Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 315: Defund the Po...

(+) Yeah! (+)

"You must abort this fetus before you can vote."

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Full stop

No

I was being sarcastic while making fun of an uneducated republican base.

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik > People complaining about people talking to Corrik

Nope.


---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik > People complaining about people talking to Corrik

Incorrect

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The states didn't fucking "run themselves poorly"! They had a gargantuan expense (dealing with the pandemic) dumped on them because Trump completely abdicated responsibility, and meanwhile have plummeting revenue because of the economic damage caused by covid (which is very much exacerbated by Trump's utter failure to deal with it). Not bailing the states out will cause more cuts in government services and employment, furthering the economic pain everyone is dealing with right now.

Well, the main gist of why he doesn't want to give money to states is because he thinks they will use it to bail out pensions. Like Dems want 840 billion for states. The white house has offered 300 billion (with the rule it cannot be used at all in regards to pensions) lol.

---

xp1337 posted...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/864899178/why-is-voting-by-mail-suddenly-controversial-heres-what-you-need-to-know

IIRC, the "MIT study" you're referencing turned out to be done by an MIT student or something to that effect but it nevertheless made rounds across right-wing media as "omg MIT says FRAUD"

I have no idea but it is obviously common sense signing a paper versus showing an Id in person that one is inviting fraud over the other.

---

It's always weird how people want to contain politics to one topic on the board and also want to complain when people talk about politics in the one topic they want to discuss it in.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It's always weird how people want to contain politics to one topic on the board and also want to complain when people talk about politics in the one topic they want to discuss it in.

I agree.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I agree.

I guess to further that. Then it is weird they want to block people so they cannot see their posts, then want to complain when there are blocked posts in the topic.

---

Whether people want mail in voting in general or not is an argument, but arguing for in person voting during covid is psychotic. Forget cases of fraud, how many acceptable deaths are you comfortable with to get a vote count that is undemocratic but probably without an instance of fraud?

just gonna go back like seventy posts here real quick

Corrik7 posted...

Yes, assuming a conspiracy is as bad as assuming a conspiracy. Correct. Glad you get that.

this is a super dumb post. conspiracy theories arent all equally valid.

also if we allow mail-in votes, there will be more fraud is just as much a conspiracy theory as if we allow the government to have total surveillance someone might abuse it so youre just as bad
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

just gonna go back like seventy posts here real quick

this is a super dumb post. conspiracy theories arent all equally valid.

also if we allow mail-in votes, there will be more fraud is just as much a conspiracy theory as if we allow the government to have total surveillance someone might abuse it so youre just as bad

I mean, sure some are worse than others but assuming a conspiracy is also the same mindset so to speak.

---

https://twitter.com/MrOlmos/status/1294506475809681409?s=19

---

Trump's younger brother, Robert, has died. No word on the cause of death.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...it's literally not?

a claim is based on something or it isn't. it's not a matter of opinion.

It's obviously based on something, but that's trivially true. I could argue that the sky is green because 2+2=5 and it would be based on something. What people mean when they say something is baseless is they don't agree with whatever it's based on. That's an opinion.

HeroicCrono posted...

What people mean when they say something is baseless is they don't agree with whatever it's based on. That's an opinion.

Not really. When people say something is baseless, they mean there are no facts behind it, which is in itself a statement of fact.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Not really. When people say something is baseless, they mean there are no facts behind it, which is in itself a statement of fact.

Is a statement that's wrong by definition a statement of fact? It's trivially easy to support any claim with false facts. If you mean they mean there are no true facts behind it, well, that's where it's usually an opinion.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Well, the main gist of why he doesn't want to give money to states is because he thinks they will use it to bail out pensions. Like Dems want 840 billion for states. The white house has offered 300 billion (with the rule it cannot be used at all in regards to pensions) lol.

