General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

The Rational National
comments

Comments by "" (@whyamimrpink78) on "It Took A National Outcry To Arrest Amaud Arbery's Killers" video.

Several things here. To start, of course David did not watch the video as it will go against his racist narrative. Next, there is a lot of misinformation out there. These guys did not chase him down, they were parked. Next, they felt he was stealing and thus, by GA law, were making a citizens arrest. Agree with it or not as there are arguments for and against it, but that is what they were doing. They actually called the police first and then asked him to stop. Now the video shows him running around the truck and from there is it unclear what happened next as the camera moved away and then shows Arbery wrestling with the other man trying to take the shot gun. Shots were fired and the man was killed. Now should have these two guys took their guns and waited for him? Maybe, maybe not. Apparently there is video of Arbery looking into a building that was being constructed at 2 in the morning. If that exist there is evidence he was stealing. Arbery could have ran away from the men but even after running past the truck he was still close to them begging the question if he could have avoided them all together. Not saying who is in the right and wrong, just saying this goes way beyond a white person shooting a black person.
1
Exactly. They were parked, they called the cops, Arbery ran around the truck but was still close to the two men. The camera pans away and when it captures the two men they are wrestling with the shot gun. Who knows who instigated? So it is not cut and dry. If the two guys were going to just shoot someone, why did they call the cops first? Also, there was a delay in arresting as one of the guys was a former cop and had a professional relationship with many in that local law enforcement so the GBI had to get involved which usually takes time.
1
@christopherebsch3766 not really. Run away. Or if you have a gun pull it out and use it. The video is unclear. It should be investigated but this is not cut and dry. Again, why did they call the cops?
1
@fg4462 I do not know. That should be investigated. That is the bottom line here. Do not jump to conclusion. My issue is when people jump to conclusions without consulting the justice system and also cry racism right away. More times than not people doing that are in the wrong and it hinders progress.
1
@fg4462 are they logically coming to it? That video is not clear. We do not know the dialogue between the guys, and they claim he was robbing places. Again, I do not agree with their actions, but there is probably more to it than what is in the video. This is why we have a legal system and an investigation.
1
@fg4462 you cannot just release evidence that quickly as in doing so an ignorant public will make their decision without a proper trial. It makes finding a jury more difficult. And again, the idiot public will draw a conclusion on little information. To give an example, TYT did a video about a cop trying to give a man orders to get on the ground and move away from the doorway. Another cop shot him. TYT and money on the left felt the guy giving orders shot him when it wasn't. Also, they were asking him to move away from the door as they did not know what was in the room. But of course TYT did not lay that out and people drew their conclusion that the cop was a murderer. And your layout of the situation is not 100% correct. No shots were fired until he started grabbing the gun. Did he instigate it? We do not know as we do now know what was said or if the person with the presented it in a threatening way. Consider this, say I have my hand gun on my hip and I approach you, is that threatening? No. But if you grab for my gun you are now a threat. The bottom line is this, do not jump to strong conclusions until an investigation was made. As for your claim of this were two black guys, prove it.
1
@cefngwyn playing the race card I see. So instead of looking into the issue you just want to jump to a strong conclusion and call racism. This is why many times the things you guy say fall to deaf ears.
1
@fg4462 they approached him, but in what way? In a threatening manner? Just carrying a gun is not a threatening manner. If he had try to run now you do have clear murder. But he tried to take the gun out of the other person's hands. That is what makes it tricky. You have the right to open carry, just carrying a gun does not make you a threat. More information is needed. Again, not defending them, just saying we need to let the legal system do its work and get all the facts out first.
1
@fg4462 that is not threatening them. Threatening them is telling them to stop or they will shoot you or point a gun at them. Carrying a gun is not illegal. I personally would not do it like that but still, not illegal. I never said no murder should be prosecuted. I am saying you should gather all the facts and then make a conclusion. Right now neither you nor I know the entire situation.
1
@fg4462 they weren't arrested as they originally called the cops. They are known thus an investigation is taking place. Problem is that one of the individuals is professionally connected with local officials thus it has to get transferred to someplace higher. With the current situation the legal system is slowed down (where it is slow to begin with). But an actual case has to be developed. They can take time as the two individuals are known and are not showing any signs of disappearing. I never said no murder would be prosecuted. You are going on the extreme route here. And I also not defending murder. I am laying out the system. No reason to arrest these two as they were giving no indication of running. Thus, behind close doors, a case is developed. One is developed, now they arrested. If you arrest them initially, when they called the cops and admitted to the killing and show no signs of running, you run the risk of Writ of Habeas Corpus where, if they win that, now you have no case.
1
@christopherebsch3766 yes, and that is why there is no initial arrest.
1
@fg4462 how so? You unlawfully arrest someone that can be used in their defense. That is true considering how the best this can go to is manslaughter. If they were unlawfully arrested manslaughter charges can be reduced involuntary manslaughter. Or even with voluntary manslaughter the prison time can be reduced. That can especially be true if a plea bargain is given.
1
@fg4462 you really do not understand the legal system do you?
1
Prophet Continue to enjoy losing. The rest of the nation is opening up while left wing states like IL and NY are failing. This virus, plus how democrats treated Trump, is showing how worthless left wing politicians are. Enjoy the Republican take over. I hope a silver lining in this entire situation is that people will wake up and realize that the current left wing politics do not care about the common man and they vote for someone else. Not saying they should vote republican but at least vote for a democrat that cares about people and not someone like Bernie who made millions off of his failed president run.
1
Prophet explain to me why you refuse to take me on? And explain to me why the ideas you support continue to lose so badly?
1
Racism hardly exist anymore. I feel like this was not an act of racism as these two individuals appear to not have a history of it. The problem these days is the constant use of the race card. The left has cried racism so much that when presented with a story like this I have huge doubt. You guys need to be careful when crying racism. The more you do it and end up being wrong the less people will believe you.
1
@YouTubeChannel-dk5xv how so? I am simply saying stop crying racism when it is not clear the acts were out of racism.
1
@BB-nm6oz care to give me those studies.
1
@moety2 I feel like it doesn't happen that much. Consider how this nation recently elected a black president. But please give me examples of how this nation has a racism problem.
1
@khalin8445 I feel like you are over exaggerating the issues and, honestly, I feel bad for you that you have that mindset. I know many black people who never cry racism and are very successful. You are looking for something that isn't there.
1
@Social_Pugatory they called the cops prior to confronting the man. If they were going to commit murder why call the cops first? Also, the video is unclear who instigated the situation first.
1
Ruth Amui I saw the video. It doesn't really showing them approaching him with guns. They were parked and called the cops. One was in the bed of the pick up without his gun in his hand from what I can tell. The jogger could have turned right and ran away from them, instead he was still near them. Then the camera pans away and an altercation broke out. I do now know who instigated it and that is the issue. It should be investigated, but this is not cut and dry.
