Quote by ElCoco
His Dad is.
Yes. So?
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
AngelEthics
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Female
United States
Forum
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know
That's exactly the problem. The Republican candidates are so unacceptable to the Democrat base, that the party can count on their vote no matter who runs. They get too comfortable and become sluggish. So, they keep putting up mediocre candidates because they expect an easy path to victory. It's part of the reason we ended up with Trump in the first place- Clinton had no shot against him and shouldn't have been allowed within 50 yards of the candidacy - but they turned an easy victory over a chaotic right into an actual battle, which they then lost. One thing that can be said of the Right in general is that they have a sense of momentum behind them - they're going in the wrong direction, but at least they're headed somewhere. Post-Obama, Democrats have seemed to muzzle their progressive elements and instead become mired in upholding the status quo. The base of each party is mostly safe (that's why they're the base), but elections aren't won by bases, they're won by 'undecideds' and 'swing-voters' - those without party loyalty, and Democrats need to offer something more interesting to sway those voters.
None of which is to say that any of the candidates would actually make a great leader. I sometimes think that the primary aim of the American political process is to generate revenue for marketers and advertisers with little interest in the actual results after election day. On the basis of marketability alone, Trump is the better product, the easier sell - he has the shinier packaging and makes the best claims - really I know people who make claims and they all say Trump's claims are the absolute greatest they've ever seen, really fantastic amazing claims, the best. Of the two, Biden is unquestionably the one I'd prefer to lead the country, but that doesn't make him any more exciting to cast a ballot for, and if isn't fun, many 'undecided' Americans simply won't do it.
Campaigning for president and being the president requires two different skill sets and rare is the person who is good at both. Love him or hate him, I think anyone who says that Trump isn't a good campaigner is lying to themselves. Somehow, and I can't begin to guess how, he got swing voters in battleground states in 2016.
I think part of the reason why Democrats have tried to muzzle their progressive wing is to be more appealing to swing voters. Take student loan forgiveness, which I would consider a progressive idea. Democrats love it. Republicans hate it. The problem is that about half of Independents hate it, too, and only about a third love it.
Do Republicans have this problem? Eliminating abortion seems pretty extreme to me if they're trying to earn swing voters but they've run on it for 50 years. Now that they made good on that promise, they had a tough midterm, but I don't think there will be much in the way of long term consequences.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
Ditch diggers aren't trying to get reelected.
Neither is Hunter.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
Now that a suspect has been named, Hunter could also be facing federal sex trafficking charges. Probably not, but it could happen.
I guess my question is, who cares?
Good parents can end up with troubled kids. That happens at the presidential level and the ditch digging level.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Ironic
If Admissions now won't be allowed to discriminate by race and soon won't be allowed to discriminate by legacy, what's left for private colleges (other than not accepting federal money) besides merit?
Make no mistake. Discrimination will happen. It'll just be people recognizing ethnic names and discriminating against them, the old fashioned way. We know this happens.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
If you want a discussion, you'll need to recognize the Texas law as an attempt to improve the safety of its public schools. So far, you haven't.
Let's say, for conversation's sake, that this law is aimed at making schools safer. If you leaved out the armed officers, I might even agree, because it requires the active shooter drills, evacuation plans, hierarchy of command in an emergency, contingency for the less mobile students, etc.
In Texas, since January 1, 2023, there have 28 mass shootings, resulting in 42 deaths and 125 injuries. One state in about 6 months. If armed guards are the safety answer for schools, would you advocate for them anywhere there's a public gathering? Especially established public gatherings, like movie theaters, shopping centers, and concerts?
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
The latest from Operation Dump Biden, from Walter Shapiro in The New Republic: Biden Can’t Hide From the Media Forever
I expected something much less charitable from this article, but it basically says that nobody knows how well Biden is doing because he's boring and doesn't have a brand. He gives a speech and nobody remembers. He presides over the creation of 13 million new jobs and less than 4% unemployment and nobody can name anything he's done.
Of course, Trump was anything but boring and definitely had a brand but was a terrible leader.
What do you think? Does he need to find a way to brand himself as something besides an old man in advanced stages of invisibility? Will it be the reason he loses, if he does, in 2024?
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Magical_felix
"The small amount of cocaine was found in a cubby area for storing electronics within the West Exec basement entryway into the West Wing, where many people have authorized access, including staff or visitors coming in for West Wing tours."
