Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

George Floyd Protests and Riots

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Policeman in his car decides he can plow down pedestrians blocking his path.
    His biggest problem here, being that he's a police officer, is he backed up to make a run at them. He kind of ruined his 'feared for my life argument in this crowd' with that move. Not only did backing up show he had another option, but it indicated to the people that he was leaving.
    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...-of-pedestria/
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Policeman in his car decides he can plow down pedestrians blocking his path.
      His biggest problem here, being that he's a police officer, is he backed up to make a run at them. He kind of ruined his 'feared for my life argument in this crowd' with that move. Not only did backing up show he had another option, but it indicated to the people that he was leaving.
      https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...-of-pedestria/
      They were not pedestrians but domestic terrorists. With the cop having his lights on ALL of those people should have gotten the F off the road. Who the F do they think they are? Don’t morons today know they are to move off roadways when cops have their lights on? They may have been dispatched for a rape or murder incident. GTFO the road!

      Best case you can blame this on the left for making it harder to find good people to do the job. It doesn’t get better from here....
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-24-2021, 09:10 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

        I respect your opinion but no, its not a false equivalency.

        Rachel is to the left what Rush and Hannity are to the right.

        JMHO
        I need to watch some MSNBC and Maddow to see if you're accurately portraying this situation or not.
        What I know is that Hannity et al. on Fox News Primetime are not just cheerleaders for Trumpism and/or the GOP, but are propaganda tools that will regularly lie to do it. IOW they will happily tell "The Big Lie", and repeat it.

        Simply putting a positive spin on things for your side is one thing for a "News" channel. The same for only reporting the negative or the positive for what suits your narrative. Mistakes happen, and swimming in those waters will definitely make you prone to getting bit and getting something wrong because you're already opining and not fact checking nearly enough. ...But if every show is just a parade of lies then it's worthless. That's where Hannity is and that is where Fox News Primetime is.
        I can't speak to Maddow one way or the other.
        Obviously, (or I guess it's obvious) I don't ever watch MSNBC because I already know the bias is there and don't particularly need to see it. But OTOH, I'm curious if it rises to be the mirror of Fox News Primetime.

        Fox exists in a strange place in this ecosphere because they DO have a legitimate news division. But they don't really lean on or overly promote that news division. In fact, their evening magazine shows would be well-served to pay attention to their news division. But they don't. They're branded after the news division, "Fox News", yet their bread and butter is all of their opinion shows that are pure propaganda that doesn't just stop at putting a positive slant on things, but outright lying is always on the table.
        Their evening programming is no better than "PJ Media" or the Western Journal" online.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • It is hilarious when people claim that you are in an echo chamber and they proceed to put themselves in one to avoid defending their views from people who pick them apart.

          Comment


          • Domestic terrorists doing their thing in Seattle and Portland. I don’t know about you but I’m just gonna grab my popcorn...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              The best way to even more deeply divide the country is to go after Donald Trump after he has left office. That will fuel and greatly increase radicalization and support of it on the right.

              For example, I am ready to move on from Trump. I am open to unity with Biden where possible. But if the left does not allow that and continues to pursue Trump to get a piece of flesh, I am highly likely to attend any rallies, organizing meetings, protests, etc. Extremely motivated and I cannot imagine how motivated the Trumpists will be. It will also result in the Senate coming right back to the GOP because people will be amped up for the midterm. Hmmm this is exactly how Democrats shoot themselves in the foot. They have paid dearly in the past for overreach.
              If you had posted this before the riot at the Capitol I would have 100% agreed with you.

              I feel strongly, however, that we cannot allow anyone (including but not limited to the President of the United States) to incite a riot and simply say “no consequences” because they are no longer in office.

              I fully recognize my position may lead to a new party of even more extreme republicans. That is a risk I am willing to take to ensure we never have an incident like the one that happened at the Capitol again

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bball View Post

                I need to watch some MSNBC and Maddow to see if you're accurately portraying this situation or not.
                What I know is that Hannity et al. on Fox News Primetime are not just cheerleaders for Trumpism and/or the GOP, but are propaganda tools that will regularly lie to do it. IOW they will happily tell "The Big Lie", and repeat it.

                Simply putting a positive spin on things for your side is one thing for a "News" channel. The same for only reporting the negative or the positive for what suits your narrative. Mistakes happen, and swimming in those waters will definitely make you prone to getting bit and getting something wrong because you're already opining and not fact checking nearly enough. ...But if every show is just a parade of lies then it's worthless. That's where Hannity is and that is where Fox News Primetime is.
                I can't speak to Maddow one way or the other.
                Obviously, (or I guess it's obvious) I don't ever watch MSNBC because I already know the bias is there and don't particularly need to see it. But OTOH, I'm curious if it rises to be the mirror of Fox News Primetime.