1
Ruth Amui they called the cops and told him to stop according to their account. The camera pans away and when it goes back to them they are wrestling the shot gun. Who started that is unclear? That is the tricky part. If he was a burglar they actually do have a legal right to approach him as GA law allows for citizens arrest. That is another tricky part here. And just carrying a gun is not threatening as open carry is allowed. Thus, if they were just carrying it and not making threats they did nothing illegal. But the video is not clear. I am not sympathizing with the murderers, I am showing that, as with everything else, it is complex. And if the legal system makes a decision you disagree with you should have the information laid out before you. You need to consider both sides of the argument. I do not agree with what these men did, but try to understand the full situation and not jump to conclusions.
1
@karmafride1237 I have seen the full video. To start,they called the cops. Next, they were not holding the guns in a threatening manner, such as pointing it at them. It is unclear but there does seem to be some shots showing he attacked first trying to take the gun. If you watch the video the guy in the truck did not even have his gun ready. They arguably took action because he was trying to take one of the guns. I do not agree with their actions as I will never do this, but this is not a cut and dry case and you can't cry racism here with such little, and vague evidence. If they really wanted to shoot him why not just do it and drive off?
1
@karmafride1237 again, I am not supporting their actions, and I am saying an investigation is needed. You are going off of one piece of evidence, a poorly done video. You cannot draw a conclusion based off of that.
1
@karmafride1237 overall, as I said, I do not agree with their actions, and the Gov. does not either. If you were to hold a gun to my head and have me make a conclusion I will say they committed man slaughter for a careless act. But, as usual, I say let the justice system do its thing. More times than not it works. The problem is that many on the left immediately make a conclusion and immediately cry out racism and more times than not they are wrong. Thus when a story like this does come out people do not follow it as they have doubts when it comes from a left wing source. To give you an example, when the Charlottesville incident happened and many left wing sources were crying that there were racists there I dismissed it as they have been screaming that for years. But when I finally looked into it they were correct for once, there were racists there. But that is one time out of many. Steven Crowder ended up doing doing a segment on that called "The Little Boy Who Cried Nazi!". The point of pointing out there were actual racists there it fell to deaf ears. You still hear it when Gov. Whitmer was calling the protesters at her capital racists. What I am saying is hold off of the conclusions.
1
@lookingforsomething there are questions, there always are. That is why we do an investigation. Crowder has a point. When you guys cry Nazi and racist all the time it will fall on deaf ears. You will make a very poor lawyer.
1
@lookingforsomething you may not of, but many on the left has. That is the problem. Also, there is nothing illegal about carrying a weapon and carrying a weapon does not mean you are threatening anyone. I personally would not do it but we have laws and standards in place for a reason. Were they using the weapon for intimidation? Depends on what the evidence comes out. Not defending these guys, simply saying your nor I know the full story.
1
@lookingforsomething and you go through the legal system. That is what I am saying in the end. In many cases not much is released from the public. Again, I do not have all the information and neither do you. Do not jump to a conclusion. I have not made one yet. As for calling people Nazis, we see it from politicians such as Gov. Whitmer. And we see it in the media. They have no actual argument and just call people Nazis and racists. That is an issue. It is true that people were calling the Tea Party a bunch of racists when they weren't.
1
@anelisajustanelisa236 and when he tried to take the shot gun out of that person's hands he became arm. Now who instigated? We do not know.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 uh, no. I am sticking to my standard of letting the justice system play out. You are sticking to your standard of labeling someone guilty immediately and then wondering why you end up being wrong so often. You see, when far leftists cry racism any time a white person kills a black person and claim the killing was not justified, and after the legal process strong shows it was, you guys cry. And this is why stories like these fall to deaf ears.
1
@lookingforsomething it did. The legal system, especially these days with the shut down, takes time. You can't just arrest people. This is true considering how they called the cops and they two were not going anywhere. At that point the prosecuting attorney has to see if there is a case. The issue is that with one of the individual having a professional relationship with local officials it had to be bumped up which delayed the process. You want that as you don't want that to go to trial when one of the individuals is strongly connected. In fact, that is illegal in some ways. "There was just a week or so ago a video of a police officer arresting a doctor on his own backyard for loading up his van with medical equipment when he was going out to help the homeless." Care to give me more context? That is the point. You can't just give me one small bit of information. It is similar to BLM. When Alton Sterling of Louisiana was killed BLM made it sound like he was killed for selling CDs. In reality, and there is film of this, he was resisting arrest, tazed twice, and started to reach for his gun. But BLM still marked for him saying the killing was unjust. That is my point, most of the time when far leftists look at these instances they immediately assume the shooter is guilty. I say take it to the justice system and lay out all the facts and arguments. My standard is 100% consistent. Your standard is not. You immediately assume guilt but after the facts and arguments are laid out, you are shown to be incorrect, but you still ignore the facts.
1
@lookingforsomething exactly. I want due process. Never once did I say these men are innocent. And I also said I do not agree with their actions. However, we need to go through due process. As I said in another comment, there are many times people on the left assumed that the shooter was guilty. And even after going to court and the facts and arguments do not show guilt, people on the left cry still while ignoring what arguments and facts were actually laid out. Take the Michael Brown case. Even an independent autopsy showed that he was in position to attack the cop. Also, Brown had a friend with him who was black at the time. But the cop was not racist enough to kill him? The reality is that the left is, more often than not, wrong when it comes to stories like these. That is why it falls on deaf ears. When you cry racism and call the shooter guilty immediately, and very often the evidence shows otherwise, how can I take you seriously? Even in this case where I feel these two individuals are idiots, I have a very high level of doubt.
1
Cthulhu In the deep how am I wrong on economics? As for being a detective, there is no way this video alone will prove guilt in court. You need more evidence.
1
Cthulhu In the deep as for me being wrong, consider that every time you have a shooting like this most of the time you guys are in the wrong.
1
@lookingforsomething here is another issue. I have said that I support groups like BLM if they remained principle. However, often they don't. In the eyes of the law everyone should be treated equally. But laws are enforced by humans which creates an immediate flaw. With BLM I feel they should consolidate their resources and anytime there is a black guy killed by a white guy, especially if it is a cop, they hire a private investigator and a private attorney and dig deep. However, when the evidence does not show it was an unjust killing they should move one. The issue is that no matter what the evidence says they march the streets and complain. As I said with the Alton Sterling case, BLM said he was killed for selling CDs. No, he was killed for resisting arrest, was tazed twice, and then started reaching for his gun. But BLM still marched for him. For anyone out there, how can I take things you guys say seriously anymore when many on the left, especially BLM, label that as an unjust killing?
