Jump to content
270soft Forum

Top 8 270soft Members by Content


Recommended Posts

Trump calling Haiti a "shithole" is like when he called Ted Cruz a "pussy".  Nobody is disputing the accuracy of the statement, they're taking issue with the crude way he said it.  Most people want their leaders to more diplomatic about such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I thought this was interesting. Here's the top content providers: @mantis 15,036 (hasn't been active since 2011---9 years reigning champion at the least) @Patine 13,757 (active leader)

For some reason - it was turned off, probably because of an update along the way. Added Upvote, Thanks, Haha, and Confused reactions. First 3 give +1 to reputation. 👍

This is great because we can show that we've read a post without having to actually respond with a typed comment. 

Posted Images

18 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

That's actually not true. That's what Right Wing media wants you to see but the large majority of protests are peaceful. For the infrequent violent outbreak, there are certainly far-left agitators, but more often are they the far-right agitators from groups like the KKK which Trump has labeled "very fine people" and has refused to label a terror group even as they currently lynch black Americans today. 

Furthermore, even if it were true that protesters were turning violent, the root of this is systemic racism. The violence of these past few days can never equal the violence of the oppressor over the past 400 years. The Policing system in America needs to be rebuilt and reimagined because as it stands right now it is fundamentally racist in construction. 

Based Conservative ❤️

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, pilight said:

Nobody is disputing the accuracy of the statement, they're taking issue with the crude way he said it.  Most people want their leaders to more diplomatic about such things.

"Nobody" is an absolute. If one person is a disputing the accuracy of the statement, then it invalidates your statement, logically speaking. It would be more accurate to say that, "more people are taking issues with the crude way he said his statement than are disputing the accuracy of the statement." I'm sure there are some Haitians, Haitian-Americans, and some other people who have an interest in the culture of Haiti that would dispute the statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

Trump calling Haiti a "shithole" is like when he called Ted Cruz a "pussy".  Nobody is disputing the accuracy of the statement, they're taking issue with the crude way he said it.  Most people want their leaders to more diplomatic about such things.

Agreed, that remark was probably better kept to himself, or behind closed doors away from a hot mic at the very least.  My main issue is the talking point that the remark was racially charged due to his calling out of Haiti in specific.  I can understand the argument if he would have specifically named other majority-black Caribbean countries, as most are very successful nations (when comparing with other failed regimes world-wide) with a legitimate, somewhat effective government at the very least,  but I grasp the point that he was trying to make by referencing Haiti in specific.  In an indirect way, I hope that more world leaders call out the situation in Haiti (preferably in more diplomatic terms) as it is an absolute atrocity what has occurred there for hundreds of years.  The island of Hispaniola has been blessed with an abundant amount of natural resources, and there is no excuse for a country as "rich" in terms of raw materials to be as destitute as Haiti.  Unfortunately, it will take generational change to make the situation in Haiti any better.

 

25 minutes ago, vcczar said:

"Nobody" is an absolute. If one person is a disputing the accuracy of the statement, then it invalidates your statement, logically speaking. It would be more accurate to say that, "more people are taking issues with the crude way he said his statement than are disputing the accuracy of the statement." I'm sure there are some Haitians, Haitian-Americans, and some other people who have an interest in the culture of Haiti that would dispute the statement.

I would pay money to see someone try and argue that Haiti is not a failed state, the comedic value would be worth its weight in gold.  Joking aside, there is no logical or reasonable point to argue otherwise.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, CPE said:

Agreed, that remark was probably better kept to himself, or behind closed doors away from a hot mic at the very least.  My main issue is the talking point that the remark was racially charged due to his calling out of Haiti in specific.  I can understand the argument if he would have specifically named other majority-black Caribbean countries, as most are very successful nations (when comparing with other failed regimes world-wide) with a legitimate, somewhat effective government at the very least,  but I grasp the point that he was trying to make by referencing Haiti in specific.  In an indirect way, I hope that more world leaders call out the situation in Haiti (preferably in more diplomatic terms) as it is an absolute atrocity what has occurred there for hundreds of years.  The island of Hispaniola has been blessed with an abundant amount of natural resources, and there is no excuse for a country as "rich" in terms of raw materials to be as destitute as Haiti.  Unfortunately, it will take generational change to make the situation in Haiti any better.

 

I would pay money to see someone try and argue that Haiti is not a failed state, the comedic value would be worth its weight in gold.  Joking aside, there is no logical or reasonable point to argue otherwise.

