|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 20:12:03 GMT
Economics: a 20% across the board tariff is obviously bad for inflation and the economy at large. Deporting millions of workers will also make housing and food more expensive. The call to end the income tax and replace it with tariffs is another horrendous idea. The tax cuts for the wealthy plan is bad for the deficit. One party wants to shore up SS and Medicare, they other has a plan to hasten their bankruptcy. What that means for working class people and their future.. couldn't be more clear. Big deficits turn into a greater US debt, which leads to more money printing to monetize said debt, which undermines real wages, savings and the dollar more broadly. Trump's not going to use the Sherman Act to break up illegal price fixing arrangements with OPEC, therefore higher oil and gas prices under Trump are likely.
These are beliefs. Not facts my dude.
As someone who flipped his own beliefs on economics you should be the person who best understands the "belief' nature of statements like you're making here.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 20:16:40 GMT
I'll take "rule of law" for 100, Alex. The fake elector scandal puts the GOP on the wrong side of this issue. So does Trump's perfect phone call to the Georgia sec of state. Another data point: the unconstitutional plan to nationalize the electoral college under the vice president. Another example: rejecting grand jury indictments and the outcome of the legal process when it doesn't go Trump's way. (Weaponized justice! Lawfare!) Another example: keeping classified documents, lying about it and then covering it up. MAGA's attack on the rule of law is so complete and profound, they discuss dissolving the FBI and DOJ as independent agencies and reconstituting them with loyalty oaths to Trump himself.
What a strange argument to go all in on.
"MAGA used the legal system and accepted the results! That's how you know they ..." *checks notes* " ... don't care about the rule of law!"
Now revisit the rhetoric I used for the fun of this for your lesson in reality.
A vote for Trump is buying us 4 additional years of time for more "randos on the Internet" to wake up to reality and save America from itself.
Did I even say anything about MAGA? I've been watching you guys reinterpret what people say on the fly so long now it's just funny anymore. Kind of like how you and FIddler reinterpret CNN and the NY Times et al as a "MAGA echo chamber" when it suits you to do so.
Queshank
You don't do fraud if you're following the law. You don't try to toss out legal votes if you're following the law. You don't try to intimidate the people certifying the election if you're following the law. You're not serious or honest about this which is why talking politics with you is a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 20:18:24 GMT
Economics: a 20% across the board tariff is obviously bad for inflation and the economy at large. Deporting millions of workers will also make housing and food more expensive. The call to end the income tax and replace it with tariffs is another horrendous idea. The tax cuts for the wealthy plan is bad for the deficit. One party wants to shore up SS and Medicare, they other has a plan to hasten their bankruptcy. What that means for working class people and their future.. couldn't be more clear. Big deficits turn into a greater US debt, which leads to more money printing to monetize said debt, which undermines real wages, savings and the dollar more broadly. Trump's not going to use the Sherman Act to break up illegal price fixing arrangements with OPEC, therefore higher oil and gas prices under Trump are likely.
These are beliefs. Not facts my dude.
As someone who flipped his own beliefs on economics you should be the person who best understands the "belief' nature of statements like you're making here.
Queshank
You'd be hard pressed to mount a criticism of these well known, well-established facts. Best to keep it moving. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 20:21:57 GMT
What a strange argument to go all in on.
"MAGA used the legal system and accepted the results! That's how you know they ..." *checks notes* " ... don't care about the rule of law!"
Now revisit the rhetoric I used for the fun of this for your lesson in reality.
A vote for Trump is buying us 4 additional years of time for more "randos on the Internet" to wake up to reality and save America from itself.
Did I even say anything about MAGA? I've been watching you guys reinterpret what people say on the fly so long now it's just funny anymore. Kind of like how you and FIddler reinterpret CNN and the NY Times et al as a "MAGA echo chamber" when it suits you to do so.
Queshank
You don't do fraud if you're following the law. You don't try to toss out legal votes if you're following the law. You don't try to intimidate the people certifying the election if you're following the law. You're not serious or honest about this which is why talking politics with you is a waste of time.
So kennedy didn't follow the law in 1960?