1
@adamkrason53 ever thought you get angered because you are driver on pure emotions and not any kind of reasoning? I am trying to expand the conversation and give the whole story. The reality is this, and this is true on economic issues. When you go to the core the political left bases their ideas on emotions and the political right bases their ideas on facts and logic. Not saying one side is better than the other as we need a mixture of both. The vast majority of the time the solution lies in the middle. But people on these pages I try to have a discussion with are far leftists and are driven on pure emotions and hardly any facts and reasoning. In the end I am trying to expand the conversation. When you do that you will become less emotional and much happier and consistent overall.
1
@adamkrason53 to add, far leftists are all over the place. You guys complain about how high our incarceration rate is high, but then want to immediately call someone guilty on little evidence. Your standard will increase the incarceration rate.
1
@lookingforsomething to add, consider Writ of Habeas Corpus. These men admitted to the killing. They, at the time, argued stand their ground and citizens' arrest, but which are legal. Now add in the fact that they were connected professionally to local officials and that they show no signs of running, if arrested at that point a lawyer will argue Writ of Habeau Corpus. If they win that case now you have no case as an unlawful arrest was used. And even if a case is brought up chances are this will be a manslaughter charge and they will serve less prison time due to unlawful arrest. Basically, they showed no sign of running, thus there was time to build up a case. That occurred. Now they have a reason to arrest them and not fear Writ of Habeas Corpus. The law and justice system is written out in that if some kind of unjust practice is occurred the person that happens to ends up with the advantage. The court had no reason to risk that as the men showed no sign of running. So why arrest them until you know you have a case? Again, they admitted to the killing and has some legal support. If arrested at that point, when they were showing no sign of running, a Writ of Habeas Corpus could, with high potential, be ruled in their favor. Now you have a much higher legal mess on their hands where those two guys have an advantage. So consider all of that. Again, there is a lot to this.
1
@lookingforsomething I gave you two on the Alton Sterling case and Michael Brown case. Crowder does lay out a lot as well. As I said, I feel they can serve a great purpose in society, but they have have principles and not cry racism the second a cop kills a black guy. As for far lefty, they mainly use emotions as opposed to facts and reasoning. One great example is Kyle Kulinski. He will take one bit of information and run with it on a purely emotional rant. Consider his most recent video on the hair salon owner being arrested. He feels the solution would be simply a UBI and rent and mortgage freeze. However, it isn't that simple. Right now with the shut down economy we have a meat shortage, how long until we have a food shortage? A UBI does nothing. And rent freeze will cause land lords to go bankrupt having the banks run the rentals. And a mortgage freeze will have banks running out of money creating easy monetary policy with the Fed causing massive inflation. That is an example. Pushing purely emotional arguments with limited facts and reasoning.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 what you fail to see is that in many ways the system is designed to have it so you are innocent until proven to be guilty, and that those being charged have a lot of rights, and for great reason. I rather have a million guilty men walk free as opposed to arresting one innocent man. So here 1. That is being investigated. We did not know until recently 2. He "defended" himself against who? Were the men brandishing their guns in a threatening manner? Where they making threatening comments? We cannot tell. Thus, him trying to take away that guy's gun can, arguably, make him the dangerous one. 3. Yes, that is how you do it legally. It went to two places where in both cases there were personal and professional connections. Thus it has to go to a court system where there is no such connection. That is to prevent a mistrial. 4. There was little outcry. Those who did it do not understand the system. Here is it, my process not only has standards but also has the potential to give them the harsher sentencing. These are two individuals who called the cops, admitted to the killing, and had no intention to run away. If you were to arrest them sooner Writ of Habeas Corpus would have been pushed causing them to be released from jail. That such action would have led to a lighter sentencing as, from the very beginning, a lawyer can argue that his clients were mistreated. Again, the system is there to give rights and protections to those begin charged. Next, it had to go through two systems which took time due to personal and professional connection. If it would have be ran at those systems a mistrial could have been filed creating a much larger legal mess. That is why it took so long to finally be investigated leading to arrest and charges. So at this point, with your ignorance on they system, you should be glad there are people out there who know what they are doing. If they would have went your route these two individuals, if found guilty, would surely receive a shorter sentencing due to mistrials and unlawful arrest at the beginning. You should be cheering me on because, if found guilty, the situation is set up to give them the harshest sentencing available. You are welcome.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 again, the system is in place to give rights and protection to those being charged, and for great reason. If you are charged for murder you will want that. Thus it places the prosecutors in a situation where they have to build up a case and not place themselves in a situation where the people they are charging as a case against them in mistreatment. It isn't a simple as watching a video and then arresting. There is way more to it.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 it is not about me being moral but about me knowing the legal system and how, if approached incorrectly, the system can become messed up leading to an unjust ruling and trial.
1
@anelisajustanelisa236 in the end I feel they did instigated it. I would not have done what they did. However, we have to let the justice system do its thing. Also, as for taking so long, it had to run though two DA offices to start with. Next, an actual case had to be realized. Considering how the two guys were known, called the cops and admitted to it, the prosecutors had time to gather up as much as possible and then take action to give the longest sentencing possible. If they arrested them too quickly unlawful arrest would have been pushed and most likely won as, again, they admitted to it and had no intentions on running.
