~*Official Utterly Useless Old Woman, AOC, and UBI Thread*~

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

ONE MORE THING just how close are these anonymous sources linked to pelosi?

[TheGreatGamble]

50 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Congressional Black Caucus rips AOC-aligned Justice Democrats for targeting black lawmakers for primary challenges

 

Wow. 

 

"How dare they challenge us because we're black?"

 

Now that right there is bullshit. 

[Greatoneshere]

13 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

Instead of the false god of "authenticity", look at actual policy recommendations.  That is something that they can actually be held to account for rather than a nebulous concept.

 

But that's entirely my point - I'm basing their authenticity on the fact that they have been pushing the same policy proposals for decades. That's how you tell they are authentic. Not through some vague conception of authenticity through their public personas. Whereas most politicians just keep changing their minds on policy to whatever is on the pulse of the nation at the time - Biden's half raised hand after everyone else during the debates on whether they would get rid of their insurance for Medicare for All says it all, not to mention Kamala Harris suddenly has great prison reform proposals now when she was a hardcore prosecutor as the US District Attorney for California where she did the exact opposite of that in the past. You either are a good person and always believed gay people, women, minorities, etc. were people or you didn't. You either want to help the most people through the broadest, most utilitarian policies possible or you don't.

 

13 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

As a rule, I tend to view the skillsets necessary to be an effective legislator as being fundamentally different than those necessary to be an effective executive.

 

Of course they are, I agree - and Warren and Sanders would understand that, don't you think?

[Jason]

 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

You either are a good person and always believed gay people, women, minorities, etc. were people or you didn't. You either want to help the most people through the broadest, most utilitarian policies possible or you don't.

 

You are getting more cynical by the day

[Jason]

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

If Trump’s defending Pelosi it’s time for her to go. 

[Greatoneshere]

20 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

You are getting more cynical by the day

 

I mean, I grant people can change, but if you were against gay marriage into the 2010's I'm pretty sure you're just changing your mind on the issue because you don't want to seem anti-gay, not because you believe in gay rights.  

 

No?

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I mean, I grant people can change, but if you were against gay marriage into the 2010's I'm pretty sure you're just changing your mind on the issue because you don't want to seem anti-gay, not because you believe in gay rights.  

 

No?

 

Who are you referring to?

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, Jose said:

Who are you referring to?

 

I can't remember off of the top of my head but I believe Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama were not pro-gay marriage until very recently. I'm 32 and I've been pro-gay marriage my whole life (born in 1986). So what's their excuse to not even be personally for it, even if they knew it'd be difficult to pull off politically all this time? 

[Joe]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I can't remember off of the top of my head but I believe Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama were not pro-gay marriage until very recently. I'm 32 and I've been pro-gay marriage my whole life (born in 1986). So what's their excuse to not even be personally for it, even if they knew it'd be difficult to pull off politically all this time? 

 

So you think Barack Obama is not a good person?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

So you think Barack Obama is not a good person?

Not particularly.

 

A "good person" would have ended our drone programs, not increased the operational tempo.

[Greatoneshere]

6 minutes ago, Jose said:

So you think Barack Obama is not a good person?

 

No - I listed a number of groups you'd have to be against to holistically (that is, in the aggregate) be a "good person"  or not (note I mentioned minorities, women, etc.). Being on the wrong side of one issue doesn't make you a bad person, you could even still be a good person, but it's certainly not a good thing. Please note, I'm talking about in terms of authenticity and politicians in this context. The point I'm making with the "good person" stuff is a politician who actually has the values we should be championing should always had those values, or at least not be a Johnny come lately to this issue or that issue.

 

And I think Obama is a mixed bag as a person at best. We can do better. That's my whole point with Warren and Sanders. 

 

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Not particularly.

 

I kinda don't think a guy that condones drone strikes is a good person either, but I was asking Greatone.

 

Edit: We think alike.

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

No - I listed a number of groups you'd have to be against to holistically (that is, in the aggregate) be a "good person"  or not (note I mentioned minorities, women, etc.). Being on the wrong side of one issue doesn't make you a bad person, you could even still be a good person, but it's certainly not a good thing. Please note, I'm talking about in terms of authenticity and politicians in this context. The point I'm making with the "good person" stuff is a politician who actually has the values we should be championing should always had those values, or at least not be a Johnny come lately to this issue or that issue.

