Youtube comments of Hobbs (@hobbso8508).
-
135
-
64
-
38
-
31
-
25
-
25
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
@candacem6932
"The higher gas prices, higher food prices, increase in automobile prices due to the increase in steal prices"
Gas was bound to go up after it dropped substantially during the pandemic, then demand increased faster than refineries opened. That's nothing to do with Biden.
Food prices are a similar story. Workers are in short supply, so food costs more. Steel prices have been increasing for the exact same reasons, as well as sanctions on Chinese steel.
"the 11,000 jobs lost on his first day in office"
You mean the jobs that didn't exist yet and relied on a pipeline that broke multiple Native American treaties being broken? Those jobs?
"the endless printing of money that is going to eventually bust our economy"
Not really. They're balancing the printing of money in a multitude of ways. They don't do these sorts of things on a whim.
"cancelation of the XL pipeline"
Now you're just repeating yourself.
"What made Trump a an embarrassment?"
Well the:
600K dead from covid
Massive unemployment
Increases to the deficit before the pandemic even hit
Permanent tax breaks for corporations while barely lowering our own taxes
Being laughed at by world leaders at the UN
Rolling back environmental protections
Making fun of a reporter's disability
Pulling out of the Paris Accord
Pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal
Lying constantly
The dude is a joke.
"the lowest unemployment rate in decades especially among black americans"
Thanks Obama
"minimal inflation, increase in income, lower taxes and gas prices"
Trump doesn't control the gas prices. The rest of those are again due to him increasing the deficit and floating off the Obama economy.
"he 4 middle east peace deals"
How are those working out? Oh right, the peace deals had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and did literally nothing to ease tensions in the Middle East. All it really did was give legitimacy to authoritarian leaders in the Middle East.
"You are free to dislike Trump, but what about his policies didn't you like? Not his personality but his policies?"
Sure. Policies like:
Making Obamacare more expensive
Funneling Pentagon funds for an ecologically disasters and ineffective wall
Setting zero federal covid rules for masking or safety
Allowing the postal service to have their prices increased and services reduced with the removal of mail sorting machines shortly before the election
Reducing government oversight of agencies
Removed 755K Americans from SNAP
Lowered the overtime pay threshold
Enflamed tensions in Palestine through several policies, including declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel
Outright denying covid would be an issue for months on end, endangering millions of Americans in the process
Dissolved several layers or pandemic response shortly before the pandemic.
This is on top of the stuff I mentioned. His policies were a disaster all round and did nothing but put us in debt and make us completely unprepared for the pandemic.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@carterghill
"Hitler made the claim he was privatizing businesses"
He did exactly this. Many government businesses went into private hands. It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector.
"when in reality he brought most corporations into the Nazi collective."
Specifically, Nazi party members, which constituted over 8 million people. They were not government officials, they were still private.
"This was a distinctly collectivist thing to do, and not a Capitalist thing to do"
It's a kleptocracy thing to do. Nothing about a non-democratic government moving around people's private property is collectivist.
"yet he called it privatization, because he knew that would help distinguish him from Marxism"
Actually the Economist called it privatization, because they privatizes a bunch of businesses.
"So his actions showed him doing a socialist thing, and his propaganda shows him hiding the fact that it was socialist."
No and no. Not only was what he was doing not a socialist thing, but Hitler loved the socialist label and used it constantly. It was literally in his party name.
"By the way, this and more is all very clearly laid out in the video we're commenting on."
And it's wrong.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@greyguy.960 Just not true. Ofcom found that the BBC is actually very good at staying non-biased, but the audience perception of bias is the problem, which makes sense when you think about it. People on the left thing the BBC is right wing, and people on the right think it is left wing. The truth is, quite literally, somewhere in the middle. The issue is also compounded by the idea that the "middle" is a moving target, as general views of the whole country shift over time. regardless, calling the BBC left wing is a joke, especially when it comes to Andrew Neil. In fact, your use of Naga Munchetty as an example, when her case has been put in direct contrast to Neil, who has publicly not just expressed political stances, but also personal attacks on social media, only to be defended by the Beeb.
The stats show they have been in the centre for years, so stop making things up.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@AverageAlien
"Not my problem if you can't accept reality."
Oh the irony.
"A state of workers is still a state."
Nope. State in this context means government. State control is not worker control without democracy.
"Doesn't matter what group of people that state is made up of. It's a group, not a private individual, and on top of that it's not even a consentual group, it's a gang taking over a country by force and violence. "
If you don't understand that there is a difference between government and workers then why even use definitions for anything?
"Circular definition."
No, it isn't. State means government.
"Who exactly do you think the state is?"
The government.
"Your scenario means that there are two states at war with eachother in the same country."
Nope. Again, when people talk about state control, they mean the government.
"One state fights with another over control of the means of production, both states are socialist states, nothing changes."
Yeah, no idea on this one, you've lost the plot.
"You are confused."
Oh the irony.
If you really want to define "state" as all the people within a nation, then you also have to give control of the means of production to all the people within said nation for it to be socialism. A small segment of society doesn't cut it.
4
-
@AverageAlien
"Circular definition again"
Nothing circular about it. In this context government = state.
"State = government = insert group here"
Nope, just government.
"It's a circular definition as in you're using state = government to avoid what a state and government actually is."
Depends on the type of government doesn't it.
"Saying state = government is as much of a definition as saying "opposite of male is the same as female""
Nope. A government is the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
"The government = state = group with aligned ideology and political goals."
Unless the state does not meet the aligned ideology and political goals of the people. In which case they are an insular group that does not meet the needs of the people, and therefore do not represent said people. Therefore, in a non-democractic nation, government = state =/= group with aligned ideology and political goals. Unless of course you are talking about just the group within the government, in which case you are ignoring the majority of the nation. This would also mean that you define all governments of all types socialism.
"That's great. You only forgot the fact that the workers are the state"
The workers are the people, the state is the government.
"For your state of workers to be prevented from owning the means of production by another state, that would mean that there are two states"
The workers are not the state. The state in a socialist society represents the will of the workers, but without union leverage or democracy the state cannot represent the workers, therefore democracy is necessary for the state to represent the workers. There is no "state of workers", unless you mean a union.
"PUBLIC SECTOR: The state, or collective."
To clarify, the public sector is only a collective in a democracy. All things state controlled are in the public sector, but not all things in state control are in a collective. Things in a collective are also not necessarily in the public sector. So while a collective CAN be the public sector, it is not always. While the public sector CAN be a collective, it is not always.
"COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP: This means that a large group, like say, the state, has seized control of something and own it as a collective. "
Only if the state is doing so on behalf of a large group. If they are not doing so via some sort of democratic process then it's not collective ownership, but it is state control. You also don't require any seizing of control, as this can be done democratically. Voters electing a government that in turn nationalises healthcare is an example of collective ownership via democracy.
"SOCIALISM: When the collective/state/group/gang/mafia seize control of something via force. For example, taxation. "
Socialism can only be done via democracy of one form or another. Taxation is not socialism unless done by a democratically elected government.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@alcostello6114
"and why are those higher cost states so high cost? Lmao. Couldn’t be the taxes or the extreme corruption that follows with bigger bureaucracy states like NY and CA."
No, it's because of supply and demand. More businesses want to be there so the price increases. These places have massive GDPs, 1st and 4rd per capita in the US. California has 2 of the 3 highest GDP per capita cities, beaten out only by a Texas oil city of 139K people. Talented people flock to New York and California. Prices are high because many people in those areas can afford it due to higher salaries. The end result is people who earn a lot less getting squeezed out of the market. At a certain point the scales tip and service workers get salary increases.
"Also, you mischaracterize the states people are moving to as “poorer”. They’re not poorer."
They are literally poorer. They earn less, their homes are worth less, their retirement funds are smaller, their poverty rates are higher, their education is lower, the amount of funds they receive from the federal government is higher. By all metrics, the likes of Florida, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia et cetera are poorer than New York or California.
"AOC was indeed out in public without a mask."
Literally at a restaurant, or do you mean the outside bar where pretty much everyone was distanced at tables?
"Same for Don Lemon."
A single video where he was indeed at a restaurant and outside. Amazing right.
"And Pelosi is planning on moving to Florida after retirement."
According to who? Stop reading the Daily Mail and Fox and try getting a real source for your utter tripe.
Nice try though. Don't let that propaganda you've been drip fed make you completely dependent or you'll need rehab soon.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SnotRocket79 Since you all seem very confused on the definitions of constitutional, republic and democracy, I suppose I will need to spell it out for you:
Constitutional government is by definition a limited government. The government must conduct itself within set rules and principles.
A republic is a state by which the people hold the power, and therefore the government is elected by the people. This is the opposite of a monarchy.
Finally a democracy is a system of government whereby the whole population or eligible members of the state run the country, usually through elected representatives.
None of these have to happen at the same time, and none are conflicting.
For example, the UK has no constitution, and is a monarchy, however the government is run by elected representatives. They are neither a republic nor a constitutional government, however they do have certain restrictions, and they are a democracy.
France however, much like the US, is all 3 of these types of government at the same time.
Since you vote for your representatives, you are engaging in democracy, and are therefore a democratic country. Now the US isn't perfect, which is what Bobby Ward up above was saying about it being a flawed democracy. That is true, as the way the republic functions means that some people get far more say in the voting process than others. There is also the issue Chris Bishop brought up about "majority vote" however, as mentioned earlier, the UK does not use majority vote, yet they are a democracy, and do use representation in a representative democracy, much like the US.
So the real issue here is that people just don't know what a democracy actually is, and their ignorance makes it sound like they think voting should be outlawed for all the nonsense they spout.
But sure, tell me more about how the US government functions and is definitely not a system where all eligible members of the state vote for representatives.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@aalvarez2914
"half the people who fell ill with delta in Israel were fully vaccinated"
Israel's exact wording was "as many as" meaning 50% is their upper limit. The population is also 57% vaccinated, meaning you are still safer to have it. Their predictions based on what they've seen are 88% efficacy. It's possible that the vaccinated are being effected at a high rate due to them being outside unmasked and travelling more.
"but they do not stop you from getting infected or spreading it to others"
Actually they do. That 88% efficacy is the immunity rate. Only 12% can be infected.
"That only happens after you’ve actually been exposed to the virus, like many of us already have."
For how long though? Similar reinfections can also happen, same as the vaccine.
"That’s when you build a mucosal secretory Iga antibody layer and response, which is what protects you from being infected and spreading it to others."
They're actually reviewing a vaccine that does specifically this, but that's not to say that the existing vaccines don't do this at all.
"These only give your body awareness of a piece of the spike protein too, versus people who’ve gotten over the real virus, who’s immune system now knows the full virus and can detect variants better too."
The spike protein targets a specific area of the virus. Without this natural immunity may develop any number of methods to stopping the infection. This means the ability of your body to stop variants is a guessing game, as you don't actually know how your body decided to fight the virus.
"That’s fine but there’s also no long-term safety studies on reprogramming live human cells to start creating custom proteins with lab-sequenced mRNA wrapped in polymerized antifreeze which is what the lipid shells are."
you're joking right. Reprogramming cells to create custom proteins is a daily affair.
"There are people dying from the vaccine they are downplaying and pretending their deaths had nothing to do with it, young people who had very little risk from the virus itself."
Very few. So far the vaccines are far safer than the virus. Also, with new variants coming out and hospitalisations effecting younger and younger people with the new Delta variant, the idea that things aren't going to get worse for the unvaccinated, no matter their age, is ridiculous.
"There is a backwards desperation to prevent there being a control group, because they don’t want it known a lot of unvaccinated people are doing just fine without it."
Actually the control groups are required to be offered the vaccine after the clinical trials have concluded due to ethical reasons. It's literally illegal to do so.
"The partial immunity the vaccine provides also lets people get infected and spread it, just with milder symptoms and creates evolutionary pressure for mutations too."
The 94% immunity the vaccines give stops the spread. The other 6% are so mild that the viral load is never really enough to pass it on in significant quantities, nothing like catching it while unvaccinated. Mutations are happening in the unvaccinated. Delta for example is from India, which even now is only 22% vaccinated.
"The people relying on the “vaccine” don’t seem to understand you still need the basics of a healthy immune system, or you’re still going to be infected with mild symptoms if you’re lucky, possibly creating variants and also spreading it to others."
The people not relying on the vaccine risk death as well as all those other things sooo.....
"The clinical claim is the vaccines reduce severe illness and death, that’s it "
Right, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing it does.
"That’s fine but that’s different than conferring immunity anywhere near natural immunity provides, which many already have so they don’t need this extra risk."
Your plan just sounds like letting people die from covid and hoping nobody gets reinfected. Never mind the 600K Americans dead already, this kind of thinking will kill millions. There will be many more with long-term health complications such as heart damage, lung damage and fatigue. This is the dumbest answer.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joeoreilly3039
"Maybe logical fallacy is not the correct term but asking loaded questions for the sake of getting a ratings boosting response certainly violates something in terms of having a logical political conversation."
It's not a loaded question. Loaded questions rely on something being assumed. When you ask "why is this not a return to the Dark Ages" you are no assuming anything, it's a question. The question may seem lopsided or bias, but it's not loaded. The classic example is "when did you stop beating your wife" the assumption being that at some point you did in fact beat your wife, a very loaded question if you have never done so.
As for ratings, the BBC doesn't require ratings and is therefore free to make what they want, which is funny because it actually ends up in better TV.
"Both of these heavily imply if not outright declare that this is his viewpoint."
Correct, heavily imply, but they are not in fact his actual views.
"Who else’s would it be? If it is another individual or group’s statement and not his, it keeps the questions objective to specify."
It is his statement, but not his viewpoint. Andrew Neil conducts his interviews using a Devil's advocate approach. He directly counters his interviewees position when asking a question, giving them both a tough question, and also an opportunity to respond to such tough criticism. This approach gives him great results, as he is able to push people to dodge, recant, or answer truthfully. This very interview displays a good smattering of all 3. The questions however are still objective because they are all still implied and assumed positions, designed to create a dialogue.
"Also I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean in your second point with an “other” position. Could you point me to the source you’re referring to?"
The definist fallacy is "defining a term in such a way that makes one's position much easier to defend." In other words, you define something, then launch a defense off that faulty point. If you are to argue that "return to the dark ages" is the fault in the argument, and Andrew never argued anything around that topic, then how on earth is he using his definition to form an argument?
What's worse, Ben has been guilty of this exact fallacy multiple times, especially any time he gets into the abortion argument. He just says "science" when defending his position, then goes on a rant about murder, but that murder argument is all built on his claim of "science" something he never defines, explains or supports in any fashion. He simply states that science supports him and if you disagree then you are both anti-science and pro-murder.
4
-
4
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
20% goes to stimulus checks. There is also funding for unemployment, vaccine rollout, child tax credits, earned income tax credits, schools reopening, childcare assistance, transportation infrastructure, pensions, senior nutrition programs, small business grants, small business loans, virus testing and tracing, rental assistance, homeless funding, veteran assistance and SNAP, as well as some other domestic decisions. Not sure why you are so against helping the American people.
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stargazer5797
"I have to give up my freedom of speech, give up my constitutional rights"
No. If you have a specific example of this then let me know.
"pay way more taxes so my hard earned dollars can be given away to people all over the world for free"
Proposed taxes are only rising on corporations and those earning over $400K a year. This is after Trump cut taxes adding trillions to the deficit. Foreign aid is not increasing.
"Criminals are being let out of prison just because."
The US has more people in prison per capita than any other country on the planet. We have WAY too many prisoners right now, and all it does it allow slavery and keep people poor without any real effort for reform. We need to modify the criminal justice system to promote reform and increase both education and opportunities for those in prison. Pay them fair wages for work done. Allow them to reenter the work force more easily. Finding a job as an ex-con is almost impossible, and those with any sort of education are snubbed for jobs they are qualified for.
"People are beating each other on the streets."
When riot police are called for peaceful protests, protest stop being peaceful. Why are you surprised? Especially when these protests started under Trump, and Jan 6th was a literal attack on our democratic seat of government from Republicans.
"My right my body doesn't apply to the covid shot which I'm not getting."
Nobody is forcing the covid vaccine on you, but not getting it makes you an idiot and endangers not just yourself, but those around you as well.
So if you want to pass on anything, pass on radical right-wingers supporting people being murdered by cops and protesting and rioting over election results. Get annoyed about the corporate tax breaks being permanent while ours run out after 10 years. Get angry over Trump running up the deficit with nothing to show for it, spending extra to artificially inflate the market with no structure and causing a massive crash at the first black swan event. While you're at it get annoyed over poor FEMA hurricane relief efforts under covid, Trump telling people the virus will go away in weeks, the hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and the recession Trump allowed to happen. Get annoyed over Republicans voting against benefits for people out of work, against stimulus to get the country back on it's feet and against infrastructure plans that would generate millions of jobs and push the US into future technologies and self sufficiency. We need to be outraged over our money being spent on stupid wars and massive increases in drone strike numbers, not national investment that actually makes a difference. Where is the outrage at the people at the top INCREASING their net worth during the pandemic, leaching funds off those struggling at the bottom in their time of need? Where is the anger over the hundreds of bills passed to make voting harder in Republican states over a fear of losing another election? Why are the Republican minority so against farness and equal voting, and all for corporate greed and those at the bottom getting left behind?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It was neither.
Socialism is about the people having control.
Capitalism is about economic freedom.
Nazi Germany had neither of these things. It was a corporatism, a collectivist ideology that advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests. For example, putting all of these things in the hands of members of the Nazi party, then requiring them to follow incredibly strict rules and regulations. They banned collective bargaining, and regulated labour contracts via government appointed officials. Nothing about this is capitalist or socialist.
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Obtain a gun illegally (by taking a legally owned weapon from a family member, by stealing a gun, by buying a gun illegally, even by 3D printing their own"
Most of these options rely on poor guns laws. Licensing, registration, storage laws and more can substantially reduce these.
"Or, they are forced to get creative and choose to use a different weapon to commit their crime (like a car or homemade bombs – and may end up killing even more people by doing it that way – great, now we restrict car purchase laws!)"
We already have laws about cars. All cars are licensed and registered, and you have to display competency and health fitness to drive. We should absolutely do the same with guns.
"Or, they simply drive to the next state that doesn't have the same gun laws, buy it from a random seller or buy it online"
Now you're just arguing for federal laws.
"This is why mass killings continue to happen, regardless of how the gun laws are changed"
Then why did mass shootings stop in every other country? Australia is a great example of this.
"so clearly it's not working"
I agree. None of the legislation has been nearly substantial enough. We need uniform gun control.
"Let's continue to focus on making it harder for law-abiding citizens to legally obtain guns and be able to protect their families – instead of actually addressing the causes that drive some people to mass murder."
Or we could just do both.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@greensandbeansgaming1358 Just wanted to weigh in on your comments about NY and California deciding presidents every year.
First of all these 2 states have less than 17% the total US population. You may as well argue that Texas and Florida decide our elections as the populations are roughly equal.
This way of thinking also assumes that members of those states will also vote the same way. As the previous comment noted, upstate NY frequently votes very differently to NYC. Due to this fact, in an electoral college system their votes are ignored, however in a popular vote count they will be added just like everyone else. Their vote goes from being worthless to counting.
A more open voting system like this would also force presidential candidates to pay closer attention to states that they would usually win or lose without much contest. As it stands, Democrats and Republicans never bother with California, Alabama, Washington or Mississippi, with the election decided by usually less than half the states going 1 way or the other. If ever single vote is counted equally, suddenly Republicans can appeal to Californians, and Democrats to Alabamans.
Just as you say, different states have different cultures, but so do individuals within states. Surely they should be heard as well. Should we consider voters in smaller states more heavily just because they are in a small state? Why do the people of Wyoming matter more than 3 times more than Californians? Because there are less of them? So because I like in a high populace state I'm now less of a person?
