Moreover, isn't the culture war counter to libertarian interests?

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 18, 2019:

@chuckpo Hmm... my understanding is that the right is backed by more billionaires, particularly from industries that would benefit from the concentration of wealth, power, and resources--e.g., the energy industry. The center-left, on the other hand, has more support from the upper-middle, professional class, which includes the financial and entertainment industries. But I suppose a more rigorous study would be in order.

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 18, 2019:

@chuckpo Well we seem to agree on our true political opponent: not our neighbors but the very wealthy and powerful. At its core, past the propaganda and tactics, the left believes that right-wing parties are acting on behalf of the wealthy and powerful, to preserve their wealth and power. Do you disagree with that premise? If not, isn't it more counter to your goal of equality to ally with the right rather than try to influence the left? And I disagree with your implication that the left is nihilistic. Some on the fringe may be, but most are reformists. Rather, Trump-aligned populists like Steve Bannon have been very clear about their desire to burn everything down.

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 18, 2019:

@chuckpo **Too many people go through life never asking the questions.** Say what you will about leftists, but they are expressly concerned with those questions. **I believe strongly in equality and abjectly reject the radical left's approach to equality.** OK. I anticipate that part of your difference with the left comes down to a distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, but you seem to recognize that neither is achieved by the status quo. Moreover, you recognize that a class struggle exists. So what is the right approach?

In case you were wondering, nothing has changed, TheLeftCantMeme

chuckpo comments on May 18, 2019:

Yeah, I just look at the number of women pushing back on some of these ideas now. That's what's important. A lot of women I talk to came to realize a career isn't necessarily 'better'. A lot of men I talk to realize raising a family isn't easy. It's tough and rewarding and soul crushing and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 18, 2019:

You're starting to sound like a leftist, @chuckpo!

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@Chicago Fair point for academic programs in certain strict engineering disciplines, but the engineering school in question also includes software engineering, which was what I was thinking of when I wrote that comment (probably should have mentioned it). And again, it's a public institution. I think it is excessive to require near-perfect test scores, 4+ GPAs, extracurricular involvement, etc. just to get in, when there are many more qualified local students.

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@purdyday Though I have to admit, your comments make me feel pretty powerful!

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@purdyday If people like you were in charge here (I hope they're not), you would never have diversity of thought. You just want people to validate your groupthink!

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@purdyday "over positive curricular qualification" That's a big assumption there.

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@Guido_Provolone You said "If one is inclined moar to the Left." DeVos is an example of an opposing view (to the left).

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@Guido_Provolone And charter schools just haven't led to better outcomes. It is not a competitive market in the same way that consumer products are, for example.

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@Guido_Provolone DeVos is the Secretary of Education. She is also a leader in the charter school movement. In her words, "It goes back to what I mentioned, the concept of really being active in the Shephelah of our culture — to impact our culture in ways that are not the traditional funding-the-Christian-organization route, but that really may have greater Kingdom gain in the long run by changing the way we approach things — in this case, the system of education in the country." Historically, Christian conservatives have been interested in giving public funds to religious schools in order to maintain segregation. That's how the modern conservative movement started.

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@Guido_Provolone As opposed to folks like Christian Dominionist Betsy DeVos?

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@Guido_Provolone Yeah, that doesn't seem to be working. It's just a way to make segregation great again.

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@RobBlair Perhaps there's a balance to be struck? The standards are so high in the Engineering school at the public University of Illinois that local students with good grades and test scores from good schools can't get in unless they later transfer from the aviation school, for example. Never mind the cost if they do make it. These are people who go on to succeed but have to jump through a lot more hoops. Our public institutions have become too focused on prestige.

Thoughts on “Disadvantage Scores” in college admissions.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 17, 2019:

I'm not against it. Tests are not infallible and universities have successfully experimented with different means of measuring aptitude, e.g., going "testless" and focusing on essays. Moreover, my understanding is that most affirmative action gives a chance to **deserving** people who wouldn't ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@RobBlair Foreign students are prevalent because they pay full tuition, subsidizing American students, and because the mission of elite universities has become to educate the world's best, brightest, and future leaders. Our prosperity has historically increased not from class stratification but from expansion of public education. I'm not saying that all working class people should go to college, though most would benefit from some time studying the liberal arts and how to be a citizen. And while a college degree may not help as much as it used to, it still gives people a big leg up. The fact that not everyone can cut it is more reason that increasing access should be a no-brainer, especially for advanced degrees. Cost is a huge barrier and it is being driven up by the expensive tastes (e.g., for new facilities) of wealthy donors. And our primary and secondary schools are not preparing people in disadvantaged communities.