 

And I think Obama is a mixed bag as a person at best. We can do better. That's my whole point with Warren and Sanders. 

 

 

Do you remember this?

 

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/joe-bidens-gay-marriage-slip-up/amp

 

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

10 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I mean, I grant people can change, but if you were against gay marriage into the 2010's I'm pretty sure you're just changing your mind on the issue because you don't want to seem anti-gay, not because you believe in gay rights.  

 

No?

I think there are some people that have legitimately come around, in no small part because societal norms have changed. 

 

My dad is kind of like this. He was never against same sex unions, but was against them using the word marriage, due to its religious history. And he’s not religious himself. But for many years now he has been accepting and for gay marriage. He has almost forgot that he had any opposition at all. 

 

I think a lot of people are like this. They were only against it because it wasn’t the norm. Now it is and since they never really had a reason to be against it they just accept it. They won’t participate in a pride march, but they also see no reason in removing the right/privilege (however you wanna see it) from gays either.

 

 

This is is why I am not as cynical or offended by companies like Apple or MS sell pins with their company logo colored by a rainbow during pride month. It helps normalize LGBTQ rights, to make it easier to accepting them as a society.  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I think there are some people that have legitimately come around, in no small part because societal norms have changed. 

 

My dad is kind of like this. He was never against same sex unions, but was against them using the word marriage, due to its religious history. And he’s not religious himself. But for many years now he has been accepting and for gay marriage. He has almost forgot that he had any opposition at all. 

 

I think a lot of people are like this. They were only against it because it wasn’t the norm. Now it is and since they never really had a reason to be against it they just accept it. They won’t participate in a pride march, but they also see no reason in removing the right/privilege (however you wanna see it) from gays either.

 

 

This is is why I am not as cynical or offended by companies like Apple or MS sell pins with their company logo colored by a rainbow during pride month. It helps normalize LGBTQ rights, to make it easier to accepting them as a society.  

 

This is a pretty good assessment of how people often change. They don’t really have reasons for what they think about this or that, it’s just what was normal in the culture they were born into. As things change in the culture, the response in the long run tells the story IMO.

 

Good thoughts here  

[Greatoneshere]

38 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

Do you remember this?

 

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/joe-bidens-gay-marriage-slip-up/amp

 

 

 

I do - the fact that was in 2012 is sad, is my entire point. Also, Biden's true beliefs on every topic have gone back and forth a thousand times (Hyde amendment, pro-segregationists he worked with) that I'm not convinced of much of what he says, but still, 2012 bru. 

 

36 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I think there are some people that have legitimately come around, in no small part because societal norms have changed. 

 

My dad is kind of like this. He was never against same sex unions, but was against them using the word marriage, due to its religious history. And he’s not religious himself. But for many years now he has been accepting and for gay marriage. He has almost forgot that he had any opposition at all. 

 

I think a lot of people are like this. They were only against it because it wasn’t the norm. Now it is and since they never really had a reason to be against it they just accept it. They won’t participate in a pride march, but they also see no reason in removing the right/privilege (however you wanna see it) from gays either.

 

But I never said some people don't legitimately change? I'm saying plenty do, it's the reasons why they do and their intentions on why they are changing their minds that has me concerned. But if you only change because of societal norms, then that's a failure on your part to not understand how your logic was wrong in the first place - your mind is only changing due to the sea change around you, not because you legitimately saw why you should have thought differently from the start. 

 

I do not believe a lot of people are like this. And the fact they wouldn't advocate for their rights, but simply "accept" it (perhaps even begrudgingly, whether internally or externally) shows all the more for that to be the case. Obviously I'm happier if someone changes their mind rather than doesn't (of course), but I don't believe the change is authentic, but rather forced, and thus, you're not really a "better" person for being forced to change your mind on something rather than arriving at why your mind should have been different on that issue from the start.

 

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my response.

 

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

This is a pretty good assessment of how people often change. They don’t really have reasons for what they think about this or that, it’s just what was normal in the culture they were born into. As things change in the culture, the response in the long run tells the story IMO.

 

Good thoughts here  

 

Right, agreed, but ignorance is no excuse. Like, am I supposed to be comforted by the fact that people are lazy and just do what the culture says, even when it's bad? That they're so low level of intelligence that they don't "really have reasons for what they think about this or that"? That's such a terribly low bar, in my opinion.

