Jump to content

Phoenix Wright

Member
  • Content Count

    5325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phoenix Wright

  1. where is his cheering? i see his son cheering, but not him.
  2. scary. this twitch live stream is cancerous.
  3. it's such a lack of response that one has to wonder if this is what trump wanted. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/06/us/politics/electoral-college-certification-live-stream.html Maggie Haberman White House Correspondent We are seeing reports of people being transported to hospitals from the Capitol complex. Mark, one Trump adviser told me that people — even those close to him — are certain the president wanted this and is enjoying it. ask yourself, if there were violence occurring in your state capitol and you're head of state, would you simply respond with, "stop," via twitter?
  4. no, not at least! do not be fooled by that. tweets do not quell already angry and active protestors--especially the ones that won't read them!
  5. is there a realistic way to change how the pres. pardon works? conspiracy: did trump decline national guard? did he instruct to decline national guard?
  6. indeed, eclipse. reactionary--i'm sure they'll come to their senses.
  7. just started watching the streams, definitely lead. i'm not at all surprised, and i'm especially worried for jan 20, but i still find myself at a loss for words. i'm sure we're all reading similar takes--will republicans continue to debate the results in poor faith? will trump face repercussions? how fierce? etc etc. all i know is, republicans need to play their cards right and i don't think that they will.
  8. im 2 months late and im sorry for that, but anyway 538 is exactly the site whose numbers i was alluding to in the first place. there's a reason why the deciding states were nc, ga, fl, az, and oh--they were more likely to go blue. if tx had gone blue, it'd likely have been a landslide victory for biden. like california going red.
  9. if biden takes texas he's got about a 0% chance of losing. this is a gut feeling that's backed up by the numbers too. tx aint gone blue since carter!
  10. when you highlight the bad and ignore the good, i'd honestly argue that's hate speech. it's also disingenuous.
  11. lmfao last night should have been the nail in the coffin, like countless times before, and instead we get people deeper into psychosis...
  12. indeed. a personal favorite of mine is his description of various plots & graphs he has folks prop up as he attempts, in vain, to explain what the plots are saying and ultimately predict.
  13. bro, you've only known her for 2 weeks. you're barely friends. ask her out
  14. as a dissenting opinion, i'd rather see these companies not get involved at all. i fucking hate when companies release commercials claiming to be on the moral side of history in order to sell a product (pepsi is the most recent egregious example, followed by gilette). fuck the nba, fuck blizzard, fuck nestle, etc. the nba has been injecting itself into china for decades, what tf yall expect them to do? the chinese people don't necessarily agree with the protests in hong kong. the reasons why are irrelevant. the point is, the nba choosing a side is bad for business, especially if that side is hong kong. you want to see businesses act morally? force them to by supporting legislation that does just that. how many of us wear shoes, for example, likely made in sweatshops? i'm not gonna point the finger at the nba when i'm part of the problem. especially when there's nothing i, or the nba, can do about china's political policy. the proper thing to do is to shut up about it--and if that doesn't work, "the views of (person) X do not reflect the views of (company) Y." that being said, if companies want to use their leverage to fight for democracy, i am indeed all for that. i just don't think it's companies, specifically, that should be blamed when they don't. it's all of us...
  15. oh please. saints fans have easily become my least favorite fanbase for the constant fucking whining. the only real bad thing for the saints that happened that night was brees getting injured. and of course, the handful of other injuries on both sides of the ball. saints got outplayed on all 3 phases. refs be damned.
  16. you're good at having correct opinions.
  17. getting into a conversation with someone you have already assumed will ignore you means you shouldn't have started talking in the first place. it's possible to be anti-immigration for myriad reasons--not just racism and xenophobia. so knowing the facts is helpful in those situations. shoblongoo makes the point that politicians are using immigrants as their scapegoat, etc etc and he's right. but i think if you read my post i'm not even making that sort of argument. what i said i think is still true, immigration is more subtle depending on how deep you'd like to go. if for whatever reason 400,000 people decided to immigrate into san diego, i don't think san diego could handle that (depending on how quickly it happens obviously, and i'm assuming in this instance that it'd be quick). i also said, in general, immigration is a net positive, so this is where shoblongoo's point comes in. in the united states, people who generally disfavor immigration are likely using them as a scapegoat or whatever. i'm aware of that bit, but more nuanced discussions can exist too. yeah, where? lol. you sound like a boomer--blissfully unaware of the exploitative nature of capitalism with a bs "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality.
