pettie4sox
-
Posts
6,879 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by pettie4sox
-
-
Egg Nog Poll
in SLaM
On 12/23/2020 at 5:34 PM, manbearpuig said:Do you have a brand recommendation? I'm interested.
I have only tried the almond breeze brand. It was pretty good and didn't give me digestive issues. ?
-
1
-
-
Egg Nog Poll
in SLaM
I love how all you guys act like you're not lactose intolerant.
I'm all about the almond nog yo.
-
39 minutes ago, SoxKing3002 said:
With all do respect do not elevate anyone to cult status. Does Trump have personality flaws, yes. Is he solely responsible for dividing the nation, I think not. Has he done much to unify the nation? That's a resounding no. But based on policy and accomplishments, if you think President elect Biden will be better for this country, you must really not think highly of your country.
Is it possible they both suck in your eyes or nah? I don't get why people automatically assume a trump hater is a leftist or something. Newsflash bro, Biden is a fucking republican if you really look at this record. I know it's hard to see past the D and R with some folks but you'll be amazed what you'll find when you actually look at one's record.
-
6 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:
Probably. I don’t at all buy into the right-wing talk that he is super progressive. I think his cabinet picks so far back me up on that (and I really like Blinken and Flournoy (likely SecDef)). I also think Manchin will protect the center in the Senate. That being said, I still don’t see a reason for a red state to go blue. I think Warnock and Ossoff would be negative influences in Congress as well so I’ll take the two Republicans instead, even if I have disagreements and dislikes with both.
Ossoff is pretty much a republican. He just doesn't have the skeletons that Perdue has in his closet.
-
1
-
-
Greg getting dunked repeatedly brings joy to my day.
I could see the dems taking both GA seats even though both candidates are no good. Momentum is even a thing in politics.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:
I sympathize with the kids with crappy parents who grew up in crappy environments and never had the chance that I had, and I want to help them (again, to a reasonable extent).
But if someone grew up in a privileged environment and still ended up chronically unemployed and working poor, then I'm really not that sympathetic. Life takes a little bit of toughness. Sorry.
I don't even want to help these people man. Are you kidding me lmaoooo. I could be wrong in this belief but it seems like you assume all of these people fall into this category and if that was the case, we would agree 1000%.
-
Just now, Danny Dravot said:
Though I disagree, this is much more reasonable.
Now, how long should we help such people? Take a kid with poor, drug addled parents. Give the parents some food stamps so they can feed their child and hope they use the stamps wisely and honestly. Provide welfare so that the family can have a roof over its head, but combine that with enough social services (including substance abuse counseling) so that, hopefully, the parents get clean and can obtain steady work and no longer require these services. Boom, success!
But the sad fact is those parents are never going to become my parents. My parents worked their asses off their entire lives (they came from poor Appalachian families) and ultimately got grad degrees. I was raised in an admittedly privileged environment because of their work. How far are we supposed to work for the kid in the previous paragraph? Where does it end?
Of course there needs to a point where it's cut off, but the government should do everything in their power to curb what caused the drug addled parents to begin with. There is always going to be fuck ups, but how many fuck ups were created because people lost hope early on, have kids, and pass that hopelessness to them. We need to attack the problem at its root and not just assume people are just lazy fuckers who want free stuff. IMO those types of people can be easily weeded out. I genuinely believe we can have a country that works for everyone and not just people who got lucky with decent/good parental lottery. I've shared here many times but I'm a black man that had parents that came from those poor disenfranchised areas. They fought like hell but I'm unfortunately in rare air. If my parents didn't do what they did, I would have been absolutely fucked. I recognize my fortune and want the cycle to end. America is allegedly the best country on earth yet we can't take care of our most vulnerable? If we're the best we should be best at everything period.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:
How many people's bad decisions are the result of their environment though?
People become criminals because they feel like they have no other choice to survive.
Here's the thing you can argue these semantics until you're blue in the face. The reality is, give everyone an even start. Wages, healthcare, education. The rest is up to them. It's not that radical of an idea either because most developed countries on the planet already do it and guess what, they are absoluting kicking our asses.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:
I'm an advocate of a limited welfare state that prevents suffering and unnecessary death while encouraging eventual independence from it. Yet your ideas here are so fanatical that I need to argue entirely against them.
Serious question- are individual citizens responsible for ANYTHING in your view? Right in this post alone, it's apparently the government's responsibility to provide education, healthy food, housing, drugs, surgery, disease prevention. Anything else you want the government to take care of?