Republicans grasping at straws like they always do.
Because nobody cares about fucking cocaine, unless it's prostitute and drug fueled party in the residence, so that's why Republicans try to make it sound like that. Not that you need me to tell you that.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Ironic
You two are talking past each other and not responding to what the other has to say.
That happens when you believe the other person isn't making an argument in good faith. Perhaps ElCoco feels the same way about me as I do about them.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know
I don't think that finding cocaine somewhere staffed by approximately 1800 people is the bombshell ironic is making it out to be. My guess is it probably belonged to some low-level errand boy or a visitor, and I doubt it has any baring on whether or not Biden should run again.
As to the original question - I wouldn't have run Biden the first time. The democrats have this uncanny ability to shoot themselves in the foot whenever they approach a lay-up. Biden is plain white toast - no butter. That seemed kind of refreshing after the shit-sandwich Trump served up during his term. But no, Biden not a great candidate, nor a great president. He's just an uninspiring middle-of-the-road upholder of the status-quo. In short he's boring. The democrats can do far better than boring, but I'd still prefer boring to the carnival of assholes coming together on the right.
I would have voted for anyone to get Trump out, honestly. Biden was not my favorite choice. Not only is he boring, but he's old, a gaffe machine, and I disagree with him on a couple of issues that are important to me. You're right; the democrats can do better but as long as Republicans keep putting up the people they do, they won't be getting my vote.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
Thanks for that! This shows the content of the bill is just as important as its title. And Texas not only claims it'll help, but Texas has also budgeted money for it.
.
Is the Income Tax a tax? Yes.
Does the Agriculture budget fund the Department of Agriculture? Yes.
Does the VA budget fund the Department of Veterans Affairs? Yes.
Does the DOD budget fund the Department of Defense? Yes.
Does the HHS budget fund the Department of Health and Human Services? Yes.
Does the DOT budget fund the Department of Transportation (DOT)? Yes.
I've given more Yeses than your Nos, so I win that battle.
.
Cool. Since you did read the bill, you should have noticed
Sec. 37.0814. ARMED SECURITY OFFICER REQUIRED. (a) The board of trustees of each school district shall determine the appropriate number of armed security officers for each district campus. The board must ensure that at least one armed security officer is present during regular school hours at each district campus.
So, not only does a potential shooter know there's at least one person in the school who knows how to handle a gun and is authorized to use it, but the shooter doesn't necessarily know how many of those opponents there are. Now if we're talking about somebody who's planning a suicide by cop, there's not much that can be done. If there's enough rationality left inside that potential shooter to be able to plan, then knowing there's armed security in one potential target and none in another, the school might not remain the target.
Are you hoping for a 100% effective fix?
OMG, LOL! It's like you added 5 fictitious battles to the Civil War and then claimed the south won.
Edited to say: You don't need to mislead people about where money to fund a government agency comes from. However, if you want this window-dressing bill to pass, you need to convince people that Texas is actually doing anything to make Texas schools safer. It doesn't mean they believe it, but they want you to.
Here's an article that talks about how naming bills sometimes takes longer than writing the legislation. They're designed to dupe you, which it did.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Ironic
There's no real debate about cocaine being found in the White House, is there?
I'm disputing ElCoco's post where he says twice that it's in the residential portion of the white house, clearly intended to point a finger at the Bidens.
The truth is that it was found where staffers work and also a place accessible to visitors on tour.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
A Secret Service agent discovered a white powder in the library of the residential portion of the White House. The White House was briefly evacuated, and people in hazmat suits removed the powder. It could have been anthrax, after all. But it turned out to be cocaine. And it was in the president’s residence, not the public areas of the White House.
Just so we're clear, what we can agree on is that that you misrepresented where the drug was found, then doubled down on it so...what? We would all think it was Hunter, rather than a staffer that works 20 hours days. Or possibly a visitor, since that's where they leave their cell phones. Nice.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
A Secret Service agent discovered a white powder in the library of the residential portion of the White House. The White House was briefly evacuated, and people in hazmat suits removed the powder. It could have been anthrax, after all. But it turned out to be cocaine. And it was in the president’s residence, not the public areas of the White House.