                Fox exists in a strange place in this ecosphere because they DO have a legitimate news division. But they don't really lean on or overly promote that news division. In fact, their evening magazine shows would be well-served to pay attention to their news division. But they don't. They're branded after the news division, "Fox News", yet their bread and butter is all of their opinion shows that are pure propaganda that doesn't just stop at putting a positive slant on things, but outright lying is always on the table.
                Their evening programming is no better than "PJ Media" or the Western Journal" online.
                Two points that jump out at me:

                1A. I have not seen a true Fox News program since election night 2016. I think I turned on Fox News for breaking news once (I personally think Fox News has great “breaking news” coverage) however its not hard to see the “echo chamber” or “talking points” from the Fox News followers

                1B. I can 100% confirm I have not seen a MSNBC program since election night 2016. (Most of my news comes from Twitter or in a small part from CNN because CNN international comes in good for us here). With that said its not hard to see the “echo chamber” or “talking points” from the MSNBC followers

                2A. It is my opinion that “not covering news because it doesn’t fit your political agenda” is just as bad as “embellishing how bad the other side is”. You, if this very post, excuse that “sometimes they may get it wrong” but if we are being honest (in my opinion) you would never let this fly for the other side.

                2B. A few years ago I would have argued that republicans (and Fox News) went extreme with the whole other side is evil (Nancy is the devil) and we must show how extreme the democrats will take everything. However, after four years of POTUS Trump I feel the exact same way about the left.

                Note I am speaking to general news coverage. I personally think platforms like “twitter” or “Facebook” where you have a candidate referring to the other side in profane nicknames are a whole different issue and one that I think is less of a platform issue and more on a user issue.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Policeman in his car decides he can plow down pedestrians blocking his path.
                  His biggest problem here, being that he's a police officer, is he backed up to make a run at them. He kind of ruined his 'feared for my life argument in this crowd' with that move. Not only did backing up show he had another option, but it indicated to the people that he was leaving.
                  https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...-of-pedestria/
                  While I admit his backing up jumped out at me for the reasons you pointed out this part jumped out at me as well:

                  Tacoma police spokeswoman Wendy Haddow said police were notified shortly before 7 p.m. Saturday of street racers and a crowd of approximately 100 people blocking streets in the area.

                  Haddow said the officer used his car’s bullhorn to address the crowd. The crowd then began pounding on his windows, she said.

                  “He was afraid they would break his glass,” she said. That prompted him to speed out of the scene for his own safety.
                  ”Respect the police....unless they are trying to break up your street race”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                    Two points that jump out at me:

                    1A. I have not seen a true Fox News program since election night 2016. I think I turned on Fox News for breaking news once (I personally think Fox News has great “breaking news” coverage) however its not hard to see the “echo chamber” or “talking points” from the Fox News followers

                    1B. I can 100% confirm I have not seen a MSNBC program since election night 2016. (Most of my news comes from Twitter or in a small part from CNN because CNN international comes in good for us here). With that said its not hard to see the “echo chamber” or “talking points” from the MSNBC followers

                    2A. It is my opinion that “not covering news because it doesn’t fit your political agenda” is just as bad as “embellishing how bad the other side is”. You, if this very post, excuse that “sometimes they may get it wrong” but if we are being honest (in my opinion) you would never let this fly for the other side.

                    2B. A few years ago I would have argued that republicans (and Fox News) went extreme with the whole other side is evil (Nancy is the devil) and we must show how extreme the democrats will take everything. However, after four years of POTUS Trump I feel the exact same way about the left.

                    Note I am speaking to general news coverage. I personally think platforms like “twitter” or “Facebook” where you have a candidate referring to the other side in profane nicknames are a whole different issue and one that I think is less of a platform issue and more on a user issue.
                    I'm not 100% excusing a network for getting something wrong because they were swimming in dangerous waters and got bit. I'm just saying I don't want to see someone reading/watching some continual off the ranch opinion site that is masquerading as news, and then when they get called out on it because they don't know what they are talking about on a subject, and them throwing an outlier back at you from NBC, ABC, NPR, AP, or others as if that one mistake invalidates everything while they are wallowing in a sea of mistakes and intentional lies.
                    And the story they are referencing they only know about it because the channel/site retracted it and owned the mistake. Meanwhile, they don't have to worry about many retractions when watching Tucker or Hannity. ...Well, except you can be assured they will tell you about OTHER channels and their retractions...

                    IOW... I want a channel to strive to be accurate, no matter their bias. It's clear, Fox News, The Blaze, PJ Media, Western Journal, Info Wars, OAN, have no intention of even trying to maintain that standard. They're more interested in promoting their team than accuracy, and don't care if they have to lie to do it, or couch opinion as news.

                    When you have people refusing to believe the AP because Fox News primetime told them something else... Or actually, just because the AP report paints something or someone from their team in a bad light and Fox News evening programming has conditioned them to call anything that doesn't fit the narrative "Fake news!!!" then we have a problem.

                    When people are reading The Blaze, Info Wars, Newsmax, PJ Media, and get called on it being BS, they discredit you and your sources because you and/or the sites you give them for actual information are "liberal".

                    The "fact checkers" are "liberal".