1
@lookingforsomething let us compare it to the Jussie Smollet case. The investigators had a lot of information that it was staged and that his friends were in on it. They did not say anything for a long time because his friends were out of the country. If they would have the friends would not re-enter the country. When they did then the prosecutors took actions. They waited it out until they can take action to push for the longest sentencing possible. So yes, it is common to wait it out. Considering how they called the cops, admitted to the killing, and were not running away. And it went through two DA offices, it is clear why it took so long. The people pressing charges now waited until they felt they had the strongest case possible and did not give the two individuals anything they can use in their defense, such as an unlawful arrest. So you should be happy now. As for the UBI argument. To start, the current unemployment benefit situation is showing how much of a mess the government is. At the state level unemployment programs are very archaic and cannot handle this many people, thus millions are not getting their check. The federal government just arbitrary created $600/week. What that did is create a situation where many are earning more through unemployment than their actual job. There were some "greedy" small business owners who, instead of taking out the government loan to pay their employees, they fired them as they would earn more via unemployment. That shows how inefficient the government is. Next, a UBI is pointless is there are goods to buy. Right now we have a meat shortage and the meat we have is seeing an increase in prices. Remember when there was no toilet paper? If you give out a UBI and productivity does not match it prices will go up. Thus that woman will have be in the same boat. Simply giving money way shows how shallow the far left can be and how little they know objectively. You can't consume what you don't produce. A UBI will lead to higher prices where that hair salon owner will still have to work. "It has a considerably higher multiplier effect on the economy than nearly any other economic policy." Yeah, as in higher inflation as again, there is currently low to no productivity due to no one working. You can go to almost any Wendys and ask for a hamburger and offer hundreds of dollars. Guess what, you won't get it as they don't have it. So tell me how will a UBI work when there are no goods to buy? "There are plenty of logical arguments for UBI and Kyle did make a logical argument." There were none as he is completely ignoring the part that goods are limited, especially now with no one producing. I have been going to the grocery store and many shelves are empty. In some places there is no bleach or cleaners. How will more money help me buy something that isn't available? " Woman needs income to feed her kids -> guarantee her income." Limited food available->food prices go up->she is in the same situation as before This is proving my point. You guys are ignore a very important part of the issue, when there are no goods to be bought more money does not mean anything. All a UBI will do at this point is just raise prices. " have read plenty of scientific studies on UBI and there are many good reasons for it to work." Doubt it as very few examples exist. And in Canada they are starting to see an increase in food prices as well as expected. As for infection wise, Canada is around 125 deaths per million, the US is around 270 deaths per million. However, we have outliers. 34 of our states have less than 125 deaths per million. In two states, NY and NJ, they have over 1000 deaths per million. Remove those states the US is on par with Canada. So no, they are not doing better with the virus. This is what I am saying. You take one bit of information and run with it purely on emotions and do not dig farther. The UBI situation is key. Again, how do you buy something that does not exist?
1
@lookingforsomething the comment I wrote to you was meant to be for anelisa just anelisa.
1
@anelisajustanelisa236 the comment I wrote to you was meant for Matti. Read the comment I wrote to Matti, that is meant for you.
1
@lookingforsomething to add on Prophet's comment, that is not me. I never once said taxation is theft. Also, Sam is the most annoying of the people on the left. All he does is berate people and has no actual argument beyond straight up lying or crying racism. On this virus issue he is lying. He is saying the number of cases is going up in every state when in reality in most states the number of new cases a day has either been stagnant or dropping despite more testing.
1
@lookingforsomething the majority of cases are like that. That is why it takes months to take a case to trial. While it is from 1986, the BJS said that felony cases resulting trials take around 7.5 months. So yes, it does take time. It takes time to gather evidence, develop a case, and go through all the processes. " Every country on earth has cheaper health care than the US though and the US health care is not even in the top 40 in international rankings. " Healthcare rankings are 100% arbitrary. The US does many things well. As pointed out in the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas, we lead the world in access to advanced testing and care and lead the world in survival rates in advanced illnesses. Now there are arguments for and against that. However, every healthcare ranking comes from special interest groups with a motive. The US does many things well, but so do other nations. They reason why other nations pay less is because they simply offer less. They offer less care. We are seeing that now with the virus where many nations with universal healthcare like the UK, Spain, France, etc. are doing worse than the US. So you cannot say a centralized system is better than the private system as the US system does beat out other nations in many ways. Not saying those systems are inferior,they do many things well, but they do have shortcomings. "UBI is extremely less maintenance heavy than your example of unemployment benefits. All you need is a system that verifies that every person gets only one case of UBI and you are set." It is not that easy. All you are doing is now raising the floor from zero to some number. That will raise prices. "You are sidestepping the issue. She can't afford food for her kids, not because prices went up, but because she has 0 income. Zero. Even if prices wen up 20% (which they haven't) on a regular salary a person who used to manage could still manage." Why won't prices go up? "Also you saying that the food prices have gone up in the US and in Canada would be a pretty good argument for the UBI not being the cause of the price rise. Honestly you didn't show any correlation. You just observed two things and assumed that there might be a connection, for your own benefit." Prices are up because supply is limited. So no, it is not a good argument for UBI. With UBI supplies do not magically appear. Thus you increase demand which will increase prices. "Returning back to the lady, her problem is that she is getting no money. There is either the non option of her going back to work and spreading the virus, or some sort of alternative income. As I said before UBI is a completely valid solution to that. You saying that UBI has problems doesn't change the fact that it would solve her problem. " It will 100% not solve her problem as, again, we have a shortage of supplies. Just giving people money does not increase supplies. Thus prices will go up. Now she is in the same situation. Here is a problem I have with the far left, they grossly oversimplify these complex issues. You say that a UBI will solve her problem but completely ignore that supplies are right now limited. Retail stores have to limit the amount of TP and cleaner to buy as supplies are limited. You are ignoring all of that. Thus, a UBI will simply raise prices as demand will go up but supply won't. "There is a clear chain of causality. (woman has no money to feed her kids) -> UBI -> (woman has money to feed her kids). So yes UBI is a logical solution to her problem. " No, it is a grossly oversimplification of the problem. As I said, I could go into my retail store and offer hundreds of dollars for bleach and I would not be able to get it. Why? There were none on the shelves. You can't consume what you don't produce. You do know that the economy is much more than just money? Your logical conclusion is flawed in that a UBI will not magically create more food. Thus food prices will go up and she still won't be able to afford food. And if food prices do not go up due to lack of productivity the supply of food will drop a lot making a UBI pointless as there is now nothing to buy. "If we spent 1 trillion on UBI, do you think it would increase inflation more than the corporate bailouts that cost way over 5 trillion dollars pushed for by Pelosi, Biden, McConnel and Trump?" Never said I agree with that. However, there is a difference in how a corporation spends money and how an individual does. You really can't compare the two. Thus it is a poor argument to make. A corporation is looking to keep investors because without investors the corporation will have to downsize causing more layoffs and less supplies. An individual downsizing only influences themselves and those around them. And starting up as an individual is easier than a corporation. For example, in the airline industry, if it shuts down to re-open it you have to test all the planes, apply for licenses, test all the equipment and coding, etc. Again, not defending the corporate bailouts. But to compared to individual bailouts is grossly oversimplifying the issue. Also, giving individuals money is pointless if there is nowhere to buy things. "Also what do you think the inflation rate for UBI would be? I'm not denying that there wouldn't be any," Right now it is a double edge sword of no productivity and pumping money into the system. So inflation will be high. "The multiplier effect is a very real thing. A person that has a million dollars consumes a lot less than a thousand people with one thousand dollars. This is taught in economics 101." 100% not true. How a million spends is different compared to an individual. A millionaire will spend to invest which grows the economy, or some sector of it. Someone is a millionaire because they provided something the people wanted. "From a moral point of view (now this is a moral/emotional argument if you will) do you think it's better that we gave the richest 1% 5 trillion dollars, than the people who can't afford to get tested, face masks or food on the table to get, let's say, 0,5 trillion dollars? Why do you think what you believe?" Depends, more complicated than that. I earn $23,000 a year. I am not asking for a dime to do what I feel is right under these times because I still have a job. When did I say people are lazy? There is a shortage of goods. For, example, we have a meat shortage.
