Dude, I suggested the earth was shaped like a velociraptor.

No, I didn’t miss the joke

Edit: Did YOU miss MY incredibly obvious joke? xD

Oh fucking christ, a flat-earther. You people are even worse than the fucking round-earther scum on this platform.

I swear you people will never accept a velociraptor-shaped earth, prolly cuz your brains just aren’t big enough to process the geometry.

Edit: I really hoped the /s would not be necessary…

Are they? A little odd for a neo-Nazi…

Could you explain this to me? Not trying to defend Shapiro or anything, and not saying a person of Jewish descent can’t be a Neo-Nazi, but from what I know of Shapiro he seems pretty devoutly Jewish, so I don’t really get labelling him as a Neo-Nazi.

Ah, a comrade of the fellowship. I, too, am a person with many people of color.

The only question I’d have is whether the salary that was agreed upon for the prosecutor was established before the relationship, if she even had any say in it at all. Otherwise it might be fair to argue she unfairly bumped his pay, meaning some taxpayer money unfairly went to his pocket.

Not that I really care all that much. Even if the relationship started before she says it did, and even if some of his $650,000 payment was unjustly given (not that I believe all of that)…aren’t we having a trial about obstruction of the democratic process here?

It’s more that this whole thing is ridiculous, given the stakes of the trial, than it being actually upsetting.

I think that’s all very reasonable and well-put. That said, I wanna give a little push-back, mainly bc superdelegates.

Sanders lost overwhelmingly on superdelegates, and the difference in number of delegates awarded to each candidate would have been less than half as big if superdelegates weren’t considered (IMO superdelegates were and are stupid).

Also, I recall that for most of the primary, Sanders was usually leading in pledged delegates, but was always behind on total number of delegates due to superdelegates.

I think Hillary got a large upswing of normal voters by the end of the primary bc she was in the lead, voters saw the writing on the wall, and they wanted to make her victory decisive. But I think voting for Bernie would’ve been more palatable if he was the one who constantly looked to be in the lead.

Of course, that’s just speculation. And given that Sanders only got 43.2% of the popular vote (though tbf that doesn’t include lowa/Maine/Nevada/North Dakota/Washington/Wyoming [source] )…yeah, it’s reasonable to say we needed more change than just the DNC stepping back.

I think you’re really misinterpreting OP’s argument. When he says the Democratic Party chose Bernie, I don’t think he’s saying “democrats as a whole” chose Bernie, but that the higher-ups in charge of the DNC chose Bernie, and that he lost the primary largely because of that minority.

That’s fair. I don’t think he was 100% joking either, I just don’t think he was absolutely convinced of the lab leak theory.

The way I see it: either it was a) just a bit, or b) a bit that was fueled by his frustration that the lab leak theory hasn’t been outright disproven (though I think him saying it’s “more than likely” would still be irresponsible), or c) him being serious and trying to make a joke out of it, or d) none of the above.

I think c) is totally worthy of criticism. Just not as much so under a) or b).

I’m still interested in a source of that not being the only time he defended the lab leak theory.

Source on him talking about this throughout the pandemic? Only thing I’m aware of is him going on Colbert’s show post-lockdown.

On that occasion, to some extent, I’m pretty sure he was just joking, given that he gives his entire speech in a comedic tone and doesn’t fight Colbert back on mostly anything he replies with.

Your*

And it’s based more on timing than anything. Like I said, the feds didn’t move to indict trump until after he obstructed an investigation, after he was subpoena’d, after months of non-cooperation with the national archives.

But all of this happened BEFORE Biden’s documents were discovered. So it sets a precedent.

It’s a really shitty precedent, sure. And it’s obvious that these are rules for thee and not for me (a normal federal employee who did as much as trump or even just biden might be in prison by now). But if Trump is gonna be allowed so much leniency for going so far, then Biden should be given at least as much leniency for doing way less.

When the bar is at a reasonable height, sure.

But when the other guy did worse with more documents AND didn’t cooperate, and HE didn’t get charged until after he was caught obstructing the investigation, well then the bar’s in hell.

Saying it was about taxes leaves it open to “unfair taxes without representation”.

Yeah? Well I’d argue that saying “slavery” leaves it open for “the strengthening the federal government in support of slavery.”

So yeah, I’ll take down votes in exchange for details. That shit often matters in history

I’m gonna presume to know something about the majority of internet strangers who’ve downvoted you: they didn’t downvote your details. They downvoted your assertion that the details challenge the idea that it was about slavery. It seems to us like you’re being overly pedantic.

You’re not a martyr for truth, you’re a martyr for your personal opinion on the answer to the question “assuming the Civil War was principally about strengthening the federal government in support of slavery: is saying that the Civil War was about slavery a reasonable summation?”

If instead of saying “it wasn’t about slavery bc …” you’d just said “for some added nuance, …”, then most of your downvotes would be from ppl challenging your information.

As for that information, do you have any arguments against what GoodbyeBlueMonday or banneryear1868 have said? They are, so far, the only ppl to cite actual sources, and it apprears neither of them agree with your assertion that it wasn’t “about slavery”. And reading/listening to their sources doesn’t convince me of that, either.

It sounds like your argument is “if it’s okay to be reductionist, then there are no limits.” But there can totally be limits - it depends on the size of the leap.

All of your posts can be boiled down to “it was about strengthening the federal government, specifically in support of slavery”, but reducing this further to “it was about slavery” isn’t a big leap. That’s what the downvotes are all telling you.

Saying the American Revolution was about

England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling

And boiling that down to “it was about tea” is a WAY bigger leap than the one about the Civil War.

A similarly sized leap would probably be saying “it was about taxes.” Personally, I wouldn’t care enough to “um, actually” someone who’d make that kind of leap.

Don’t take this person’s criticisms too hard. They posted a lot of strongly opinionated comments on this thread.

For whatever reason they’re being antagonistic mostly to people on this thread like you who clearly do care, at least enough to not do literally nothing. Not sure if that’s some sort of strategy, or bad social skills , or potentially just trolling.

I think what you’re doing is fine - it’s something I’ve done a couple times.

I think it just comes down to whether you appreciate more sunlight before school/work, or after.

I don’t really care how much sun there is before 8:30-ish. In fact, I hate when I try to get 1 more hour of sleep and I can’t b/c early dawn’s leaking in, so I actually prefer a later sunrise.

But when I leave work, I freaking LOVE bathing in sunlight for as long as I can, thinking “my biggest responsibilities of the day are done, and the day’s not even over yet”.

Where I’m from, standard time in winter means 6ish is pitch black - I prefer to at least have late dusk by that time.