I believe citizens are responsible for decisions they make but how many people are in the situation they are in because they got dealt a bad hand of cards (aka bad parents, bad environments, poverty, etc...) I think it's the government's job to make sure the bad decisions of individuals are the culprit of their failings and not because the government had a shitty foundation to begin with for those people.
-
13 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:
Joe Biden, a moderate, won by six million votes (3%). 72 million people voted for Trump. How many of Joe’s 78 million were also moderates or Never Trump conservatives? The incumbent was historically unpopular and there was a world changing pandemic that was horribly handled by said incumbent. And yet, the Senate, whose map also favored Ds, is very likely to stay in R hands (at best, it’s a tie to be broken by a VP who’s in power because of aforementioned shitty incumbent). That’s all the evidence I need. Have fun waiting anxiously for policies that aren’t coming.
They won't come when republicans are running things because that's what dems are. People will get fed up eventually, and I'll sit back and enjoy the show then.
-
1 minute ago, Danny Dravot said:
With all due respect, I’m done arguing this one. I have a pretty solid basis for half the country NOT wanting those policies, but you are free to disagree.
You absolutely can speak for yourself regarding this matter, that's your right, prerogative or whatever you want to call it.
I have yet to see you produce data. Feel free to produce some. I have and can produce a lot more if you'd like. I don't really need to convince you nor do I want to. These policies are coming whether you like them or not. Just get yourself mentally prepared.
-
7 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:
M4A, GND, free college and debt forgiveness, housing for all, internet for all, and so on.
Those are not really progressive policies, they are moderate because more than 50% of the country agrees on them. You could argue defund the police and abolish ice are progressive as they are significantly below 50%.
-
38 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:
@The Beast he should deny progressive action. People can argue until they’re blue in the face, but if America wanted progressive policy, Americans would have given Ds the Senate, especially considering how favorable the map was this year. McConnell should, however, work on bipartisan issues. This idea that things can’t happen unless one party has all the branches on lock down is anathema. Balance of power is supposed to encourage compromise, consensus and moderation; it’s not a trick to halt everything until one side develops monolithic power.
I guess it depends on what you mean by progressive action. You can use a label for anything that really doesn't mean anything.
-
51 minutes ago, The Beast said:
What do you feel is the best way to make moderates and progressives play along together?
Personally I think they should just start their own party and let the democrats continue to be republicans.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:
And he is leading by 5 million votes, so there is also that.
There is something "legit" about winning the electoral college and popular vote.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:
That wasn't my goal. @pettie4sox if I insulted you personally at all, I apologize.
I do not think you insulted my intelligence. Maybe he is referring to my linear thinking comment but that's not an insult that's describing one's way of thinking about situations. Kyyle is trying stir things up to close the thread. Typical buzzkill mod. ?
-
8 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:
Lol ok
Joe Biden voice: "Come on man...."
-
5 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:
So, y'all are basically proving our point that any sort of Buster type thread devolves into *waves hand around* .....this. So thanks for that.
The conversation has been civil. Discussions should be welcome.
-
2 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:
Why, because I made a quip about vacations and nice cars?
I want a public option. I want people who cannot afford healthcare to be covered by the state until such point that they can afford healthcare. I want the state to control the cost of vital drugs, and whether it's private or public, insurance should have some form of catastrophic cap. I still remember seeing a donation jar at a gas station when I was a teenager for one of their coworkers who owed $60,000 for the treatment of their deceased child. That shouldn't happen.
But these subsidies should not cover me nor you. I can afford it and you've said in the past that you can too. If you added up my healthcare costs and took them off my plate (and somehow didn't raise my taxes a similar amount), that'd pay for my wife and I stay at the Four Seasons in Paris for a week. So, in my perception, we are discussing a provision not of necessity (which I support) but of luxury (which I do not).
I don't really consider that a quip but OK. I just don't assume to know people's situations. You come at it from a glass half empty perspective and that's fine but I just think the whole thing is burden to society. I want people to have freedom from the burden of healthcare because right now it's a conundrum. I am all for private insurers being able to offer supplemental insurance for those who want it but the bulk of it should be covered. You are not getting it for free, it's paid the same way the military is being paid for.
-
5 minutes ago, Quin said:
Regarding the first point:
Because all progressive policies aren't going to carry everywhere in a big tent party. AOC can win in any sapphire blue district - she gets obliterated in Spanberger or Lamb's districts. But we've been having this discussion ad nauseum for the past few pages.