Why are only right-leaning people being called "Conspiracy Theorists" as they're being banned from ...

DrN1 comments on May 14, 2019:

If the IDW is what it says, critical analysis of so called conspiracy theories should hardly even be a matter for debate. The Earth is a sphere, 2+2=4, the laws of physics i.e. gravity can be proven experimentally, and these experiments can be replicated exactly. Believing conspiracy theories ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@george I think people in general need to be better with uncertainty. I remember when I first moved away from home to go to college, I was frustrated by all of the things I had been mistaught. I think many in similar positions become impatient and start jumping to conclusions opposite from what they had been told. I think the correct path is to start from a position of conventional assumptions, test those assumptions, and be patient, accepting that it takes decades to understand how the world works. Granted, not everyone is up to the task, which is concerning, but maybe they would do better if there weren't people in positions of power (e.g., Fox News) validating their paranoia all the time. As an aside, I also was dissatisfied with the 9-11 Commission, particularly the cover up of Saudi connections and missteps by leadership, but that's not enough for me to jump to any conclusions about why the towers fell.

Why are only right-leaning people being called "Conspiracy Theorists" as they're being banned from ...

WilyRickWiles comments on May 6, 2019:

It's less that they're "conspiracy theorists" and more that they're "far right conspiracy theorists." The qualifier "far right" typically suggests an authoritarian and nationalist bent. Such speech has a tendency to incite violence against minorities. We're historically sensitive, for example, to ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 17, 2019:

@jwhitten Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will add that I would use "social democracy" to describe what @george calls "democratic socialism," and instead use the latter to describe a socialist tendency focused more on workplace democracy and other forms of bottom-up democratization, but it is not uncommon to use his definition. Bernie Sanders, for example, calls himself a democratic socialist even though he (like FDR who called himself a liberal) is more of a social democrat (likewise many so-called progressives and of course the social democrats of Europe). I think its popularity as a term stems from its apparent broad connotations. Also, the most popular socialist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a multi-tendency organization, making it natural to use as a label for anyone who is not an authoritarian.

is anyone having problems trying to reply to comments within posts?

WilyRickWiles comments on May 16, 2019:

You might want to try doing a force-refresh to bypass your browser cache: CTRL-SHIFT-R. They're probably making changes to some of the JavaScript source code that makes the site run in your browser--and those get cached by your browser and generally don't get refreshed after changes if the ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 16, 2019:

CTRL-F5 works too. Those on mobile browsers probably have to clear their browser cache (I don't think there's an easy shortcut to do it for just one site).

The Left-leaning media like to create and champion underdog stories where an identity-based victim ...

WilyRickWiles comments on May 15, 2019:

Intersectionality, of the sort practised by the Women's March organizers, is supposed to be the antidote for those contradictions. Without a class analysis, identity politics doesn't make the world a better place. It is hollow, arbitrary, and only serves to form a slightly more diverse elite.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 16, 2019:

@Babou Well it helps if your goal is to create a more egalitarian society. If you think the elite is oppressing you, making it a little more diverse, which is all that mere identity politics accomplishes, mostly just makes the oppressor look a little bit more like you. In all likelihood, they'll even start identifying as white within a generation or two! I think the liberal establishment is misguided in wielding identity politics against individuals in public like a cultural human resources department. I did see your post above about biology. I want to be cautious about going down this road--there are many biological reductionists among the IDW and the right, who want to give up trying to improve society because tribalism, violence, and hierarchy are purportedly human nature. By their logic we should revert to cave people any day now! But I do agree that there is a biological component to racism, for example, and that none of us escape it. We have a lot of control over our beliefs, but it is harder to control the subconscious patterns that our brain recognizes, e.g., in the crime report on our local news. Recognizing this is important, of course, and there are ways to condition yourself to "see" more positive patterns, but it is unreasonable to expect such from the average person. Of course, the main focus of identity politics is elite formation, and elite institutions are where systemic oppression comes from. And I take it from your comments on the Nazis, for example, that you're on board with trying to stop such expressions of tribalism, even if you disagree on the causality. At the end of the day, if we can agree to lighten up on the moralizing over individual racism, isn't the causality beside the point? Shouldn't we try to make the local news not form such negative patterns in the subconscious mind? Shouldn't we oppose political nativism?

