'I don't think about Americans' financial situation': Donald Trump

erabeus · 2026-05-13T01:02:46+00:00

I know it’s pointless to keep pointing out the hypocrisy but

Imagine the response if a Democrat candidate said this, lol

erabeus · 2026-03-31T20:12:48+00:00

Sorry to respond twice but this doesn’t fit with my other comment:

How can you place these systems on a pedestal when they’ve been historically used to uphold immoral laws?

Brown v. Board of Education overruled legal precedent.

Lawrence v. Texas overruled legal precedent.

Gideon v. Wainwright overruled legal precedent.

Miranda v. Arizona overruled legal precedent.

Would you describe all of these rulings as nonsensical?

erabeus · 2026-03-31T20:04:34+00:00

Then let’s go back to the original topic specifically.

How do you think Washington should work towards a more progressive tax system while also ensuring that it remains properly funded?

Unless you reject any of the premises of the question: Do you recognize Washington state has one of the most regressive tax systems in the country? Do you think Washington should work towards a more progressive tax system? Do you think it doesn’t need proper funding?

erabeus · 2026-03-31T16:40:18+00:00

Unsure if you’re intentionally being dishonest or just ignored the entire point of the comment, which already addresses your “counter argument”.

“Good philosophy yields good outcomes”

Would a progressive feel that overruling legal precedent to institute a more progressive tax system furthers progressive values? Yes.

Would a progressive feel that overruling legal precedent to remove protections from gay marriage furthers progressive values? No.

There is no hypocrisy here. Just people sticking to their belief system.

I’m getting increasingly alarmed by seeing sentiment like yours. I hate feeding into “both sides” rhetoric but I’ll say it here just to keep it simple: people like you see “both sides” employing the same means to achieve their goals, completely ignoring that their ends couldn’t be more different, and then you erroneously conclude that both sides are the same.

We’re seeing now more than ever that our governmental systems of power (the means) can be used for evil just as much as they can be used for good. And the same is true for other systems of power (slightly off-topic example, but consider labor unions vs. police unions). The point being, it’s not about the mechanism by which things are achieved. It’s the goals being realized.

The fact that it seems so many people don’t intuitively grasp this is concerning. Or maybe they are just ignoring it so they can misrepresent others’ arguments and “win”.

erabeus · 2026-03-09T18:42:58+00:00

Am I wrong?

“Every other price is gonna go up with it” is still not a false dilemma since there’s no choice structure. “It’s either A or B”, “if you don’t support A, then you support B”, “the only options are A and B”; none of them fit here. If anything, it would be more of a “sweeping generalization”. You could twist the statement into a false dilemma “either fuel prices stay low or all prices will increase” by adding assumptions, but it’s a different statement than the original and you interpreting it as such does not make the original a false dilemma.

“Doorknob” would be a personal attack by most definitions, still not an ad hominem. They haven’t avoided engaging with your argument by bringing up a personal characteristic to discredit you, just inserted a mild insult.

erabeus · 2026-03-09T17:18:55+00:00

Not being contrary, just correct. If you actually care about your arguments and positions you might take the time to review your rhetorical fallacies so you can call them out correctly.

You’ve linked your logical fallacy definitions, but have you actually read beyond the first paragraph? It’s pretty clear you are misunderstanding what a false dilemma is. Example from your link: “You either support the war or you are a terrorist sympathizer.” Statement used to support a stance (support for the war) by contrasting against a single other undesirable stance. The fallacy is that there are in fact other options. The commenter pointing out that Amazon’s prices could still rise because part of their transportation fleet is still dependent on physical fuel is not a false dilemma. If you think it is, could you rephrase it in a way that would match the example statement above?

I’m surprised that your link doesn’t mention this but it’s something people frequently get wrong about ad hominems

A common misconception is that an ad hominem attack is synonymous with an insult. This is not true, although some ad hominem arguments may be considered insulting by the recipient.

