Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Cruz calls Biden's Supreme Court promise 'offensive' and 'insulting'" video.

@jamesrlewin The issue isn't that race and gender are qualification, it's that race and gender have been disqualifications for so long.
5
@mrusername3438 Neither was your original comment, but you still said it.
1
@mrusername3438 Average citizen's opinions on race is irrelevant to how much it impacts some people. Average can also mean majority, meaning you are straight up ignoring the minority when talking about race, which I hate to tell you, is usually the group most effected by racial discrimination. Imagine telling me that most people don't even think about the housing crisis and the rising number of homeless on the streets. Great, but homeless people still exist, and they don't have any housing to go to. Imagine telling me about a nice meal you ate while walking past a starving beggar and telling me how great food is, and the average American never has to think about it. See how utterly tone deaf you sound?
1
@mrusername3438 It's an analogy. Try to keep up. Your obvious ignorance of actual issues has led you to both ignore minority opinions, while also project your opinions onto them. It's pretty sad really. The comparison may feel disgusting, but that's how much my skin crawls from listening to your ignorance.
1
@mrusername3438 Not understanding they race is indeed a big stumbling block for many many people still is your ignorance. Not appreciating or understanding that we live in a society that directly disadvantages black communities is on you.
1
@mrusername3438 Nothing you said is an argument. Your inability to actually counter anything I said while fixating on me insulting you is a red herring. You are looking for an easy out by trying to attack me rather than my argument by distracting from the actual argument. And I don't need to think about race 24/7 for it to have a very real impact on my day to day life. Everything from a lack of integration, to continued misapplication of laws, to generational wealth gaps, and more. I bet you never got the talk on how to not get shot by the cops did you? Keep being a dummy, but don't expect any concessions for your ignorance.
1
@mrusername3438 I'm not insulting you instead of debating you, I'm doing both, you professional nob jockey. The issue isn't fixating on race, it's understanding the racial history of this country, and understanding how that effects modern society and culture. Lack of integration is indeed a racial issue. Segregation led to a very specific issue that continues to this day in black communities, and that's a general lack of resource allocation to these communities. This books into generational wealth, so I'll explain that to you so you understand. First of all, generational wealth is not about every single white person getting an advantage. It's actually a reference to red lining, where incredibly cheap government loans were given to white neighbourhoods to buy homes, and any non-white neighbourhoods, even if it was a single black homeowner or even a white neighbourhood built too close to a black one, were excluded from these programs. This, combined with people having their land straight up stolen due to the color of their skin, caused a massive wealth gap in black communities after WWII. Now these houses are worth more because of the larger, cheaper loans, and the ability to make changes to those homes with the increased funding. As a result, the property taxes are higher. Property taxes are kept in small zipcode specific areas to help fund different schools, meaning if you came from a more expensive area, your school had more money to buy better supplies and even better teachers. Busing was a program specifically designed to deal with the inequality. None of this references slavery either, just the reality of segregation, so no idea why you brought that up. As for your question, no, when adjusted for income black people create the same number of crimes as all other races. They just happen to both be the most poor group, while also being the most heavily policed and worst punished. Sentences against black individuals are far worse than their white counterparts. They are also shot by police 2.5 times more often per capita that their white counterparts.
