Why Isn't Clarence Thomas Facing Impeachment Hearings?
Politics@kbin.social – 1 points – 
theroot.com
The disgraceful Supreme Court justice should be held accountable for his actions but probably won't.
You are viewing a single comment
Politics@kbin.social – 1 points –
Have you made any points that are actually debatable or are you just shit posting and crying about the community (and reality) leaning left?
We can discuss points if you want, I mean any time I post any in here it’s just downvoted in the hundreds though
So I don’t really think this is the place for any real discussion. Just another echo chamber probably full of bots
"People disagree with me so they obviously must be bots." 🙄
You don’t at all question how unlikely it is that a community named ‘politics’ can have such a homogenous point of view as this one without some kind of bullshit being involved?
Every post is from a liberal-positive perspective, every comment even slightly right is downvoted to oblivion and shouted down immediately. This isn’t natural.
By the amount of downvotes my posts here receive, it would basically need to be that every single person online decided to downvote my comment.
You think that’s just natural? You think it’s because you’re sooooooooo right and I’m sooooooo wrong?
Gotta think about it a little bit more, I think
You think it’s odd that the overwhelming majority of folks support things that help others? Doesn’t say much about the community but definitely says a lot about you.
A little presumptive there, when you realize that everyone pretty much wants to helps others and the disagreements come in about what the right way to do that is.
Do you think conservatives are hatful little Devil’s just trying to hurt people? That’s what too much Twitter will do to you
I think you’re projecting a bit here, I don’t use Twitter. I live in a place where republicans are actively stripping social safety nets and rights. I get to see it first hand while reading comments about how it’s not happening and that it’s just Twitter drama 🤔
I mean, when one side says "these things that help people are failures because they don't help enough people" and the other side says "but they're helping people", that's not about the right way.
At no point have you offered an alternative, you're simply saying "the other side is wrong" while using specious arguments to back it up.
Calling objectively successful policies failures is either extremely ignorant or actively trying to hurt people.
The implication is that these things are actively hurting people by keeping them in poverty and creating new poverty situations.
I guess it also really depends on what you define ‘helping’ as. If all you’re looking for is to collect a small cheque and that’s ‘helping’, I guess these programs look great to you.
But for someone like me, who thinks helping people become self sufficient and get off of programs like welfare, the numbers don’t look like that’s what’s happening at all.
Someone collecting welfare is in a poverty state already, and most people who collect welfare do not actually have a great chance to ever get off of welfare.
So instead of helping people, it ends up doing the ex’s T opposite. Keeping people perpetually dependent on social welfare programs.
I don’t see that as helping.
https://fee.org/articles/the-welfare-trap-labyrinth-of-programs-punishes-work/
This has been proven not to actually help. You know what has? Giving cash to people. Just straight up giving them money. It's too bad conservatives refuse to believe that and insist on means testing everything and reducing benefits wherever possible.
There's another fun thing. One half of the people in this conversation actually listen to experts. The other half considers all experts suspect and presumes they're all politically motivated (to make them look bad, no doubt.)
And I like how you shared an article talking about how people in poverty have the highest marginal tax rate. Considering conservatives are constantly cutting tax rates, that's a delightful irony in your argument. Maybe if we quit giving ten times as much money to rich people and started using that money to support poor people, we could help them better.
Taxes are certainly an issue, but just giving people money is not the answer to poverty.
It is the perpetual poverty machine keeping people impoverished
There's a lot of evidence that the solution to "people not having enough money to live" is, in fact, "giving people enough money to live".
AKA Capitalism, sure. With how much you whine about leftists, I'd assume you were all for that. A pretty major plank of conservative platforms is "hurt people more efficiently".
That’s just absolutely wrong.
It’s like I said, we both want to help people, we just disagree about what’s actually helpful.
You know that lottery winners are more likely to go broke too, right? Did you ever wonder why that might be?
I’ll give you a hint, giving people money doesn’t solve anyone’s inability to manage money. You can throw hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands at people and if they don’t know how to manage their wealth, they’ll just be back asking for more money.
That’s the perpetuality of it, it’s documented and really unarguable.
People on welfare get trapped by welfare. It’s just the reality of the programs. They aren’t effective at doing what you want them to do.
You’re actually hurting more people but thinking that you’re helping. It doesn’t make you a bad person, you’re just misguided and lied to
The fact that you believe lottery winners are more likely to go broke makes me think you don’t care much for reality at all, and put a lot more trust and energy into what makes you feel good and correct.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/07/mega-millions-jackpot-winner-numbers-myths-about-lotteries.html
And I’ll just add this here to shed some light on your other bootstrappy bs: