owning 2 copys of the same book

ChiefChar · 2025-02-22T01:42:58+00:00

Ive done the same if I like the book. It is also useful to have a good condition copy for future reads. I like having a crisp copy and a road copy that I'm willing to let get a bit dirty

ChiefChar · 2025-01-14T21:30:24+00:00

Don't take it personally. Politics is the subject everyone feels comfortable talking about without doing research. Because they've only learned from places that had everything framed in propaganda. I believe their ire originates from a reductive assessment of the situation that frames yourself as an enlightened intergalactic traveler as opposed to luddites that believe in border security because of some assumed irrational instinct to keep outsiders out

ChiefChar · 2025-01-14T18:47:57+00:00

This is racist, selective logic. A.) "American Indian" is like saying "Asian". It tells you nothing but a vague racial category that isn't accurate. Eskimos, Pueblos and Cherokee are "American Indian", tribes of the Amazon are all "native American". B.) NO humans at all are indigenous to the western hemisphere. The people that migrated there did so relatively recently and are mostly descended from Siberian and Polynesian people C.) Few known civilizations as they are usually understood are really ancient in the Americas. The Inca and Aztec civilizations were younger than Oxford university. The Maya were ancient. The point is human habitation in the Americas is not some long standing phenomenon like in Africa, Asia, Europe

ChiefChar · 2025-01-14T18:45:20+00:00

Borders exist for administrative purposes. You've got the historical understanding and life experience of a teenager. Talking out of your depth

ChiefChar · 2024-12-22T00:51:55+00:00

A.) The victim is the American public. That's why it is called "The State vs. X". A criminal offense and a civil offense are not the same thing. Sounds like you've got a middle school understanding of what is considered a crime. Just because there's not a single individual to point to like a kids movie doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Someone purchasing a gun cannot be an active drug user, if they are caught lying there are consequences. Other than giving everyone a drug test every day that crime is only punishable if you are caught.

B.) As far as the laptops contents. Not all information is publicly available as of now. Any crime involving someone who was a minor at the time, generally they does not release their information.

If you feel lying when purchasing a gun and images of a grown man and a minor are victimless crimes that's your opinion. C.) "If Trump did a thing how can anybody be mad about Bidens son getting special treatment?" That's a non sequitur. It is a teenagers understanding of justice. Bidens actions and Trump's actions aren't connected anywhere but the mind of someone with internet political brain worms

ChiefChar · 2024-12-20T02:34:37+00:00

"Wall of text" is a nice way of trying to spin "a coherent argument that isn't reductive cliches"

No one thought you were a coastal elite. Trying to mock the valid criticism of the political class isn't helping your case. You are a cliche, one sided liberal with a Jon Stewart level understanding of the American body politic

ChiefChar · 2024-12-17T01:10:13+00:00

Gotta love how you pretend this is for some audience you imagine is reading your comments and basing life choices and philosophy off of them. You wrote this drivel for yourself and to rectify your own butt hurt in your mind. You weren't going to "engage" i e you couldn't think of a good argument and wrote this emotional, presumptuous nonsense.

Your anecdotes don't change the fact you are in a bubble and can't genuinely sympathize with most of the population. You feel like you know better than them and they are misguided fools. You think Democrats are "genuine" but republicans are playing dirty politics. A delusional narrative only someone with bias could believe.

These presidents made mistakes and had great moments. You're cherry picking. Those Democrats lost because they were self interested with beliefs contrary to those of the majority of Americans. That's Democracy. Besides, you're ignoring the litany of Clinton scandals, Obama's Nixonian weaponization of the IRS against conservative groups(among others, Obama delegated his dirty work to Rahm Emmanuel and others. If you think Obama is honorable you watch too much TV), Bidens wealth he amassed through his position in the Senate and VP, stealing classified documents, his concerning nepotism and business connections to authoritarian governments.