A popular vote is the only fair way to hold an election. There is a reason the US is considered a flawed democracy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ritt Jack It does work, just not perfectly. People are less likely to get infected, and people who get infected are less likely to die. Any idea how many breakthrough covid deaths their have been? Even with this new variant the number is less than 1,300. In fact, covid hospitalisations for the vaccinated are under 7,000, at a time when the US currently has 7,000 covid hospitalisations per day, and at the peak in January had over 16,000. Total covid hospital admissions have broken through 2.4 million, but among the vaccinated that number is 0.25% of the total hospitalisations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ben admitted that he got destroyed in this interview, specifically because he both broke down and attacked the interviewer multiple times, and also because he quit after being pushed on his beliefs.
There are multiple times that Ben either lied or was very economical with the truth in this interview, including his comments on YouTube videos that were posted from his own channel, and his weak claims that after explicitly mentioning Palestinians, that he totally didn't mean all Palestinians, just the majority of them, which makes it okay.
As for Andrew Neil being on the left, he isn't. Andrew is famously right-wing, and even left the BBC to go to an ultra-right news channel called GB News. Andrew also wasn't the one to use the word "barbaric" that was Ben's addition. Andrew's entire interview style has always been a Devil's Advocate approach, using difficult questions that directly counter the beliefs of whomever he is interviewing. He has done this for years to political figures on the left and the right.
There is nothing "Got ya!" about pointing out direct inconsistencies between Ben's book and his personal rhetoric. He wrote a book about how we should all be less angry and should try to approach political discussions with a more level head, then was surprised when comments he made about Palestinians being uncivilised terrorists get mentioned. Even in this very interview he made claims about how only Zionists are the true Jewish people, and non-Zionists are Jews in name only. He talks about how they are largely irreligious, but that is in fact not true. They are largely non-Zionist, but the majority of Jews in America are religiously Jewish.
Ben has a list of lies as his talking points, and they never stand up to real scrutiny. That's why he has always made a career out of being a reactionary. That's why he likes people to come ask questions while he's on stage, because he can cut their mic and get the last word, blatantly misrepresenting their viewpoint in the process.
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
-
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
-
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
-
Actually it brings up quotes from years before as they are direct contrasts to Ben's book. Ben used his book to preach civility, all the while he had literal years of tweets showing he's not just part of the problem, he was practically spearheading it. The questions were designed to give Ben an opportunity to respond and explain his position, but instead he either lied about the content of the old tweets, or dodged the questions by waving it off as a dumb thing he did. At no point does he actually take responsibility for his own actions. Imagine if instead he had come out and said "yes, I said some horrible things in the past that allowed me to come to the turning point that is my book" but he would never do that, because that would mean he could never act like that on Twitter again, which would be a shame since he still posts crap like that regularly. In the last week his entire feed is filled with open-ended and factless claims that Democrats are corrupt, exploitative, hacks and more, and that was just this week. He has gone full bore in the events of the Texas shooting, and is throwing insults out daily to cover.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"By your own definition, the means of production were indeed collectively owned and not guided by profit. The ownership was through authoritarian government representation and the guidance was the national wellbeing"
That's not collective ownership, that is state ownership. In collectivisim the people would have some sort of a say in the usage of funds or the ownership of the businesses. Instead they are forced to comply.
"Sure it wasn't democratic socialism, but it was definitely socialist since it's not about letting people do whatever they want like in Capitalism."
So feudalism is also socialism? You are using such a broad defintion that it is meaningless. You seem to think socialism is "not capitalism".
"It's not like a random German or even worse, a foreigner, could just start or run a major company in Germany without being a member of the Nazi party to sell whatever he wants to sell."
It should be noted that members of the Nazi party were just ordinary people that joined a political party. They numbered in the millions.
"The government had a strong watch over you to make sure the activities of the company align with the purported benefit of the public. Whether you agree the authoritarian government was indeed looking out for the wellbeing of the public is more of a game theory agency issue than a socialist vs capitalist issue."
No, this is a contention between a planned economy and a free market. Planned economies are not inherently socialist, and free markets are not inherently capitalist.
"And no that doesn't equate them with capitalist societies today because capitalist societies today interfere in far fewer industries than Nazi Germany did. "
The phrase you are looking for is "state capitalism".
"China is the closest system to Nazi Germany."
Like I said, state capitalism.
"Capitalist societies like the US are not asking Home Depot to join the Republican party and have half of the members of its board of directors be government officials to make sure home depot is not undermining the interests of American workers like Communist China does."
Right, like state capitalism.
"Therefore, they preferred a nationalist dictatorship to guard the common good."
Which isn't socialism as it does not fit the defintion, which is when the means of production are owned in common. Ownership by the people, not by the state. It can be through a state, but that state must be democratic to give the public true ownership.
So I think your main issue is just not understanding what socialism is.
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hj-kd2nc
"a pervert who makes women uncomfortable"
We're talking about Biden, not Trump, stay on topic rather than talking about the guy walking into the changing rooms at Miss Teen USA.
"gets in their space, sniffs their hair"
They've directly spoken to people from these photos and they say nothing of the sort. In fact, ex-defense secretary's wife says the viral photo of her is used 'misleadingly'. Stephanie Carter said former vice-president had his hands on her shoulders ‘as a means of offering his support’.
"makes and makes racist remarks"
Again, stick to Biden, the guy that was so anti-segregation he wanted to integrate neighborhoods before it was cool.
"His blonde leg hair amazed black kids"
So? Kids get interested by stuff that they find different, which as the time this was. He was at a pool. This is not weird.
"you can't go to a dunkin donuts without having an indian accent. "
Talking about the rate at which immigrants support the economy, and how we can't keep ignoring foreign key workers just because they work in the service industry. Again, literally the opposite of racism.
"Claims he marched for civil rights, then retracts the claim and admits he only worked at a black swimming pool and wasn't down in selma marching nor anywhere else marching."
That wasn't the claim. He commented that he was an activist and he took part of 2 protests, but neither of those protests were marches. This has been confirmed by eye witnesses. He was part of both a walk out and a picketing.
"Black kids are just as bright as white kids."
This comment is correct, and the fact it needs to be said is more sad than anything. Do you have some different opinion?
"All of these quotes from a guy who was at the top of his class, has 3 degrees and claims to be very smart. Oops, not true either."
He earned a double degree where he double-majored in history and political science, plus a law degree later. He has 3 degrees.
"The only inspiring speech he has ever given was plagiarized."
If you think that was his only inspiring speech then it's probably the only bad one. Maybe he should just tell poor people to stop being poor, then you would clap.
So again, you are a disingenuous prick. The best part was here:
"Trump and George W. seem like a Harvard professors."
Was it Trump making fun of the disabled reporter that did it for you? How about when he failed to finish literally a single sentence, instead finding some way to tangent back to his own ego. Honestly, Trump made potatoes look eloquent.
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
-
@poopdeckpappy2658
"the supply chain is still a mess"
This is a global issue, and while it is getting better, it will take time.
"The border is an absolute disaster"
Not really surprising. They banned people from seeking asylum in the US, then when the law reverted all the people at the border came across. This compounded with the sharp rise in poverty from the pandemic has caused the recent increases. That being said, asylum seekers are a net gain for the economy.
"Oh yes, remember she went down to Guatemala to address the “root causes” of poverty"
Yes. The thing is, you only really need to meet once to know the issue. The region is poor and they need money for infrastructure to reduce the number of asylum seekers leaving to go to the US. Not rocket science.
"so we wouldn’t have any more illegals?"
They're asylum seekers.
"The border patrol is playing catch and release with almost 200,000 illegal immigrants crossing the border every month"
Asylum seekers, get it right.
"we have no idea who these people are, what their intent is and what diseases or viruses they carry."
They are tested and offered the vaccine on entry. They are also documented on entry.
"Inflation is at a whopping 6.8%, only slated to get worse"
Well sure, we had a pandemic and spent over $6 trillion. Add that to the tax cuts that dramatically increased the national debt and it's no wonder the debt rose $7 trillion under Trump alone.
"one recent research study stated inflation this past year has cost the average American family $3500"
But real median household income is up in the last year with millions starting new jobs.
"And Biden wants to spend 3 trillion more with money we don’t have for money we print on a printing press?"
No, he wants to raise taxes, and the spending for his bill is over 10 years. Many of the programs in the bill, like childcare, pay massive dividends for the economy in the long run.
"When Trump left office America was energy independent"
No, it wasn't. We were briefly during his presidency, but oil at the time was a negative price. We were literally making zero money from energy independence. The truth is just that demand dropped. Supply actually dropped as well during the pandemic, but demand dropped more.
"Biden quickly killed the Keystone pipeline and hundreds of good union paying jobs."
Temporary jobs, that would in the long run result in 15 permanent US jobs, just so we can buy more oil from Canada. Not sure if you understand what energy independence is, but buying oil from Canada is not on the list.
"Gas prices shot up and Biden went begging to OPEC to start drilling for more oil."
Because they massively reduced production during the pandemic, and still aren't anywhere near pre-pandemic levels.
"Biden completely botched our withdrawal from Afghanistan and I am hearing we are still trying to get Americans out of there"
The agreement made by Trump was far too short of a timeline. Military experts predicted it would take over a year to withdraw from the region, and even with Biden extending the timeline, we were barely able to get out. The agreement was a joke, and Trump should have started the withdrawal months in advance to actually succeed.
"Biden got Americans killed and captured in that withdrawal and left $167 billion worth of military equipment on the ground for the Taliban and Isis to get their hands on."
Most of which will be useless. Not a single captured vehicle will still be running right now. US military vehicles are notorious for needing ridiculous amounts of maintenance due to their massive weights.
"That includes tanks, machine guns, choppers, self-propelled grenades and thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo. Thanks Joe. "
Because ISIS never had machine guns, RPGs and ammo..... The rest won't be working.
"Putin has massed troops on the Ukrainian border and Biden is doing what?"
Publicly backed Ukraine in the event of an invasion. If you hadn't noticed Russia has had troops in Ukraine for years now, attacking people at the border almost constantly.
"Employers are begging like I’ve never seen in my lifetime for more employees and are willing to pay high wages and benefits to get them."
So you're saying wages are going up. Sounds great, thanks Biden.
"They still can’t fill the jobs in part because Joe wants to keep giving everybody a government stimulus check. Why work when you can stay home and get paid for it?"
This really makes me doubt your claim about employers offering high wages. Maybe you just think $9 an hour is a good wage, but in reality if it's not $15 then why would I. Low paying jobs like that don't even cover rent in my area, never mind food.
Maybe do your research before spouting off.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danielberry4765 Sure, lets break it down then:
Ben doesn't know what Devil's Advocate is, even when it's explained to his face, and thinks that a critique of his views is akin to an attack.
Ben thinks the Conservative movement has thought leaders.
Ben thinks life begins at conception.
Ben doesn't know what an interview is.
Ben is perfectly willing to put words into someone's mouth to make them look bad, like adding the word "brutal" to a question.
Ben assumes everyone critiquing him is on the left.
Ben wrote a book about improving public discourse, then was offended when examples of him coarsening public discourse are brought up.
Ben will lie about his own YouTube channel to try and "win" the interview.
Ben thinks that talking to people on the other side is the same as improving public discourse, when we can see from this very interview that the way he talks to people on the other side is reprehensible, so why would that improve anything.
Ben thinks Obama was a fascist.
Ben thinks that the majority of Jews in America are irreligious, which is false.
Ben hates Palestinians, and will lie and twist his own statements to stop from sounding like he hates Palestinians.
Ben doesn't know how the BBC is funded.
Ben gets very salty when he perceives an attack, continuing to bring up his own mischaracterisation of a question as a reason for him to act like a child.
Ben is deeply offended at the idea that people have never heard of him.
Ben doesn't recognise quotes from his own book.
Maybe if you had watched the interview and not mindlessly supported Ben at every turn you would have learnt something too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@-Benito_Swagolini- The German people did not have common ownership of the means of production. For starters business ownership shifted to privatisation during the Nazi regime. The Nazi government sold off a vast array of previously publicly owned entities, including banks, public utilities and more. Not sure how privatisation leads to socialism. On top of that, even of your argument is that the government owned more things, which they did not, that has nothing to do with the German people. The Nazis were authoritarians. They banned political opposition and ran unopposed for their elections. So if your argument is that the government owning something means that the people own it, you would be wrong. The people had zero say in how the government operated. That means your claim that anything owned by the nation is owned by the German people is total nonsense.
So congrats, you are very confused, and really capped it off with that brain dead propaganda at the end. "Racist socialism", Jesus, you swallow anything TIK says don't you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. While the percentage of people who owned slaves was low, literally the top 2% of the population, the number of slaves those people owned made them a much larger proportion of the population than the ownership rate.
2. Yes, Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans, to white Europeans, who then sailed to America to sell those slaves to other white people.
3. Except the Civil War didn't end slavery, it just changed the criteria it could be used. We also had about 100 years of voting inequality and segregation after the Civil War so that's hardly an argument.
4. Actually it's because they could beat the hell out of them and treat them like garbage legally. It's much cheaper to keep people when they don't need clothing or beds.
5. Which countries were these white people enslaved in? Where were they taken? How does this in any way effect the US? We talk about the African slave trade because it directly effects our country, even today.
6. We aren't all slaves today. Comparing US prisons and pre-Civil War slavery to everyday life right now is just downright shameful.
7. Yes, some farmers who owned slaves were black. They were however incredibly rare.
8. Crime rates tend to be higher in poorer communities, which makes sense as black communities were segregated and given zero economic assistance for decades. The long-term effects of these choices are still incredibly apparent today, with neighborhoods still showing strong racial segregation.
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
-
@demetriusmaximus4810
Not really. Keystone XL, aside from being useless as we already have a pipeline that runs that route, and aside from it being a breach of 2 different Native American treaties, also would have only produced seasonal and temporary jobs. Only 15 of jobs would be permanent. He has also generated far more jobs than were lost from Keystone XL, which is impressive as oil and gas jobs dropped to their lowest since 2004 in 2020. In fact when Trump took office the oil and gas extraction industry lost 31,000 jobs in 2017, and lost more every year after. That number has increased again, climbing back up to pre-pandemic levels after Trump failed to maintain jobs in that industry to keep production high. The number of jobs in this industry started increasing in March 2021, a month after Biden took office. He increased it by 28K.
US drilling has increased under Biden, counter to the crash we had under Trump, and federal land leases were frozen because they already have thousands of leases they aren't using.
2
-
2
-
@demetriusmaximus4810
Again, extraction jobs are up, no idea where you're getting these numbers because they are false, and they certainly don't come from the Department of Energy. In fact, if you go to their site you will see it says that "The 2022 USEER analysis shows that energy jobs have rebounded, after sharply declining in 2020 due the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic fallout. In 2021, energy jobs grew 4.0% from 2020, outpacing overall U.S. employment, which climbed 2.8% in the same time period. The energy sector added more than 300,000 jobs, increasing the total number of energy jobs from 7.5 million in 2020 to more than 7.8 million in 2021."
Trump was a net exporter at a time when demand was rock bottom and oil was so cheap that it actually went negative. US oil companies were making next to nothing, actually losing money as a result. Those low prices caused many frackers out of business, and US production bottomed out. Since Biden took over production has been increasing, but the idea that Biden slowed domestic production, and not the pandemic, is actually pathetic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gitbizy You don't know what a carpetbagger is do you.
He volunteered at Big Brothers Big Sisters while he was in college. He then started working at AmeriCorps, whos entire mission is to improve lives, strengthen communities and foster civic engagement. He was teaching people getting them their GEDs. Worked for a couple of years in risk management, and also got a masters degree from Harvard in public policy. He finished that and went back to Americorp, where he spend 5 years helping kids in Braddock, during which time he moved there. Soon after he became Mayor of Braddock, a town so poor that their Mayoral position only paid $150 a month. For 13 years he worked to improve the town, a town massive hit by the end of US steel, a town that shrank more than Detroit which now cannot maintain its massive scale with so few residents. While there he was fulltime director of the local youth program, and founded a nonprofit that could purchase properties in the area and stop them falling into disrepair. As Lt. Governor he travelled the state through every single county where he answered questions and polled public opinions. He supported LGBT rights, pushed for a higher minimum wage and encouraged marijuana legalization. He was also the chair of the state Board of Pardons, and recommended 32 people for pardons in that time. He also helped fund inmate pardon application fees and expedited pardons for non-violent marijuana-related offenses. He also pushed to have the pardon process changed to a simple majority rather than a unanimous vote.
So who are we voting for? The local charity worker with a masters degree from Harvard who has worked in government positions for over 15 years, or the carpetbagging snake oil salesman?
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
-
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
-
@dukecarraway1762 Keystone was 11K temporary seasonal jobs over 2 years. Biden also saves $1.9 billion for a pipeline that was between 2 places we already have a larger pipeline running between. We are not selling oil to China to compensate for this. We are just transporting the oil differently to the same countries.
Gas is up because US refineries are closed down due to covid safety, and people are starting to drive more than they were 6 months ago. Considering global oil prices went negative last year, is it really a surprise this is now increasing?
Unemployment is down, so that's just a flat out lie. Current unemployment is lower than it was several years after the financial crisis. Trump almost hit 15%, a historic high.
Of course more illegal crossings are happening. Trump stopped letting people in so they ended up waiting at the border for months or years. Illegal crossings are bound to increase when it seems like the only option. Of course if you actually look at the numbers, illegal crossing were far higher in 2019, with May 2019 hitting 144K, February this year only hit 100K. This trend matches recent history and is expected to rise for the reasons I gave, but even if we go higher than in 2019, that is only showing that the drops in 2020 due to covid have offset the the current increases we now see. People who waiting longer are combining with new people trying to cross.
Texas was always a crime state, mainly because of the Texans.
During Trump the migrant facilities were overflowing, causing them to house migrants in hotels by renting out whole floors.
Biden, by not separating kids from their families, allowing him to quickly turn around migrants and send them back. Trump's policy of essentially stealing children makes it impossible for us to then empty those facilities until the families are reunited. And that's assuming they even can be reunited. Some of these kids will have to age out of the system because their families will never come back for them, for one reason or another. So thanks to Trump we may be stuck with hundreds of children in permanent detention until they are 18 years old.
I haven't seen anything about an increase in force in Iraq and Syria, care to elaborate? The only thing I have seen was a single precision strike on Iran backed militia weapons smugglers at the Syrian-Iraq border who recently rocketed Americans in Iraq. Biden's approach was said to be more conservative than many of the options given:
The American airstrikes on Thursday “specifically destroyed multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian-backed militia troops, including Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada,” Mr. Kirby said.
“This proportionate military response was conducted together with diplomatic measures, including consultation with coalition partners,” he added. “The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel.”
So he didn't out of the blue order a strike on an Iranian general or anything stupid like that.
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
-
@max420thc
"Yet I am still required to take the vaccine."
It's called dual immunity. The vaccine will boost your natural immunity and make it last longer. The fact you caught covid twice is exactly why you need the vaccine to boost your immunity.
"I want to know why the US postal service, the White House staff, the congressional staff and Pfizer employees are not required to take the jab?"
They are, aside from congressional staff. The first mandate that went out was for federal employees, which interestingly the postal service doesn't count as, they are a separate entity that works within the executive branch, not an actual federal service. Pfizer falls under the second mandate for businesses with 100+ employees, as does the postal service. Pfizer also announced they are requiring vaccinations over 6 weeks ago, before the mandate. The White House also needs to vaccinate and the rumours about them not needing to were false, they always fell under the first mandate.
Congressional staff get a pass because this is an executive order and congress make their own rules.
"I also want to know why Israel who has the highest vaccination rate in the world also has the highest infection and death rate"
They don't. Both the infection and death rates are far worse in Florida for starters. If you go to the worldometer and check the deaths in the last 7 days/1M pop you will see that the US is actually higher than Israel, who are all the way down at 61.
"while next door in Palestine they haven’t had the vaccine and have no problem? "
Palestine is actually at 45 on that chart I mentioned, making their death rate in the last week higher than Israel, and by around 31% as well.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deathifight7408 Not really no. Again, Ben's issue is one of beliefs, not communication. He believes these things wholeheartedly, but retracts things when people call him out. Take his comments on Jewish people in this very interview, claiming they are largely irreligious. That is false. Jews in America largely consider themselves religious Jews, however Ben is a Zionist, and does not believe that any non-Zionist Jewish person could every be called a religiously Jewish person. He is gatekeeping religion, meaning even his explanations in this interview are faulty lies. His exact wording in his tweets openly attacks the Palestinian people, then when he gets backlash he immediately walks it back in the next tweets, even though his attempts to walk it back completely contradict when he just stated.
