Also true yesterday, the day before, and the Cretaceous period.Right now Kamala's got a much easier path to securing black support than Booker.
Also true yesterday, the day before, and the Cretaceous period.Right now Kamala's got a much easier path to securing black support than Booker.
Biden ran in the 2008 election as well, and got to appear on the ballot twice in Delaware for re-election as Senator, and Obama's Vice President.I'm not sure why it's so strange to run for the Senate too. It's kinda silly to risk everything to run for president.
In 1960 LBJ ran both for the Senate and as JFK's VP, he won both so someone else replaced him as senator.
Yes. This might have blown over in the 90's, because people were more terrible but today this is a death knell for a campaign.
He's a wealthy white man. He's set the bar so low that all he has to do is read a teleprompter without going on a racist tirade or choking on his tongue and people will say he's "presidential".
2016 should have taught you that republicans play by different rules and voters just accept that.
He's gonna have a hard time overcoming his history with schools.
This is the future Americans actually want. The orthodoxy on both sides thinks everything can be solved by applying market theory, whether keynesian or neoclassical.How is this remotely acceptable? Here in Europe, for-profit prisons are seen as straight out ultra-capitalist dystopia.
How is this remotely acceptable? Here in Europe, for-profit prisons are seen as crazy ultra-capitalist dystopia.
How is this remotely acceptable? Here in Europe, for-profit prisons are seen as crazy ultra-capitalist dystopia.
Many of the best arguments for decriminalizing marijuana, reducing prison populations, and other issues are economic in nature!This is the future Americans actually want. The orthodoxy on both sides thinks everything can be solved by applying market theory, whether keynesian or neoclassical.
It's another Aimee Terese tweet. There hasn''t been any honest context with these posts. It's just misinformation to attract outrage and stupidity.Did you read the context? That's not a case for for-profit prisons. That's a case for "the current system is fucked because we're paying a ton of money into it and receiving no benefit". Which she's been for most of her career.
Primary season 2020: "Out of context quotes, everywhere"
Justifying a moral position by dangling the bait of profit is not exactly a great place for your society to be. This does not change my post in the slightest.Many of the best arguments for decriminalizing marijuana, reducing prison populations, and other issues are economic in nature!
is it wrong that i'm kinda looking forward to trump's running commentary on the primary
Moral arguments are inherently stupid and unwinnable, so they're not worth having. Because morality is, at the end of the day, "I'm gonna do what I want to do and justify it to myself."Justifying a moral position by dangling the bait of profit is not exactly a great place for your society to be.
As you can see this is what our liberal side looks like. The conservative side is much worse overall.How is this remotely acceptable? Here in Europe, for-profit prisons are seen as crazy ultra-capitalist dystopia.
Moral arguments are inherently stupid and unwinnable, so they're not worth having.
She's justifying a moral position by saying that the current system isn't giving us the results we want for a lot of money spent. It's not a "we could boost GDP" it's a "We're paying a shitload of money for no return" and that return is less people in prison not dollars.Justifying a moral position by dangling the bait of profit is not exactly a great place for your society to be. This does not change my post in the slightest.
"Why don't you do this good thing?"
"No reason to."
"What if I gold you you could boost GDP with it?"
"Tell me more."
I edited for context, but yes, I stand by that statement. Morals are made up horseshit, it's like invoking MLK or Jesus to parrot your views.As you can see this is what our liberal side looks like. The conservative side is much worse overall.
mr stirner i didn't know you posted hereI edited for context, but yes, I stand by that statement. Morals are made up horseshit, it's like invoking MLK or Jesus to parrot your views.
When you keep having to debate "We should do *insert policy here* (for example, Ban the Box) because it's the right thing to do" vs "This thing actually backfires" you become profoundly uninterested in having arguments on strict moral arguments. You aren't going to change who people fundamentally are.
kirblar I gotta say I respect your desire to never stop posting no matter how little you knowMoral arguments are inherently stupid and unwinnable, so they're not worth having. Because morality is, at the end of the day, "I'm gonna do what I want to do and justify it to myself."
