***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[Methodical Management]

An Appeals Court sided with Republicans so the voter suppression tactic of having o ly drop off location per county remains. Here is the kicker...


So voter suppression goes forward because of seats Mitch stole from Obama.

****ing infuriating

Further proof, if proof were needed, that you can’t simultaneously support the appointment of “conservative judges” and oppose racist voter suppression.

At minimum, this represents a conscious decision to prioritize government regulation of women's reproductive decisions and government deregulation for businesses over state-sanctioned White Supremacism.

Yes, it would entirely change the tenor of his post if he used the word allegedly.

Instead he made a sweeping proclamation that I committed a crime based on information you concede that he doesn't have.

The defense of "semantics" to handwave outright lies is astounding. He stated I "stole PPP funds;" I didn't. I received a grant for my eligible business.

At best, you are saying "it is not unfair to gather your business was ineligible for the grant." But that is not the same thing, and you know it.

It would not be unfair to gather that anyone that received an EIDL grant had an ineligible business, based on your logic, with the same limited knowledge.

The user made an unflattering characterization of your behavior, which you're choosing to interpret as literally as possible to suit your defense. Are you aware of any readers who seriously interpreted his use of the word "steal" as anything other than figurative? When factoring in his prior objections to your behavior, it's clear that he isn't accusing you of committing an Oceans Eleven style heist to infiltrate and abscond with $1,000 from the US Treasury.

The underlying premise here is that you took money that was never intended for someone in your situation and exploited an urgent government relief program whose benefits are trifling for you, but essential for the intended beneficiaries who too often failed to claim it before shameless opportunists greedily lapped it all up. You didn't need the loan advance to begin with. You could easily repay it if you wanted to. You'll keep it simply because you can and cite their failure to stop you as proof of its propriety. You dislike this framing, but none of these essential elements are in dispute.



Focusing on semantics, as you so often do, is an especially poor tactic in this instance. It comes across as though you're complaining about details because you can't argue against the substance. What's more, now you're openly lobbying for the censorship of any criticism on the matter you feel portrays you in an especially negative light. These aren't generally indicators of a strong position.

All you had to say was "I didn't need the loan, but this isn't the hobby business you assumed. I may not have registered the business as a company, but I pay self-employment taxes and file a schedule C with the IRS just like any other self-proprietor. You can argue that the law was intended to provide relief for those in dire need and I admit I'm not in that category, but that's not how the law was written and my case is far from the most egregious out there. You don't have to like it, but it's legal."

People will still think that what you did was unethical, and, critically, maintain the right to those opinions, but it would be harder to argue that it was illegal, if that's all that matters to you.

Instead, you chose to split hairs and accuse him of "lying" because he used the word "loan" instead of "grant," and then impugned the integrity of our community moderators for permitting this.

Incidentally, here you are in July stating that you received a loan advance, which, you'll note, is so named because it is a portion of a loan issued in advance.

I got an advance for a loan that does not need to be repaid.

Now you're trying to claim that you never received "any loan at all," and anyone who states otherwise - as you yourself did in July - is telling "outright lies."

This is like Bernie Madoff arguing that the real injustice is that he was called a "thief" when his victims all gave him money voluntarily and of their own free will. You're missing the point.

It would not be unfair to gather that anyone that received an EIDL grant had an ineligible business, based on your logic, with the same limited knowledge.

For someone whose go-to move is presenting distinctions without a difference, you went full opposite lock with this swerve.

What you're basically trying to say is "if my loan isn't legitimate, no one's is." That's quite a stretch. The information you've disclosed about this loan may be inadequate to establish its eligibility, but not inadequate to establish the basic eligibility of all such loans.

If a professional chef applied for an EIDL to save their only restaurant, we have enough information to distinguish their business from a hobby. We know that they're operating a small business and likely depend upon its income. We know that this, at least superficially, appears to be the sort of situation for which the program was created. They're not running the Rainforest Café, nor are they requesting an emergency loan for a lemonade stand. It passes the smell test.

