Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (294548)	7/28/2024 3:29:50 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356238

And Vance is correct -- his argument was not in defense of the violence; it was simply a statement of fact that divorces simply rejiggers the problem, it does not solve it and likely ends in more violence overall. Yes, the statement was fine. It was even an answer to the question asked. The problem was that he took affront and got all accusing at what was a simple question requesting the simple answer that he, in a huff, finally addressed. He could have just answered it and save the outrage.

To: i-node who wrote (294548)	7/28/2024 3:45:13 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 356238

Can Vance put any numbers to his claims? Or is he just making assumptions based on gut feelings? Personally, I don't think that legislation that negatively impacts literally millions of Americans has got to have some basis other than "I think this is a problem that needs this solution". You have to a) demonstrate the problem actually exists b) the proposed solution actually addresses the claimed problem. It goes without saying that the situation should be monitored to see if the solution actually addresses the problem and is worth the costs. Your tribe in particular are pretty weak on this. You have even claimed it wasn't necessary to know if legislation has actually addressed the problem. Of course, this is pretty convenient if you have a hidden agenda.