 

I'd be curious though for you to elaborate, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm trying to go off of exactly what you said.

 

[Anathema-]

Primary challenges are good and I think it's healthy to highlight how conservative some parts of the Democratic party are. It may do a better job of siphoning true swing conservative votes in places it might make a difference and it might highlight to lefties about how functioning government necessitates bargaining with conservative members of the Democratic party after defeating Republicans at the polls. 

 

Or at least that's the hope.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

24 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I do - the fact that was in 2012 is sad, is my entire point. Also, Biden's true beliefs on every topic have gone back and forth a thousand times (Hyde amendment, pro-segregationists he worked with) that I'm not convinced of much of what he says, but still, 2012 bru. 

 

 

But I never said some people don't legitimately change? I'm saying plenty do, it's the reasons why they do and their intentions on why they are changing their minds that has me concerned. But if you only change because of societal norms, then that's a failure on your part to not understand how your logic was wrong in the first place - your mind is only changing due to the sea change around you, not because you legitimately saw why you should have thought differently from the start. 

 

I do not believe a lot of people are like this. And the fact they wouldn't advocate for their rights, but simply "accept" it (perhaps even begrudgingly, whether internally or externally) shows all the more for that to be the case. Obviously I'm happier if someone changes their mind rather than doesn't (of course), but I don't believe the change is authentic, but rather forced, and thus, you're not really a "better" person for being forced to change your mind on something rather than arriving at why your mind should have been different on that issue from the start.

 

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my response.

 

 

Right, agreed, but ignorance is no excuse. Like, am I supposed to be comforted by the fact that people are lazy and just do what the culture says, even when it's bad? That they're so low level of intelligence that they don't "really have reasons for what they think about this or that"? That's such a terribly low bar, in my opinion.

 

I'd be curious though for you to elaborate, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm trying to go off of exactly what you said.

 

It is mostly due to apathy. For some there is a begrudging level of acceptance. I think there are a lot of people that are ok with gays and such existing, as long as they exist privately and out of sight. They’ll see two guys having dinner and it would take overwhelming evidence to make think they aren’t just “two buddies hanging out”. They prefer it this way, and if they see any of that overwhelming evidence they are two guys on a date they’ll look away. They don’t hate them, or think they shouldn’t exist. It’s just outside their comfort level. And the thing is they may not even know they do it. 

 

But there are those even even more apathetic. They really don’t care. They’re the “I don’t know” on a survey.  Some only had the opinion of “I do not think gays should be able to get married”, only because they know what being gay was. They thought it was a choice, like a person chooses to be a nerd, to live with their parents until they’re 30, be obese. Now, because of how much our culture has been inundated they known a person now more chooses to be gay than they choose to be black, Hispanic, or white. It doesn’t make them any less apathetic, it just became common knowledge and broadly accepted as truth. 

 

They’re a bad person in the same way as people who didn’t vote at all in 2016, who would say things like “it doesn’t matter which one wins”. 

 

Some who changed their opinion or suddenly cared about gays getting rights only did so because they suddenly had a dog in the fight. Their brother, child, or really close BFF is gay. And now they have a face to the issue. Somebody they care about is being denied rights, or treated as they’re less than human. 

 

It it may not be righteous, but many people only really care one way or another when it impacts their circle. We this not only in human rights, but when it comes to guns, our flawed justice system, and healthcare. Some people can only really have an opinion when it affects themselves or somebody they love or care about. And not everyone had a gay friend or family member before it became normalized in society. 

 

 

[legend]

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Some people can only really have an opinion when it affects themselves or somebody they love or care about. And not everyone had a gay friend or family member before it became normalized in society. 

 

I'd say the problem is these people *do* have an opinion despite it neither affecting them nor them having thought it through. There's too much going on in the world for everyone to have an informed opinion on everything. That's fine. What's not fine is insisting on policy for something you don't understand anyway.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

It is mostly due to apathy. For some there is a begrudging level of acceptance. I think there are a lot of people that are ok with gays and such existing, as long as they exist privately and out of sight. They’ll see two guys having dinner and it would take overwhelming evidence to make think they aren’t just “two buddies hanging out”. They prefer it this way, and if they see any of that overwhelming evidence they are two guys on a date they’ll look away. They don’t hate them, or think they shouldn’t exist. It’s just outside their comfort level. And the thing is they may not even know they do it. 

