@ bold, because i agree with the rest, i would say you have a fairly subjective idea of both equality and opportunity.

for example you said the rich have little room to go up, whereas the poor have lots. thats a really subjective and narrow view of opportunity.

opportunity surely includes ability to make money, whats the best way to make money? invest a bunch of money you already have. opportunity is surely affected by education, the rich get the best of education and can afford to set their kids up debt free all the way through medical school if they please. safety affects oppurtunity, surely the rich are far safer. etc etc.

the poor have more potential, but if we wanted equal opportunity we'd have 100% equal houses, school, money in bank accounts, etc.

i think, but could be wrong, if we laid out an objective plan to give people true equality of opportunity in life, both of us would heavily dislike that plan. which is why i said equality is good sometimes, fairness is better sometimes, but its almost always a mix, based on the context of how important both equality and fairness are for the best outcome. and with regard to how this would effect not only the individual but the society at large.

getting back to the original idea here, its almost never fair for individuals in almost any aspect of life. so when i said it isnt fair before, i still stand by that. i think equating fairness and equality is simplifying a complex subject, and not representative of reality, which is highly subjective to begin with.

I addressed your point at the beginning... You simply vauled your opinion over the opinion of a whole establishment, that believed Hillary to be the best canidate of all time. The point that you don't agree with it is void. Especially coming from someone that believes the majority should hold the victor. By stating that you didn't follow suit with the main stream logic it doesn't make your point valid. It just shows that you have authoritarian views. Also by stating: "you people" shows that you have racist tendencies. By falling back on to a sterotypical view without knowing my background/affiliations you've proven my point. In conclusion you have not contradicted any of my points, but simply went on a childish rant in how your view trumps all others and a baseless attack on spelling and grammatical errors. (Shows that you have no argument)

neither of us belongs to said establishment though, so for you to claim that hillary wasn't a terrible candidate, is trying to have your cake and eat it. again, it's abundantly clear WHY you did it, but that doesn't make it less disingenuous. doubling down on the hilariously stupid claim that calling right wingers 'you people' is somehow 'racist', just further illustrates that you're either arguing in bad faith, or simply aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer - which your trouble with spelling just supports.

also, i know this will probably lead to further idiotic excuses, but how exactly is not agreeing with mainstream media narratives about a certain candidate proof for 'authoritarian views'? did you just learn that word and wanted to use it? how old are you, buddy?



theoretically possible? sure. considering the context, timing, and recent history of the republican party, it'd be gullible to assume that though - and again, it's not even necessary to entertain such apologist narratives: that republican gerrymandering guru 'strategist' had a whole harddrive full of documentation how it intended to disenfranchise potential democratic voters - literally the only reason the SCOTUS, whose majority was practically begging republicans to give them ANY legitimate reason to wave this through, was forced to stop it in the end.

more importantly, the fact that blackx outright denied that effect to begin with, is nothing short of ridiculous - even if he completely ignored the facts and the context, and went with the best possible version for republicans.

Here's the deal tho. the GOP wants to catch and deport immigrants. AND the gop wants to win election and by proxy will disenfranchise to do it. so we know htey have both goals, and both are top priorities.

IF they only kinda cared about immigrants, but super cared about disenfranchisement, id agree with you more. but both are big staples of their platform.

Immigrants have nothing to fear unless they are illegal./

I didn't claim? The media claimed, the dnc claimed, Hollywood claimed, Obama claimed. I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Putting your view over the views of others is an authoritarian outlook. The rest of your post is just garbage as it was from the beginning. You've shown over and over again your racist tendencies in this forum.

sorry, but i'm not in the business of engaging in pointless semantics, based on pure speculation, in order to find a framing that people pushing for and supporting voter disenfranchisement might be more comfortable with - especially if we have the evidence of their shitty intentions in black and white.

sure, they are despicable in many different areas, but that is completely irrelevant to my point that voter disenfranchisement is one of them, and that the citizenship question was most definitely part of it. the facts speak for themselves, and don't care about apologists' feelings...

you agreed with that claim because it just happened to fit your narrative in this case. that's the disingenuous part, buddy. i can see where this is going though, embarrassed for being called out for your unforced errors, you will just stick to moronically calling me 'racist' (because you snowflake think right wingers are a 'race', haha) and 'authoritarian' (a word you read somewhere but don't know the meaning of - particularly hilarious coming from the trump cult btw) - just like certain other users, who simply lack the intelligence to engage in a conversation based on facts...

That is some great lamentation.