“Thought Experiment”
– Anita Cushion.
For some reason the phrase “thought experiment” makes me want to beat the shit out of the person who said it.
A thought experiment is a valid philosophical process though, it’s supposed to be theoretical and for the sake of the argument.
And here, it’s clearly not a thought experiment, because they’ll definitely go though if they can, he’s just being a racist shitbag using big words to appear smart to his electorate.It’s like this shit manager I used to work under.
who once ambushed me coming into work with “we need to change the schedule” (to some whacky schedule because he didn’t want to hire more people.). he gave me all the five minutes he took to explain the schedule which and then promptly told me that if I had a problem with it, I would be removed from the account that this was coming from “the client” (contract security. For reference the security desk was five feet from the property manager… who, uh, was at her desk looking like she wanted to call his shit on things.)
told him I needed time to thing about it- which he insisted he needed to know ‘immediately’. so I told him I had to go get my normal stuff rolling and called his boss on the way over informing him I’d need to find a new account.
“what are you talking about?”
“Shtibag manager just pitched this whacky ass schedule that I can’t work. said if I didn’t like it I would be terminated. So I’m asking for a new account effective immediately.”
You’d be surprised how quickly that manager changed his tune to “Bro I was just floating the IDEA!” The thing was, this manager was a lying sack of shit and everyone under him was recording their conversations with him. Because he’s been pulling this shit with everyone.
this guy was the kind of manager who measured a manager’s worth by their ability to fuck over their underlings. he was also a racist, sexist shit
That girl was simultaneously of age and underage. It’s everyone else’s fault for observing her.
It’s almost “just asking questions”
“Hypothetically, if I wasn’t a flaming douchenozzle, would you buy me a beer?”
pretty sure that’s not so much what he said, so much as his face.
he has a very punchable face. So soft and unlikely to break your fist.
For some reason, that would be the second-easiest beating to unsee, after nazi.
Once they realize that “having kids” does not mean you’re white, and, in fact, correlates with being black or brown, he’ll stop having his “thought experiment.”
White people are having less kids than any other racial demographic in the United States.
Me-Well I have three sons so me and wife get 3 extra votes to vote for Harris making it a total of 5 in my house hold?
JD Vance (couch fucker)- Not like that.
This guy fucking dumber than bag of nails.
Don’t worry. I’m sure phase two will involve the Originalist SCOTUS ruling that only literal landowners actually get a vote so all those people of color who rent in urban areas won’t get to vote no matter how many kids they have.
And then phase three: you get three extra votes for every five slaves you own.
Was that phase three? I thought phase three was when they rule that employers get the votes of any employees who don’t own their own homes.
That’s a big part of it though. While yes there are benefits to oligarchs forxing births on the poor, many of these force brithers are white supremacists afraid of great replacement. They want white women to be forced to make more white babies, want parents to be able to give away child brides (this allows them to control who the white women marry), and people who are into their stuff like quiverfulls to have more rights.
Remember there was a hint of trying to tear down the decision that protected interracial marriage as well, which also aims for more controlled births.
people who are into their stuff like quiverfulls to have more rights.
And by all accounts, these are the white demographic having the most kids, even if white birth rates are lower, swinging the “white vote” by a great margin. Not to mention all of those arian eugenics tech bros…
Doubtful. Non-white children already make up a dominant majority of children in the United States (~60%), and that trend is increasing.
I’m not convinced that the people having 8 kids are demonstrating the intelligence deserving of 8 extra votes.
Yeah, maybe instead he should be arguing for people without kids to have fewer votes. Maybe, just picking a number at random here, like they should get 3/5 of a vote.
/s
The funny part is that when people jokingly suggest certain people should get 3/5 of a vote, they’re overlooking an important detail that makes it even worse: slaves never got 3/5 of a vote; their owners got the extra votes.
Maybe each kid should only be worth 3/5ths a vote with all these child labor laws going out the window.
That thought experiment unleashes multiple cans of worms.
(Warning: “Quoted” bits are imaginary strawmen but I believe you will find Republicans holding these positions.)
“Life begins at conception”
Do pregnant women cast more votes? Is there going to be a pregnancy test at voting stations? Or ultrasound to check for twins?
