Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "Rebel HQ" channel.

  1. oh yeah, Emma is pure trash. Once in a while she says something good, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
    7
  2. did this girl just call that guy a terrorist?
    5
  3. same, herd immunity is the way to go.
    3
  4.  @rosemali3022  it is actually antifa that are cowards, they only fight when they outnumber the enemy.
    3
  5. not any one ever? And do you think all black drunk people are? You do realize unarmed white men are killed by the police too, right?
    2
  6. The Proud Boys are not white supremacists.
    2
  7. imagine that, driving on a road.
    2
  8. @natelin there is an easy solution to this. Don't block the road intentionally.
    2
  9. you mean, abolish the police and send in the military?
    2
  10. whenever Trump says anything these days I play the game of "if Obama said it". Suddenly Trump doesn't say as weird stuff anymore..
    2
  11. "Virtual Debate" is a joke.
    1
  12. At least Trump said GHG effect climate :P.
    1
  13.  @BinaBecker  how do you know?
    1
  14. same goes for the left though :P.
    1
  15. sry girl, that ain't cancel culture. He is talking about what they want.
    1
  16.  @Dc0sby  consistent and honest are two different things though.
    1
  17.  @Dc0sby  I care about honesty, because when a person is honest it is much, much easier to interact with them and their interactions with other people are more constructive. This is not true for dishonest people.
    1
  18.  @Dc0sby  it is still better than dishonesty.
    1
  19.  @Dc0sby  How is it worse? I am not going to agree to disagree if you haven't even argued your position.
    1
  20.  @Dc0sby  yet here you are, having seen though his honesty and act accordingly. Until the realization is had, I think honesty is better than dishonesty because it fosters actual learning and understanding. You pointed out your position, but you didn't argue why you had it. "your position is that you honesty over actually being competent and informing others the truth" wow, wow, wow, wow.. what happened here? When did I EVER claim this? All I said was that I favor honesty over dishonesty. Now the question is, did you make an honest mistake here or was this a dishonest misrepresentation? If it was the former, we can continue talking about this as we can progress by understanding and learning from each other. If the latter, what is the point of continuing the conversation if you won't have an honest discussion? Do you now see my point in the difference between honesty and dishonesty?
    1
  21.  @Dc0sby  "What is the point of having a conversation based on misinformation unknowingly or not?" The point is that in that conversation you can figure out what is misinformation and not, but that is more likely to happen in those taking part in the conversation are honest. If they are dishonest, misinformation is a tool. "Think it's pretty clear that the reason I have my position because Joe rogan's allowing lies to spread." It is not because you also say it is better with dishonesty than honesty. Dishonest people who spread lies is worse than honest people spreading lies as the latter is easier to solve. "I would rather have a conversation between 2 people actually know what they're talking about then one person being manipulated." That is not the scenario we are discussing though. "But if you truly feel like I'm lying so? Long as your honest and don't do anything I can say whatever the hell I want.... and this is a "honest debate"" This whole situation would be even worse if I were dishonest and e.g. lied about you. If you haven't figured this out yet, I am only discussing the honest/dishonest distinction. Not sure how many times I have to tell you this. I talk about this as in your first comment in this thread you seemed to conflate honest with informed/consistent.
    1
  22.  @Dc0sby  "That's the thing I don't get you keep going on about honesty" Because I can stick to a topic. If we can't agree on the simplest of things, there is no point in talking about more advance topics.
    1
  23.  @Dc0sby  I am quoting you so that you can understand what I am saying. No, the topic isn't about if Joe is honest or not, it is about if honesty is better than dishonesty. You haven't made any argument for why Joe is not honest. You have argued for a lot of other things though, which I hilariously don't disagree with of course. Your issue is that you can't stay on topic and know what argument support what claim. Maybe you just don't understand what honest means, is English your native language?
    1
  24.  @Dc0sby  If I'm starting to talk about Joe's shoes, I am going off topic. I am not arguing if Joe is honest or not, I am arguing that honesty is better than dishonesty. Stick to the topic and don't misrepresent me.
    1
  25.  @Dc0sby  can you rephrase that?
    1
  26.  @Dc0sby  OP says something about honesty. You say something about consistency. I comment on the difference between honesty and consistency. You ask who cares about honesty. i explain why I do. Without coming to a conclusion about the value of honesty you jump over to other topics, but I stay on topic.
    1
  27.  @Dc0sby  not sure which post you are referring to hen you say "my post about Joe Rogan honesty".
    1
  28.  @Dc0sby  not sure if you think your comment "Joe flips every other episode" is about honesty or if you think I shouldn't have answered your question "who cares if he's honest if it changes person to person?". Both are equally stupid, but to avoid my personal bias I asked you to clarify, which you of course didn't do...