No, it was in the West Wing, which is attached to the residence, but also where hundreds of staffers work.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
Pointing at a tree and calling it a tree isn't making a claim. Pointing at a bill with the name "AN ACT relating to measures for ensuring public school safety, including the development and implementation of purchases relating to and funding for public school safety and security requirements and the provision of safety-related resources." and describing it as an effort to make its public school students safer isn't making a claim either. So no, again, I'm not making a claim, even though you repeatedly say so.
.
Even though you ask questions about the new law, when you're given the bill to read to satisfy your curiosity, you don't look. Why?
.
Even though AE has explained the SCOTUS rulings, you can't let go of your assumptions. For example, you return to the Florida case without considering the possibility of Texas' new law being different. Even though I've given you the Texas bill to examine, you haven't. Why do you turn away from anything that may change your opinion?
Just out of curiosity, what would you imagine the "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" was about? Climate change? Because that's a big chunk of the act. Also, negotiating prescription drug prices.
Did the Patriot Act have anything to do with American patriots? Nope.
The partial birth abortion ban banned a medical procedure that doesn't exist.
So, saying that this bill increases safety (or even intends to) in Texas is a claim, no matter what the bill/law has been titled.
Also, at your instance, I did read the bill. At least one officer/guard/armed teacher per school with no obligation to actually do anything in a school shooting looks an awful lot like window dressing because that's what it is.
Active Ink Slinger
However, nowhere in the law is whether a resource officer, a peace officer, or an armed district employee has to run towards gunfire, because that was already decided by SCOTUS almost 20 years ago.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
Yes, I'm pretty sure this conversation is going to end up with some people in favor of racially discriminatory policies and disapproving of the Court's ruling and some people opposed to racially discriminatory policies and applauding the ruling.
It would take 10 minutes out of your life to read this. And it's way easier to get through than that Texas law you keep browbeating everyone to read. This is an opinion article by an Asian American prior to the SCOTUS finding. What's the resistance?
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
OK. You haven't read the bill either.
I have. Have you?
For example, the part that only requires that the school officer to have active shooter training once every 4 years. Does that seem reasonable, since that's their specific reason for being there? (Section 9, subsection a)
Or how about the part where if the school can't afford to hire an officer, they can use just a district employee? At least it mandates said district employee of the school system has to have completed a gun safety class (I mean, it doesn't say they have to do it more than once, or within any time period of getting this role, or update their training, but whatever, it's just schoolkids). (Section 7, Subsection 2, part A)
However, to make sure it passed, they added some elements as requirements that should have been in place 10 years ago, like an emergency response plan with a clear hierarchy of who make decisions in these situations and training for the students to respond to an active shooter (which is more frequently than the school officer has to demonstrate he can safely use a weapon, but I digress). Requiring mental health care after the fact, making sure handicapped students are accounted for in an active shooter situation, and how this info gets to substitute teachers.
What specific points did you agree and disagree with in this new law, that you definitely read?
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
It's looking like this conversation is going to end up with some people in favor of racially discriminatory policies and disapproving of the Court's ruling and some people opposed to racially discriminatory policies and applauding the ruling.
So, no?
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
Everybody can follow the link to the Texas bill and read what it's got to say if they're interested.
But nobody needs to, to find out if an officer (or anyone else) is obligated to run towards gunfire or otherwise put their life safety at risk. It's a SCOTUS decision, not one designated by each specific law. The answer is no.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by ElCoco
Like racially discriminating policies. At least that one's been put to rest.
Did you read the article?
Active Ink Slinger
Here's an article about Asian American students, the myth of Affirmative Action harming them, and the position that's been forced upon them as the "model minority", written before the SCOTUS decision.
It's in the LA Times, but there wasn't a paywall for me. From the article, about the ban of Affirmative Action in California:
In California, the ban on affirmative action at public universities imposed more than 25 years ago had little positive impact for Asian Americans. Asian American and white students may have been marginally more likely to get into their first choice of college versus their second choice after the ban, but overall access to the top tier of UC campuses was unchanged, as were economic outcomes. The ban, however, had major negative impacts on Black and Latino students’ enrollment at the most prestigious campuses, drove down their applications to the UC system overall and dramatically decreased earnings over time.