Per your disclosures: you're a corporate lawyer who sought a $1,000 loan advance with no intent to repay in association with a Stock X account. You've admitted that you do not need the loan to keep that business going, nor do you rely on the income you derive from it. It shouldn’t have caught you off guard that people might find this galling, especially given your stance on other forms of public assistance.


Again, the mere receipt of the loan advance does not definitively signify its propriety. The program was administered in haste, with the goal of expeditiously delivering emergency funds to those in dire and urgent need. The OIG has since recognized that many of these loans were improper, and should not have been issued.

"Getting away with it" doesn't make the loan proper, let alone ethical.

You could clear a lot of this up yourself by differentiating your Stock X account from those with which our community members are broadly (and, in many cases, personally) familiar.
How many items do you sell per year? Do you purchase more sneakers for yourself than you do for your business? What percentage of your “inventory” is in your own shoe size? Do you pay the self-employment tax? Do you file a Schedule C to report your profits? Do you file a personal property return in your state? Have you done so in years prior to your EIDL application, or are you only now treating it as a business?

While you ought to be prepared to answer such questions should the SBA-OIG investigation ever wind its way to your doorstep, you've deliberately left this vague and open to speculation on our forums. That's your prerogative, as it is the prerogative of any other user to voice their opinion on the information you've thus far provided.


Our moderation team has proactively removed scores of posts that have been categorized as "personal attacks" against you. Your use of the EIDL is not beyond reproach or criticism. Focusing on the use of the word "steal" instead of "potential misappropriation" is captious and petty. The facts of the matter as you've presented them are scarcely more flattering.

In the same way that we don't have to like all of the loans issued by the SBA in order for them to be legally obtained, you don't have to like all of the criticism you receive for it to be considered "in bounds."

The user was not, in my judgment, making up lies about your conduct. He used figurative language to negatively characterize an act that you voluntarily disclosed on our forums. (We’ve helped you maintain relative anonymity despite these disclosures.) Mistakenly referring to the source of the loan as the PPP rather than an EIDL is immaterial to the central criticism, and he quite clearly - in my view and in the view of seemingly everyone other than you - used the word "steal" to mean "taking something that was not intended for you."


I can't begin to tell you how many times over the past six months alone that somebody has posted a revealing comment about their views on race and racism in America, and subsequently pleaded with the staff not to allow anyone to “attack their character” by calling them racist.
Should we ban anyone who accuses another user of being a "racist" if that user believes it to be a "lie?"

It would not serve our community well to conflate criticism of a user's statements or actions with base insults and name calling.

It's ironic that you're alleging a double standard when you're the one requesting preferential treatment.


If you have any further concerns about this, feel free to take it to my inbox. This thread has enough sources of distraction as it is, and it's clear that you strongly dislike further public discussion of your EIDL advance.

 

[junglejim]

You could clear a lot of this up yourself by differentiating your Stock X account from those with which our community members are broadly (and, in many cases, personally) familiar.
How many items do you sell per year? Do you purchase more sneakers for yourself than you do for your business? What percentage of your “inventory” is in your own shoe size? Do you pay the self-employment tax? Do you file a Schedule C to report your profits? Do you file a personal property return in your state? Have you done so in years prior to your EIDL application, or are you only now treating it as a business?

He has already been asked for some of this information and could have cleared this up but chose not to.

Since he is choosing not to provide any details, I'm choosing to believe he committed fraud.

 

[dwalk31]

So, let me get this straight, someone accuses me of committing a crime and I’m to prove myself innocent by submitting myself to questioning from fake internet tax auditors?

Or else the assertion that I “figuratively stole” is reasonable.

Gotta love the guilty until proven innocent standard

I didn’t report junglejim ’s post by the way. He offered “criticism” and I responded to the nonsense. So in the same way he can critique meI can critique his critique.

