Negatory
-
Posts
625 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Negatory
-
-
9 hours ago, kaputt said:
None of this was a defense of the Republican party btw
Literally all of it was. Your point in each of the paragraphs was either republicans are better or at least no worse than democrats. False centrism is a pretty standard tactic.
-
1
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, BKANO said:
"you aren’t going to promote to O-5 without ACSC." That is not true. I know a guy that got promoted to O5 without ACSC on the last promotion board. He did get a DP though. Check the statistics for the last board on MYPERS.
Let’s be honest, though. It’s pretty true. I know 2 people that did not promote in the same case with a DP.
-
Do you think you could even get mass to a fight like the Taiwan straits with our current air refueling and basing capabilities? Mass seems like a bit of a pipe dream. An expensive one, at that.
-
1 hour ago, dream big said:
Dems should be careful what they wish for. News to me being stationed in PACAF, Guam and American Samoa lean significantly right of center in terms of politics.
Yeah I guess if 72% of votes going to Hillary is the same as right of center, sure.
-
Hah, I guess then you guys are gonna support when Dems add 2 Supreme Court justices, approve stateship for DC and Puerto Rico, and end the 60 vote filibuster rule here in a year, as well, right? Because they’ll do it all under the legality of the US system and constitution. They’ll be playing “by the rules,” right?
Or are these not the rules that you want to play by? The truth is, a huge amount of US politics is contingent on good will and not doing shit like saying that Obama can’t have a judge within a year of election because of morality and then being a hypocrite less than 4 years later.
This is the end of the republic. And it’s animosity on both sides, combined with a good amount of boot licking and pearl clutching, that’s gonna do it.
-
45 minutes ago, busdriver said:
Which is exactly what you're doing in opposition. Of course it was and is a philosophical debate.
Of course it is, I even said it was true. There are no facts, there are opinions. Don’t twist the words.
The point is that some people idolize the system because it’s always been the system. Not because they can point to a clear way in which having someone from Wisconsin count 3.6 times as much as the exact same occupation from California makes sense for the welfare of the people.
-
1 hour ago, Desk Jobs Suck said:
Change it when it doesn't work for your party, but crickets when it does? Looks like Schumer and gang might regret their decision for requiring only a simple majority for SC judge appointments.
It’s not like this is a new thing. It’s happened before and it has had criticism since literally the founding of the country. It was almost amended in 1970 but was opposed overwhelmingly by segregationists in southern states. Go ahead, read about the electoral college abolition amendment.
-
23 minutes ago, jrizzell said:
If in 2016, Clinton won under the same conditions as Trump, do you know how many people would be saying that the electoral college need to be dismantled...Zero. Everyone knows how we elect the President in this country, campaign accordingly.You have no idea if that’s true. Judging by how many people still have “Hillary for Jail“ bumper stickers, I would even venture to say you’re wrong.
-
1
-
-
Yeah and an equal opposition argued against the electoral college in the anti-federalist papers. Just because they write “tyranny of the majority” doesn’t mean it turns out that way.
In fact, the majority of civil rights scholars agree that the electoral college and its perpetuation is a large reason that slavery wasn’t abolished sooner and the civil war happened. What is that, tyranny of the minority?
-
There are no philosophical facts, that’s the point lol. No single idea, whether it came from a 21 year old founding father (like what you’re suggesting) or if it came from me should hold more inherent merit. Debate the ramifications - not the source.
-
1
-
-
The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.
Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012 all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.
States rights, huh?
Bring back a system that actually makes everyone’s votes matter.
-
1
-
2
-
-
45 minutes ago, busdriver said:
Put it this way: why is progressive taxation a thing? Because the "burden" of a flat 15% rate across the board would be higher the lower down the income strata you go. The policy is intended to consider the impact of it's implementation and "make it fair." Is it more fair to have every single person's vote be worth the same, or to attempt to ensure that rich or poor, urban or rural, big state or small state, majority or minority, elites or the common man; that each portion of the population will have it's concerns and viewpoint represented?
That’s not what it does, though. It just ensures that Wyoming farmers votes count 3.6 times more than California farmers. It ensures that Wyoming millionaire votes count 3.6 times more than California millionaires.
Your vote should exactly equal every other Americans vote everywhere when it comes to electing the federal government. And good point that the founding fathers literally made this policy up based on how they felt, with no basis in fact. The federalist papers, by the way, were written primarily by two young people who were 21 and 25 at the time of revolution: Hamilton and Madison. They are not some form of higher truth - they are normal people subject to fallacies and the inability to predict future struggles. Idolizing them does nothing to help.
The policy is an experiment that has no philosophical basis in truth, and, while it’s existed for hundreds of years, could still easily be flawed.
-
1
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, SurelySerious said:
So you don’t think our government is representative of the populous? Interesting, go with data.
Actually pretty easy. 63M vs 66M, 63M wins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Also, non-voters are significantly less likely to have conservative viewpoints.
https://www.pewresearch.org/2010/10/29/the-party-of-nonvoters/
Say what you want, but it's pretty obvious how the government could not be representative of the viewpoint of the average American. I'm not talking about the American voter, I'm talking about the American. And that's who actually matters.
-
Fair enough, I see your side of it. My question is how do we ever get back to more efficient, less partisan politics when both sides are such babies?
In reality, some principles that espouse fairness, voter representation, or the spirit of the constitution (such as what McConnell hypocritically suggested in 2016) are exactly what would help unite the country. Are we past things like that? Is it so clearly one team versus the other? Are the gloves fully off?
I agree that the dems were blatantly unfair during the Kavanaugh confirmation, and I understand the desire to “get back” at them. It just makes me sad for the future of the country and our ability to actually unite and make meaningful progress against external threats such as China, deficits, or Global Warming.
