Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
words like leftism have vague , and changing definition because the topic discussed is broad. So people can have different definitions (even people who self identify as leftists do) so the solution is for a person to clarifies what it means for him when he uses it.
But gorgo take is different, he claims that illegal is a descriptor which is semantically valid only for acts. That's absolutely, utterly false, as the examples i provided prove conclusively. People routinely use illegal to refer to gr
I know what lying means, thanks professor (and for the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't referring to you with that one). I was just pointing out that people are known to use words in an idiosyncratic manner, you among them.
btw your semantic take is objectively wrong. Because if it's illegal to fish in a specific water surface, doing it makes you an illegal fisher, semantically.
And yes fishers can be illegal, it's a possible property of being a fisher, if... they fish where it is illegal to fish.
The words exist, their usage is wrong. You of course can say illegal fisher, but it's incorrect usage. The act is illegal, not the person. He is fishing illegally.
It doesn't have to be synonymous to refer to the human being.
Your post is riddled with you repeatedly making the same error. The idea that people say things so they must be using the words properly is just incorrect.
In other words, repeating the usage error in other contexts is not a strong argument that it is not a usage error.
People routinely make usage errors was already a known fact that nobody disputes.
So, I'll ask again, with regards to "illegal drugs," is it their existence that is illegal? What happens to an illegal drug when it exists? Can it be charged for this? What is the drug's punishment?
Pineapple on pizza is awesome.
what is this i dont even
People routinely make usage errors was already a known fact that nobody disputes.
So, I'll ask again, with regards to "illegal drugs," is it their existence that is illegal? What happens to an illegal drug when it exists? Can it be charged for this? What is the drug's punishment?
This guy is here arguing that drugs can't be illegal? Holy crap.
Was TD Jakes arrested yet? Havn't been following the news.
Gorgo you are becoming more ridiculous by the minute.
Did you find any evidence of military arrests on November 5 or anyone hung for treason since the civil war yet, liar?
I agree with you 100%. We need disclosure of these things. Hopefully when (and if) Trump officially takes office this and many other things will be disclosed publicly (that's their plan).
I'm pretty sure you're trying to argue that only acts can be illegal and not anything that we would classify as a noun. It's pretty silly.
Cool. What I said is true though. Sorry if you don't like it.
To elaborate, anything that you are thinking of as a noun that might be illegal is actually only illegal to ______ (for instance, possess, manufacture, use, etc.).
An "illegal drug" might be illegal to possess.
An "illegal house" might be illegal to occupy.
It's always the act, not the thing that is actually illegal. I'm actually amazed that there are multiple people that find this even surprising, let alone difficult. It's really kind of just fundamental.
I agree with you 100%. We need disclosure of these things. Hopefully when (and if) Trump officially takes office this and many other things will be disclosed publicly (that's their plan).
So let's get this straight, you are claiming that the US has hung people for treason in secret. How recently? Any ideas who it might have been?
No lol, and illegal house can be "not allowed to exist" and bulldozered down , it's not "always the act".
Some illegal things we destroy because of their inherent illegal status.
But even with your silly way (and objectively wrong way) of framing it, "an illegal alien" is illegally in the country, being in the country is an act. A continuous act in fact, of existing in an illegal status. Like an illegally parked car. Which you tow away.
No lol, and illegal house can be "not allowed to exist" and bulldozered down , it's not "always the act".
Could you show me this law, please?
I googled "illegal house" and got this:
What is the meaning of illegal houses?
An illegal dwelling unit is one built or occupied without obtaining the necessary land use approvals and/or a proper building permit.
"built"
"occupied"
So, yeah. Citation needed.
I honestly think you guys haven't even thought a little about this. This isn't actually even complicated.
I mean we could just ask Cornell Law. Maybe they know?
I'm really not sure how else I can help you guys. You may think I'm ridiculous, but I get pretty stubborn when I'm effing right and challenged on it.
Could you show me this law, please?
I googled "illegal house" and got this:
What is the meaning of illegal houses?
An illegal dwelling unit is one built or occupied without obtaining the necessary land use approvals and/or a proper building permit.
"built"
"occupied"
So, yeah. Citation needed.
I honestly think you guys haven't even thought a little about this. This isn't actually even complicated.
Cities take down homeless encampments all the time.
If the existence of something is against the law then that thing (aka noun) is illegal.
If the police find a kilo of cocaine they aren't just going to leave it because they don't know who the owner is.
