Lurker > Intro2Logic

Questionmarktarius posted...

There's no evidence that the Trump administration is racist.

Steven Miller is in charge of its immigration policy.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

solosnake posted...

What about all the bad and corrupt police in the world though? You could eliminate that with robot cops

You're just shifting that weight to the algorithm that guides these robots.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Keith_Valentine posted...

And Dems wana make it all about race because its cheap and it works.

The GOP strategiest who the Trump administration quoted in its argument made it about race.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Keith_Valentine posted...

As soon as i read 'this is more likely to favor non hispanic whites' had enough

From the article:
"Rather, it proves that a proponent of the citizenship question near the top of the Census Bureau communicated with Hofeller [the guy who said that it would favor non-Hispanic whites] about adding the question.
...
the Hofeller files demonstrate that, to the contrary, a high-ranking official who endorsed the citizenship question had a close relationship with Hofeller and had even discussed the citizenship question with him. And this information comes on the heels of the revelation that Hofellers own words appear verbatim in a critical DOJ document that attempted to justify the question with a transparently pretextual argument."

You can say it's "just trying to make shit racial," but what does it say about the administration taking this guy's advice?

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Keith_Valentine posted...

Intro, im not reading all that s***. Democrats complaining that Trump wanted to verify someone was a citizen. Shocking, because who are new immigrants more likely to vote for. Whatever

It's a Republican strategist who said that the proposal would benefit non-Hispanic whites at the expense of other groups.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Keith_Valentine posted...

Whats he doing bro? Enforcing immigration policy? Lowering unemployment?

His administration pushed for a citizenship question on the census that would, by the admission of one of its major proponents, advantage non-hispanic whites over racial minorities in terms of congressional representation, and then lied about the reason for doing so.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/hofeller-census-citizenship-trump-christa-jones.html

On May 30, the plaintiffs challenging the Trump administrations census citizenship question dropped a bombshell: A central portion of the Justice Departments rationale for the question was apparently written by Thomas Hofeller, the GOPs longtime gerrymandering mastermind. In a 2015 study, Hofeller wrote that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites and a disadvantage to the Democrats. He also explained how Republicans could justify inserting a citizenship question by claiming, falsely, that it would aid enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Multiple passages in Hofellers study appeared verbatim in the 2017 Justice Department letter that provided a legal rationale for the questions addition. This new evidence, the plaintiffs argued, proved that the Trump administrations real reason for adding the citizenship question was to boost white, Republican voting power.

The Justice Department responded with indignant denial. It insisted that the plaintiffs could not link Hofeller to the Commerce Department (which oversees the Census Bureau), Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, or the Census Bureau itself. Thus, the plaintiffs lacked proof that Hofellers study played any role in the development on the citizenship question.
On Friday night, however, voting rights advocates released new evidence connecting Hofeller directly to the Census Bureau. The evidence comes from Hofellers hard drives, which his daughter gave to a voting rights group after his death.
It reveals that Christa Jones, current chief of staff to Census Bureau deputy director Ron Jarmin, personally communicated with Hofeller, emailing him about the citizenship question in 2015months before Hofeller authored the study explaining how the question would benefit white voters and disadvantage non-white ones.* Jones played a key role in the creation of the citizenship question, so these emails seem to disprove the administrations claims that Hofeller had nothing to do with the manipulation of the census.
Jones and Hofellers relationship goes back to at least 2010. That year, Jonesthen a civil servant at the Census Bureausent Hofeller an email from her private Hotmail account about a Sean Hannity segment. The Fox News host had condemned the bureau for airing an ad during the Super Bowl encouraging everyone to participate in the 2010 census. Jones emailed a transcript of the segment to Hofeller, writing: They could really hurt the census. What do you think? The two then discussed whether the ad was a waste of money. It is unclear why Jones, who again was then a civil servant in the Census Bureau, was communicating with Hofeller about bureau affairs from her private account.
Five years later, Jones emailed Hofeller once again from her Hotmail account, alerting him that the bureau was collecting public comments on the 2020 census. Public comments highly useful in this context, Jones wrote. The next day, she sent a follow-up email, telling Hofeller: This can also be an opportunity to mention citizenship as well. Jones appears to have been advising Hofeller to file a public comment encouraging the bureau to adopt a citizenship question.
Other emails prove that Jones communicated with Hofeller and other Republican strategists throughout this period about redistricting-related matters. For instance, in 2010, Jones forwarded an email from Burton Reist, director of the 2010 census communications campaign, to Hofeller and Mark Neuman that highlighted a website debunking misleading information about the census. (Neuman, a friend of Hofellers, provided the 2017 letter that appeared to draw from the 2015 Hofeller memo to create a legal rationale for the citizenship question.) Jones and Hofeller appear to have met for dinner in 2015 with an unknown third person. And Jones was on a 2010 email thread with Hofeller and several Republican operativesincluding David Avella of GOPAC, a Republican training group, and Charles Black, ex-partner of Paul Manafort and Roger Stonediscussing redistricting.
Following Donald Trumps election, Jones was elevated to the bureau deputy directors chief of staff. In that capacity, she helped to review and approve the citizenship question. She also searched for activists who would support the questions inclusionsuggesting Mark Kirkorian and Steven Camarotta of the Center of Immigration Studies, a notoriously racist anti-immigrant organization.