In 1960, Hawaii experienced a close presidential race between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, and its electoral outcome was unclear by December 19, 1960, when electors were required to cast their votes, although the national race was already called for Kennedy regardless of Hawaii's results. Both Democratic and Republican elector slates were created, with the governor certifying the Republican electors, as Nixon was currently in the lead pending a recount. Democratic electors would also sign and deliver their own elector certificates and assert a Kennedy victory, using virtually the same language that the false Trump electors would later employ in 2020, with no caveats mentioned for the ongoing recount. After the recount, Hawaii flipped to Kennedy, and the governor certified a new slate of Democratic electors to send to Washington, D.C. On January 6, 1961, then vice president Nixon received all three slates of elector certificates and only certified the second, post-recount Democratic slate. Nixon stated that the event should not be used to establish a precedent. A court case from that incident resulted in a ruling that the ultimately certified Democratic electors were legitimate. A ruling or decision regarding the original, uncertified slate of Democratic electors was never made in Congress or court.
Debating over and trying to throw out legal votes is a regular occurence that happens in every state every election cycle. Wtf dude.
"Intimidate" lol
It's not a matter of serious or honest TL. You're a religious zealot who continues to yell chapter and verse at people and then call them dishonest for not buying your bullshit spin.
But I ask you again. Where did MAGA come into this? What did I even say about MAGA that you had to bring it up and start hyperventilating about it? No I'm not serious about your talking point hyperventilations. I'm serious about what I said and what I'm talking about. You're just another zombie regurgitating the talking points and unable to even understand a political conversation that doesn't trade in those talking points. That's what you interpret as "unserious" and "dishonest." Stupidly.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 20:23:12 GMT
These are beliefs. Not facts my dude.
As someone who flipped his own beliefs on economics you should be the person who best understands the "belief' nature of statements like you're making here.
Queshank
You'd be hard pressed to mount a criticism of these well known, well-established facts. Best to keep it moving.
lol
Sure.
I wonder what kind of ancillary effects could be realized by making companies that traffic in slave labor sell their products for the same price as companies that don't...
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 20:28:20 GMT
You'd be hard pressed to mount a criticism of these well known, well-established facts. Best to keep it moving.
lol
Sure.
I wonder what kind of ancillary effects could be realized by making companies that traffic in slave labor sell their products for the same price as companies that don't...
Queshank
^^ For those following along ,... yes I just RHETORICALLY (paying attention TL?) highlighted how TL is arguing in favor of slavery.
Queshank
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,112
|
Post by Odysseus on Nov 5, 2024 20:32:14 GMT
More wasted time. Courtesy of Quecrank.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,453
|
Post by thor on Nov 5, 2024 21:10:59 GMT
You don't do fraud if you're following the law. You don't try to toss out legal votes if you're following the law. You don't try to intimidate the people certifying the election if you're following the law. You're not serious or honest about this which is why talking politics with you is a waste of time.
So kennedy didn't follow the law in 1960?
In 1960, Hawaii experienced a close presidential race between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, and its electoral outcome was unclear by December 19, 1960, when electors were required to cast their votes, although the national race was already called for Kennedy regardless of Hawaii's results. Both Democratic and Republican elector slates were created, with the governor certifying the Republican electors, as Nixon was currently in the lead pending a recount. Democratic electors would also sign and deliver their own elector certificates and assert a Kennedy victory, using virtually the same language that the false Trump electors would later employ in 2020, with no caveats mentioned for the ongoing recount. After the recount, Hawaii flipped to Kennedy, and the governor certified a new slate of Democratic electors to send to Washington, D.C. On January 6, 1961, then vice president Nixon received all three slates of elector certificates and only certified the second, post-recount Democratic slate. Nixon stated that the event should not be used to establish a precedent. A court case from that incident resulted in a ruling that the ultimately certified Democratic electors were legitimate. A ruling or decision regarding the original, uncertified slate of Democratic electors was never made in Congress or court.
Debating over and trying to throw out legal votes is a regular occurence that happens in every state every election cycle. Wtf dude.
"Intimidate" lol
It's not a matter of serious or honest TL. You're a religious zealot who continues to yell chapter and verse at people and then call them dishonest for not buying your bullshit spin.
But I ask you again. Where did MAGA come into this? What did I even say about MAGA that you had to bring it up and start hyperventilating about it? No I'm not serious about your talking point hyperventilations. I'm serious about what I said and what I'm talking about. You're just another zombie regurgitating the talking points and unable to even understand a political conversation that doesn't trade in those talking points. That's what you interpret as "unserious" and "dishonest." Stupidly.
