Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1. 1000
  2. 234
  3. 72
  4. 68
  5. 60
  6. 58
  7. 50
  8. 49
  9. 48
  10. 46
  11. 43
  12. 39
  13. 38
  14. 37
  15. 35
  16. 29
  17. 29
  18. 28
  19. 27
  20. 27
  21. 26
  22. 26
  23. 25
  24. 25
  25. 24
  26. 22
  27. 22
  28. 22
  29. 22
  30. 22
  31. 20
  32. 19
  33. 19
  34. 19
  35. 19
  36. 19
  37. 18
  38. 18
  39. 18
  40. 17
  41. 17
  42. 17
  43. 17
  44. 17
  45. 17
  46. 16
  47. 16
  48. 16
  49. 16
  50. 16
  51. 16
  52. 16
  53. 15
  54. 15
  55. 15
  56. 15
  57. 15
  58. 14
  59. 14
  60. 14
  61. 14
  62. 14
  63. 14
  64. 13
  65. 13
  66. 13
  67. 13
  68. 13
  69. 13
  70. 13
  71. 13
  72. 13
  73. 13
  74. 13
  75. 13
  76. 12
  77. 12
  78. 12
  79. 12
  80. 12
  81. 12
  82. 12
  83. 12
  84. 12
  85. 12
  86. 12
  87. 12
  88. 12
  89. 12
  90. 11
  91. 11
  92. 11
  93. 11
  94. 11
  95. 11
  96. 11
  97. 11
  98. 11
  99. 11
  100. 11
  101. 11
  102. 10
  103. 10
  104. 10
  105. 10
  106. 10
  107. 10
  108. 10
  109. 10
  110. 10
  111. 10
  112. 10
  113. 10
  114. 10
  115. 10
  116. 10
  117. 10
  118. 10
  119. 10
  120. 10
  121. 9
  122. 9
  123. 9
  124. 9
  125. 9
  126. 9
  127. 9
  128. 9
  129. 9
  130. 9
  131. 9
  132. 9
  133. 9
  134. 9
  135. 9
  136. 9
  137. 9
  138. 9
  139. 9
  140. 9
  141. 9
  142. 9
  143. 9
  144. 9
  145. 8
  146. 8
  147. 8
  148. 8
  149. 8
  150. 8
  151. 8
  152. 8
  153. 8
  154. 8
  155. 8
  156. 8
  157. 8
  158. 8
  159. 8
  160. 8
  161. 8
  162. 8
  163. 8
  164. 8
  165. 8
  166. 8
  167. 8
  168. 8
  169. 8
  170. 8
  171. 8
  172. 8
  173. 7
  174. 7
  175. 7
  176. 7
  177. 7
  178. 7
  179. 7
  180. 7
  181. 7
  182. 7
  183. 7
  184. 7
  185. 7
  186. 7
  187. 7
  188. 7
  189. 7
  190. 7
  191. 7
  192. 7
  193. 7
  194. 7
  195. 7
  196. 7
  197. 7
  198. 7
  199. 7
  200. 7
  201. 7
  202. 7
  203. 7
  204. 7
  205. 7
  206. 7
  207. 7
  208. 7
  209. 7
  210. 7
  211. 7
  212. 7
  213. 7
  214. 7
  215. 7
  216. 7
  217. 7
  218. 6
  219. 6
  220. 6
  221. 6
  222. 6
  223. 6
  224. 6
  225. 6
  226. 6
  227. 6
  228. 6
  229. 6
  230. 6
  231. 6
  232. 6
  233. 6
  234. 6
  235. 6
  236. 6
  237. 6
  238. 6
  239. 6
  240. 6
  241. 6
  242. 6
  243. 6
  244. 6
  245. 6
  246. 6
  247. 6
  248. 6
  249. 6
  250. 6
  251. 6
  252. 6
  253. 6
  254. 6
  255. 6
  256. 6
  257. 6
  258. 6
  259. 6
  260. 6
  261. 6
  262. 6
  263. 6
  264. 6
  265. 6
  266. 6
  267. 6
  268. 6
  269. 6
  270. 6
  271. 6
  272. 6
  273. 6
  274. 6
  275. 6
  276. 6
  277. 6
  278. 6
  279. 6
  280. 6
  281. 6
  282. 6
  283. 5
  284. 5
  285. 5
  286. 5
  287. 5
  288. 5
  289. 5
  290. 5
  291. 5
  292. 5
  293. 5
  294. 5
  295. 5
  296. 5
  297. 5
  298. 5
  299. 5
  300. 5
  301. 5
  302. 5
  303. 5
  304. 5
  305. 5
  306. 5
  307. 5
  308. 5
  309. 5
  310. 5
  311. 5
  312. 5
  313. 5
  314. 5
  315. 5
  316. 5
  317. 5
  318. 5
  319. 5
  320. 5
  321. 5
  322. 5
  323. 5
  324. 5
  325. 5
  326. 5
  327. 5
  328. 5
  329. 5
  330. 5
  331. 5
  332. 5
  333. 5
  334. 5
  335. 5
  336. 5
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339. 5
  340. 5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344. 5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. 5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 5
  361. 5
  362. 5
  363. 5
  364. 5
  365. 5
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373. 5
  374. 5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377. 5
  378. 5
  379. 5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. 5
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 5
  387. 5
  388. 5
  389. 5
  390. 4
  391. 4
  392. 4
  393. 4
  394. 4
  395. 4
  396. 4
  397. 4
  398. 4
  399. 4
  400. 4
  401. 4
  402. 4
  403. 4
  404. 4
  405. 4
  406. 4
  407. 4
  408. 4
  409. 4
  410. 4
  411. 4
  412. 4
  413. 4
  414. 4
  415. 4
  416. 4
  417. 4
  418. 4
  419. 4
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422. 4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. 4
  428. 4
  429. 4
  430. 4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. 4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437. 4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 4
  447. 4
  448. 4
  449. 4
  450. 4
  451. 4
  452. 4
  453. 4
  454. 4
  455. 4
  456. 4
  457. 4
  458. 4
  459. 4
  460. 4
  461. 4
  462. 4
  463. 4
  464. 4
  465. 4
  466. 4
  467. 4
  468. 4
  469. 4
  470. 4
  471. 4
  472. 4
  473. 4
  474. 4
  475. 4
  476. 4
  477. 4
  478. 4
  479. 4
  480. 4
  481. 4
  482. 4
  483. 4
  484. 4
  485. 4
  486. 4
  487. 4
  488. 4
  489. 4
  490. 4
  491. 4
  492. 4
  493. 4
  494. 4
  495. 4
  496. 4
  497. 4
  498. 4
  499. 4
  500. 4
  501. 4
  502. 4
  503. 4
  504. 4
  505. 4
  506. 4
  507. 4
  508. 4
  509. 4
  510. 4
  511. 4
  512. 4
  513. 4
  514. 4
  515. 4
  516. 4
  517. 4
  518. 4
  519. 4
  520. 4
  521. 4
  522. 4
  523. 4
  524. 4
  525. 4
  526. 4
  527. 4
  528. 4
  529. 4
  530. 4
  531. 4
  532. 4
  533. 4
  534. 4
  535. 4
  536. 4
  537. 4
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 3
  716. 3
  717. 3
  718. 3
  719. 3
  720. 3
  721. 3
  722. 3
  723. 3
  724. 3
  725. 3
  726. 3
  727. 3
  728. 3
  729. 3
  730. 3
  731. 3
  732. 3
  733. 3
  734. 3
  735. 3
  736. 3
  737. 3
  738. 3
  739. 3
  740. 3
  741. 3
  742. 3
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062. 2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175.  @eduardopena5893  Well the points of entry are the only parts of the border that are not currently closed. All other parts of the border are closed and always have been. Anyone attempting to cross those borders is caught and processed. If you don't mean closing those open ports of entry, then what could "close the border" mean, outside of some sort of magical glass dome? And no, drugs are not smuggled across the desert regions, they are smuggled through those legal ports of entry. If anyone tries to smuggle drugs through the desert areas, they will get apprehended by border patrol. The only people crossing through those areas are people attempting to immigrate to this country. The cartels do have a lot of interaction with those folks, but only to take advantage of how poorly designed the US immigration process has been. If people could just cross at legal ports of entry and get processed that way, the cartels would have no roll to play, but the need for them to sneak outside of the ports of entry and to "wait in Mexico" for extended periods of time give cartels plenty of opportunity to prey on them. You are flat wrong about most terrorist attacks coming from outsiders. Check with the FBI on that one. And no, Democrats do not want unfettered entry and instant citizenship, that is just what Faux News tells you to think so that they can control you through fear of the other. It's a sad manipulation tactic. All Democrats want is humane treatment of migrants, that they are not rounded up and put in cages. Democrats tend to support a path to citizenship for undocumented children, but it would take longer than the traditional nationalization process, far from "instant." We have a "legal process," but for decades now that process has lagged further and further behind demand from both migrants AND American businesses, so the amount of legal immigration slots needed is far higher than the amount allowed. It is Republicans that have long resisted any effort to fix this, because, again, they prefer you to be afraid of the evil border. If we want to fix the border, we would need to massively increase the amount of legal immigration slots available, by this point probably by thousands of times just to make up for the backlog. And no, this is not Biden's fault and Trump's policies were not actually solutions. That is just what Faux News tells you to believe. The same number of people would be trying to cross now regardless of who the US president was or what his policies are, all that matters is how we treat them when they show up. Also, people who cross illegally ARE deported, but we have due process in this country, which means they get their day in court, and Republican efforts to defund border judges have led to massive backlogs, slowing down this process.