The media is lying to you about Trump’s China tariffs The hysteria must have a political agenda...

Chicago comments on May 15, 2019:

You're right. I tried to make this point to a formerly good friend of mine too but all he cared about was the tariff. He didn't care one bit that the wealthy would be the ones bearing most of the price which I thought was the wealth tax that he wanted. Even the farmers won't suffer that much if ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 15, 2019:

@Chicago If the problem is that China is exploiting its people's labor, shouldn't we negotiate a trade agreement that puts that to an end--or perhaps even send the proceeds of the tariff to Chinese workers?

A Tearful Close to North Carolina’s Election-Fraud Hearings | The New Yorker

FrankZeleniuk comments on May 14, 2019:

Does you thinks that democrats will be more inclined to approve of voter ID laws now? You know, wanting to minimize opportunities for election fraud by those dastardly republicans.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 15, 2019:

@FrankZeleniuk I tagged you all in response to Boohickey tagging us all. If it doesn't look like I have a point, that's because Boohickey has been dragging out an argument with me that began on another post. I simply asked her to substantiate a claim about voter fraud in the form of an argument (not just a list of links).

A Tearful Close to North Carolina’s Election-Fraud Hearings | The New Yorker

FrankZeleniuk comments on May 14, 2019:

Does you thinks that democrats will be more inclined to approve of voter ID laws now? You know, wanting to minimize opportunities for election fraud by those dastardly republicans.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@BooRadley And I wouldn't be so condescending if you weren't spouting so much bile in my direction.

A Tearful Close to North Carolina’s Election-Fraud Hearings | The New Yorker

FrankZeleniuk comments on May 14, 2019:

Does you thinks that democrats will be more inclined to approve of voter ID laws now? You know, wanting to minimize opportunities for election fraud by those dastardly republicans.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@BooRadley One of the nice things about making an argument is how it frames the debate. Right now I have no way of knowing if your diagnosis of "the voter fraud problem" is akin to Hillary's (i.e., voter fraud is basically nonexistent and voter suppression is the real problem) or the Trumpist crowd who think that millions of undocumented immigrants voted. So why don't you put your award-winning skills to use before they get rusty! I've done plenty of reading and writing on this issue and I'm not going to waste my energy trying to anticipate phantom arguments.

A Tearful Close to North Carolina’s Election-Fraud Hearings | The New Yorker

FrankZeleniuk comments on May 14, 2019:

Does you thinks that democrats will be more inclined to approve of voter ID laws now? You know, wanting to minimize opportunities for election fraud by those dastardly republicans.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@BooRadley @FrankZeleniuk @Bay0Wulf, @Garsco, @MADcHATTER The absurdity of all this "lead a horse" talk is that I'm probably far more familiar with your side's argument than you are with mine. Were any of you even paying attention during the circus of Mike Pence's election fraud panel? That Hans von Spakovsky character gave Kris Kobach a run for his money!

A Tearful Close to North Carolina’s Election-Fraud Hearings | The New Yorker

FrankZeleniuk comments on May 14, 2019:

Does you thinks that democrats will be more inclined to approve of voter ID laws now? You know, wanting to minimize opportunities for election fraud by those dastardly republicans.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@BooRadley You made a claim with no evidence, I challenged it, and you responded with a list of links. A list of links is not the same as a fact-based argument using your own words. I'm trying to do you a favor here. You could really benefit from more practice at reading comprehension and argumentation.

A Tearful Close to North Carolina’s Election-Fraud Hearings | The New Yorker

FrankZeleniuk comments on May 14, 2019:

Does you thinks that democrats will be more inclined to approve of voter ID laws now? You know, wanting to minimize opportunities for election fraud by those dastardly republicans.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@BooRadley @FrankZeleniuk @Bay0Wulf, @Garsco, @MADcHATTER I'm not particularly interested in speculation by wacko conservative activist groups like Judicial Watch. I can't imagine they're any smarter or honest than voter fraud activist Kris Kobach, for example, who insists that first and last name matches to rolls in another state are evidence of fraud and not just common names.