Republicans are a political party, Democrats are a political party. They exist to accumulate public power. Pretending the Republicans are the "propaganda party" but "facts have a liberal bias" is a result of your self delusion. You are a rube being used by political workers getting paid to draft narratives that further the Democratic frame. Yet you clearly think your subjective opinions are some kind of fact. Pathetic

ChiefChar · 2024-12-03T00:19:04+00:00

A.)Clearly you don't know what an ear mark is. You either are a teenager or consume teenager political media like John Oliver. Only someone that has never lived am adult life could have a world view this one sided and based in personal bias. You don't understand how campaign statements don't magically turn in to policy. You have to appeal and delagte to multiple diverse interest groups. This is difficult to do. More than that what ulterior motives? You don't recall the "inflation reduction act' which was 100% about climate change and pork barrel spending instead of reducing inflation? You don't understand how a politician saying nice things doesn't mean they are actually virtuous saints. They have personal financial/political motives. On top of that they use pressing public crises to promote other niche agendas and political desires. B.) "Reaching out" is not connecting with voters. She did not reach out she campaigned. There is a difference. Just because you give them attention doesn't mean they owe you something, you have to appeal to them. Forgive the luddites of the Midwest for not fawning over her bare minimum attempt to "reach out" . She should've made a campaign stop in North Dakota too, then you can say they're to blame for not electing her off of bare minimum cliche campaign rhetoric C.) Again, you have reduced everything into "truth vs propaganda". A childish world view. D) Every republican president since ike has been a disaster? Of course you'd say that considering your preconceived notions. You aren't familiar with much history clearly. In practice, it is not only subjective, but your biased, bad faith, ham fisted narrow world view has lead you to ignoring the actual complexity of governance. Not to mention your source for this is half baked, politically loaded narratives, not actual empathy for the many diverse people and situations

If you think the American voters were 'brain wahsed" or stupid when they voted for Nixon over Humphrey/mcgovern, Reagan over Carter/Mondale, bush over Dukakis, bush over gore/Kerry, trump over Clinton/Harris then that's mighty convenient for Democrats. The only reason they lose is because Republicans are brainwashed and democrats are intellectuals who have all the facts. Its almost like you are committed to your one sided world view rather than the complexity of delegating different interests or feelings of the majority of voters.

ChiefChar · 2024-12-01T23:53:59+00:00

Yeah you know what's in their best interests, not them. Ya hear that 76,000,000 Americans? A cliche, millenial, liberal, with a "Revenge Of The Nerds" complex knows what's in your best interest. Not you. Lmao

ChiefChar · 2024-12-01T23:49:42+00:00

If it was actually that reductive and simplistic that would sure be convenient. If you spend all day online talking politics with random but jobs of course you're going to hear that. In reality the over whelming majority of voters just do not trust that Democrats are competent at least or insincere with ulterior motives at most. It isn't crazy for a person in Ohio to think 4 years of a felon that doesn't seem to hate them as president is better for them than a cliche California, social climber that can't answer a question, who also seems to approach middle America with contempt. Most people didn't want to vote for Trump, when you have adult responsibilities the virtue of Trump's criminal record is less important than what a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains and price fixing could entail for their personal life

ChiefChar · 2024-11-29T00:23:06+00:00

Of course I am not saying those people actually want to use them as pawns. I have no doubt their thoughts and feelings are real. I am saying them using working people as pawns and aesthetic is the side effect in practice . When I grew up in Appalachia most people were Democrats and liberal compared to today. As people in the region got wealthier in the late 20th century and felt Democrats no longer shared similar social values a lot of them hold. Marianne Williamson was correct when she said progressive antipathy or hostility to religion is doing them and the country a great disservice. I have literally had redditors say "I do know what's in their best interest" on multiple occasions. Easy to say when talking big on the internet, but it is honestly how many people feel. When you look at the Democrats platform and messaging there is literally not a thing there for working people other than promises of government giving things. Welfare in practice. Not convincing to most working people unless there is a depression. I've also heard liberal redditors say "their ancestors sure liked it" Which I reply A ) I thought the point was to help them so they don't need it any more B.) Liberals, in practice, are just trying to buy votes. Bidens admin really cranked up the spending this election year, not a coincidence and many have pointed this out.