    2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362.  @snoopsnet8150  Nope. Anything government does badly, it's only because the private sector would do it worse. The government's worst failings are when it failed to prevent the private sector from doing something bad.Government isn't perfect, it's just better than all the other options. Big box stores did well during covid not because of big government, it's because they had been allowed to build a near-monopoly level of economic power. Remove government restrictions entirely from the equation, and they still would have done just as well relative to the smaller businesses, because people wanted to limit their exposure, and big box and online retailers were best able to provide that option. The government restrictions did not significantly impact that balance, all they did do was limit the 2020 deaths to 600,000 rather than 1,200,000. Mom and pops were already on their way out, and would have been annihilated decades ago if not for government regulation placing some limits on businesses ability to monopolize. In other countries, with more socialist governments, they have had far more success at limiting the big box stores and allowing family businesses to thrive. Why is that? The top 0.1% didn't get wealthier because of any action on government's part, all government did was funnel some wealth BACK to the 99.9%. The top 0.01% got wealthier because that is all that they do. Government is not perfect, and it can be improved, but out ONLY hope is in continuing to improve government, not in stripping it down for parts. You're being fed massive lies by elite narcissists who only care about money and power and you're regurgitating them like a naive puppet.
    1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377.  @degen83  No, Democrats do care about people and do pass policies that help people more than Republicans, but the nature of politics mean that they can't just magically get everything they want, and often have to compromise with Republicans in ways that lead to less effective results. Also, just because a place is a "blue state" does not mean that Republicans don't hold a lot of local power in certain areas. It's always better to vote for a Democrat than a Republican, but you certainly should try to pick the best available Democrat during the primaries. As for why "Democrat areas" have "more homelessness," part of that is bad faith reporting, since plenty of homeless people live in red areas. Florida has the 2nd highest amount, Texas the 3rd, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina are all in the top 15 states for homelessness, and I don't think anyone's accused North Carolina of being "controlled by Democrats," since the Republicans there have supermajorities in just about every body at this point, even if they had to steal elections to do it. Some of it has to do with the weather being better in places like the west coast, so people who are going to be living outside prefer those areas, some of it has to do with the problems in housing availability that I explained earlier (again, not something state government can fix), part of it is because homelessness tends to occur around large cities (since that's where most of the people live) and all large cities happen to be Democratic. If there is any "good" reason why there could be less homelessness in Republican areas, it's because Republicans sometimes drive them off at the point of a stick, but I don't think anyone could take pride in that level of inhumanity, and surely you would prefer to have homeless people clogging your sidewalk than to know that government "cleared" them in your name, right? I suppose I shouldn't assume.
    1
  1378.  @degen83  It is factually incorrect to claim that in areas where Democrats have significant majorities that they can "do what they want," because there are often other elements at play that tie their hands. I suggest you watch that Wendover video about California, it lays out the various structural issues that make it difficult to get anything done there on certain topics. And again, no Democratic policies encourage homelessness, that is a perfect example of you making a bad faith argument. You didn't point out any "result of Democratic policies," you just pointed to a homelessness problem, and declared that they were "the result of Democratic policies," without drawing ANY actual connection between the two. As for the drug problem, you do know that the drugs come through ports of entry, right? The only way to stop that would be to shut down the border to all traffic, would would obliterate the US economy. The previous president certainly never attempted it, because it would be too stupid, even for him. Seattle is rainy, but also temperate. Rain you can use an umbrella and a tent, it's much better than living in someplace that sees massive snowfalls. And yes, there was a time when Republicans and Democrats could work together. It was not the Democrats that changed, it was all the Republicans. They became more and more insane, from the Teaparty to the MAGA crowd, and they abandoned all common sense and built their party around racism and other forms of bigotry, and seizing power any place they couldn't win elections. Hopefully, they will eventually turn back into a credible party, but they are nowhere near it now, and anyone incapable of recognizing that lacks ANY credibility themselves. You would have to be living in an alternate reality echo chamber to blame any of that on Democrats. Look, it's kind of sad, but you just seem to be giving me a laundry list of Faux News talking points, like you have a teleprompter in your head or something. It's pretty pathetic. Break free of Big Brother, and learn to think for yourself. Find the truth behind all these wacky stories they tell you, it will blow your mind.
    1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446.  @randallgoldapp9510  Biden is a capitalist, but part of responsible capitalism is reigning in the excesses of the free market. Absolute, unfiltered capitalism is just as destructive to society as absolute communism, and no country on Earth practices it. It is responsible governmental policies for the government to spend heavily during a crisis, as they can take on debt much more efficiently than private citizens can. This helps speed up the recovery. You then need to tax appropriately to cover the costs of that spending, which was the flaw in the previous administration. They should have raised taxes during the period of positive growth the Obama economy provided, rather than lowering taxes, which had raised the deficit and national debt. 2. Trump is certainly an excitable speaker, no argument there. He knows how to throw red meat to his base. That doesn't make him a coherent speaker. His speeches are just uncoordinated rambles about his various grievances that rarely stay on topic for more than thirty seconds at a time. The wall with Mexico only even exists because "build the wall" was an easy mnemonic device when he lost his train of thought. Joe Biden has a stutter which affects his ability to speak without a stumble, but he is always aware of the topic of his message and can stick to the theme he's discussing. He is more aware of the world around him than Trump was, and is far less likely to suggest people inject bleach. As for the campaign, Biden's campaign was more responsible during a pandemic. Trump held a massive rally in Tulsa, and as a direct result, several of his supporters DIED, and who knows how many others spread infection to their local communities. Viral rates in the region spiked considerably. Biden, on the other hand, responsibly avoided doing mass gatherings of people, and instead used the miracle of the Internet to reach millions of followers without needing any of them within 6ft of each other. It would take a special kind of stupid to imply that Biden was the one making the wrong call there. Trump's policies did not create peace anywhere, he just coasted on Obama's, except in places that he made less stable, and then claimed victories in places where he accomplished very little. There is no place in the world that was better off due to his actions there. Yeah, I voted for the other guy, and any rational person would.
    1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455.  King Charles ✔  So your messaging seems confused. All your posts are a laundry list of fake news talking points about Joe Biden, but you actually seem to be approving of his policies, so what are you actually personally disagreeing with? What is driving all this hate? Are you just repeating what you've been told to repeat by the fake news? Who would you have preferred, if not Trump or Biden? Also, Biden never mass locked anyone in cages. during the Obama administration, when he wasn't in charge, they locked up far fewer people than during the Trump administration. Their policy was to bring people in get them registered for court dates, and then let them go to return when that date comes up, whereas Trump was keeping people detained for months and even years without due process. The Obama administration also only separated families if the parents were charged with actual felonies, like drug trafficking, and put those children into stable environments as quickly as possible. The Trump administration shifted this to stripping children away from their parents and just deporting the parents, often with no documentation to reunite those parents with their children. You would have to be a monster to support something like that, right? then if we're talking the Biden administration itself, he was working with the hand he was dealt. He was handed the Trump DHS and the Trump facilities and the Trump backlogs of existing immigrants, and you can't sort that mess out overnight. It took them a few months to get things finally organized, which is miraculously fast if you give it any thought, and by this point it's running much more smoothly, with a processing time of only a few days and then they can be resettled to a more safe environment. It's hard to seriously expect more than that.
    1
  1456. 1
  1457.  @blksbth1  Your data is incorrect. By a VERY wide margin, red states take more in federal taxes than they provide out, wile blue states give more into federal taxes than they take out. I mean, California alone is the fifth largest economy in the world. Nor for states, for countries. Of the top ten states in terms of federal tax (ie productivity), only Texas and Florida are red. Even leaving out NY and California (whcih both beat Texorida), the remaining six blue states make more when combined than Texorida would. Then of "debtor states," of the ten states most dependent on federal funding, only one of the top ten (New Mexico) is a blue state, and only five of the top twenty are blue (add Maine, Hawaii, Vermont, and Nevada). Blue states are unquestionably more productive and self-reliant than red ones. Btw, you do realize that if red states "cut the cord, you'd have to move, or be trapped on the blue side of the border with free healthcare and social security? As for the future, here's the future. People are irrelevant to it. Nobody cares where people move, they will not matter to the future. The future is automation. Every job will be automated within our lifetimes, whatever it is you do for a living, nobody will need anyone to do that thing by the end of the century. So we don't need to care where people move, we need to care about what companies can and will do to keep as much money as possible with as little responsibility as possible. That means ensuring they have no tax havens where they can incorporate with minimal taxes and regulation. If we fail to do that, then you will not only have no salary, but also no food or shelter. If, on the other hand, we can keep corporations accountable to the public, and require that they provide their fair share in exchange for their fortunes, then we can afford to provide you with food, shelter, and a basic quality standard of living, the same as everyone else. Unless you live in a red state, where they won't provide any of that.