    1
  29.  @Dc0sby  you are so lost. Good bye.
    1
  30. is there a point in watching this video if I am not interested in any a opinion?
    1
  31. I don't get it, Abolish police is good but police chilling instead of beating protesters is bad?
    1
  32.  @herringstheseries  and you are unable to explain to me it seems.
    1
  33. do they though?
    1
  34. I can usually understand most of what Trump says, but this was quite odd.
    1
  35. Hillary didn't, Stein didn't, Gore didn't. How many more didn't?
    1
  36. I guess "Why doesn’t Trump industries hire Americans?" might have the same answer as "Why did Obama take super pac and/or WS money?"
    1
  37. given the likes/dislikes ratio, I take it Ted didn't get ANNIHILATED :P.
    1
  38. and all democrats can mail a thousand bucks to themselves to see if they get their money back :).
    1
  39.  @48macho82  and I'm no Republican :).
    1
  40. so how many percent of the U.S. population is "half of Trump supporters"? Why didn't you say anything about that? Maybe because you would get awfully close to or even under 15%, which Biden mentioned. Thumbs down on this video from me.
    1
  41. President Clinton I presume you mean?
    1
  42.  @katherinewolfe9976  "And do you actually think that it lessens tRump’s culpability?" Why do you use the word "actually"?
    1
  43.  @rustlee  what was?
    1
  44. clickbait? "Ketamine is a medication mainly used for starting and maintaining anesthesia."
    1
  45. hm, how?
    1
  46. I wonder as well, I am very confused by this. Almost everyone in the comment section seems to be angry. I thought they supported the removal of police from the streets.
    1
  47. How did Trump destroy it? My money is on the MSM doing it.
    1
  48.  @hodaka1000  why do you spout nonsense?
    1
  49. @Sez B the one sane person in a comment section full of insanity :).
    1
  50. @natelin no, that is a difficult solution.
    1
  51. @natelin where is he supposed to go? What if they block all his paths? It is still easier to get out of the road as a pedestrian. You know why? Because the city is designed for that. The city is designed for the car to always be on the road or other similar paved etc. surface.
    1
  52. @natelin but that is not what we are talking about. When I walk around town, I go out of my way to not be in the way of the cars because it is easy for me to do that as I can walk everywhere, the cars are stuck to the road.
    1
  53. @natelin but that rule is not there because it is reasonable, it is there because it can't be any other way practically. It is much easier for a pedestrian to not intentionally block the road for a prolonged period of time than it is for the car to somehow find a way around.
    1
  54. @natelin you only say that because you haven't met a group that is out to kill you :P. No it is not reasonable. Reasonable would be to put blame appropriately to how much blame each person is.
    1
  55. @natelin you don't know the intent of every person in the protest, and we are now at that mortal intent stage of the protest and counter protests. Also, doesn't negate my point that you would drive under the certain more or less likely circumstances. In traffic there are just accidents though, with no aggressors.
    1
  56. @natelin but we were talking about the regular rules, don't shift topic because your argumentation falls apart. I don't know where the lines goes from when it is reasonable for you to feel threatened enough to act out with force. There are rules for this, you can't say it is never accepted.
    1
  57. @natelin you were as we were talking about the reasonableness of the law. Yes intent regarding the protesters. We are talking about two different things at the same time, don't conflate them. "I never said that anything about something being "never accepted."" You said you would never do it, which albeit not the exact same thing, but does the difference really matter?
    1
  58. @natelin no, you said: "Pedestrians CAN walk everywhere, and they DO walk everywhere, and it is a driver's responsibility to avoid them; otherwise, it is considered assault with a deadly weapon." You didn't talk about it being used as a deadly weapon, but that it is considered one. "I stated that the concept of intent does not give you the right to attack people when you feel uncomfortable." So how do you describe the right to defend yourself? You do know that there are self defense laws, right? If you are in a car, and you have people out to kill you outside it, you are allowed to drive away. It gets really confusing, because e.g. when I write: "In traffic there are just accidents though, with no aggressors." You write "In traffic, there are definitely aggressors, e.g., road rage." Which does not go against what I wrote. It just creates a huge mess of it all.
    1
  59. @natelin I didn't say there are only accidents, I said accidents exist without an aggressor, in regards to if the law is reasonable. We are talking about hypotheticals. My point still stands, it is easier to not stand in the road a prolonged time as a pedestrian than it is to find another way as a driver. It takes an effort to stand in the middle of the road for a long time, so avoiding that is not just easier than finding another way around, it is the opposite of something to do.
