Ah... I would say that if they were paid well, then it wouldn't be classed as slavery. 50c or $2 dollars is not paid well.
The counter to my argument is if they can access their money from prison
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
The counter to my argument is if they can access their money from prison
All Trump voters are regressive neanderthals.
www.rollingstone.com
“To expedite the removals of Tren de Aragua and other savage gangs like MS-13,” Trump said on Monday. “I will invoke the Alien Enemies act of 18—, no 1798. That’s when we had real politicians that said, ‘We’re not gonna play games.’ We need to go back to 1798.”
Despite Trump’s claim, the Alien Enemies Act — and three other pieces of legislation comprising the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 — were not universally beloved upon their passage. The Republican Party at the time opposed the laws as a gross violation of civil and due process rights. President Thomas Jefferson called the acts a “detestable” piece of legislation “worthy of the 8th or 9th Century.” Large portions of the law were allowed to lapse, but the Alien Enemies Act remains active, as it had not included an expiration when passed.
In 1798, the enslavement of Black people was still the law of the land, and women could not own property, vote, control their own reproductive choices, or participate in wide swaths of society under the protection of the law. Nevertheless, Trump and the Republican Party regularly fantasize about a return to the times of codified legal repression.
Trump on America's Future: 'We Have to Go Back to 1798'
Donald Trump called for a return to the political principles of 1798 during a rally in Greenville, North Carolina.
www.rollingstone.com
“To expedite the removals of Tren de Aragua and other savage gangs like MS-13,” Trump said on Monday. “I will invoke the Alien Enemies act of 18—, no 1798. That’s when we had real politicians that said, ‘We’re not gonna play games.’ We need to go back to 1798.”
Despite Trump’s claim, the Alien Enemies Act — and three other pieces of legislation comprising the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 — were not universally beloved upon their passage. The Republican Party at the time opposed the laws as a gross violation of civil and due process rights. President Thomas Jefferson called the acts a “detestable” piece of legislation “worthy of the 8th or 9th Century.” Large portions of the law were allowed to lapse, but the Alien Enemies Act remains active, as it had not included an expiration when passed.
In 1798, the enslavement of Black people was still the law of the land, and women could not own property, vote, control their own reproductive choices, or participate in wide swaths of society under the protection of the law. Nevertheless, Trump and the Republican Party regularly fantasize about a return to the times of codified legal repression.
Not when your assumption of "likelihood to vote red/blue" is an unknown or undefined variable. Then they can both rise and fall simultaneously (depending on the different starting assumptions) because your answer is a distribution that follows from stuff you don't know-- which is to say, variables with a range of possible values. That likelihood, given that someone is voting Green, is not knowable; it's counterfactual. It's not a good idea to try to model it because you can twist it both directions in the way I suggested and come up with any answer you want. Which is perhaps why the idea is so tempting to someone who likes the idea of tactically voting in favor of genocide.
In reality, neither Harris nor Trump are advantaged by a vote for a third party. And neither are entitled to the assumption that they will receive a vote but for a third party candidate.
Which is accomplished in an actually reasonable model of thinking about this by voting for one of them or the other, not anyone else.
That would also mean "I am not really against all the Democrat/Harris policies, they are tolerable". But then "I am really against at least some of the Democrat/Harris policies, they are intolerable" is why someone would decline to vote for Harris. This is a contradiction, so there's an error in your thought there.
A Green vote does not make Trump more or less likely to win unless he's in danger of losing to the Green Party candidate.
(Same going the other way, of course)
Early in-person voting kicks off in Michigan - WDET 101.9 FM
Early voting started in Detroit on Saturday, with municipalities across the state beginning in-person voting this Saturday, Oct. 26.
wdet.org
You fools! Trump was and is still willing to throw any non-white race or white people under the bus. He did it to you before during his time as president, and during fucking covid! What makes you think he'll treat you nicely, fairly, or with the fucking kid gloves?!
US election: The Arab-Americans turning to 'wild card' Trump in Michigan
America is full of contradictions. This is the story of one of them: the Arab-Americans who will vote for Donald Trump.
www.fosse107.co.uk
He didn't do anything to help with Palestine or Israel either during his 4 year term. Do you fuckers have that much of a short term memory lost? Things aren't going to get better with him.
Some better news.
Because they are weak ass bitches who can't nor won't actually deal with people different from them at all.
They keep throwing out random dates because they're not yet ready to say it plainly: A return to when White Christian Men Ruled the World.
Eh, I'd not be totally shocked if he randomly decried that no more aid was to be sent to Israel. But, more likely he'll be at least as bad, of course.
If you reread the post, you'll see I've addressed how likelihood is accounted for: I've assumed the voter is likelier to vote Green than Blue, and likelier to vote Blue than Red. That's the only necessary extrapolation, and I'd say also perfectly accurate, though Tippy is welcome to correct me if he's just as likely to vote for Trump.
Well, one of them mathematically is, unless the voter is exactly as likely to otherwise vote for either of the primary candidates.
Agreed!
It is accomplished by any model in which two parties are more competitive than others.
You can say you're fine with it, you can say it's worth it. You cannot say your vote does not affect the chances of the two frontrunners in different ways, unless you also say you are equally likely to vote for either, Red or Blue bucket.
Last edited:
Maybe this is the part where the disconnect still is (somehow)
Let's say they took away my Green Bucket. The ONLY two buckets I am now able to pour my water into is The Blue Bucket or The Red Bucket. Do you know where my water would go?
On the fucking floor
When I say that Genocide is my Red Line, I don't mean it the way Biden means it when he says Rafah was his Red Line where he does jack shit when Israel gleefully dances all over it. My Red Line is a DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 kind of line.
If my literal only options were Harris or Trump, I'd just not vote because neither of them are on the correct side of my Red Line.