1
@jakehansen5719 That's a lot of words for someone who clearly knows nothing about drug addiction, mental illness or homelessness. 1. You are partially correct when you say that drug addiction and mental illness are part of the homeless problem, however getting people on their feet with affordable housing is in fact a much larger issue. Plenty of addicts do perfectly well while still living in houses, but when the cheapest apartment is $1,200 and minimum wage is $8 an hour, you have to work far too long just to keep a roof over your head, nevermind food, utilities et cetera. People just stop feeling like it's worthwhile, which is why housing is so important. 2. Your suggestion of arresting drug addicts is laughable. You can't force people to get over their addiction, and you will get far further with voluntary free treatment. Countries with these sorts of programs see vastly superior results. What's worse, they'll be charged for the trouble in the US. 3. Arresting the mentally ill is an even dumber idea, although your solution is pretty hilarious, as your are suggesting we offer free housing in the form of a mental institution. Almost as if housing was the problem all along, crazy I know. The issue however is that, having known several homeless people with mental health issues, all you'll do is give them a fat bill and some meds they can't afford. These are not long-term solution, and housing with provided therapy would do much better. I agree that the left has an issue when it comes to homelessness. It's called "not in my backyard syndrome" where people know the solutions, but refuse to implement them locally. Low income housing in LA is by far the most prominent example of this. Every single time it gets proposed the locals, who probably all bought their homes 30 years ago and are now worth 20 times what they paid, are scared of losing their newfound wealth to a small property value dip. That does not however make it not the solution, because it is. Your claim about homeless people getting jobs as temps is just wrong. They have issues with a lack of transportation and sanitation for starters. Nevermind the current worker shortages. Your assumptions rely on there being enough shelters. My city has 1, they even removed all the water fountains, and we have hundreds of homeless. Your last paragraph is a bit of an authoritarian wet dream, where you can simply arrest people and force them to comply because they are homeless. Why not go the extra mile and just shoot them? Because if you treat them that way you'll just end up with homeless people committing more crimes and being more sneaky about it. But keep dreaming there Jakey boy. I'm sure you'll figure it out some day.
1
@mrusername3438 It means you ride falaces, and no it's a not too uncommon insult where I'm from. I'm sure such a complicated idea hurts your head though. Probably too many sausages in the backdoor shaking your brain around your skull. Poor white communities don't get left out in the same way that poor black communities do, especially historically. They see transportation routes, convenience stores and more, while black communities are food deserts and are commonly avoided by transportation. They also have worse roads, have industry mixed into their housing due to unfair zoning allocations, and will frequently be the main strip for police to drive through when they feel like arresting someone for looking suspicious. Gentrification is where white people start buying homes in black neighbourhoods, evicting black people from the area, and then making the area more expensive. It benefits black homeowners, but as discussed a lack of historic access to loans and funds in general in these areas means the people living there are usually renting. Only 44% of black families own their homes. Yes, redlining was actually specifically a thing after the war, thanks for asking. It didn't end until 1968. And no, redlining doesn't effect people that came across with existing wealth or after thisntime period, it does however have a very real impact on generational wealth. This combined with blatant theft of property. The issue is people who were already here, and had their opportunity missed. Upward financial mobility is hard in the US, especially without solid education or resources, as previously discussed.
1
@mrusername3438 Nah I get it. Threatening violence just makes you sound like a child. This is the internet kid. But I'm sure the holes in he wall will get you in trouble again when your mother sees. The fallacy you keep using btw is called nut-picking. You are purposely selecting extreme examples while ignoring tens of millions of Black Americans, as well as their average incomes, homeownership rates, and more.
1
@mrusername3438 And here you go, proving you have learnt nothing. Nice of you to throw in a self portrait though.
1
@mrusername3438 You didn't actually ask, and we both know that the answer is whatever you've already decided because you don't actually care. Asking me about my personal life while also attacking me in the same breath is just a sad attempt to validity your own position by putting down your opponent. We get it, you have preconceptions about people smarter than you, but don't take it out on me dumb dumb. You need to stop assuming that you keep losing arguments because these friendless people keep having all this extra time to look things up, and try using Google for 5 minutes to find the answers yourself. If you want a good bit on housing discrimination then I suggest John Oliver from The 26th on July 2021 where he goes over housing discrimination for the entirety of US history. It will be a good start for you.
1
@mrusername3438 Not preconceptions THAT people are smarter than you, preconceptions ABOUT people that are smarter than you. It's okay dumb dumb, you'll get it eventually. But keep acting like a hard man and creating a storyline about my life, it's fun night time reading.
