Thewillonline/reddit-v1-all · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 16.2k
Reddit Comment: No the ranch was a gimmic. After the presidency he pretty much gave it up and moved to Dallas.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Yeah, those radical christians flying airliners full of people into high rise buildings and blowing people up with pressure cooker bombs are hard to forget about.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Your last sentence there is an extremely vaid point imo, applicable to many issues. Idk why I don't see it come up more often (well I have my suspicions).


Sanders, like Obama (though Sanders explicitly states it more often) would be counting on public pressure to get his agenda through congress. Will the American People pay attention to, let alone engage our elected federal representatives more than once every 2-4 years? Doubtful.

DJT for various reasons, WILL be able to push his agenda through. A working UNDERSTANDING of contemporary media (and how to wield it effectively to spur action/change/engagement), and a proven track record of deal-making (aka: compromise) look to me to be almost pre-requisites for setting/enacting an agenda in the current legislative climate.


Anyway, good point- happy new year.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: I agree with the spirit of your post; abortion is NOT a totally risk free procedure, let's be honest. Any invasive procedure carries risk; puncturing of the uterus, infections can lead to sterility, etc. No doctor worth their salt would say "have as many abortions as you need". It's like any other health issue. You may need a gastric band to overcome obesity, which is a fairly "low-risk" procedure despite it's invasive nature, but no competent doctor would ever use it as the go-to cure for obesity. The same goes for abortion; abortion is a right for people who have the medical need as decided on by them, their partner and doctor. But that doesn't mean forgo responsible sex and birth control because you can just get an abortion. It doesn't work like that.


<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Not really. If you're hung up on the "print" part

You claimed the bakery suit violated the first amendment and chief an analogy involving print. It's not my fault your analogy is stupid. Once again : how does the bakery suit violate the first amendment?

then this is going right over your head.

The problem is that the analogy doesn't work, period.

The law says that if you sell a product to straight people, then you also need to be willing to sell the exact same product to gay people.

Your analogy involves forcing a business to sell a product that they normally don't carry and don't serve to anyone.

It's the difference between talking McDonald's that they have to sell big macs to black people if black people enter the store, vs. Forcing McDonald's to add sushi to their menu is a black person asks for sushi.

You're trying to pretend that the bakery is being forced to do the latter in order to avoid discussing the former. It's extremely dishonest.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Interesting question, maybe we need a new thread so this will be seen?
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: From what I understand it has a negative inflation rate, so it isnt really ideal.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: That's probably more of a tactic than an actual proposal, kind of like when you're haggling you ask for a much higher price knowing that once you're negotiated down you'll have what you wanted all along which in this case would be a social tax but to come straight out with that proposal would be a death blow to his campaign. It's unfortunate that people all over the world are so easily influenced by the media on these matters rather than trying to understand the positions of the candidates like you're doing.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Thanks! One detail on the TPP - MY view was and is that it is the job of congress to pass bills, not to just ignore it and leave it to the president. Turns out that my understanding on the issue wasn't quite right, but it helps explain my next point.

With the exception of Move-To-Amend, I don't think I've agreed with any specific view or bill. Thus I can't just throw my signature in with thousands of others. On TPP, everything was either to approve of the TPP or to reject the TPP. All I wanted was earnest reading and debating of the TPP. I realize that I'm no where near smart enough to comprehend all the details.

With Move-To-Amend, I told my representatives that I support them. I even included an early draft of their position. Both senators said that they support reversal of the affects of CU and other recent Court decisions but they don't want an amendment or they want this-or-that. In each case I explained why it needed to be an amendment and they needed to use the press-conferences and time in session to publicly support an amendment.

So I'm not a nutt-case. I understand that demand is not ideal but I don't like 'pussy-footing'. I use positive declarations like that to communicate that I will only be satisfied with positive movement toward resolution. Perhaps you can suggest 'the right way' to differentiate politicking and solid action?

Thanks again,


<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: I doubt they'll do much more than make a public spectacle of the attempt. It would serve them too well as a red herring that they could blame their mismanagement on.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Automod is not like Data. It's okay to support Automod genocide.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: That is why america is falling apart!
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Oh I've been here since the beginning :)
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: #37!

Thank you so much! Happy New Year!
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: ELI5: why??
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Has there been a worse run major political campaign in modern history than Jeb's?
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: No the ranch was a gimmic. After the presidency he pretty much gave it up and moved to Dallas.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Yeah, those radical christians flying airliners full of people into high rise buildings and blowing people up with pressure cooker bombs are hard to forget about.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Your last sentence there is an extremely vaid point imo, applicable to many issues. Idk why I don't see it come up more often (well I have my suspicions).

Sanders, like Obama (though Sanders explicitly states it more often) would be counting on public pressure to get his agenda through congress. Will the American People pay attention to, let alone engage our elected federal representatives more than once every 2-4 years? Doubtful.

DJT for various reasons, WILL be able to push his agenda through. A working UNDERSTANDING of contemporary media (and how to wield it effectively to spur action/change/engagement), and a proven track record of deal-making (aka: compromise) look to me to be almost pre-requisites for setting/enacting an agenda in the current legislative climate.

Anyway, good point- happy new year.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: I agree with the spirit of your post; abortion is NOT a totally risk free procedure, let's be honest. Any invasive procedure carries risk; puncturing of the uterus, infections can lead to sterility, etc. No doctor worth their salt would say "have as many abortions as you need". It's like any other health issue. You may need a gastric band to overcome obesity, which is a fairly "low-risk" procedure despite it's invasive nature, but no competent doctor would ever use it as the go-to cure for obesity. The same goes for abortion; abortion is a right for people who have the medical need as decided on by them, their partner and doctor. But that doesn't mean forgo responsible sex and birth control because you can just get an abortion. It doesn't work like that.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Not really. If you're hung up on the "print" part

You claimed the bakery suit violated the first amendment and chief an analogy involving print. It's not my fault your analogy is stupid. Once again : how does the bakery suit violate the first amendment?

then this is going right over your head.

The problem is that the analogy doesn't work, period.

The law says that if you sell a product to straight people, then you also need to be willing to sell the exact same product to gay people.

Your analogy involves forcing a business to sell a product that they normally don't carry and don't serve to anyone.

It's the difference between talking McDonald's that they have to sell big macs to black people if black people enter the store, vs. Forcing McDonald's to add sushi to their menu is a black person asks for sushi.

You're trying to pretend that the bakery is being forced to do the latter in order to avoid discussing the former. It's extremely dishonest.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Interesting question, maybe we need a new thread so this will be seen?

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: From what I understand it has a negative inflation rate, so it isnt really ideal.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: That's probably more of a tactic than an actual proposal, kind of like when you're haggling you ask for a much higher price knowing that once you're negotiated down you'll have what you wanted all along which in this case would be a social tax but to come straight out with that proposal would be a death blow to his campaign. It's unfortunate that people all over the world are so easily influenced by the media on these matters rather than trying to understand the positions of the candidates like you're doing.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Thanks! One detail on the TPP - *MY* view was and is that it is the job of congress to pass bills, not to just ignore it and leave it to the president. Turns out that my understanding on the issue wasn't quite right, but it helps explain my next point.

With the exception of Move-To-Amend, I don't think I've agreed with any specific view or bill. Thus I can't just throw my signature in with thousands of others. On TPP, everything was either to approve of the TPP or to reject the TPP. All I wanted was earnest reading and debating of the TPP. I realize that I'm no where near smart enough to comprehend all the details.

With Move-To-Amend, I told my representatives that I support them. I even included an early draft of their position. Both senators said that they support reversal of the affects of CU and other recent Court decisions but they don't want an amendment or they want this-or-that. In each case I explained why it needed to be an amendment and they needed to use the press-conferences and time in session to publicly support an amendment.

So I'm not a nutt-case. I understand that **demand** is not ideal but I don't like 'pussy-footing'. I use positive declarations like that to communicate that I will only be satisfied with positive movement toward resolution. Perhaps you can suggest 'the right way' to differentiate politicking and solid action?

Thanks again,

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: I doubt they'll do much more than make a public spectacle of the attempt. It would serve them too well as a red herring that they could blame their mismanagement on.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Automod is not like Data. It's okay to support Automod genocide.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: That is why america is falling apart!

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Oh I've been here since the beginning :)

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: #37!

Thank you so much! Happy New Year!

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: ELI5: why??

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Has there been a worse run major political campaign in modern history than Jeb's?

<|endoftext|>

User: