Pardoning your son because he had a cross hair on him because he is your son is an abuse of power, no doubt. But corrupt? Nah. Just nepotism.
Pardoning people who attacked the capitol on behalf of your attempts to overturn an election you lost is blatant corruption.
While both are wrong, it’s equally wrong to try and equate them.
The only issue that really matters to me is climate change. Or maybe plastic.
But this is the same as the picture of the statue of liberty that is used to “debunk” sea level rise by showing the level at the same height, despite being taken 100 years apart. Were they taken at the same tide? Same time of year? Is there any other factor at play here?
This is a “shoe is on the other foot” moment, and we should be as skeptical of that which supports our beliefs as we are of that which contradicts it. Maybe especially so because confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
Can you really not come up with any other explanation? I agree that this is fucking incredibly troubling, and I will assume the worst about this guy based on his past handling of the presidency, but it’s shocking to me that people think he outright said he would end democracy and there is no ambiguity here.
Like easily I could strain and say “well, he’s saying that he is going to make things so good that everyone is going to vote for him, so the Christians no longer will need to.” Or “I don’t care in 4 years because I won’t be able to run.”
Rittenhouse is an idiot who shouldn’t have crossed state lines to go play police officer in another state. I have no problem that his life has been ruined, and if he had been convicted, I wouldn’t have shed a tear. Not to mention he is a fucking twat (if what the sister says is true) for not helping them out considering it was his stupidity that put this crosshair on their back. So make no mistake about where I stand on this. The guy is an idiot, but I don’t think he was “looking for blood.”
That being said, the guy didn’t just “have a skateboard” we have a video of him chasing a fleeing rittenhouse and attacking him with the skateboard and trying to grab the gun. The other guy is seen chasing a fleeing Rittenhouse when he turns and shoots. Neither of these people just “flinched.” They were both clearly aggressors.
Was he justified in shooting them? I’m not so sure. I tend to lean towards “no.” But the fact that you’re grossly misinterpreting what actually happened leads me to believe that you are not so sure either. One who is confident that the facts support claim doesn’t feel the need to grossly misrepresent the facts.
I’m not equating furries to pedophiles here, as I have absolutely no problems with them what so ever…
But this is the equivalent of saying people hate pedophiles, but love children. It’s pretty obvious that the sexualization is the difference.
You waited 12 days to respond with this garbage? lol I would have just moved on. It’s like your desperate to remind everyone how dumb you are.
The whole debate is over the definition of a word so of course it’s going to be pedantic. Lol I’m not even sure you understand what that words mean.
“OMG we’re in a recession”
“Well, no not technically because the definition you are using is not the actual definition”
“OMG you’re trying to tell me the economy is french silk caramel!”
“Uh that’s not what they’re saying”
It this is “pedantry” then surely you don’t understand the term.
Except noone of substance is telling you anything is french silk caramel. Your whole position is based on a incorrect premise that is the result of what appears to be a false dichotomy.
If you’re position is this detached from reality, it’s no surprise you’re being accused of being uneducated or something equally insulting.
I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
This is the problem tho, it’s all anecdotal. Recessions aren’t individual things, because there are always going to be losers in any economy. Unemployment is at all time lows. Wage growth is beating inflation (and some of the biggest beneficiaries of this have been low wage workers). Inflation back down near desired levels. There’s tons of reason to be optimistic about the state of the economy. Don’t get me wrong, there is a long way to go to make up for what was lost over the pandemic and the subsequent inflationary period, but economic outlook looks good now.
The doom and gloom is being amplified by Republicans in an attempt to hurt Biden’s chances of re-election. I wish people wouldn’t repeat their lies and help Trump get elected at the same time.
My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition.
The world is a complicated place. The fact that one can’t precisely define something and there is a grey zone doesn’t make any claim, even those that fall clearly outside of that grey zone, valid. “It’s complicated, so any opinion is valid” is just not something we should get behind, as it justifies all kind of nonsense, like climate-change denial.
I absolutely agree that it’s weird and it’s not fine right now. All I responded to was the oft-repeated and false claim that they changed the definition of recession, and then attributed that to some conspiracy theory to silence them.
It will absolutely be talked about, but just as likely as how it was a huge win for the fed if the soft landing happens, and that appears more and more likely at this point.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s just that, as you note, a nuanced question without a simple answer. The “two quarters” thing is just something that we tend to see with every recession. But there are a lot of other things we tend to see too: unemployment rising, consumer spending retracting, income dropping, industrial output retracting… and we didn’t see any of the other factors that we’ve seen previously.
It would have been one of the weirdest “recessions” we’ve ever seen, that bucked numerous other recession indicators. . .all in favor of two quarters of negative GDP growth. How does that make any sense?
The definition wasn’t redefined. You just always heard the rule of thumb and thought that was actually the definition. Like, let’s be honest here, have you ever even taken an economics class outside of HS? When you learned how it’s actually determined, instead of thinking “I’ve learned some nuance and I will incorporate this into my future conclusions” you rejected it and concocted some conspiracy to explain it.
Holy shit, you came back to write this? lol Amazing. And, no, I don’t feel stupid because nothing that is happening now has changed anything about what I was talking about a year ago. The fact that you think it does just reveals how much you lack in critical thinking skills.