Talk to a Haitian that loves their country, culture, and much of their history. Those people exist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Talk to a Haitian that loves their country, culture, and much of their history. Those people exist. 

I know many personally, I have had family who have sponsored their emigration away from their country.  Rest assured that I know exactly how passionate they are with regards to their national pride.  However, one can love their nation and be critical of it and it's issues at the same time; those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I do not know where you may live in the USA, but if you ever take a trip to South Florida (specifically Miami or Ft. Lauderdale), ask around and see how many fled their country due to Papa Doc or any of the other brutal despots who have ruled that part of the island.  Trust me, I truly pity their situation as no one ever decides where they are born in life, but there is no denying that they face very critical issues in that part of the world.

The truly sad part is that only the Haitian people can ever change their destiny, and many of those that have the skills and ability to effect change in their country all choose to emigrate if they can.  I truly do not have an ideal solution to fix the problems that Haiti faces, but I do know that they will not be solved overnight.

Regards,

CPE (Caribbean Political Enthusiast)

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, vcczar said:

a consistent pattern of quasi-racist statements or actions that it's hard to create a top 5, but here are some

A lot in here. Having said that, there's not much in here where I find strong evidence for the claim that Trump is "condescending, dismissive, or worse" re blacks.

Kaepernick is a good example. You say "If Tom Brady kneeled ..." You are imagining some situation, imagining how you think Trump would act, and then saying "therefore, that's condescending" or what have you. But that result is only a result of your imagination. How would Trump react if Tom Brady kneeled? He would probably express disagreement, as he did with Brees' apology. He's also friends with Brady. If a white quarterback had done what Kaepernick had done, would Trump have reacted the same way? Who knows.

Re Charlottesville, Trump said white supremacists should be "condemned totally". Your memory of this seems in fault.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/

Trump said both

"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

and

"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."

Rumors, someone said Trump said such and such - these aren't very strong data points.

You then switch to more general points outside of statements re blacks, like how he responded to Puerto Rico's hurricane. These sorts of criticisms are highly debatable, and not even clearly linked to his views of blacks.

You then say the *strongest evidence* is that a significant % of blacks think he's racist. This is a strange way to make a point. "How do you know God exists?" If I responded with "Well, 80% of Americans think God exists!" you'd probably tell me to jump in a lake. There's obviously something here, but it doesn't seem to me a strong point.

Of course, the whole point of my question is to figure out whether Trump actually is condescending, dismissive, or worse on these issues - not to tell me some people think he is - I already know that!

Anyways, thanks for this either way - interesting to look at how other people see this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

"Nobody" is an absolute. If one person is a disputing the accuracy of the statement, then it invalidates your statement, logically speaking. It would be more accurate to say that, "more people are taking issues with the crude way he said his statement than are disputing the accuracy of the statement." I'm sure there are some Haitians, Haitian-Americans, and some other people who have an interest in the culture of Haiti that would dispute the statement.

I was being hyperbolic.  Think of it like your polls where we're voting on statements like "Government is wiser to side with workers over employers" as if that were always true or always false.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilight said:

they're taking issue with the crude way he said it

Right, and that's a valid point. Different from arguing it was 'undoubtedly racist', as someone else argued. On the other hand, to deny Haiti has significant problems and react so strongly to someone calling it a "shithole" is, perhaps, the result of a kind of paternalistic, coddling "anti-racism" racism - who knows.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Right, and that's a valid point. Different from arguing it was 'undoubtedly racist', as someone else argued. On the other hand, to deny Haiti has significant problems and react so strongly to someone calling it a "shithole" is, perhaps, the result of a kind of paternalistic, coddling "anti-racism" racism - who knows.

There are plenty of reason to think Trump is racist without considering stuff he's left deniability about

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So what's the stuff where there isn't 'deniability'?

Refusing to rent to blacks and lying to them about apartment availability in his buildings, which he managed to plea bargain out of being a violation of the Fair Housing Act. His continuing assertion of the guilt of the "Central Park Five", despite DNA evidence to the contrary. John O'Donnell's Trumped! quotes Trump as saying “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump said in a 1997 interview with Playboy that the book was accurate.

Stuff like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

"Nobody" is an absolute. If one person is a disputing the accuracy of the statement, then it invalidates your statement, logically speaking. It would be more accurate to say that, "more people are taking issues with the crude way he said his statement than are disputing the accuracy of the statement." I'm sure there are some Haitians, Haitian-Americans, and some other people who have an interest in the culture of Haiti that would dispute the statement.