    1
  1458.  @blksbth1  As for Trump allegations, there are a few in here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/19/trump-predator-new-book-fresh-allegations Trump and Epstein did fall out, but it wasn't over women. I mean, if you don't understand that Trump is a known sex predator by this point, where have you even been the past five years? " Are you sure you aren't confusing that with Miss America (not teens)? " I am sure. TEEN USA, not the adult competition. Either way it would be sexual predator behavior. "As for the racism claim, none of what you cited stems from those individuals being black. " Lol. "If you can't defend him from racism, join him," I guess. " Trump basically challenged Obama's citizenry in the same regard. " Obama was born in Hawaii. That is in America. And nobody seriously questioned whether someone born to American parents overseas was allowed to be President, we already knew that they could be, it was never said as anything but a joke by anyone outside of Republican circles. "Funny how he was never ONCE considered a racist by anyone until he ran for President as a Republican. " This is absolutely untrue. He was considered racist, especially after his attacks against Obama. Even when he was somewhat "popular" with black people, it was a transactional relationship. He was a wealthy businessman that could do favors to black people, and they could give him some credibility and fluff his ego. Again, if you didn't already know that, it only indicts your news sources. Trump was not as open in his racism until after he started campaigning for Republican votes, but if he had been saying the same things in 2005 as he'd been saying since 2016, he would have been a pariah. " You will see, rather quickly and clearly, that he went out of his way to say that, when referring to the "good people", he was NOT referring to white supremacists," Lie. Do not lie and expect to be taken seriously, particularly if you had to lie to yourself to get there. You can't read Trump transcripts because he reads in word salad. You need to WATCH Trump speaking. He does sometimes say the right thing, but only in a dismissive fashion, while spotlighting the dogwhistles to his base. IT lets him have it both ways. It's like his Jan 6th speech, "you have to go home, but I love you for trying to overthrow the government (paraphrasing)"
    1
  1459. 1
  1460.  @blksbth1  But Trump also said "there were good people on both sides." One of those sides was ONLY white supremacists. You cannot say "there were good people on both sides," without saying "some white supremacists are fine." What he said after that would be irrelevant unless he specifically said that "fine people on both sides" was a mistake, and he never did, even weeks and months later. Anything else he said in that speech was irrelevant, because he delivered the message that matters to his white supremacist fans out there, he had their back. "THERE WERE PEOPLE PROTESTING THAT WEREN'T WHITE SUPREMACISTS. " Yes, of course there were, they were on the OTHER side from the white supremacists. If he'd only said "there were good people on the side opposing the white supremacists," nobody would have gotten upset (aside from Trump's base, of course). If people were there opposing taking down Confederate statues, those people are called "white supremacists." And of course even white supremacists have the right to protest, but we aren't arguing that they didn't, we are pointing out that the President should not be praising them, calling them "fine people." And no, the only Violence in Charlottesville was one of the white supremacists rolling over a leftist with his car. The counter protesters had every right to counter protest just as much as the protesters did. Antifa is too often used as a scapegoat for violence caused by the right. "For example, can you name several very good things that came out of the last administration that folks on both sides of the aisle should have celebrated?" I honestly can't. I mean, there are good things that happened during his presidency, but none that I could specifically attribute to Trump's actions, none that would not have happened anyway if any other person were at that desk. Every decision he made was bad, or at least was for bad purposes, like trying to bribe constituencies he clearly didn't care about into voting for him. I'd like to hear your list though. What are ten things that Trump did that left-leaning voters should praise him for? Was one of them getting the Justice Department to spy on the children of House Intelligence Committee staffers? I don't think you'll find a lot of takers there.
    1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782.  @tracybarhite1764  You seem to have grossly misunderstood the Constitution. It says "no state should be formed within the jurisdiction of any other state or junction of two states, without the consent of the legislatures of those states as well as of the congress. So there is no problem there with DC statehood. Not only is DC not a part of Maryland or Virginia, and therefore would not even trigger any of this, but even if it were, it would only need the approval of their legislatures, which it would likely get. As for the electoral college, I don't believe that congress can pass a law (short of an amendment) that would abolish the electoral college, but they could pass laws (or state laws) that would make it functionally irrelevant, such as directing the EC to vote the way that the popular vote goes. Overall this would be an improvement, so as long as they do it in a way that meets a strict legal standard, I'm on board. If Trump did not want to pack the court, he could have re-appointed Garland and allowed him to be confirmed. He did not, which led to a significant imbalance on the court that must be corrected. Do you not agree that the current court is unsustainably activist in nature? As for if Republicans come back into power, they have already shown that they will grab whatever power they are able to. McConnell even tried to prevent Democrats taking power in January until he got certain concessions. If the Democrats fail to make the best use of the next year and a half, then that will not mean that Republicans will be super nice if they take back the Senate, it will just mean that they will accomplish less for the American people. If and when the Republicans retake the government, they will not hesitate to grab whatever power they can, regardless of what the Democrats do. The simple fact is that Republicans are making every effort they can to enforce a minority government, a government in which even where the majority of people vote for Democrats, Republicans retain the majority of representation. All Americans need to fight against this at all levels, or there will be no democracy left. I ask you again, you have claimed that you are a registered Democrat, that you support Democratic principles, which ones? Nothing else that you've said supports the idea that you believe in anything democratic or Democratic at all.
    1
  1783. 1
  1784.  @tracybarhite1764  "States" shouldn't have ANY voting power in who gets to be president. PEOPLE should have that power, and the vote of a PERSON in a large state should not count for less than a PERSON in a "battleground state." More people voted for Biden in Texas than voted for him in New York, and yet none of those Texans votes actually mattered, because slightly more Texans voted for Trump, so ALL of Texas's votes went to him (luckily Texas wasn't necessary). The Electoral College does not exist because it's the best way to do things, it exists as a compromise because when the Constitution was written, we'd just broken away form England, and each state had the potential to just break away as an independent country. The only way to hold them together was to ensure state leadership that they would retain a lot of that same power, it was all about their power. That doesn't mean that's what's best for us today. Large cities should have no power in deciding who is president. States should have no power in deciding who's President. Only the PEOPLE should decide that. " In the majority of elections the Electoral College works. " That doesn't mean it is working well. In two of the last ten Presidential elections, the winner of the electoral college was different than the winner of the popular vote. An 80% success rate is NOT a good thing when you're talking about the leader of the free world for the next four years, especially given how catastrophic both of those presidencies turned out. I mean, imagine an America that hadn't suffered from the Iraq war or mass covid deaths in 2020. It's even possible that a different president could have avoided 9/11 and the 2008 economic collapse entirely!
    1
  1785.  @tracybarhite1764  My point was that the systems the Constitution set up, all of them, were designed to give State Governments more sovereignty and power within the federal government than would be ideal for the government and people as a whole, because those states did not want to give up power that they already had going on. My point is that the system could have been a lot better than it was, it was not somehow a perfect system at the time of its creation. The electoral college is not the popular vote, "the popular vote within a state" is not a thing, because state lines are just a random abstraction. I'm not sure where you are confused on that. I mean, say you have two neighboring states with equal populations, one north, and one south, and let's say that 56% of one state votes for Candidate A, and 44% for B, and 54% of the other state votes for B and 46% for A. In that case, you'd get an equal number of Electoral Votes for each candidate, even though in total, 2% more people voted for A than for B. If those states were split East and West rather than North and South, then the Electoral results might have gone in a completely different way, using the same votes! It is the votes of the HUMANS that should matter, the state those humans live in should be completely irrelevant. The electoral college is at best an abstraction of the popular vote that is in many cases inaccurate. There is no argument that makes the electoral college in any way as good for Americans or democracy as just using the popular vote itself. Maybe the electoral college used to work, but given how badly it's mess up the 21st Century, maybe things have changed to make it a less reliable system. Why not remove it?
    1
  1786.  @tracybarhite1764  If you thought your point addressed mine, then you did not understand it. My point was not that I was sad about "Texas," or "New York," but that I was sad for VOTERS in Texas that the Electoral College robbed their votes of any meaning because they ever "overruled" by other Texas voters, even though their votes should be relevant to the overall outcome. If a voter votes for Biden or Trump, it should be completely irrelevant how many other people in their state made that same vote, the ONLY thing that should matter is how many total people in the country vote for each candidate. "My point was that you are for the popular vote nationally, but not across a state ie.Texas. " YES. Because "the popular vote of who should be president of the country, says Texas" is not a thing that should matter. The only thing "the popular vote of Texas" should matter for is state level contests like governor and senator. For President, "the popular vote of Texas" should be irrelevant, it should be "Steve from Texas" and "Mary from Texas" compared against "Sally from Wisconsin" and "George from Pennsylvania," and all of their votes having equal sway on the outcome. "You are still confused about how the Electoral College works. The Electoral College doesn't work off a percentage so I'm not really sure where you were going with your state A and B analogy. " You don't seem to understand how the EC works. Most states are winner-take-all. That means that if one candidate wins a state by a tiny margin, they get 100% of the EC votes allocated to that state. So if a state has 10 EC votes, and one candidate wins that state by 2% of the state vote, he gets 100% of the EC votes. Even in the few states that have proportional splits, if a person won by 2% of the vote, he would still get 6/10 EC votes and his opponent only 4/10, gaining the equivalent of a 20% margin instead of a 2% one. This distorts the outcome and is undemocratic. "If we were too elect by popular vote the 4 most populated states are California, Texas, Florida, and New York. " If we were to elect by the popular vote, the four most populous states would be IRRELEVANT. It would not matter how many more people lived in this or that state. If you lived in Wyoming and someone else lived in California, it WOULD NOT MATTER. You would get ONE vote, they would get ONE vote, you add up all the votes, the one that gets the most votes win, regardless of states. This should be obvious. "The Electoral College isn't perfect, but the Founding Father's didn't want to have elections by popular vote because they wanted to prevent mob rule. " The Founding Fathers lived in a time when most people couldn't even read. They didn't trust the general population, and electors weren't even chosen by the people until much later. The popular vote was basically just a straw poll that they could ignore. That doesn't make it a GOOD system, it's the system they had because it worked for their interests. It no longer does. If you believe that YOU deserve a vote, then you should be willing to agree that EVERYONE'S votes should count equally to it.
