Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

@imjustboredleavemealone9055 Gal Gadot is pro-IDF though
6
@darkglass3011 nah when it comes to gun control the facts tend to side with the pro gun side
4
The things that piss me off about net neutrality are 1) the EU fucking killed my data plan because my carrier can't give me free data on certain apps after I hit the data cap and 2) it's hypocritical how the massive Internet websites all cried about Net Neutrality but don't want their own service to be neutral and want to have the rights of a private business It's funny, Netflix should have the right to blast terabytes of HD content through ISPs network without having to pay for the costs and google/facebook can censor whatever they want, but ISPs need to act like a public service... That's when I realized that no matter which side you turn to in the net neutrality debate, you'll hear liars pushing an agenda.
3
@will.roman-ros that's not a free market solution, though - you'd just be forcing an artificial price through government action. The free market solution would be eliminating subsidies that promote polluting industries and oil consumption and possibly charging REAL money (not that carbon tax bs) for damages caused to property (fires, draughts, floods, mud slides), air quality, water quality, countries' fish stocks in their economic zones, etc.
2
@lastjob2011 You have no argument so you start bringing up unrelated subjects. Of course, I click on a Sam Seder video and people are simping for an unethical biotech company that is ran like a silicon valley startup. As expected.
2
@5drtfygunjm okay I just came over from a different side of youtube and people were arguing about Soros and anti-semitism and shit. Okay so people are "paranoid" because the Open Society Foundation pushes an agenda but I come over here and I hear people going off about the Koch brothers...
2
But like... Other world leaders? The vast majority of the world thinks May, Macron, Trudeau, Merkel, Uncle Xi from China, etc are a joke... It's like the special ed class laughing at the kid with a learning disability. Mock Trump all you want but please do not put any of these criminals to a pedestal.
2
@1969Makaveli nazis and cartels fighting a war in Mexico? Excuse me, I'll need the popcorn because that would be fun to watch.
2
@Tsukiru They messed the clinical trials by contacting the placebo group after 6 months and giving them the possibility of getting the shot. They spoiled their own trials on purpose. Why? Because we now know that antibodies decline after 6-8 months. Pfeizer is a corporation and they exist to make money. Lying first, getting paid, and then asking for forgiveness is more profitable than honesty.
2
Hey op trickle down economics is not a real thing and democrat presidents like Woodrow Wilson and JFK used low tax rates to increase tax revenue.
2
@will.roman-ros "Universal healthcare systems have experts in the field negotiate" - which is useless. If Big Pharma demands a price and the experts disagree, what happens? This happened in Portugal, the pharmaceutical company demanded over 90k per patient for a Hep C treatment and the government didn't agree with the price so they refused to buy. Obviously this caused a major shitstorm and the government was pressured into buying. The treatment was thus sold for an undisclosed amount. Do you think the price increased, or lowered? "Assuming no corruption of course" - which is a problem. Where do you go get experts in the field who are also not connected to the industry in any way? "That means even if pharma raises prices, the buyers still know what’s reasonable" - if it wasn't for the news saying that the government was refusing to overpay for treatments I would have never guessed the pharmaceutical companies could get away with charging almost 6 figures per person. The average person doesn't know the costs when he's not paying. "which I’d argue is more important than new medicine down the line" - but you're hovering right above the solution. What is forcing the medical field to be so cutting edge? If someone wanted to make money wouldn't it make sense to open a clinic with lower operating costs that would cover frequent but life-saving procedures which have existed for decades and are extremely well researched? And use mostly generic drugs? I'm pretty sure if anyone tried it the AMA would come crashing down on them for violations of some kind of regulation. You can't even lower the employment costs of doctors because there's no way that regulatory interests will ever tell colleges to drop the requirement for undergraduate years before entering med school.
2
@breeeegs the joke went over your head
2
>This is not a failure of the principle of regulation >rather a sign that the body in charge... But then if regulation actually worked then wouldn't it prevent the body in charge from fucking up? Wake up. Give yourself a slap in the face, rise with water and ask yourself: who writes the regulations? You're giving the government the right to regulate itself and whoever bribes them. >the average citizen is better of with, than without regulation Why? Don't you trust yourself?
1
"BIG GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT THE CONSUMER!" And then his channel is filled with stuff about the NSA and the government supporting the Syrian rebels. Just wow.
1
@sapienssapiens35 because if things are so bad in your country you have to leave, it makes no sense to leave women and children behind. The travel may be dangerous but if you need assylum then clearly the travel is less dangerous than staying. Also it deprives the country of men to fight back. It surrenders the country to whatever evils they're fleeing from.