So no, Ben is not misunderstood, he instead strives to make people think he was misunderstood every time he tests the fascist waters.
Oh, and nobody cares how Andrew Neil presents himself. This is not a debate, and questions don't suddenly change their meaning when asked by someone from the left or the right side of the political aisle. The only thing that changes is Ben's ability and method of dodging the questions.
but sure, keep saying that these are bad interviews, when in reality we learnt a lot about Ben that you would never see in a US interview. Maybe your interviewers should start asking harder questions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ebbs-ez2fs
"Frist, I of course want DC to have a voice in their own destiny, specifically in congress."
"Having them be brought back into Maryland does the exact same as granting state-hood."
These statements directly contradict each other. Neither DC or MD want this merge to happen. It's the opposite of them having their own say.
"It also gives the citizens of D.C. a significantly better opportunity to thrive and succeed with the support and size (additional land and revenue sources) of the state of Maryland."
DC has the highest median household income in the country and almost triple the GDP per capita of MD. What resources could MD ever offer DC? Statehood gives them rights to have more control over federal funds they are already given. Statehood also gives them rights to make their own laws, rather than relying on MD to make laws for them.
"The District of Columbia is suffering more than almost every other major city in the US. And it is primarily because it is a city alone, with no land and no state to support it. And thus, there is not enough revenue being brought in for public programs."
No, the problem is they have no control over how funds are spent. If they become part of MD they would just be sending dollars to the rest of the state rather than receiving anything.
"However, having them brought back into Maryland (or VA if DC residents so choose), as it was originally apart of MA, will solve many economic and social issues they face"
How?
"also grants them representation in congress, which is the whole point the democrats claim to make here"
Hardly. They have been separate for over 220 years. These areas are separate enough that you could far more easily claim that multiple states should absorb into neighbouring states because they don't deserve their own vote.
"Its also a bonus that Maryland is heavily Blue, similarly to DC. So in a DC/MD merge, DC would get representatives in both congressional houses, immediately, who also share the same political ideology as a majority of DC residents."
Yes and no. As stated they have a republican governor, and many MD ideas are not that close to DC. There are a whole host of laws that differ, and DC would end up a city-state anyway, so why not just give them what they actually voted for?
"Having DC as a new state is ONLY a political partisan strategy to grab more power."
No, it's what is most popular in both DC and MD. DC voted for statehood and MD frequently poll against absorbing DC.
"They do not really care about disenfranchised voters."
DC license plates literally say "Taxation Without Representation". What federal lawmakers decide and their reasons for doing so are irrelevant, because at the end of the day the local DC residents voted for this. I wouldn't call the will of the people a political power grab, when that is in fact what they voted for. Denying them statehood is the only power move here.
"Many Politicians (Both Republicans and Democrats alike) think you and I are too dumb to realize this lol."
Again, politicians can think what they like, but the people of DC have spoken. I don't give a fuck if they are being used as some sort of political crowbar to pry open the senate and house majorities a little wider. They deserve to have what they voted for, and arguing that politicians being conniving bastards as a reason for denying the vote of the people is a ridiculous claim.
Stop trying to push solutions that have already been hashed over and voted against multiple times.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robotron17
"The renaming of deaths was not limited to the flu"
Then why are the top causes of death in the US the same or increasing. Heart disease deaths increased, yet you think they are somehow hiding heart disease deaths in covid.
"deadly treatments (like ventilators)"
People are ventilated all the time and don't die.
"The coroner, Brenda Bock, says two of their five deaths related to COVID-19 were people who died of GUNSHOT WOUNDS!"
Notice how she said related to?
In response to Brenda Bock the state of Colorado stated they classify COVID deaths in two ways: A death due to COVID, where it was the underlying cause, and a death with COVID, where there was a positive test but it wasn’t listed as the cause of death.
"All deaths with a positive specimen (including at post-mortem) are counted REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OF DEATH!"
This quote is pulled from a study about mortality burdens and is an NHS review of how much does covid factor into the deaths. They took examples from everyone who had a positive result, then reviewed them to see how much covid was a factor. It's literally the opposite of what you think it is.
"And all of the "excess deaths" from drug overdoses, medical treatment, missed treatments due to shutdowns, deaths from population growth trends, etc"
Source. I already mentioned heart disease, which increased by 30K from 2019 to 2020. Diabetes deaths increased 14K, and other diseases increases by similar ratios. These are also only non-covid excess deaths, meaning these are on top of all the extra deaths just from covid.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kalrainey
Sorry for the delay, busy busy.
So first we can start with TIK's definition of socialism. He claims that both Marx and Wikipedia use definition that socialism is government control. What he leaves unhighlighted on these definitions is the fundamental concept of socialism, that is the idea of social or common ownership of the means of production. Social requires the people effected by something to have control over that thing. So with social welfare that means that the people must have a democratic ability to decide how something is managed, or who it is managed by. In fact, the Wikipedia entry goes on to explain that worker cooperatives are a form of socialism, making his claim that socialism = government totally nonsensical and backed by nothing. Simply leaving the German people with no ability to control something is not common ownership, it's state ownership through and through. This however gets even further away from socialism on the next point.
Privatization: TIK shows a quote explaining that the Nazi economy was described as a form of privatization. It is in fact the earliest usage of the word, and was literally invented to describe the Nazis. He then offhandedly ignores it. The simple truth is that the German government sold off vast assets to private individuals, but TIK refuses to call this privatization as industry was being given strict orders from the government. That does not change however the fact that those industries were still privately owned, and those owners still recieved private profits. Arguing this would be the same as arguing that the British directing industry in WW2 is the same as socialism. Obviously that's nonsense. Government directing of industry is not the definition of socialism.
Democracy: TIK tried to claim that even if socialism requires democracy, that doesn't matter as the Nazis were plenty democractic. He then equates voting with democracy, essentially claiming that a rigged election is still an election, so of course the Nazis were democratic. He then tries to back this up by claiming that North Korea is a democracy.
Unions: TIK tries to claim that the unions were made stronger under the Nazis, but ignores that unions had no ability to elect their own leaders, collectively bargain or strike. They were just lists of workers that the Nazis co-oped to control the population. They were stripped of any resemblance to a union. Calling them a unions would be like calling a chocolate teapot useful.
TIK frequently corrects his own sources, as he views their quotes as incorrect. When quoting the Vampire Economy he changes the word "Fascism" to "National Socialism" despite Nazi germany absolutely being a form of fascism. This is all to fit his narrative.
The final straw is his nonsense claim that socialism of the Nazis was racial, not class based. Socialism is about class because that's where the money lies. Race based socialism is nonsensical. So rich people are fine, so long as they aren't a certain race? How is that socialism?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pepepinochetshelicoptertou2696 Biden legally won the election and Trump cronies did everything in their power to change that. They sued dozens of times, tried to overrun the government's certification vote, tried to get electoral college members to change their vote, tried to pressure state governors to cheat for them and declared victory long before anything was decided. The "military curtain" is to protect the government from people like you, trying to overturn a legitimate and legal election with guns, pipe bombs, zip ties and gas. Trump is a wannabee fascist doing everything he could to try and cheat the election, steal from the government and lie to his supporters, whipping them into a frenzy to try and overturn democracy. He even stole from his supporters in the millions. He tried to get foreign governments to influence our elections as well, or did you forget that, exactly what he was accused of in 2016. It's transparent and dangerous, and you fell for it anyway, hook, line and sinker.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@evann32033
Will doesn't do arguments. He just waits for you to make a point, makes up some nonsense, then throws out insults. He is nothing because he stands for nothing.
As for the Soviets, not really.
Take their farming cooperative practices. The idea was that large farms were given collectively over to the workers who farmed them. The roadblock however was that the Soviet state put in state appointed managers to decide what was farmed and when. The farmers had zero say over who was in charge or what decisions were being made. It was as close to a worker cooperative as any capitalist business.
The same continued for any other form of attempt to democratise the nation. Factories were managed at the top level using a 3-way system of governance. Equal decision making was given to the workers unions, the factory managers and the state. But factory managers were appointed by the state. So if they ever sided against the state what would happen to those managers?
And that doesn't even get into the government elections. Since they used vanguardism to manage the nation, the vanguard were not voted in, ever. They could also not be removed. The vanguard then appointed political officers, who could theoretically be voted out by the locals. However should anyone ever get voted out, it was up to the state to fill the spot with someone new. Elections could then be delayed, giving the new person in charge time to actively punish the decision to remove their predecessor. Not to mention the mental game of only having a single candidate on the ballot, and being forced to remove, not elect them. Add to that the fear of retribution, and your democracy is just more feudalism with extra steps.
2
-
2
-
@willnitschke
"There are no shares."
Yes there are. Equal shares, one per employee.
"Except your ideology pretends to advocate for democracy, requires giving unlimited economic power to government"
Except we're talking about worker cooperatives, which are not government. In fact within businesses owners already have 100% unlimited power. They are tyrants of their own domain. So thanks for arguing against capitalism.
"They are not owned by individuals, hence individuals own nothing."
They are owned collectively by the workers.
"Who owns the national bus service? Can you identify the owner?"
Owners, plural. It is owned collectively by all of the people within society, and managed by their elected representatives.
"I mean, you can't show up at a bus depot and take a bus for a spin."
Wait, do you think if you have shares in a company you can just show up and use their stuff? Do you think having Apple stock mean you can fly over to their offices and use their computers? Shares never give you the ability to just do whatever you want. They instead allow you to vote on the direction of the company. That's just how shares work. The only difference between publicly traded shares and worker cooperative shares is the method used to obtain those shares. Everything else about them is identical.
"Does it confuse you that things can exist that aren't "owned" by someone?"
You're just confusing yourself now. I mean seriously, your argument is that some businesses don't have owners. That's ridiculous.
"There are no dividends, 99.9% of the time."
Source?
"There is no "tyranny" working at a business. You can just get another job if you don't like it."
Don't worry. If you don't like working for someone who has absolute power over your working life you can always leave and work for someone else...who also has absolute power over your working life.
"If an employer does something truly reprehensible, then there exist workplace laws to protect working people anyway."
Depends on the country really, but thank you for agreeing that regulations enacted by a democratically elected government are essential to protecting workers.
"I'm not "for" or "against" imaginary things, any more than I am for or against unicorns."
Scotland will be very upset to hear that.
"Yet the Far-Left always creates dictatorships in the real world 100% of the time."
The left is literally incapable of making a dictator as dictatorships require anti-democracy. As I said, the right-wing is anti-democracy. They are anti-democracy in both government and in business.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do you actually want an explanation, or do you just want to whine about your idiotic fake percentage. For example, stimulus checks alone make up 20% of the bill, so this 9% number being parroted is utter bollocks. There are also funds for unemployment benefits, SNAP benefits, expanded child tax credits, covid vaccine delivery, rental assistance, mortgage assistance, eviction ban extension, state and local government funding, school reopening funding and small business loans. If you're against any of that then let me know.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Probably because the Australian gun violence numbers are lower than before the ban. Seems like an odd point to make. Especially as those new laws made it so that not a single shooting event broke double digits in terms of those injured or killed. In fact gun deaths dropped to less than 1 per 100,000 in 2018, for a total of around 260, meaning even if every single shooting that happened, happened on a different day, there would not be enough shootings for 1 per day in the entire nation, absolutely crushing your "daily" claim. That also includes all accidental events, all suicides, everything. Only looking at homicides that number drops even more, to just around 30 homicides per year.
Yes, the militia is run by the government. Those people who got their rifles and bits and bobs were under the directive of the US federal government.
No, the US does not have more freedoms than other countries, in fact it is missing some very crucial ones, such as:
A right to housing.
A right to healthcare.
A right to clean water.
A right to your own body.
A right to not be enslaved.
All of these are on some level not protected in the US.
The Nazis actually removed gun restrictions that were put in place after WW1. By relaxing gun laws they were able to build a grassroots violence fascist movement.
I agree that crime is strongly linked to wealth inequality, but guns make all violence exponentially worse. It allows specific instances of crime to be more serious just by the addition of a deadly weapon.
No, every state does not have mandatory background checks. Many states have private sales without the need to get any sort of check. There are also the issues with a lack of licensing and registry, meaning someone could drive to a lax state, load up on guns, then sell them in a more restrictive area. That's why guns in places like Chicago that are used in crimes all come from outside the city. People traffic guns into the area to sell in illegal private sales after legally purchasing them 2 states over.
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
-
@Weinmaste
The Paris Accord is not an iron-clad penalty riddled contract, it is an agreement to try to try to lower emissions. The US is also not pulling the weight of others, if anything the opposite is true, the US is one of the largest polluters.
The pipeline job cuts were all temporary and would only serve to build something we are trying to outmode. It would be like wasting billions on a new coal plant when we are trying to move onto renewable energy sources. The administration has already talked about shifting existing jobs into different parts of the energy sector to compensate job losses, creating permanent jobs for people rather than temporary ones.
Most of the executive orders signed were either undoing some bullshit Trump did or not orders at all, but actions. The remainder were necessary to push through quickly, especially as we are in a pandemic. Requiring masks during a pandemic should not be seen as dictatorial, but instead necessary for national security. Provisions that protect workers health and safety and promote Covid safety should not be seen as radical during a pandemic. These are things Trump should have done, but was too lazy to bother doing. He was too busy as well, claiming the virus wasn't real or was going to go away in the summer because of the warm weather. We finally have a leader leading the country.
They aren't paying for abortions for people in other countries. They changed a rule that used to block US foreign aid from performing or promoting abortions. This specific rule has been signed back and forth by every president for 35 years ever since Reagan introduced it, yes including Trump.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alsilva3720 There isn't a bill, they haven't written it yet. According to the general plan however, yes around 5% is going to roads and bridges. They are also putting money into Amtrak, climate-related disaster resilience, road safety, airport upgrades, ports, public transit, electric vehicle chargers, retrofitting homes, high-speed broadband, school upgrades, water infrastructure, improving the electric grid, VA hospitals and clinics, public housing, cleaning up abandoned wells, clean energy, community college upgrades, federal building modernization, childcare facility upgrades, caregiver funding for elderly and disables, domestic manufacturing support, American workforce development infrastructure and worker protection, upgrade research labs, climate tech, domestic industry capacity monitoring, dislocated worker programs, new technology foundation, and research and development for small businesses. Lots of things that will pay dividends in the future overall.
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
-
@GodIsCallingUs__ Um no. We have evidence that cities existed, not that your magic man destroyed them. There is also no evidence of a global flood anywhere.
Books being accurate to other versions of the same book isn't really proof of anything. I'd also love to see historical accounts from these witnesses. I know they didn't wrote any though because we have actual historians at the time who were silent. Your prophesies are a joke. You are applying loose terms to fit your narratives. Books written by men are tricking you.
No, Fauci didn't lie, and your belief otherwise is just sad. Keep with the propaganda though. I'm sure you believe an optician before a virologist, but nobody knows why.
Trump referred to people as animals in either of your interpretations. This is always unacceptable.
He also tried to overturn the election, but your nationalistic claims of him being the one true American are really solidifying why you are okay with sedition.
Trump bent over backwards for Russia, letting them get away with election, interference, and made US companies pay tariffs to punish China. North Korean talks fell through as well. And he couldn't even pull out of the middle east, failing against ISIS as they were defeated by the Kurds, the SDF, the Iraqi government, Russia, and yes the US, along with other countries allied to the US. He however pulled out of the region before ISIS was even handled.
Meanwhile, Biden called out Putin as a murderer, called out the Chinese government for bother Uighurs and Hong Kong, sanctioned Chinese officials and openly denounced both nations, something Trump failed to do. He also actually pulled out of Afghanistan, which Trump had plenty of opportunity to do, but never bothered with.
More vaccinated states had less deaths during Delta. The worst performers were the likes of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. New York is a very dense state and performed poorly early in the pandemic. Biden also took over in the middle of a surge. Blaming the January deaths of last year on him is a joke. He can't control infections before he takes office, and therefore cannot be responsible for deaths.
He has been president for more of the pandemic than trump was, and has seen less deaths as a result of his hundreds of millions of doses being administered.
Of course you don't want to respond, and I quite frankly don't want you to. Your religious zeal will never match reality, but you'll keep jabbing those pieces until they fit.
Enjoy your 3 times married, adulterous, daughter lusting, greedy, gluttonous, lying, stealing, racist, sexist, fascist dear leader while you can.
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
-
@iwanaorange9231
"The government of Rome was called a republican government." - Correct. It's also a good example of a non-democratic form of republican government. Aristocrats, or patricians as they were known, would be rich land owners. They were considered a whole separate class and were banned from marrying below their own class. They would simply decide between themselves who would be their next leaders, which could not be anyone other than another patrician. The people had virtually no say. So comparing the US government to Rome's republic, while in the same comment talking about the people electing leaders is laughable at best, dangerously ignorant at worst.
"The power of government is held by the people." - and specifically not a monarch or aristocracy.
"The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests." - These days they do this through democratic elections. In days gone past the the US was by and large less democratic in nature, but they have improved greatly over the decades.
I'm not saying the US is a perfect democracy, because it certainly isn't. It has issues such as the electoral college, gerrymandering and senators. All of these are ways in which the US moves further away from treating all votes equally. A more democratic government could segment all people from any state into districts that can cross state lines and group people into their respective interest groups. This would be a better way of electing representatives as said representatives would represent their own area more strongly, and would still be a republic. It would also be more democratic. In this specific form of a republic it would be perfectly reasonable for the president to be either elected or appointed as both would be done by vote, either by the fairly elected representatives or by the people. This is how you could make the US more democratic. If you want to make it less democratic, just ask ancient Rome.
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
-
@lulu111593 According to the CDC the vast majority of those 94% didn't have life threatening conditions. Obesity is considered a comorbidity, but that's already about 42% of the country. Then enter things like diabetes, asthma, COPD, kidney disease, HIV, heart disease, liver disease, transplants, pregnancy, tobacco users or any sort of immunodeficiency. The vast majority of these deaths are in people who were weakened by their conditions, but certainly not at death's door. If you then look at excess deaths year over year the numbers get worse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Lonewanderer30
Keystone XL would not have saved money. We already have a pipeline going north and this new pipeline would have only exported oil, causing domestic oil prices to increase, not decrease.
None of the 1.9 trillion is leaving the country, literally none of it. Seriously, if you actually believe that the aid package for vaccine deployment, schools, stimulus checks, financially vulnerable households and businesses is somehow going overseas then you're watching too much fake news.
Obama literally created more jobs than Trump, both after and before COVID. In fact, Obama got the unemployment rate so low, it would be mathematically impossible for Trump to create more jobs than Obama, since Obama reduced unemployment by 5.2%, causing it to go to 4.7%. Unless Trump could somehow create so many jobs that unemployment was a -0.5%, which is obviously ridiculous, then Obama will always be the leading job creator.
Can you list these destroyed jobs. The only ones I've seen substantiated are the Keystone XL ones, but they were all temporary and would do little for the economy. Only 35 permanent jobs were actually lost, and for a pipeline that's already in court for breaking Native American treaties.
I posted a quote from the journalist you linked to in your "evidence" of a strong Trump economy from another one of his articles. Median household income growth was higher under Obama's last 2 years than in Trump's first 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
-
@j.j.guerrieri8121
"I am not a “right winger”. I vote for the lesser of two evils."
Oh so you voted Biden over the moron who literally tried to overturn the election multiple times?
"We can start with ending the Keystone pipeline which cost roughly 40,000 jobs"
Wrong on several levels. First the pipeline was the Keystone XL. We already have a Keystone pipeline that goes between the areas the XL would have gone, and it will carry less oil as well. The job losses are estimated at 11,000 not 40,000, none of which are permanent positions. In fact they are temporary until the pipeline is done, after which we only need 50 people to operate it, most of whom are Canada based.
"a step back from energy independence"
How is buying Canadian oil energy independence?