    1
  1787.  @tracybarhite1764  Population differences shouldn't be relevant. Each person's vote should count equally regardless of how many other people live nearby. If more people move into your neighborhood, they shouldn't be able to just divvy up shares of your vote. If you live in California or you live in Wyoming, you should get exactly one vote, 100% equal to any other person's vote. Who do YOU believe deserves less of a vote than you do? "but the major cities and states with the most population would elect the president while the smaller cities and less populated states would be out numbered. " No. That does not make any sense. It would not be "larger cities" that would vote for the winner, it would be the largest NUMBER OF PEOPLE who would vote for the winner, REGARDLESS of whether those people lived in large cities or in small cities or in less populated areas, and there is no sane argument for why anything else should be the case. What is your obsession with "big cities?" Is it because they might vote differently than you would, and you believe that your vote should count more than theirs, and that you should get your way even if more people disagree with you? Well I'm sorry, but that is not how a democracy, not even a functional democratic Republic, would behave. That is autocracy, and we should never aspire to that. "The majority of the elections here the candidate who wins the Electoral College also has the popular vote. " And yet in both the 2000 and 2016 elections that was not the case, and America suffered disastrous results over the following four years as a result. There has been no case in which the electoral college results were different than the popular vote and it improved things. "PS you don't need to repeat everything back to me, I'm well aware of my comments. " You seem to sometimes forget them, and I want to make clear to you which points I am responding to at the time. IF you say something that is patently false, my response is pointing out why that specific point you made is patently false. "Also this debate really isn't going anywhere. You've stated your point and I've stated mine. We are never going to agree." Probably, because I am an American, and you want autocracy.
    1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903.  @blksbth1 "No...and that you would actually be led to think that way speaks volumes. " Ok, so then I guess that would be the disconnect. It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with someone who refuses to accept the world around him. Step one is learning why you were wrong here, and then you can move on to other topics. "You REALLY think a bunch of unarmed, angry protestors - accounting for less than half of those that entered the building, the rest having protested peacefully - could have pulled off what you just said?" Yes, but perhaps not in the way you imagine. I do NOT think that they could have used armed force to "overthrow" anything, and that was never the point of it. The point of it was to inject enough chaos into the proceedings that the certification could be delayed or even prevented, and that they could arrange to force a House vote instead of certifying the election results. This would likely have led to the House electing Donald Trump, and while there would of course be legal challenges, but with the current SCOTUS who knows how that would have turned out, and it would at the very least be a mess. This was the plan, it failed, but it was what those at the top WANTED to happen. Obviously not all of the protesters were in on those details, they were just a distraction. An insurrection does not need to involve any sort of violence, and it certainly does not need to have a credible chance at success, it only requires an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government, which is what was happening. It is also worth noting that many of the protesters were willing and able to use violence on that day, so while there is no chance of them actually "overthrowing" anything, they very easily could have killed members of congress had they managed to encounter any (again, not all of the protesters, but some within the group). This is all a matter of public record by this point, and learning these things is your own responsibility.
    1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958.  @urgreatestenemy  I was also factoring in the other forms of pollution. Were you? Have you looked into the oil pollution Nigeria has? Pumping, refining, shipping, and more importantly burning gasoline causes FAR more pollution to the globe as a whole, and much more than that directly to the US, than ANY aspect of EVs. And yeah, recycling the batteries would produce some small amount of pollution, but not that much, a manageable amount (you should look up some videos of battery recycling to see what that involves). It would still be far less than the amount of oil that would be burned by a car driving the same miles. Also, it sounds like the Natural Gas lobby has wormed their way into your brain with the idea of hydrogen. They like hydrogen because they can make hydrogen out of Natural Gas. The problem there being that while the Hydrogen burns clean, the refining process from Natural Gas produces as much CO2 as driving a gasoline car. You can make Hydrogen using electricity, but that process is much less electricity efficient than EVs, and would be much more expensive at the pump per mile driven. It would not be terribly efficient. Also, building out a hydrogen infrastructure would be a LOT more work than hooking up charging stations. All in all, if we're all going to be shifting from gasoline cars to some alternative, most drivers should not go with Hydrogen. There are some practical uses for it, mostly in trucking and air travel, maybe for some drivers that travel extreme amounts of miles per day, but 99.9% of US drivers would be better off on EVs, which is why they are the focus. So if your argument is "nobody should drive cars of any type, then ok, I don't think that's practical, but it would at least be less polluting, but there is NO measure by which gasoline cars work out to be better for the environment than EVs.
    1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091.  @krankrocker  The MSM is not biased against Trump, Trump is just objectively as bad as the MSM portray him to be. It is anyone who presents him in a more positive light than that which is biased. If you call a pile of shit a pile of shit, that is not bias. If you call a pile of shit a bouquet of flowers, then that is bias. And the Trump campaign did collude with Russia, that was well documented in the Muller report and in the charges against Paul Manafort, for which Trump pardoned him to prevent him facing justice (or flipping on Trump). The only "scam" in that was in how right-wing media tried to hide that from viewers as best they could. As for Biden's mental stability, at the very least we can agree that he's considerably more stable than the last guy. He has a stutter, which impacts his public speaking, but only an idiot would be unable to tell that Biden is always on top of whatever subject he's discussing. As for Cuomo, he's the governor of NY. Psaki is the spokesperson for the President. The President really does not have anything to do with specific governors. Questions about Cuomo should be directed toward the spokesperson for the NY governor, not the President. And as for "helicopter questions," that was actually a clever trick the last administration used, because any time they asked him a softball, he would take a swing at it, while any time they asked him a hard question, he would pretend he couldn't hear them and move on. He did that a LOT. Biden does answer questions on the way to events though, if you haven't seen him doing so, it's probably because his answers were too good for right-wing media to allow it on-air.
    1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189.  @chuckles3265  People who want to murder will continue to try, they will just not be as successful at it without guns. If a mass shooting turns into a mass stabbing, then it becomes much more likely that the attacker will be caught and that the intended victims will survive the attack. There will ALWAYS be people who will want to do crimes, which is why the whole "don't blame the gun, blame the criminal" argument is idiotic. It's impossible to prevent those with criminal intent form attempting crimes. But what you can do is reduce their access to tools that make them EFFECTIVE at it. And no, we don't need to ban all other devices that might be used as a weapon, because those are not as effective as guns. The goal is to REDUCE the amount of murders, and removing guns would provably do that. In countries like the UK and Australia that passed gun bans, their crime and murder rates dropped. Even today, they not only have fewer gun deaths than in the US, which would be expected, but also fewer knifing deaths. Their TOTAL murder rates went down. If the theory that "well if you take the guns away, criminals would just find some other method" actually applied, then when you removed guns, murder rates would remain flat. We know for a fact that this is not how it works, so that theory cannot be correct. As for criminals getting guns, again, not true. While some criminals would still be able to get some guns, they would be able to get far LESS of them, so less harm would result. We again know this for a fact from the countries that have tried. UK criminals are no less interested in having a gun than US criminals, and yet still gun crimes are way down in the UK, so clearly criminals do not have unlimited access to guns. Most guns that criminals use in crime are either directly purchased from a law abiding gun shop, or they are directly purchased from someone who bought that gun in a legal gun sale, or they are stolen from someone who legally purchased their gun. If you remove all those legal paths to trade and transport guns, then it becomes MUCH harder for a criminal to gain access to one, especially the more amateur criminals like mass shooters, revenge murderers, and junkies looking to mug someone. Black markets will still exist, but with much more limited supply, and much harder for a person to find. These are the absolute facts as shown by previous cases in which it has been done. These facts might make you angry, because you really WANT the facts to be on the side of guns, but I'm sorry, the facts are on the side of life, instead.
    1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194.  @chuckles3265  I'm for any reasonable steps that are available that would reduce the number of guns out there in the world. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing," and we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I can see a reasonable purpose for some access to hunting rifles, and if low-capacity hunting rifles were the only guns available then I think that the amount of crime done with them would be a tiny fraction of what currently takes place. I also see a place for sport shooting, but feel that such guns could be stored entirely in secure facilities, rather than in people's homes. I see no particular justification for having personal possession of guns in the home, much less on someone's person during a normal day. The theory is that this somehow makes people "more safe," but the evidence does not bear this out, as gun ownership increases the odds of someone dying from a gun, and even though the US has far more guns than any other country, we also have a higher murder rate, which is the opposite of the result if it were true that guns in any way increased public safety. It would be like claiming that covering yourself in meat is a good way to prevent shark attacks. I don't think that there is any valid purpose for civilians to own handguns (again, outside of the exclusive possession of a secured shooting range). As for mental health, sure, we could always do with better mental health education and access, that'd be great. I don't think it's the defining issue here though, as while some countries handle mental health better than the US does, it's far from universal even among other first world countries, and I don't believe there is any direct correlation between quality mental health and lowered homicide rates. We do know that in countries that banned firearms and assault weapons there were direct reductions in homicide rates shortly afterward though, so that is a much more clear correlation. so it's not an "either or" thing, sure do better on mental health issues, and that would help, but plenty of gun violence has nothing to do with mental illness, so that's only a small part of the problem. Getting the guns off the street would have a much stronger benefit.
