Biden presidency teetering amid calls to resign, Blinken to be impeached

Why would they want people to make bad decisions?

 

Yeah, BCers (5.1m), about 1/4 the number of people in Florida, has 1,807 covid deaths while Florida has 43,979.

Who said anything about "public shaming?" In BC, unvaccinated people know they won't be welcome in some settings, so there's no need for them to show up at restaurants and bars to get a dose to public shaming.

"We?" Anti-vaxxer candidates may not be as popular as you may think. DeSantis' polls are underwater.

 

They think letting them make bad decisions = more votes, apparently.

 

Just when I think it's not possible for you to get more absurd you go and prove me wrong.

 

They are arming our enemies and trying to disarm American citizens... THINK ABOUT THAT!!!

 

it’s a bad decision to take crack or meth, but politicians will get more votes if they say they’re going to legalize those drugs.

 

Because of course these people are well versed in politics. I'm sure in between scores they are attending town hall meetings and volunteering for candidates....>sarcasm off>

 

Their ballots will be harvested by democrats.

 

Right....what was the mailing address again...corner of Main and Oak?

 

I don't think they will. They are literally too stupid to do something that might actually benefit them these days. There are quite a few general officers that also need to be removed for their incompetence. Obama was good at purging......

 

abuse of power, obstruction of justice. Whatever, it's all bad.

 

the Wiki Article doesn't mention 'odds', from a time management perspective, eh? of course not. Neither are you.


Here is what is NOT a logical fallacy, at NOT mentioned in the wiki article.

Scenario:

Someone is examining on the internet many arguments.

Those which come from questionable sources, YES, there is a remote chance an argument has merit but.........;

THE ODDS ARE THAT IT IS NOT.

As an internet participant examining many arguments and responding to them, I do not have time to respond to arguments sourced from questionable sources on the 1001th chance it might be a good article, where on reputable sites, it will have a 50/50 chance of being a good article.

Wikis premise doesn't go to odds, it only goes to their notion that 'a questionable source doesn't automatically mean the argument doesn't have merit.'

While that may be true, but in terms of where I'm going to place my time, I'm going with reputable sources.

So, if your argument has merit, it should also be included on some website that does have credibility and has a higher rating on MBFC, such as WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, etc. Because stories that have merit are most often carried by repudiable sources, as well.

So, find the same subject matter on a reputable website, and I'll give it a look.
The odds are this, if it is a valid reportage, the odds are a reputable site will have it, too.

Otherwise, form a time management perspective, I do not have time to waste on non reputable sources when the odds are the argument is crap, therefrom.

Capiche?

Your 'logical fallacy' does not address 'odds' and time management issues by internet participants, and, as such, is a red herring.

 

That makes no sense.

 

A few problems here, bud.

First, your numbers appear to be not just wrong, but very wrong. According to these two sites

1- Finally, The Truth About Welfare — How Many Blacks Vs. How Many Whites (lowincome.org) (https://www.lowincome.org/2016/04/truth-about-welfare-foodstamps-how-many-blacks-vs-whites.html)
2- 15 Welfare Statistics by Race, State and Payment - BrandonGaille.com (https://brandongaille.com/welfare-s... Additional Welfare Statistics More items... )

These are the stats:
Percentage of welfare recipients that are:
White: 38.8%
Black: 39.8%
Hispanic: 15.7%
Asian: 2.4%
Other: 3.3%

I looked for, but was unable to find any official Census records on the topic, nor any other governmental records. Whether that's because my google skills need updating, or because those stats are simply not published (or are just really hard to find), I could not tell you.

Note that this does not mean that 38.8% of whites, 39.8% of blacks, and so on, are on welfare. It is the racial share of the total.

According the US Census Bureau Estimates, the US is made up as of 2019 looked like this:
White: 60.3%
Hispanic: 18.5%
Black: 13.4%
Asian: 5.9%
Other: 4.3%

So, random chance should dictate that 60.3% of welfare recipients (give or take) should be white, 18.5% (give or take) should be hispanic, 13.4% (give or take) should be black, and so on. Clearly, that is not the case. For some reason, blacks are overrepresented in the welfare rolls by about 300% (in my head math). I would also note that tracking "hispanic" as a race is probably ill advised, because the reality is hispanics can be the whitest white, the blackest black, or what most of us think of when we think of the word "hispanic", but it is truly a word that describes a racially diverse class, not a distinct race.

The reality is that TODAY, on August 30th, 2021, pretty much who is able bodied, able minded, has a high school diploma (maybe), a cleanish record (maybe), and is willing to actually show up and do the work can and should be employed. I have zero sympathy for someone who meets that very short qualification list who just refuses to get a job, because at least at this possibly unique (or at least uncommon) moment in history, all it takes to become employed is the ability to fog a mirror, and the willingness to support yourself rather than demand total strangers support you because you refuse to.

Now, for people who are genuinely disabled (and for the record, I am in that group, though it is a relatively recent (about 4 yrs now) problem) should be taken care of in one way or another. Whether that disability is physical, as mine is, or mental , though I don't mean something like mild depression or anxiety, I'm talking about a legit case of serious mental illness that eliminates a persons to function in society, should be the recipient of the support of their fellow Americans, but unless you fall into that category, completely regardless of your race, get a job or starve.

 

Without question, one of the single most racist things I've ever seen anyone say on this forum.

But it really comes as no surprise, because the hardcore left are, in actuality, also the most racist. Take their opposition to IDs for voting. Why? Because it will discriminate against blacks. Why? Because blacks are too broke to afford an ID, which in most if not all states, is free. But what if they're not too poor? Well, then they're too dumb to know where to go to get an ID. Well, what if it turns out they know exactly where the DMV is? Well, if they're not too broke, and they're not too dumb, then they must just be too lazy to get an ID in the first place.