A Tearful Close to North Carolina’s Election-Fraud Hearings | The New Yorker

FrankZeleniuk comments on May 14, 2019:

Does you thinks that democrats will be more inclined to approve of voter ID laws now? You know, wanting to minimize opportunities for election fraud by those dastardly republicans.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@BooRadley Still waiting for you to make an argument for yourself.

Sam Seder Responds to Dave Rubin's Latest Debate Dodge - YouTube

Boardwine comments on May 14, 2019:

Sam is a condescending douche. Why would Rubin debate him? Seder has a audience of maybe 50,000 on his best day. Rubin is pulling 4,000,000. Maybe if Seder actually had something original to say instead of parroting uber left progressive nonsense he'd get a chance to talk on the big stage. But since...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@Boardwine Theory aside, I'm actually not really sure what intersectional means in practice other than different interests seeking solidarity in their actions against a common political opponent. What's so radical about that? You are blowing marginal issues far out of proportion. You're not likely to see Sam, for example, pushing those talking points.

Sam Seder Responds to Dave Rubin's Latest Debate Dodge - YouTube

Boardwine comments on May 14, 2019:

Sam is a condescending douche. Why would Rubin debate him? Seder has a audience of maybe 50,000 on his best day. Rubin is pulling 4,000,000. Maybe if Seder actually had something original to say instead of parroting uber left progressive nonsense he'd get a chance to talk on the big stage. But since...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@Boardwine You're right, it is an alternate reality, but it's YOUR alternate reality, not Sam's or the left's!

Sam Seder Responds to Dave Rubin's Latest Debate Dodge - YouTube

Boardwine comments on May 14, 2019:

Sam is a condescending douche. Why would Rubin debate him? Seder has a audience of maybe 50,000 on his best day. Rubin is pulling 4,000,000. Maybe if Seder actually had something original to say instead of parroting uber left progressive nonsense he'd get a chance to talk on the big stage. But since...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

Sam has about half a million subscribers and Dave has about a million. Sam had about 20,000 views in his last broadcast and Dave had about 30,000. Seems comparable enough to me. Who knows if all of Dave's views are real, anyway--he could be pulling a Prager. And maybe Sam's style isn't to your taste, but his interviews and debates are spot on. Dave's needlessly drawing attention to his weaknesses in those departments by continuing to dodge the left, IMO.

The Sexual Identity argument is a rhetorical battle where lots of smoke gets used.

AZWoman comments on May 12, 2019:

People can call themselves whatever they want. If given a DNA test they will be one of two, male or female. It doesnt matter if they remove genital or modify their bodies, DNA will remain the same, it doesn't change.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 14, 2019:

@AZWoman My intent was to draw attention not to any studies but to the simple fact that there are karyotypes besides XX and XY, resulting in intersex traits (which is different from being transgender).There is Klinefelter syndrome, for example, in which a person's karyotype of XXY. Then there is Turner syndrome with an X karyotype. And there are a number of other genetic and hormonal states that can have similar results.

Dave Rubin Q&A | Turning Point USA | Santa Clara University - YouTube

iThink comments on May 13, 2019:

in order to have a meaningful debate on any particular subject there must first be an established and agreed upon premise that the subject itself is either good or bad. The debate may then begin with each side articulating their hows and whys and whereins and whats. Leftists work from a premise of ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 13, 2019:

@iThink I think if we had the data and methods to compare cultures, we wouldn't need markets--we would have an algorithm to centrally plan everyone's lives! LOL.

Dave Rubin Q&A | Turning Point USA | Santa Clara University - YouTube

iThink comments on May 13, 2019:

in order to have a meaningful debate on any particular subject there must first be an established and agreed upon premise that the subject itself is either good or bad. The debate may then begin with each side articulating their hows and whys and whereins and whats. Leftists work from a premise of ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 13, 2019:

@iThink To the former, yes. The aims of government are different and more limited than culture. Of course the underlying facts of a culture are objective, but cultural superiority is a difficult thing to prove, and I'm not sure why someone would want to, other than to subjugate a group of people. Are you really up to the task of determining the scope of customs and people that compose a culture and aggregating its value over every possible measure of performance relative to other cultures? Better to make specific criticisms based on objective facts than risk dealing in sweeping stereotypes.