    1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211.  @DeathlordSlavik  It's a myth that guns are "often used in self defense." People just feel more comfortable with a gun in their hand, waving it around like a maniac, whether it makes them safer or not. There was an Air Force Veteran in Texas a couple years back that was using his gun in self defense, and was murdered by another guy who was claiming to be using self defense, was convicted of it, and might get pardoned of the murder by the Texas Governor. Both of them had guns, both of them were "suing them defensively," neither would be dead and neither in jail if neither of them had had guns. Look, people can claim that guns can be used defensively all they want, but they need to back it up with evidence that this actually WORKS. The US has more guns than ANYONE ELSE. If "guns as a defense" actually WORKED, then the US would be the safest country on the planet. Instead, we have a murder rate 4 times other first world nations. How would that work if guns make people safer? And no, "demographics" has nothing to do with it. Don't buy into that mess, it's just a racist dogwhistle. Plenty of the other first world countries with lower crime rates have complex "demographics," they just have fewer guns. Most of the people who murder people with guns are white anyway. Murder is more likely to occur in urban areas than rural, because people are more densely packed and more likely to come into immediate contact, but plenty of murders happen in rural areas too, it's not like rural people are just "better" somehow. And I don't agree that a country is somehow "less free" if they are mean to you if you commit violence on your neighbors. "The freedom to shoot others" is not a freedom that I respect or care about. I care about the other freedoms, like fair elections, free speech, anti-discrimination laws, etc., and the other first world countries are no less free than the US in any way that matters. Also, you appear to MASSIVELY misunderstand Franklin's quote. If we were to apply what he actually meant to gun control, then his argument would be that YOU are the one sacrificing the long term freedom that comes from a nation without guns, in exchange for the short-sighted "freedom" that you feel when you have a gun in your possession. You are trading away ACTUAL safety in exchange for a false sense of security, which is EXACTLY what Franklin was against.
    1
  2212. 1
  2213.  @DeathlordSlavik  All the areas in the country where guns are allowed are still much less safe than countries where they are not. If a criminal has to choose between a target that he knows has a gun verses one that he knows is unarmed, would he choose the latter? Probably, that's a very child-like logic puzzle. But you also have to consider that when a nation makes guns illegal, criminals are much less likely to have guns, so people are much less likely to be a victim of a gun. And if everyone had guns, then that wouldn't mean criminals would be less likely to do crimes, it just means they would be more careful about shooting first. That's the thing, a criminal might avoid people they know to be armed, but if they intend to attack someone who might be armed, they will be much less hesitant to shoot. If they even think you might have a gun, they will shoot first, ask questions later. This is also what leads to much higher police shootings in the US than in other countries. You present a simple scenario, but the real world is not that simple. As for the Urban/rural divide, while the death rate in urban areas is 20% higher than in urban areas, you are right that if we ONLY count homicides, the murder rate in urban areas is higher. It's really not by that much though. And not, they do not have "totally different values," they just have different population densities. Again, you seem to have bought into all the old tired racist dog whistles, hook, line, and sinker. "Nothing edgy about what I said it is just a simple fact and crying about it wont help you." Lol.Do you have a vampire cape on when you say things like that? Are the lights out so that you can brood in the shadows? XD
    1
  2214.  @DeathlordSlavik  No, again, it is more dangerous to live in a purely urban US area than in a country with better gun control. Sorry. And again, criminals will choose the safest available ways to do crime, but there is no point at which they just go "well, crime is too dangerous, I guess I won't crime now, ./shrug." They will do crimes anyway. So the more guns are out there, yes, the more risk for them, but also, the more risk for their victims, because the more risk the criminal takes on when doing a crime, the less careful they are to not harm the victim. And yes, without guns, criminals will just use other tools to commit their crimes, and as a result, murder rates go WAY down. On the same day that someone killed 27 people in Sandyhook using a rifle, a man went on a knifing rampage in China and injured 27 people. Let me repeat that, injured 27 people, not one life was lost, because knives are just a much less efficient killing tool than guns. In countries like the UK that got rid of large sectors of their guns, their overall crime rate didn't go away, but it didn't get worse either, people switched to other weapons, and those other weapons caused less death. Most of your other arguments seem to be fairy tales invented by the Faux News to explain the world around their audience. "Oh, California decriminalized crime, and the majority of people shot by police brought it on themselves," Lol. I'd hate for you to find out Santa isn't real. I'm glad that you at least agree that people in urban areas have better values than those in rural areas, given their voting trends. So see, take away the density and they would most likely have considerably less crime, if anything. "Can't counter what I said so you cry about things being edgy just like how you cry about things being racist. Seems that is all you do when you encounter points that you have no counter for that or you just straight up ignore the points and redirect to something else." Oh, this is just adorable. xD
    1
  2215.  @DeathlordSlavik  You do realize that plenty of people still do crime even in countries that are complete warzones and everything is violent, right? People don't do crime "because it's easy," they do crime because they don't see any alternative in their life, because they don't want to starve and be homeless, but can't get any legal work that would pay their rent. Crime is directly correlated to poverty, not to "laziness." So, again, making crime more risky will not in any way deter crime, if that were true then you would expect crime to have shot up in places that once had guns and then banned them, but that did not happen. All that changes if you make crime riskier is that it causes the criminals to take LESS risks, by shooting first and asking questions later, rather than taking the chance that their intended victim might be armed. And again, while it is impossible to stop ALL murders, murder rates PROVABLY do go down, since "other tools" are just not as efficient as guns. You can run from a knife, you can block a knife, there are plenty of ways to handle an attacker with a knife that just don't apply to one with a gun. A gun can produce lethal wounds on dozens of people in the time it would take for a knife to cause maybe a couple of wounds that aren't likely to be fatal. You can kill with a knife, but the odds are against it. So if you have a dozen wannabe murders, and all of them have no trouble buying an AR-15 at a gun shop (as is currently the case), then they can kill a total of dozens, if not hundreds of victims. If, on the other hand, you have those same wannabe murderers, and they have no legal access to guns, then maybe one or two of them can find some sort of illegal gun to use, and cause a few murders that way, and maybe the rest would use knives or bats or whatever other devices they could cobble together, but most of those would probably fail to kill anyone, or at most 1-2, instead of dozens. You can't prevent all murders, but you can save the lives of THOUSANDS by removing the guns as an option. And you present another fairy tale, the "good guys with a gun" that stop crimes in progress. More gunmen have been stopped by unarmed civilians than have been stopped by other civilians with guns, even in areas where some of the people around were armed. I know the cowboy hero fantasy is fun and all, but please grow out of it, because it doesn't actually make any sense in the real world. You claim that the values of city people don't make sense, and yet the Tennessee legislature voted to ban drag shows and kick out two black elected representatives (from urban areas) for speaking out of turn, but have NOT yet acted to do anything about the six people murdered using guns in their state. Most of those Tennessee representatives were put there by rural people, because that is how the state is gerrymandered. Rural people could not have a lower ground to be standing in.You're just fine with that, because the swamp is your home.
    1
  2216. 1
  2217.  @JacobAnawalt  I think that in the case of many police involved shootings, the officer was so some degree in the wrong. Not all of them, but there are plenty of cases in which the suspect was unarmed, no threat to the officer, and yet still got shot. Those are the sorts of stories that tend to make the news, because they are the ones in which an injustice has taken place. The stories in which the criminal was clearly armed and dangerous and the shooting was entirely justified don't tend to be considered "news," because nothing unexpected happened there. Dog bites man. And we do also know from various trials and the open admission of officers that they often plant weapons on shot suspects where possible. Again, this is not every time, but it does happen, so any claim that a suspect was armed needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It would be nice if that weren't the case, but this is the world we live in. I don't entirely blame police for shooting first and asking questions later, they almost have to, because in the US there is such a high likelihood that a suspect WILL be armed. If they have "an object" on them, it could easily be a gun, and better an innocent suspect dead than the officer, right? But it doesn't have to be that way, in countries that have fewer guns, officer-involved shootings are WAY down. I don't excuse any criminal who shoots anyone, police or otherwise, they deserve to be held 100% accountable for their own actions, but only punishing the criminals after the fact will NEVER reduce gun violence in this country. Yes, the criminal is responsible for his own actions, but anyone who helped him to get that gun was an accomplice in his actions, and they deserve to be held accountable as well. Now as for Ukraine, they are at war right now. The Ukrainian government handed out a ton of rifles in the month or two leading up to the war. If the US mainland ever came under threat of invasion, and the US military and police did not feel up to handling the problem, they would have NO trouble issuing M-4s to any civilian willing to fight, and getting them distributed before ANY foreign power could mobilize in force on US soil. There is ZERO need for American civilians to already be armed for war during peacetime.
