Societal collapse

[Higgenbotham]

Higgenbotham is waiting for the ‘welfare state’ to collapse. He sees the rural culture of depending on friends, neighbors and churches as more enduring than urban ways. That depends on population density. You can work the rural system when people are few and far between. In the cities, there are more people, more specialization, and less land. If everyone in a city polluted, you would have a very polluted city indeed. In rural areas, you have enough land to not care as much. The problem is when either culture tries to impose its solutions on the other. Population density just invites working together in a more structured and organized way. This does not imply collapse.

As other posters have similarly stated, just because you make a declaration that this does not imply collapse, doesn't make it true. As an alternative to making a declaration, you could, for example, show how blue cities with massive social safety nets are accumulating massive government surpluses in spite of those safety nets. Like Margaret Thatcher said, socialism works great until you run out of other people's money. That's what I implied when I said the giant sucking sound from Washington and New York has drained out the rural red areas. Other people's money is just about gone. Now where will the money (and food) come from? Out of the magic socialist cornucopia? As to imposing conservative solutions on blue cities, I agree it is not possible to use rural culture in a blue city because a blue city has no sustainable culture. The current culture in the blue cities is all about coming together (sort of) to make a buck or to take a buck and that's it. Once the economic party is over, it's all over.

[Bob Butler]

Please provide a cite to support your allegation as to the "Trump family".

Last I knew, Donald was part of the Trump family. From the Washington Post.

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.

Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.

The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration. Beyond that, Trump was accused of putting his mouth on Carroll’s mouth and pulling down her tights, which Kaplan noted were not treated as alleged sexual abuse at trial.

“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”

Kaplan also noted that the verdict form did not ask the jury to decide exactly what conduct Trump had committed, and that neither prosecutors nor Trump’s lawyers had requested it to do so.

“Mr. Trump’s attempt to minimize the sexual abuse finding as perhaps resting on nothing more than groping of Ms. Carroll’s breasts through her clothing is frivolous,” Kaplan wrote.

He added that the jury clearly found that Trump had “ ‘raped’ her in the sense of that term broader than the New York Penal Law definition.”

The motion was a part of Trump’s efforts to appeal the verdict against him. That’s an effort that will apparently continue as he faces a separate defamation lawsuit from Carroll, dealing with claims Trump made about her allegations while he was still president.

But for now, Trump’s effort to push back has led to a rather remarkable clarification that severely undercuts his main talking point.

[Bob Butler]

As other posters have similarly stated, just because you make a declaration that this does not imply collapse, doesn't make it true. As an alternative to making a declaration, you could, for example, show how blue cities with massive social safety nets are accumulating massive government surpluses in spite of those safety nets. Like Margaret Thatcher said, socialism works great until you run out of other people's money. That's what I implied when I said the giant sucking sound from Washington and New York has drained out the rural red areas. Other people's money is just about gone. Now where will the money (and food) come from? Out of the magic socialist cornucopia? As to imposing conservative solutions on blue cities, I agree it is not possible to use rural culture in a blue city because a blue city has no sustainable culture. The current culture in the blue cities is all about coming together (sort of) to make a buck or to take a buck and that's it. Once the economic party is over, it's all over.

The Tampa Bay Times covered a talking point I had often heard in the past. Blue states are wealthier and thus contribute more towards federal taxes. Yet, red states manage to draw off a larger portion of the money. See https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/0 ... ts-column/. This makes it hard to claim that the blue state funds are the cause of a great sucking sound.

While it is fashionable here to predict the imaginary drain will cause a collapse, it is much more real to look at global warming related events to make certain areas uninhabitable. What cities have been abandoned due to calls for tax money elsewhere? Yet insurance agencies are leaving Florida for example, leaving many unable to get coverage. I wouldn’t be shocked if Burning Man sought a different venue. I would focus on a real problem.

[Bob Butler]

Please provide a cite to support your allegation as to the "Trump family".

One cite for all of them? I'm afraid you will have to watch a reputable news source for a few days.