Do you....do you think when the federal government gives money out that there aren't specific requirements on how it can be spent?
---

https://twitter.com/mims/status/1294230884623712256

Disgusting

---

---

Shaduln posted...

Do you....do you think when the federal government gives money out that there aren't specific requirements on how it can be spent?

The money the Democrats want to give out doesn't have restrictions. It is allowed to be used as seen fit by the state.

Republicans also want to loosen the restrictions on state money to encompass more, but specifically do not want it to go towards pensions.

One of the criticisms of the first payout to states from the first round was that it was too specific so states had it sitting there and didn't use it all. Hence Trump's "not all states even used their money from the first round yet" line.

---

I have discovered r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM and this might be my favorite subreddit that is SFW.

---

regarding the "it's all conspiracy theories" argument: on the one hand, i kinda agree with corrik that going "if we allow the government to collect some kind of personal information, THEY WILL MISUSE IT" is wrong. it's fine to be against the government collecting data and it's fair to assume that this will lead to negative consequences, but it's still an assumption. like, the dumbest argument ron paul ever made was that he's anti-vax because "if we let our government vaccinate people, THIS WILL ABSOLUTELY LEAD TO 1984!" we can't predict stuff like this with 100% certainty.

on the other hand, i don't think it's exactly right to call this a "conspiracy theory." a conspiracy theory is ususally some ridiculous theory about something that's happening right now or has happened before (like "aliens are actually running google" or something). again, i think the word you're looking for is "assumption."

---

Speaking of QAnon, and drilling home the point that it's not a "run of the mill" conspiracy theory:

https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/status/1294666324711550980

---

Belarus:

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1294979289360871425?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Belarus:

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1294979289360871425?s=21

So I think the President very likely lost his election since the reported 80% is not realistic. If he won it would make sense to just report the real numbers. Would be interested in seeing the real count in Minsk vs. the countryside though. There's always big crowds for the liberal candidate in capitals/cities.

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/mims/status/1294230884623712256

Disgusting

And this is why it's important that he receive the worst defeat of any modern election, including from non swing states

---

I've lost the energy to keep responding to every mislead #JusticeForCannon post I see. This disingenuous movement wins this time.

---

Is that the kid who's killer is already convicted and who's parents lied about it being random when it was in fact the killer and the father getting into a shootout over drugs?

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Is that the kid who's killer is already convicted and who's parents lied about it being random when it was in fact the killer and the father getting into a shootout over drugs?

I don't feel like the second half of that is true? I'm not finding anything about that with the father

---

Possible, it's something I saw from multiple people but I have done little to investigate. All right wing hashtags ever made have been disengenuous BS, so I try not to give them my time.


---

But yes, he is the kid who was murdered, his killer was immediately captured And arrested without bail, the media covered it, and then everyone on the right screams asking why the media isn't covering it

---

Yeah I'm not subscribing to the drug-related quarrel part, but the maddening thing is the fact that the killer was arrested within 24 hours and is being charged with murder. Justice is being served meaning protests and outcry by the public aren't necessary.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The money the Democrats want to give out doesn't have restrictions. It is allowed to be used as seen fit by the state.

Republicans also want to loosen the restrictions on state money to encompass more, but specifically do not want it to go towards pensions.

One of the criticisms of the first payout to states from the first round was that it was too specific so states had it sitting there and didn't use it all. Hence Trump's "not all states even used their money from the first round yet" line.

As someone that is literally in charge of making sure my City follows the CARES Act requirements, this is not true. It is very broad and has less regulations than most federal money (but still has to follow the general rules). The qualification is basically "is this related to COVID?"

---

Sorry, I'm normally better at this, but when it's literally my job, I feel like I need to reply.

---

The thing is that money is fungible. If the states can use federal money to pay for pandemic-related expenses, they can use money collected from their own residents through taxes to pay for pensions and the like.

---

red sox 777 posted...

The thing is that money is fungible. If the states can use federal money to pay for pandemic-related expenses, they can use money collected from their own residents through taxes to pay for pensions and the like.