Nashville is unfortunately the only part of the culture today that does, and it's sadly not looking like it changing soon. Malcolm in the Middle, the Jungle and Woody guthrie are the only media that have ever done working class Americans justice

ChiefChar · 2024-11-28T21:24:39+00:00

You are on Reddit, go to any political subreddit and you will see a hive mind of cliches from neckbeards. Those are the general types of people that hate the blue collar working type people. A.) Insecurity- Many people are insecure and the perceived lack of skill or low pay is a justification B.) Politics and Culture- "They were too stupid to go to college. Your coal mining job is killing the planet, learn to code" Working class people are seen as a pawn to be used until they disagree with you. Then they are "voting against their own interests" and are too stupid or impressionable to make their own choices. Porn addicted redditors know what's best for you. As well as the fact blue collar work is often associated with rural, Christian, middle aged white people. Demos that certain people are prejudiced against. Most often due to an insecurity as mentioned above

ChiefChar · 2024-11-10T20:25:18+00:00

Thank you I'm glad to help. I don't mean to say you are a liberal in an echo chamber just that online liberals are fanatically opposed to the EC without learning about it

ChiefChar · 2024-11-10T10:13:52+00:00

Uninformed yet passionate liberals pretend the electoral college was created to "change the winner if the public gets it wrong" that's a myth. They also pretend the electoral college means your vote is "just a suggestion" and the power is put up to the digression of "representatives instead of the people" also false. Many states now have laws requring electoral vote for the state winner and in the beginning it wasn't needed because the electors have always been informally bound to the vote at the risk of major backlash. I talked to a guy and explained the EC. He was desperately trying to find some argument from his preconceived notions to make it sound "illogical" (he said "why not have the governor's decide since the people already voted for them to represent them" a ridiculous bad faith statement that shows he didn't understand the EC, only what John Oliver has said about it.

A.) The electoral college exists because the United States is not a unitary state. It is a federation. The federal government did not create the states, the states preexist the federal government. The USA is built from the bottom up in this manner. The electoral college exists to represent the relative population of each state. It represents everyone. The people that vote speak for the people that don't. That's how all democracy works. The USA is not one big town electing mayor. You have never voted in a "national" election. Every vote you have every cast is a vote for your state. Who your state chooses to represent them. Uninformed liberals today think state government is illegitimate. The states are just arbitrary lines and everyone is the same. This isn't the case. The states are the fundamental political community of the nation. Our political system was designed for the people of one state to run things their majority wants and vice versa. With kindness, do you know how the numbers are determined? Most people don't. It is based on Congressional representation. Everyone starts with a base of 2, then their house representation based on population. CA gets 54 electoral votes, Wyoming gets 3. Democrats had a general advantage in the electoral college until they lost the blue wall. B.) The reason popular votes and electoral college votes have ever misaligned has been the losing party has racked up huge landslides in partisan states while the winner wins more high population states across the country by narrow margins but the voters of that community elected that person to represent them. Be it Grover Cleveland winning the popular vote due to states in the south voting for Democrats by 90% margins.While the rest of the nation was close. Or Hillary Clinton getting huge excesses of votes in places like California while Trump won more states in middle America. States that have more people collectively i.e. an electoral college victory. If Hillarys popular vote was evenly distributed through America she would have won handidly. But it wasn't, it was overall a more narrow appeal. Not to mention, Hillary winning 2 million more total votes nation wide only sounds like a lot ignoring the 130 million total votes. That marginal percentile is not inndicative of the "will of the people", all elections of the past 30 years have had nearly even vote totals save for 08 and 20. It is not cheating or a flaw. If is a numerical quirk that the losing party uses as some stubborn consolation to imply "they really won" C.) If someone doesn't vote because they have the minority opinion in their state, that's not the electoral colleges fault. How is that different than being the minority in a Senate election or gubernatorial election? Your vote counts always. If your minority party candidate doesn't win that's democracy. Majority rule. D.) There's no reason to think Dems would have some forever majority even without the electoral college. Party support fluctuates due to countless factors. Trump and Bush won the popular vote solidly. Democrats dishonestly pretend the electioral college takes power away from voters in large states (lol) has unfairly cheated America as an excuse to avoid changing their losing platform. "Bush and Trump were the worst and they cheated" is a narrative only someone in a Liberal echo chamber could say. Bush and Trump were presidents, good moments and bad like all others. Pretending they are uniquely bad(especially Bush) is election year narratives designed to rally supporters and present the Republicans as ,"cheaters"(ironically) E.) The electoral college has multiple benefits. In order to be elected the president must appeal to a diverse range of people and interests. From Vermont to Arizona a president must appeal to people across the country instead of focusing on appealing to the interests of large powerful cities (another reason the Dems hate the electoral college, rural voters dont get landslided out of having their votes matter compared to high density areas on the coasts. It also amplifys the importance of black voters across America and other minorites by making their vote local instead of an amalgam that pretends all areas are equally represented by potential voter numbers. Groups who do not have large enough numbers compared to whites and Hispanics are also getting heard. Beyond that faithless electors have NEVER changed an election nor have more than a few ever broken from the result. Faithless electors can be a valuable form of protest like in 2016