The problem isn't even really policies, it's branding. The Affordable Care Act is popular as hell. Obamacare less so. Because people don't bother digging into policy.
Bernie didn't run on "defund the police" because it's an albatross of a slogan - make it "unburden the police" with exact same framework and the moderate vote/never Trump conservatives jump right on board. The flip side is I had a (progressive) friend furious during the debates because he was upset that Biden wouldn't say "defund the police" even though he was outlining the policies of redistributing the responsibilities to appropriate parties - he just wanted him to say it for some reason.
Regarding the second point:
The Democrats have been pushing policy. They've been passing bills (which die in the Senate). They've been pushing a $15 minimum wage, student debt relief, voting rights, immigrants rights, helping DREAMers, net neutrality, addressing climate change, net neutrality, etc.
Here's a small list of bills that have died on McConnell's desk.
If the party could unite and run on these, it'd be much easier. Instead they have the Gregs of the world believing that AOC dictates the entire party platform with Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, so now all Democrats have to run with that (if they support it) or on defense (if they don't, according to the politics of their district).
Maybe I just want to see them get obliterated before I assume. I just think it's funny how people like Kasich claim the "far left" (whatever that means) almost cost Joe Biden the election when the evidence is contrary to that. I get that people are scared of big change but IMO it's long overdue. People are suffering out there and without bold legislation, the cycle of our failed state will continue. Democrats should have been able to punch their ticket to senate but yet the likes of Graham, McConnell and Collins cruised to re-election... Why is that? Maybe name calling and saying I'm not Trump doesn't resonate with as many people as they thought.
I agree the DNC needs to hire a top tier marketing firm to brand their ideas because whoever it is now has been failing at their job miserably. You can't even get the DNC to unite against a candidate like Trump. That speaks volumes.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Danny Dravot said:
I suspect we’ll always disagree because I am certain we have fundamental differences on what the purpose of this country actually is. But I’m still willing to talk about it. You’re more than welcome to point out my straw men just like you’re more than welcome to point out how I’m misremembering our earlier debate about the Electoral College. If you just want to complain about it in vague terms, then, sincerely, have a nice day.
I do not care if we disagree but if you're not going to have an honest discussion what's the point? If you can't see that from your posts I don't know what to tell you. The last part of your previous post is evidence that you're just trying to drive your POV home and that you are not trying to have an honest discussion.
-
13 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:
The military is a collective good and one of the few legitimate purposes of the federal government. Helping you save money on healthcare so you can take a vacation and drive a nicer car is not.
I would enjoy discussing things with you more if you weren't so linear in thinking. You are the king of straw man and very disingenuous.
-
9 hours ago, Quin said:
I just wanna say this list needs a way, way deeper dive.
- Max Rose represents Staten Island, a place with heavy police presence. I'm sure "defund the police" harmed him greatly.
- Debbie Murcasel-Powell (26th, Florida only has 27 districts) and Donna Shalala suffered from Donald Trump's heavy "Biden is a socialist" down ballot messaging. That messaging resonated with Cuban voters in Florida - it's why the state went red.
- Medicare for All would not play well at all in Peterson, Cunningham, or Horn's districts. Having Peterson - a near 30 year incumbent and the most conservative Dem in the house from the most conservative district here - on here is really just trying to pad the stats.
(I say this as someone who would love to have Medicare for All in this country)
Why do we need to limit the message of "progressives" to defund the police though. I think if they stick to policies that actually help you as a worker that message will resonate with most even if they don't want to admit it.
You want you healthcare? You want a livable wage? You want to build for the future? Back them up with policy and the democrats would actually have a message instead of their do nothing and claim the other side is bad. People are desperate and if dems sounds like repubs which they do quite frankly, just vote for the repub. I would.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:
Health insurance isn’t a “basic human right”. Freedom of speech is a human right because it requires nothing of another person for me to run my mouth however I please. But if you are given a right to health insurance, we are granting you unconditional access to another person’s labor. So...not a human right.
We should have a system where the truly needy have subsidized health insurance, but that’s much different than calling it a human right and it doesn’t address everybody regardless of their own situation. Why should the state pay for my health insurance or yours?
By that logic we should have an option whether we want our tax dollars to go to the military. I'm sure plenty of people would opt out of that.
-
1
-
2020 Election Thoughts
in SLaM
Posted
So Trump wanted this leaked, right? For what purpose, to what end?