That's how I just described absolutes a few days when @Actinguy used one about me. ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, pilight said:

Refusing to rent to blacks and lying to them about apartment availability in his buildings, which he managed to plea bargain out of being a violation of the Fair Housing Act. His continuing assertion of the guilt of the "Central Park Five", despite DNA evidence to the contrary. John O'Donnell's Trumped! quotes Trump as saying “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump said in a 1997 interview with Playboy that the book was accurate.

Stuff like that.

The housing lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act is a very complex issue. Read this article for a deep dive on this.

http://www.newstandardpress.com/did-trump-not-rent-to-black-people/

This seems far from an 'undeniable' example of racism. Once Trump had taken over the Trump company from his father, he then worked to increase black %s in Trump housing.

The strongest point to me seems to be O'Donnell's quote and general views. Trump made a general comment about O'Donnell's book in an interview, but later denied the comment in specific. So, seems deniable. As with Bolton, Trump has claimed O'Donnell is a disgruntled former employee.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CPE said:

I would pay money to see someone try and argue that Haiti is not a failed state, the comedic value would be worth its weight in gold.  Joking aside, there is no logical or reasonable point to argue otherwise.

Believe it or not, there are Americans who say the United States is a "failed state," that hasn't accepted the fact yet, and that a powerful upper class has no incentive to fix the problems leading to this alleged status, because they benefit from them and are the cause of them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

You then say the *strongest evidence* is that a significant % of blacks think he's racist. This is a strange way to make a point. "How do you know God exists?" If I responded with "Well, 80% of Americans think God exists!" you'd probably tell me to jump in a lake. There's obviously something here, but it doesn't seem to me a strong point.

There is evidence that Blacks have seen, read, or felt that can establish their opinion that Trump is racist. There's no group more authorative to determine this than those impacted by it. The analogy with God is weak because Trump is a tangible person, who is recorded saying things and has committed actions that can be proven, since he isn't fictional. God, whether he/she/it exists or not, is not tangible. Your analogy is more like a comparison with a jury finding someone guilty with overflowing evidence and another jury that found someone else guilty with zero evidence. Naturally, the 80% that think person 2 is guilty despite zero evidence is going to be more questionable than the 80+% that finds person 1 guilty with actually evidence, and a lot of it. 

A better way to see this is this. Who has more credibility in the argument of whether or not Trump is racist toward?

  • 80+% of Blacks who think he is racist
  • 51% of total Americans, mostly White, that think Trump is racist (Quinnipiac poll for all figures from here on down)
  • The 91% of overwhelmingly White Republicans that say Trump is not racist. 
  • The 86% of overwhelmingly White Democrats that say Trump is racist. 
  • The 56% of independents, mostly White, that say Trump is racist. 
  • The 55% of Hispanics that say Trump is racist. 
  • The 59% of Women that say Trump is racist. (53% of White Women)
  • The 38% of white men that say Trump is racist. 
  • The 100% of Trump that actually believes he is not racist.

The fact that we even have this polls, and polls like these for Trump, might mean he might be a racist. The group affected this he is racist; that should be enough. Likewise, if I were polled for things I've said against Evangelicals, and 80% of them thought I was Christophobic (or whatever the term would be for someone that discriminates against a religion), then I have to admit that I might be Christophobic, or that I'm at least perceived that way, and I should probably do something to convince them otherwise, or else I'm probably a Christophobe. 

If racism is a spectrum and it is impossible for anyone to be completely not-racist, and the average person was, say, 50 of 100, then I think it would be hard to convince the people in these polls that Trump is at 50 or below.

I'll say one thing in Trump's defense. I don't think he's just racist to blacks. I don't think he's just racist to all other races by whites. I think he also thinks equally poorly of the poor, equally poorly of those that disagree with him, equally poorly of most if not all foreigners, or people that are fat or unattractive (he should look in the mirror). In fact, I think he thinks somewhat poorly of anyone that is not himself. His supposed racism could be a byproduct of him not liking most, if not all, humans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Likewise, if I were polled for things I've said against Evangelicals, and 80% of them thought I was Christophobic (or whatever the term would be for someone that discriminates against a religion), then I have to admit that I might be Christophobic, or that I'm at least perceived that way, and I should probably do something to convince them otherwise, or else I'm probably a Christophobe.

