In other news, every House Republican voted against a probe of white supremacists and neo-Nazis in the military.

"We just voted to combat neo nazis in our military and every single republican voted no."

Just in case you weren't convinced of how far gone the party has become.

No, Republicans vote against almost everything substantial that Democrats have put up for a vote.

Republican votes in House of Representatives

Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act-0

Safer Communities Act-14

Women’s Health Protection Act-0

Protecting Our Kids Act-5

Infant Formula Act-12

These are just some of the more recent examples. Keep in mind there are over 200 Republicans in the House and we can’t get more than a handful to vote for things like this.

First off, I'm going to point out that'll I'll be ignoring everyone else's replies to me, in this forum, recent and beyond, until this is resolved between us. There's already others suggesting I'm someone else who's apparently banned and look to be trying to use that to get me banned for it. Clearly there's a much bigger problem here for others beyond what it is I've said when they're going to those kind of lengths.

Then why did you ask me this below initially? These are about this topic, not the Abe topic.

"Gun restriction laws are meant to mitigate avoidable instances of gun violence.
So as people here pointed out, your argument was akin to having crime be legalized, since banning crime won't prevent them from ever happening again."

"But instead of addressing how people criticized your logic here, you are instead asking them new questions.
That can be seen as a disingenuous way to avoid the subject that you yourself brought up. And we've been getting a number of complaints about things like this in this thread over the past few days." 

I thought we weren't supposed to be strawmaning or making claims in replies that aren't extremely direct to what's being talked about? If you were talking about two different things, then I responded to both, so what's the problem?

I can only assume what I said about Abe didn't suffice, so I'll point out that I've already said in that other thread, that I was being sarcastic, which makes that point moot. There's nothing to explain about it if I didn't mean it as such.

A few others in that thread said they were for a full gun ban too, some quoting me. So obviously the point actually had merit to some others, even though I was being sarcastic myself.

It's either a strawman, or it's just flat out a completely baseless comment. It's one or the other.

If it's a strawman, then it's a problem as per this conversation and should've been dealt with earlier.

If it's flat out a completely baseless comment, then it's also a problem as per the Abe thread comments.

Or do we not have to be very direct with our replied points? Since that's part of why I'm being questioned, for not being direct enough.

Again, I don't really care that they brought up Australia, but is we're not all going to be treated equally when it comes to being less direct to a degree, then I guess we can all just keep complaining, including myself, and I'd much rather not.

I replied talking about defunding the police. Basically an analogy to their analogy. How is that ignoring them?

We're not talking about police and prisons anyway, so it's off topic and touching on a strawman. Should I have ignored them?

There are plenty of times when I've conversed with others and they don't reply to every single last remark. Sometimes it's because it's not fully necessary to make their points and sometimes it's because they aren't perfect and missed a few things.

I'm sure some of them are ignored on purpose, for some purpose, and as you've stated, that's acceptable in certain cases. It's odd who tends to be expected to respond to everything though and who get's to pass when they feel like it. It sure doesn't seem like equal treatment.

Utopia isn't just all encompassing perfection, it's perfection as of a certain state or place, so anything, at any time, at any level, could be considered utopia.

Yes, and American circumstances aren't totally, yet considerably different than Japanese or Australian circumstances. So why anything would definitely work, near as well or just as well, if not better, is just a guess at best. Though that doesn't seem to be a problem even though there's no proof they're automatically interchangeable between nations. Proof tends to be a big deal in here, especially when someone feels cornered.

It's based on what was said to Sundin about their poor analogy and how I compared that to defunding the police, or further controlling the law. If other circumstances were (highly) thought to bring a certain outcome, and didn't, or worse, why should this unproven idea be automatically accepted?

That's your stance and that's fine, but when you're asking about who ever said this or that, or who actually believes these things, some obviously do, and they apparently don't think I should be able to voice my opinion if they're complaining about me.