1
@lookingforsomething it isn't a difference between two moral arguments. Again, on UBI you take that and run with it on pure emotions and nothing else saying that will help. You see someone with no money and basically say "that is bad, we need to give them money, that will solve everything" It is started on the idea that, emotionally, you feel it is bad and can't go beyond that. However, the factual and logical argument attached to it is that it is not tacking the elephant in the room, and that is productivity. A UBI will not increase productivity. Machines and people can only produce so much. Even in strong economic times a UBI will not all of a sudden increase productivity. That is why the "multiplier effect" is bogus as a UBI does not increase anything besides money in someone's pocket. Thus prices will go up. Now take these times. Productivity is low. Shelves are empty in retail stores. A UBI will just make the situation worse at this point. I say far left because going to far on one side or another is bad as all solutions are in the middle. With the hair salon owner yes, I feel for her and thus oppose the lock down restrictions for her to work. I feel bad (emotional side) but also understand that in earning the money it will not harm the economy as a UBI would (factual and logical side). With you you feel bad for her (emotional side), but you become so emotional that you completely dismiss the complexity of the issue and feel that just throwing money at her will somehow solve this very complex problem. Now take the far right perspective. They do not feel bad for her (no emotions) and feel that she should have went after a more stable career. Many of my friends earned their PhDs and are doing well working at home. Why not her?.......That is the far right's argument. Ignore emotions that she is actually passionate about owning a salon despite how risky it is and how a bad economy can cause hardships. You see the two extremes? Your extreme says just throw money at it and things will magically get better. You are ignore the facts and logic that supply is limited, especially now with low productivity. And a UBI will not magically create more supply. You cannot consume what you do not produce. That is why a UBI will not solve this problem. The economy goes way beyond money. You learn that in Econ 101.
1
@lookingforsomething I wrote a long comment and it does not seem to be posting. I will go with this short point. UBI does not increase supply. UBI will increase demand thus causing prices to go up. You have yet to counter that at all. That is the point. Simply giving money away does not improve a situation. Maybe my other comment will post, but I have to go work on my dissertation.
1
@lookingforsomething you bring up this 20%, where do you get this? Again, we have empty shelves. There is no productivity right now. Giving away money is pointless when there is no productivity. Read carefully: You cannot consume what you don't produce. Giving everyone a UBI just raises prices and that salon owner is in the exact same position as before. "You seem to be ignoring how the market works. Yes UBI creates demand. That is exactly it's purpose. It increases demand, which in turn creates supply" I do know how it works. Productivity can only go so high. Machines can only produce so much. People can only become so productive. Look up "law of diminishing returns" where eventually no matter how much invest your output will not improve. I am going to explain this economic concept for you On that law say with zero studying you will get a 50% on a test. Now say with 5 hours of studying you can improve to 85%. So by that logic 2.5 hours more of studying you should get a 100%. In reality you may only get an 87%. Why? Because as some point you can only gain so much. You reach a point that to obtain max amount you have to spend a lot of time/resources. Now to give a couple of economic issues. First take healthcare. Gov. Cuomo said something that is you we spend a trillion dollars and save one person's life it was worth it. Well, in reality it wasn't. That is why in every healthcare system people end up dying due to lack of access. Other nations save money by simply capping how much care one receives. But let us take an easier example. Say a man can run an 8 minute mile. You say you will give them 50 dollars if they ran a 6 minute one. They work hard and eventually do it. Now you say you will pay them 500 dollars to run a 4 minute mile. However, no matter how hard they try they can't do it for many reasons maybe age, health, genetics, etc. Say you raise it to a million dollars, but they still can't do it. Why? Because he, genetically or physically or whatever has a max. You actually see this with many professional athletes. Same is in economics. Eventually productivity will max out thus prices will go up. People can only work so much. "That is the core philosophy of capitalism. When there is demand the market reacts and creates supply." I brought up an example of a cell phone at one point. A cell phone in the 80s was for only the rich. It was not created because a large group can afford it. It was created that the general public do want better technology. Those making it know that most cannot afford it. But over time, as technology improved, more can. That is why so many own smart phone. People desire better goods and services regardless of their income. Thus companies find a way to provide that at a low price. Now if you give people money and they are willing to spend for teleportation will they get it? No, because it does not exist. But again, most were not going to spend money on brick cell phones but they were still created. Your idea on the economy and market is flawed. "Anyhow, during depression the problem is that there is no demand" Huh? You just agreed there is a demand for TP and bleach? Now you are saying there isn't? Also, low demand means lower prices. Notice how low gas prices are? "That's why when you inject money in to the economy it is done in hopes of creating more demand" Which never has worked. "More over UBI is extremely fair" Emotional argument. "For the people with nothing it can provide security, and for those who are decently off it provides a rung up in quality of life. " Actually, as with the min. wage, it raises the lower rungs. Say in my city everyone got an extra $1000 a month. Landlords will raise rent. Why? Because rent is around $800 a month for a one bedroom apartment. Demand will go up thus rent prices will go up. And you will claim "they will build more apartments". That takes a couple of years. "She is saying "she has no money to feed her children" UBI is literally a solution to that. It is a solution that removes the need of her to endanger herself and others during lock down"' Again, no it is not. Ready slowly You cannot consume what you don't produce. Production is low right now. You create a UBI prices of food all across the board due to 1. Lack of productivity and 2. Higher demand across the board Thus that salon owner will be in the same situation.
1
@lookingforsomething here is your problem. You feel the economy works in a bubble. You feel that you can change one part of it and nothing else will happen. You feel that simply giving more people money for doing nothing will not change anything else in the economy. Consider yourself. Say you gave your neighbor $20. That's it. What did you gain? Nothing. Now you are out $20. Why? You spent $20 for nothing, thus that $20 is worthless according to you. Same if you give people a UBI, that money is literally worthless now. And this is what I keep saying, you are grossly oversimplification of it.
1
@lookingforsomething I will add, I have 4000 dollars in my checking account. If you can run a 3 minute mile I will give you all of that, no questions asked. Deal? I work at a university so I can time you on a track. Run a 3 minute or faster mile and I will give you 4000 dollars. Deal?