1
@sapienssapiens35 "each individual case is different" - okay but if it's bad enough for a male to have to leave, I'm sure that even when judging per in individual cases the average woman is better off making the trip than staying. "The moral argument that 'they should stay and fight' is just more racist cretinous condescension" - how is it racist? Mind that I am not saying people should be stuck in their birthplace. I am saying that if my country was really bad I wouldn't leave my mother and grandmother behind while I enjoy freedom. But logically, if people more able to fight are trying to leave, you're essentially surrendering the country to the bad people who drove you out. With the women there. If anything, it's sexist of me to say that women will have a harder time fighting corruption and crime. But not racist. "Good luck fighting CIA sponsored ruthless deathsquads or criminals armed with grenades and machine guns as a fucking baker or a car mechanic." - hmmmmm didn't it take like 10 years for the entire US Army, Air Force and Marine Corps to subjugate farmers and goat herders in the Middle East? How is a baker or a car mechanic less able to fight? I'm sure they have farmers over there too, if that's the issue. Plus, didn't the Mexican Autodefensas essentially prove that it was possible for the people to rise up and fight, but the movement dwindled down as some groups ended up becoming cartels and the legit dudes trying to fight were declawed by the Mexican government who got pissy at them having "military-style rifles"? But I digress. If given guns and ammo and allowed to take friends how many criminals would we have to kill until you'd concede that point? Give me a number.
1
Trickle down economics should not be called anything because it doesn't exist.
1
@jameswilson7790 Not really. "Trickle down economics" as a concept only existed in a few books and articles written by people who wanted to smear a politician (who actually did an amazing job at shifting the tax burden away from the poor and into the higher classes). There was no economic theory named "trickle down" nor any economic theory that worked in the way trickle down works. It just became common parlance because several people pushed for the term's adoption. Yes, I'm aware one guy in Reagan's administration did use the term. He's not even an economist so he knew as much about economic theory as the average reporter.
1
@jameswilson7790 "The theory was rebranded Reaganomics." - you can't "re-brand" if it wasn't branded as Trickle Down in the first place. There's still no real Trickle Down theory nor any other economic theory that works like trickle down. Trickle down was merely a slander thrown at a politician who actually improved the American economy decades before and ensured that the rich carried the burden of taxation. "Yet the Republicans continue to try and try again." - Both Woodrow Wilson and JFK argued for lower tax rates to be used to increase tax collection.
1
@kg356 hope that's your response the next time there's a shooting by some sad loser.
1
@lastjob2011 Look into the Moderna history. Former scientists say it was run like an investment firm. Secrecy, employee abuse, too many projects at once. They actually settled for vaccines because they wanted to use mRNA technology for other purposes and couldn't make it work.
1
And they stash even more when taxes are high.
1
@streeterville773 lmao "this guys are definitely pervs but all the others? Nope taje your meds" "all your claims are true and verifiable? Take your meds"
1
I think everyone fell for the troll.
1
Missing the forest for the trees. What happened to that million?
1
@nathanmckenzie904 "if we cut taxes a company would use that money to hire or raise salaries" - but that's the oversimplified description of a process, if a company has more money but no higher need for productivity putting the money directly on the company will lead to losses. But if the money is invested not only does the state get back the capital gains tax from it, but that investment stimulates businesses. The growth of the economy can then result in higher demand for the product you make and thus you may actually have to hire more people. Instead of thinking of singular companies as a closed system one has to think about all the extra money in the economy and what companies and people will do with it.
1
@nathanmckenzie904 the way something is sold has to do with how many people are able to comprehend complex concepts. Most people simply cannot dedicate their time to learning multiple subjects.
1
>I don't think democracy works I don't either. The US is a Constitutional Republic. >I would argue that you have to pass a basic social politics course to be able to vote The idea makes me vomit. The lower classes would not be as able to afford the course nor have time to study and show up to class. >brakes on a car are a bad idea because sometimes they fail These brakes never work. Oh, look at Detroit! The city that unions built! Bankrupt.
1
@lynw1623 you're inside a bubble and no better than Trump fans inside their own bubble. The vast majority of people are more complex than you give them credit for and don't obsess over orange man.
1
Noiseless Sounds Only right-wing sources mock Trudeau for playing dress up or calling himself a feminist while selling arms to Saudi Arabia? Or admiring China's politics? Only right wing sources mock Merkel for not being able to point at Berlin in a world map? You think anti-EU sentiment is exclusively right-wing? Many leftist hate being under German rule. Only right wing people mock Uncle Xi for getting triggered at Winnie the Pooh memes?
1
Thank you for being honest and sharing the real story.
1
@thuglifeinc4894 Cominarty was. Is it available already?
1
For fuck's sake a lot of people who want to dunk on the Dems don't want Pence as president either... There's a running joke that he's the insurance policy to discourage dens from assassinating Trump.
1
@mypillowguy445 Bill would move in too, no?
1
@MaryRoseLaughing Bad Religion?