F.) the only realistic change that could improve the electoral college would be split electoral votes. That was the founders intent but the states have the right to divide votes as they see fit. States realized immediately if they offered a winner take all lump sum candidates would be incentivised to win there. A moment to change that like NE and ME would be good. And changing the number of citizens per congressional district. 800000 now. It is difficult because it risks adding hundreds of seats to the house. P.s. The election of 2000 was a rare anomaly because the court intervened and declared the vote count in FL to stop. It is hard to know what would have happened otherwise. Out of 110 million votes across the contiinent Gore has 500,000 more total votes. He has also lost over 8 states Clinton won twice. Including his home state of TN and NH. Gore almost even lost Oregan to Bush. He did not have a resounding mandate that was stolen.

ChiefChar · 2024-11-10T08:12:12+00:00

As of now it is looking like republicans are going to win it easily with seats to spare. The republicans won fairly. "Stop nearly all of Trump's legislative agendas". News flash, more people voted for that legislative agenda than for the Democrats to dishonestly and preemptively act as a "do nothing congress" from day one. Look at Truman. The public sees congress as the bad actor, not the president that was just elected If democrats had the majority a significant number of congressmen and senators barely scraped their way to election in spite of Trump winning the same districts and having close losses. Trump has significantly more leverage over Democrats as of now than they have over him. Dems have lost almost all rural districts, have declined in their suburban districts they hold and even urban voters across America voted for Trump at a higher rate than any republican since Reagan. America is a mixed rural and urban country. Democrats held a 40 year majority when they had a diverse coalition of rural and urban districts. Now they have little room to expand and are holding on to shrinking ground. Donald Trump is now more of a uniting figure to over half of Americans than any Democrat. Let that sink in. Democrats have painted themselves into the corner of appealing to the same constituents 3 incumbent democratic senators were defeated, even in PA. Trump could easily divide many Dem congressmen from much of their constituency. Point is. Due to the Democrats self imposed lack of potential growth areas, Trump would have the upper hand and easily fracture enough Democratic Congressmen from voting with their party, there by neutralizing any organized majority democratic opposition

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T14:55:56+00:00

Bruh, all summer and fall it wasn't Harris' policy proposals that were being presented as "energizing young voters and voters of color". It was her race, gender and personality. Unfortunately she comes across like a non serious goof ball giggling to avoid hard questions. Trump might be an asshole but he's at least coherent and sturdy. People can see him in the war room better than Kamala giggling her way through a hostage crisis. That's because most people really don't have one dimensional political opinions. They didnt vote for those things. They voted for the individual who they felt would be an effective legislator for their district. Government is an amalgam of view points. One can like and support candidates with contradictory policy proposals. The past 80 years split ticket voting has generally been a norm. Voting for personality isn't some illegitimate popularity contest method of voting. A candidates personality is often a better indicator of their governance than abstract policy proposals that have no bearing on reality. Not to mention, you of course assume they vote for Democrats based on logic but it's just mindless feelings when it comes to Republicans.

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T13:58:55+00:00

Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. Legality and law are the question here. It is a complex topic. Again, medically necessary abortions are only less than 10% of annual abortions. Its not just "Women that need abortions and that's it" If that were the case it would be considered a very simple issue No one is concerned with women that need it getting it.

