Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
21
-
18
-
17
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mojrimibnharb4584 The states with after election day mail in vote counting proved there was a significant difference between same day voting and mail in voting. It was also likely that way everywhere. It just wasn't noticable in states where they processed mail in votes early, and counted them at much the same time, as day of votes. It's not a good year to rely on exit polls.
A CNN exit poll tried to make a lame attempt to account for early and mail in voting by adding a phone survey to their day of exit polls, but even there, they polled 8000 people on election day, and phoned 5000 people. Meanwhile, about 100m people voted early or by mail, while about 50m voted on election day. The immediate obvious problem is that they should have, at least, called 16k people to represent early/mail in voters. The less obvious problem is that, if you start with a highly skewed data set (a higher percentage of Republican voters than should be) random phone calls might not fix that. To fix the skew, you'd have to know how the final vote count ends up, and adjust your phone calls to make sure you skew things the other way, until they align with the way the final vote went. And, you'd pretty much have to do it for how each electoral district voted, if you wanted to be accurate.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rabbitsforyang8273 Hey, dumb dumb, I'm simply pointing out the fact that a VAT doesn't do what Yang claims it does. He even linked to a study that completely debunked what he said it does. He just didn't grasp it. Nothing you can say, denying reality, won't ever change that fact.
I've also commented on other topics, when they come up again, and again, for years, on channels I'm subscribed to. Do you not do that, or do you just hunt down Yang videos, all over YouTube, like a cultist?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gawanipony 3 We know for a fact that they started making baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, from the get go. The election swinging the other way is only evidence of the election swinging the other way, and yet Trump was already making up bullshit on election night.
We know for a fact that they still didn't have evidence of widespread voter fraud, when they set up their hotlines, fishing for evidence. They still didn't have evidence, when they set up their online affidavit gathering, fishing for evidence. They still didn't have evidence, when they offered rewards, fishing for evidence. Desperately fishing for evidence, is evidence you don't have evidence.
Trump did this in 2016 ... claimed widespread voter fraud ... and his own election integrity commission found nothing of the sort, proving Trump just throws around baseless bullshit.
At this point, it's ignorant to give this group of pathetic little liars the benefit of the doubt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardgoldman Lol, what 100k straight votes?
So Trump starts off complaining about these stupid states, whose Republican legislatures wouldn't allow early processing of mail in ballots, not giving election night final numbers, and now you think it's a great idea to start letting parties count and recount votes in every state, check and double check every machine, even though they already have observers, whenever they want ... and how many times until results are given? Nothing about fear. That just sounds nonsensical. It sounds like going that route is based on fear (paranoia).
Not only do those states have Republican legislatures, half of them also have Republican governors, and Republican secretaries of state. But, sure, Democrats are criminal masterminds, who fabricated millions of votes, in multiple states (oddly just these slow ones), to steal the presidency, but somehow couldn't come up with thousands to take the senate. Some masterminds.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Backhand77 If two candidates will both cage kids (and you ignore some nuance), but one also wants to toss 10m of the poorest Americans off of Medicaid expansion, while the other wants to add people to Medicaid expansion, Medicare, and possibly have a public option, then voting for the later is reducing harm. If a third candidate, that has zero shot at winning, and voting for them would give the first candidate more of a shot at winning, voting for them is, at best, being insignificant, and at worst allowing for more harm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jhallin5185 Nordic countries have some of the more evenly mixed economies. What is it you think mixed economies are a mix of, if not capitalism (privately owned and operated) and socialism (publicly owned and operated)? Sure, they aren't 100% socialist, but to pretend they're not, at all, socialist, is nonsensical.
If those are your ideas of "true" socialism, then what is Marxism? The Marxist ideal is a non authoritarian, stateless, version of what, if not socialism? Saying those are "true" socialism is like saying fascism is "true" capitalism.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ubuu7 Okay, but making the Bezoses of the world, who live on stocks, extra billions a year, because your not taxing their source of their increasing wealth, giant corporations, is a big problem. It's unsustainable, especially in a future with mass automation, and a largely unemployed consumer base. Tons of unemployed consumers can't be the ones funding their own UBI. As to other sources of funding, Yang already agreed giant corporations were dodging paying taxes through those methods. It's part of the basis of his argument to make them pay through a VAT. He just doesn't understand that they wouldn't pay through a VAT, either.
The regressive topic is a different one. Unless everyone's income and wealth is equal, a consumption tax will always be regressive (a higher percent of poorer people's total wealth and income, including their UBI income, than a very rich person's). You can try and offset it, but it will still be regressive.
And, no, some of the poorest people are already collecting benefits of a kind that Yang didn't have stack with his UBI, so his plan doesn't always benefit the poor most. Many could receive little, to no benefit, from the UBI, but still have to pay a VAT on many things. That could make some worse off. For example, Yang didn't have his UBI stack with SSI (not to be confused with SSDI) or SNAP, with do stack together now. Someone with a permanent disability could be collecting $993 a month. So, you give them $7 extra a month, but if they have to pay even $8 in VAT, on $80 worth of monthly purchases, or bills, then they're worse off.
A "luxury" isn't a product in a certain price range, it's a category of product. A flip phone would have a tax just like an iPhone. A very basic flip phone service would have a tax just like a top of the line smart phone service. A movie would have a tax just like a Broadway show. McDonald's would have a tax just like a fancy restaurant. Etc. And, all the rich people also wouldn't have to pay taxes on their better quality, and larger amounts, of zero rated goods and services, staples, necessities.