    1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220.  @DeathlordSlavik  And yet crime in rural areas is not that much lower than in urban areas. Again, it's not that urban people are somehow "worse" in any way than rural people, they are just packed closer together. Take a dozen crabs and put them in a 100ft pen, they aren't likely to fight. Put the same crabs in a bucket, and they might tussle. Really, if anything, if rural people weren't worse than urban people, on average, then there would be a lot less crime in rural areas than there is. It's also important to point out that the poverty rate in rural areas is not much lower than in urban areas. And no, we know from actually trying it that "increasing risk" only deters crime so much. You want to have some risk in the system, just to give some incentive to not do it, but the more you squeeze on that balloon, the bigger the other side gets, crime WILL still occur, ALWAYS. There is no level at which you can just make crime stop happening. We're well past that point in the US already. And we do know that removing the guns DOES, IN ABSOLUTE FACT, reduce the overall murder rate, because, again, it has been tried. Both the UK and Australia reduced access to guns, and as a result, gun crimes went way down, but also ALL murder went down. Knife crimes and other types of murders did not go up to the same level that gun crimes previously filled. Again, there will always be criminals, criminals will always try to do crimes, but without guns, criminals will FAIL far more often. Btw, I did find some good examples of "defensive gun use." A week or so ago, a Kansas City man shot a young man twice for the crime of ringing the wrong doorbell. A few days ago, an upstate New York woman was shot and killed for the crime of pulling into the wrong driveway to turn around. Just yesterday, a Texas cheerleader was shot for the crime of accidentally trying to enter the wrong car in a parking lot, realizing her mistake and returning to the correct vehicle, and accidentally catching the car owner's bullets as he fired at the several cheerleaders in the car with her. Than God we have guns to save responsible gun owners like these. And that was just within the past week.And all of these were in "rural areas."
    1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223.  @DeathlordSlavik  Again, I'd already countered those, there was nothing left to argue because they were not valid points. You demanding that I counter them does not make them valid. Did you look into the story with the six year old that got shot? If he had not had a gun, he would not likely have caused as much harm as he did. The same applies to the several other shootings that have happened this week alone. Again, removing guns wouldn't prevent ALL harm in the world, but it would certainly REDUCE the harm caused. I believe I already told you about the case of the man in China where, the same day the Sandyhook shooting killed 27 people, this man in China went on a similarly deranged rampage in China, but since he only had a knife instead of a gun, he injured 27 people, but killed ZERO. It is just much easier to avoid, disable, or survive a knife than a gun. If "Defense against criminals" were a valid reason for it, then the US would have a lower crime rate than other first world countries. Instead it is higher, even in rural areas. There is NO evidence that American access to guns in ANY way makes ANY Americans more safe than without them. "Defense against rioters" is not an issue, people have nothing to fear from rioters. America has more of a problem with gun owners causing harm to protesters than it does with gun owners needed to fight "rioters." "Defense against government" is also a non-issue in the US. We have the ballot box for that. "The government" IS the people in this country. If at some point that changes, and the US military is turned against the people, America's civilian gun owners would be ZERO defense against that, because the capabilities of the US military far overwhelm idiots with their toys. Besides which, if the government ever did become authoritarian, it seems more likely that the gun owners would side with them, rather than against them. I mean, say the Jan 6th insurrection had actually worked and Donald Trump were still in office on Jan 21st, do you really imagine America's gun owners rising up to depose him? And "defense against invaders" is also irrelevant, because we already have the strongest military on Earth, and the most well armed police forces on Earth, and even if an invading force were somehow able to overwhelm both of those, it would still take months for ANY military on Earth to mobilize against the US mainland, which we would see coming and have time to prepare, allowing the US military to pass out M4s to anyone who wanted one. If Ukraine had time to do this when Russia is right down the road from them, why do you believe the US military would be incapable of doing so? So that's four attempts to justify civilian gun ownership, not one of them passes muster.
    1
  2224. 1
  2225.  @stevemahoney1733  I don't believe in news with "sides." I believe in news that is ACCURATE. The middle point between "accurate" and "biased" is still biased. If you take two biased accounts, there is no way to guess where the truth lies, it could be anywhere in between. I would not object to "defending decorum," if the punishment fit the crime. Expulsions from the legislature are pretty rare, and generally only accompanied by actual CRIMES taking place, not just "general rudeness." If those same standards were applied in the US congress and applied fairly, then half the Republican delegation would have been kicked out already. And again, citing the source you did as "potentially useful" casts serious doubt on your judgement. Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Are you aware that most people believe they are of above average intelligence? Do you understand the problem with that statement? 1. There were no false allegations made against any SCOTUS nominees. Which ones do you believe were false? 2. The Republican majority in the Tennessee statehouse determined for themselves that the accusations had merit, and issued a censure. That was his "trial," in so far as the legislature rules provide. There was no actual court case to it. Similar to Trump's impeachments, while they agreed that he did the crime he was accused of, they decided to not punish him for it, while they later decided that speaking out against guns on the legislature floors was grounds for expulsion. They clearly care more about guns than they do that representatives female employees, and this comes as a surprise to no one.
    1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309.  @nonhatespeech  You do understand that "transgender care for minors" does NOT mean "surgeries," right? You understand that? We can continue this conversation on the shared understanding that "transgender care" does not mean "surgeries?" The standard of care for trans minors does not include surgical procedures, it is to first pursue counseling, then, potentially puberty blocking drugs, and then, if they are determined to be serious about transitioning, hormone therapy. If this is done right, then no surgical procedures would be involved until they are at least adults. But the Montana law does not merely reference surgeries, which are not happening, it also prevents ALL such care for the children, leaving them alone. If you are an honest person, if you mean it when you say that you are concerned about living with the guilt associated with passing of legislation that sets these young people up for many regrets in their future, then you would oppose this bill, because you would want to help them avoid the regret of having passed through puberty using the wrong hormones, and growing into a mature adult of the wrong gender. You have seen interviews of people who transitioned and regretted it. You have not, apparently, seen the interviews of the people who transitioned and had no regrets, who outnumber those people 100 to 1. You are focusing on the exceptions, and leaving the much more common examples to rot. If a child is trans, then it is FAR more likely that they would regret not transitioning into their preferred gender as seamlessly as possible, than it is that they would regret having transitioned. That's just the reality of the situation.I hope that does not make you uncomfortable, but I think we can both agree that it would be better for you to be uncomfortable about that than for these kids to be left uncomfortable in their own skins. NOBODY is pushing ANYONE to transition. The only offer on the table is to help people who WANT to transition to be able to do so. And there is no moral argument against that.
    1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821.  @GaryUSMCvet  You're arguing my point for me. Yes, everyone on US soil is subject to US laws, because everyone on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction, including newborns, and therefore those newborns are US citizens according to the 14th. If those newborns were not subject to US jurisdiction, then US laws would not apply to them. "Only American citizens are subject to the jurisdiction (allegiance to)" See, this is the main problem we're having here, you seem to think that "jurisdiction" means "allegiance to," when in fact, that is nothing like what that word means. Look it up. I get it,, sometimes you get a word wrong and go off on a tangent, but better to learn your mistake and move on than to keep repeating it. Also, Trumball and Howard do not define "jurisdiction" it is an actual word with an actual meaning that predates both men by centuries. Maybe they got it wrong too, which would be embarrassing to them, but irrelevant to the law itself. Look, you seem to have no interest in looking up the definition, so I will do it for you: jurisdiction noun ju·​ris·​dic·​tion ˌju̇r-əs-ˈdik-shən Synonyms of jurisdiction 1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law a matter that falls within the court's jurisdiction 2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority : control 3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised If the US has a legal right to exercise power against you, then you are under US jurisdiction. Foreign citizens are under US jurisdiction while in the US, US citizens are within foreign jurisdiction while in a foreign country (although the US can certainly argue for exceptions to be made). Jurisdiction has NOTHING to do with allegiance to anything.
    1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847.  @Terry-Hesticle  1. Yeah, he's been around a long time, and he's always been progressive for the time that he was in. The same policies that people slam him for today, black politicians at the time thought were a serious improvement. His policies today reflect the reality of today, and that's all anyone should want from him. 2. I'm afraid you bought into some fake news there. If you're talking about Robert Byrd, he was not a leader in the KKK. If anyone should be shamed of him, it should be the people who elected him to Congress for fifty years. 3. Yup, but it was an improvement over previous legislation and largely supported by the black community at the time. Again, he evolves with the times. 4. That is a gross misrepresentation. Some of those facilities were used on a very temporary basis to handle an unexpected flood of incoming migrants, and children were only separated from parents if those parents were being charged with a crime (such as drug trafficking), and then quickly moved to better facilities. The reason people complained about the Trump era policies is that they were detaining WAY more people for FAR longer periods of times, sometimes up to years, and were separating ALL families, often without even taking proper documentation so that parents and children could later be reunited. To compare the Obama era policy to Trumps would be like saying that the US internment camps in WWII were "just as bad" as the German ones. 5. I agree, I just don't see it, because I haven't been primed to by right-wing fake news obsessing over it. It's like with Hillary and her emails, if you repeat nonsense often enough, people start to think "maybe there's an actual story there," but no, it's always just nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated. And for the record the "least informed demographic" is the Fox News viewer, not young people. And "both sides-ism" only serves to reward the bad actors, because they can get away with anything and you'll just "well, both sides do it" to the problem. No, it's not a "both sides" thing, Democrats are not perfect, but Republicans are measurably worse in EVERY category, and "both sides" just lets them off the hook for that.