1
Cthulhu In the deep it isn't because I said so. To start, productivity is down right now because people are not being allowed to work. Reopening the economy will increase productivity. So your first part is wrong, I never said productivity won't increase. What I did say is that there is a max. I gave an example of someone running a mile. Even if you promise someone a million dollars if they ran a 3 minute mile they won't be able to do it for many reasons. We see this with professional athletes who many do not live up to their contracts. But let us look at something else in the market, construction. Many contracts in construction end up paying more if a job is finished earlier. Take C.C. Myers for example and the repair of the MacArthur Maze. His original bid covered only 1/3 of the cost but he was given the incentive of $200,000 a day for early completion before June 27th. He finished on May 24 earning an extra $5 million. So yes, more money did motive him to finish the project more. But why did he not finish it May 17 and earn more money? Or May 10? Because there is a limit in how productive a system is. Even if he finished May 20 he would have received more money, so why didn't he? This is a part of the "law of diminishing returns" to where at a point no matter how much you put into something you will not be getting anything back. So while yes, putting more money in a system can increase productivity, there is a max. So there is evidence for you. At this point I am sure you will not respond.
1
@lookingforsomething "I doubt you can be bothered to crawl through everything we wrote here, but I asked pink about 3 times to explain how he identifies a "far left" person since he seems to believe a huge amount of things about these "far left" people. So far he has not managed to answer my questions, so I'll just keep on asking until he can explain himself." I have explained it, but here we go. Anyone on the radical side of the political spectrum completely ignore the other side of the argument or other people's positions on an issue. To give you an example I will use Bernie. During a debate against Ted Cruz Bernie was ask by a hair salon owners in TX on how, with Obamacare, can she expand her business to over 50 employees and afford to pay for there healthcare insurance without raising prices on their customers. Bernie's response was that if she expanded her business she will have to provide her employees with healthcare insurance. So immediately he did not answer the question. She asked how. He said "I don't know" and then went on a rant about some hypothetical situation of another hair salon that charges more so they can pay for employees healthcare insurance. She responded that the profit margins in that business is small. He said he does not know much about the hair stylist business but if she expands she has to provide healthcare insurance to her employees. In that entire situation he never once tried to understand her profit margins, what expenses she has, what revenue she had, debt, long term vs short term employees, etc. As a whole he voted for Obamacare never once trying to understand the basics challenges of what a business owner goes through. Now compare that to Bill Clinton. In 1994 Herman Cain ask Bill Clinton a similar question related to his business mandate. Cain said he went through the numbers himself and compared to other businesses and the cost of Bill's plan was more than expected. Cain asked to Clinton what should he tell his employees when he has to lay them off because he can't afford their healthcare insurance. Clinton responded with actual numbers. He said that around 1/3 of expenses are payroll and Cain said that is an "adequate estimation". Clinton then ran through numbers and gave Cain advice on raising pizza prices $2 and then made a settle joke where the crowd laugh. In which Clinton said to the crowd that Cain has a very serious question, 40% of the American food dollar is spent eating out. Cain disagreed with Clinton's conclusion and gave his numbers. Overall, while I disagreed with Clinton he at least looked into a policy he supported and saw both sides of the issue. It is not to say you need to know everything, but you should have a basic understanding. With any government policy there is going to be a drawback. People on the radical side on either part of the spectrum completely ignores those drawbacks. As with Obamacare and Bernie. Yes, an advantage is that it gave people healthcare insurance who did not have it before. However, a drawback is that some businesses will not be able to expand. When that hair salon owner brought that up Bernie simply dismissed her saying "follow the law". That compare to Clinton where he took the time to understand the challenges and barriers a business faces knowing full well that his bill would create another. That is what makes someone far left, and I see it here all the time. Take healthcare for example. You yourself talked about how other nations pay less and are better where I, with sources, explained how that is not true. There is a drawback. Many on the far left point to the Koch brothers study in how M4A will cost less. But it isn't that easy. Many still assume that under a M4A system it will cost less but quality will still be the same. That is not true. M4A only cost less if we assume that usual 40% less pay it has now compared to private insurance. So with that healthcare providers will limit access to care as other nations do to keep spending low. There are arguments for and against that but it is legit. A reason why Medicare even works in the US is because it is subsidized by private insurance. A reason why healthcare cost so much is because Medicare pays 40% less and thus healthcare providers charge private insurance, that covers other people, more to make up the difference. We are also seeing it now with this virus. Ben Shapiro did a video last week entitled "Ben Shapiro SLAMS Democrats For Pushing For Continued Lockdowns" Many states are reopening and many on the far left are calling them stupid and that they are wanting to kill people. As Ben said, what is the solution? Staying lock down is not one as the bad economy is going to kill as well. The far left just keeps pushing to stayed lock down. You see that in CA where, despite low infection and deaths, are in "phase 2" but still have not opened up dining areas where in my state "phase 1" has. Or how Maine extended their lock down until the end of May. And you have far leftists who rip on people wanting to open up. The Humanist Report did a recent video of a man in WI saying "fuck you" to the protesters as opposed to trying to understand their position.
1
@lookingforsomething It comes down to this. I call people here far left because when I give a legit counter argument to what they support, or being up legit concerns I get berated and dismissed. Stephen Michael Davis broke down how those people think and it goes like this 1. There is a major problem 2. The solutions are simple and without consequences 3. They are popular 4. If you disagree you are either corrupt, a bigot or ignorant The last part is key. If you disagree with their ideas you are one of those three. However, the reality is this. On the issues far leftists talk about there are experts on all sides with different opinions. I have said that many times. I have said there are advantages to a universal healthcare system. I realize that. But there are major drawbacks as well but the far left ignores them. But in the conversation you and I had with UBI. You say UBI will increase productivity. While I will agree to a point it will, but there is a max. That is why many bring up the radical point when it comes to the min. wage of "why not $100/hr" or with UBI in "why not give everyone a million dollars". Many in support of those programs will admit, then, that is too much. What they are doing without knowing is admitting to the economy concept of the "law of diminishing returns". What that means is that no matter how much you invest in something what you get in return will be low, if at all. I gave you the example of offering someone a million dollars to run a 3 minute mile. Even with that much offered it won't happen. You see that a lot in where many professional athletes do not live up to their contracts. But let us use another example. Take the case of C.C. Myers and the MacArthur Maze project. His bid only covered 1/3 of the cost. However there was an incentive of $200,000 a day if he completed before the June 27th deadly. He finished May 24 and received $5 million dollars. So yes, the incentive had him finish early. But why not finish May 20, or May 17 and get even more money? Because, in the end, you can only work and produce so much. With you I bring up that point with UBI and you dismiss it. Why? Because you are a far leftist. Not saying you are a bad person or that you are dumb. A lot of people really cannot see beyond themselves which is why we have a government system the way it is. But the reality is that during our conversation I brought up the issues of UBI and you dismissed the fact that eventually productivity will be maxed out.