As I said, if your likelihood of voting Blue or Red was exactly identical, then voting Green would not increase or decrease either one's chances. My model assumed that the likelihoods were different but i left open the possibility for correction. So if you genuinely view Harris and Trump exactly identically, then it's a different situation.
Ditto, an observer who genuinely sees no difference between the trolley track with 100 people tied to it, and the other track with 5 people. Their absolute non-negotiable "red line" is murder so they refuse to touch the switch. If that person's equivalence between the two options was genuine, then their inaction did not increase the risk of 100 people dying.
We are not talking about legislators, we are talking about the Supreme Court.
In quotations, sure, but it's not actually in quotations.
That isn't true. Hence why some professional athletes have to go to other countries to get "experimental" treatments. And experimental is in quotes because some of the treatments are experimental and some you can say is just the US being late to approve them. Christian McCaffrey is probably the most recent example of this.
Also, if you could literally get anything you wanted, why didn't people just get the covid vaccine before it was approved? If the patient and doctor are fine with the treatment, then why weren't people getting the covid vaccine if they so wanted (before approval)?
Last edited:
I'm choosing the track with 0 people tied to it. Democrats are the one who are choosing the track with 5 people tied to it. If everyone who claims they were sick of the two party system in this country actually voted that way, we'd have (AT LEAST) three parties in this country. But people are so terrified that The Red Team will win that they're willing to throw people in front of the trolley in order to make sure that they get to stay safe.
(This is also assuming that those people are not also tied on the track, just farther down the line where you can't see them because I guaranFUCKINGtee that if The Democrats would score more points throwing LGBT or Immigrants (oh wait...TOUGHER THAN TRUMP ON THE BORDER LOL) or any other minority group onto the track, they'd do it in a heartbeat).
OK, so why do you think the UK's Supreme Court hasn't re-legalised slavery?
You can do that, no worries! That track isn't connected to the trolley's route, of course, but you can choose it by issuing a prayer to the mountain spirits that they lift the train from its course, if you refuse to touch the switch that controls the tracks it's actually on.
You're not choosing either track, I know. You're choosing to issue a prayer that the train miraculously flies to the other unconnected track instead. So the 5 and 100 remain with equal likelihood, because choosing either of those murderous options would be wrong.
Last edited:
No. It's the same as doing nothing or not even existing.
Instead of voting for Trump, I'm voting Green. Oh, wow, that means +1 Harris!
Instead of voting for Harris, I'm voting Green. Oh. That also means -1 Harris. It is precisely the same action described-- doing one implies doing the other-- and it sums to nothing (at least in respect to Trump vs. Harris).
If I'm choosing to vote Green (in the Presidential election), the likelihood that I'm voting for Trump or Harris is zero. It's not a random event, there is no set of coins being flipped or dice being rolled here. Representing it as a probability is asinine.
My track absolutely does exist. Just everyone wants to pretend like that track can't ever win because no one ever votes for that track so they don't vote for that track so that track never wins. It's one giant self fulfilling prophecy. Everybody says they're sick of The Duopoly but then continues to vote for it because Third Party "can't win" but if everyone who claimed they were sick of The Duopoly actually voted against it, we'd likely have 4+ parties as Leftists would break from Democrats and MAGA would break from RINOs or whatever they call normal Republicans nowadays.
But instead people keep voting for The Duopoly and then sit back scratching their heads wondering why nothing ever changes...
Unfortunately, probabilities are a part of how the world functions, unless you're a Laplace-esque determinist. Inaction carries culpability, right alongside action-- else a bystander chomping popcorn as they watch an injured man bleed out carries no guilt.
That's a fairly un-fanciful prayer to the mountain spirits, but one nonetheless.
Unless you're going to tell me a Stein victory has equal or comparable likelihood to a Harris or Trump one? That achievability would change the whole equation, and i'd join you in your vote! So tell me genuinely: is it?
Fact-checking some of Michigan's most misleading TV election ad claims
With just two weeks until Election Day, here's the facts about some of the claims flying on television in Michigan's most competitive races.
www.detroitnews.com
Thank you Detroit News for staying on it. I.
Make it to a point, turn up all the most political ADS to put on the Ad Blocker when I'm on YouTube because even the ones that are factual. I get sick and tired of looking at every 30 to 40 seconds they come up.
It is almost a zero percent chance that Stein will win the presidency (although there is a very real chance they could finally hit the 5% mark for the Federal Funding thingy, which that alone makes it worth shooting my shot on as both parties are doing their very best to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory).
Which still has nothing to do with my stance about voting for Harris so I have no idea why you keep harping on about voting for Harris at me when I talk about voting for Jill Stein. Harris has crossed my Red Line. She can either get on the right side of it and then I'll vote for her or she can stay on the wrong side of it and not get my vote. If you magically removed everyone off the ballot and I was told my vote would have to go to Harris or to Trump, I would just stay home because neither of them are against sending a FUCK TON of my tax dollars to fund a Genocide.
As I've stated far too many times in this thread to count because for some reason it keeps coming up, voting for Harris means you can look past genocide to vote for her. I am unwilling to do that. It's up to you and other voters to decide if genocide is a deal breaker for them or not. If it is not, feel free to vote Harris. You can pretty up your reasons all you want with LESSER EVIL or Trolley Problem or whatever else you want to do for mental gymnastics to justify it but ultimately, a vote for Harris doesn't make you Pro-Genocide but a vote for Harris shows that Genocide is not a deal breaker for you and I'm getting real sick of having to repeat myself on this.
But yet it is somehow gauche to point out that Harris supporters are supporting genocide since this is the logic applied. Nobody likes being told they're voting for genocide when they condescend to third party voters, for some reason.