Sure, there's something that has to account for the 80%. But I'm looking at the reasons *behind* those %s. I would say to an Evangelical, "Why do you think VCCzar is a Christophobe?" Then I would evaluate the reasons they give - are they true or not?

As it is, often beliefs in politics are based on incorrect facts. For example, your belief Trump didn't condemn white supremacists re Charlottesville. How many other people believe the same thing, based on faulty reporting or misleading statements from, for example, Biden?

So you have to go behind the %s to the reasons. Are they valid, or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Sure, there's something that has to account for the 80%. But I'm looking at the reasons *behind* those %s. I would say to an Evangelical, "Why do you think VCCzar is a Christophobe?" Then I would evaluate the reasons they give - are they true or not?

As it is, often beliefs in politics are based on incorrect facts. For example, your belief Trump didn't condemn white supremacists re Charlottesville. How many other people believe the same thing, based on faulty reporting or misleading statements from, for example, Biden?

So you have to go behind the %s to the reasons. Are they valid, or not?

Certainly. Good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Thanks for this commentary - interesting and useful given you live in the region.

Thanks, the situation there affects a large portion of the surrounding area in primarily two ways :

1.) The country is major transshipment point for guns, drugs, human trafficking victims and who knows what else.  Anything trafficked through the south-eastern seaboard of the United States has probably passed through Haiti at some point.

2.) The refugee crisis got 10x worse after the earthquake a decade or so ago; there has always been a trend of mass migration out of the country due to the circumstances there, but the earthquake basically poured gasoline on top of that fire.  Most end up going to South Florida or the Bahamas without proper authorization/documentation.  Cuba is the last place on earth you would want to try to live in illegally (maybe second last to North Korea), the Jamaicans are not really fond of them to put it lightly, and the Dominican Republic is outright hostile.  Crossing the border into the DR, for most of them, is signing up for serious problems.  There is a certain element of "Balkanization" to Caribbean politics at times, you would have to live in the region for a bit to understand the complexities of it.  Point is, the refugees end up placing a large strain on the healthcare and educational systems of the nations where they go to stay.  In the Bahamas particularly,  the language barrier (Haitian Creole is basically broken French, while the official language of the Bahamas is English (French vs. English colony)), and the sheer number that arrive are particularly pressing problems.  The nation as a whole is basically 400-450k people, and public financing just cannot support the multitude that come.  Add on top of that the fact that citizenship is derived from blood in the Bahamas (ie. a Bahamian father, not birth, determines whether one is a citizen), many end up being born in the country with no legal rights to stay.  Legally they are Haitian citizens by way of parenthood, unless they can claim Bahamian citizenship through a Bahamian parent, and it is a very thorny political issue in the country to discuss repatriating them.

4 hours ago, Patine said:

Believe it or not, there are Americans who say the United States is a "failed state," that hasn't accepted the fact yet, and that a powerful upper class has no incentive to fix the problems leading to this alleged status, because they benefit from them and are the cause of them.

The United States certainly has a fair share of problems no doubt, but to describe it as a "failed state" would be pure hyperbole in my opinion.  Some crummy aspects of a political system, no doubt, but a "failed state" absolutely not.  In my mind, there are three basic factors in determining whether a nation is a "failed state" or not :

1.) Can it provide access to basic utilities, ie. water, electricity, etc. for its residents

2.) Can it secure its territory, domestically and internationally

3.) Is the rule of law effective, ie. can any government issued decrees or legislation effectively be implemented.  In simple terms, does the government have the ability to enforce what it proclaims as law.

That is my personal list, just my thoughts on observing international matters.

The US political system is certainly crummy at time, but it certainly could be worse.  The biggest reason why we see the same old recycled candidates so often is due to the fact that you need a fortune to run a presidential campaign.  In order to run for President in the United States, you basically have two options when it comes to financing :

A.) Sell yourself to special interest and lobbying groups in exchange for campaign funds.

B.) Have the f'you kind of money where you can say whatever you want (Think candidates like Ross Perot, or even President Trump himself to a degree)

The sheer cost of running a US presidential campaign basically precludes most average citizens from ever hoping to attain the office without selling them and their beliefs out, even before you take into account other issues associated with running for such high an office.  Even to run a campaign for a seat in a state legislative body is by no means a cheap affair, and the costs only get higher as you progress upwards in terms of power and authority. 