1
Prophet the child separation policy is typical when a parent breaks the law. When Shelley Luther went to jail did her kids go with her? Also, many drug dealers use children as a means to get into the nation. Thus they are separated to see is the adult is really the child's parents. So no, I do not ignore it. As for Bernie being a communist, he supports a centralized, planned economy. You can see that with his support of the GND and his support of creating federal government jobs. That is how communist nations like the Soviet Union worked.
1
Prophet how did I ignore foreign policy? You are talking about separating kids from parents when they cross the border. I told you why. 1. When you break the law you are separated from your kids. Again, did Shelley Luther have her kids go to jail with her? 2. Drug dealers use kids to get into the border easier, so they separate them to see if the adult is the kid's parent. 3. When gathering information it is good to have the parents and kids separate so it does not disturb the procedures as very little records are there 4. They are coming here on the idea of fleeing a dangerous nations. I am sure a temporary separation is the least hard ship they face. You do know they are eventually reunited? But go ahead and claim I ignore the issue.
1
Prophet "It's because the people are too lazy to take minutes out of their day to do some basic research instead of watching stupid videos" While I agree there I have not see anything to suggest you do research yourself. However, calling others stupid is not going to solve anything. And, those who watch those videos simply want to be entertained and enjoy life. Is that wrong? That is why we have a government designed the way it is, with it having limitations in power and more state rights. It prevents the government from taking advantage of people who simply either do not have the desire to do research, or the time or ability. But the fact that you feel Sam Seder is a credible source shows you have not done any research yourself. And the fact that you simply dismiss me when I am constantly citing experts and real world examples shows you refuse to be objective. This is why you just attack me with that Sam video of that caller claiming it was me with zero evidence.
1
Cthulhu In the deep I am not saying there is no food. What I am saying is that she, along with others, cannot afford food. Your solution is UBI. However, if you give people a UBI food prices will go up thus they are in the same situation. And also, we have a meat shortage as is. Food and supplies are dropping which is why prices are going up. A UBI will make prices go up more. You are not solving anything by giving money away as productivity is low. "0 income < 600 income" Not true if you give everyone $600. Let us use a simple example. Say you have 10 people and 5 sandwiches. Zero dollars is the baseline. Say 5 people earn zero dollars and 5 people earn $10. Thus the sandwich will cost, say $5. Now you say "well those other 5 should be able to by a sandwich", so you create the UBI of $10. Now 5 people earn $10 and 5 earn $20. The sandwich shop will raise the price of the sandwich to at least $11 as they, in the end, only have 5 of them. You see the scenario? Creating a UBI does not means more goods will appear. "You just said the economy is down and productivity is low, ok fine, then start a ubi program to boost the economy and production, no now the economy is maxed out because of the diminishing law of return and it’s not possible to increase production and ubi will raise prices. " Again, you are not reading what I wrote. So I will break it down again. 1. The economy is currently down and productivity is low because the government shut it down. This is not a normal situation. A UBI will not matter if people are not allowed to work. Thus pushing for a UBI now is pointless as, again, people are not allowed to work. 2. On the second part of the law of diminishing returns, I am now looking at normal economic times. You are claiming that a UBI will increase productivity. Under normal economic times I will agree, but to a point. I shown that with the C C Myers example that despite the incentive to finish early he finished on May 24 as opposed to May 17. You are conflating two points. The first part is during the situation now in that people are not allowed to work. The second part is under normal economic times. Please try go follow along. "with 0 source or evidence." Ironic how you have not provided anything yourself. Meanwhile I cited an actual economic law and an example with C C Myers.
1
@lookingforsomething "I haven't seen the clip you speak of, so it's hard for me to comment. Anyhow I think what Bernie should have answered is that health insurance is a must and that if she can employ 50 people she is well enough off to be able to pay for the health insurance. It's alright for prices to go up if it still guarantees good working conditions for workers." It isn't that simple as healthcare benefits cost employers a lot more than wages. My former employer at small business said that if they paid healthcare insurance they will go bankrupt. They simply can't afford it. As for raising prices, Herman Cain brought that up with Clinton in that larger competitors have more staying power over smaller ones in that larger competitors can simply do with less for the time being and avoid the price increase. We are seeing it now in that larger companies are doing fine where smaller ones are fighting to reopen. To give an example, take the min. wage. Say you have a local burger shack competing with McDonalds. The min. wage is increased. The local burger shack raises prices to pay for it. The franchise owner of say 12 McDonalds can simply downsize to 10. Or say out of those 12 say 8 are open 24 hours and thus downsize to only have 6 being open 24 hours. So instead of raising prices they cut hours. So saying to raise prices is not that simple. "If Bernie said that the problem is in our current health insurance policy not giving universal coverage and therefore putting different employers in unjust and unfair positions, then he is right." He did not say that. "That makes it so that each hairdresser has to pay about the same amount and the playing field is equal, which is a prerequisite for a functioning market economy." The playing field is never equal, and I just gave you an example. "Bernie is a politician. He is not meant to give her business advice," He needs to understand trade off in policy which he clearly does not. That is the issue. He does not care to hear about the other side or other people's concerns which is my point. He passed a bill without considering how it will harm others. That is a problem. When considering policies you need to weigh out the pros and cons and make a decision. He clearly does not and clearly does not care to. "Maybe he should have better people skills, but there are plenty of clips out there where Bernie really does listen to every day Americans." No he doesn't. Another example is during a town hall in Las Vegas. Someone asked him how he will prevent businesses from raising prices when he raises the min. wage. He went on a rant on how people working full time should not be poor. He did not answer the question. So the guy asked it again. Bernie then said prices will go up, but people will be making more which is not an answer. What about people making $20/hr? They will see higher prices but not a wage increase under Bernie's plan. That is a concern. Or take the Fox News town hall where he was pressed on taxes and donations. He became a millionaire and was pressed on why he accepted the tax write offs on Trump's tax cuts, or why doesn't he donate some of his money. He deflected by asking the the hosts why they don't donate their money. He did not answer the question. That is the problem with Bernie. He deflects when pressed on the issues and just goes to talking points. He ignores other people's legit concerns. That is why he is a far leftist. To give another example beyond Bernie, I asked many people here about Bernie's plan and some shortcomings on them. Take tuition free college. I ask a lot how will Bernie handle the NCAA. They simply say they don't care or that it will be dealt with. What it shows is that they have not looked at the issue in full. Tuition free college will greatly change the NCAA with scholarship limitations and the different divisions. As Hickenlooper said, Bernie wants to throw a plan out there and let everyone else pick up the pieces. His supporters are the same way. With tuition free college you will have to make changes to the NCAA, enrollment, scheduling, etc. Bernie fans don't care because they are not the one who has to deal with it. As for your solution, again, a UBI will not work as productivity is down. I just gave this example but