I actually agree with Trump on infrastructure. It just so happens that the train accident yesterday has nothing to do with failing infrastructure, since it was a brand new train in newly refurbished tracks. Just using a tragedy for political gain, or what?
▶️ DTube ▶️ IPFS
Congratulations @davidpakman, this post is the seventh most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Superuser account holder (accounts that hold between 1 and 10 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Superuser account holders during this period was 1432 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $11938.99. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
Trump is not as dumb as people think...
Great to see you here David.
Welcome to Steemit
Have been a big fan of your YouTube Channel.
Following you right away
Thanks so much, really appreciate it!
Trump used to be helluva a lot more coherent and even remotely articulate if you check some videos of him around the year 2000
He wasn't a politician yet. Getting elected is like drinking coherency poison :P
Well, he had to start hiding what he was truly saying.
He's really not hiding anything he's saying. He's just saying so much about so little, it's hard to keep track.
Well of course, he does the best videos ever! just ask him.
this just in,
he’s also the coolest, most handsome, funniest and smartest guy to ever record a video ever. Just ask him!
I know he deliberately limits the vocabulary of words he uses when speaking to the masses so that even the least educated can follow along.
This is right by my house here in what we call LakeHood. The train speed limit is only like 35 mph there bc of the sharp turns to get over the freeway. (cheaper shorter train bridge) Amtrak didn't hit anything, they were just operating recklessly bc it's classified as a high speed train. Freighters with double stacked tall container loads only do like 10 mph there for this exact reason.
Hope you all are ok?
Great way to use a tragedy to push your agenda. Typical Trump.
Because no other president has done the same? I seem to remember the Obama administration, or at least several members therein including Obama, studied and/or were influenced by Saul Alinsky. It was Saul Alinsky who wrote, in Rules for Radicals, "“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Which probably explains why Democrats continually use flawed reasoning and logical fallacies to advocate for gun control after almost every major mass shooting that gets sensationalized by the media.
Only a jackass could stand by and let a classroom full of little kids get murdered and do absolutely nothing about it. Most people in the US disagree with the far right's anti gun safety obsession.
This was Trump's chance to push Congress to get off of its ass and stop postponing a starting date for positive train control regulation. Heck, the technology is already implemented on the very track where the accident occurred, but the idiots running things were too damned lazy or cheap to switch it on.
Does anything you said negate what I said?
Yes. I objected to your insult directed to Democrats when they advocate for gun safety regulation. Their position is based on sound reasoning.
First, you negated nothing. Second, I have not insulted Democrats as criticizing their arguments is not an insult. Third, their reasoning is not sound as they are trying to restrict the Constitutional Rights of law abiding Americans in a vain attempt to fix an infinitesimally small problem by utilizing nothing more substantive than an appeal to emotion.
Here is the thing, if we have an inalienable right to life then we have a right to defend our lives. We do have an inalienable right to life. Therefore, we do have a right to defend our lives.
If we have a right to defend our lives then we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate. We do have the right to defend our lives. Therefore, we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate.
If we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate then firearms--and my personal choice, knives--can, are and should be considered reasonable means of defense. We do have the right to choose reasonable means of defense. Therefore, we do have the right to firearms or whatever reasonable means of defense we choose.
The above argument is a valid argument--taking the form of a series of Modus Ponens arguments--and are individually and collectively sound.
I don't recall anyone inviting you to hijack the thread and turn it into a long-winded gun safety debate. Besides, your attempted logical "proof" is a fallacy, because your conditionals are false. We do not have an absolute right to life, it is only inalienable, which is a curious term because it comes from contract law. The framers were telling the king of England that the right could not be bought, sold, exchanged, or transferred outside the due course of law. Even though the colonists accepted grants of land in the colonies from the king, they asserted that this acceptance did not waive their inalienable rights.
All three branches of the American government can rescind that right (and remain true to the Constitution): legislatures can declare a death penalty for crimes, the executive can conscript you as a soldier and march you off to war, the courts can order that you be executed for a crime. Because the word inalienable does not mean absolute, your conditionals are false, so modus ponens doesn't even apply.
One hundred points from Slytherin House for using big words without knowing what they're talking about.
I personally don't consider one post about gun control to be either long winded or hijacking a thread. The original comment I made was an example of how Democrats also use a crisis to advance their agenda and thus not about gun control per se but providing a counter example to your criticism of Trump.
The definition of inalienable, per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred". As such, if someone wants to kill me I don't have to surrender my life to them. However, seeing as how it very well could be part of contract law, you can replace "inalienable" with "natural". Do you deny that we have a natural (which is not the same as an absolute right because even though I have the natural right to life that doesn't guarantee someone won't kill me) right to life?
Obviously if you break the law then you surrender access to certain rights. It only takes a modicum of common sense to understand that I was not talking of persons who had been convicted of crimes after being afforded the due process of law. I also disagree with the draft. If the government wants to fight a war but cannot find enough volunteers to wage it then they shouldn't fight the war.
I suggest you consult an introduction to Logic book or youtube video regarding Modus Ponens argument form.
You do realize that by equating inalienable with absolute you have erected a Strawman. I never equated the two and if you want to get technical the argument stands as written because if you want to frame things in terms of the individual against the government--I'm impressed because I usually argue against the pro-2A arguments to defend themselves against a tyrannical government because of its futility in our constitutional history but that is another conversation.
I would most likely be Ravenclaw and it should be gets 100 points for pointing out the flaws in not only your arguments but Democrats arguments as well.
dum is as dum duz
They just opened their new Tacoma Station this day on 12/18, it seems people expected this might happen? Conversations with me alluded to it as I did travel from there less than 2 weeks prior to this crash.
This is NOT good at all.
Infrastructure in USA needs a major upgrade. Doing anything else is akin to putting a new carburetor on the 20 year old Ford Escort. You need new foundations.
Seems so, and to politic on this mess struck me right away as being in poor taste.
Beyond that Trump is doing what he does best, say one thing then contradict himself a minute later. We need more US jobs, I buy all my steel and glass from China. etc.
To this? I thought we are cutting Amtrak budgets?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-budget-proposal-slashes-funding-150453086.html
Now we are spending more?
This wreck could be result of sabotage but could also be excess speed, incompetence, or human error, mechanical bearing failure, etc.
a complete freak
This likely was caused by foundation being too soft, wet road beds can't handle the impulse loads that locomotives present upon them. Tacoma is Seattle weather wise and you are wet most of the time.
And they went too fast. You have all manner of speed traps on this in USA.
I can talk about Norfolk Southern over the gorge in Letchworth Park south of Buffalo NY. Or a water tower in Maricopa AZ where freights roll past at 70mph+.
You have lots of problems and bridges are part of that.
PLUS Amtrak rides on freight rails. They should be using their own.