I personally do not publicly comment much on the state of American politics due to not having citizenship over there myself, it would be very disrespectful to do so in my opinion at least.  If I do, I try to stay as neutral as possible (if that is possible).  I do understand the apathy associated with the political system though, it can seem disheartening seeing the same old recycled candidates and policies over and over.  One thing certainly is common throughout American political history, many young politicians go in with the hope of changing or "fixing" the system, I have yet to see one ever accomplish their goal.  I had a friend use an analogy that getting involved with politics is like stepping into a spider's web, with many just waiting to suck the blood out of you lol.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Sure, there's something that has to account for the 80%. But I'm looking at the reasons *behind* those %s. I would say to an Evangelical, "Why do you think VCCzar is a Christophobe?" Then I would evaluate the reasons they give - are they true or not?

As it is, often beliefs in politics are based on incorrect facts. For example, your belief Trump didn't condemn white supremacists re Charlottesville. How many other people believe the same thing, based on faulty reporting or misleading statements from, for example, Biden?

So you have to go behind the %s to the reasons. Are they valid, or not?

I resent the term "Christophobe," just for coming down on the specifically Evangelical denominations of today. You're speaking as though they're a good representative of the whole religion, the core teachings behind it, and the Message and Ministry of Christ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CPE said:

Thanks, the situation there affects a large portion of the surrounding area in primarily two ways :

1.) The country is major transshipment point for guns, drugs, human trafficking victims and who knows what else.  Anything trafficked through the south-eastern seaboard of the United States has probably passed through Haiti at some point.

2.) The refugee crisis got 10x worse after the earthquake a decade or so ago; there has always been a trend of mass migration out of the country due to the circumstances there, but the earthquake basically poured gasoline on top of that fire.  Most end up going to South Florida or the Bahamas without proper authorization/documentation.  Cuba is the last place on earth you would want to try to live in illegally (maybe second last to North Korea), the Jamaicans are not really fond of them to put it lightly, and the Dominican Republic is outright hostile.  Crossing the border into the DR, for most of them, is signing up for serious problems.  There is a certain element of "Balkanization" to Caribbean politics at times, you would have to live in the region for a bit to understand the complexities of it.  Point is, the refugees end up placing a large strain on the healthcare and educational systems of the nations where they go to stay.  In the Bahamas particularly,  the language barrier (Haitian Creole is basically broken French, while the official language of the Bahamas is English (French vs. English colony)), and the sheer number that arrive are particularly pressing problems.  The nation as a whole is basically 400-450k people, and public financing just cannot support the multitude that come.  Add on top of that the fact that citizenship is derived from blood in the Bahamas (ie. a Bahamian father, not birth, determines whether one is a citizen), many end up being born in the country with no legal rights to stay.  Legally they are Haitian citizens by way of parenthood, unless they can claim Bahamian citizenship through a Bahamian parent, and it is a very thorny political issue in the country to discuss repatriating them.

The United States certainly has a fair share of problems no doubt, but to describe it as a "failed state" would be pure hyperbole in my opinion.  Some crummy aspects of a political system, no doubt, but a "failed state" absolutely not.  In my mind, there are three basic factors in determining whether a nation is a "failed state" or not :

1.) Can it provide access to basic utilities, ie. water, electricity, etc. for its residents

2.) Can it secure its territory, domestically and internationally

3.) Is the rule of law effective, ie. can any government issued decrees or legislation effectively be implemented.  In simple terms, does the government have the ability to enforce what it proclaims as law.

That is my personal list, just my thoughts on observing international matters.

The US political system is certainly crummy at time, but it certainly could be worse.  The biggest reason why we see the same old recycled candidates so often is due to the fact that you need a fortune to run a presidential campaign.  In order to run for President in the United States, you basically have two options when it comes to financing :

A.) Sell yourself to special interest and lobbying groups in exchange for campaign funds.

B.) Have the f'you kind of money where you can say whatever you want (Think candidates like Ross Perot, or even President Trump himself to a degree)

The sheer cost of running a US presidential campaign basically precludes most average citizens from ever hoping to attain the office without selling them and their beliefs out, even before you take into account other issues associated with running for such high an office.  Even to run a campaign for a seat in a state legislative body is by no means a cheap affair, and the costs only get higher as you progress upwards in terms of power and authority. 