Sure, many people would be better off, but blanket statements about all the poor being better off, just aren't true. Meanwhile, many people who are pretty well off would get extra shopping spree money, or vacation money. Based on a basic household budget, and how much is spent on VATable goods and services, a single adult household wouldn't start paying more in than they get back until about a $400k income, $800k income if a two adult household. That's kind of nutty, if you're doing nothing to improve the lives of a bunch of the poorest citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexwalker5645 Rofl. Anyone who can count, should think that a jump from 76k to 103k, in 2019, is larger than a jump from 78k to 100k, in 2021, because it's just a fact. Anyone who can count, should think that border crossings have been increasing since April of 2020, and surpassed every month of 2018, starting in September, because that is also just a fact. Also just a fact is that, averaged out, there were as many, or more, border crossings per year under Trump than Obama. That's just reality.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twoshedsjohnson8540 No. It's actually the removal of a government protection that would make them partly responsible for information being spread on their platforms. If I owned a newspaper and magazine shop, and some magazine snuck child porn into the pages, then I wouldn't be protected from helping spread child porn, especially if I've been notified of the situation and keep allowing it.
That's different from right wingers, who are pissed because they're not spreading information that they want them to spread, and want to somehow make them spread the information they want them to spread. If I owned a newspaper and magazine shop, but didn't want to stock tabloids, that's up to me. It's not "censorship", if I choose not to. But, that's exactly what Republicans, like Cruz, are pretending it is.
Facebook's algorithm was just found to be leaning right wing, and Zuckerberg donates more to Republicans, btw.
1
-
@twoshedsjohnson8540 Once again, removing your protection from defamation lawsuits, or whatnot, isn't censorship. Plotting to commit an act of terrorism is already illegal. If there's a regulation protecting me from being considered an accomplice, I could let people plot terrorism in my garage without a care. Removing that protection, leaving me unprotected, and having to care who uses my garage, isn't censorship. Again, it's already illegal. It's just a matter of whether I can be considered complicit, or not.
Getting pissed because I'm not letting someone use my garage, that you want me to, and trying to find a way to force me to, is a whole other ballgame.
1
-
@Farvadude Pretty bad analogy, dumb dumb. That's pretty much the whole point specifically about "public accommodations", which a website isn't. If you allow it, then all the food places, lodgings, gas stations, in an area could put up "no gays allowed" or "no blacks allowed" signs, then people could be left stranded, hungry, with no place to stay, and depending on where they were, no, there may not be another one for dozens and dozens of miles.
1
-
@Farvadude Rofl, if you think I failed to take apart your, can't they just go elsewhere, basis, then you have reading comprehension problems. Some places are designated "public accomodations" for that exact reason. If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, then just don't register your business as open to the public. Register as a private club, like Costco, or gyms, only with a religious requirement, or outright register as a religious organization. Nobody is forcing them to register as what's considered a "public accommodation". Online platforms are clubs, with registration, and agreements to terms of service. They aren't "public accomodations".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, anyone who thinks they're justified in calling someone on the left a "Nazi", doesn't know what a "Nazi" is. And, anyone calling politicians who want to be more like Denmark "extreme left", "commies", are, objectively, clueless. Denmark is a centrist country, making US politicians wanting to be more like Denmark, the actual centrists. Zero relevant US politicians are calling for a 100% publicly owned and operated economy, complete economic equality for all, and an end to capitalism. Objectively, there is no actual extreme left.
On the other hand, a number of Republicans, and a whole Libertarian party, promote privatizing as much as possible, promote Ayn Rand, are anti-union, and are about as extreme righ as is possible. Add to that, how authoritarian and militant the US is, add the crony capitalism, add the ultra nationalism, add the religious nuttery, and you're, objectively, dancing on the border with fascism (not all fascists are Nazis). Ending democracy is about the last box that needs checking, to make it official, and Dumpty is trying his best.
If a sane person can't see the difference between considering Ayn Rand extreme right and considering Denmark extreme left, then, although they might be sane, they're likely not too bright.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@itsmeagain1828 What a load of rubbish. Your last sentence is pure irony.
Health & safety isn't right or left. Seatbelt laws, speeding laws, drinking and driving laws, don't equate to "communism", any more than distancing and mask wearing do. You're arguing incompetence is right wing.
The WHO never argued it wasn't deadly. They argued travel bans wouldn't do as much as preparedness would do. They were obviously right. Trump didn't prepare and the US ended up being one of the worst hit countries in the world. And, again, health & safety has little to do with right and left.
China produces 28% of the world's carbon emissions, and their emissions are lower than the US per capita. And the aid for reducing emissions, under the Paris accord, wasn't based on who produces the most. It was based on developed vs developing vs undeveloped countries. All the developed countries paid more than developing or undeveloped countries. Being in the Paris accord doesn't push the US left of any other country in the Paris accord.
Reagan gave amnesty, and a path to citizenship, to millions of undocumented immigrants. Are you so far psycho right wing that you think Reagan was a commie?
Clearly, like Trump, you have no clue how tariffs work.
Copenhagen is on track to become the first carbon neutral major city. Denmark is on track to cut emissions 70% by 2030, and be totally carbon neutral by 2050.
Nothing you've said puts the US even in the same neighborhood as Denmark, let alone an inch to the left, which is still a long long way from all out communism.
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
-
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
-
1
-
@dripshameless5605 They went on about there supposedly being zero evidence of a single covid death, the vaccine being a bioweapon, and other psycho nonsense. So, when they say "propaganda machine", they don't simply mean a few mainstream media outlets. They mean all levels of media, all levels of government, doctors, nurses, scientists, all over the world, and even claimed regular people who say they know someone who died of covid, are propagandists. When they say "think for themselves", they mean believe outright nonsense posted by other online nutjobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1