"The company is now filling suit against the state department for $15 billion"
Which they'll lose. The pipeline already broke 2 separate Native American treaties. The idea they can stand it up in court is laughable. They're even overinflating their own job creation stats to make the impact seem worse.
"The southern border is the worst it has ever been"
I'm sure that had nothing to do with the years of people amassing at the border after Trump heavily restricted and closed it. The immigration numbers started to creep up for a half a year before Biden took office, so this isn't anything unexpected. In fact this sort of surge was inevitable after Trump.
"Harris, ignored it and would have continued to ignore it if the former President didn’t announce that he would be visiting"
Wild speculation with no substance.
"Upon Harris visiting Biden declares “we’re moving in the right direction” while tens of thousands of illegal aliens cross over every week."
Who are being caught. The numbers are people who we catch, and that includes people crossing again, which is a leading cause of these crossing numbers being very high.
"The stance on men competing as women is a complete joke and is absolutely shameful"
Weird tangent but okay. You don't like gender specific sports? What's your argument here?
"spending is completely out of control"
They're actually spending according to a mapped out budget to lift the country out of a depression. This would be much easier is Trump hadn't raised the deficit so much while in office. It was at $1T before the pandemic even hit.
"gas and food prices are up"
Gad prices are market dependent and rely entirely on global oil proves. Since people are travelling more oil prices are up, while during the pandemic oil prices went negative. Food price changes are due to worker shortages. Want a guess at where most of the US farm workers come from?
"the value of the dollar is down"
It's been strong for the last 12 years and continues to do well. Where are you getting this nonsense?
"a poisonous and unnecessary shot is being pushed on people"
Oh, which shot is that? Because right now the only shot being pushed is vaccines, which are the exact opposite of what you just described.
"January 6 is being used as a tool to go after political rivals"
Jas 6th WAS a tool to go after political rivals. Investigating it is justice.
"nobody is being held accountable for the burning, looting and destruction of cities across the country last year"
1. That's not true, plenty have been arrested.
2. Comparing Jan 6th to "burning, looting and destruction" is more appropriate than I could ask for.
3. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your argument doesn't matter. Even if it were true it wouldn't change what happened on Jan 6th.
"Our puppet president is a senile, stumbling, babbling fool and foreign leaders are laughing at us."
Well that used to be true. We used to have a Russian puppet that was literally laughed at while speaking at the UN. That's no longer the case.
Honestly, the level of delusion you continue to stoop to with every passing sentence makes me fear for your sanity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@westonripps84 Sure, lets do a deep dive.
If Dr. Fauci was lying he would be openly criticised by the scientific community for openly misrepresenting the paper he was holding. Fauci's position relies on the scientific and medical communities trusting him, and such an obvious and open lie would be easy to spot for anyone in the know, making debunking him easy. Instead what we see is said community openly supporting him, his ideas and the general opinion of the CDC and the US government at every turn.
Now lets look at what happens if Paul lies.
His supporters, who have no understanding of the laboratory science or the paper Paul and Fauci were referring to, believe him anyway and he gets reelected.
Who has the most to lose from lying? Who has the support of medical and scientific professionals? Fauci has the support of the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Association of American Cancer Institutes, and over 50 other science and public health organizations. Why would I take all of those thousands of experts and ignore them for a politician.
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
-
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
-
@davidicke4451
"Neither the pfizer nor moderna trials tested for transmission."
Then why are you using a study done in December, especially one only cited 5 times? The study I posted wasn't from the original trials and was posted in May. It used real world studies done in Israel about vaccinated populations, and uses a massive sample size.
"A vaccine is supposed to stop transmission in addition to providing immunity, whereas these “vaccines” don’t prevent transmission and therefore don’t contribute to preventing future mutations."
That's just a lie, the link I posted shows that.
"These drugs are experimental therapies, not “vaccines” in the traditional sense."
No, they are vaccines.
"The antibodies that you produce from the antigen of these inoculations are “non-neutralizing” as opposed to being neutralizing antibodies from an ordinary live attenuated vaccine."
Actually the opposite is true. While an ordinary vaccine relies on your body to figure out what antibody to produce, the RNA vaccines tell your body the exact antibody they need to directly hit the virus.
"The efficacy rate you provided is based on immunity to subsequent re-exposure, not transmission"
If you're immune you can't catch covid and pass it on. Unless of course you mean contact transmission, but that will also be reduced as the number of people capable of exposing the contact area to covid in the first place will drop as the ability to get infected drops. Contact transmission also doesn't allow for mutations.
"the testing of positives and negatives in the trials and in the real world in and of itself is flawed. CDC says to use PCR CT of 28 to confirm vaccine “breakthrough cases” guaranteeing an undercount."
Oh well, if you think it's an undercount then please provide your reasoning.
"The maker of the polyamerase chain reaction test suggested that the CT utilized shouldn’t be anywhere that high, nowhere near 40 due to the prevalence of false positives."
We already have ratios for both false positives and false negatives and they are both around the 1% range. Trying to claim we have too many false positives when there are far more people with covid just not getting tested at all is a joke.
"Several physicians, researchers and molecular biologists have made this criticism."
Like who?
"It’s a very real virus with extremely high R0 (transmissibility), but the lethality is likely lower than we’ve been led to believe."
If that were true more people would be getting infected, which makes the need for a vaccine greater due to potential variants. I did in fact agree that more people have this than are being tested for.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vashmatrix5769
"Let's start with her acting like it's for only a militia. Court ruled against that false premise years ago & recognize it as an individual right. Also if you look up what the militia was, it's the people, & they were expected to bring their OWN arms."
However, as a militia they are still subject to the orders of the state if called upon.
"Then she either misunderstood or is just dishonest about what "well regulated" meant in that context then, it really means to make regular."
No, it means they need to be able to be activated, trained and deployed by the states.
"The idea they'd give control to government after that's who they just fought because they came for our arms, makes no sense."
Because they were overthrowing a foreign government and installing their own democratic republic.
"Then she goes on to completely misunderstand the (broken) rule against a standing army."
There was no rule against a standing army. The militia was proposed as an alternative to a standing army, but it was always known a standing army could be created. The well-regulated militia in that case would still exist as they are subject to individual states, not the federal government. That being said, we now have an actuall well-regulated militia, it's called the National Guard.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@emsbrelopez0711
"you make a decent point however those countries aren’t socialist they are strong capitalist countries with strong welfare systems"
True. The real wording should be social democracies, which is really what we should strive to be.
"a 1 bedroom apartment in Norway was well over 2000 dollars?"
No, they average around the $1,500 range, which is some what expected given how compact they are. These are pretty comparable to California numbers. As you said wages are also very high, and on top of that healthcare, childcare and a bunch of other services are free. Despite the expenses Norway has practically zero poverty. Compare that to the US.
"you see socialist counties like Venezuela Brazil and Portugal fail due to socialism"
Well that's just not true at all. Venezuela for example was actually a shining example of what the economic factors of socialism can do to lift the people out of poverty. The government was wildly popular, and people were thriving compared to before. Their issues came from US economic sanctions and new leadership. If they had better international trading partners and a better system of government socialism would continue to be a success there, but corruption and mismanagement, that can happen in any nation, were their downfall.
"If I paid you 100 dollars to mow my lawn then immediately took that 100 back and gave 50 to your friend who sat in the car while you did all the work because it was “fair” would you be a socialist for long?"
What if you did all the work then I paid $90 to your boss and $10 to you? That's capitalism.
"what if you had a 4.0 gpa in college and we took a point away to give a kid who didn’t work as hard and had a 1.8 gpa so his could be higher to make things “fair”"
That's just silly.
"what if the government owned all the land meaning the house you own wasn’t really yours"
Do I get to live there rent and utility payment free for my entire life?
"took away your freedom of speech religion and protest and violently oppressed any opposing point of views (North Korea)"
North Korea is a dictatorship. Oppressing speech, religion and everything else has nothing to do with an economic system. In fact, calling North Korea socialism when the people have no control over anything is pretty ridiculous.
"isn’t also funny how all these politicians from Capitals countries clamor for socialism yet never move away from said capitalist countries for socialist ones?"
Which politicians. I've never heard a politician saying they want socialism, or are you now going back on your points about Norway not being socialist, because I absolutely want what they have.
"Yet people who live in socialist countries are fighting tooth and nail for a democratic government"
Why not have a democratically elected socialist government?
"Mind you that the greatest economy in the history of the world (USA) is a capitalist country"
Greatest by what measure? The largest? What does that say about the tens of millions of Americans in poverty? About the 530K Americans who go into financial ruin over their medical debts?
"It’s not the government is very oppressive which is why Hong Kong wants nothing to do with them lol you want a visual representation of Capitalism vs Socialism?"
Now you think China is socialist? Again, dictatorships are not socialist. Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. Workers can't control anything if they can't vote for who runs things.
"Plus the failure of socialism was evident in the Cold War when the USSR had to put up a whole wall in Berlin simply cause people were defecting to the west."
I'm sure it was nothing to do with the massive economic sanctions that caused the USSR to fall into poverty, must just be the socialism.
"Yup now I know capitalism isn’t perfect by any means but I’d rather work the rest of my life to buy my bread than to wait in a bread line and just hope that there’s enough to feed me and my family."
Unless you fall into massive debt and can no longer afford bread. Your argument works right up until people stop being able to afford things.
So, something we can agree on, the US should implement more policies that make us closer to Norway in an effort to end poverty.
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
-
@deborahwyndham-lewis5188 It's definitely not true. For starters, we have records of the number of cases of myocarditis that the vaccines have caused. Current estimates, even in kids and teens, put the risk in the rare range, less than 1 in 10,000. What's more, you can mitigate this by avoiding exercise for 2 weeks after vaccination. The risk is substantially lower than the risk of myocarditis if you catch covid, which is at least 1%, with 70% of deaths having confirmed myocarditis, and 7% of surviving covid patients having some form of organ damage, usually around the heart and lungs.
This bizarre claim of 150K vax deaths is completely unfounded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@suzannemartin6817
"I was talking about the PCR tests."
So was I.
"They were not designed to test for cov"
The test they are using is literally designed to test for covid. It's called the 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. That is EXACTLY what it tests for, and nothing else.
"They were not designed to test for cov and cannot distinguish between flu or cov."
No PCR test on the planet can do this because PCR tests look for 1 thing and 1 thing only. Being able to distinguish would require them to be able to test for 2 things. They test for covid and NOT the flu. This is why the CDC is asking medical facilities to switch to a test that can see both. They are worried about flu increases and don't want to waste lab time by making people use 2 separate tests.
"So they are under a recall."
No, they aren't. If they were being recalled they would, you know, actually recall and replace them, not give people to the end of the year.
"But they drove this entire thing so who knows how many people actually did not have cov but told they did."
False positives on a PCR test are astronomically rare, and they will double test you if they see a positive anyway, making it virtually impossible to happen.
"My niece’s husband was really sick last year. His cov test came back negative but they treated it like a false negative."
They were having issues with false negatives due to the low number of cycles being used. They were having a hard time seeing people who either were just starting to get symptoms or are almost recovered. They changed the test to make it able to view lower viral loads, leading to less false negatives. Comparing false negatives to false positives and trying to use it as proof of what you are claiming is just stupid. Yes, it is possible that your niece's husband had the flu, or some other viral infection. Since the test came back negative they don't end up on the stats anyway. Were they retested for covid?
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
-
1
-
1
-
@tonysoprano946
"8 million people per year die from the air."
Weird way to say pollution, but okay.
"There's absolutely no proof that masks, lockdowns and these [vaccines] have worked."
There are literally dozens of studies on all 3 of these.
"This amounts to more deaths than diarrheal disease, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS combined."
So? Literally irrelevant to how many people are dying from covid, which increased the age adjusted deaths in the US by 15.9% from 2019 to 2020.
"Where's your Biden proof? I work in construction and there's a much bigger difference in wood prices under Biden."
Which I'm sure never increased under Trump and has absolutely nothing to do with the global pandemic. I mean seriously how pathetic are you?
"Inflation is through the roof."
Not really. It's on the high end, but definitely not crazy.
"The market is gonna see the biggest free fall soon"
According to who?
"Name one thing Biden has done that wasn't already in place."
Rejoin the WHO.
Rejoin the Paris Climate Accord.
Rejoin talks with Iran.
End the war in Afghanistan.
Arrange for a stimulus bill, which included children's school meals, child tax credits, testing dosing and more.
Arrange a second spending bill for infrastructure.
Lower the unemployment rate after the last administration's dramatic explosions.
Mask mandates.
Vaccine/testing mandates.
Getting 220 million vaccine doses administered in 100 days.
Sanctioned Chinese officials.
Rescinded the Muslim ban.
Supported small businesses and restaurants.
Cancelled student loans for victims of fraud and people with disabilities.
Stopped arctic drilling.
Ended family separation.
Extended ACA enrollment window.
Promoted a "Buy American" adjenda.
Increased federal contractor minimum wage to $15 and hour.
Added an offshore wind energy initiative.
Revoked previous orders on sanctioning International Criminal Court officials.
Saved the pensions of more than 1 million retirees.
I could keep going but you haven't even read half of these.
"A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."
No, the Democrats are not trying to do anything like this. Where is their plan to take over private businesses? How about anything even remotely authoritarian? Are they planning to storm congress and overturn votes? Because, I got to tell you, if a group of people did that it would be pretty authoritarian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dannytexas09
"One of the low side effect of the vaccine is getting the spike protein travel to the heart causing inflammation."
The rate is less than 1 in 10,000, and the mechanism is nothing to do with the spike protein travelling to the heart. It's actually an issue with the general immune response, where your body will be actively reacting to the foreign body. When it's working hard like that the added stress of exercise can cause damage to the heart. It's genuinely nothing to do with the spike protein.
"Similar to what the virus causes."
Not even close. All of the cases in vaccine recipients, as few as they are, have been mild and full recovery is possible. With the virus, 60% of deaths and 30% of athletes had heart inflammation.
"That is a risk with either route I go. So I rather not get either one."
The main issue here is timing. If you get the vaccine and avoid exercise for 2 weeks your risk is, as far as we know, zero. If you get covid, go asymptomatic and continue to exercise because you have no idea how sick you are, damage could be irreparable and sudden onset.
Trying to say that getting vaccinated is the same as catching covid when it comes to heart damage is like saying jumping off a diving board is the same is cliff diving on a rocky beach. Sure, both are diving, but one kills and injures a lot more people per year.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randysmith1723
Because, again, Andrew Neil is playing Devil's advocate, he does all of his interviews this way. They are not his own opinions, they are designed to give Ben something to respond to, which is, again, explained in the interview.
So the fact that he not only holds Conservative positions, but also that he heads up a right-wing magazine and that he is openly a member of the Conservative party isn't relevant to how these are not his own views?
Andrew Neil always asks questions this way, this is nothing new.
A good journalist is able to get to the heart of the issue, and Ben openly admitting to holding views that he tried to skirt around is great journalism. You can call them old tweets all day long, but when they match Ben's current opinions it doesn't actually matter how old they are. They are also relevant because they directly contradict his book, which was the main topic of the interview. If he had changed his opinions then he was free to state that in the interview, but instead he lied about context or tried to dismiss them without addressing them.
It wasn't an anonymous YouTuber though, it was Ben's OWN YOUTUBE CHANNEL and was discussing a video that's STILL THERE! This was nothing to do with his followers, this was the official YouTube channel of Ben Shapiro using language to attack and insult. Again, Ben lied, and you swallowed it like a good boy.
Maybe go actually watch his other interviews and stop moving the goalposts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character."
This is in reference to towards the end of the transition of the economy from public to state control. It is arguing that you don't need politics any more, only democracy, or "public power". Decisions can be made without political parties fighting a class war.
"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. "
As I said, a class war based on politics, such as with current political parties.
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. ”
Long story short, if the communists decide to revolt to get into power, then become the ruling class via force, once they enact these guidelines they will no longer be a ruling class, as nobody will be any more. Long story shorter, the goal of the communist movement is to get into a position of power, then make that position of power disappear almost entirely so that nobody else can use said position ever again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macarenaturcattideleon5642
"What will help our economy is open blue states and stop killing jobs"
Biden has no control over how open or closed blue states are. The plan he has proposed will create jobs.
"don’t increase our taxes when business are struggling"
If a business has no new profits then they don't pay taxes. The idea that struggling businesses are effected by changes to tax rates is a misnomer.
"increase wages when people don’t have jobs"
Increasing wages will uplift the economy, stimulating billions in spending, and adding billions to tax revenue.
"2T money isn’t going to infrastructure"
Right, about 80%+ is though. The rest is going to elderly care, as I explained above.
"1.9T didn’t went to American people! Only 9% of the 1.9T went to the American people"
Incorrect. The stimulus cheques alone made up over 20% of that funding. Almost all the rest of the funding also went back to the American people. Small business loans, unemployment payments, SNAP benefits, expanded tax credits, covid response, healthcare are all directly to us. The rest helps the American people in less direct ways. Broadly quoting the number 9% (which was a reference to only the direct stimulus payments as a percentage of the entire omnibus bill) is so stupid I'm not sure where to start.
"You are entitled to your on opinion not to your facts"
Which is why I am stating the actual facts and not Fox News talking points based on lies.
"Everything is Billions and Trillions in this administration"
Almost like they're trying to stimulate the economy or something.
"Infrastructure in other words means money flowing into corrupt politicians packets and we the taxpayers get the bill to pay of all this printed money"
No, infrastructure funding means building and upgrading the many many out of date pieces of US infrastructure. This included:
56,000 structurally deficient bridges in the US, and over 200,000 that are more than 50 years old.
15,500 high hazard dams.
Over 1 million drinking water pipes that are over 100 years old.
Almost all US power grid transmission and distribution lines being over 60 years old, with a life expectancy of just 50 years.
Funding for levees to protect from flooding.
Various national parks projects that need attention.
Port overhauls needed to replace small ports that cannot accommodate larger and larger ships.
Hugely outdate railways that need a massive amount of funds for not just repairs, but also new high-speed lines that could make billions for the economy.
Crumbling roads, with a backlog of $836 billion in unmet capitol needs to repair and replace the 32% of urban and 14% of rural broken roads.
24% of school buildings in fair and poor condition that need upgrades and repairs.
Distinct lack of recycling pretty much anywhere in the country.
$90 billion in backlogged public transit projects.
Building over 500 new wastewater treatment plants.
All of these projects will also create jobs. So are you in favour of job creation or not?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@profusionlifetv7183
So not the party trying to restrict human rights 4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 30?
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maclivingston9268 Nothing you said makes any sense, other than the obvious projection of liking to argue. If you want to play semantics rather than actually addressing the original point, which is that people are constantly "persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized" through literal laws, then I, and the rest of the world, have no time for you.
Enjoy your mic drop, but pushing over the board and declaring victory won't actually get you anywhere.
1
-
@maclivingston9268 I'm sure you think you're being logical, but you really aren't.
You pivot from being able to see to looking at people specifically, which is a very narrow scope of seeing in general, and has nothing to do with your original point about being blind. I mean talk about a goalposts shift.
You call pharma a drug ring, while ignoring the regulations, research and development that go into it. It's like comparing a NASA engineer to a crackhead offering to paint your house. Society encourages showing that the drugs you are selling have a positive benefit to people, while discouraging the selling of illegal and dangerous drugs to anyone who'll buy them.
You talk about people driving drunk, but that doesn't change the original point, which is that people who do that are actively pushed not to through various avenues like "persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized". Yes, people do these things, but they are told not to. That's the point. Exceptions to the rule in this case actually prove the rule, because we can see how those exceptions are treated as a result.
So your delusions will continue to defy reality, and the goalposts shall never be in the same place twice while you're arguing disingenuously.
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
-
@michaelsanders7484 He's well known for doing all of his interview this way for years. Anyone could just see him interview a dozen different people and throw all sorts of questions from a spectrum of views at them. I would also say that the personal views of interviewers, especially on the BBC, are generally to be considered as neutral as possible when doing their work. Lastly, I suppose it doesn't actually matter if they are his views or not, this isn't a debate so his personal bias, or lack there of, doesn't change the weight or veracity of the questions.