To give just one example.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Well, that means you have to vote Sanders unless you want Putin to throw his weight and hacking behind Trump in the general.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Keith_Valentine posted...

Yea, its really that simple. The standard for those labels has just dropped lower and lower. Nowadays if you like Trump, you can instantly be labeled a racist, despite never doing s*** to a minority

You're supporting a guy who is doing shit to minorities in his role as the most powerful man in the country.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Trucking

https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forced-into-debt-worked-past-exhaustion-left-with-nothing/

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Very different styles of platformer; which do you like better?

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Here's something Congressional Dems actually should be proud of passing, and which they were able to get Republican votes in the Senate for:
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/429894-house-passes-bill-to-end-us-military-support-to-saudis-in-yemen
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/13/senate-vote-war-yemen-saudi-arabia

The Senate has voted to end US support for the Saudi Arabian-led coalitions war in Yemen, bringing Congress one step closer to a unprecedented rebuke of Donald Trumps foreign policy.
Lawmakers have never before invoked the decades-old War Powers Resolution to stop a foreign conflict, but they are poised to do just that in the effort to cut off US support for a war that has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe.
The vote puts Congress on a collision course with Trump, who has already threatened to veto the resolution, which the White House says raises serious constitutional concerns.
The measure was co-sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders and the Utah Republican Mike Lee. Next, it will move to the Democratic-controlled House, where it is expected to pass.
The bottom line is that the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with an irresponsible foreign policy, Sanders said on Wednesday from the Senate floor. He said a vote in favor of the measure would begin the process of reclaiming our constitutional authority by ending United States involvement in a war that has not been authorized by Congress and is unconstitutional.
In its statement threatening a veto, the White House argued the premise of the resolution was flawed and that it would undermine the fight against extremism. US support for the Saudis did not constitute engaging in hostilities, the statement said, and the Yemen resolution seeks to override the presidents determination as commander in chief.

Trump vetoed it because he puts Saudi Arabia first

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

This is tangential, but I didn't want to make a whole topic out of it

https://twitter.com/Ad_Inifinitum/status/1218613220094640135

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Save your disdain for Buttigieg supporters

https://twitter.com/eldon_katz/status/1207574401522135040?s=19

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Duncanwii posted...

We need to get behind whoever is nominated if we want any hope of beating Trump. He has a hoard of mindless fans who will vote for him come hell or high water. We need the same dedication regardless of who gets picked.

Nominate Bernie or his supporters will sit out again


---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Reminder

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Big Ben must bong for Brexit

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-woman-president-deescalation

"We assassinated your famous general, but really we're looking for de-escalation"

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://www.wired.com/2013/08/how-segregated-is-your-city-this-eye-opening-map-shows-you/

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

It seems transparent to me that this three day news cycle (Politico's scoop Sunday, the CNN story yesterday, the Daily Beast today) has come from sources within Warren's camp as part of a broader strategy to label Bernie as "divisive" while the candidate herself says she just wants to focus on the issues.

It's also funny to me that this "unity candidate" approach the Warren campaign is going with arrives three weeks after her big swing at Pete didn't quite work out the way they'd planned.

I like Warren, she's clearly better than any of the non-Sanders alternatives, but her instincts as a campaigner don't exactly inspire confidence.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epsteins-ex-girlfriend-dated-kimbal-musk-2020-1

Why do these people all know each other?


---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://twitter.com/LibertyHangout/status/1216757629307015168

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://twitter.com/SteveFranssen/status/1216399814662877186


---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

TC I want you to ask yourself one question

Would Naruto or whatever cartoon character you jack off to approve of the nonsense you post?