If you have any further concerns about this, feel free to take it to my inbox. This thread has enough sources of distraction as it is, and it's clear that you strongly dislike further public discussion of your EIDL advance.

So after publicly critiquing me, I am supposed to go to your inbox when no such request is made of the person who brought the entire matter up?

I didn’t report his post. I didn’t request anything from the mods. You asked me about the preference of the “allegedly” language and I responded.

This feels like you’re using a bully pulpit to publicly condemn me and then telling me I need to respond to your public condemnation in private.

 

[Cashflow]

Whenever y'all ignore the troll, the conversations in this thread are always more fluid and nuanced

But y''all just love rolling around in the mud with pigs

 

[junglejim]

So, let me get this straight, someone accuses me of committing a crime and I’m to prove myself innocent by submitting myself to questioning from fake internet tax auditors?

Or else the assertion that I “figuratively stole” is reasonable.

Gotta love the guilty until proven innocent standard

I didn’t report junglejim ’s post by the way. He offered “criticism” and I responded to the nonsense. So in the same way he can critique meI can critique his critique.



So after publicly critiquing me, I am supposed to go to your inbox when no such request is made of the person who brought the entire matter up?

I didn’t report his post. I didn’t request anything from the mods. You asked me about the preference of the “allegedly” language and I responded.

This feels like you’re using a bully pulpit to publicly condemn me and then telling me I need to respond to your public condemnation in private.

Technically you brought it up. I wouldn't have known that you stole the money without you offering up the details.

 

[KHUFU]

For some Black youth, it’s time to question Democratic loyalties

For some Black youth, it’s time to question Democratic loyalties

Gen Z is not only liberal but skeptical, and the Black community’s diehard support for the party that embraced civil rights is ripe for a rethink.

www.politico.com

You still down with this clown?

Trump Executive Order Could Make HBCUs Ineligible for Nearly All Federal Funding

Last month, President Donald Trump issued an executive order prohibiting federal funds from being awarded to agencies or contractors promoting racial or sexual stereotyping. The objective is to reverse what the White House calls a growing culture of blaming white people for much of America's...

hbcudigest.substack.com

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

For some Black youth, it’s time to question Democratic loyalties

For some Black youth, it’s time to question Democratic loyalties

Gen Z is not only liberal but skeptical, and the Black community’s diehard support for the party that embraced civil rights is ripe for a rethink.

www.politico.com

I made the distinction between conservativism and republicanism ages ago, as I believe most black people have, considering the majority of black democrats consider themselves conservative or moderate vs liberal. To be black and conservative is not synonymous with being black and republican.

 

[wavycrocket]

I made the distinction between conservativism and republicanism ages ago, as I believe most black people have, considering the majority of black democrats consider themselves conservative or moderate vs liberal. To be black and conservative is not synonymous with being black and republican.

Exactly

 

[dwalk31]

I made the distinction between conservativism and republicanism ages ago, as I believe most black people have, considering the majority of black democrats consider themselves conservative or moderate vs liberal. To be black and conservative is not synonymous with being black and republican.

Agreed. That’s why I say I’m the only consistently openly-conservative poster in this thread instead of openly-Republican.

 

[wavycrocket]

Posting this again. This is what true dialogue sounds like between a true black “conservative” and a black person who leans more “liberal”.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...t-sonnie-johnson/id1532431334?i=1000493212218

 

[gry60]

For some Black youth, it’s time to question Democratic loyalties

For some Black youth, it’s time to question Democratic loyalties

Gen Z is not only liberal but skeptical, and the Black community’s diehard support for the party that embraced civil rights is ripe for a rethink.

www.politico.com

While they understand the racism embedded in the president’s rhetoric, they see him as one of the few leaders to deliver results on issues affecting the Black community. Moreover, they recognize their value as representatives of a demographic the Trump campaign views as integral to their success at the margins: young people of color.