Queshank
 |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 21:12:51 GMT
You don't do fraud if you're following the law. You don't try to toss out legal votes if you're following the law. You don't try to intimidate the people certifying the election if you're following the law. You're not serious or honest about this which is why talking politics with you is a waste of time.
So kennedy didn't follow the law in 1960?
In 1960, Hawaii experienced a close presidential race between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, and its electoral outcome was unclear by December 19, 1960, when electors were required to cast their votes, although the national race was already called for Kennedy regardless of Hawaii's results. Both Democratic and Republican elector slates were created, with the governor certifying the Republican electors, as Nixon was currently in the lead pending a recount. Democratic electors would also sign and deliver their own elector certificates and assert a Kennedy victory, using virtually the same language that the false Trump electors would later employ in 2020, with no caveats mentioned for the ongoing recount. After the recount, Hawaii flipped to Kennedy, and the governor certified a new slate of Democratic electors to send to Washington, D.C. On January 6, 1961, then vice president Nixon received all three slates of elector certificates and only certified the second, post-recount Democratic slate. Nixon stated that the event should not be used to establish a precedent. A court case from that incident resulted in a ruling that the ultimately certified Democratic electors were legitimate. A ruling or decision regarding the original, uncertified slate of Democratic electors was never made in Congress or court.
Queshank
Interesting that you, this "independent" thinker who assures us he is not under the spell of the MAGA fever swamp, none the less lands precisely on MAGA's defense of their fake elector scheme. That's fitting! Must be a coincidence.. The courts have also heard this line of argument and found it wanting. Why? Where's the problem? How isn't 2020 just like 1960? www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/05/wisconsin-2020-trump-fake-electors-defense |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 21:14:43 GMT
You'd be hard pressed to mount a criticism of these well known, well-established facts. Best to keep it moving.
lol
Sure.
I wonder what kind of ancillary effects could be realized by making companies that traffic in slave labor sell their products for the same price as companies that don't...
Queshank
Oh that's funny. That's good stuff right there. Do it for the slaves! LOL |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 21:23:20 GMT
So kennedy didn't follow the law in 1960?
In 1960, Hawaii experienced a close presidential race between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, and its electoral outcome was unclear by December 19, 1960, when electors were required to cast their votes, although the national race was already called for Kennedy regardless of Hawaii's results. Both Democratic and Republican elector slates were created, with the governor certifying the Republican electors, as Nixon was currently in the lead pending a recount. Democratic electors would also sign and deliver their own elector certificates and assert a Kennedy victory, using virtually the same language that the false Trump electors would later employ in 2020, with no caveats mentioned for the ongoing recount. After the recount, Hawaii flipped to Kennedy, and the governor certified a new slate of Democratic electors to send to Washington, D.C. On January 6, 1961, then vice president Nixon received all three slates of elector certificates and only certified the second, post-recount Democratic slate. Nixon stated that the event should not be used to establish a precedent. A court case from that incident resulted in a ruling that the ultimately certified Democratic electors were legitimate. A ruling or decision regarding the original, uncertified slate of Democratic electors was never made in Congress or court.
Queshank
Interesting that you, this "independent" thinker who assures us he is not under the spell of the MAGA fever swamp, none the less lands precisely on MAGA's defense of their fake elector scheme. That's fitting! Must be a coincidence.. The courts have also heard this line of argument and found it wanting. Why? Where's the problem? How isn't 2020 just like 1960? www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/05/wisconsin-2020-trump-fake-electors-defense
Oh! Oh! "Good faith!" That's the difference! Whew. Good faith being a real world concrete quality.
It's funny that you can literally point out "the courts have also heard this line of argument" and yet still maintain that it was outside the rule of law. Can you even hear yourself? lol
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 21:23:44 GMT
lol
Sure.
I wonder what kind of ancillary effects could be realized by making companies that traffic in slave labor sell their products for the same price as companies that don't...
Queshank
Oh that's funny. That's good stuff right there. Do it for the slaves! LOL
Nah fuck the slaves.
