Invisible Man
Member

So many lives saved.

Let's not forget when he praised Elizabeth Warren's socialist economic plan. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-you-wouldnt-believe-which-politician-recently-sounded-like-trump-at-his-best After a lengthy quote of her advocating all kinds of government intervention in the economy propping up industries, he says:

I've heard Ron Paul call people socialists before, and I highly doubt that he gives anyone a pass based on opposing massive immigration. Granted, I've also noticed that he generally doesn't throw that label around as freely as some do because he's pretty careful about what words like "socialism" actually mean. I've even heard him say that Bernie Sanders is really a Keynesian and not a socialist. But I've also heard him use more vague adjectives like "socialistic" for people who support policies that would move us in more socialist directions. I don't know if he's included the people mentioned in the OP in that label by name or not. But they're all pretty open about their opposition to libertarianism and Austrian economics, particularly Tucker Carlson.

I agree with you about Greenwald. But I also agree that this particular line of argument from him does seem new to me. He's always been a big ally on civil liberties, but I don't remember him really being one on economic issues. I wouldn't have expected him to accuse people of supporting central management of parts of the economy as if he considers that a bad thing. I might have misjudged him on that though, maybe just because economic issues are not his hobby horse.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Krugminator2 again." Tucker Carlson followed a similar path to some frequent posters here. He's a former Ron Paul supporter who has since that time repudiated the core ideas Paul ran on.

There were a lot of threads here that would serve as good examples. There was even this big rally on January 6 when Trump and a bunch of his followers insisted that Pence and Congress were not supposed to count the delegates the states certified. It was a big deal. It was in the news. And of course Trump himself has always been for nationalizing elections and eliminating the electoral college. That's nothing new for him.

Remember when from November of last year through January of this year Trumpers saw letting states run their own elections as intolerable? What a difference a month-and-a-half makes.

Trump appears to intend to run in 2024. And he appears to be the front-runner. Even if he doesn't have the party establishment behind him, and in spite of all his baggage, he'd still be the odds on favorite to get the Republican nomination if he does run. A lot can change in 3 years. But it seems to me that we should work with the assumption that he is the Republican front runner, and being this far ahead of an election never stopped us from criticizing people in that position before. We should treat him the same way we would have treated anyone else in that position from the vantage point of this site's mission. And while the opinions of outsiders who frequent the site with other agendas that oppose our mission are welcome, we shouldn't let them make us feel like we need to cater to them.

I was thinking more about the spin that has dominated here at this website. But yes, you're right that since 2016, this has been pretty interchangeable with Trump's own spin/Fox News/Limbaugh-Hannity-etc.

If you're confused about which parties bear blame and how much of it when it comes to these COVID responses that are imposed by partnerships between the state and federal governments, the rule of thumb is that when Trump was president, 100% of the blame belonged to the governors, but now that Biden is president, we can blame him too.

What were those mask police going to do in Texas anyway? Just enforce mask mandates on federal property?

Remember earlier, when PRB's line was this? And then it was this? And now after seeing that Alaska's state government website does give up to date numbers of both registered voters and residents who are 18 an over (which has to be higher than the number of eligible voters), and shows that the former is far greater than the latter by an amount far in excess of any reasonable margin of error, PRB's line is that the Alaska state government website isn't reliable. Earlier, before PRB realized that it supported our claims, the Alaska state government website was all PRB would accept.

No we don't.

It should be zero for very obvious logical and ethical reasons. If you want to offer your labor to someone else for one cent per year, and they agree to pay you that, I have no right to tell you you can't do it.

I'm not asking you to assume that. I'm asking you to dig into the actual details and provide support for the dogmatic claims your making. Have you looked at their data? A minute ago you agreed that they only need to be accurate to within a margin that's less than the difference between the numbers of eligible voters and registered voters. That's a huge margin. We're not talking about some subjective touchy feely evaluation of reliable versus unreliable. We're talking about actual numbers. So again, if you look at that data and see a way to squeeze an extra 50,000+ people into Alaska's estimate of the number of people over 18 in the state, then please show it. If you think we can agree that they're liable to be off by anything close to that amount, then you're wrong, we can't agree on that. If you don't want to bother looking at the proof that's been provided to you, then the claim that they have more registered voters than eligible voters stands proven, and you should stop saying it hasn't been just because you assume the numbers could be off by a little bit.

It's proven. I showed you the proof. You just chose not to look at it. You being unaware of something (in this case by choice) is not the same as its nonexistence. If you see any way to avoid the conclusion that Alaska has more registered voters than eligible voters, then please show that using the data from Alaska's own website.

No you don't. You only have to assume that it's accurate to within a margin of error that's less than the difference between it and the number of registered voters. We haven't discussed each and every state and county. But Alaska has been used as an example, and it's been shown irrefutably that this is the case for at least that state.

I'd say those are good guesses. I won't check them out because I grant that you're probably right. I don't see why it matters though. If she voted no on those bills for leftist reasons, then it's too bad some of the Republican senators on those lists didn't also vote no on those same bills for those same leftist reasons.

One of the advantages of this theory is that it allows its adherents to buy some time to save face by switching the date to 4/3 after 3/4 passes and saying that that's what they meant all along.

It seems like all you're doing is drawing some kind of line of guilt by association from Cecil Rhodes to every Rhodes scholar. That doesn't make sense. Getting a Rhodes scholarship doesn't entail an invitation to secret meetings. It may well be true that there's a lot of overlap there, because Rhodes scholarships get awarded to the kinds of people who are the most likely to be politically powerful. And I have no doubt that people who do get awarded them are likely to be made into anglophiles by their experience. But that's a far cry from some kind of conspiracy where something happens to them at Oxford, aside from a pretty normal academic experience, that turns them into Manchurian candidates. And the OP wasn't just about Rhodes scholars, but anyone who went to Oxford at all.

No. It's you who is misrepresenting the point, at least the point my initial question was addressing. I am not talking about Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale being nursings for the Anglo-American Financial Elite. I am talking specifically about Oxford, and specifically about the claim that having cabinet members studying there indicates that the US is effectively a British colony.

That works against you. Since the number of registered voters in some places exceeds the number of adults living there, then it must exceed the number of eligible voters by even more than that.

And these books show that everybody who takes a class at Oxford works for the deep state under the employment of the United Kingdom, or something like that? I'm pretty sure that Tragedy and Hope does not support that claim, or anything similar to it.

Watching Youtube videos doesn't count as studying history. And I'm not going to waste time watching videos anyway. If you have anything serious, then it's in writing. Do you? But to get to the gist, are you suggesting that if I went to take some classes at Oxford, somehow that would make me part of the deep state?

How does having cabinet members who studied at Oxford mean that the US is under the rule of the UK?

Based on what?

I've heard this, or numbers in this range, from a couple places. Is this actually true, that the minimum wage at some point in the past was that ridiculously high? If it is, then what's the catch? Because that is such a ludicrous idea, that if it's true, there has to be a catch. Edit: Looks like the highest MW, indexed for inflation, was in the late 60's, when it was about $11.50/hr in today's dollars. So the liberals giving numbers in the 20's are either flat out lying or playing some kind of games with the data. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/us-minimum-wage-by-year/index.html

Almost primary season......he had to go big after snowpocalypse.

Who did what? Apparently yes, whatever it is is over my head.