 

But there are those even even more apathetic. They really don’t care. They’re the “I don’t know” on a survey.  Some only had the opinion of “I do not think gays should be able to get married”, only because they know what being gay was. They thought it was a choice, like a person chooses to be a nerd, to live with their parents until they’re 30, be obese. Now, because of how much our culture has been inundated they known a person now more chooses to be gay than they choose to be black, Hispanic, or white. It doesn’t make them any less apathetic, it just became common knowledge and broadly accepted as truth. 

 

They’re a bad person in the same way as people who didn’t vote at all in 2016, who would say things like “it doesn’t matter which one wins”. 

 

Some who changed their opinion or suddenly cared about gays getting rights only did so because they suddenly had a dog in the fight. Their brother, child, or really close BFF is gay. And now they have a face to the issue. Somebody they care about is being denied rights, or treated as they’re less than human. 

 

It it may not be righteous, but many people only really care one way or another when it impacts their circle. We this not only in human rights, but when it comes to guns, our flawed justice system, and healthcare. Some people can only really have an opinion when it affects themselves or somebody they love or care about. And not everyone had a gay friend or family member before it became normalized in society. 

 

I'll start by saying: 

 

1 hour ago, legend said:

I'd say the problem is these people *do* have an opinion despite it neither affecting them nor them having thought it through. There's too much going on in the world for everyone to have an informed opinion on everything. That's fine. What's not fine is insisting on policy for something you don't understand anyway.

 

This.

 

And secondly, that I feel like your post proves my point? All the people you outlined are, to me, on the sliding scale of what I at least consider a "bad" person. Apathy is a choice, and in today's world, remaining apathetic is harmful. You have to at the very least be informed and think about your choices, particularly on social values. I started becoming very informed the minute Trump made fun of that disabled reporter on live television. I was like: "holy shit, this is happening" and I remembered the same feeling during the Bush years too and I was very political back then too (the Obama years I felt like I could check out a little bit, and I see that I made a mistake there). It's easy to care when your values are already predisposed to being that way. If they aren't, and you remain apathetic, yes, you are a bad person to one degree or another. It's not even hard - do unto others, etc. It's like the lowest bar possible. If you can't even meet that, that's a problem.

 

I didn't have a gay friend growing up or have a family member struggling with fitting into society. It's just logical to treat everyone equally and fairly and evenly for society to function best. Even if it's a choice like obesity - that's the entire point. I may worry about the obese person due to health reasons, etc. but you still treat them the same. Everyone's still a person on the inside with a personality that can be beautiful. I don't have to fall in love with them or hook up with them but you still treat them the same. Unless they don't treat you well, etc. It's simple. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

what a party

 

Quote

This is clearly the new strategy: Feed stories to the media about racial motivation even when there’s zero evidence for it, and when the media reaches out, give quotes like “It does make you wonder what’s going on,” and “it just seems strange.” You can always count on the media to leave the rest of the story out, or to bury it so far down that the simple facts—Justice Dems are challenging on the merits of policy, and not color, which is obvious since their candidates are almost all people of color—are obscured.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

"Do unto others..." is degenerate liberal bourgeois slave morality!

[Greatoneshere]

21 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

"Do unto others..." is degenerate liberal bourgeois slave morality!

 

It's literally the only way society can function for further improvement to the excellence of the whole while maintaining individuality for the person. I'm trying to reach Emperor of Mankind of Warhammer 40K here and he realized this same truth!

 

https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Emperor_of_Mankind

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

It's literally the only way society can function for further improvement to the excellence of the whole while maintaining individuality for the person. I'm trying to reach Emperor of Mankind of Warhammer 40K here and he realized this same truth!

 

https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Emperor_of_Mankind

 

The entire point of the Imperium of Man is to subsume the individual into the whole for the glory of humanity!

[Greatoneshere]

8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

 

The entire point of the Imperium of Man is to subsume the individual into the whole for the glory of humanity!

 

Not during his heyday when he stamped out religion and created a version of humanity that could win against all enemies in space whilst maintaining some amount of individuality for the person. We don't suffer the threats of Warhammer 40K (as best as we know) so thus, we can do the same as he did but simply increase individuality for each person. Thus, do unto others! 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

44 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I'll start by saying: 

 

 

This.