1
@mrusername3438 I just plied you with childish insults to annoy you, you're the one talking about how you'd win in a fight. As for John Oliver, try actually debunking the video after you watch it, rather than going in with a preconceived bias like you always do. This btw is the real Dunning-Krueger effect. You are so sure you're right you won't even read or watch well sources pieces of info on the subject.
1
@mrusername3438 If you won't watch it then how can you claim otherwise. He didn't make an entire 30 minute segment on housing discrimination so you can claim it's a lie without being able to name a single lie from the program. I also said nothing of the sort, I said that YOU won't shut up about how you'd win in a fight. I said nothing of my opinions on the matter at all. Reading comprehension is really not your strong suit is it? Maybe you're just tired, and unreasonably angry. But if you must know I think someone with ideas as ancient as yours is either old or thick as two short planks. Either way you'd get your head kicked in. So get some sleep, and when you get up watch John Oliver. 😉
1
@mrusername3438 So I went and found his 20 minute video on voting rights, and what he actually pointed to was the 2018 Statutory Report, an assessment of minority voting rights access in the United States, which states: "Federal courts found that Black and Latino voters disproportionately lacked access to the type of photo IDs required to vote" He didn't say that the laws themselves are racist, but that this law, and others like it, were specifically chosen to be implemented to target specific racial groups. He later quoted a federal appeals court when they struck down a voter ID law from North Carolina because it targeted acceptable IDs as ones used far more frequently by white people. The appeals court commented on their decision when they said the bill "targeted African American voters with almost surgical precision". There is a lot more to that whole segment, but boiling it down to "John Oliver said voter ID laws are racist", kinda misses that the way they are implemented is usually pretty racist. This btw is called research, and it shows how dumb you are.
1
@mrusername3438 I'm literally presenting the findings of US Federal courts, courts which found disproportionate ID ownership and laws written to attack that fact, and your response is "well why can't they get ID". I'm telling you right now that they don't have ID at the same rate, and usually the type of ID is different, which is supported by the evidence presented. You presented zero facts, and ironically fulfilled your own comment of presenting nonsense to try and get the last word. Usually adding factual data to your statement will make you sound less delusional. And I like comments from people who deserve it. When they present factual data why would I not make sure they know they're doing a good job? Anytime you want to actually debunk the issues with voter ID laws let me know.
1
@mrusername3438 Oh look a source, well let's dig in shall we. "87% of black people, 90% of latin Americans have some form of confirmed ID" Which is less than the 95% of white people, a disparity of millions of people. This also doesn't go into the types of ID that specific laws have targeted, as previously mentioned. "Increased turnout from 2004 to 2008" This statement both ignores that Obama was the nominee in 2008, and that we were voting after the financial crisis, and that the stats he has on the screen aren't even for those years. Who would have thought the black vote would increase in 2008? He then goes on to claim that this jump means the new laws benefit people of color more, while ignoring external factors. His response to the US appeals court comments was literally just him going "wrong", which I guess is where you get your arguments from. He even pointed out that black people disproportionately live in large cities and are less likely to have a driver's licence, while ignoring that you actually have to spend money and pass a test to get this for of ID, then makes a joke and ignores the point. Then he talks about states with free ID, not mentioning what is needed to get that ID, the time of day you can get it, the travel requirements for some people et cetera. Then he goes into illegal aliens voting, which is just a joke. They can't register, they don't vote. He's spreading propaganda. The whole thing is a red herring to lower the ability to vote. He skips over the other point I mentioned from John Oliver and skips straight to 2 recent supreme court decisions, to which he just responds "is anyone buying this" without actually debunking it. Uses another clip where the election is secure, but claims it isn't without actual evidence. The claims of security were made by the government, and he just uses old clips that ignore that we secured the election on purpose in between. Then they compare unnecessary laws designed to reduce total voters to seatbelt laws. Crowder is a joke, and so are you. As for the rest of your half-brained comments: Again the issue is ownership. Black and Latino voters are less likely to have ID, and in some cases the types of ID are even more restrictive. Then you just spend an entire comment calling me troll because you simply don't deserve a like on your silly comments. Don't be envious, you gotta earn it. And more lies about voter ID laws that miss federally struck down laws. I can see why you watch Crowder, you two are peas in a pod. Shame I can't call you a troll, you're just not smart enough.
