I didn't say you were, did I?
The suggestion that the Democrats, as a whole, are totalitarian is absurd. When asked to be specific about these ridiculous statements that you make you always obfuscate, avoid and change the subject.
March 7, 2024
401
-
[deleted]
-
OK then, please do be specific. Which 'totalitarian' leanings are you talking about. Once we know we might be able to discuss whether the are 'changing the country', and if the are, whether it is for the better or worse.
-
You may.
-
"]
At present, the desire to hold onto democracy is sufficient reason to vote against Trump (which Mr Pence has not said he will do, again that's an assumption).
The big point about democracy is that it gives the opportunity to eject tyrants in a usually non-violent manner.
[/quote]At present, the desire to hold onto democracy [or what is left of it] is sufficient reason to vote against Biden! The weaponization of the state against political opponents is not democratic nor is it non-violent manner. The Jan 6th kangaroo court nonsense is another example of a democratic system being corrupted.
-
That is what the lamestream mediatards want you to believe. All this nonsense about the death of democracy and Trump being another Hitler is more media spin anti-Trump garbage. The lock-stepped tirade has become tediously boring and false.
-
So, do you think that politicians should be immune from prosecution for crimes that they commit? I ask this as an abstract, general point of principle. If we can agree on this then maybe we can take it from there.
-
Just a quick reminder: I don't think most democrats are voting for Biden (in fact, I'm pretty sure of it) -- they are voting against Trump. They way it works in the US, if you vote for anyone besides Biden, you are effectively voting for Trump. I don't think anyone denies that the democrats are corrupt, but the christofascists (i.e., the GOP) are a far, far, far more clear and present danger to the US than
corruptionbusiness as usual at the moment.It's unfortunate that Hillary Clinton sabotaged Bernie Sanders' run for the President in 2016, but, if I'm honest about it, even though Bernie's my man for the job, I doubt he'd get anything done due to how bad Congress is, not to mention the Supreme Court.
In short, had the Democrats not run Hillary Clinton, Trump would not have won in 2016. Had the Republicans not run Trump in 2024, Biden would [likely] not win. But, it's not merely a matter of "both sides are bad" -- Trump was worse than Clinton, and by far, and even more so with respect to Biden now. Had the Republicans stayed republican and not gone the christofascist route, they might have won 2024 (the scary as hell scenario, however, is that despite being christofascists, they still win).
-
Do you mean this?
sites.google.com/view/mathindatamatters/home
That's an opinion piece by a lot of STEM professionals. I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but it's not the standards -- it's their opinion that algebra is more important than [high school] data science courses, which is a great conversation to have, but I thought we were talking about California supposedly "cancelling" the multiplication tables.
Anyway, I'm quite an expert on the state of math education in California -- no joke. I have considerable expertise and experience in the area that spans a long time and, in fact, is current and up-to-date. You might even say it's my day job.
So, if you want to know my opinion on the state of the teaching of mathematics, well, I can talk at length on the topic with some authority. However, the matter at hand, with regards to both the times tables and the instruction of algebra, is instrumental vs conceptual. Not only does this relate directly to memorizing the times tables, it also is core to the entire manner in which math is taught.
-
I'm just going by my own observation of what he and they say and do, not the opinion of any mediatards.
-
...which says nothing about times tables whatsoever. I'm puzzled as to why it was introduced into the conversation at all.
-
I'm curious as to how you come to that observation. Personally, I read, watch, listen to content from all sides and make up my mind on what is actually happening politically. I'm puzzled as to how similar your views are to the legacy media that are distorting political views in the USA.
-
That depends on several factors. The real question should be whether or not a fair trial is even possible, and the other is determining whether something is a political persecution instead of a legal prosecution. What is happening now is more of a Banana Republic circus.
My return question to you - do you really believe Jan 6th was an insurrection and do you believe all the evidence given? From what I have read, you appear to have swallowed all the media nonsense surrounding it. -
[deleted]
-
No, what is going on is Trump getting preferential treatment by the "justice" system that John Q. Public would never, ever, ever get. Would Hillary Clinton or Biden get this kind of preferential treatment? You betcha. But to say Trump isn't getting a fair trial, when it's more "fair", by far, than any "normal" citizen would ever get, is just nuts.
Now, if you are willing to link to credible sources (e.g. not far-right blogs with people who share the same politics and opinions you have) to support your claims, I'm all ears. But you know, I know, and everyone else reading here knows, you will not do so for reasons that are too obvious to be stated.
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/evaluating-jan-6-committees-evidence-full
If the above link is not "credible", then please explain why.
-
Yep! Anyway, want to discuss math education in California? I'm not kidding when I say I am more than a little qualified to discuss the topic.
-
Not how I remember it. Just looked right the way back through the thread to see, and indeed it isn't what happened. GB put in a small part of hos post a joke about unacceptable behaviour ('pussy grabbing') without naming or even referring anyone orange at all. Of course everyone knew who it was. The individual in question only came into the discussion thereafter because you felt the need to defend his virtue. You could have, and probably should have, left well alone. I came in quite a bit later when that subthread was already well and truly established.
I'm puzzled as to why you introduced it because it has nothing to do with the point that you were arguing, so why put it in? I can think of two reasons. One is the hoary old online debate tactic which is put in an irrelevant but impressive looking link on the basis that you know that no-one is going to actually look at it, so you can claim that it supports what you're saying, when it doesn't. That's really dishonest, but I don't think that's what's going on. So the other possibility is grumpy old man syndrome - generally unhappy about the world going to hell and high water and collecting in your brain loads of examples of how everything's going to pot. They end up being a kind of soup of discontent, and you can no longer separate them from the general cognitive goo that's there, so you just toss them into the conversation. That's probably why it's so hard to follow.
-
[deleted]