And yet you guys are the first ones to cry "Racist!" when someone, somewhere, does something that you wrongly perceive is racial. Like, say, opposing illegal immigration.

 

And all of the time you have spent thinking about this [Perhaps hundreds of hours by now?] is time well spent! In a similar vein, who would win in a fight between Batman and Spiderman?

 

Saying blacks are less educated overall isn't racist. It's a simple fact and indicative of how much blacks are discriminated against not an insult

The reason I'm against voter ID has to do mainly with the elderly, not blacks. Older people aren't always able to travel extensively to find original documents which are often the only things acceptable to make new ID's which these new laws require. I speak from some experience on this, several years ago my very elderly mother was denied her right to vote because she could not produce her birth certificate. I got her another in time but she couldn't have done it herself. She was just unable to go where she needed to and to deal with a recalcitrant bureaucracy.

Most ot the voter ID I've seen is aimed at marginalized people, not blacks. Old, sick, and the very poor take it on the chin

 

I pick Spidey, Batman is really well-trained but in the end he still just a human. Spidey has actually stood up to the Hulk with his Sunday Punch

 

Lol interesting you like talking about odds. Because I actually agree with you to a certain extent.

Why? Because that same logic is used to justify why someone would feel uneasy around black people. They don’t have the time to get to know each one around them but they DO know that statistically the odds that the black person will engage in criminal or violent activity is MUCH higher than that of every other race.

Same reason cops pull blacks at a higher rate. The cops don’t have the time or opportunity to get to know the person. But they do know that the black guy is much more likely to be engaging in criminal activity than his peers.

 

Well, you can justify things economically. Me, I justify things pragmatically, the greatest good for the greatest number, where good for me is defined as human happiness.

For instance, you undoubtedly define woman's equality as moral. But women's equality has made women unhappy. So is morality really such a good yardstick?


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1405977

 

Okay, but all that is beside the point. Feel free to start another thread if you want to discuss.

 

Nah no need. Just glad to see you agree.

 

POLL: 52 PERCENT SAY BIDEN SHOULD RESIGN OVER AFGHANISTAN

Interesting that more think he should be impeached than think he should resign. It sounds like what may be favored is the fact finding investigation that results from impeachment prior to the Senate trial.

 

I'm sorry to inform you that I think you inadvertently just made my point. Because it's also a fact that young black men between the age of 15 and 35 commit violent crimes in numbers that are hugely disproportionate to their roughly 13.4% of the population. Random choice would suggest that if they were 13.4% of the population, and there was not a real, fundamental difference between races, then they should represent roughly 13.4% of those charged, tried, and convicted of violent felonies. But instead they represent 37.5% of prisoners, suggesting that blacks are 400% more likely to commit crimes than random chance would suggest. And now, you're going to play the race card, and suggest that if not for racism, they would only represent ~13.4% of prisoners, but I don't buy that even for a moment. For that to be true means 75% of blacks currently in prison were either wrongly convicted of a crime solely because a judge or jury convicted them solely based on race, or, since most crimes are pled out rather than being tried, that for some reason most of that 75% confessed to crimes they didn't commit because, what, they're racist against themselves?? While that may be very true for a case or three here and there, I simply cannot believe that our judicial system is so fundamentally racially biased that they are sending that many truly innocent people to prison based purely on the color of their skin rather than based on evidence that actually does exist. 75% of guns entered into evidence are not just drop pieces put there by racist cops. Once again, a few may be... but not THAT many.

What's my overall point?

When you say that saying blacks are less educated overall because it is a fact they are discriminated against- while conveniently forgetting that the black community itself holds education with a certain degree of scorn, by calling their own peers "Uncle Toms", or saying they are "acting white" by attempting to take advantage of the educational opportunities they actually have, despite your statements of "truth". If that is racism, it's blacks racist against other blacks causing it.

On the other hand, if I were to point out the indisputable fact that, statistically, blacks commit more crime, and more violent crime than any other race, meaning the statement "blacks are more violent than whites" is merely reporting an actual fact, and not expressing an opinion of any sort. Yet were people to say that (assuming anyone still has the actual balls to do so, I certainly do not), the cries of racism would come streaming in so quickly it would make your head spin. Any politician reporting that fact would be done, depending on exactly what type of politician they are, possibly subject to recall, censured if they are a US Senator, or expelled if they were a member of the US House. A President might face impeachment, and "just" a small town mayor would probably just be run out of town on rails. Any other public figure would face the wrath of "cancel culture", and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and who knows what other race pimps would be there before the sun went down. All of that, and more, for reporting something that, at the end of the day, is a demographic fact.

The left has somehow managed to change reporting demographic facts, into expressing racist opinions, but it's just outrageous political correctness run amok. You can see it for yourself, too, simply watch the evening news and take note of the race of people in your area who have been arrested and charged with crimes. Invariably, blacks are way overrepresented than sheer coincidence would suggest.

And all of that just further reveals the racism of the left, when reporting facts is mislabeled as "racism" because it serves an agenda.

In 2021, the number of people facing such challenges are vanishingly small, and getting smaller, like WWII vets, with each passing day. Literally every single one of them could vote for one candidate or the other, especially in the Federal races that people care the most about, that they would make no difference whatsoever. And let's keep it real, shall we? It's not like the people opposing Voter ID are bipartisan. They are seeking Democrat votes, and ONLY Democrat votes, and they make no effort to even hide that, or to pretend otherwise.