iNow

Congratulations! I’m sure her grandpa will spoil her for years to come

Doesn’t likely matter. Even though it’s required by law they turn over such whistleblower complaints to congress, Trump and team are refusing to even do that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/18/mystery-adam-schiff-whistleblower-takes-dangerous-new-turn/

Thanks for the quote. Perhaps you noticed that even your own source confirms that animals innovate too, hence the suggestion that the ability to innovate is the key difference between humans and other nonhuman animals is plainly false.

Not really. Animals innovate all of the time, too. They innovate new ways to escape predators. They innovate new ways to find, collect, and store food. They innovate new ways to seek shelter or create protection from weather elements. You're attempting to force a distinction where none exists. It happens at varying levels and magnitudes, but is hardly unique to humans. After nearly 10 pages of thread reminding you of this, the fact that you keep repeating false assumptions suggests you're either deeply ignorant or disappointingly obstinate. False dichotomy, perhaps?

Thanks for taking the time and offering a thoughtful reply. We agree there. Details matter.

Data continues showing the bias introduced by the electoral college and how one side is disproportionately favored with consistency: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/17/20868790/republicans-lose-popular-vote-win-electoral-college They conclude with this uplifting nugget:

I don’t mind getting neg rep, but I’m genuinely curious what in this post motivated it. If anyone is willing to comment openly and explain, perhaps we can continue the discussion and learn from one another / move forward together?

I'm not sure this is a fair summary of any of our positions, but if we assume for purposes of this discussion that it is, then it's worth noting that creating a society with equal opportunity for all would be a totalitarian nightmare, and we'd have no way of measuring it even if we accept that risk (we can only measure the outcomes). Here's an article I read a while back that helped further open my eyes to some of the involved challenges with the approach. Given your interest, you might enjoy the read, too: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity

Populations of whites have disproportionately benefited for centuries. Individual white people still benefit today. Regardless of which dataset under consideration, my comment remains valid. In much the same way, populations of blacks have been disproportionately harmed for centuries. Individual black people are still being harmed today. They’re working from a policy created deficit. If we agree to give everyone $1,000 per month, then sure that helps everyone. If we’re trying to correct... or even just improve... the centuries long disproportions in experience I just cited above, however, then this isn’t the most effective approach. If Person A starts with a cache of +$5,000 and Person B starts with a debt of -$5,000, then giving both of them the exact same monthly stipend of $1,000 will help them both, but it won’t magically bring back the return of proportionality and equity being sought. I know you’re a Yang fan and this is the drum he’s beating, but more is needed. We can agree UBI might be a good start, but we can’t agree that it’s sufficient.

We can’t please all of the people all of the time. We must simply try hard to do our best to do what is right and to stand steadfastly in defense of what is just.

Buffering...

Fair enough. Hard to disagree with that. I’m simply not as convinced as you that the potential harm would outweigh the obvious benefit.

If I’m forced to choose, I’ll gladly accept some handful of entitled white people complaining over far larger numbers of deserving black people struggling and/or suffering.

No worries. Thanks for clarifying

Lol! I think raider accidentally switched reference frames there and may have been commenting on self driving vehicles?