Comments by "Robert Morgan" (@RobertMorgan) on "PowerfulJRE"
channel.
-
39
-
35
-
35
-
28
-
23
-
21
-
17
-
16
-
13
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Yet it didn't work and we're still cursed with unions in this state. And yes, in certain jobs you have no right to work there unless you join the union against your will. You are literally paying a bribe to a third party in order to gain the privilege of working somewhere. You have zero choice. I've had friends start new jobs at forced union employers and not get a paycheck at all for the first month or even five weeks, because all your pay in that time goes to get you current on your union joining fees, and surcharges, and dues, and more fees.
My roommate is a unionized security guard, he was laid off for a few months and since he was still technically employed by the company, the union took more than half his unemployment check every pay period until he went back to work, because he was still in the union and had to stay current on his dues and fees.
I'm sure they do some good, but holy fuck the BAD they do...and we just had a major union guy here in the UAW get busted taking bribes and embezzling, which is pretty common.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MountainMace but the local da stated himself a week prior, publicly, that a taser IS a lethal weapon, to justify action against police that used a taser on a college student.
That sets precident, that doesn't just go away.
Another example, in my state of Missouri, a collapsible baton and any knife over 4" are listed right next to firearm in the lethal weapon statute, they are identical under the law. To even carry a baton, or large knife, concealed here requires a concealed firearm license, which I have.
You pull a 6" kbar or extend a baton against someone it is legally identical to pulling a handgun on them, under our law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the problem Joe refuses to understand, as it has been explained to me, is that officers risk the one time they deal with someone in a rational way, polite, calm, non-violent, that person could turn on a dime and attack/injure/kill them.
Look at what happened in Atlanta. Those officers, everyone agrees, were very measured and reasonable on camera the entire time, until the ex felon on probation and with a BAC 135% of the legal limit resisted arrest, jacked one officer in the face, stole his weapon, and attempted to use it as he ran away.
That came out of nowhere. He changed his demeanor and behavior to violence in an instant.
Now multiply that risk times every single encounter you have with anyone, at any time, all day everyday at your job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The direct democracy voting idea has it's positives, but the problem is it's impossible to implement and very likely unconstitutional. There are no Federally ran national elections in the US. Every state makes their own laws regarding their elections and runs them independently, as per the 10th Amendment. The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to hold elections, therefore it's solely the Right of the States.
A direct democracy vote like he wants could disenfranchise millions of people if, for example, their state itself votes not to put those questions on their ballots, so no votes on the national issue get cast from that State. The State could get a court ruling that changes the issue question and basically nullifies the votes of other states. Such a system would also be strongly biased against non-populated areas and favor population centers. It's a top-down authoritarian plan disguised as freedom of choice, and with nowhere to escape to. At least with 50 states and 50 sets of laws, if you don't like what's going on where you live you have 49 other options. With big government national votes, you might end up fucked with no recourse.
Additionally, what if the vote on one of the 'three issues' is affirmative yet the result is a law in violation of the Constitution? SCOTUS would still be able to strike down such a law, nationwide majority vote or not. So why have that vote, at IMMENSE polling expense, in the first place?
Large groups of FAR more intelligent lawyers, scholars, and thinkers spent years crafting our Constitution, and it's been through centuries of revision, and the fact that nationwide voting on issues in a direct democratic style has not once entered into it seems like an indication that maybe it's not the best idea. Our system goes to great length to PREVENT the Tyranny of the Majority, not to empower it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:07:00 Tulsi is full of shit, and that's a blatant, self-serving LIE. I do this for a living, I'm licensed to run just about any water treatment plant in the US, and the EPA certified method to properly test the lead content of SUPPLIED water to a household STARTS with running the tap for at least 2-5 minutes to clear out stagnant water in the household pipes. This will give you the true level of lead in the actual SUPPLIED water. Next, you take that same house and don't use any water for at least 8 hours, then you pull a sample immediately after the tap is opened. This sample tells you how much the home's plumbing is adding lead. If the second sample tests higher than the first, guess what, it's your own fucked up jankey pipes poisoning you.
When my own water system does this testing, which is mandatory every year, we test almost 20 homes out of our thousands of customers, and the source water reads zero lead, and depending on the house it can vary from little to nothing, to over the 15ppm limit. It's always the older houses with higher levels, and it's 100% out of the control of the utility. Some cities pass laws making such lead-containing plumbing illegal.
If she can't even look deeper on that and just uses it as a throwaway line, how can she be trusted on important matters? It's a no for me. In fact, I kind of despise her now for spreading disinfo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1