In short, he's both well known for doing this, and even if he wasn't it doesn't suddenly change the questions. There is also a cultural element here, where in the UK reports are...reporters, not personalities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hj-kd2nc
"Biden was fact checked on his academics, my statement stands."
But you're wrong, so... He has 3 degrees. A double major is the same as having 2 separate degrees when it comes to literally everything to do with having a degree. Get over yourself.
"Its' very weird to talk about children being interested in your body parts, my statement stands."
Not really. You can be all weird about it, but if it happened it happened. What are you, a never-nude or something?
"The women admit he violated their personal space, he is on video sniffing people, something I can't unsee."
I already gave you a direct quote from one of those women, and pressing your head against someone is not the same as sniffing them.
"The racist remarks are pure biden"
Not racist but whatever.
"Joe wanting to take away social security benefits from the disabled."
Literally in the process of trying to expand this, but okay.
"You're doing a better job at reframing Joe's statements than your accusation of me."
Why would I need to accuse you? Your statements are false and I can, and have, shown that. Your inability to understand that is a you problem.
"Explain what a racial jungle is?"
It's a metaphor for a segregated world....hmmm, maybe try a simpler word. Analogy? No, you won't get that either. Oh well, maybe your mother can explain it to you.
"Hmm let's see him fib about his civil rights marching"
So at no point in that video did he claim to march in Selma, as you claimed he did, and instead he talks about being a local Delaware activist that was involved in some sit ins and the desegregation of a movie theatre, which actually matches what the witness who was talking about this said. Amazing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesphillips4888
Right, except there is a limit, and that limit is when those tax cuts increase the deficit. If your claim that people having more money will pay more taxes is true, then why did tax revenue go down, and stay down? Why did the deficit increase from $585B to $984B before the pandemic even hit? Maybe the numbers hurt your little head too much.
Biden called out and sanctioned Chinese officials, something the previous admin never did.
Biden called out Putin directly rather than licking his boots, again, something the previous admin never did.
The labor force was 163.54 million people in 2019, with a total employment of 157.54 million people.
The labor force was 160.74 million people in 2020, with a total employment of 147.79 million people.
And just so you know: "The workforce or labor force is the labor pool either in employment or in unemployment." I'm aware it is not the entire population, which is why it shrank when millions of people decided to retire early during the pandemic.
Keep up James, you'll get there.
1
-
@hj-kd2nc
"Who uses the analogy racial jungle? Not a competent analogy even for a younger Biden. He doesn't want his kids living in a racial jungle, how does that even equate to a segregated school system/bussing program.
Let's see, I don't want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle vs. I don't want my kids to grow up in a segregated world."
But they're the same, the only difference is that one puts the idea of segregation in a negative light, which is the point. The fact that you are arguing about this in a speech made encouraging the end of segregation is just baffling.
"In the video he clearly states he was at sit ins and marching, then retracts it. He mentions he wasn't in Selma, why?"
Because he was at sit ins and marches, but wasn't active at a national scale, such as Selma. He was a local civil rights activist.
"Literally trying to expand Social Security"
Thanks, that's what I said. Nice of you to not lie for once.
"but i'm being weird?"
Yes, you are.
"The videos of women being uncomfortable have been seen, he had to address his behavior!"
Except, again, they have come out and stated it was out of context and that it was not at all creepy, he wasn't smelling anyone, and was offering support.
"The woman you've quoted just wanted to whole thing to go away so she can stop being in a biden meme"
Stop inventing a narrative.
"Mentored by the KKK grand wizard, couldn't find anyone else in the world to be a mentor, stunning."
Not a grand wizard, he started a small chapter in the 40s.
He called joining the KKK his greatest mistake ever.
He was only in for about 2 years.
By the time Biden worked for him he had been out of the klan for over a decade.
Now don't get me wrong, Byrd is a perfect example of an old-school Democrat that would never survive today.
"Says stupid racially insensitive stuff"
Nope.
"talks with phony Indian accent talking about dunkin donuts"
No accept but nice try.
"which has nothing to do with ignoring immigrants in the work force"
Yes it does.
"Joe admitting he lied about his academics"
Except he didn't. You can argue about double-major vs having 2 degrees if you want, but for all intents and purposes, he can get a job in either of those majors. He has 3 degrees.
"The cool aid you drank is so powerful"
Sure sure. Go back to OAN. You wouldn't know context if it smacked you in the face. Imagine thinking the guy that picketed segregated movie theaters is the racist. Imagine arguing that a social security expansion is really a reduction. Imagine arguing directly against multiple eye witness testimonies. You're an embarrassment.
"You haven't shown anything to be false, you merely reframe his own quotes and ignore the video evidence."
Almost like context can make unacceptable things acceptable, and vice versa. I mean seriously, you tried arguing Biden was a racist because of his comments DURING A SPEECH ABOUT ENDING SEGRAGATION!... I mean, how far removed do you have to be from reality to think that?
Go back to buying feet pics and leave the adults alone.
1
-
1
-
@scott1637
"funny I thought that the 1964 and 65 civil rights act was about the right for every Americans to vote in elections but you says its because the dems lost the southern states"
No, I'm saying that a civil rights bill that passed when Dems had a 70% majority in the Senate caused them to lose popularity in more racist states, which then allowed Republicans to shift to the right using more racist rhetoric, allowing them to snatch southern votes. Ever wonder why the party that you claim is totally not the racist one is also the one voted in by the people that LOST the civil war?
"arguing that dems are the party of unity, tolerance science and equality is far from the truth you are the party of division equity socialist, hypocrisy and corruption"
Sure sure. The funny part is when you put equity on the bad side. The rest is the mindless ramblings of an indoctrinated puppet.
"your party will always be the party of the KKK ,CRT, BLM, ANTIFA, Jim Crow laws, slavery and now socialism"
The KKK is currently most active in states that vote Republican, and their leaders actively support Republican candidates.
Critical race theory is literally just looking at history through a critical lens and seeing how it effects even modern society.
Black lives matter is dealing with modern day racism in America. Hate to break it to you, but they wouldn't exist if it wasn't such a huge issue here.
Anti fascists aren't even an organization, they're just people who hate fascism. As a movement that started before WWII, and was very active during WWII, it's weird you would put the people actively trying to stop fascism as the bad guys here.
Jim Crow laws are yet another example of southern Democrats before the changes.
Slavery is still a thing in the US, you should probably get to work on amending the 13th.
Socialism....seriously? Do you even know what that means. Who has even started to push for this?
"you voted for a racist who swims in the water with KKK members and segregationist"
Again, anti-segregation speech. It's like talking to a bot.
"joe was a civil rights activist"
Correct. You got it in 1.
"“I came out of the civil rights movement. I was one of those guys who sat-in and marched and all that stuff,” Biden said at the time.
But he later disavowed the claim, clarifying his involvement after leaving the race and stating that he was “not an activist.”
“I was not down marching. I was not down in Selma. I was not anywhere else. I was a suburbanite kid who got a dose of exposure to what was happening to black Americans in my own city,” he said."
Right, as I said, he was a LOCAL civil rights activist. He wasn't in Selma, he was local. Again, this is not difficult.
"Biden reprised the claim during the last presidential election, however, and said that he had also been arrested, including once while visiting with Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
“This day, 30 years ago, Nelson Mandela walked out of prison and entered into discussions about apartheid. I had the great honor of meeting him. I had the great honor of being arrested with our U.N. ambassador on the streets of Soweto trying to get to see him on Robben Island,” Biden told voters at a South Carolina campaign event in 2020.
When asked about it during an interview with CNN, Biden conceded that he was not arrested, saying, “I wasn’t arrested, I was stopped. I was not able to move where I wanted to go.” - washington examiner"
And? This really isn't even that far off. He was detained by South African police for travelling with people of a different race on his way to visit Mandela, which he then did.
"But he later disavowed the claim, clarifying his involvement after leaving the race and stating that he was “NOT AN ACTIVIST."
Again, multiple people confirmed he was there doing sit ins and picketing. He didn't go to Selma, but he was doing local activism. If you check the actual quote it was in reference to national activism. I know nuance isn't your strong suit, but do try.
1
-
1
-
@scott1637
"wait there are people still alive that fought in the civil war"
People still fly the confederate flag and yell about how the confederates were the good guys.
"and they are all voting for republican how many votes is that exactly"
Quite a few, you should come down here in Florida and see.
"I thought all the dead people voted for Joe"
Name 1.
"you can go on and on about the republicans but it will never change the fact that Joe supported a man that was in the KKK"
More than a decade before they even met. Meanwhile Republicans are currently being endorsed by the KKK.
"what exactly is wrong with asking for an ID to vote if you need a vaccine passport to work, go to a restaurant ,buy liquor or go on a plane?"
Because people already showed ID when they registered to vote. When you vote your signature is matched to the signature on your ID, meaning we don't need some additional form of confirmation as we already have it. You also don't need a vaccine passport for most states, and even if you did, they are to protect people from a lethal virus. Voter ID laws are designed to suppress votes. Why not give everyone who wants to vote the good old literacy test to really mess with them. All it does is adds another barrier to voting.
"voting by mail is subjected to fraud and ballet harvesting"
Doubt. Seriously, show me the evidence. Mail in votes are signed, the signatures are matched to IDs on file. You can't fake them like that.
"just look what he did in Afghanistan 13 service members died because of his failure"
Welcome to war. Are we also blaming all the previous presidents for Afghanistan military deaths when they failed to withdraw?
"who the hell evacuates the military before civilians"
They didn't. Civilians had been leaving for months, and they sent more troops in to get the last civilians out. The real fight is over Afghan allies in the region, many of whom specific US states refuse to take in.
"who the hell leaves 83 billion dollars of military equipment to the enemy"
It was left to our allies, and most of it won't work in less than a year. The hummers will all have their suspension broken by now for starters. Also, leaving equipment behind is par for the course. We disabled anything that nobody was using, and gave the rest to the Afghan army, a group that had been built up for 20 years. Blaming Biden for Afghan politics and the failure to understand that an Afghan army was literally never going to happen is a joke. Why not blame Trump for letting the Taliban leader out of prison, along with a few thousand of their fighters, while also negotiating a terrible deal?
"thats treason at the highest level face it you voted for a anti American traitor"
Last guy tried to overturn the election so.......
"history will remember and so will true Americans"
Ah, my favorite distinction between patriotism and nationalism. You're a nationalist on this comment alone.
1
-
@jamesphillips4888
"plus all the wasteful spending. We have never needed 3 trillion dollars for infrastructure ever. 500 billion is more like it"
Not even close. In fact the US infrastructure is in terrible shape. We're behind on rail, broadband and public transit, are dealing with a higher number of bridges than ever in a state of disrepair, and even massive drinking water and energy issues. Some areas flood regularly, while schools are being left to get by on crumbs in crumbling buildings.
43% of our public roadways in poor or mediocre condition.
An estimated 6 billion gallons of treated water lost each day due to mains breaks.
42% of all bridges are at least 50 years old, and 46,154, or 7.5% of the nation’s bridges, are considered structurally deficient
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates the number of deficient high-hazard-potential dams now exceeds 2,300.
$3 trillion over 10 years is actually pretty much exactly what they need to fix these issues.
"America is about freedom enterprises not government control and a free market which creates competition."
How can you say this with a straight face? Free markets always inevitably result in zero competition. Government is the only thing that stops monopolies, which they have failed to do lately with companies like AT&T, Comcast and more.
"We should not have to settle for the crap that our government offers us. Health insurance for example should not be government controlled'
It isn't. That being said, countries that DO have government healthcare get it both cheaper and with more coverage. Meanwhile, private health insurance increases in price every year and has ever climbing deductibles, while medical bankruptcies are the leading cause of bankruptcy in America. Healthcare is a right and a service, and cutting off that right just breeds a bunch of profit chasing accountants deciding when to not cover lifechanging drugs and refusing to pay out for people on life support. They are bloodsucking vampires preying on the sick and elderly to feed their money addiction. It's a cruel joke, and the US needs to move into the 20th century already.
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
-
@dropyourself Their democracy was however a non-choice, not a true democracy at all. They outright failed to implement socialism and specifically Marxism. It was a failed attempt mostly due to vanguardism, a system which quickly created separated people onto classes, the exact opposite of the Marxist dream Marx and Engels wrote about.
Now I understand that they absolutely had their reasons for what they did. Being pushed into a war against both sides of WWI just to even start your nation was a big point of that, but Lenin didn't even win the first election, meaning his war against the SR was never about socialism, it was about control. Also, if you look at Lenin's pre-election writings he was always an extreme figure, and modified his rhetoric just to get votes in 1917. Claiming Lenin implemented democracy after the Tzars is like claiming a portaloo smells better than an outhouse.
So yes, it was indeed a step up, but it could have been so much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1stsampan
1. You seem to be missing the point. The NRA pays off politicians, who in turn vote to give them the laws they want. That's not democracy, it's more of a wealthy money laundering scheme.
2. No, people with severe wealth inequality are prone to crime. Jamaica has massive wealth inequality issues.
3. Maybe read the Czech Republic gun laws next time.
"Firearm licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license; by passing a proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record."
There are also only 308,990 gun license holders, that's 3% of the population.
They are also required to register their firearms.
So sure, if you agree that we should license gun ownership, require a proficiency test and medical examination, and register all guns with local law enforcement, then I don't even know what you're arguing about.
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
-
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
-
@shgalagalaa
"I love how you are completely unable to engage a topic without sounding like the most biased individual ever. Your very first sentence implies that people can only have their human rights met under socialism which is a hilariously bad take."
No, it implies that socialism guarantees human rights, while capitalism does not. Nothing about capitalism guarantees human rights, and in fact any capitalist system that does is usually doing it by other means. Now, could a capitalist nation meet the human rights of all of its citizenry? Sure, for example Finland. But these days nations tend to do that by implementing some form of socialism. Housing first initiatives, food stamps, TANF, energy bill assistance and a whole host of other government initiatives paid for by tax dollars to help those at the bottom and provide them with human rights. Programs which have long been attacked by businesses and complained about by politicians funded by said businesses.
"Regardless. If one is to be the owner of their own body they must be free to do with their body as they please and be entitled to the fruits of their labour aswell as spend it as you see fit."
This is besides the point. Being free to do as you please is all well and good, right up until you have a need that cannot be paid for. Would you argue that someone with a disability that renders them unable to work is "free" as they can "be the owner of their own body"? In a capitalist system that which cannot be paid for is simply impossible to gain. Want to pay rent and buy food? Too bad, you don't make enough money, time to pick one. It's also odd you talk about being entitled to the fruits of your own labour, but capitalists remove a portion of those fruits for their own gain, that is in fact the entire basis of capitalism. Now here is the real kicker, is your right to keep some portion of your income, income that was made possible by the many government systems put in place to guarantee the infrastructure and legal protection for the business you work at to survive, greater than the rights of people needing food, housing and healthcare? Should people die from preventable diseases just so you can avoid taxes?
"That is someone who is more productive will be forced to give up what they deserve due to to their higher productivity to someone who has a lower productivity."
That does depend on the type of socialism and the sort of system you are critiquing. Market socialism for example would have the same free market and same payment systems as current capitalist companies, however the leadership of the company is elected by the employee members, and the ownership of the company is evenly distributed among said employee-memebers, meaning any dividends are paid to all workers and any leadership decisions are subject to a the will of the people lest the leadership are removed due to the unpopular decisions. As such, people can still be fired, including leadership. On a more national scale you are talking about welfare, but welfare systems are not paid for by people who will have reduced freedom from the payment. You don't lose out on buying food to pay your taxes, because taxes are graduated to allow those at the bottom to get the help they need. Instead, tax dollars are taken from those that can afford it based on their income.
"Also not having capital markets restricts individuals from spending what they earn as they see fit given that all means of production have to be owned collectively for it to be socialism."
Again, not in market socialiam. Free markets still exist, the companies are just cooperatives. They are collectively owned by their own employees. In fact, as Will likes to point out, most companies are owner-operated and therefore would not change at all under a system like this.
"Socialism by definition revolves around restricting what people can do with their money aswell as stopping them from earning according to their productivity. This is the core of socialist beliefs and the above sacrifices are admissable as the benefits are perceived far larger in magnitude."
I mean, it sounds like you need an education on market socialism. Your entire argument revolves around government ownership and planned economies. Market socialism has neither. In fact, market socialism rewards workers more, not less, allowing them to keep more of what they earned, without a company removing their labour to turn a profit or add to a market cap that they have no control or
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shgalagalaa
"Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are controlled by the collective and as a result its benefits are shared."
"Having subsidised housing and free health care isn't socialism."
Rental housing and healthcare are both means of production. You are contradicting yourself in these two sentences.
"It can just as if not more easily be argued that social benefit systems fit capitalism better"
In what way are social benefits paid for by taxes "capitalism"?
"You are arguing for capitalism where the excess efficiency of the system is directed more towards increasing the quality of life of lower classes."
Oh, excess efficiency. Except there is no such thing as excess efficiency. Taxes remove funds from those with more, and provide services to those with less.
"Its not besides the point. One system revolves around a core moral argument for freedom, where as the other revolves around sacrificing said freedom for another goal."
Correct, socialism is about social freedom, while capitalism is about restricting social freedom based on income. Or are you talking about natural freedom, because with only natural freedom people are free to starve to death, that's not exactly particularly free though. Social freedom however gives people the power to do things that they would not otherwise be able to.
"You go into the negative rights about how one has to "choose between food and rent" without realizing that capitalism doesn't exclude the positive rights to both of those"
So in capitalism we can have free food and housing for the poor? Oh right, so long as we do it by suspending capitalism for them.
"Unlike socialism the moral framework of capitalism isn't about excluding a right but instead views one right as most important and compliments it with other rights that are necessary for the realization of that right."
Also known as "fuck you, I got mine". In capitalism all rights are subject to wealth. Not enough wealth, you lose a right.
""Should people die from preventable diseases just so you can avoid taxes?" when you are either not understanding the topic or are unable to argue for your position"
Again, if you are trying to claim that taxes paying for people to recieve medical care is somehow capitalism, then I'm not sure you know what capitalism is. In what way are taxes paying for welfare privately owned means of production?
"One is that the workers elect a leadership that will function as a traditional socialist system where everyone is paid evenly and we would expect the amount to be at the median as thats where democratic decision making logically leads to."
Why would that be a conclusion? Workers are paid according to a market. You could create median wages for positions, but not all staff. Most cooperatives also have caps for the highest paid employees, pointing out they can't be paid more than X times more than the lowest.
"The other option is that everyone is paid according to their contribution in which case you reach the same outcome as you would under a capitalist system meaning that your new system is the same as the old system in real terms."
Except it isn't, as workers still own and control the company. They own the means of production. That is the difference. You can't possibly compare a non-democratic, totalitarian traditional capitalist company to a cooperative where everyone owns what they have produced through the company.
"Then you talk about how one can sell the means of production."
No, I didn't.
"Then you finish off by showing that you have no clue what freedom to use your funds as you see fit as you pretend that if you can afford necessities you could be taxed at any rate and it wouldn't restrict your freedom to spend your funds as you wish."
What human rights are restricted by removing, as you called it, excess? Taxes do not take from those with nothing, they take from those that can afford it to give to those with nothing. They are designed to form the basic infrastructure of the nation. And, as I said earlier, earning that money in the first place would be impossible without the stability and infrastructure provided by those tax dollars. So in reality people are paying based on what the system helped them to gain, not based on a removal of their rights.
"I specifically didn't address any economic aspects of socialism or capitalism and solely focused on the moral aspects of the core ideologies of both as that was the topic of the discussion."
But the removal for people's labour to give to a capitalist is literally a core moral issue. Should you not be entitled to the fruits of your own labour? Why should people working for Apple not get paid part of the Billions they earn each year in profits? Do they not deserve to profit from their labour?
So again, you really need to educate yourself on market socialism. Also, figure out what taxes are.
1
-
1
-
@shgalagalaa
"Yes healthcaare and food are positive rights. Meaning that others have to act to provide you with such things."
Yet the US still struggles to provide healthcare, creating an expensive private system and shoddily covering people in a patchwork mess.
