It's a perfect representation of how great America is now, when the top complaint is plants growing.
It's a perfect representation of how great America is now, when the top complaint is plants growing.
Careful, someone might brand you with the scarlet MAGA letter for straying far from the tribe.
Already asked and answered. If you are going to argue against the natural disorder of the world, do it with your full throat, because so far, you have been using about half of another part of the human anatomy. And it's also ironic that the definition of absolutism, including absolute rights, is labeled "progressive" in today's more than unenlightened time.
I just did.
Rights aren't determined by accountants. Human rights are freedoms and protections that belong to every person by virtue of being human. You're getting bogged down in things that are irrelevant.
There is not a single right on the planet that doesn't have practical exceptions. Nothing is absolute, not equality and certainly not rights. Everything has an accountant, because there are no perfect solutions in a world of entropy, only trade-offs.
Also, the price paid by promoting all these untestable social experiments isn't the pride of some highly lettered and peer-reviewed researcher. It's the visible and alarming trend of the decline of the quality of child rearing, creating problems for society's youth that were never on the radar before all this social experimentation. People with power should be asking legitimate questions about the wisdom of implementing these large-scale social experiments long before their long-term effects are well understood, especially regarding children.
Race is also another label that isn't exactly defined. 73 years after Watson and Crick, and we still struggle with the distinction between biological reality and the labels we create. Phrenology has largely been discarded, yet debates about race often continue to treat broad social categories and cultures as though they were precise scientific biological definitions. Race itself remains impossible to define biologically in a clear, universally accepted way. Someone looking like x as a phenotype never translates to anything adjacent to phrenology. Watson and Crick definitively proved phenotypes can never justify conclusions about their intelligence, character, talents, or worth, either scientifically or socially. And yet society does exactly that, both politically and legally.
Gender equality is well defined. It is the state in which access to rights, resources, and opportunities is not determined or limited by a person's gender.
Which can't feasibly happen even with all the surgery at our disposal. Because genders as defined are not equal. Gender equality is a definition that presumes a fictitious label of gender. A man doesn't need paid leave for menstrual cramps, for example, nor does he require access to those privileges or rights. His gender limits his access.
And Gender equality is often confused with gender equity, which is also completely unfeasible due to biological differences. See gender pay gap.
More like definitions, which is the polar opposite of a label.
It's a shame that low-IQ people like DoubleR don't understand this basic and obvious hierarchy.
Do you really get a sense that the Democratic Party cares about progress over power at this point???
Long story short: 2015 was the year America imploded on itself:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/beyond-distrust-how-americans-view-their-government/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1681/moral-issues.aspx
If Obama didn't do such a terrible job, people wouldn't have had to elect a reality mogul.
Obama talked up a great game about unifying the country, and never delivered.
Nice
Your analysis exists in a fantasy world where there are no tradeoffs, only absolutes.
That is why it was impossible for you to address the original prompt of priorities.
. People say the decline of Democrat Party started when Obama became president.
It most definitely became destroyed by Obama, an admitted Black Supremacist/Communist who set the entire party up for failure.
Serious responsible governance means looking at each problem for what it is and deciding what to do about it based on its own merits. We don’t look at a problem and decide if we should solve it based on some totally arbitrary count of other problems we have solved and declaring that problem solving time is now over.
And also: an ideological demagogue never pauses for a second to think that there might be some priorities that matter.
It's more like Trump does what BILL Clinton did. And people LOVED BILL Clinton. (not so much his meat on the side)
Bill Clinton and Trump are almost completely identical policy-wise.
Trump was raised, and still is...a 90's Democrat.
Biden passed the computer chips act, the infrastructure bill, the green energy bill.
So basically, corporate welfare on steroids while fooling all the low-T men that he was one of them.
He puts people with qualifications in charge of the government instead of hacks.
Oh, you mean when he nominated Jackson on the sole basis of skin color and the XX chromosome? (even though she couldn't define what that was)
Her rambling dissent dissertations and 8-1 rulings are the source material of every late-night streaming comedian.
https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/01/27/biden-vows-to-nominate-black-woman-supreme-court
but communist leftist feminist man hating family hating sensitive jerks ...
It's easier to just say...low-T
And issues involving gravity. Jimmy Carter was a swell guy, too.
Why didn't you start by saying some good things about Biden and Harris?
I'll pass.
In other words, a religion which needs government to survive is lacking something important.
So like the modern-day religions of MAGA, Climate Change, Child-autonomy, Aliens, and Races.
Do you ever get tired of dodging a serious thought exercise asking:
If the United States adopted a constitutional amendment restricting the Federal government to provide only 10 broad public services, essentially overhauling Article I, Section 8, and recognizing that the Constitution was originally designed to define and limit Federal power while leaving the overwhelming balance of public services to the states, what 10 Federal services would you pick and why?
With a pithy "hurr durrr we gots to solve modern problummmzzz...abolish it..."
Such lowbrow crap.
Lol, the point of the Constitution is to destroy itself and all the checks on a tyrannical government?
I'm assuming you meant overturning any amendment since Article 1, Section 8 isn't an Amendment.
I respectfully have to disagree with what you think the purpose of the US Constitution is.
The purpose of the Constitution isn't: to "Solve Problems."
The purpose is: "How do you prevent the public from voting in tyranny?"
Enjoy your revolution, Comrade.
Why would we give them our money?
The same reason why the USA imports illegal slave labor. Exploitation.
Cuba barely survives with the small amounts of money remitted by the exploited illegal slave labor industry in the USA.
Chattel slavery, Serfdom, Debt bondage, indentured servitude, it's functionally the same when you have better options for work but are forced to stay where you are or risk deportation.
why do societies have governments? Why do we elect representatives and have debates?
If the United States adopted a constitutional amendment restricting the Federal government to provide only 10 broad public services, essentially overhauling Article I, Section 8, and recognizing that the Constitution was originally designed to define and limit Federal power while leaving the overwhelming balance of public services to the states, what 10 Federal services would you pick and why?
Anyone is welcome to solve this riddle.