I will give it here. Say you have 10 people and 5 sandwiches. Say 5 people earn zero and 5 people earn $10 and a sandwich cost $5. So only 5 people can afford it. Your solution will be to create a UBI of say $10. Now 5 people have $10 and 5 people have $20. The sandwich shop still only has 5 sandwiches and will, at least, raise the price to $11. Thus those 5 people who were originally earning zero are in on better shape. That is my point, a UBI will not magically create more goods. As for a jobs guarantee, jobs are easy to create, wealth is different. We can create millions of jobs by banning the tractor, but food production will go down. On reason why Trump's economy was doing so well is that he eliminated many government jobs so people ended up working job that developed wealth. A reason why CA and NY are struggling is because they created a bunch of government jobs that produced little and thus created a waste. So simply guaranteeing jobs is not that simple. On Stephen Michael Davis I am not doing that. I am not saying the solutions are simple and without consequences. I admit that opening up the economy can potentially lead to more deaths from the virus and more spread. But it comes down to a balance. I support slowly reopening the economy for two reasons 1. We need to get people back to work to increase productivity and grow the economy 2. We need to learn more about the virus. The more who are exposed to it the more we can learn. Right now our healthcare system can handle people now. And evidence is arising up that the virus is not that deadly and more people than we think had it. GA has been open for over two weeks now and their number of new cases per day has been stagnant despite more testing. By opening up we can gain more information about the virus. So no, I am not saying the solutions are simple. I have said many times they are complex which is why I go into great details in these discussions. "No one is calling for 100 dollar minimum wage. That's not what we are advocating for. My personal perspective is that minimum wage should be tied to an index that follows inflation. That way it doesn't result in spikes of inflation. " Why not 100 dollar per hour? Because you are admitting that at some point it will be too high. As for inflation, what method of inflation? CPI, GDP deflator, PCE, Boskin Commission CPI? I bet you did not know there were more than one way to measure inflation. Most who bring up "inflation" look at CPI as it gives the highest inflation rate of them all. Politicians use it for that reason. When the Boskin Commission showed that CPI, at that time, overstated inflation by 2.5% politicians ignored it. Why? Because many government workers' salaries are based on CPI. Imagine a politician running for office saying that CPI inflation is overstated. That means government workers will not see that much of a wage increase. That will be a huge attack add. So they don't do it. Also, inflation has flaws such as new technology bias. For example, a brick cell phone in the 80s cost, in today's dollars, $4000. These days smart phones are given away and have more computing power that put a man on the moon and plus many features. But based on your argument a smart phone should cost, at least, $4000. Same with cars. Cars today, in many ways, cost more than cars in the 70s. However, cars today are safer, last longer and get better fuel mileage. So simply citing inflation is grossly oversimplifying the issue. "I dismiss your point of productivity eventually being maxed out because it is not a major problem when it doesn't come to necessities." I gave you two clear examples of athletes and C C Myers. Why didn't C C Myers complete his project on May 17 as opposed to May 24? Because he simply could not get his workers to work that fast. Why can't someone run a 3 minute mile even with millions waved at him? Because there is a limit. Consider simply travel. For me to get to work I have to walk 15 minutes. So everyday I spend 30 minutes simply traveling. That is 30 minutes of no productivity. I can't teleport there. As a whole there is a limit in productivity. Right now they are doing renovations in the building I work at and it is going to take at least a year. Why not get it done in four months? Because there are limitations in how much people can produce. That is the economics of it. There is a max. People and machines can only produce so much. We are running out of food. Again, there is a meat shortage. As for people not paying rent, a UBI will not solve the problem. Sure, they can pay rent, but now you injected more money in the economy. You have someone like me who can pay rent. So I will have more money to buy something else leading to increase in demand overall and thus increase in prices. We actually saw this in the 60s and 70s. The Federal Reserve practice easy monetary policy with low interest rates because, at the time, it was thought that inflation meant low unemployment. However, over time high inflation led to higher unemployment. Volcker was selected to be the Chair of the Federal Reserve and he jacked up interest rates to stop massive inflation which led to lower unemployment. Easy monetary policy eventually leads to more inflation and higher unemployment. We have history of that.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 1. Little evidence that the killing was planned. The attack to try to arrest them was, I agree, but was there intent to kill? We don't know. That is where we have to have an investigation and not assume things. If we assume things it ends up falling in favor of the two guys who acted in this killing. 2. Not true. I have 4 guns and I am not a threat to anyone. Many people can have a gun but if they do not know how to use it they are not a threat. 3. No corruption, they did what was legally correct in that they were connected with the people and thus kicked to another DA office. That is standard. In fact, a corrupt system would be to have them run the trial and handle it there. Instead, they did what was correct and said there is a conflict of interest and another DA office should handle it. 4. It takes time to build up a case. In reality my approach would actually have these two men receive the harshest punishment. Your approach would have them literally walk away free due to mistrial. So in reality my approach is what you guys should be praising. Instead you want the two men to walk away due to a mistrial. Thankfully there are intelligent people out there to handle this and not people like you. If you were handling this these two men would be walking free due to a mistrial.
1
@lookingforsomething meat shortage is the start. Food shortages are coming. Yes, we are running out. Just giving people money will cause inflation. Giving people money to pay rent is simply passing the problem to someone else. People will pay rent now land lords will see higher prices. You are not solving the underlying issue in that productivity is still down. All you are doing is passing the problem to someone else to which land lords will have to raise rent.
1
These days the race card is way more of an issue than racism. Many on the left will simply call people they disagree with racists as opposed to having an actual discussion. That hinders any type of progress. For example, in this case. When I first heard of it I had high doubts because of how often the left cries racism when there wasn't any racism. I watched the video and I feel racism is not the reason. Do I agree with the actions of those two men? No. The issue is complex but I do not agree with their actions, but I also feel they weren't racists. You guys have to be careful in calling things out as racist.
1
@unclefrancis5134 how so? I interact with many people and I feel that the race card is more of an issue than racism. People on the left cry racism so much that it means nothing anymore.
1
Have you seen the footage? It is unclear what happened. Also, they called the cops prior to interacting with him.
1
I gave my reasoning why. I even admitted that an investigation is needed. However, you completely ignore that. Some other points, how did he approach him with his gun? What he pointing it at him making threats? From the video it appears he is pointing it down. Thus now you have the issue of how it is legal to carry in GA. The person on the bed of the pick up appears to not even be holding a gun. Thus if the jogger grabbed the gun when it was not displayed in a threatening manner now he is the instigator. I do not agree with the actions by those two guys. But there is so much more to it than what you guys claim. This is not cut and dry but actually complex. Again, I do not agree with their actions but you should know the full situation and stop jumping to conclusions. When you do that people are more likely to take you serious.
1