Which results are we talking about here? Threatening access to healthcare during a pandemic that has disproportionately killed minorities?
Their record on voting rights?
Burying those who work public-facing jobs (retail and hospitality, which has a very large proportion of minorities) in yet another economic recession?
Removing access to federal funds for companies that promote diversity?
If my path to victory relied on making sure that minorities don't vote for their interests (which are counter to mine), I would also consider them as an integral part of my strategy.

Michael Steele should be a cautionary tale when it comes to black conservatism and the GOP, especially this GOP.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Agreed. That’s why I say I’m the only consistently openly-conservative poster in this thread instead of openly-Republican.

The black people described in that article have very much so, atleast in my opinion, are "black republicans", one even working on ted cruz's presidential campaign. one of the biggest tenants of conservatism as an ideology is small and strong local government but black conservatives, in a lot cases rightfully disillusioned by the democratic party, fight for scraps of GOP/RNC support at the local levels without having to pimp themselves out and become a black face for white republican talking points.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Posting this again. This is what true dialogue sounds like between a true black “conservative” and a black person who leans more “liberal”.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...t-sonnie-johnson/id1532431334?i=1000493212218

im a fan of Sonnie Johnson for how authentic she is. she definitely drinks the "democrats are going to cram socialism down your throats and ruin America" koolaid but shes proof that a lot of the time that conservatism can be just as much of a tool to empower black people. you can tell lately though that shes loosing hope in repubs as a whole, even as just a means to end. the wind is being let of her sails trying to get behind a trump campaign.

ive been having a lot of frank conversations with some of my black conservative friends lately, and for as much as we dont agree on the solution to problems, the one point that I keep bringing up is "when its all said and done, when it time to get policy done, whos going to have more black people in the room giving actual input?"

 

[blastercombo]

Whenever y'all ignore the troll, the conversations in this thread are always more fluid and nuanced

But y''all just love rolling around in the mud with pigs

Like I said, ignore for a week and they’d leave. Always works that way. Instead we have the same circular conversation about 4th grade level history a fat white woman who pretends to be a black man who pretends to be a lawyer pretends to not know on an hourly basis

 

[dacomeup]

Which results are we talking about here? Threatening access to healthcare during a pandemic that has disproportionately killed minorities?
Their record on voting rights?
Burying those who work public-facing jobs (retail and hospitality, which has a very large proportion of minorities) in yet another economic recession?
Removing access to federal funds for companies that promote diversity?
If my path to victory relied on making sure that minorities don't vote for their interests (which are counter to mine), I would also consider them as an integral part of my strategy.

Michael Steele should be a cautionary tale when it comes to black conservatism and the GOP, especially this GOP.

Man... if you don't hit da First Step Shuffle followed by da HBCU Cares Slide.

 

[Hahahaha]

It must be getting real bad. This pathetic criminal tweeting CA and NY going to hell.

 

[starfox070]

That **** say mattress firm?

drug money there are so many of them everywhere.

 

[starfox070]

How effective does this dude think 3 weeks of campaigning will be? He thinks there's people who think he's trash after 4 years of terrible performance that will go out of their way to show
Up to his rally and suddenly catch the Holy Spirit and vote for him?


All he's doing is stroking the trailer park crowd that was already gonna vote for him after they've worked hard to memorize what the words "Donald Trump" look like on a ballot since they can't read.

what’s worse is ducking debates and opting for rallies isn’t going to get new peoples. To your cause.

The only ones going t Trump rallies were already for Trump.

 

[blastercombo]

what’s worse is ducking debates and opting for rallies isn’t going to get new peoples. To your cause.

The only ones going t Trump rallies were already for Trump.

And paid actors

 

[had pants]

 

[Upptempo]

These MAGA zombies are something else boi

 

[getback]

Someone burned down an entire display in MA.

 

[junglejim]

so much for the law and order party