Ethics and data you can argue. Morals you can't. I learned that fast when it was morally wrong for me to be attracted to guys in some people's eyes.
So... what about the civil rights movement? What was the data you could argue for it instead of morals?Moral arguments are inherently stupid and unwinnable, so they're not worth having. Because morality is, at the end of the day, "I'm gonna do what I want to do and justify it to myself."
Ethics and data you can argue. Morals you can't. I learned that fast when it was morally wrong for me to be attracted to guys in some people's eyes.
Moral arguments are inherently stupid and unwinnable, so they're not worth having. Because morality is, at the end of the day, "I'm gonna do what I want to do and justify it to myself."
Ethics and data you can argue. Morals you can't. I learned that fast when it was morally wrong for me to be attracted to guys in some people's eyes.
I think his point is you can't stop someone from being a total asshole and bigot with a moral argument, but you can convince them to do non-asshole/bigoted things if you appeal to their selfishness/self-interest.your reasoning for hinging your policy arguments around capital is because you're gay?
I think his point is you can't stop someone from being a total asshole and bigot, but you can convince them to do non-asshole/bigoted things if you appeal to their selfishness/self-interest.
I believe Kirblar's point for that is that the argument against civil rights was based on "morals" and not empirical evidence, E.G. "Those coloreds aren't full humans, so it would be immoral to mix our society with them".So... what about the civil rights movement? What was the data you could argue for it instead of morals?
im also lost on kirblar's distinction between people being amenable to "ethical" arguments but "moral" ones are useless
maybe someone could clear that up for me
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_MoralsEthics and morals relate to "right" and "wrong" conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.
b- "bernie would have won" dubsI think his point is you can't stop someone from being a total asshole and bigot with a moral argument, but you can convince them to do non-asshole/bigoted things if you appeal to their selfishness/self-interest.
Mind expanding on your arguments beyond "Lol, look at that poster, what a joke amirite?"
I think his point is you can't stop someone from being a total asshole and bigot with a moral argument, but you can convince them to do non-asshole/bigoted things if you appeal to their selfishness/self-interest.
There's not really a point in arguing "people are people" vs "yeah Jim Crow's fine", the latter are simply the enemy. But yes, the data also is on the side of "yeah slaveholding/apartheid/etc. are horribly inefficient" as well. It just wasn't very relevant once you got to the "all people are people part."So... what about the civil rights movement? What was the data you could argue for it instead of morals?
Not really what I was going for. Morality is just inherently self-justifying.I think his point is you can't stop someone from being a total asshole and bigot, but you can convince them to do non-asshole/bigoted things if you appeal to their selfishness/self-interest.
It's not!If that's true, then I welcome you to the cult of Bernie, Comrade Kirblar.
The empirical evidence FOR civil rights was that... Black people aren't sub-human and separate is not equal./QUOTE]this is literally a normative argument though, defining whether a hierarchy should exist is a normative argument, not an empirical one
Why? I don't think she'd have any major issues beating Trump. Most of her issues relate to winning the primary.
it was a joke because I know if I went into poliera and said "democrats should try and win trump voters over by making an appealing redistributive program" I would get yelled at by a lot of peopleMind expanding on your arguments beyond "Lol, look at that poster, what a joke amirite?"
well the problem is that afterwards we'd have president klobuchar and it would be nice if the horizons of our politics went farther than tax-advantaged savings accounts
Finally, Kirby and Kirblar will be the new gritty of the leftI see Kirblar has been seized for the movement. We grow by the day.
Not really what I was going for. Morality is just inherently self-justifying.
I think his point is you can't stop someone from being a total asshole and bigot with a moral argument, but you can convince them to do non-asshole/bigoted things if you appeal to their selfishness/self-interest.