uncle bernard

I like the popular vote because I believe in 1 man - 1 vote. That's the spirit of elections. Everybody is equal, regardless of race, gender, or creed.

@Interviewed_at_Weehawken good example of someone who actually just "copies and pastes" in the sense you accused me of. @JimmySpeaks believes these things because that's he was told to believe. He doesn't know why he believes them. He's never thought them through logically. That's why it's so easy to back him into a corner where he has to admit DEI is good and necessary because he can't abandon the belief that the Senate is absolutely necessary.

No, states can still legislate local issues like they already do. The Senate is part of the federal government. The legislative branch should be concerned with governing the country, based on the total population, not artificially drawn lines on a map. Okay, so what do checks and balances for DEI look like in corporate America? You concede that some DEI is necessary?

The House is already checked and balanced by the Executive and Judiciary. Checks and balances would still exist without the Senate.

Great! Now that we've established that DEI is not inherently bad, you can address the hole in Charlie's argument. Answer this question: Why is DEI good in the case of the Senate and bad in the case of Affirmative Action?

That exact hypocrisy applies to Charlie (and you), who oppose DEI, but support the Senate (which is DEI). That's how debating works. You find a flaw in your opponent's argument and exploit it. The student's point isn't that "DEI = Bad", it's that Charlie's position on DEI is inconsistent and incoherent. He needs to explain why it would be right to support DEI in the case of the Senate, but not affirmative action because the principle he uses to attack affirmative action is discredited by his position on the Senate.

See, you can't even follow the basic argument. The House IS NOT DEI related. It's correctly based on population where the representation matches the actual amount of people in each state. The Senate IS DEI because it artificially gives more power to smaller states, not because those states have earned it (via population), but because our founders thought it would be more fair to give the minority more power. That is the definition of DEI. There's no actual need for the Senate. The House is already checked by the power of the Judiciary and Executive. It's purely a DEI initiative.

Yep watched one. They all destroyed Charlie. Now what? Seems like we have to actually address the substance, right?

Yes, that's exactly his point. The Senate is set up as a DEI initiative to give smaller, less powerful (read minority/underprivileged in DEI terms) states more power to balance out larger state's power in the House. That is explicitly DEI. If you take the anti-DEI claim seriously, you should want to get rid of the Senate and just have the House. Same thing applies to the Electoral College. Any electoral system that does not award the winner based on raw vote totals is DEI. It's like saying the 2nd finisher in a 100M dash is the winner because he has shorter legs than the first finisher.

Right, this is where judgment comes in. You have to evaluate the source of information as well as the source's sources of information. This is basic critical thinking. For example, I cited the Trump administration statement about Antifa, not some random youtuber or twitter account. That's why I "copy and paste" a lot here. I'm making it easy for you guys to read and evaluate the sources I'm using for yourselves. You can see exactly why I believe what I believe and address those claims directly. Unfortunately, none of you ever do that. What you're advocating for is a type of solipsism where every source that disagrees with your prior assumptions has to be false and therefore you can ignore it. It's the opposite of thinking. What are "commercially made" signs? Can you give ma an example. Every big protest I've been to is full of signs hand-written on cardboard. Bricks and frozen water bottles are easily accessible. There are lots of public bail funds that people on the left donate to that help bail people out. There are non-profit organizations as well. Most of that funding has to be publicly disclosed if I'm not mistaken. Could you pull up some tax forms for us to look at? I will concede there could be some dark money funding those initiatives. Would be curious to see some reporting on it.

Link?

It's hilarious that you guys can't imagine that someone actually knows a lot about the country and world he lives in. It's a really embarrassing admission on your parts.

I think early 2010s various leftists groups started labelling themselves as Antifa, citing the antifascist groups from the early-to-mid 20th century in Germany and Italy as their influence. Adding: I don't know if this is where it started, but Portland/PNW is where there is the strongest Antifa presence/tradition. They popped up in response to right wing and neo-Nazi militias that are also common in that area in the country. I do know that "Antifa" burst onto the national scene as a result of their constant street fights with the Proud Boys in Portland.

It's him praising policies from past administrations - democrat, republican, and independent - based on their merit, not party affiliation.

Lol, no wonder you have no idea what's going on in the world. You bury your head in the sand.

Can you cite the sentence that makes you believe that? The video has captions so it should be easy.

I doubt he got the question in advance. That's how he sounds in every appearance, even in hostile territory (MSNBC isn't exactly friendly territory for him either). He's probably the most gifted speaker on the left since Obama. But you're right that he is prepared for the question because it's the kind of question he's been asked over and over again for the last 6 months. Moving on to the concept of merit, you said exactly what I was hoping you'd say. It's a good example of what I've been trying to convince you: that your definitions of these concepts are too narrow. Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism is all about merit. The idea is to set a stable floor of living conditions to then allow individual talent to flourish regardless of what circumstances you were born into or fell into. Guaranteeing every citizen the basic means of living means everybody has a chance to flourish based on their talent, not their starting position. Look at Scandinavia. There are tons of hyper-successful, driven people there even though their politics prioritizes the collective good. It's exactly because they value the collective good that they have such great education and professional outcomes. Nobody gets left behind. Everybody thrives together. You know what is anti-merit? Medical bankruptcy. You can work as hard as you want and still get sick and be financially ruined in this country. Zohran's view is very practical/utilitarian. He views the mayor's job as trying to promote the best outcomes for the most amount of people. So it doesn't matter what letter is next to a former mayor's name. If they had good ideas and policies, that's all that matters.

Great!

I know. I'm responding to Jimmy who said they did strike, not you.

Awesome! We can revisit when they do.

dup

dup.