But do it because you have moral consistency maybe?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 21:27:00 GMT
Interesting that you, this "independent" thinker who assures us he is not under the spell of the MAGA fever swamp, none the less lands precisely on MAGA's defense of their fake elector scheme. That's fitting! Must be a coincidence.. Are you backing off from your belief that a campaign putting together an alternate slate of electors is "outside the rule of law?" I made no evaluation on the merits of the argument TL. Only illustrated that it's been done. (Wikipedia right wing maga fever swamp stuff? Is that how far you've fallen now?) But your instantly ascribing a whole bevy of "beliefs" to me is an indicator of *you* having fallen under some kind of spell. I'm still waiting for you to address my actual argument. Isn't it weird that you won't? Nah. It's not at all weird when you've watched it play out for 8 years (to the day) Queshank |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 23:03:26 GMT
Oh! Oh! "Good faith!" That's the difference! Whew. Good faith being a real world concrete quality.
It's funny that you can literally point out "the courts have also heard this line of argument" and yet still maintain that it was outside the rule of law. Can you even hear yourself? lol
Queshank
I do hear myself. But apparently you don't. Yes, the courts heard this line of argument before, found it unpersuasive, and folks are in jail as a result of it failing. Re-read that last part if you need to. I'll wait. And yes, intent and context does matter. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 23:05:24 GMT
Oh that's funny. That's good stuff right there. Do it for the slaves! LOL
Nah fuck the slaves.
But do it because you have moral consistency maybe?
Queshank
I hear the world's tiniest violin playing. And I have a big belly laugh for this whole line of BS you're selling right now. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 23:06:24 GMT
Interesting that you, this "independent" thinker who assures us he is not under the spell of the MAGA fever swamp, none the less lands precisely on MAGA's defense of their fake elector scheme. That's fitting! Must be a coincidence.. Are you backing off from your belief that a campaign putting together an alternate slate of electors is "outside the rule of law?" I made no evaluation on the merits of the argument TL. Only illustrated that it's been done. (Wikipedia right wing maga fever swamp stuff? Is that how far you've fallen now?) But your instantly ascribing a whole bevy of "beliefs" to me is an indicator of *you* having fallen under some kind of spell. I'm still waiting for you to address my actual argument. Isn't it weird that you won't? Nah. It's not at all weird when you've watched it play out for 8 years (to the day) Queshank Oh, is that what they were? Alternate electors? Do people usually go to jail for being alternates? Yeah, you're under a spell. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 23:17:24 GMT
Nah fuck the slaves.
But do it because you have moral consistency maybe?
Queshank
I hear the world's tiniest violin playing. And I have a big belly laugh for this whole line of BS you're selling right now.
Why do I have a feeling you don't even know what I'm referring to?
Probably because of that higher plane you're operating on..
The world's tiniest violin eh?
Fuck those people sure. But mock them too? That seems a bridge too far.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 5, 2024 23:19:34 GMT
I hear the world's tiniest violin playing. And I have a big belly laugh for this whole line of BS you're selling right now.
Why do I have a feeling you don't even know what I'm referring to?
Probably because of that higher plane you're operating on..
The world's tiniest violin eh?
Fuck those people sure. But mock them too? That seems a bridge too far.
Queshank
What does the term "across the board" mean to you, exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 23:22:54 GMT
Are you backing off from your belief that a campaign putting together an alternate slate of electors is "outside the rule of law?" I made no evaluation on the merits of the argument TL. Only illustrated that it's been done. (Wikipedia right wing maga fever swamp stuff? Is that how far you've fallen now?) But your instantly ascribing a whole bevy of "beliefs" to me is an indicator of *you* having fallen under some kind of spell. I'm still waiting for you to address my actual argument. Isn't it weird that you won't? Nah. It's not at all weird when you've watched it play out for 8 years (to the day) Queshank Oh, is that what they were? Alternate electors? Do people usually go to jail for being alternates? Yeah, you're under a spell.
People go to jail for all kinds of things that others disagree are crimes. Smoking a joint for example. Refusing to goto war for another.
What's my belief on this?
And why are you still manufacturing strawmen in response to what I said? It's getting embarrassing at this point.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 5, 2024 23:26:50 GMT
Why do I have a feeling you don't even know what I'm referring to?
Probably because of that higher plane you're operating on..
The world's tiniest violin eh?
Fuck those people sure. But mock them too? That seems a bridge too far.
Queshank
What does the term "across the board" mean to you, exactly?
What does the term "buy us time" mean to you, exactly?
Queshank
|
|