1
@mrusername3438 It's not about acquisition, it's about current ownership rates. I didn't need to watch the whole thing, I watched the parts relevant to him attacking John Oliver. He was laughable, and I directly quoted him and his stats. Like I said, peas in a pod.
1
@mrusername3438 Here you go champ: https://youtu.be/_-0J49_9lwc
1
@mrusername3438 I already did. I gotta tell you, debunking Crowder saying "wrong", not particularly hard. Whenever you're ready though: https://youtu.be/_-0J49_9lwc
1
@mrusername3438 Oh dear, seems you're stuck in a loop. Must be because you can't possibly believe your lord and savoir could be a moron. Crowder is a joke, as displayed above, but you don't read so good do you? Peas in a pod, like I said. So let's ask a question on his massive dogwhistle that he's using to push people to believe the election was stolen: When you register to vote you present ID and use the number from the ID. That number is checked against the DMV database to make sure that ID is valid. When you vote in person in voter ID states no such check is made, and they simply look at your ID. So how is it that a registration system that verifies your ID validity is failing to catch illegal alien voters, but in person voter ID laws that don't verify IDs and could easily be tricked by a fake ID is definitely going to catch illegal alien voters? Let me know when you figure that one out.
1
@mrusername3438 Well I'll take this as you giving up, since debunking something I've already thoroughly cracked is a waste of all of our time. Nice chatting. If you stop being so ignorant that you are capable of reading what I write then maybe we'll chat again.
1
@mrusername3438 See what I mean. I get that this is a self defense mechanism you fall into when completely broken, but this is just sad.
1
@mrusername3438 I already did champ. Your inability to understand that is just sad.
1
@mrusername3438 I did, but your inability to accept what's right in front of you is just sad.
1
@mrusername3438 "87% of black people, 90% of latin Americans have some form of confirmed ID" Which is less than the 95% of white people, a disparity of millions of people. This also doesn't go into the types of ID that specific laws have targeted, as previously mentioned. "Increased turnout from 2004 to 2008" This statement both ignores that Obama was the nominee in 2008, and that we were voting after the financial crisis, and that the stats he has on the screen aren't even for those years. Who would have thought the black vote would increase in 2008? He then goes on to claim that this jump means the new laws benefit people of color more, while ignoring external factors. His response to the US appeals court comments was literally just him going "wrong", which I guess is where you get your arguments from. He even pointed out that black people disproportionately live in large cities and are less likely to have a driver's licence, while ignoring that you actually have to spend money and pass a test to get this for of ID, then makes a joke and ignores the point. Then he talks about states with free ID, not mentioning what is needed to get that ID, the time of day you can get it, the travel requirements for some people et cetera. Then he goes into illegal aliens voting, which is just a joke. They can't register, they don't vote. He's spreading propaganda. The whole thing is a red herring to lower the ability to vote. He skips over the other point I mentioned from John Oliver and skips straight to 2 recent supreme court decisions, to which he just responds "is anyone buying this" without actually debunking it. Uses another clip where the election is secure, but claims it isn't without actual evidence. The claims of security were made by the government, and he just uses old clips that ignore that we secured the election on purpose in between. Then they compare unnecessary laws designed to reduce total voters to seatbelt laws. Crowder is a joke, and so are you. See, I wrote that yesterday. Either counter it or leave.
1
@mrusername3438 Like what? Tell me what I missed.
1
@mrusername3438 I did. If you think I missed anything then let me know what.
1
@mrusername3438 Of course I should have expected this. You saying "no you didn't" is the exact same as Crowder saying "wrong" with nothing to back it up.
1
@mrusername3438 That's it, keep denying reality like your lord and saviour.
1