Comments by "Robert Morgan" (@RobertMorgan) on "Joe Rogan Experience #1373 - Kyle Kulinski" video.

  1. More relevant, he needs a nuclear engineer on to refute the inflated negatives of nuclear power. We need to move past 1800s solutions like wind, sun, coal, and gas for electricity generation, which can't even meet the demand of today, if we want to meet demand which will be increasing exponentially quite soon. I'd suggest Atomic Rod Adams as such a qualified guest, https://atomicinsights.com/
    9
  2. Starting with hardening the grid to withstand EMP/solar flare events before anything else.
    7
  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
  4. It's a great way to make tons of money contributing literally zero to society. You'd do far better majoring in a field useful outside of society. When it all collapses, poli-sci majors become left-behinds, no room in the Ark for you... But the engineer, the biologist, the botanist, the hard science skilled, we saved you a spot. Hey, throw that lawyer d-bag over the side.
    2
  5. There is literally not one fact in the above comment, and I can't think of anyone who would agree with those definitions, as they see them.
    2
  6. Yes, I wish he had invoked the Economic Hitman term. What China is doing is NOT new, WE INVENTED IT.
    2
  7. That's the thing about photos: they're ALL staged. Joe, oh the lighting is so good....well yeah, they use actual fucking professional photogs in the white house, regardless of admin. Why wouldn't the lighting be great? Why would the posing and positioning be bad? Does anyone actually think any photo in politics is spontaneous? Laughable. Might as well say Joe's netflix special was staged.
    2
  8. Yep, they'd be all for that until a few elections later and suddenly machineguns are legal for 16 year olds and the voting age gets raised to 30, by popular vote.
    1
  9. Oh, you mean like women can't vote and Black men only count as 3/5ths of a vote. Odd, we tried that before
    1
  10.  @Pcgamingfixes  If the President makes a million dollars on a weapons deal that makes the country a TRILLION DOLLARS and employs countless Americans, by all means make more of those. Keep in mind, according to his leaked tax returns, Trump's personal income was somewhere around $575 MILLION PER YEAR before he took office, and he's donating all his salary. Maybe I just grew up normal, but I'd say it's admirable to take a half a billion a year pay cut for public service work on a 4-8 year contract, on a job you have to spend hundreds of millions to get and stay in.
    1
  11. 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
  12. Since the subject was raised, can we talk about what stimulant pharmaceuticals Kyle is obviously under the influence of in this interview?
    1