"In a capitalist system they would have to be provided so that the individual can access his most important rights in freedom. In socialism they would have to be provided because they value the right in and of itself. Meaning they don't value the freedom but rather the satisfaction of needs itself."
This is total nonsense. The right IS the freedom.
"Taxes don't suspend capitalism. Taxes are required in every single capitalist theory ever. One cannot have the positive rights required without taxation. You cannot have private property without a legal system, police force and a military. Every single capitalist argument agrees on the above."
Might want to talk to James about that, given he advocates for private police forces and non-governmental legal systems. He also advocates against public schooling, and thinks taxation is theft. So maybe tone back the "every single capitalist" talk.
"As such it is not outside of the capitalist moral framework to provide housing, food and healthcare through tax funds if it is agreed on that they are required for the person to use their right to freedom."
In what way are government provided food, housing and healthcare privately owned? Again, you have to step outside of capitalism to make this work. Even public schools are a form of socialism. They are not privately owned means of production, they are not capitalism.
"So now you would have a welfare system under a capitalist economic system in line with capitalist theory and moral values."
There is nothing capitalist about welfare. Again, capitalism is private ownership the exact opposite of welfare.
"Yet you want to claim it as socialist because you absolutely refuse to accept that capitalism can do everything that socialism can but better."
You want to claim it is capitalist because you cannot defend the idea that capitalism can guarantee positive human rights. This is your only avenue of escape.
"You are so happy to jump from form of socialism to another but cannot wrap your mind around the fact that all your arguments collapse because all the nordic countries are capitalist countries."
You seem to have a very black and white view of capitalism and socialism, when in reality it's a scale. Private businesses in those Nordic countries are indeed capitalist. They are not however entirely capitalistic. Norway for instance has publicly owned oil, which they use to create a fund to support the Norwegian people. They also have socailised medicine, housing first initiatives and more. All of this is socialism. They have what is commonly referred to as a mixed economy.
"If you own the company but get paid what you would without ownership the distribution is identical."
Who said it was identical. In a capitalist company the profits go to shareholders and owners. In a cooperative they go to the employees. Dividends are a big difference maker. There is also the ability to choose who is in charge, usually a board elected by the workers. Workers can also use their positions to vote for by-laws that the leadership must adhere to. It's like comparing fascism to a democracy and saying "these are basically the same because jobs pay the same" while ignoring all the other factors.
"So you believe that the increases in productivity arise from the development of human capital rather than technological progress?"
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that even with technological progress you still need people. If theoretically you did not need people, then congratulations, you just made the argument for universal basic income and automation based taxes.
"If we have a theoretical company with only shareholders, the board and fully automated factories. What is the labour that is growing the company here?"
If you want to go full tilt and claim that we could theoretically have a 100% automated process with self-repairing robots et cetera then the answer is simple, companies at that point have progressed to the point that labour is no longer needed, meaning we are at the point where workers are mostly not needed. When that happens we are just advocating for more taxes, specific taxes and universal basic income.
"Unfortunately you cannot take that position as doing so would mean that capital has value, the value of the capital should belong to the ones who invented it or to who they sold the patent to."
I never said that capital doesn't have value, but capital's value is created via labour. The labour that created the automation, that programmed it, that installed it, that built the machinery.
"Meaning private property rights in production or a lower level of innovation due to the lower payoff of RnD."
RnD by who? Should companies profit off the work of researchers they employ? Surely the researchers did the work, right?
And then you end with a strawman. Cool, thanks.
1
-
@shgalagalaa
"Meanwhile entirety of Europe is filled with capitalist countries that do provide the things you want."
Which they do with socialism. Again, mixes economy.
"If the right was the freedom you wouldn't need to restrict property rights."
If you want to call taxes a restriction of property rights, then you also have to agree that taxes are taken from those that can afford them, and used to provide multiple human rights to everyone. They are also used to create the fundamental infrastructure that society is built on, the same society that allowed the wealth to be created in the first place. Without it your income would be lower, not higher.
"You seem to fail to grasp the idea that capitalism is simply an economic system where capital is privately owned."
No, I get it, which is exactly why welfare is NOT capitalism.
"You can have a capitalist country with a significant amount of government intervention."
Sure, as markets become less free you move away from free market capitalism and into a planned market capitalism. The more control over the markets the government imposes, the less free the markets are. This however is not how I define socialism. Socialism is not when the government does stuff, it is the common ownership of the means of production. What is being described here is authoritarian vs anarchistic markets. Both of which can exist in both socialism and capitalism.
"We also see this in the real world but I suppose you have to ignore it or claim that it is socialism as otherwise you would come to the awkward conclusion that socialism isn't needed to achieve what you wish for."
Except the real world very clearly shows that capitalism is not able to provide human rights.
"You fail to make any arguments and then you say this random shit. No shit there is an exception to everything. When people say "every single" the obvious meaning of it is the very overwhelming majority."
What a cop out. Again, James in this literal thread believes this, so not sure why you are acting as if this is not new.
"You believe norway is socialist because they have an oil fund. This is how far gone you are. Norway is a capitalist country. You can pretend that it isn't but that wont change reality."
Again, you are talking in absolutes. Norway has a mixed economy, with socialist and capitalist elements. The parts of their economy that socialism handles provide universal healthcare, housing, food, retirement benefits and more to the people of Norway.
"Ofcourse capitalism can provide positive human rights. You know why? Because it quite literally is doing exactly that in nearly all European countries."
Through socialism. See how that works.
"You talk about how there's a scale to socialism and capitalism. Firstoff there really isn't."
Yes there is.
"The two cannot co-exist so you wither have a capitalist system or a socialist system."
So what part of Medicare is privately owned? How about the British NHS? The Military? Stop me when I get to a capitalist system. You even agreed the police are not private, yet here you are claiming that mixed economies don't exist. So stupid.
"And for RnD yes obviously the people taking on the risk of development and funding the development should gain the benefits of the development."
So not that actual people doing the research, but the capitalist that wants to steal their work. Cool, thanks.
"Yet your ideology demands that he may not make such a contract as according to your argument such a contract is unjust. Before you ramble off something completely unrelated again you are supposed to justify why the contract is immoral even with content of both parties. "
Because it's exploitative. It forces researchers, and any workers for that matter, to gain less than they otherwise would have. They are losing out on the products of their own labour.
"So you concede that capital has value. If capital has value and the value is realized through labour."
Labour being the operative word. Thanks.
"The capital holders are entitled to compensation for the use of said capital that increases the productivity of labour."
Why? You are starting with an assumed conclusion.
"If they are not there is no reason for them to invest in the capital and forcefully using the capital without their consent would obviously be stealing and immoral."
So we're just using terms like "obviously" now. Cool.
"Probably according to a contract between the two parties that both parties willingly agree to without coercion. Aka capitalism."
Sure, no coersion in capitalism. "Work or die" but no coersion. lol.
"I wont actually respond to the latter ones"
Typical braindead capitalist can't respond to points.
"You are out here pretending that you can have a system where capital is owned by the employees but the employees are also allowed to sell their capital."
Nope. Didn't say that.
"The entire point of worker owned corporations is that the employees cannot sell their capital but instead the capital is tied to the job."
Congrats, you figured it out. Not sure why you needed to strawman me to get there, but good job either way.
But thanks for the pathetic insults that show you have absolutely no intention of acting in good faith.
Anything else you want to spill out of the shithole you call a mouth?
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
-
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
-
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
-
@poopdeckpappy2658
"I bet the Guatemalans think she’s their savior huh? So what’s Kamala’s plan to erase poverty in Central and South America so that it’ll curb our illegal immigration? I haven’t heard anything"
Not erase, but reduce enough that they stay where they are, and the policy is the same as every plan for a country we have no real footing in, send them money. Congrats, you just discovered US foreign policy. Unfreezing aid to those countries is a good start since Trump stopped the humanitarian funds being sent there.
"Solving poverty in central and South America should not be Kamala Harris‘s problem. It should be a problem for the central and south Americans. Her job right now is to solve our border crisis."
That does solve the border crisis you cretin.
"Kamala Harris should actually be at our own border overseeing the completion of the wall, a beefed up border patrol and policies and equipment in place to aid them in their job."
Which does nothing to stop people legally seeking asylum.
"Biden caused much of this problem himself when he stated his administration wouldn’t deport anyone for the first hundred days"
Again, that's called seeking asylum. This concept seems to really go over your head doesn't it.
"also his recent attempt at giving Millions of taxpayer dollars to illegals who were separated at the border."
Which they won in court proceedings. He's not giving them anything, they are legally obligated to it, thanks to Trump administration policies.
"And words mean things. If somebody wants to seek asylum on our southern border they can stop and check in at one of our many checkpoints across our southern borders and request asylum."
Asylum seekers have always been allowed to cross the border.
"Yet if they actually cross our border and do not attempt to check in or seek out border patrol immediately they are illegal. Say the word with me… ILLEGAL."
By definition they are not.
Look, I'm sorry your understanding of immigration seems to boil down to "lets just build a massive wall and shoot people trying to come here" but at the end of the day:
1. Asylum seekers are a net positive for the economy.
2. Asylum seekers have always been legal.
3. Humanitarian aid to improve the impoverished regions in Central and South America is not only a good way to curb the number of asylum seekers coming to America, it's also our duty as a country after the years of unrest we created in the entire continent.
1
-
@poopdeckpappy2658
"look. I’m sorry you lack reading comprehension skills but I don’t recall saying that we should shoot illegals."
I'm being facetious while presenting your actual feelings.
"The purpose of our federal government in our constitutional republic is to keep us free from force and fraud so we can pursue that happiness the founders mentioned. That means we don’t just allow people we don’t know to walk in."
That's not what that means. We've allowed people to walk in for generations.
"It is not Kamala’s job to solve the poverty issue south of our border."
Solve, no, but certainly improve. Hitting the root cause of the problem is far more effective in the long run. There is also the general duty of the US to help undo the harm they did to the region.
"To wit she has made one short visit to the border and come up absolutely nothing to solve the crisis as far as I can tell."
As far as you can tell indeed.
"A crisis exacerbated with his I’ll thought out declarations."
Not really. Worldwide economic unrest, job losses and supply issues, combined with severe weather events in Central America, has driven more and more migrants here.
"Our southern border is long and it will always be impossible to keep everybody out. But we can go a long way to solve a problem if we put up walls and give the border patrol the tools they need to do their jobs."
But they are doing their job. An ineffective wall that has already rusted through in places, and has been easily scaled with ropes and ladders, does nothing to prevent entry. We've stopped more people than ever at the border without the wall. They are perfectly well equipped with modern technology.
"According to US customs and border patrol there have been 10,763 arrested criminal noncitizens in 2021. Which means they were arrested for a crime here in the US and a criminal history check revealed prior criminal convictions either here or in other countries. That includes 60 who have homicides on their record and nearly 500 for sexual offenses."
That's really not that many.
"My conclusion based on the Left’s chaotic border policies is that they actually want this. They want our country flooded with illegal immigrants because they know at some point many of them will become US citizens either through amnesty or other means."
You mean they want to follow the historic strategy of allowing workers into the country who put more into the system than they take out? No, really?
"In the meantime the Democrats can get the illegals hooked on government bennies and when they do eventually become citizens, they’ll be voting for that bloated, debt ridden bureaucracy you yourself are so fond of."
Again, they put more in than they take out, so calling them hooked on government anything is a joke. Meanwhile Republicans are the ones bloating the deficit whenever they take office, but keep believing the lie of a fiscally conservative GOP.
"Giving illegals who came here while intentionally breaking our laws taxpayer money is completely insane. Do you give the burglar who walks into your home money?"
Again, applying for asylum makes them not illegal. It's more like feeding a clothing a starving homeless person rather than kicking them out on the street. I know a Republican like you doesn't see an issue with that, which is why we differ.
"Look at what the Biden administration told Cuban refugees last July who wanted to flee here by boat and apply for asylum because of the events in that Marxist country. “Stay home, you will not be given asylum.“"
They said the same thing to southern border migrants though. He literally told them not to come. Cuban migrants get the exact same treatment as southern border migrants. The fact that YOU are making such a distinction is really sad, and a blatant showing of your own bias, which you are trying to project onto others.
"Yes…it is ILLEGAL alien. Like I stated earlier, words mean things. You can try and use words like “undocumented immigrants” but it’s like putting lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig."
But it's literally not illegal. Seeking asylum is legal.
"United States Code, Title 8, §1365(b)"
Way to selectively edit out the part of that code that proves you 100% wrong:
"An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) is any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States unlawfully"
You have to be convicted of a felony to use the part of the statute that you are quoting. Seeking asylum is not illegal, and therefore asylum seekers are not illegal.
"The Taliban violated the Doha agreement and later took the country by force."
Which they did after we had already withdrawn the vast majority of our forces. They also didn't take over by force, as they make many lawful peace agreements to do this. Not a shot was fired. You're wrong twice in 1 comment, good job.
Again, the vehicles are useless. They would cost more time and money to retrieve and maintain than they would to just leave, so we left them. They will not stand up to the punishing environment they are in, and will be inoperable in no time. Nothing they captured is of any use, and much of it was disabled.
Also, not sure why you put "machine guns" in quotes. I was using your own terminology from a prior comment. Maybe you forgot.
Do your research pleb. You know nothing about immigration, and less about Afghanistan. It's actually frightening how much you think of yourself with such tiny brained ideas floating around in that big empty skull.
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
-
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
-
@philjames8148
"The boom and bust cycles are more of a result of outside forces like government intervention."
Right, like Tulip Mania...oh wait no.
"The 1922 crash was a result over expansion of credit. The crash self corrected in 6 months without any government intervention."
Which was a result of soldiers returning after WWI and not having jobs. There was no underlying mass debt or speculation associated with this downturn. Comparing it to the likes of 1929 or 2008 is obviously disengenuous.
"The 1929 crash was a result of multiple factors. The market had began to recover in the following months."
Total bollocks. The crash was far too large for a recovery to happen that fast, and was in conjunction with droughts and global economic issues. People were speculating up to their eyeballs, mortgaged their homes to buy 10 times as many stocks as the mortgage value, and lost the whole lot. It was a disaster.
"The 1972 crash from the oil prices. The government again intervened and set price caps this caused major shortages and slowed the economy to a crawl."
The alternative being allowing the poor to just not have fuel. It was a global shortage. World oil prices peaked in 1980, nothing Reagan did changed the global price.
"The 2008 crash a result of politicians forcing the lowering of credit standard."
The Credit Standards were only lowered on loans that banks wanted to sell to the government. Large investment firms had been buying up sub-prime loans for years at this point, and were the epicentre of the crash. In fact, the largest investment firm crash was larger than the entire government loan failure. There was also the fraudulent rating agencies, who were sued for billions by the government for their failures to accurately rate loans, and were the main cause of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failing. The only problem with the government intervension was they should have done what other nations did and bought up companies that were failing, allowing the general public to get their money back on a bailout. This crony capitalism that lead to massive payments to private firms for literally no obligation should never have happend. The recovery however would never have been quick. Global economic downturns don't correct overnight.
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
Tulip Mania
WWI job shortage
1929 market speculation at such high levels people were mortgaging their homes and buying 10 times the amount in stocks.
Oil was globally highly priced and globally short in 1980, and nothing Reagan did changed that.
2008 crash was mostly incorrectly and fraudulently rated loans, but the worst were subprimes, which were not federally backed, had no regulatory requirements related to risk or rating, and were purchase en masse by investment firms, who failed at the very start of the crash and triggered a chain reaction. The rating agencies were also sued for billions by the state. If you want I can be more specific, which is that even though the state had huge numbers of loans they has purchased using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase market liquidity, a program they have been operating for generations, the hole left by the crash was smaller than the catastrophic failure that was the investment firms. They speculated like mad and lost.
So you're just going to ignore all that and claim the Fed caused massive market speculation in both 1929 and 2008, and global oil shortages in 1980.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke Again, Sowell claimed, contrary to pretty much every criminologist on the planet, that crime went up in the 60s, 70s and 80s because of welfare.
He ignored that most people believe crime increased due to the aging boomer population. As they reached their early 20s crime increased accordingly. As they aged out in the mid 90s, crime went down. There is also the lead pipes theory, the war on drugs causing mass incarcerations leading to recidivism, the switch of drugs over to cocaine and crack, the second phase of the Great Migration causing huge economic issues for the black communities, and general economic issues such as the global oil shortage. None of this relates to welfare causing crime, and in fact crime went down while welfare still exists.
So thanks. I win.
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
-
@terrific804
"Finally, the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treatment. Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work,
and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in
passport form."
"The Conference,
considering that, in the moral, legal and material spheres, refugees need
the help of suitable welfare services, especially that of appropriate non-
governmental organizations,
recommends Governments and inter-governmental bodies to facilitate,
encourage and sustain the efforts of properly qualified organizations."
Also, food, education and housing are all rights listed in the other articles of human rights, soooo.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The questions can be annoying, but that doesn't make them hard to answer. For example, you own question:
"I don't dislike Jodie as the 13th Doctor due to her gender, but simply because I believe there are other people, men or women, who would be better for the job. I wasn't a big fan of Patrick Troughton or Paul McGann either, but that's nothing to do with anything other than what I believed the character was capable of, and how it was handled by them, and by extension is currently being played out by Jodie. I mean I'm not saying it's possible, but could you imagine Tilda Swinton as the Doctor."
You get the point. In this same way Ben could answer these questions, however he can't because his answers would either reveal him to be a horrific hypocrite, or would make huge segments of his own audience hate him.
The tweets are valid because they are a direct example of Ben coarsening the public discourse...which was exactly what he wrote a book about. It's also not other people's YouTube video titles. The titles came from both his own channel, and the Daily Wire channel, which he owns and is chief-editor of.
The BBC are said to be bias by both the left and right wing. This is usually a good sign that they are neither. In fact you would struggle to find any actual significant political leanings in either direction, Ofcom have found time and time again.
1
-
@picamike It's not the questioning that has given me conclusions about Ben in this interview. Answering the questions is actually very easy, as I showed you, but Ben likes to weasel out of them or give wildly insufficient answers. Just look at his answers on Trump and imagine if he put this much effort into every question rather than attacking the interviewer.
It's not to push a narrative, it's to create an opposing stance for Ben to answer questions to.
Ben is a political figure who wrote a political book, a book specifically on the downfall of Judeo-Christian values and reason, and the demise of modern society via hedonism and materials, while also laying quite heavily into political discourse. In that context all of the questions asked actually hit very close to the topics in the book. Comparing this to a fantasy novelist is juvenile.
They are on Ben's channel though, which is why he stated it that way, Ben lied. They are also on his news network, the Daily Wire.
Question Time chooses their panel based on representatives from major political parties. Almost all of the political parties were against Brexit. Meanwhile Andrew Neil has been used as an example of the BBC being too far to the right. Their coverage of Jeremy Corbyn was seen as an attack and a series of hit pieces by many. There are plenty of examples of people on the left being upset with the BBC. Objectively, you are wrong. But I'm not shocked that someone who still thinks Brexit was a good idea would also think the BBC is too left-wing.
Then you end on a sweeping generalisation, as if right-wingers have never tried to silence people they disagree with. Ben was literally trying to belittle the interviewer in this video, and you've overlooked it.
1
-
@picamike
Andrew wasn't the one being questioned, and Ben avoided questions so hard he left the interview.
I'm not doing anything remotely close to what Andrew did. Your stance on Brexit is bad and you should feel bad. I could also go into the numerous reasons, such as the $350M for the NHS lie, and more.
That's just not the format of Questiontime. They give equal representation to political parties. Neither the Conservative or Labour parties were in favour of it.
The comparison to JK is juvenile, not her comments. Again, Ben was asked questions that related to his book.
Sweeping statements about free speech, when in reality the sort of speech they mean is usually hate speech. You also play into the US narrative of free speech not being guaranteed, which is just silly.
I also pointed out Ben flat out lied about some things, which he did. He lied both about the videos on his own and the Daily Wire YouTube channels, and about his tweets, which were very quickly corrected.
It took him 3 times to answer a question on new abortion laws, an answer which was "science, life begins at conception" which is the laziest answer he could have given, all so he could squeeze in more time to attack the interviewer.