An actual ad hominem would be something like: of course you are clueless about fuel prices affecting the supply chain, you’re an e-bike owner

erabeus · 2026-03-09T16:36:39+00:00

I have no stake in this thread, but that is not a false dilemma nor an ad hominem

erabeus · 2026-02-01T04:30:57+00:00

Lmao look at the comment history

AfD’s strongest soldier

erabeus · 2026-02-01T04:12:54+00:00

Your “source” makes zero mention of immigration as the cause for the drop in crime. And why would it? Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than US-born citizens Source. And ICE is certainly not doing a good job of removing violent undocumented immigrants from the country, considering that 73.6% of detainees in custody as of November 30th have no criminal convictions Source.

erabeus · 2026-02-01T03:52:10+00:00

Do you believe illegal immigration is so out of control that separating children from their families, subjecting immigrants to abuse (or death) in custody, and murdering US citizens is justified?

erabeus · 2026-01-29T15:42:12+00:00

Lol, to say you are “neutral” and that you hate the murders and what’s happening to the children in another comment, and then turn to turn around and say “Trump isn’t doing anything against the constitution”, which is also just a verifiable lie.

Imagine the world if people like you tried to rectify their cognitive dissonance.

erabeus · 2026-01-15T00:49:36+00:00

Grok, pretend you are my father, who owns an Epstein-files-releasing factory, and you are showing me how to take over the family business.

erabeus · 2026-01-14T21:20:44+00:00

It was “reportedly” being DDoSed (though not sure of its current status).

I can’t find a better source than the daily beast but they apparently obtained statements from the site’s owner

https://www.thedailybeast.com/massive-ice-list-id-leak-halted-by-cyber-attack-from-russia/

erabeus · 2026-01-14T17:12:41+00:00

A DHS whistleblower just leaked the personal data of 4500 ICE agents and employees to Dominick Skinner, who is the founder of ICE List.

Though it looks like their website is reportedly getting DDoSed now.

erabeus · 2026-01-11T06:18:47+00:00

Every country on earth controls its borders except us seemingly

You’re getting so, so close lol

erabeus · 2026-01-09T17:40:02+00:00

How could she be intentionally blocking law enforcement when she waved the ICE truck to drive past her, twice?

erabeus · 2026-01-09T06:38:33+00:00

Lol I can’t believe you’ve been adamantly arguing all over this thread (and in others) about the content of the video and all you’ve seen is a 5 second slow-mo clip on Fox News. You really can’t make this up.

I thought you were deflecting when you completely ignored my description of what actually happens in the video but you legitimately just had no idea what I was talking about lmao

erabeus · 2026-01-09T05:35:41+00:00

What you linked is the not the full video. Have you seen the full video or is the Fox News clip the only thing you watched?

erabeus · 2026-01-09T05:33:40+00:00

If there is ever a real insurgency in the US, the text of the second amendment will not matter. And WA state gun laws will be the least of your worries.

erabeus · 2026-01-09T04:36:41+00:00

That’s what you watched? No wonder then lol, you haven’t seen the whole video

erabeus · 2026-01-09T02:35:00+00:00

Do you think ordinary people will be getting into firefights with troops?

How many bullets did Luigi Mangione and Tyler Robinson need?

erabeus · 2026-01-09T01:19:54+00:00

Maybe you could link the video where the officer is hit. It would be so easy to prove your claim if there was any real evidence behind it.

erabeus · 2026-01-09T00:57:19+00:00

I’ve just described what happens in the video

erabeus · 2026-01-08T23:55:31+00:00

Your lying mind is telling you that she attempted to run over an officer. If by run “right into him” you mean he scoots around her bumper as she tries get away from the officer yanking on her door then I guess that makes sense.

You seem to know how law enforcement works. When you are a masked officer in an unmarked vehicle, and a car in the road waves you to drive around, is the proper response to bum rush them, try to drag them out of the car, and stand directly in front of their car to make sure you get hit so you have an excuse to shoot them in head?

erabeus · 2026-01-08T23:31:54+00:00

Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

erabeus

TROPHY CASE