  18. the problem with your argument is simply that it is all conjecture. your estimations arise from thin air if they're unsourced. what interdimensional observer is asking for, consequently, is a factual framework to argue in favor of immigration. the thing is, immigration is a nuanced subject. not all immigrants are the same and obviously not all immigration strategies are the same. for the united states, with the largest immigrant population in the world, the numbers tell us that immigration is a net positive--that's great for people like me who are pro-immigration. but, when you ask how certain immigrant populations are doing, you'll get very different stories. moreover, when you ask which cities/regions/states are actually able to support large influxes of immigrants, you'll get vastly different answers. this is why i think the best course of action is a general overview of the facts (read: average effects immigrants have on the country) and then much more research into a specific topic you might be interested in. how mexicans are doing in southern california is much different than how somalis are doing in minnesota. immigration is not always a good thing. mexico, specifically tijuana, could not actually sustain the recent migrant caravan from central america. their president, more reasonably than ours at least, wants to find a way to settle as many as possible. as nations, mexico and the united states sympathize with asylum seekers (in general, at the moment the current american administration appears wholly xenophobic), but it's simply not always feasible. what hurts these people is the lack of real problem solving because we're busy arguing about things that don't matter, like whether or not immigrants should be let in in the first place. on the topic of college, it's important to note that you might be lazy, but to me it sounds you're being extremely unfair to your peers and yourself. would you make the same arguments if you had to pay for primary school? (k-12.) if a 5th grader had to do extracurriculars to get themselves a sponsor to pay for school but didn't, are they lazy? the point i'm making is that college has rapidly become not a privilege for the elites, but a requirement for most skilled work. because it's a requirement, the onus, like primary school, like police, like firefighters, is on all of us (ie, the government) to fund education, not the individual. and, because of the expense, applying for one or two scholarships will only in rare cases be sufficient to pay for school; prospective students likely will have to apply to dozens. this is on top of school, applications for college, standardized tests, and outside stressors you aren't privy to. i reject your conclusion that your peers are lazy--instead i'd argue the state is putting too much of a burden on young people to pay for their futures.
  19. how hard do you laugh when writing this shit? lol 0) first, get to know the immigrants: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/ 1) the real "start" is a summary from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States 2) after getting a general overview, you're better off asking specific questions and consulting good sources (pew research, published articles, fbi stats, etc). sources in the wikipedia page will likely present you with excellent landing pages to start from on a whole host of topics regarding immigration.
  20. been watching the wire recently so it seems even more plausible than it prolly would have before lol
  21. this isn't necessarily true. if cars are banned in the future it'll be because there are better methods of transportation, hence we can afford to ban them. this country will ban things despite personal freedom. if you had bothered to look at any of the links i gave you, you'd be more aware of this. cars are horrible--they're horrible for the environment, they're horrible for our safety, and they're horrible for our wallets. i fully support banning cars (or heavily limiting their utility such that no one ever feels a need to drive) when it's viable. i also support subsidies that would speed up this process. you're missing my point which i'm trying to make as clear as possible but you aren't following: your opinion is meaningless. the supreme court's interpretation of a law is the law regardless of what their interpretation is and how incorrect you perceive it to be. if you'd like that to change, your only options are to support an edit to the constitution or support new laws that erase the old. or you could leave i suppose. i'd like you to look up the largest rebellions in human history (and modern human history) and then think really hard on how ridiculous your point of view on this is. as a hint, the largest march in american history is (generously) 2 million people. you're talking about mobilizing 150 million. yes. your point? unless you're suggesting to protest violently guns don't help with this. and pretty much always lose in modern times.... ...no
  22. you can cleverly ban them. what you do is ban smoking in every building, have designated smoking areas, and make a pack of cigarettes so expensive people can't afford them. it works. also, you talk as if alcohol is something that's figured out in a legal sense, but it isn't. there's a lot of strides to make in that area. it doesn't matter what kills more, what matters is how easily can we prevent future deaths. this is vague and therefore useless... sure they can--they're literally the interpreters of the law! if you've got a problem with it, for the 5th time, you are in support of an edit to the constitution. what on earth...do you actually think this is plausible? even if this were true, you don't need bp materials to make the armor. there's no reason for it. we're talking about civilians, not militaries. if the enemy is loaded and you're not, you're going to be scared regardless. still bad.
×
×
  • Create New...