He refused to answer as to his opinion on how people describe him in their YouTube video titles, instead just saying that "people can describe me however they please" which says nothing of his actual feeling on the matter.
Skipped questions on his comments on Obama's state of the union which he called fascist, calling it "bad and wrong" and failed to explain his comments at all.
He tried to deflect on the idea that some Jews are not real Jews religiously when asked about his comments on Jews voting for Obama. This would only make sense if he believes that the only real Jews are Zionists, meaning even actual religious Jews should be ignored if they support Obama or are not Zionists, which btw is a fascist stance to hold.
Attacks the interviewer again, saying he is trying to make a quick buck (which as a Brit you know is utterly ridiculous).
When asked about the contradictions between Judeo-Christian culture and his actions he attacks the interviewer again, not even feigning an answer.
I'm really not sure where you conclusion even comes from, other than the idea that you agree wholeheartedly with every word out of his mouth. It's the only thing that would make sense.
1
-
@picamike
1. The lie was that we would have more money, and the insinuation was that said money would go to the NHS. Neither of those things turned out to be true. That is not an opinion, that is objectively true. The money going to the EU was more than made up for in trade agreements, which we now don't have. But sure, pick on the vaccines, and not the rising poverty rates, high inflation stats or general lack of investment in an economy literally built around people investing in it.
2. That's why courts exist. The examples you gave went to court who weighed in on the definition. The police horse remarks for example were 15 years ago. Freedom of hate speech discourages discussion as it marginalises and threatens people. And no, limiting hate speech is not the wrong side of history, and never will be. Germany limited Nazi speech after WWII, do you think that was on the wrong side of history? Or do you think Nazis are the way forwards? Maybe your friends issue is that they're racists and sexists.
3. The questions aren't leading, they are counterpoints to Ben's stances. This is not bias, this is creating a 2-sided discussion out of an interview format. If Ben isn't challenged on his views how can we actually see the full breadth of them? And no, my criticism was more about Ben openly lying or evading questions because telling the truth would make him look bad.
And no, I don't want to speak to a racist Brexiteer that believes any fascist nonsense shoved in his face, despite all facts and logic to the contrary. Having you write our your nonsense is far more useful.
1
-
@picamike
So we're just not talking about Brexit losing money for Britain, courts being the deciding factors in hate speech laws and Ben being a lying fascist and going straight to you being a snowflake. Alright then, I'm game. Not really me not debating further and more you creating red herrings, but here we are.
"Yup, I'm a fascist despite wanting freedom of speech and openly inviting discussion whilst you wish to limit it."
It depends on the speech. Do I think that open debate is a good thing? Absolutely. Do I think that people should be allowed to say that immigrants are all terrorists and rapists, or that we should turn Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, or that people should be allowed to make up racist chants about there being "no black on the Union Jack" or any of the other racist nonsense I've seen growing up in the UK? No. I even had a friends who lived and grew up in the UK, but because his parents were from a brown country when he tried to open a takeaway in Manchester he was verbally berated and ended up with a brick through his window. I personally think that isn't protected, yet I'm sure you have a take on that. There is a very clear line here, and you are perfectly willing to cross it and claim it's a debate about free speech.
"I'm clearly racist for wanting to limit illegal immigration, despite it being you know... illegal."
The debate isn't about limiting illegal immigration, it's about limiting employment, family and asylum immigration, which are all legal. Trying to shift the narrative in an obvious attempt to make yourself palatable to the general public doesn't change much. Your whole legal/illegal argument is also infantile. Hate speech is illegal, so why are you supporting illegal speech? It's illegal don't you know, yet you support it anyway. See how quickly that line of reasoning falls apart?
"I must also be racist for believing in my own country and supporting a Australian style immigration system where people would apply to enter the country and we could choose who to accept based on their skill, or would that just make me a Brexiteer?"
The UK and Australia accept similar numbers of immigrants per year. In fact Australia accepts almost double as many as us per capita. So sure, lets use an Australian model to get immigrants. Oh look, nobody wants to come here because Australia has a wealth of resources that require skills to obtain and exceptionally high wages, and we have an investment economy that doesn't need physical people to manage the vast majority of it. Whoops.
"As much as you hated Ben for "attacking Andrew", you've done quite a bit of name calling yourself."
Yeah, I don't care. I'm not here for some top tier debate. If I were I certainly wouldn't be having it with someone that doesn't know the difference between facts and fiction. Even then, debates like that only serve a third part. Ben is a debate-phile, he really gets off on debating people to prove how right he is...to an audience. In a closed system he doesn't debate people because he needs an audience to think he's making sense, even when he isn't. Idolising the debate styles of people like Ben is to your own detriment.
Thanks for the quote though, because being able to see you when you think you've really got something is actually precious. Like, did you really think signing off on that would be some kind of slam dunk? It's actually ridiculous to see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. It's an interview, not a debate.
2. The statements Andrew Neil makes in this interview are not his own opinions. They are devil's advocate critiques to given Ben the opportunity to respond to the hardest opinions against him.
3. If you think Trump had good ideas then great, why didn't Ben just say that? He was trying to carefully politically distance himself from Trump in many ways without being too specific as that would hurt his following. Andrew Neil can target weaknesses like that directly, forcing dullards like you to answer on his behalf.
4. The BBC doesn't make money off ads. While they try to keep their viewer numbers up, they are not out to make a quick buck. This video isn't even monitised.
5. Andrew Neil is, and always has been, a Conservative in the UK. Sure, he's not an extremist, but again, the questions being asked here are not his opinions, they are critical questions designed to push Ben into corners.
The funny part is you saying he did no research after he:
Read Ben's book and quoted it multiple times.
Used comments from his book in contrast to the rest of his comments and social media presence to draw a contrast between what Ben says and his actual actions.
Showed that said contrasts were so strong that Ben was forced to ignore the questions and attack Andrew Neil instead.
Ben even apoligised for this interview.
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
-
Not instead of healthcare. Assisted suicide is an option for terminally ill patients. It's actually more ethical than the alternative when approached correctly.
The NHS is dramatically underfunded, and Brexit didn't help matters, worsening the staff shortages. We spend less than France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Austria and Netherlands. Even with all of that, we are somewhere in the top 10 to 15 for healthcare globally.
The alternative would be the US system, which is both dramatically more expensive, and covers far less. Medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy. Coverage costs hundreds per month, and that's before you even use your insurance. If you use your insurance your deductible before you get any coverage can be hundreds or even thousands.
The truth is that while people whine about the NHS, the alternative is a total disaster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robotron17
"I made no comment on how rare it was, just correcting your time frame."
Right, which is why I'm making a comment on it, and your time frame to stretch out to 3 months is rare. That's not to say that a positive test after a negative antigen test is not possible or rare, but that your time frame is off.
"Antigen tests are less accurate than PCR, which is why PCR is the gold-standard"
Depends what you're looking for and the type of antigen test. If you're looking for a specific molecule, then absolutely PCR all the way. If you want a rapid at home test then some antigen tests can be perfect for a rapid response, which, if positive, can be confirmed with PCR. There are also NAATs which also test for live infection. They are often used as a confirmatory test in a hospital setting.
"It is the only lab test listed as "confirmatory" by CDC:"
The quote you posted doesn't exist in the CDC website, which makes sense as it's nonsense. They openly support several different tests, including antigen and NAATs. They even have a whole separate page called: Test for Current Infection. Want to hazard a guess which tests they recommend. Oh right, NAATs and antigen tests. Not PCR. In fact, PCR isn't even on the page.
"Wrong. It's literally the official position that PCR detects active infection."
I've just proven that wrong, but okay.
"FDA:"
From the exact page you are quoting on:
"Molecular and antigen tests are types of diagnostic tests than can detect if you have an active COVID-19 infection."
Again, PCR is not mentioned on the page.
Even better is at the phrase molecular test it actually says this:
"Molecular Test: a diagnostic test that detects genetic material from the virus"
So nothing about active infections.... again.
"But of course, in reality, there is no evidence that a positive PCR is reliably indicating anything that is impacting your health or indicating that you are endangering anyone around you."
Good job the FDA and CDC agree then isn't it.
1
-
@robertmarmaduke9721
"They also paid doctor $10,000 for every 'CoVid'(sic) death certificate and hospitals $30,000"
False. These numbers are pulled from the average amount that Medicare pays out to hospitals for the insurance of covid patients. They would have to pay this money anyway as with or without covid the treatment was the same for the patient. There is no evidence of extra payments.
"anyone dying for any reason with PCR machine turned up to 40 tested 'positive'"
What does that even mean. Do you know how PCR works?
"You have not responded at all to the statistical impossibility that 'cases'(sic) peaked at the same time as Biden was selected, and statistical impossibility 'cases'(sic) fell 6.7x faster after the inauguration, than the rate of inoculation."
What makes it statistically impossible? People travelled for the holidays and cases peaked soon after. When they stopped travelling so much the cases died down. How is this a "statistical impossibility?"
"It's DOCUMENTED that CDC told test centers to turn the PCR test cycles down right after the inauguration."
It's not, but okay. If you have evidence of this then go right ahead and show it.
"And now the number of 'cases'(sic) is going back up, still without clinical diagnosis"
PCR is not the only diagnosis, and in fact live infections are tested for using NAATs and antigen tests.
"still without autopsies, despite the continued inoculations"
Right, because we have a group of people who are not vaccinated, and a new variant that makes the vaccine less effective. The new variant is also a lot more contagious.
"Vaxx that has PROVEN to have low-efficacy, and gives no immunity"
Efficacy is immunity, so it can't be low in 1 and zero in the other. Efficacy is around 42% for this variant. The reason we aren't seeing any alpha variant these days is mainly because of the inoculations.
Go learn what PCR is. Even robonuts here knows more than you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jwoods9659
"Name one green job, aside from the largest one" lol
Okay, wind turbine technician, grid integration engineer, energy transition specialist, renewable estimator and renewable energy designer. Then there are all the jobs that can be created when making these renewable products like:
Solar panels made in a dozen different states.
Wind turbine manufactures like GE Renewable Energy and PacWind.
Hydroelectric dam contraction jobs.
US biofuel manufacturing, which also reduces our reliance on oil.
Geothermal energy jobs, which could in reality be the real key to heating millions of homes for almost nothing, and are made by US HVAC companies, and installed by qualified geotechnical engineers.
At the end of the day the green energy sector creates more jobs per KWh than any other sector, and currently employs over 3 million Americans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@colebehnke7767
Of course socialism can allow strikes.
Some people do indeed have their surplus labour stolen. I'm not arguing that it is the norm, but it certainly does happen, and union movements are proof of that. Unions are specifically designed to give individuals the same bargaining power as companies. You cannot call the value of employment a fair exchange when one side is holding all the cards in a surplus labour economy. There will always be another worker, but workers cannot just go to any company, especially when said companies are all agreeing on a low wage together. Labour should not be deemed as worth more or less simply because there are more or less workers. The labour they produce is the same regardless.
So the answer is neither. Some workers have exploited wages due to low ability to bargain, an issue that unions heavily address. Protesting, usually through union action, is the foundation of many socialist movements. As soon as you take away collective bargaining you lose socialism.
What's very interesting is that you seem to be attacking socialism of 100 years ago, and not the socialism of today. The main argument these days being that democracy is the foundation of our society, and that we should strive to include collective reasoning into all facets of our lives, just as we have at the government level. Western nations all use some form of democracy to decide who is in charge, yet businesses do not. Is that ethically acceptable in this day and age? What if instead of owners and unions we simply had a company where ownership IS the union?
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
-
@Luis_GonzaIez
Talking fast isn't the issue, it's being able to actually understand the underlying issues in Ben's rhetoric.
I think you need to understand the distinction between speaking a certain way and having certain beliefs. Sure, Ben said these things a while ago, but he admits in this very interview that he still holds many of these beliefs, making them still very relevant. If your entire point is that Ben learned to stop showing how much of an extremist he is, then congratulations you managed it, but apologising for saying something offensive doesn't really matter when you still hold those beliefs.
This was a solid political interview that showed Ben to be a massive hypocrite who can't handle his own words being thrown back at him. Talks about his book, then gets annoyed when his book is looked at critically. This is not about past mistakes, as the RDJ interview was, this is about current beliefs.
And yes, Andrew Neil is know for critical political interviews with difficult questions. Something you would definitely struggle to find in the US. That's probably why you are unfamiliar with this sort of critical interview style. You would rather Ben gets thrown a softball question or two so he can stand on a podium and talk about how great he is, all while stoking extremism.
Even in the case of Krishnan Guru-Murthy, he is also known for strong political interviews, and celebrities going in and expecting TMZ style interviews with him are obviously sorely mistaken. They don't do their research and start talking to a guy known for interviewing heads of political parties, created a foreign affairs documentary, and was even on Newsnight. Honestly, watching the likes of RDJ and Tarantino walk into an interview about a movie and walk out because they get asked something difficult is pretty funny.
But I suppose that's just the problem isn't it. You're so used to softball baby questions that anything critical looks like an attack to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NoNameNoWhere
"democratic free market capitalist society"
Here is your confusion. This entire statement is an oxymoron. Something cannot be both capitalist and democratic. Nations that have capitalism may have democratic governments, but those governments are not capitalistic, and the capitalistic markets are not democratic. There is a split between what is democratic and what is capitalistic, because at not point is anything within that society both democratic and capitalistic at the same time, and there never can be something that is both at the same time, because then it wouldn't be capitalism or wouldn't be democratic.
Which makes your next statement worthless:
"Unless you want to argue that capitalism is left leaning when democratic"
If you mean that free markets are socialist when democratic, then yes. The issue with your statement here is that you can't distinguish capitalism from free markets. Free market socialism exists, and it is, as I have already explained, democratic in nature like all socialism. Market controlled capitalism also exists, usually referred to as state capitalism.
We also need to address this: "socialist dictatirship"
Socialism is a system of common ownership of the means of production. Common ownership requires common control either directly or through elected representation. That means democracy. Without democracy you don't have common ownership, meaning you don't have socialism. You just have more capitlaism or feudalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This is one part of U.S. policy where I side with republicans even though I'm a Democrat"
Understandable, and these sorts of issues really drive single issue independents.
"The way I see it, we have become the x on the map for a lot of foreigners"
That's literally always been the case.
"and most of them, like the Haitians are fleeing disastrously ran countries"
Also always been true. The Irish ran from the potato famine, the Jews ran from the holocaust and many many more examples.
"my fear is that they will bring that mess here"
Sure, I get that. The Italians brought mobs to New York. Things like this are an inevitability when allowing a lot of migrants in. The thing to take into account is that the vast majority of the people being let in have nothing to do with any of that. Why assume the worst and ban potential sources of labour? Immigrants are a net gain for the economy after all.
"Covid disrupted so much in this country and most of it has yet to get back to normal... so what do we do when enough of them show up that things get strained or crowded here?"
I would argue that the real issues with covid are from the locals not vaccinating and wearing masks. Green card applicants are required to vaccinate starting today. That's a good step in the right direction.
"We already live in a country that seems like it's in short supply of mercy"
So your plan is to provide even less mercy?
"so do we really have the resources to be the world's food bank?"
We aren't. Again, immigrants are a net gain. Asylum seekers as well pay in more than out.
"I'm a no on this one. Go back to your own countries, go fight your own wars, go fix your nation's mess and stop crawling to our doorstep begging for a hand out."
It's really not their fault though. In fact, a lot of the time the US is the reason they're coming here in the first place. How many governments has the US manipulated and sanctioned based on them being too socialist? In fact the top 3 countries that send immigrant caravans to the US are El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
El Salvador's - In the 70s the US funded the local Salvadoran military government to end a civil war the way they wanted. Their involvement of arming a literal military dictatorship against locals caused over 70K deaths, and displaced over 1 million people, 500K of which because refugees.
Guatemala - The CIA in 1954 backed a coup and ousted the leader, leading to a 36 year civil war, lasting from 1962 to 1996. The war killed at least 140K people and 1.2 million people were displaces, with 200K of them over to other countries.
Honduras - For around 2 decades in the 80s and 90s the CIA supplied the Honduras government and their "death squad" with information of rising communist rebel movements. They also used this as a base of operations to train Salvadorans in the previously mentioned civil war.
Saying these people need to "Go back to your own countries, go fight your own wars, go fix your nation's mess and stop crawling to our doorstep begging for a hand out", when that exact issue is caused by the US actively funding the "mess", is a fundamentally broken ideal to hold. There is simply no good ethical, financial or political reason not to let in immigrants.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@ExPwner
"No one else cares about 100 year old texts from idiot socialists because they aren’t an authoritative source."
They literally wrote the book on socialism, so yes, they are the authorititive source. Let me guess, you would rather we got our definition of socialism from capitalists?
"If it was about intellectual honesty then you wouldn’t be saying “socialist thinkers” should define socialism AND capitalism."
Socialist thinkers don't define capitalism, capitalists do, and they define it as the private ownership of the means of production. Everyone agrees on that.
"Yet here you are, spewing your “state capitalist” oxymoron because you want your feelings to dictate definitions"
Except it does fit the definition. In state capitalism businesses are still owned privately, but the markets they operate in is heavily directed by the state. You can argue that it is therefore not capitalism, however the type of capitalism that you subscribe to is specifically called "free market capitalism" for a reason. Will has even been so ignorant as to use free markets with capitalism interchangably, but that would just mean that the name free market capitalism means "free market free market" or "capitalism capitalism" it makes no sense. Therefore, there must be a difference between free markets and capitalism. I'm sure you want to try to discredit the likes of William Connolly, Janet Coleman, David Miller and Alan Ryan, all economists or political theoriest. There are plently more, people who point out the obvious lack of socialism in the Soviet Union, and who go into details on how fascism actually functions.
Your problem is you continue to operate on a strawman, failing to actual define terms and continuing to misrepresent your opposition. The existence and theorising of market socialism alone blows your entire failed definition out of the water. Your definition doesn't fit actual socialism, therefore it fails to accurately define it, therefore it is incorrect or incomplete.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bill Billson
"$15 wages ages when the market doesn't call for it does not increase wealth"
What a load of bollocks. If you pay people more they have more wealth. It rocket science you spanner. The wage is double for some people.
"Increase unemployment"
An empty statement with nothing to back it up. Not only has the nominal minimum wage been higher in the past, it increased spending among the lowest earners, increasing overall spending and pushing businesses to perform better.
"The more you intervene the more severe these problems will be"
Oh sure. Let's just let monopolies crush the balls of the working class. Why not remove minimum wage and bring back slavery while we're at it? The only thing stopping things from being worse is the minute hold government has.
"But you fail to realize that ran programs are the most expensive"
1. By supplementing health the government stop medical bankruptcies. These are both terrible for the economy and yet still make up the majority of bankruptcies. Without Medicare and Medicaid we would see both more debt and more death, resulting in increases in unpaid debts. This would ruin the economy. These programs save money as a result. Also, due to various Republican policies, these programs could be cheaper, but just aren't.
"Gov healthcare and social sec that dens want account for over
half our spending"
Sure, if you ignore the discretionary spending, which is defense 57% of the time, and changes the total budget. Moreover, social security it paid for by people who pay into it, and Medicaid and Medicare pay for themselves.
1
-
@billbillson5082
"Ok, so why just 15? Why not raise it to 5000 an hour?"
Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum a family can survive on. That definition had shifted over the years, to the point where people cannot survive on it any longer.
"monopolies are nearly impossible in an actual free market."
Bullshit. Monopolies are the end result of a free market. Government is the only thing stopping monopolies. Large corporations are what stop people from entry into the market.
"ok, you runa business and have your workers wages increase to $15 an hour. Guess what happens? You won’t have money to support that, so you’ll lay off the appropriate number to maintain some sort of revenue."
Or, you just raise prices to match the increase in wages. Do you know how much McDonalds would need to increase their prices to pay for a $15 wage? A 4.3% increase in prices. Wow, just fucking wow. Look at that disastrous inflation in action. How ever will we as a country survive? It's almost as if most of these business have operating costs tied up in purchasing and rent rather than wages. How crazy is that? This is also usually proposed over 5 years so by the time we get there the value of a dollar would have dropped roughly another 10% if the last 5 years are anything to go by.
