THIS DEBATE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO MEAN SOMETHING (Page 5/22)
NewDustin SEP 05, 11:21 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Are some of a gender or race, not able to be considered for an opportunity, equal to those of those who were considered ? Opportunities are made, not given.


This sounds like disagreement with the first premise I listed:
"P1. There is a difference in opportunities available, not just outcomes, for some groups"

Do you believe that everyone in the US has the exact same level of opportunity, and that no group suffers from any kind of lack of opportunities available to other groups? If so, what do you think accounts for the socio-economic differences amongst groups particular to our country?


quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Ya' know, DEI is just the same as affirmative action that SCOTUS struck down.


SCOTUS did not strike down "affirmative action." They struck down the implementation of race-quota-based affirmative action in schools. I don't disagree with that. I also never said I agree with any particular implementation of Affirmative Action or DEI policies; I just described the rationale behind them. The SCOTUS decision even leaves room for DEI policies as long as they are not directly treating applicants differently based on race. I don't necessarily disagree with that: I think affirmative action quotas treat a symptom instead of the problem, and realistic equity policies need to address the underlying causes.

[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-05-2024).]

cliffw SEP 05, 04:52 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Because it was never authorized by Fox News.



Dayum ! You should quit parading your stupid thoughts when you have them. Did Fox News deny it ? What network would not want to host a Presidential Debate, .

It was an offer by Trump.


quote
Originally posted by BingB:
But the important point was that he tried to cancel the debate on ABC. He was trying to get out of it. He was doing exactly what 82TA was accusing Harris of doing.



Leftoids should quit parading their stupid thoughts when they have them ! Bloodbath, dictator, backing out of a debate. The list is long.

Guess what BingBat. Russia Russia Russia is BACK.
olejoedad SEP 05, 04:58 PM
Is it true that Vlad is really hoping Harris wins the election?
Why would he want Harris instead of Trump in the Oval Office?
What reason could there possibly be for him to be thinking that?
Is it even true?
cliffw SEP 05, 05:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
This sounds like disagreement with the first premise I listed:
"P1. There is a difference in opportunities available, not just outcomes, for some groups"

Do you believe that everyone in the US has the exact same level of opportunity, and that no group suffers from any kind of lack of opportunities available to other groups? If so, what do you think accounts for the socio-economic differences amongst groups particular to our country?



I do think that everyone in the US has the exact same level of opportunity. I think that desire accounts for the socio-economic differences.


quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
I think affirmative action quotas treat a symptom instead of the problem, and realistic equity policies need to address the underlying causes.



Equity policies ? Pray do tell. Equity is something made, not given.

Anybody can moan and moan, complaining life is not fair 'cause his family being rich helped him. Are you gong to give all of your life gains to everybody in the world instead of you family ? People need to get over envy.

Describe a realistic equity policy.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-05-2024).]

NewDustin SEP 05, 05:46 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

Is it true that Vlad is really hoping Harris wins the election?
Why would he want Harris instead of Trump in the Oval Office?
What reason could there possibly be for him to be thinking that?
Is it even true?


You spelled "Jill Stein" wrong.
NewDustin SEP 05, 06:29 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
I do think that everyone in the US has the exact same level of opportunity. I think that desire accounts for the socio-economic differences.


What about for minors whose desires cannot control their environments? Would you consider whether they have access to food, housing, medical care, and education components of opportunity?


quote

Equity policies ? Pray do tell. Equity is something made, not given.
Anybody can moan and moan, complaining life is not fair 'cause his family being rich helped him. Are you gong to give all of your life gains to everybody in the world instead of you family ? People need to get over envy.
Describe a realistic equity policy.


I don't really disagree with any of that, and I don't think it needs to come from a place of envy. I do, however, know that some segments of society do not have the same access to food, housing, medical care, or education. I don't disagree with efforts to address those things. Access to free/optional breakfast/lunch programs at schools is one example of a realistic equity policy -we can solve food insecurity for students during the week. Access to quality education is another -one there are multiple fiscally conservative solutions to, btw. So for that, how about a charter system similar to what Todd advocates for? How would that not be an equity program?
cliffw SEP 06, 03:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Can you explain to me why the Democrats seem to absolutely resist debates as much as possible, and why they resist one-on-one "unscripted" interviews?

Please answer my question...



Well Todd, you knew your question would not be answered by a leftoid.

Walz was blasted after dodging the question about the Hamas American murder. His response to the question was "thanks everybody".
82-T/A [At Work] SEP 06, 06:48 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Obviously you are unaware that the Trump administration's unfunded tax cuts cause deficit spending to DOUBLE over the Obama administration even BEFORE covid. All Trump did was run up the deficit to buy votes.





You've been corrected on this multiple times... I mean multiple, MULTIPLE times, and you are intentionally spreading misinformation.

The Trump Tax cuts resulted in a windfall, producing significantly more tax revenue than the year previously... and continued to do so in the subsequent years.


The PROBLEM was that Trump is guilty of passing the exorbitant spending bills, essentially from Democrats. It wasn't a tax problem, it was a spending problem.

Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs Under Trump Tax Cuts
https://www.investors.com/p...l-revenues-deficits/
ray b SEP 06, 08:46 PM
10/16/2018 ALMOST 6 YEARS OLD DATA

AND NOT A FULL YEAR IN MID OCT
AND WHY ONLY ONE YEAR

AKA CHERRY PICK
NewDustin SEP 07, 12:29 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
You've been corrected on this multiple times... I mean multiple, MULTIPLE times, and you are intentionally spreading misinformation.

The Trump Tax cuts resulted in a windfall, producing significantly more tax revenue than the year previously... and continued to do so in the subsequent years.


The PROBLEM was that Trump is guilty of passing the exorbitant spending bills, essentially from Democrats. It wasn't a tax problem, it was a spending problem.

Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs Under Trump Tax Cuts
https://www.investors.com/p...l-revenues-deficits/


Revenues are going to hit all time highs nearly every year...that's how inflation works. To give you some perspective, all time revenue records were set in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022. If that statistic isn't completely meaningless it's the next thing to it.

Attributing any kind of revenue growth to the tax cuts is directly against the findings of the CBO and the CRS. There is strong evidence that the long-term benefits have been/will continue to be modest, and the cuts themselves will add considerably to the deficit.

What information have you been using to correct him?