Dave Rubin Q&A | Turning Point USA | Santa Clara University - YouTube

iThink comments on May 13, 2019:

in order to have a meaningful debate on any particular subject there must first be an established and agreed upon premise that the subject itself is either good or bad. The debate may then begin with each side articulating their hows and whys and whereins and whats. Leftists work from a premise of ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 13, 2019:

@iThink "It didn't feel like a smear." Honestly, who's the relativist here? Is there any basis to your claim other than: all leftists are relativists because some of the '60s new left were? Do you have any evidence that I am a relativist? I've posted at length in support of universality and on how the right, particularly Trumpists and people like Jordan Peterson, have been infected by '60s relativism. A prime example, and a rather ironic one, is the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory that underlies your argument.

Dave Rubin Q&A | Turning Point USA | Santa Clara University - YouTube

iThink comments on May 13, 2019:

in order to have a meaningful debate on any particular subject there must first be an established and agreed upon premise that the subject itself is either good or bad. The debate may then begin with each side articulating their hows and whys and whereins and whats. Leftists work from a premise of ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 13, 2019:

Sam Seder is not an epistemological relativist, nor am I, nor are most leftists. I expect better from you than such lazy, '60s vintage smears!

The Sexual Identity argument is a rhetorical battle where lots of smoke gets used.

AZWoman comments on May 12, 2019:

People can call themselves whatever they want. If given a DNA test they will be one of two, male or female. It doesnt matter if they remove genital or modify their bodies, DNA will remain the same, it doesn't change.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 13, 2019:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

A thought on the transgender debate.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 11, 2019:

Regardless of the justifications people use, and outside of legal debates, I think it comes down to culture. Where do you get the right to tell transgender people how to live and present themselves to the world?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 12, 2019:

@HollyLouise I was responding to iThink's mention of bathroom politics. Here's some background on bathroom policing legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill . North Carolina had the most well known example.

A thought on the transgender debate.

WilyRickWiles comments on May 11, 2019:

Regardless of the justifications people use, and outside of legal debates, I think it comes down to culture. Where do you get the right to tell transgender people how to live and present themselves to the world?

WilyRickWiles replies on May 12, 2019:

@iThink Right, and it seems kind of silly to start policing bathrooms if we weren't doing so before.

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes calls for the breakup of Facebook

Hybridsmoke comments on May 9, 2019:

The moment the government steps in to "protect" free speech, is the moment we are truly screwed. At first it will be to protect free speech, but when the government has the power to do so, then in the future, they will use the same power to crush all free speech, and all opposition. ...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 9, 2019:

It's not about protecting speech--it's an antitrust issue.

Has anyone noticed a pause in the "Identity Politics" rhetoric in the news lately?

iThink comments on May 8, 2019:

I can't make a qualified observation or opinion on this because I just don't watch television "news" programming very much. I'll take your word for it though. If there is a pause in the "evil white male patriarchy" narrative it might be for the following reasons: Joe Biden running for POTUS and with...

WilyRickWiles replies on May 8, 2019:

@iThink Because disagreeing with or shutting down fascists is the real fascism.

Financial Times - The tumultuous US-China trade relationship has been taking a toll on American ...

MilesPurdue comments on May 8, 2019:

Do you remember in the last campaign for USA president one Democrat slipped and said "control the food, control the people" and nothing said about food since? It seems it is something not talked about. Politicians have stocks in businesses so caution is used.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 8, 2019:

From what I can tell, that is a quotation that was falsely attributed to Henry Kissinger (not a Democrat or a presidential candidate) by Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

[businessinsider.

DrN1 comments on May 8, 2019:

Is that a lot of money? well we all know that Trump is a great business man, actually the greatest. He is Making America Great Again because it was really a shithole before.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 8, 2019:

@MADcHATTER https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

[businessinsider.

DrN1 comments on May 8, 2019:

Is that a lot of money? well we all know that Trump is a great business man, actually the greatest. He is Making America Great Again because it was really a shithole before.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 8, 2019:

@MADcHATTER Trump contributed nowhere near a billion dollars to his campaign. I'm not nitpicking--I'm using the standard of realized losses claimed on tax returns. You lost the $250k investment.

[businessinsider.

DrN1 comments on May 8, 2019:

Is that a lot of money? well we all know that Trump is a great business man, actually the greatest. He is Making America Great Again because it was really a shithole before.

WilyRickWiles replies on May 8, 2019:

@MADcHATTER The "losses" you mentioned were unrealized, moreover the cost basis for those investments was certainly not in the billions of dollars.