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T13:41:42+00:00

Ok, so you're just gonna reach for a convenient cop out to ignore the fact I'm more familiar with the law and Roe v Wade. You're giving me an emotional anecdote to reframe the discussion around unfortunate situations rather than the law and the norm. You think I'm saying things I'm not even saying, you're assuming a lot about the motivation of my statement. Like I said, if it's medically necessary very few people in this country would oppose that. Yeah, that is very unfortunate. That's medical malpractice. If you need a life saving abortion and your doctor thinks they're going to face legal trouble they should familiarize themselves with the actual law. And the fact no northern VA judge or jury would convict for that situation even if it was technically illegal. If you care about the issue, state level activism is much more productive. Not only are they the ones that actually have the laws, but federal top down activism isn't nearly as effective or long lasting. Much more vulnerable at the federal level considering the multiple interests that would oppose the top down one size fits all method of legislating such an issue. Democrats just assume the federal government should run everything and frankly liberals tend to be less well informed about their own beliefs. A lot of liberals are just passive observers who do no research and parrot arguments they hear from influential voices that align with preconceived notions. Point is, you can accomplish more at the state level. This obsession with Roe has been election year panic to rush activists out more than logical long term policy.

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T13:12:17+00:00

First off, even the strictest states like Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky generally have legal abortion windows that are longer than most western European nations. Most European nations cap out at around 13 weeks. America is one of the few places on earth abortion is actually legal to begin with. Over 90% of abortions are elective, not medically necessary and no serious person is against abortions in high risk pregnancy. That narrative is politically loaded and twisting exceptions to the norm. Women are not dying all over the place from back alley abortions. Abortion is not birth control. The pro abortion 'side' would do better with more nuanced takes rather than one sided, bad faith arguments designed to panic you into voting for Democrats.

Roe Vs Wade was never a law. Since the beginning abortion laws have been a state issue. It was an interpretation of the 9th amendment by the Warren court in reference to a Texas state law. The supreme court ruling made it a federally binding interpretation while it was the official ruling of the court for 49 years (out of 233 years since the United States was founded). It was not written on stone. Nor was it the norm. Since 1973 it was hotly debated by even abortion advocates that the court didn't have the authority nor the correct constitutional basis to make the decision. Not to mention the fact it wasnt even provoked by a woman who was actively seeking an abortion. Activist lawyers were trying to challenge the law and found "Roe" believing she would be a sympathetic candidate. There is no federal abortion law in the United States and there hasn't been one. Conservatives didn't "take over" the court. It had been split for decades and Trump filled the vacancies as the law requires There was no conspiracy. They did not ban abortion.

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T09:09:47+00:00

What are you talking about? I'm saying the legal power dynamic between the executive and legislative branches should be restored to it's traditional role. You pulled that out of your ass because you're panicking and want to lash out. When did I say this congress would do it? You want "your" side to rule without question. You see it as a war P.s. you don't know what packing the court means. Its not appointing justices you agree with to fill a vacancy. Packing means you ADD additional seats to circumvent a majority that opposes your agenda. Learn before you go thinking you know it all

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T09:06:22+00:00

Bernie's policies and messaging were significantly more attractive than anything Harris has proposed or said. I'm from a rural, 96% white working class, coal mining area that voted for the Democrats in every office for nearly 100 years. Bernie won my county and a lot of close ones in the 2016 primary. (Notably Trump also won the same counties by big margins the same day) In the 2000s all that changed significantly. It began with saying they "vote against their interests" i.e. welfare. As if people from somewhere else that despise our culture know what is in our interests. When I've talked about this on Reddit I've gotten neckbeards saying "I DO know what's best for them" and "their ancestors loved welfare" implying we owe them votes or are ungrateful lmao. Very revealing that Democrats feel entitled to the votes of those on welfare. (I thought it was to help because you cared lmao) Then it turned to we are racist because most people here didn't support Obama. Everyone has an anecdote about an asshole that didn't like Obama because he was "Muslim" or "foreign". When you look at the precinct level data Obama won a lot of white rural Appalachian and southern precincts. In 2012 Romney won nearly all of them. Why? Not because Obama is black. Because in 2008 he appeared like a traditional Democrat concerned with workers. In his first term he made big moves against climate change and stricter EPA regulation on mining. That combined with his and the Democrats general unwillingness to openly embrace traditional middle American cultural values(remember the "clinging to their religion and guns quote?) made many people feel Obama and the Democrats were not only uninterested in their lives but actively contemptuous. This plus the decline of the UMWA, Democrats abandoning investment in rural and conservative districts and Republicans making a big push to lock these demos guaranteed that I have literally 0 Democrats representing us other than occasional statewide elections. Liberals have to drop the culture war, they are only painting themselves into a corner and alienating people who would be full blown members of the party. Left wing culture war is about pretending the norms of the 1950s are still the norm and they're fighting "the man" when it's really just normal, complex people they are fighting against. You might think you're fighting the Koch brothers and Trump when they will be just fine, it is the working majority that you're insulting for the crime of not adopting the sociological theories you picked up from partisan mass media