    1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967.  @billnelson3405  You are insisting on evidence that is much more comprehensive than what you've provided. You say that "opinions don't matter to me," and yet all you've put forth is your opinion on the data. You may be "a scientist," but you're way outside your specialty here. Here are specific points of disagreement with your assertions: "Alina Chan, a molecular biologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, said in a lengthy Twitter thread that the Wuhan subgrant wouldn’t fall under the gain-of-function moratorium because the definition didn’t include testing on naturally occurring viruses “unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.” She said the moratorium had “no teeth.” But the EcoHealth/Wuhan grant “was testing naturally occurring SARS viruses, without a reasonable expectation that the tests would increase transmissibility or pathogenicity. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would have been excluded from the moratorium.”" "The University of Iowa’s Perlman told us the EcoHealth research is trying to see if these viruses can infect human cells and what about the spike protein on the virus determines that. (The spike protein is what the coronavirus uses to enter cells.) The NIH, he said, wouldn’t give money to anybody to do gain-of-function research “per se … especially in China,” and he didn’t think there was anything in the EcoHealth grant description that would be gain of function. But he said there’s a lot of nuance to this discussion." "Perlman told us that he thought Fauci’s response in the May 11 exchange was correct — that no money was given for gain-of-function research. But, he added, there’s a scientific discussion to be had on the benefits and risks of research making recombinant viruses, which involves rearranging or combining genetic material. The politicization of the issue, Perlman said, “doesn’t do anybody good.”" Basically, YOU think that the research Eco-Health funded meets the definition of "gain of function." People in the field seem to think that it does not. I would trust their opinion over yours.
    1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032.  @CNe7532294  Well, that's much less a "well known fact" and more of a "well spread misinformation." While there is certainly some energy loss in charging an EV (unless you have enough home energy generation to cover it), power plant energy production, even using oil as a fuel, is much more efficient than a car engine, and you also have to factor in the inefficiencies of transporting the gasoline to the gas stations. And this is only a factor at all if the power plant is running on fossil fuels, the more we shift toward renewable sources, the less this will be a factor. Also, far more of an EV's components can be recycled than what's put into an ICE vehicle's fuel tanks. almost all the lithium in a battery can be recycled, for example, while none of an ICE's gasoline gets recycled. The "Carbon footprint" of building an EV is higher than the carbon footprint of building an ICE car, but only by a relatively small amount, and a couple years of average driving will pay off this "carbon debt" and every mile beyond that will have a lower total carbon footprint than the ICE does. As for fire risk, yeah, lithium battiers do burn, but you know what else burns? Gasoline. It burns REALLY well, and very explosively. Most Hollywood explosions are gasoline. Lithium fires are persistent, but fairly slow and steady, meaning if you get into a crash, and it does start a fire, chances are you will be able to get out of the vehicle and get well away from it with no harm done. A gasoline car, on the other hand, will explode, likely giving you no chance to avoid it. Also, while raw lithium can combust with water, it is not a factor with finished EV batteries, and you can even put out an EV fire using pumped water. So while you raise some interesting points about EVs not being perfect, and there obviously still being room for improvement, they are still far superior to the alternative of driving an ICE vehicle under most conditions. You sure did have a laundry list of industry talking points though. . .
    1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131.  @juliemunoz2762  You want to believe that The 14th "does not provide that illegals who invade our Country and drop a baby here are automatically the parents of a US citizen," yet that is EXACTLY what those words YOU quoted MEAN. They may not have planned for the amendment to result in that, but that does not change the fact that it is the CONSEQUENCE of the 14th amendment existing, and that if that bothers you, the ONLY way to change it would be a new amendment. "That's not what we wanted to happen" has NEVER been a constitutional challenge. "The key is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: Consider the French ambassador and his lovely young wife stationed in Washington, DC. She gives birth to a child here. Her child was born here. But is her child “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? No! The child is subject to the same jurisdiction as his parents: France." The only reason why the children of diplomats are not granted birthright citizenship is because their parents have diplomatic immunity, and are therefore outside of US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, on the other hand, IS within US jurisdiction, otherwise it would be impossible for them to be "illegal," since people outside of US jurisdiction are INCAPABLE of committing crimes under US law. If someone was "outside of US jurisdiction," then they could murder someone without it being a crime. It's also worth noting that even among foreign diplomats, not all of them are granted diplomatic immunity, and if those employees have children in the US, their child would be a US citizen. Of course, they would likely also have dual citizenship with their parent's country. "They were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” – they were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes." Exactly my point. And illegal immigrants are not tribal members, and are therefore subject to US jurisdiction. "An illegal alien who invades our Country is in the same status as the French Ambassador’s wife. " This is completely false. Illegal immigrants are NOT granted diplomatic immunity. "The baby she drops here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the Country she left." This is also not true, the baby would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of any country other than the US, so long as it remained on US soil. It would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the parent's home country if it went there. "Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4, US Constitution, Congress may make laws deciding how people become naturalized citizens." Yes, but also, later portions of the Constitution supersede earlier portions, so in this case, the 14th amendment supersedes Act 1 Sec 8, clause 4. Once the 14th was added, while Congress does retain the right to make laws for naturalization, they are restricted to doing so within the bounds of the 14th, and cannot do anything that would alter what the 14th says without passing a new amendment. And Professor Edward Erler is an idiot who is telling you what you wish to be true, so you believe him. This reflects poorly on you. Be a better consumer of information.
    1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147.  @adamh4594  The interests of rural areas are not somehow more important than those of city areas and therefore in need of some special protections though. People are people, the people living in rural areas count exactly as much as those in urban areas, no more, no less. And urban areas no more "vote as a monoilith" than rural areas do, everyone just votes the topics that matter to them. Also, people keep complaining about how California is a messed up state, but you know who's fault that is? Local government. It's local county and city councils setting zoning laws that have led to the housing crisis and many related issues, not state level governments where one region overrides another. There's no inherent virtue to "local governance." "Does it make any sense for the laws decided on in California, to consistently take precedent over the laws the local communities of Rhode Island want for themselves, simply because 'democracy and California has a majority of people'?" Yes. Obviously. Why wouldn't more people have a larger say in how things get done? "This very factor is just one of the reasons the electoral college is so incredibly important in America and is a direct influence over our ability to be cohesive." The electoral college hadn't been relevant to outcomes for a hundred years or more. It was only recently that one party started losing a LOT of popular votes while still clinging onto the electoral college win, and suddenly it's become a Very Big Deal. It's almost like they don't care about "fair outcomes," they only care about winning by any means necessary. "You see a direct correlation with social cohesion and social order break down." Not really, there's been a lot more social breakdown in the past than we have today, like during the civil rights movement. Typically, any time when great strides are being made for minority groups, there is a violent and angry protest from conservatives on the matter, and that is to be expected, but it will pass, and America will continue to improve. I also don't think I should point out that the previous administration is entirely to blame for these divides, not the current one. The current one has been running a very middle of the road administration, he just happens to not be the one that those on the right could be satisfied with.
    1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150.  @adamh4594  You are misunderstanding the founders. They tried the "loose states under a weak federal" government, and it failed completely, so THEN they wrote the Constitution to REPLACE that idea with a more centralized federal government. Not ALL founders agreed with that, so I'm sure you can find quotes from one or two that felt differently, but the vision they eventually AGREED on involved a strong federal government overriding the states. Also, just for the record, the word "republic" has nothing to do with "loose states," those are two very distinct concepts. A Republic is just a representative democracy, whether that involves one state, or many. I think the term you mean to say is "confederation," which is not what we currently have. "Not really. High populated areas consistently vote blue. Rural is often more conservative, but you have a far bigger mixed bag." You have both progressive and conservative people in both cities and rural areas. The majority in cities tends to be blue, and the majority in areas without cities tends to be red. Rural areas have no "high ground" in this matter, they just tend to vote the way you prefer them to vote. "And it wasn't local government that entirely messed up this state. It was state government. " If you actually believe that, then you have been misled. Look into it from better sources. Newsome is not the reason for SF's problems, their city planning boards are the reason for their problems, LOCAL level control is the reason for their problems. "One is pro life. The other is pro abortion. Do you honestly think the better situation is where one of those communities dictates how the other lives? " I think that the people living in those community have to deal with the consequences either way, so I believe in whichever leads to the outcome in which the choice is left to the individual to make. I do not feel that people who want that choice should be abandoned because they happen to live in a state where the majority chooses to deny them that option. Larger scale decision making tends to lead to the best possible outcomes for all people. "The riots of the original civil rights movement pale in comparison to the riots of 2020." Wow. They have really done a number on you, haven't they. It will blow your mind when you find out the truth. "The 90's had far more cohesive communities then what we have today." Then why was violent crime massively higher in the 90s than it is today? "And you seem to be neglecting the fact that it was conservatives (and still is) that pass civil rights legislation... " No, it was always progressives that pushed that legislation, and it was always conservatives that fought against it. That's the nature of being conservative. I think you're a bit confused because you're thinking about it as "Republican = conservative," and that's pretty true today, but wasn't always the case. The 1860s Republicans certainly weren't conservative, and a large chunk of the 1960s Democrats were very conservative. It was the progressive wings of both parties that pushed through the civil rights legislation. "And while he wasn't the boogeyman the left endlessly insists on... he is a crass, boorish man with effectively no verbal filter between his brain and mouth. " That's a distraction. People do not hate him because he is rude and personally offensive. They hate him because his POLICIES are rude and offensive. They hate him for the HARM that he caused, and insists that he plans to cause if he regains power. Don't pretend that these are trivial reasons. "He ran on being middle ground, but lets be honest, Biden has no political values other than what his party directs him... he is little more than a failing figurehead." Then why is the progressive base constantly at war with him? He takes very centrist positions on issues, it's just that the center is more to the left than you want it to be. Pretty much all of his individual policies, if polled in a vacuum, are popular with the majority of Americans, in many cases even with the majority of Republicans. It's only when you bring his name up that the conservatives boo. I do agree that the issues existed prior to Trump, but he certainly blew them up exponentially. The root cause was the founding of Faux News in the 90s, where they were telling people the stories they wanted to hear, instead of reality, and the right became more and more divorced from reality. Then a black man got elected President, and the Tea Party movement showed up, and large portions of the center and right got very interested in politics, Trump among them. And then Trump became president, and a lot of people got a lot more bold about things that maybe they'd kept to themselves before. He certainly never made anything better.