Here’s to the 2020s being another lost decade of progress, just like the 2010s.
-
7 minutes ago, jrizzell said:
If you think for one second that Obama wouldn’t have filed a SCOTUS seat, when his party had controlled the Senate, at the end of his first term; then you’re not being intellectually honest. Parliamentary procedure isn’t about “fairness”, it’s about what party’s in control. Just like Harry Reid in 2013, when they changed to rules requiring 60 votes to approve federal judges and executive branch nominees, to the now accepted simple majority. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/5-years-after-going-nuclear-democrats-have-reaped-what-they-sowed
This RBG wrinkle is going to make the first 9 months of 2020 look relatively peaceful...
He’s just pointing out blatant hypocritical statements that didn’t need to be said in 2016. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
1
-
-
Whoa sparky, calm down. The linked story literally had nothing in it calling out a conspiracy, even going so far as to say it was due purely to “inattention.” I think the point of posting it was that even the commander in chief’s office made one of the same mistakes that pisses off a lot of Air Force pilots. How can we hold orgs like PA to a higher standard if the CiC’s office does the same thing? Also, I’m positive this would have been linked if Biden or Clinton had done it.
-
1
-
4
-
-
7 hours ago, TreeA10 said:
The journalistic track record using the last 3 years isn't a good one. How many stories based on "anonymous" sources turned out to be a total fabrication? News networks and journalists banged the RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA drum for how many years interviewing how many sources (Schiff, Clapper, Brennan come to mind) and were told "We have proof" and, yet, no interest in finding out why they were lied to, and more importantly, why they lied to the American people over and over again. Oddly enough, they didn't lie to Congress but not a wisp of interest as to why. Journalists have not done themselves any favors over the last couple years so it's hard to put much stock in their reportage.
Huh? Are you saying the CIA, FBI, DISA, etc are all wrong about Russian interference? Is this more disinformation?
”The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first in their five-volume 1,313-page report in July 2019 in which they concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". ”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
-
1
-
-
I’m not naive. There’s a difference between war and posturing, and to say we’re at war with Iran is laughable. I have had them tell me to leave their airspace before and intentionally ignored it, but that ain’t war.
You probably also say we’re at war with Russia when it’s convenient to your argument but disregard the numerous pro Russia foreign policy moves that have been made by the administration.
By your logic, you’d probably say we’re at war with China, Venezuela, Yemen, half of Africa, etc.
-
1 hour ago, waveshaper said:
President Trump = So far he has gotten the US involved in "Zero" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani
I guess this was just a continuation of our longstanding war with Iran. More blatant propaganda drivel. -
You guys have any experience with this training? At my org (group level), we went around the room and, if you were white, you basically had to admit how you have been privileged and how you have internal biases. Super not awkward and fake, let me tell you. And this wasn’t optional. Literally every person had to talk.
If you were black, you had to go around and tell the room about your experiences being oppressed based on your skin color. One of the TSgts didn’t know what to say and started rambling about how she’s never had a bad experience or felt scared until the last week when a rent a cop pulled her over on base for speeding. She went on to say that the cop was super nice and did nothing wrong, but that she felt like she should be scared so she was.
We are creating victims and people with victim complexes. It also amplifies any sort of racial divide that existed before. The whole training takes away from the fact that there really are race bias problems out there, and that is what we should be focusing on.
-
6
-
1
-
-
Looks like some folks are getting short term loans for the next 4 months.
-
Also, I just looked into the actual comorbidities page on the CDC website, and some of the top conditions that were present when patients died of COVID that were counted as comorbidities were pneumonia, respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory arrest, and respiratory failure... Also, they listed cardiac arrest - something that happens when you die - as a comorbidity. If you don't see how the data is being skewed here, you're being intellectually dishonest. Seems fairly obvious that the overwhelming majority of people who died of COVID - a disease that is known to cause respiratory and heart issues - should have associated respiratory and heart issues when they die.
(Table 3)
We've known all along that COVID causes people to have pneumonia, a cough, trouble breathing, and respiratory distress. Don't pretend like a report that says that those conditions happen in people with COVID is some sort of proof that COVID's actual death rate is vastly overstated.
-
1
-
-
The liberal media is getting this entirely wrong, as usual. The mayor of SF, when asked if Pelosi violated the city health order:
"So look, Nancy Pelosi has done so much for this city and even this country and in the midst of this pandemic and all the stuff that’s happening amidst this election, she is in Washington D.C. fighting against a tyrant every single day," Breed said. "We need to be focused on the issues and the fact that over 180,000 people have died in this country and we have a president that continues to divide us."
YGBSM. Can democrats just have some integrity and condemn that she did the exact opposite of what they've been saying? Why doesn't she just admit guilt and apologize? Why is the political system so broken in this country?
What choice is there for a rational voter when it's just Republicans and Democrats? Every day further convinces me that constitutional amendments are in order: ranked choice voting and term limits for people in congress.
-
9
-
-
54 minutes ago, busdriver said:
I realize most of your rant between facts was just that (by your own admission).
But, the mutual funds vs grandma dying is a strawman argument. Economic impacts of in determinant length community lockdowns/restrictions/whatever aren't at the stock market level, and you know that.
Sure, you’re right. The economic impact is real and must be considered versus health effects, and my argument oversimplified that very important fact.
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Another standard tactic is to write small “mistruths” into your statements that you hope are close enough to reality that you can just slightly shift the narrative.
https://apnews.com/article/eb4b472fe89b4128990502b2b9e9e581
“Immediate” and clear are the opposite of what happened.
Here, this is from a piece of liberal hippy literature:
”And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”