So, like the OP's example, the 17 year old didn't get into his first choice, but did get into Stanford, a top tier school. It won't affect his earning potential, just his ego (if we accept that AA was the cause of this, which I don't). It's just like the armed guards in schools issue. We have data. We know what helps and what doesn't, but we insist on trying the things that don't work over, and over, and over, and over....
Active Ink Slinger
Police have no obligation anywhere, nationwide, to run towards gunfire. They're trained to do so but they aren't required to do so. This is a SCOTUS ruling from 1985 and reinforced in 2005, so it doesn't matter what this specific law says.
Serve and Protect? It's a slogan, not a promise. So, given this is probably going to be another "resource officer" with less training than the police, with no obligation to run into a dangerous situation and less gun training than the police, it's just introducing another gun in a school. Study after study have found this "solution" as having no to negative effects school safety (the last study shows an increase in fatalities with an armed guard present).
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30832-2/fulltext
https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-476
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Chryses
This case came from a declaratory judgment action by a website designer who creates websites for married couples but does not want to do so for gay marriages.
To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.
An event need not have occurred for the case to be heard.
She wants to (and is now allowed to) put a note on her homepage stating that she doesn't serve gay marriages. That's the point of this lawsuit. She wants a "No Gays Allowed" sign on her home page. There was the name of man who requested this service listed in the original court case, but it turns out he was straight with kids and didn't know how his name appeared. This name came to light when there was a motion to dismiss the original case because no law had, to date, caused any harm. This is a manufactured lawsuit for the purpose of creating this decision.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Ironic
I think the thread is about what affirmative action does to people,
Technically, according to Chryses, in the OP, "Here is what Affirmative Action policies in the admissions at colleges and universities did to one Asian American."
I dispute that Affirmative Action did anything to this Asian American. We need a better example.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Chryses
That is a longer version of saying you do not know when. Why describe an activity as a "pattern" - something that repeats - when you do not know when it will happen?
If I'm on someone's Facebook and see a string of angry outbursts, political statements, and manifestos, then see that person in a gun shop purchasing a weapon, should I wait until I know when they're going to act to report them?
You can know violence is going to happen without being about to start a countdown clock. This is the silliest counter-argument I've seen in a long time.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Magical_felix
The craziest part is that the case was based on a fraud. She made up that a man wanted her services for a same sex marriage. The man says he's straight and had no idea someone was using his name for any of this.
It's crazy to think about how this made it to the Supreme Court.
This court case was based on fraud and allowed to continue based on a hypothetical. No actual gay people were discriminated against; she just wanted to preserve the right to discriminate in the future. The Affirmative Action case is equally as sketchy. It was brought by an organization with anonymous membership and presented by a lawyer who already lost one challenge to AA and blamed that on his client being a white woman.
You are 100% right.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by AngelEthics
He applied to 35 different schools, but not Harvard, and he won't say which ones or how many were Ivy league.
Yes, that is correct. Do those facts indicate to you anything about racial discrimination?
If you read the ruling, you will see Justice Roberts found evidence of defacto quotas, which is also illegal. Search for "focus on numbers is obvious".
It doesn't say it in the story, but Rutvij Holay ended up at Stanford, a top 5 ranked University in the world. He didn't get into the specific college he wanted to, and is blaming Affirmative Action for this with no evidence. This whole article is about a butt-hurt 17-year old.
That is one way of looking at that victim of what has been determined to be unconstitutional racial discrimination.
Quote by Chryses
That is one way of looking at that victim of what has been determined to be unconstitutional racial discrimination.
Rutvij Holay was not determined to be a victim of racial discrimination. You made him the example, even though he didn't apply to Harvard, gave no examples of NC colleges he applied to, and can't even give one instance of how he was racially discriminated against during his specific application process. He had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling.
This thread is about your specific example of a 17 year old who can't imagine how he didn't get into college anywhere he wanted to. Maybe look for better examples of racial discrimination against Asian students because this particular one is crap.
Active Ink Slinger
Something interesting from that article shows that the two races that benefit least from Affirmative Action are also the most likely to be legacy admissions:
Active Ink Slinger
Here's an article about legacy admissions at Harvard. Interestingly, the percentage of Asian students at Harvard ware on the rise and at their highest level in 2019, when the article was written. Another figure, not in this article, is that the acceptance rate for legacy admissions is about 33%, while a general applicants would be around 4.5%.