    1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283.  @urgreatestenemy  You're repeating the same talking points I debunked in that previous thread. And so again, I was also factoring in the other forms of pollution. Were you? Have you looked into the oil pollution Nigeria has? Pumping, refining, shipping, and more importantly burning gasoline causes FAR more pollution to the globe as a whole, and much more than that directly to the US, than ANY aspect of EVs. n EV has a larger carbon footprint coming off the lot than a gas car, but the gas car's footprint keeps growing over time, and after less than two years, the EV's overall footprint will be smaller. And again, a lot of those carbon costs come from inefficient manufacturing processes, so over time those carbon costs will get lower still. Also, there is NO EV where you "have to replace the batteries every 5 or 6 years." What idiot told you that? EV batteries typically have a 10 year _warranty," and they are rated to last much longer than that. They don't just "die" at some point, they instead just lose a bit of efficiency over time, so if you get a 200 mile range EV, then after 10 years it might only have a range of 180-190, but still plenty for most drivers. If you want to change out the battery you can, but you could keep driving it long past that if you don't need the absolute max range. And if you do trade out batteries, you can pay off the carbon footprint of the new one in a year or so of driving, and it can be fully recycled, with all that lithium going into making a fresh battery. I'm afraid that you listed a bunch of fossil fuel industry misinformation that someone must have fed you. Look into the topic yourself, stay away from their propaganda. Don't be their slave.
    1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381. 1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1
  3392. 1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. 1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. 1
  3418. 1
  3419. 1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447. 1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. 1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. 1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521.  @alab3657  I wouldn't say that any of them were "homophobic," they just had viewpoints that reflected the times. 99% of Americans in 1980 would be considered "homophobic" by 2021 standards, but times change, viewpoints change, and now most of those people have also changed with the times and the views they hold now are more in line with the country as a whole. That is how things should work. Even at the time they were far less homophobic than their peers on the other side of the aisle, and that's all that mattered. Viewpoints on topics like gay marriage and trans rights have shifted massively in the last decade and a half, and the viewpoints of major Democratic politicians have shifted along with those of the rest of the country. Again, this is how it should work. It's only shameful for those who still haven't shifted along with the country and currently dig into those old viewpoints. "And just like voter ID which was deemed racist 1 month ago is now good to go. " Again, it always depends on how it is implemented. IF it is implemented in a way that leads to less black people being eligible to vote than before that law, then it obviously is racist. If it does not lead to that outcome, if it's implemented in a way that results in the same amount of black voter turnout as before the law, then it is not racist. Democrats have never opposed voter ID in principle (although they have rightly questioned the need for it), but they have certainly opposed implementations of voter ID that specifically make it less likely for Democratic voters to have or be able to present the necessary ID, relative to their Republican peers. That has not changed.
    1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566.  @jimconard9341  I'm sorry that the world is more complicated than you would like it to be, but there's nothing either of us can do to change that, so we may as well agree to live with it. I thought we were talking about immigration. Yes, cartels smuggle drugs too, but that is a business that has nothing to do with migrants, and generally takes place at ports of call. The more open the borders are to migrants, the less likely drugs are to pass the borders undetected. No, they do not "vanish" after being processed, they just cease to be a problem. They are either deported (and therefore not our problem) or they become productive members of the community, in which case they are a benefit, not a problem. It is only before they are processed, in which the state has a burden of care for them and they are prohibited from working, that they cause more cost than benefit. And yes, if fewer people were coming, then we could process them faster, but we can't do anything about that, it's like saying that the problem with Katrina was "there was too much water," as if that helps anything. The people will exist either way, all we can control is how to manage that fact. The fact remains that IF we INCREASE the processing capacity, which is what the administration is working on, then we can handle the current and expected future flows. If we continue to stick our finger into the dam and demand that the water just go away, then it will continue to overflow and cause trouble. And I'm glad we can agree that there would be no point to the bipartisan bill as a "political stunt." It was just a good faith effort by both sides to find a problem to this situation, until one of those sides decided they preferred to run on the problem instead of actually solving anything.
    1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. 1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619. 1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622. 1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626. 1
  3627. 1
  3628. 1
  3629. 1
  3630. 1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633.  @melissacoupal585  My point was that what you meant by it does not actually matter in the grand scheme of things. It's a concept that does not actually function. And no, you are completely wrong about the strategic oil reserve and how it works. For one thing, I was talking about our oil exports TODAY, in 2024, and we stopped drawing down the strategic reserves years ago, but even beyond that, the government does not determine who gets the oil from the strategic reserve, it is just released into the American oil market. If people in that market choose to resell it to a foreign country, that is capitalism, not an act of government. And that is the issue, oil will ALWAYS go to the highest bidder, so whether it is produced here or elsewhere is entirely irrelevant to the price. If any other country in the world is willing to pay more for US oil than Us consumers want to spend, then that oil will just be sold elsewhere. There is no such animal as "energy independent," UNLESS either A: your energy sources are not tradable, such as Iceland's geothermal, or B: you NATIONALIZE those sources, greatly restricting international trade on them. So far, no US administration has gone that far, so any talk of ":energy independence" is just a smokescreen for handouts to oil companies, meant to fool the gullible. Also, the Keystone pipeline has nothing to do with energy independence. It was a way to get Canadian oil to international markets, and only benefited those oil companies, not American consumers. And yes, I am aware of the "petro dollar," but it does not mean what you imply it to mean. It certainly does not mean that the US gets to define global oil prices in any way.
    1
  3634. 1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 1
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659. 1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666. 1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679. 1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692. 1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 1
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705. 1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709. 1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. 1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716. 1
  3717. 1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. 1
  3728. 1
  3729. 1
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 1
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. 1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. 1
  3760. 1
  3761. 1
  3762. 1
  3763. 1
  3764. 1
  3765. 1
  3766. 1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773. 1
  3774. 1
  3775. 1
  3776. 1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782. 1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787. 1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798.  @garyoldham4449  You say that you believe "And allowing the human race to evolve gradually. Instead of tyrannical ideologues. . ." and yet we are talking about a case in which a tyrannical ideologue invaded a sovereign nation, claimed several chunks of it for himself, intended 9but failed) to seize the rest of it. No person who can claim in good faith to oppose tyranny can possibly support Russia in this conflict. Whatever your beliefs about Ukraine, you would be honor bound to insist on a 100% Russian withdrawal FIRST, and THEN a consideration of any independence claims for the remaining regions. Also, Ukraine is a Republic, not a Federation, so I don't know why you bring up Federations. You say "I don't believe in isolationism. I'm one step above that. Offshore. I don't believe you have to have free trade with a horrible Nation. On the other hand sanctioning a nation only hurts the citizens. So what good is that? It does mean that the nation doing the sanctioning will get a larger slice of the pie." So you believe in Offshore, but without doing any of the things that would make Offshore any different than Isolationism. So you believe in Isolationism. In any case, both are bad if that's the only tool you have. You need more than that, because the rest of the world still exists, no matter how much you want to ignore it. Allowing problems to fester across the world means that eventually they will come home to roost. Germany never would have invaded France if they'd been blocked from invading Poland. Japan never would have attacked Pearl Harbor if they'd been driven out of China. Waiting until an enemy has conquered everywhere else and is on your doorstep only means it will be too late to get your boots on.
    1
  3799. 1
  3800. 1
  3801. 1
  3802. 1
  3803. 1
  3804. 1
  3805. 1
  3806. 1
  3807. 1
  3808. 1
  3809. 1
  3810. 1
  3811. 1
  3812. 1
  3813. 1
  3814. 1
  3815. 1
  3816. 1
  3817. 1
  3818. 1
  3819. 1
  3820. 1
  3821. 1
  3822. 1
  3823. 1
  3824. 1
  3825. 1
  3826. 1
  3827. 1
  3828. 1
  3829. 1
  3830. 1
  3831. 1
  3832. 1
  3833. 1
  3834. 1
  3835. 1
  3836. 1
  3837. 1
  3838. 1
  3839. 1
  3840. 1
  3841. 1
  3842. 1
  3843. 1
  3844. 1
  3845. 1
  3846. 1
  3847. 1
  3848. 1
  3849. 1
  3850. 1
  3851. 1
  3852. 1
  3853. 1
  3854. 1
  3855. 1
  3856. 1
  3857. 1
  3858. 1
  3859. 1
  3860. 1
  3861. 1
  3862. 1
  3863. 1
  3864. 1
  3865. 1
  3866. 1
  3867. 1
  3868. 1
  3869. 1
  3870. 1
  3871. 1
  3872. 1
  3873. 1
  3874. 1
  3875. 1
  3876. 1
  3877. 1
  3878. 1
  3879. 1
  3880. 1
  3881. 1
  3882. 1
  3883. 1
  3884. 1
  3885. 1
  3886. 1
  3887. 1
  3888. 1
  3889. 1
  3890. 1
  3891. 1
  3892. 1
  3893. 1
  3894. 1
  3895. 1
  3896. 1
  3897. 1
  3898. 1
  3899. 1
  3900. 1
  3901. 1
  3902. 1
  3903. 1
  3904. 1
  3905. 1
  3906. 1
  3907. 1
  3908. 1
  3909. 1
  3910. 1
  3911. 1
  3912. 1
  3913. 1
  3914. 1