Right, I’m on your team here. I get it. We can’t do it today. The question is: why make conservative’s arguments for them? Why say “Oh, we’re too diverse to do this shit” as an argument against doing it? You’re right, we haven’t done it! And you’re going to post one of the weakest, least relevant, most conservative…

What things do we need to do first?

The problem is: if you think America won’t get something done, isn’t that an argument against diversity? Like, you’re essentially saying we should be less diverse because otherwise we won’t be able to do things that will keep kids from dying of preventable illnesses, give everyone the right to education, give everyone…

So let’s assume you’re right. Now what? Should we divide up people in the US by racial group and start new states based on those divides? This point is so beside the point of the policy argument. You’re talking about whether we can pass the laws with current US representation. Agree that this is difficult ask. But US…

I don’t understand what your point is. Your arg is: we shouldn’t have social services in America because there are black and hispanic people?

Also, universal health care gets easier to provide as you scale up. You become the only purchaser of those goods and services, you cut out lots of complicated bullshit paper…

It’s actually harder. They are more reliant on trade and economies outside themselves, and they don’t enjoy the same economies of scale or ability to negotiate prices for goods they wish to purchase.

Yet US was ranked 3rd very recently. How does that square with your assessment? Surely we were more or less equally diverse when we were ranked third as we are now.

OMG fuck off with the disingenuous “the left are secret misogynists” and that being the only reason they didn’t like Hillary, and blaming the left for her loss. Also, you say you think women won’t win because other people are sexist, but your college example is about a woman who sees herself as non-qualified. That’s a…

Sexism and misogyny are real, and my comment does not say otherwise. My comment was a hopeful one, though. I want more women to run because I think they will win if they do. If you read the Slate article, they talk about the cultural sexism that makes women think themselves less qualified for any given job. I would…

When women run for office, they tend to win: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2017/01/when_women_run_they_win_and_trump_s_election_is_inspiring_a_surge_of_new.html

Going to just keep linking this video on every post about Russ vs Kawhi, I don’t care if it’s not from this season.

Sorry, meant to spell it ingenuous. I do know what it means. I’m not insincere or trying to make some bad faith argument. Kawhi doesn’t lead the league in any major categories. That matters to me even in the face of all the advanced metrics and the immeasurability of defensive stats. Others here pointed out that his…

Well, I ingeniously think you should lead a stat category, or be top 3 in a few, in order to be considered for the MVP.

So the MVP is someone whose team doesn’t use him very much? I mean, I realize this isn’t exactly how it works, but you can look at per game numbers to kind of get close. you could look at per minute numbers. You could probably control for usage. But surely the MVP should be the best in one category, right?

Anyway,…

Name a statistical category Kawhi is league best in.

Round here, we let the dunks do the talking

This is the content I crave. I wanted hot, and I’ll be damned if you left my eyelashes un-singed here. Pink Skull...,.,,thank you.

My hot take? Fuck Kawhi.

You didn’t mention how we know he’s not taking this seriously because he cares more about fashion than being good at his job.