You mean...what they're supposed to do with their money?

---

Shaduln posted...

You mean...what they're supposed to do with their money?

Yes, but it leads to moral hazard. If I run a state government and I know that the feds will pay for any emergencies, then I am not going to save money in case of emergencies. I am going to spent every dime I have knowing that I will get a bailout if something bad happens.

---

I know you're being disingenuous with your argument, but the amount of money any state or local government receives from the federal government in any of these emergencies is a minimal amount compared to actual expenses.

---

I don't think 1 trillion dollars (what the Democrats proposed) is a minimal amount.

---

When it's divided up between all the state and local governments and then compared to actual expenses, it probably is.

---

please quote

---

too lazy

---

got me

---

Shaduln posted...

As someone that is literally in charge of making sure my City follows the CARES Act requirements, this is not true. It is very broad and has less regulations than most federal money (but still has to follow the general rules). The qualification is basically "is this related to COVID?"

I am concerned for you at your job then.

I literally just said the Cares Act was limited in scope and they tried to less limit it to get them to use their money but that some states couldn't use it because of its limited state.

We literally agreed there. Despite you saying I am "Wrong".

I said for the next act Democrats don't want limitations on it. And Republicans want LESS limitations on it, but they want it not able to be used on pensions.

I always love when someone says I am wrong and is condescending when literally repeating the same exact thing I said.

---

Corrik you know we can all see the part where you said it doesnt have restrictions right?

Corrik7 posted...

The money the Democrats want to give out doesn't have restrictions. It is allowed to be used as seen fit by the state.

---

https://twitter.com/AlexandreKrausz/status/1294006775923052545?s=19

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik you know we can all see the part where you said it doesnt have restrictions right?

That's the heroes act bill. The 800 some billion. The republican offer is 300 billion with some restrictions like no use on pension funds.

EZmode

1. Cares Act. Allocates money to states with scope of Covid-19. States weren't sure how to use it in many cases so these funds remained deep into the pandemic. The requirements were relaxed some, including to even just a week or so ago when Trump allowed it to be used as the chip in for the executive order unemployment.

2a. Heroes Act - Democrats want approximately 800billion-1 trillion dollars for states and local governments that can be used for anything.

2b. Republican negotiation offers on bill - up to 300 billion for states and local governments but not allowed to be used on certain things. Such as Pensions.

3. ???? Whatever the agreed proposal is at some point.

You are talking about two different acts and not using context to figure out what is being talked about.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I am concerned for you at your job then.

I literally just said the Cares Act was limited in scope and they tried to less limit it to get them to use their money but that some states couldn't use it because of its limited state.

We literally agreed there. Despite you saying I am "Wrong".

I said for the next act Democrats don't want limitations on it. And Republicans want LESS limitations on it, but they want it not able to be used on pensions.

I always love when someone says I am wrong and is condescending when literally repeating the same exact thing I said.

No, you said it was too limited and that's why it hasn't been used. The reason any money hasn't been used is because it's eligible for use until the end of the year and has to be on a reimbursement basis, so at this point it's an administrative exercise of filling out the forms/identifying expenses.

My point isn't "you said there are no limits", it's that you said there were too many limits for it to be used. That is inaccurate.
---

Shaduln posted...

No, you said it was too limited and that's why it hasn't been used. The reason any money hasn't been used is because it's eligible for use until the end of the year and has to be on a reimbursement basis, so at this point it's an administrative exercise of filling out the forms/identifying expenses.

My point isn't "you said there are no limits", it's that you said there were too many limits for it to be used. That is inaccurate.

That's a fairer statement.

However, states have been sitting on it hoping that the restrictions would be lessened also to be used for lost revenue.

https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-cares-money-spending-20200528-mrzrwjnduj
apjl4xl4f77wsavu-story.html

Broken up link cuz it thinks the link is racist lol.

---