Deflection

OK. Somebody insisted. Velushi on MSNBC advertises a podcast where he reads all four criminal indictments of Trump himself. I was unable to find a link, but the indictments exist. The Trump charity and Trump University were dissolved. The Trump business was found guilty of tax fraud and filing false tax reform. Trump was found guilty of rape and defamation. Will that do? Again, Biden is far too boring to compete.

You should really visit a reputable news source on occasion. The above is fact and common knowledge to the other side. That you require to be told about it forms an opinion on the ignorance of conservative thinkers. They are content to be told what they want to hear. They live on an imaginary Earth Two.

Recent press has been given to Trump raising in court the concept of willful ignorance. If you don’t like a fact, you choose not to believe or pretend not to believe the fact. Murdock raised a similar point in the Dominion v Fox lawsuit. As his market share dipped when announcing the Biden victory, he resolved not to report on anything the red population did not want to hear. This is leading me to believe that Trump is not the only person remaining willfully ignorant. If someone is actively trying to deny the truth, how can I expect to be listened to?

[jdcpapa]

The immediate question is whether the attorney generals and the Supreme Court push the 14th.

A federal judge in South Florida dismissed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump's eligibility to be president in Florida under the 14th Amendment.The plaintiffs do not plan to appeal. Trump is facing similar 14th Amendment challenges in other states, including one in New Hampshire this week that is not expected to succeed.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/trump ... d/1132976/

From what I'm able to gather, the judge decided a voter did not have adequate individual standing. You have to be personally involved in some damage to have standing, and each voter doesn't count. Perhaps a candidate or attorney general responsible for putting names on ballots does have standing.

"For a secretary of state to remove a candidate would only reinforce the grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt. Denying voters the opportunity to choose is fundamentally un-American," Raffensperger wrote.

"Since our founding, Americans have believed that a government is just when it has earned the consent of the governed. Taking away the ability to choose — or object to — the eligibility of candidates eliminates that consent for slightly less than half of the country

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/raffe ... d/1133607/

[Higgenbotham]

As other posters have similarly stated, just because you make a declaration that this does not imply collapse, doesn't make it true. As an alternative to making a declaration, you could, for example, show how blue cities with massive social safety nets are accumulating massive government surpluses in spite of those safety nets. Like Margaret Thatcher said, socialism works great until you run out of other people's money. That's what I implied when I said the giant sucking sound from Washington and New York has drained out the rural red areas. Other people's money is just about gone. Now where will the money (and food) come from? Out of the magic socialist cornucopia? As to imposing conservative solutions on blue cities, I agree it is not possible to use rural culture in a blue city because a blue city has no sustainable culture. The current culture in the blue cities is all about coming together (sort of) to make a buck or to take a buck and that's it. Once the economic party is over, it's all over.

The Tampa Bay Times covered a talking point I had often heard in the past. Blue states are wealthier and thus contribute more towards federal taxes. Yet, red states manage to draw off a larger portion of the money. See https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/0 ... ts-column/. This makes it hard to claim that the blue state funds are the cause of a great sucking sound.

While it is fashionable here to predict the imaginary drain will cause a collapse, it is much more real to look at global warming related events to make certain areas uninhabitable. What cities have been abandoned due to calls for tax money elsewhere? Yet insurance agencies are leaving Florida for example, leaving many unable to get coverage. I wouldn’t be shocked if Burning Man sought a different venue. I would focus on the real problem.

What the article really points out is that per capita incomes are lower in the red states than they are in the blue states. The article then goes on to say that when per capita incomes are lower, less federal tax is paid. The real question is why per capita incomes are lower. Mostly, it's because pork projects are preferentially directed into blue states because, admittedly, they have the human capital and infrastructure to better handle them. Also, for the reason I stated earlier, that manufacturing was purposely gutted by the Democrats to reduce the power and influence of the red states (which I did not go so far as to say all of that previously). It's not just the social safety nets that are pork. I previously made the distinction between welfare cases and high class welfare cases. You said you worked for the government programming missiles, so you are a high class welfare case and your job was preferentially located in a blue state. When socialism runs out of other people's money, that job and your pension will go away, as well as the federal tax receipts that flow out of that magic socialist cornucopia. I realize it is difficult to get you to understand that because your salary depends on you not being able to understand that, but that is what is going to happen. Now please smile smugly as to verify that and I will smile smugly back at you.