                    Again... A bad situation. Much of this has gotten worse because of the giant feedback loop that Trump participated in with many of these sites, especially the already popular Fox News. And he drove them further right IMHO because that was the natural landing spot for them by carrying his water as Trump and Trumpism became the GOP's most solid and loyal base. And empowered. They want their news... and they want it to tell them exactly what they want to hear.

                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                      Rachel is a cheerleader for the left just as much as Rush/Hannity are cheerleaders for the right. Very much comparable.

                      I have no problem with folks having favorite channels/media personalities. Calling anyone a “moron” because you disagree with them is akin to wishing someone death when you find out they have cancer because you disagree with their political POV

                      I will leave my comments at that in the interest of not getting the thread closed
                      Rachel is not left she is establishment.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • MSNBC and CNN are not left either they are a right wing establishment pretending to be left.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bball View Post

                          I'm not 100% excusing a network for getting something wrong because they were swimming in dangerous waters and got bit. I'm just saying I don't want to see someone reading/watching some continual off the ranch opinion site that is masquerading as news, and then when they get called out on it because they don't know what they are talking about on a subject, and them throwing an outlier back at you from NBC, ABC, NPR, AP, or others as if that one mistake invalidates everything while they are wallowing in a sea of mistakes and intentional lies.
                          And the story they are referencing they only know about it because the channel/site retracted it and owned the mistake. Meanwhile, they don't have to worry about many retractions when watching Tucker or Hannity. ...Well, except you can be assured they will tell you about OTHER channels and their retractions...

                          IOW... I want a channel to strive to be accurate, no matter their bias. It's clear, Fox News, The Blaze, PJ Media, Western Journal, Info Wars, OAN, have no intention of even trying to maintain that standard. They're more interested in promoting their team than accuracy, and don't care if they have to lie to do it, or couch opinion as news.

                          When you have people refusing to believe the AP because Fox News primetime told them something else... Or actually, just because the AP report paints something or someone from their team in a bad light and Fox News evening programming has conditioned them to call anything that doesn't fit the narrative "Fake news!!!" then we have a problem.

                          When people are reading The Blaze, Info Wars, Newsmax, PJ Media, and get called on it being BS, they discredit you and your sources because you and/or the sites you give them for actual information are "liberal".

                          The "fact checkers" are "liberal".

                          Again... A bad situation. Much of this has gotten worse because of the giant feedback loop that Trump participated in with many of these sites, especially the already popular Fox News. And he drove them further right IMHO because that was the natural landing spot for them by carrying his water as Trump and Trumpism became the GOP's most solid and loyal base. And empowered. They want their news... and they want it to tell them exactly what they want to hear.
                          This is the best post in this entire thread, by the way.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            I'm really surprised with the lack of understanding of why our system is designed the way it is in the US. Do they teach this federalist vs anti-federalist anymore in public school?

                            The House already gives California a lot of power. The reason why we have 2 Senators per state and the electoral college to a lesser extent is to prevent California and New York from basically controlling the entire nation. States in various parts of the country have different priorities. How hard is this to understand? We are a collection of states. A republic, not one single federal government.
                            Great when it upholds minority rule though. Should be an air-tight argument by around 2045 when whites are a minority majority. Majority rule with minority rights is what the constitution says. Too bad when it comes to criminal justice, that principle hasn't been consistently upheld with regard to minorities (POC).
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                              I did not use the B word. Try to avoid the personal attack (calling me Sherlock) too since that will get this thread closed.

                              But does a woman having a baby sometimes push them to become a conservative? Absolutely. They begin to see just how bad abortion is and many no longer can support Democrats. They essentially wake the F up.

                              There's a reason for the saying: "If you are not a liberal when you are 30 you have no heart, if you are not a conservative when you are 40 you have no brain". That doesn't mean liberals are brainless. It doesn't even mean people with brains always become conservative as they age. It means that if there is a transition across parties as someone becomes a mature adult, they normally become more conservative. BTW, that's opinion but I think it's true. Some of that is because they acquire assets and decide liberals shouldn't be taking their hard earned gains and distributing (to retain power).
                              "Watch the personal attacks", smh. You've got the indirect personal attacks down to a science. What about men who with children? Is it only women because of the "maternal instinct". And, yes, you've called AOC a "B" on here at least twice recently. Can't understand why that doesn't get the thread shut down or at least get that language erased from the post.
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

                                Great when it upholds minority rule though. Should be an air-tight argument by around 2045 when whites are a minority majority. Majority rule with minority rights is what the constitution says. Too bad when it comes to criminal justice, that principle hasn't been consistently upheld with regard to minorities (POC).
                                It's called balance. Also, the reason why minorities could have ANY power at all is because of this concept. I would think you would be thankful for that. Set aside any biases.

                                Also, Democrats are the majority...NOT a minority in the liberal cities and states that write their criminal law, hire their prosecutors and police...and control city hall. The issue with the criminal justice system in major US cities is a Democrat problem, not GOP. GOP doesn't have any power to make change in those cities.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X