    1
  60.  @CtrlAltFrog  terrorists burn things down, not put fires out.
    1
  61. I guess the Bollywood celebrities can bail them out then :).
    1
  62. it is the democrats own fault when the right wing criticism has validity. Ignoring an issue just because the right wing thinks it is a an issue is wrong.
    1
  63. obviously fake news, according to all democrats last 3 years. Maybe this could help them realize stacking/packing the court is not needed, just a dangerous precedence to set.
    1
  64.  @EdgeO419  Mitch set no new precedence. The general rule is that the president's nomination is not confirmed if his party doesn't control the senate. Surely you know this?
    1
  65.  @votes-haveconsequences2165  they won't forget what? That they have been wrong about the effect of Trump's SCOTUS picks?
    1
  66.  @EdgeO419  supreme court justice nominees rarely get voted in during election years when the president isn't of the same party that controls the senate. You are aware of this, right? Or are you just one uneducated fool in the masses?
    1
  67.  @EdgeO419  1 filled during election year (1957 was no election year), out of how many nominations? Stick to the topic. First you said: "You mean like the precedent Mitch Mconell set not to confirm a judge in an election year ..." Now you changed it to: "Name one SCOTUS judge nominee that was blocked from a hearing for over a year in the history of our country." You can't just change the claim like that and not expect to be caught. If you forgot what I talked about, speaking about confirming judges during election years, I'll quote myself: "The general rule is that the president's nomination is not confirmed if his party doesn't control the senate." If you need to twist that into something that suits you to address what I said, you have already lost the argument.
    1
  68.  @EdgeO419  ask yourself why you chose to not answer my question. "which they would have signed off on" I understand why you so desperately want to count this, but it really makes no difference for the argument you want to make. Now tell me, how many were rejected by an opposing senate during an election year? If you do not answer this simple but crucial question, you are not interested in having a conversation and thus there is no point in me trying to have one.
    1
  69.  @EdgeO419  but that is not what I am (or you initially) talking about. I am talking about how common it is for justices to be confirmed by an opposing senate during an election year. That is what ultimately matters.
    1
  70.  @EdgeO419  "there have been 29 such vacancies, and presidents made nominations for all of them, in most cases promptly: In 19 cases, the president’s party held the Senate; 17 of the 19 vacancies were filled, the exceptions being the bipartisan filibuster against Lyndon Johnson’s nominees in 1968 and George Washington’s withdrawal and resubmission in the next Congress of a nominee who was ineligible to be confirmed (he’d voted to create the Court, and the Constitution made him wait until there was a new Congress seated). Nine of those 17 were confirmed before the election, and eight after. Three were confirmed in lame duck post-election sessions even though the president had just lost reelection. In ten cases, the party opposing the president held the Senate; only one of the ten got a nominee confirmed before the election, two were confirmed after the election when the president’s party won the election, and one (Dwight Eisenhower’s nomination of William Brennan) was a pre-election recess appointment that was confirmed by the new Senate in the new year after Eisenhower was reelected." Read the last paragraph carefully.
    1
  71.  @EdgeO419  "Read your excerpt more carefully ... so now we are down to 10 in those... 19 out the 29 have zero bearings on what we are talking about" As I said, "Read the last paragraph carefully.". I already pointed out that is the important part, so you don't get to scold me for pointing out that it is the important part. You are trying to have to win here mate, that it clouds your ability to interpret what I write. ""two were confirmed after the election when the president’s party won the election" so you are left with a whopping 3 and using another excerpt for what you posted" And you try to scold me for cherry picking? "Mitch McConnell also literally voted to confirm SCOTUS justice Kennedy in the exact same circumstance in 1988" There is something in between "there should never be a scotus confirmation during election year" and "all scotus nominations should be confirmed during an election year". You seem to argue that the latter should be the case, which is ludicrous. I argue that it should be something in between, as it always has been. Not an automatic confirmation, not an automatic rejection. Imagine that, huh?
    1
  72.  @andywehre7912  like Kyle did? lol. Community policing is just another word for vigilantism. haha yea true, I meant it as a joke but I think I have to agree with you on that. As long as it is not some kind of weird military bleep.
    1
  73. he wants to denounce white supremacy without denouncing what the left thinks is white supremacy. It is not the easiest thing to do.
    1
  74. how do we know they were separated from their parents?
    1
  75. I don't get it, why are people mad? Aren't people happy the police stay out of the way of the protests?
    1
  76. lol at first I thought this was Rebel Media :P.
    1
  77. given the amount of dislikes I was waiting for Emma to say something unreasonable, but I really don't see it. I feel like I can usually pick up on what people dislike but I am lost on this one, can anyone fill me in?
    1