[jdcpapa]

Please provide a cite to support your allegation as to the "Trump family".

Last I knew, Donald was part of the Trump family. From the Washington Post.

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.

Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.

The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration. Beyond that, Trump was accused of putting his mouth on Carroll’s mouth and pulling down her tights, which Kaplan noted were not treated as alleged sexual abuse at trial.

“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”

Kaplan also noted that the verdict form did not ask the jury to decide exactly what conduct Trump had committed, and that neither prosecutors nor Trump’s lawyers had requested it to do so.

“Mr. Trump’s attempt to minimize the sexual abuse finding as perhaps resting on nothing more than groping of Ms. Carroll’s breasts through her clothing is frivolous,” Kaplan wrote.

He added that the jury clearly found that Trump had “ ‘raped’ her in the sense of that term broader than the New York Penal Law definition.”

The motion was a part of Trump’s efforts to appeal the verdict against him. That’s an effort that will apparently continue as he faces a separate defamation lawsuit from Carroll, dealing with claims Trump made about her allegations while he was still president.

But for now, Trump’s effort to push back has led to a rather remarkable clarification that severely undercuts his main talking point.

Using your logic, if as you allege, "the Trump family is into rape" because of Donald's issue, are you therefore suggesting that the Biden family is into drugs because of Hunter's issue?

[Bob Butler]

A federal judge in South Florida dismissed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump's eligibility to be president in Florida under the 14th Amendment.The plaintiffs do not plan to appeal. Trump is facing similar 14th Amendment challenges in other states, including one in New Hampshire this week that is not expected to succeed.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/trump ... d/1132976/

From what I'm able to gather, the judge decided a voter did not have adequate individual standing. You have to be personally involved in some damage to have standing, and each voter doesn't count. Perhaps a candidate or attorney general responsible for putting names on ballots does have standing.

"For a secretary of state to remove a candidate would only reinforce the grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt. Denying voters the opportunity to choose is fundamentally un-American," Raffensperger wrote.

"Since our founding, Americans have believed that a government is just when it has earned the consent of the governed. Taking away the ability to choose — or object to — the eligibility of candidates eliminates that consent for slightly less than half of the country

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/raffe ... d/1133607/

I sympathize with the theory, but in practice giving voters standing could allow lawsuits by the voters any time they disagree with an elected official. I think the ruling was self defense to prevent the courts from being overwhelmed. At any rate, attorney generals or contesting candidates should be able to get standing. I understand a Colorado advocacy group launched a 14th Amendment lawsuit, but as I understand it they will not get standing.

[Bob Butler]

Using your logic, if as you allege, "the Trump family is into rape" because of Donald's issue, are you therefore suggesting that the Biden family is into drugs because of Hunter's issue?

That is more conservative logic.

[Bob Butler]

What the article really points out is that per capita incomes are lower in the red states than they are in the blue states. The article then goes on to say that when per capita incomes are lower, less federal tax is paid. The real question is why per capita incomes are lower. Mostly, it's because pork projects are preferentially directed into blue states because, admittedly, they have the human capital and infrastructure to better handle them. Also, for the reason I stated earlier, that manufacturing was purposely gutted by the Democrats to reduce the power and influence of the red states (which I did not go so far as to say all of that previously). It's not just the social safety nets that are pork. I previously made the distinction between welfare cases and high class welfare cases. You said you worked for the government programming missiles, so you are a high class welfare case and your job was preferentially located in a blue state. When socialism runs out of other people's money, that job and your pension will go away, as well as the federal tax receipts that flow out of that magic socialist cornucopia. I realize it is difficult to get you to understand that because your salary depends on you not being able to understand that, but that is what is going to happen. Now please smile smugly as to verify that and I will smile smugly back at you.

In fact, manufacturing jobs go to cities as that is where the workers, infrastructure and educational institutions exist. We have institutions like MIT and Harvard, so the businesses their graduates start stay close. Manufacturing jobs just flow to high population density areas. I don't doubt that legislators try to get jobs in their district. I remember one meeting where it was presented that we all had to contribute to a certain candidate in order to get a contract. But this is more one blue legislator against another.