“Parents have a bigger reason to care about future, as their kids will live in it.”
— Kids aren’t copies of their parents… why not decrease the voting age instead?
“No, older people know better”
If you will be 18 during any elected official term you should be able to vote for them. This allows some kids to vote as young as 12 for senators and get to vote at 14 for president’s and congress people. Then at the worst thing 18 year old seniors can vote for school admin elections
This makes sense if you start with the axiom that the state exists to serve those who are 18 and over. But it doesn’t. It serves everyone. The age threshold is to ensure you have enough life experience to understand the impact of your vote.
And by that logic, old people shouldn’t get to vote anymore since “they’re not as invested in the future” either. See what happens to the GOP vote when klanma can no longer vote.
The thing that chafes me more than these things is the fact that this automatically makes the votes of young people who should, by all accounts, not yet have kids, worth less than older people or people who who have kids at young age (and are probably in a worse position to take care of said kids), further disenfranchising young people from voting.
Yikes. Scary stuff.
And weird as hell
Yes, deporting one million hardcore Trumpists sounds like a good start.
Russia could use them. Let them live their glorious conservative homeland with direct flights from the Deep South.
ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for ABC News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Removed by mod
A) we’re talking about the federal government creating camps and sticking millions of people in them. I want that to be very clear. That is a necessary prerequisite to move around millions of people. Remind you of any other period of time in history? Say… 1930s?
B) these are people that contribute positively to the economy. They
a) pay taxes without pulling from the system b) work jobs that Americans don’t want to do, leading to lower costs for businesses (and by extension, the consumers) c) stimulate local demand for goods and services by buying stuff from stores, going to restaurants, etc
C) these are people intertwined with the country. Many illegals have been here for years, majority of which have never committed any crime. The only reason their documents haven’t been normalized is because it’s impossible. The current US immigration system is broken and simply does not allow for the quantity and type of immigration that the economy needs. So the black market fills the void.
My opinion: we should take a page from Reagan and give the millions of illegals amnesty. At least the ones that haven’t committed crimes & have paid their taxes.
Then fix the broken immigration system by making it easier for people to come here legally.
We could get rid of illegals in a few months. The people in power don’t want that. Illegals are too useful as scapegoats for imaginary problems, and they are also too useful as cheap labor.
They will not actually get rid of illegals because labor price would shoot up which would lead to a massive inflation shock. We’re literally just repeating the 1930s. Economy goes to shit, people aren’t happy, what do you do?
Find a scapegoat. The problem is Republicans are playing with fire. They think they can control the flames they are fanning but it can pass a point of no return very quickly. I think it already has. Evidence being that even the Democrats are becoming anti-immigrant
A) No, I’m talking about deporting them and not imprisoning them. Bussing them back to their country of origin. No camp involved.
B) Yes, I’m quite aware that having a second class of workers that you can pay less and abuse is important to our economy, but it really shouldn’t be. And unless they are stealing SSNs, they are not paying income tax.
C) By definition, illegal immigrants have committed at least one crime.
We should secure the border and deport every single one of them. That’s how a functional country operates. You can’t have a country if you don’t defend your borders.
A) like I said it’s a prerequisite to move around millions of people. You need to first collect all of them, put them in camps. And then you would need something like 10% of all airline capacity working round the clock 24/7 for a year in order to move everyone out.
We would need camps. Deporting everyone would mean camps. Like I said- be very clear of what you’re suggesting.
B) us gov gives ITIN for people to pay taxes and illegals do. Hard to find a job when most places require i9 and participate in e-verify.
It’s easy to start a company, get an ITIN, and work as a subcontractor though. Believe me, vast swathes of our construction industry work in this manner.
C) it is not a criminal act, like getting a speeding ticket is not a criminal act. These people commit dramatically less crime than native-born Americans.
We should secure the border and deport every single one of them. That’s how a functional country operates. You can’t have a country if you don’t defend your borders.
That actually isn’t how the US functioned for most of its history. The “illegals” today would have been regular immigrants for the majority of this country’s history.
A functional country operates on what is best for the country. Normalizing their status and improving the immigration system is what would actually be done if our country was “functional”
Instead of spending all that money on resources to deport people, why not spend that same money on speeding up the immigration process?
