Oh then you know the length that some people will go to to prey on children. That is of course of great concern to you unless of course you don't actually have kids least not ones that you give a damn about.
#19 | POSTED BY TOR

How many trans people have preyed on kids in pool locker rooms? Does it exceed the number of non-trans people who did the same thing?

If someone wants to prey on a child they are just going to do it, not become trans as some grand disguise.

28 I'm not sure that was the angle. Musk has spent the last year or two explicitly courting the extremely online side of the right. DeSantis saw this as an opportunity to ingratiate himself with those folks. I'm not sure how much value there really was in doing so as most of those people probably already like DeSantis, and it opens DeSantis up to easy attack ads every time Musk does something stupid/sociopathic in the next 18 months.

On the plus side, i think DeSantis is potentially too creepy and wooden to win an election, and his decision to launch with a wooden creep like Musk didnt help him.

No sane Democrat wants Trump to be the GOP nominee AGAIN.
Putting that treacherous fool that close to power for any reason again is madness.

While i generally agree with this, unfortunately i don't see a scenario whete DeSantis is any less dangerous. If anything he'd probably spend a lot less time grifting and golfing, and accomplish even more regressive policies than Trump did.

The irony of this thread. Calling out social media for harm and yet there is a Facebook link posted.

This site is dripping with hypocrisy.

This thread is a news article reporting on what a prominent person said about social media, not an endorsement of what that person said. Are you really this dumb?

Jeff must get a notification on his phone every time someone says something bad about DeSantis or Florida.
It's always fake, no big deal, whatabout this other thing, etc.

What an absolute cuckold.

it 100% shows the need for separate leagues for biological women

Why do righties constantly whine about trannies in women's sports?

You don't watch women's sports. You don't give a ---- what happens in women's sports.

Politically, you attack women every chance you can get. You don't give a ---- about women, their rights, or how they experience life.

Ultimately, you just use women's sports as a vehicle to attack trannies.

Now those loans won't be repaid, costing the taxpayers $400 billion.

Even accepting your description of the situation as accurate, it still doesn't have anything to do with raising the debt limit, which is needed at this point to pay for expenditures that have already occurred, not for potential future costs to taxpayers.

But i wouldnt expect a DoD goldbricker to know anything about how public debt actually works. Just collect your check and STFU.

So you dont know how loans work? The lender already gave the money to the school. The money is out the door. Reducing or eliminating the balance due does not require the issuance of government bonds no matter how badly you twist yourself into a pretzel here.

To paraphrase Dan Savage, if clowns sexually abused kids as often as catholic priests did, it would be illegal to take your kids to the circus.

This discussion also concedes that reducing benefits to people based on their own "bad decisions" is even a net benefit to society, which i do not at all concede. In fact there are probably plenty of economists and sociologists who would fundamentally disagree with that.

It's capitalism, or racism, or social injustice, or whatever.

But never the people themselves.

It's usually a very complicated combination of more than one of those things. Anyone claiming there is a singular answer to why all people fail is a moron. My question is how you think anyone could accurately judge how much each element contributed to someone's failure and, critically, how that should affect someone's government assistance.

In a fair world they would be made wards of the state allowed and encouraged to reach their full potential.

Do you have evidence that wards of the state reaching their full potential? Genuinely curious. Also wondering what your metric would be for when someone's kids should be taken from them. Does merely becoming eligible for public assistance merit the destruction of a family unit?

Dad would die in a ------- gutter
I take it you're not a christian. Or even a moral person for that matter. Addiction is not something worthy of a death sentence.

Are you saying that someone who grew up in a prepper family in Alaska or some other isolated area should receive government funding that would not be made available to others?

No, you weirdo. First off i asked you a question and didn't "say" anything. My position on government assistance is that it should be income-based, scaled by locality, and not dependent on whether recipients have made a "bad" decision.

Do you concede that it is $400 million in taxpayer dollars that could be used for something useful? Which would translate into $400 billion less in new debt issuance?

No dumbass, i don't concede any of that. The money has already been spent. The decision to write it off does not necessarily require the issuance of a cent in public debt, which has been my point since i started responding to you. You're also not the sole determiner of what "useful" means, and thank god for that.

Well, now that that's settled, Kari Lake is free to run for the U.S. Senate

Lol. On the upside, if she really decides to do that, i dont think Hobbs was even a particularly good candidate and she still beat Lake. I'd expect the next Dem Senate candidate for
AZ to beat Lake by even more.

I'm also curious what "cuts" to services a bad decision maker should receive. Should they and their children starve because dad has a gambling problem? What specific cuts would you make to this person and why? And what makes you qualified to determine (1) what a "bad decision" that should ruin someone's life even is; and (2) what a poor person who made a bad decision should and should not receive?

you seem to be implying that lack of opportunity is the root cause of societal ills. Where does bad decision making fall into your calculus.

How much government assistance should someone whose lot in life is a result of "bad decision making" receive as opposed to someone with a lack of opportunity? What about someone suffering from both? Which bureaucracy is qualified to make that determination about someone's life?

#131 Do you really not understand that student loan forgiveness is not something that the US needs to issue bonds to accomplish? I concede you might actually be this dumb.

Republicans demand for cuts is genuine ONLY when a Dem is in the WH.

This is the dumbest ---- i have ever read in my life.

I'm with you on that, Joe. Seriously.

If you agree that Republicans' demand for cuts is not genuine, then how can you still argue in favor of their using that demand to permanently make it cost more for the US to borrow money?

What is the point of the debt ceiling if it gets raised unconditionally every time we butt up against it?

There is no point. It should be repealed. It's an unconstitutional trash law that does nothing other than give bad faith legislators the opportunity to hold this country's credit rating hostage.

Republicans have no actual desire to cut spending. They had a trifecta under Trump and didn't cut ----. But they're going to suddenly pretend they want cuts when it means permanently ------- up our credit rating? Give me a break. They probably just want a recession.

Increasing it SHOULD come with discussion about spending and taxes.

No it shouldn't. There's a very strong argument it's unconstitutional in the first place, and issuing public debt to pay for previous spending has nothing to do with future taxes and spending. The time to debate taxes and spending is when you craft a budget bill.

Trump and Republicans didn't wait until the debt ceiling was up to pass their ludicrous tax giveaway to billionaires.

And why has a thread about Republicans holding the country's credit rating hostage turned into a discussion of middle and low income people not trying hard enough?

I read that as Biden asking for a blank check for future expenditures. Such as the student loan forgiveness plan.

Well then you're stupid. Student loan forgiveness does not require the issuance of public debt.