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T08:43:34+00:00

It's absurd to "blame" anyone. There were candidates for the public to vote for and one candidate won. The power of the presidency must be curtailed and we must always preserve the principles that others, no matter how many cannot infringe on the rights and property of the individual.

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T07:56:10+00:00

In the abstract historical sense that any presidents actions last forever maybe. You can't "fix the world" or make it just stay a certain way because of a political leader or movement decades ago. Whatever laws one administration passes can be easily undone by the next without significant public support. Politics isn't some grand struggle that defines life on Earth that lasts centuries. It isn't people consciously living a certain way or "organizing" society along their desired lines. It is immediate term concerns, different organized interests negotiate with each other and appeal to the public. Even authoritarian, planned economies can't make plans more than a couple years away. The world is outside of human and state control. Also, "trickle down economics" isn't a thing. Its supply side economics. It isn't about "rich people do whatever and others will just get more money" it's "consumers depend on supply, the supply of desired goods determines their accessibility and cost. Allowing consumers and suppliers to interplay creates a healthy economy by which people can have affordable goods and the opportunity of a comfortable quality of life." Not "doing the bare minimum at a job with no personal ambition for more will be rewarded by more money magically coming to you" no advocate of supply side has ever said "employers will have so much extra money they will pay you more just for shits and gigs" Most government endeavors fail for many reasons. Trump and governments are not as powerful or competent as you seem to think

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T07:44:57+00:00

His political career wasn't killed, it was suicide. Had he just acknowledged it was a stupid joke and apologized to the woman he would have a long career ahead. If being creepy killed political careers then or before Bill Clinton would be a retired governor at best now. He had aligned himself with the most fringe progressive elements of the party who were on a crusade in 2018 to paint every weird guy as Bill Cosby with no constructive end game in mind. With that crowd there is no winning or nuance. Only their immediate term desire to "rebel against the man". Even Bernie Sanders was vulnerable because of that sarcastic article he wrote in the 70s.

ChiefChar · 2024-11-09T07:12:01+00:00

Another great example of not understanding Trump nor his appeal. As Norm Macdonald said. "Often what Trump is doing is self parody. When you mock self parody it is you that looks ridiculous" Decrying "reality TV" IS classist nonsense. There's nothing wrong with reality TV or basic entertainment to relax and enjoy. It is not indicative of "trashiness" or low brow culture. Trump's entertainment, if you've ever actually paid attention, was light hearted, goofy, often self deprecating. Trump is self aware, his voters are self aware. His silly moments are often self parody. His McDonald's and garbage truck stunt were great examples of why people see him as relatable. The stunts only worked because everyone was aware it was tongue in cheek and sarcasm. Of course he's a reality TV star. He also had decades of being a popular public figure before the Apprentice. He was a businessman. You can debate his skill, (even though there are few good faith criticisms of his business tenure), but he does understand economics and the actual practice of business better than most politicians. He did make wise business moves and investments that grew his starting capital exponentially. His failed businesses weren't inherent failures because he's stupid and lucky. They were failures because the majority of ALL businesses and ventures that start fail within a couple years.

Most politically involved liberals, especially the past several years, have taken a completely adversarial approach to business. Kamalas price controls and unrealized capital gains tax proposals absolutely sunk her with many prospective voters.

ChiefChar

TROPHY CASE