Bribes and lobbying aren't acceptable as per most citizens, both sides, but it's so entrenched at this point that most don't bother doing anything about it, especially when someone like Sanders get's cheated out of a Presidential run. The last questionable idea was to send a bull into a china shop, and look how that worked out. It led to an old white guy from the anti old white guy party, who was already losing his marbles prior to his election. What would actually work, who knows, but any idea's would be for a separate conversation.

Many couldn't really see a scenario where DJT ended up President, even some Republicans. Some Republicans couldn't believe Biden would win, especially with 80+ million votes at that. I'm sure in places like the UK, not too recent, but not all that long ago either, having knife violence be such a problem that restrictions on knives would be a thing, likely didn't seem possible to the point where nobody even thought about it back then.

Plenty of things are hard to fathom until they become reality.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said we'd need "five years of unemployment above 5% to contain inflation—in other words, we need two years of 7.5% unemployment or five years of 6% unemployment or one year of 10% unemployment."

That strategy largely mirrors the strategy of the Fed in the 70s, when, in order to fight inflation, they induced back-to-back recessions and record high unemployment. It "worked" in that inflation came down, but many critics of that monetary policy say that such heavy-handed tactics weren't necessary. The current Fed seems to be hoping those critics were right. While they are increasing the interest rates at a modest pace, they currently aren't (publicly) entertaining the idea of crashing the economy. 

So yeah, if the economy was actually bad, inflation wouldn't really be a problem. The problem in many senses is that the economy is too good. 

Your last three words nailed it, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Unemployment rate is essentially the same as it was pre-pandemic (3.6% vs 3.5%) which is historically low.

As for “lazy immigrants”, I have no idea where you’re getting that, immigrants have been known to do low paying, manual labor that a lot of Americans see as beneath them.

Economy is too hot (meaning people are spending faster than production) -> Inflation! (Money is worth less because demand outpaces supply) -> People start spending less on non-necessary items -> Economy Cools:

if demand is still greater than supply -> People are unable to cut spending any more on non-necessary items and start having to cut necessary items which wreaks havoc on housing and banking AND Large enough portions of businesses are feeling the tightened spending habits forcing them to layoff workers that further burdens are placed on basically everybody -> The country enters a recession while we deal with the consequences of everything falling apart

if demand is able to meet supply -> No recession occurs, and we continue the current growth cycle

That is my very simple and rough understanding of it. Economics has historically not been my strong suit though, so if I missed anything major (or if this is just dead wrong) let me know. 

Inflation can be caused by more than 1 thing... Remember Inflation is the increase in perceived costs of goods/services over a period of time.

World wide the main cause of inflation is due to the massive injection of cheap money into an economy in a short amount of time which decreases the value and thus purchasing power of each individual dollar.

The USA for example spent 4.5~ Trillion during the pandemic, that is -going- to have an effect on the economy.

It's honestly been a perfect storm... Because the Ukraine war increased the price of Crude which underpins the entire planets economy.. Suddenly transport gets more expensive, running farm equipment gets more expensive, traveling to work gets more expensive.. And those costs end up also getting passed onto all the goods/services we use daily.

Other factors come into play like China's manufacturing slowing to a crawl which has increased the price of manufactured goods due to limited supply.

Many countries are also struggling with produce-related issues, Indonesia has disease in it's livestock which has pushed up the price of meat...
Australia has been gripped by natural disaster after natural disaster... Wiping out crops and farms, lettuce for example is stupidly expensive.

We also have a massive housing shortage which is driving up the cost of rents and home purchases.

Interest rates, employment rates and more are all impacting inflation... And it's not limited to any single country, it's world-wide.

It's shown us how fragile the world wide economy is... How reliant we are on trade to produce, manufacture and service the nations across the globe.. As such many governments are bringing manufacturing and production back home to reduce those impacts going forward.

Basically high inflation in essential areas (fuel/food/housing) along with increased interest rates are likely to cause spending to decrease in non-essential areas which then leads to corporate revenue/profits declining which causes layoffs and stock prices to decrease.

drop in GDP+increased unemployment+stock market crash=recession