thriftyrocker

Didn't know about specific cases until googling. Re-googled, and found this with some of the transcript https://www.christiantoday.com/article/trump.campaign.makes.final.play.for.evangelical.votes.with.pence.video/99802.htm

Here's the previous vice president doing the same thing. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/13546186/johnson-amendment-mike-pence-donald-trump-evangelicals-religious-right-moral-majority

Can we list the songs which have been censored by left wing or mainstream media? This example is self censorship, not even in reaction to negative press - it was done at the start of a tour. Music is so fragmented these days, few artists have the prominence to cause enough outrage to be censored. The only contemporary example I can think of is Nas X's blood shoes.

Worrying you are hero worshipping him is not an argument against your legal statements about the case. It's a worry about your motivation for defending him. As I stated, I'm willing to accept your legal statements to some degree. Casting the prosecutor as someone out to hurt/hunt Rittenhouse supporters, calling him incompetent while leaving out important public details. You are mixing media-esque outrage/manipulation with statements of fact, and the only way the outcome of this case can be nondestructive is if its based on facts and not tribalism.

Underlined doesn't seem to match this article, which states the prosecutors had their witness lined up. I'd infer the state trying to save money from having Willis prepare a report when they are arguing against either side's reports being admitted. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/10/05/judge-kyle-rittenhouse-case-mulls-expert-witnesses-use-force/6001900001/ The next article states prosecutors were trying to get a donor list to rule out potential jurors. The prosecution made it clear they only cared about potential jurors and didn't want the full list. It is not healthy to project conspiracy theories onto a government employee doing their job. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/08/18/prosecutors-want-names-all-donors-kyle-rittenhouse-legal-defense/8188090002/ I am willing to believe your understanding of the evidence and opinion on the eventual outcome, and even that these things are fair and just in a society that protects rights of gun ownership, but when emotion and tribalism is injected in to this degree, I will tune out and just think you are hero worshiping Rittenhouse.

Movies today aren't trying to make art. They are trying to make money. They are playing it too safe. They protect minorities, they protect corporations, they protect foreign governments. I would gladly exchange people being uncomfortable from art for more good art being produced. The purpose of art is partly to make people uncomfortable. Ultimately the Rolling Stones are a corporation on top of artists. The time when they could use Brown Sugar in a Pepsi ad has passed, they have moved on and will try to milk their back catalog in whatever way is most optimal. They have determined it is better marketing to self-censor and create news. Most art is anti-establishment, "Brown Sugar" included, just its imagery is raw enough to be unsettling. It seems there is not much difference between forcing people to hear about slavery in a radio song vs forcing people to hear about it through a progressive school curriculum, so its weird that progressives have problem with one and not the other, and conservatives the reverse. Of course, songs that are blatantly anti-conservative have been used by conservatives as rallying cries. Reagan used "Born in the USA." Trump used "Fortunate Son." If conservatives want to sing along to a Critical Race Theory song about how America is built on the enslavement of black people who were often raped, that's cool.

Both scenarios can end in rape. A trans woman goes into a male bathroom and is assaulted. A cis man dresses as a woman in order to enter a female bathroom. The rate of sexual violence against trans people is very high, so one could argue this is the more likely negative outcome. In a 2015 study, 10% of transgender report being sexually assaulted in the past year. Seems pretty, pretty inconvenient to increase your odds over 10%, because 10% is pretty bad. https://vawnet.org/sc/serving-trans-and-non-binary-survivors-domestic-and-sexual-violence/violence-against-trans-and

One of the byproducts of doing business with China is often getting paid by China. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/10/23/forbes-estimates-china-paid-trump-at-least-54-million-since-he-took-office-via-mysterious-trump-tower-lease/?sh=7f7a0f87ed11

Those numbers are pre-delta. You can get up to date numbers from the CDC (along with comorbodity info about number with obesity and/or diabetes), although it's so much data it doesn't fit any simple narrative. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

Is that a Socrates quote?

Not quite as many but enough. The success story of 20th century America is built on the socialism of the new deal and the defeat of fascism in WW2. Those two achievements spurred industry and solidified the middle class. The right has no claim to liberty. They have a claim to economic liberty, and reject many forms of personal liberty. It's likely I believe in personal liberty much more than you do. The economic liberty of pre-20th century America (pre-new deal) was mostly terrible. The socialist advancements of the 20th century introduced minimum wage, removed child labor, stabilized working conditions, and gave us the relative stability and security we were both born into. I believe in common sense regulation of economic liberty. Every Democratic president in my lifetime has been a pro business moderate. We live in a social democracy and have our whole lifetimes. We are in much bigger danger of that social democracy turning into Russian style oligarchy in the form of a corporatocracy than we are of it turning into Soviet style communism.

Clearly the Democrats, including Manchin, feel there is a easy way to raise revenue. I agree it's hilarious for the con. party to claim any sort of fiscal responsibility when W took the deficit from 0 to 1.4 trillion and DJT took it from 665 billion to 966 billion. Spend and spend cons, if I ran my house that way I wouldn't have one.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/weeper-of-the-house-john-boehner-cries-100557/

Absolutely not. UBI does not replace work. In fact, the theory is UBI will allow people to create more businesses because they have freedom. Few will choose to live on the amount provided by UBI, similar to how few reject saving for retirement hoping SS will pay it all. Socialist policies in our democracy are incredibly popular once implemented. The only issue is people who don't understand them at all rejecting them at face value due to propaganda.

Yes, the Republican's policy is to worry about deficits when Democrats are in power, and do the opposite when Republicans are in power.