1
I am willing to suffer the risks of liberty than having the false sense of security of a tyranny. Even if everyone was educated, don't you think people would just keep voting on those that promise more handouts and free stuff?
1
The tax will be passed down to the consumer.
1
>You mean, is the judgement of the general public better than that of trained professinals? Then why not ditch suffrage and just roll with a technocracy? Trained professionals? When there's a shooting, cops have 11% chance to hit a bystander, private citizens only have 2%. >I don't trust myself That's all I needed to hear, then. You're the kind of person who thinks you should be told which sodas you can't drink. I am a big boy and I can choose what to do with my money.
1
>accuses the right wing of only understanding the mainstream left >only understands mainstream right Ironic.
1
@will.roman-ros "Universal healthcare doesn’t necessarily mean public takeover of the means of healthcare, rather, it can be a government intervention for the private sector" - just ask for the healthcare system to be totally nationalized. State intervention on the private sector will only make things worse, and does absolutely nothing to prevent Big Pharma or medical supply distributors and manufacturers from overcharging the government paying for the stuff. I actually would respect a position that I disagree with but seeks to completely change the situation, than take seriously the proposal to take a broken system and then absolutely mangle it through methods we know will not work. "The free-market can only work with educated, logical individuals" - sounds an awful lot like "the poors are too stupid to decide for themselves" and that's why anyone can easily argue that the left actually hates the lower classes. "It was a suggestion by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations" - the references I find are to justify the "invisible hand" concept he was not suggesting any system at all - it was an observation he made which can be incorrect for all I care, but the point of it was explaining his "invisible hand" concept and not propose any system. "Trickle down economics only happens with charitable business owners/hierarchy." - which is why everyone takes down the trickle-down strawman. The right-wing concept (and some dumb fucks on the Republican side are absolute brainlets for believing the strawman rather the actual political theory) is that putting hurdles on productivity will lead to the wealthy accumulating wealth or putting their wealth where it can't be taxed. By limiting productivity and having the rich save rather than invest not only will the country lose jobs and send people to unemployment, but the government will actually earn a lower tax revenue. " Low taxes only gets you less from the government. Less security, less education, less healthcare, and less infrastructure." - which is the totally ass-backwards way of looking at it. You think that lowering taxes lowers tax revenue but when you lower taxes productivity increases and the wealthy invest rather than hoard wealth. You actually INCREASE government revenue from low taxes. Again, Woodrow Wilson and JFK both used low tax rates to increase government revenue. Reagan massively increased tax revenue and decreased unemployment with his tax policy (although the government was at a deficit because of his spending). The point isn't that rich will give to the poor. The point is that increasing taxes lowers government revenue and kills jobs,
1
@agnostinosatomon7023 if PETA takes a moral stance, which they do, then betraying the morals makes it worse...
1
@agnostinosatomon7023 this is your brain in utilitarianism. They take the moral stance that almost any human activity that involves animals is wrong but they value their lives enough to use animal products/animal-tested products to save their own lives. Despite of the fact that their moral stance is being against animal testing even if it saved lives. They're garbage people who make a living out of being insufferable, hypocrite assholes while convincing you and thousands of other useful idiots that they're morally superior. If you were dying they'd deny you the life-saving cure while administering it to themselves because their lives are valuable enough to kill animals. Yours isn't.
1
@agnostinosatomon7023 "Mary Beth Sweetland needs because of her Diabetes" - she could have either died for her beliefs or stepped down and taken the L by admitting her life is more important. "Are you morally superior, because you don't rape women ? Or do you rape them, since you are a sexist and women have to submit under your "natural" dominion ?" - that went from 0 to 100 real quick "Would it be o.K. for you to test pharmaceuticals on, let's say darker skinned people or Jews in order to save your pale skinned live one day, since you are a member of a superior race and other races have to succumb to white skinned rulership ?" - that's dumb. The testing should either reflect the general population, or if the medicine is supposed to help me later down the line I'd rather it got tested on a white majority group to make sure there isn't a weird genetic difference that makes the treatment safe for other ethnic groups but dangerous to whites. "Cannibalism, human sacrifices, slavery, opression of women, abuse of children...these actions were all widely accepted and welcomed by different societies in previous times and still are in some places." - and you make the same mistake of assuming that the future will validate your beliefs. "Pigs, cows and lambs are o.k., but Labrador and chimpansee is not o.k. to eat...THAT's pure hypocrisy, based on cultural habits, nothing more." - not really. Dogs and humans share a symbiotic companionship, I can actually use a dog to hunt other animals. There is no logical reason to eat a dog except in extreme starvation. The chimpanzee I would think it's actually dangerous to consume because we share enough DNA for diseases to easily jump across species. Wasn't AIDS spread to humans due to people hunting chimps? I understand there are cultural reasons to not eat dogs but there are logical ones as well.
1