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

I'm guessing this is a dig at all the white nationalists who hide behind the thin veil of "western civilization" when asked to describe their views.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Seems like everybody's going with the "he's being divisive" tact today
https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1216394604465086464

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Darmik posted...

Let Microsoft worry about making money.

This is a good point.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

For what it's worth, the attack in question seems insanely tame. "Her supporters are affluent progressives who will probably vote for whoever the nominee is," isn't all that hard hitting. This whole uproar is manufactured nonsense even if the script is real.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Someone should try and see

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

I only have experience with this pair
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sennheiser-hd-4-50-wireless-noise-canceling-over-the-ear-headphones-black-red/6356684.p?skuId=6356684

They do a good job of blocking out constant noises, like the hum of a machine or something like that. They won't erase the sound of people talking to you, but whatever you're listening to might drown that out too.

I will say that they aren't necessarily the most comfortable, it took me a couple weeks of wearing to get used to wearing them.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1215836306162372608

Is this good?

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Bump

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1216036627392421891

What a shame

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Awesome posted...

lol The city underreports numbers, stop believing everything the governments report.

Do you think they're doing that more now than ever before? Because that's what you'd have to believe to think that the noted lack of crime in NYC is some fabrication.

Awesome posted...

Same thing with the nypd maintaining quotas for arrests 10 years ago, these people are corrupt

Why weren't they ten posts ago when you were taking their word as gospel?
Awesome posted...

Prosecutors and all the cops are begging for government interference to protect the public

There are billions of people who every day wake up and don't post bullshit on this website. Why can't you be one of them?

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Awesome posted...

ny and nyc is burning and it looks like theres no help on the way.

Crime in NYC is at record lows

https://bit.ly/2TcWsha
There is no possible definition of "burning" here that wouldn't also include Kansas. The latter has a higher murder rate. Go away.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

People can have a little chemicals, as a treat

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

assassingriskel posted...

You people realize edelgard does not get in over byleth that's stupid

Shit, you're probably right. I keep thinking Edelgard would be the better addition to the Smash roster, but in a world where they don't already have seven sword guys, it'd definitely be Byleth in there

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

If hypothetically a Smash 2 was being made now, in the context of 2020, with the same number of characters as Melee but not the baggage and legacies the series now has, who would be included?

Definitely these 15
Mario
Luigi
Peach
Bowser
Yoshi
Wario
Donkey Kong
Link
Zelda
Kirby
Pikachu
Edelgard (I guess we're assuming Fire Emblem still becomes popular in the west without Marth/Roy in Melee)
Samus
Fox
Inkling

Probably these 10
Ganondorf (we haven't necessarily seen this form of Ganon in recent Zeldas)
Corrin
Villager
Captain Falcon (F-Zero GX is older now than Ice Climbers was when Melee came out, but it was the third in a series)
Olimar
At least two more Pokemon reps, but it's hard to know what they'd pick from the breadth of the series - probably not Pichu or Mewtwo
Olimar
Meta Knight
Pit (Kid Icarus is like FE in that it owes its revival to Smash, but still)

Melee characters who don't make the cut
Ness
Mewtwo
Pichu
Game&Watch
Marth
Roy
Ice Climbers
Falco
Sheik (only a transformation in that game, but still)

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

See also: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/09/virginia-gun-control-second-amendment-civil-war

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://twitter.com/GoldAndOrSmith/status/1215509089750585344

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

https://twitter.com/chrisscottsharp/status/1215430885836775424

We can make this a reality.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Yikes

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Why?


---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

BillyKidd posted...

Hell in Obama's final year as President he dropped over 26,000 bombs on 7 countries, none of which Congress declared war against.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act?wprov=sfla1

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

He campaigned on "we should do more war crimes." As president, he has pardoned war criminals.

The war crimes are the point.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

L0Z posted...

Yet what is congress doing? They have not helped with diplomacy with Iran. Theyve been too focused on that loss they received in 2016

Congress voted for the sanctions that helped start this mess in the first place. Basically everyone except Rand Paul and Sanders did. Democrats made a big deal about packaging them with sanctions on Russia.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

CrimsonRage posted...

so middle eastern wars are cool now? i thought trumpists were all about how trump would pull us out of the middle east

You're wasting your time expecting consistency.

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?

Donkey Kong

---

Have you tried thinking rationally?