I personally do not publicly comment much on the state of American politics due to not having citizenship over there myself, it would be very disrespectful to do so in my opinion at least.  If I do, I try to stay as neutral as possible (if that is possible).  I do understand the apathy associated with the political system though, it can seem disheartening seeing the same old recycled candidates and policies over and over.  One thing certainly is common throughout American political history, many young politicians go in with the hope of changing or "fixing" the system, I have yet to see one ever accomplish their goal.  I had a friend use an analogy that getting involved with politics is like stepping into a spider's web, with many just waiting to suck the blood out of you lol.

Number one is certainly true (at least in most parts of the country...)

Number two is THEORETICALLY true, but hasn't been seriously tested for about 150 years.

Thee statement of number three appears true on the surface, but the complicated nature of the Federal vs. State Governments, the rampant government corruption exploited by powerful plutocrats, corporations, and moneyed special interest groups, and the fact that high Federal Government officials, and terrorists (CIA) and secret police agents (NSA, CSC, DHS, and FBI) on their direct and under their direct instructions, are held above the common law that ordinary citizens are subject to for all meaningful crimes (and they are horrible ones - Nuremberg calibre, in many cases) they commit in office, while many poor American citizens are highly mistreated by the police, judicial, and law-enforcement systems, sentenced to Unconstitiutional and illegal slave labour in privatized prisons and far too many executions that end up being posthumously exonerated decades later...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Patine said:

Number one is certainly true (at least in most parts of the country...)

Number two is THEORETICALLY true, but hasn't been seriously tested for about 150 years.

Thee statement of number three appears true on the surface, but the complicated nature of the Federal vs. State Governments, the rampant government corruption exploited by powerful plutocrats, corporations, and moneyed special interest groups, and the fact that high Federal Government officials, and terrorists (CIA) and secret police agents (NSA, CSC, DHS, and FBI) on their direct and under their direct instructions, are held above the common law that ordinary citizens are subject to for all meaningful crimes (and they are horrible ones - Nuremberg calibre, in many cases) they commit in office, while many poor American citizens are highly mistreated by the police, judicial, and law-enforcement systems, sentenced to Unconstitiutional and illegal slave labour in privatized prisons and far too many executions that end up being posthumously exonerated decades later...

Tried to send this to you as a PM since the thread seems to be slowing down, but it would not allow me to send it.

Agreed, number three is very nuanced when discussing the United States in particular.  I was thinking in rather simplistic, general terms when making my list, not really designing it for any country in particular.  States vs Federal rights has been a discussion since the founding of the nation, and when throwing in the influence of the courts and alphabet agencies, the waters only get murkier when it comes to enforcing legislation.  I guess it is only natural for a nation as large and wealthy as the USA is to be plagued with these sorts of issues.

I am just curious what you would consider as an Evangelical Christian based on your comment above this one.  Personally, I am a Roman Catholic myself, but I have never heard anyone offer a concrete definition for the term Evangelical in the USA.  I know the stereotype what you are referring to, the Southern Baptist or Pentecostal fire and brimstone preacher comes to mind, but I was just curious where you would draw the line when it comes to identifying someone as an Evangelical.  Would you include Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodist, etc?  Maybe even Anglicans?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2020 at 3:33 PM, Herbert Hoover said:

The forum was probably closer to center right when I first joined in 2016 still. A lot of the regular posters from that era have either left or shifted leftward. Remember Johnny K? @jvikings1 used to be a bit more active too but now he’s working and I believe has graduated college. @NYConservative was more active back then for sure, and @TheMiddlePolitical was an ardent Trump supporter at the time. 

I’m certain that as I get older I’ll be less active on here, but it’s been great to see how things have changed. Hell, I was only 15 when I started lurking on these forums, and I’m turning 21 soon. I remember coming to @vcczar several times in high school begging for college application advice 😛

I'm still in college (entering my senior year), but last year was my busiest year of school. Plus, I had to study for the lsat at the same time. And during the last couple summers, I have been traveling for campaign jobs which don't offer me a whole lot of free time. In fact, that's what I've been doing the past month.

But, I do try and pop on every once in a while to keep up with things

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvikings1 said:

I'm still in college (entering my senior year), but last year was my busiest year of school. Plus, I had to study for the lsat at the same time. And during the last couple summers, I have been traveling for campaign jobs which don't offer me a whole lot of free time. In fact, that's what I've been doing the past month.

But, I do try and pop on every once in a while to keep up with things

Oh, sweet! How did you end up doing on the LSAT? Graduation comes closer and closer and I know I’ll need to take the LSAT by the Spring semester at the latest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...