Lurker > loseless

When results are this close in some states, there are bound to be recounts. If irregularities have been found, it is up for the courts to appreciate them. But Trump's going to fish for anything he can find that might keep his hopes up, regardless of validity.

Should he concede before the recounts? No. Wouldn't make sense. But should he question the validity of the elections altogether because he doesn't like the result? Of course not. Attacking the system is never a wise move, unless you're adopting a scorched earth approach and don't give a damn about your country, your party and that people that will follow. If he had any grace, he would point to the problems found in the elections and use his powers to propose solutions or alternatives to the issues found, setting the example for how to improve the system rather than burn it down.

Luckily, many in the republican party have realized they have offices to hold in the next years and that there will be more elections in the future. Those who have denounced him for his words and recommended he respected the elections are doing what any elected official should do. The world will go on the next day after he leaves the white house and the country needs to move forward, instead of being kept fighting piss contests between deranged people who believe democracy is valid only when they win.

deoxxys posted...

Lmao that because its a lot easier for women to find willing men.

Think of it the same way you would a starving person, when a human gets hungry enough, they even stoop to theft.
Sexual appetite is the same way. Thats why most sexual crimes are done by men, because its harder to feed the "hunger".

I would like to think we learned enough to be able to contain primitive urges such as that. But to say that it is merely the reflection of primal urges would be remissive. The numbers of domestic abuse, pay-gap, higher job positions, domestic labour hours, etc all demonstrate that women still get the short end of the stick and that's quite structural and transversal in all countries and cultures.

Hasn't he been doing that for weeks now? I mean, outside of declaring martial law (which I'm not even sure he can do without Congress), what else can he do? Unless you were expecting nukes? I mean, yeah, he can send those, but I expect someone would override him and stop them... and no even his bodyguards would allow him to do that... how extraordinarily insane would that be?

Inciting violence, attacking constitutional law, inflaming tensions, appealing to mob mentality... isn't it enough? I can't recall a western president or prime minister doing anything like this. Ever... Even Viktor Orban and the likes respect constitutional law and try to follow the rule of law, even while pushing it. Trump is just mad. He has no grasp of the concept of civic responsibility and what being presidential means. Never has a president poured gas into wild fires. How can such thing be considered normal by so many people?

Loved this B5 reference.

godofwar596 posted...

The double standards are so ridiculous. I agree with another poster on here that if it was a 18 year old boy kissing a 13 year old girl, hed unanimously be labeled a pedo no questions asked.

Indeed. How people perceive this difference is quite telling. But it also shows another aspect: women rarely incur in sexual assault, rape or paedophilia acts, hence why they are not perceived as being "sexual" even when there are legal arguments to be made about consent and underage relationships.

With this said, should she be arrested? Probably not. Depends on what's behind this. An innocent kiss is quite different from manipulating a pre-teen into a relationship. But that's for a judge to decide. I doubt she was grooming him intentionally. More likely got carried away with her feelings.

Regardless, she recognized the mess she made, so it's not like she's a lost cause and should be arrested. Most stories that involve a 19 year old kissing a 13 year old don't end as amicable...

I was being literal. Literally.

But I also wanted to add: it's not so much that he (or anyone else) raises taxes, but rather what people get in return. If it benefits society as a whole, taxes can be good. There would be no police, armed forces, fire departments, public transports, public education nor public healthcare facilities without taxes. Sure beats taxing people to build palaces and invade foreign countries like monarchs did in the good old days...

It will help restore my fate in the human race and (hopefully) prevent me from becoming an alcoholic. Not that Biden is that great or anything. But at least he behaves like an average human being, with all their quirks and faults as well.

And yet another one for the "Florida or an RPG?" game. Can't wait for the 2021 edition.

Far-Queue posted...

Well that'll all trickle down so that's cool

Because trickle down economics worked so well the 20+ countries intervened by IMF in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s...

Heck, considering that all the rich people in the world got even richer in the last 20 years, I wonder why the poor people got even poorer.