 

And secondly, that I feel like your post proves my point? All the people you outlined are, to me, on the sliding scale of what I at least consider a "bad" person. Apathy is a choice, and in today's world, remaining apathetic is harmful. You have to at the very least be informed and think about your choices, particularly on social values. I started becoming very informed the minute Trump made fun of that disabled reporter on live television. I was like: "holy shit, this is happening" and I remembered the same feeling during the Bush years too and I was very political back then too (the Obama years I felt like I could check out a little bit, and I see that I made a mistake there). It's easy to care when your values are already predisposed to being that way. If they aren't, and you remain apathetic, yes, you are a bad person to one degree or another. It's not even hard - do unto others, etc. It's like the lowest bar possible. If you can't even meet that, that's a problem.

 

I didn't have a gay friend growing up or have a family member struggling with fitting into society. It's just logical to treat everyone equally and fairly and evenly for society to function best. Even if it's a choice like obesity - that's the entire point. I may worry about the obese person due to health reasons, etc. but you still treat them the same. Everyone's still a person on the inside with a personality that can be beautiful. I don't have to fall in love with them or hook up with them but you still treat them the same. Unless they don't treat you well, etc. It's simple. 

I guess you have a point. A person who says “I don’t care” on an issue is not as bad somebody that sides with holding back rights to groups of people. Because if the group does get rights, they’re not likely to be out spoken against it. But they’re a bad person in that they’re doing nothing in the face of bigotry. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The other way to look at it is when a good person does nothing they aiding evil by turning a blind eye and allowing it progress unchallenged. 

 

I get it. 

 

It’s why I applaud the groups and individuals that have worked tirelessly to get this subject into the hearts and minds of the general, apathetic populace. The general public  may not have gotten off the bench to get involved, but now see these rights as something where their removal would be inhuman. And some may be willing to stand up if it looked like those rights were in jeopardy. If not by actually taking to the streets, then by taking to social media to show their support. 

 

That’s more than a small victory. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Not during his heyday when he stamped out religion and created a version of humanity that could win against all enemies in space whilst maintaining some amount of individuality for the person. We don't suffer the threats of Warhammer 40K (as best as we know) so thus, we can do the same as he did but simply increase individuality for each person. Thus, do unto others! 

And yet in the act of doing so, he ultimately created the thing that he tried to destroy: an imperial cult that is a religion in all but name only. 

 

Furthermore, he was totally blind to how his own actions led to the treason of Horus, a person he regarded as his own son, as well as the other Primarchs who joined the Heresy.

[Greatoneshere]

18 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I guess you have a point. A person who says “I don’t care” on an issue is not as bad somebody that sides with holding back rights to groups of people. Because if the group does get rights, they’re not likely to be out spoken against it. But they’re a bad person in that they’re doing nothing in the face of bigotry. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The other way to look at it is when a good person does nothing they aiding evil by turning a blind eye and allowing it progress unchallenged. 

 

I get it. 

 

It’s why I applaud the groups and individuals that have worked tirelessly to get this subject into the hearts and minds of the general, apathetic populace. The general public  may not have gotten off the bench to get involved, but now see these rights as something where their removal would be inhuman. And some may be willing to stand up if it looked like those rights were in jeopardy. If not by actually taking to the streets, then by taking to social media to show their support. 

 

That’s more than a small victory. 

 

It would seem we agree. I agree with this post entirely. 

 

14 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

And yet in the act of doing so, he ultimately created the thing that he tried to destroy: an imperial cult that is a religion in all but name only. 

 

Furthermore, he was totally blind to how his own actions led to the treason of Horus, a person he regarded as his own son, as well as the other Primarchs who joined the Heresy.

 

Well, let's get to this problem first (we're not even close enough to there yet, we're even worse), and hey, nobody's perfect! While I agree with you, the idea still holds true as the best way going forward.  

 

Separately, I never bought into the treason of Horus story arc. I felt like the Emperor of Mankind would never make the mistakes he made with the version earlier established. I like it overall, but some of the character jumps made me question it. 

[RedSoxFan9]

On 7/10/2019 at 9:59 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

what happened to all of the Pelosi defenders 

 

 

[thewhyteboar]

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

pelosi’s twitter rule only applies to some members 

[CitizenVectron]

To  understand Pelosi and the centrist democrats:

 

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

some things never change