"Most of them are on the brink themselves lol, and barely managing to get by while taking on enormous risk."
If the business owners aren't earning any money then they aren't paying taxes, aren't using their dividends to pay for things, and aren't contributing anything to the economy, especially if all their workers are on starvation wages and food stamps. Their employees in turn are also not paying taxes. They are actually taking from the economy by throwing away good money after bad. Their eventual bankruptcy from having such a shitty exploitative business model will only further harm economic strength.
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
-
@ExPwner
"Companies are organized into four industry categories: manufacturing, construction, retail, and other."
So not controlled for location and specific industry as I literally just asked.
"Workers are identified by broad job category: apprentices, production workers, clerical workers, and managers. Information on education is unavailable"
Jesus. THIS is your source?
"Certainly, the models we have investigated ignore many confounding features such as the costs of making input adjustments, intertemporal considerations, and issues associated with bargaining.
Moreover, because of lack of data, we have ignored the prices of many other inputs such as raw materials and energy and variations in these other input prices are unlikely to be uncorrelated with variations in the price of capital. These issues are worthy of further investigation."
I mean, when they actively tell you the data is shit try listening. The fact that they employ more people but keep far less capital should be your first clue. They are not matching like for like. The cooperative sample size is just too small to generalise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertadams6606
"You are irrelevant. Nothing you said makes any of this possible."
Doesn't change if it's right or wrong though does it.
"You just don't know the truth about this issue."
I just told you the truth. DC voted to become a state. MD doesn't want to absorb them. What more do you need to know?
"You can't overturn the Constitution just because it doesn't suit you at the moment."
They aren't. They are changing the size of the district to remove everything except the capitol buildings. The residents of DC will no longer be considered "the capitol" which will free them from the district and allow them to be a state.
"Chuck is lying it will not become law."
No, Chuck is stating the reason it should be a law, outlying that it could become law and stating what will happen if it does become law.
"Dems seem to think that whenever they don't agree with something that some bill or vote will make it OK."
That usually how you change laws yes.
"The reason behind it doesn't matter because it won't get overturned."
Of course it matters. Republicans denying the people of DC equal representation will always be important, no matter how many times they vote them down.
"The DEMS ARE OUT TO DESTROY AMERICA"
If by destroy American you mean giving people you disagree with representation at the federal level, then yes. It's very typical for Republicans to think that people being represented is a bad thing, hence the long string of popular vote defeats by the GOP/GQP.
"I FOR ONE WILL NEVER AGREE TO THIS"
Well you said it best, you are irrelevant. This is between DC, MD and congress, not you. I am stating an argument, but I don't expect people to agree. I came to logical conclusions, and you yelled and shouted.
"you are being used by this issue"
This issue of giving people equal representation at the federal level. Hard to be used by something I agree with. You on the other hand agree with representation, but are somehow warped into a twisted belief that people getting what they voted for is bad. I would expect nothing else from the GQP, your lot are used to getting something other than what they voted for by your dear leaders, but some of us are somewhat hopeful of a government that can make good choices. Besides, this movement is in the open now, and will come to fruition eventually. It's only a matter of time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
"The prices of stocks soared to fantastic heights in the great “Hoover bull market,” and the public, from banking and industrial magnates to chauffeurs and cooks, rushed to brokers to invest their liquid assets or their savings in securities, which they could sell at a profit. Billions of dollars were drawn from the banks into Wall Street for brokers’ loans to carry margin accounts. The spectacles of the South Sea Bubble and the Mississippi Bubble had returned. People sold their Liberty Bonds and mortgaged their homes to pour their cash into the stock market. In the midsummer of 1929 some 300 million shares of stock were being carried on margin, pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to a peak of 381 points in September. Any warnings of the precarious foundations of this financial house of cards went unheeded.
Prices began to decline in September and early October, but speculation continued, fueled in many cases by individuals who had borrowed money to buy shares—a practice that could be sustained only as long as stock prices continued rising. On October 18 the market went into a free fall, and the wild rush to buy stocks gave way to an equally wild rush to sell. The first day of real panic, October 24, is known as Black Thursday; on that day a record 12.9 million shares were traded as investors rushed to salvage their losses. Still, the Dow closed down only six points after a number of major banks and investment companies bought up great blocks of stock in a successful effort to stem the panic that day. Their attempts, however, ultimately failed to shore up the market.
The panic began again on Black Monday (October 28), with the market closing down 12.8 percent. On Black Tuesday (October 29) more than 16 million shares were traded. The Dow lost another 12 percent and closed at 198—a drop of 183 points in less than two months. Prime securities tumbled like the issues of bogus gold mines. General Electric fell from 396 on September 3 to 210 on October 29. American Telephone and Telegraph dropped 100 points. DuPont fell from a summer high of 217 to 80, United States Steel from 261 to 166, Delaware and Hudson from 224 to 141, and Radio Corporation of America (RCA) common stock from 505 to 26. Political and financial leaders at first affected to treat the matter as a mere spasm in the market, vying with one another in reassuring statements. President Hoover and Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon led the way with optimistic predictions that business was “fundamentally sound” and that a great revival of prosperity was “just around the corner.” Although the Dow nearly reached the 300 mark again in 1930, it sank rapidly in May 1930. Another 20 years would pass before the Dow regained enough momentum to surpass the 200-point level."
"The lack of government oversight is regarded as a cause of the 1929 crash, with policies based on laissez-faire economic theories"
To put things into perspective, people mortgaged their houses to buy stocks. The stocks they bought they only had to put down 10% of the total value of stocks, so people were putting their life savings times 10 into the market. All the extra cash caused the market to explode. Said explosion lasted right up until a single market began to slump. The small slump made everyone cut and run, crashing the whole thing.
See, sinple.
So how is that government?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keonyang3332
Again, the serial number has to be traced using paper records to individual gun shops. 4473s are not digitised, are not held by the ATF, and are not required for individual sales. Tracing a gun found in NYC can take a long time, and usually leads to a gun shop down in Georgia or South Carolina. Finding the specific shop in the sea of sellers and paper records can be arduous, and again, that's if they didn't buy the gun privately down there which requires no 4473. The idea that this is the same as a registry, where guns can be matched directly to people's name and address, and can be checked in real time against the ID of the person with it, is just ridiculous. There is no registry, in fact the laws are designed specifically to make a registry illegal.
Nope, guns are the leading cause of both suicides and homicides. According to the FBI in 2019 guns were used in over 10,000 homicides, hands and feet were used in just 600. Seriously, where do you get these obvious propaganda statistics from?
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
-
@KameradVonTurnip
Here, let me break it down a little to help you:
"Ever heard of Conservative Socialism or Bourgeois Socialism? The ORIGINAL Socialist."
Neither of these are actually socialism, which is why these days we use the term paternalistic conservatism. They are conservative efforts to try to steal support away from socialist parties and policies. The idea was if conservatives gave people welfare, solving some of the immediate issues in society, then people would be grateful and forget about the wealth of issues that socialism is also trying to tackle. Otto von Bismarck's entire premise for creating welfare programs was to blunt the push of the socialist party at the time, which would have pushed him out of power. The idea that nonarchist, nobles and aristocrats didn't work in direct conflict of socialist parties is nonsense.
"Where do you think Bourgeois comes from? It's French for Middle Class. The Original Socialist targeted the Middle Class because they were a threat to their "POWER""
At the time the middle class was a very small subset of business owners who spent most of their time dramatically underpaying workers and asking children to climb between large pieces of machinery. The idea that the Bourgeoisie were anything like the middle class of today is a joke.
"Capitalist don't even disappear in Socialism, they just become Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini and all those who serve under them, becoming a new exploiting ruling class"
So you admit that these systems were in fact state capitalism run by oligarchs and not in fact socialism at all. Thanks I guess.
"Without some central power you can not twist people's arms to be good LOYAL socialist without Authority."
Welcome to every nation and every economic system ever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"Then why did you claim NAZI Germany was capitalist"
I didn't. I was explaining that the reason socialism is opposed to capitalism is because both are economic systems. Class socialism is the only way socialism can actually exist. Race socialism is not a thing.
"Even under Marxism, no the public cannot decide how the money is spent, only the proletariat can."
Which is the public.
"There will be no politics anymore, chance no need for democracy anymore, everyone would be from each according to his ability to each according to his need and live forever happy ever after."
This is the end stage of communism, where there is literally no government, stateless.
"Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat."
Again, this means that if democracy is not used to create a system of common ownership then all you are doing is moving around deck chairs on the Titanic. This does not negate democracy, it informs people that voting against socialism is voting against their own interests.
"In capitalist society, under the conditions most favorable to its development, we have more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing classes, only for the rich."
It should be noted that voting rights at the time were very strict in many nations, only allowing men who owned land to vote.
"So in either Marxist's Socialist State or Communist State, there should be no Democracy."
Wrong. Check "A Communist Confession of Faith" for your answer:
"Answer: The first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution."
Democracy is always the goal.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"Btw, if nazism is not capitalism, why do you need to explain that "the reason socialism is opposed to capitalism is because both are economic systems."?"
Because you claimed that:
"The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews."
This is utterly nonsensical as it ignores what socialism actually is. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. There is no economic system that hates Jews. Hating Jews is entirely independent to an economic system.
"How could socialist erase all preexisting classes other than proletariat democratically."
By voting to ban private ownership of business, requiring either cooperative ownership, or public ownership. By definition, all people would then be part of the proletariat. All people would be workers.
"Or under your socialism, other pre-existing classes were not considered part of the "Society" and can be treated as resources for expropriate like Nazi did to Jews?"
So the Nazis democratically voted to make the Jewish people Nazis? What are you even trying to say here?
This is why your comparison falls flat. Proletariat and bourgeoisie are just economic positions. You are either a worker, or you are an owner. There is nothing stopping someone from being one then the other, and back to the one as well. Being Jewish however is not a movable goal.
The comparison would be like restricting someone's personal freedom for comitting a crime, or restricting someone's personal freedom for being black. One of these things is a changable characteristic that involves people making an active choice, the other is racism. This is also how the US mimics Nazi German racial rhetoric for generations, but I digress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cdgolem
"Yeah, darling, I'm going to provide the names of my deceased family members and their SSNs for some NPC Leftie."
Why not, they're dead. Are you really this simple?
"Why don't I do you one better, since you have dug so thoroughly and couldn't find any voter fraud through your exteeeeeeeeeensive research that I'm suuuuuuure you spent so much time doing."
I doubt it, since plenty of journalists have done digging and found nothing but actual voters.
"Check out Crowder's videos on election fraud where they physically went to the addresses listed for people"
Funny, because both reporters and election officials did exactly that. Of course this wouldn't be the first time Crowder has pulled some straight up bullshit. The sad part about Crowder's own video is he doesn't post a single source, doesn't show a single address and doesn't even prove he went to the correct addresses. He could submit this as evidence or give it to one of the dozens of court cases if he actual has a physical list. The really sad part is that he's claiming the addresses are changed, but since he never actually showed any addresses we have no way to know without a physical list.
Now if you really want to go all out and actual look at the addresses then we can do that. For example:
"579 Jackson Ave Las Vegas"
If you look of Google maps you can find there is a Jackson drive Henderson NV with the matching residential house number.
"1732 Yale street"
Which is across the road from an entire block of flats at 1731 Yale street.
I could go on, but I really don't think minor address issues are evidence of anything other than addresses were input incorrectly in the system.
Even better, you can just Google the names he lists and see if the people exist in Nevada, which they do.
"CNN and TYT are constantly saying not to listen to Fox, Crowder, Rush"
If that's your definition of Left-Right then Jesus Christ dude. Also, even Fox is saying the voter fraud claims are bull at this point. Rush was a conspiracy theorist who claimed some absolute batshit insane nonsense in an effort to sell merchandise, and Crowder doesn't have a good faith argument in his entire body. The thing Crowder is most famous for is going to university campuses, striking up an argument, and editing out hours of people making good points against him.
"and I know this because I happen to watch both sides so that I stay informed and I don't turn into a mindless NPC like you"
So you watch CNN and TYT? I don't by the way, I gather evidence from multiple independent sources without really watching any of them in any detail.
"step outside the echo chamber and bubble you live in"
You know what video we're on right?
"actually look at the evidence that your side will not show you."
I have, and I've explained it too. Again, why not just contact the named people and ask them if they voted?
1
-
@cdgolem
"Leftist NPC"
Immediately followed by you telling me to follow right-wing news sources like they're the God's honest truth while saying I need to go to the original sources without a hint of irony.
"Rush was not a conspiracy theorist."
He was. Now that's not to say his conspiracy theories were accurate or not, but he absolutely was a conspiracy theorist. These include, but are not limited to:
Joe Biden not legitimately winning the election.
Claiming "hydroxychloroquine is okay" for COVID-19.
Claiming Biden's American Medical Association speech was prerecorded and edited together.
Said that Covid is just the common cold.
This rambling nonsense on Climate change:
"Climate change is nothing but a bunch of computer models that attempt to tell us what's going to happen in 50 years or 30. Notice the predictions are never for next year or the next 10 years. They're always for way, way, way, way out there, when none of us are going to be around or alive to know whether or not they were true."
Claiming a shooter in Jacksonville was part of some sort of Trump resistance, when the Reddit profile referenced by his sources was the wrong one.
Claimed hurricanes had not hit the US in 11 years.
Talking about the existence of Gorillas debunking evolution.
Said that the Obama "regime" planned the influx of illegal alien children at the border.
Said the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn’t melting."
Claimed that Obamacare was going to increase the divorce rate.
I mean, you get the point right? Total loon.
"Also, there are no "independent" sources. The fact that you actually believe those exist shows just how ignorant you really are"
The trick is to general understand the biases and structures of your sources to form an informed viewpoint. You seem to stick really hard to Newsmax along with outlets who get all their opinions from the likes of Newsmax and not much else.
"You need to go to the sources."
Then do that. Why are you sending me to a Crowder video rather than downloading and posting the actual addresses. Moreover, me viewing and researching the addresses and figuring out they are probably just mistyped, and actual addresses that correlate to those addresses exist, IS me going to the sources. I used Crowders own claims to show how a very small change could legitimately show how those addresses could very easily be real, but inputted incorrectly.
"I merely pointed you to a guy who published a story about his team fact-checking the voter roles and an interview with an official whose job it was to maintain accurate voter roles."
So not the sources, but someone else, which you just told me not to do....... Why not just contact the people listed? Wouldn't that be far easier than going to an incorrectly input address?
"Keep on living in your bubble"
So far you seem to hover around right wing news sources like a fly around sheep shit. Seriously, what hypocrisy. For example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/08/fact-check-false-claim-14-k-dead-people-voted-michigan/6201900002/
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/2-georgians-accused-of-being-dead-and-voting-are-alive/85-88dff3c1-8e78-4ac2-ae9c-96838e5b02a8
https://www.ktnv.com/news/nevada-finds-handful-of-possible-dead-voters-in-2020-no-widespread-fraud
You get the point. Well you don't because you won't read these, but whatever.
"buttercup" "cupcake. 😘"
Weird flirt but okay. You know I'm a dude right?
1
-
@cdgolem
"You get the point. Well you don't because you won't read these, but whatever."
"Too bad I'm too bored, by now, with your ignorance to read it."
And it's just that easy. Seriously, you're so transparent they could use you as a sneeze guard.
"Hope you had fun wasting a half hour writing your essay"
So wait, are you annoyed that I did my own research? But you just told me to do my own research.
"narcissistic and slightly psychotic"
He says, ignoring everything I wrote and declaring victory.
"over a stranger putting out facts on the Interwebs"
Would help if you posted any.
"I see now why you are so entrenched in your opinions that you can't consider the possibility that your skewed version of the world is wrong."
Says the guy claiming victory after NOT READING OPINIONS THAT DON'T MATCH HIS OWN, Jesus Christ dude, see the cognitive dissonance.
"As they say, you can lead a Leftie to the Facts"
What facts, what research? You made a claim earlier, I asked for evidence, and you bailed like a chump.
"but you can't make 'em think"
Is that what Newsmax tells you to say?
"just keep on choosing "truth" over facts"
Like actual verifiable facts that you've posted here? I will as soon as you show any.
"sweet-cheeks" "pudding"
Again with the weird pet names. Seriously, there are websites for that sort of thing, and this ain't one of them. I know mentally deficient people tend to make these sorts of mistakes, but you really need to learn the time and place.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@Alamandorious
Since you've decided to display your complete ignorance yet again I suppose I'll give you my full undivided attention so that we can really nail down your exact issues.
So let's start at the beginning shall we:
"So, right off the get go, hostile questions with clear bias in favor of one side of the political spectrum."
It doesn't matter the whole point of doing this is to present a point to be responded to. Who the point "belongs" to is irrelevant, as is your claims of hostility. All that matters is the content of the question.
"That's not playing devils advocate, that's not being neutral, that's not being a journalist...that's being an activist."
It actually is playing Devil's Advocate. Andrew presented an opposing opinion to Ben's in an effort to give him something to contend with. Balancing out the opinion is the essence of neutrality. And getting someone to answer hard questions absolutely IS journalism. Would you rather he rolled over and let Ben talk about his book with absolutely zero challenge to his points? What point would there be? They may as well just shove a poster of his book on the screen and call it a day, would be much cheaper. Also, the idea that Andrew is an activist even though he does not share the sentiment of the vast majority of the questions he poses is pretty hilarious.
"You don't get a sense of hostility from someone playing devil's advocate...you wouldn't have sentences directly accusing Conservatives of wanting to adopt policies that come straight out of the dark ages."
Why not? Political points that challenge your side of the aisle will always come off as hostile. All Ben had to do was explain that his side is not in the Dark Ages, and in fact his opponents are. That's it. Disagreeing with the way something is said doesn't change that the response is very easy to present, and that the question prompts a solid answer. Ben misunderstands this, as you do as well.
"When one plays devil advocate, one clearly identifies that they are playing devil's advocate."
Wrong. This is simply categorically false, and the main source of your misunderstanding. Literally all you are doing is expressing opinions that you do not hold yourself, and that contrast the opinions of others. That's it. There is no requirement to announce that you are playing Devil's Advocate, especially not from Andrew Neil, who does this in literally every interview.
"He presented his question very nearly as a chastisement, making the implication that no good ideas come from the Conservative side of things."
"Very near" and "implication" are the two phrases you should focus on here. You openly admit that he did not in fact chastise or state anything, he merely implied it.
"It would be like me asking you,"Leftists don't read the full response before forming a counter argument, which Conservatives seem to always seem to, so why should I engage with you?""
This is you being obtuse. You are also making an absolute statement here. Andrew is very careful to use terms like "seem like" when putting questions to people, while you went all out with a claim. That's the difference between a tough questions and a loaded one. This also obvious shot was the childishness I was referring to.
Which is why when you say:
"Funny how when it's happening to you, you can see it for what it is"
It's because you failed to grasp the concept.
"In every example of someone playing devil's advocate, the fact that they are is made obvious. What the interviewer was doing was not playing devil's advocate, but attempting to catch Mr. Shapiro in a 'Gotcha' moment, which in turned laid the biases of the interviewer bare."
Wrong, wrong and wrong, as explained above.
So there you go. Enjoy going back to watching softball interviews on Fox.
1
-
1
-
@Alamandorious Actually in my replies I posted pretty much the exact definition of Devil's Advocate:
"If you play devil's advocate in a discussion or debate, you express an opinion which you may not agree with but which is very different from what other people have been saying, in order to make the argument more interesting."
"someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail"
"To argue against or attack an idea, argument, or proposition—even if one is in favor of it—for the sake of debate or to further examine its strength, validity, or details. Refers to the "Advocatus Diaboli," a person employed by the Catholic Church to argue against the canonization of a saint (and therefore help determine if that person is truly worthy of sainthood)."
See how none of these definitions require you to announce it? In fact most people who do this announce it after the fact, if at all.
But sure, post me the exact definition that shows that it's only valid if you let people know first, because that changes the arguments being presented doesn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@suzannalytle2758 Good job it does all those things then. Also has small business loans and grants, SNAP benefits extensions, vaccine distributions, FEMA Disaster Relief Fund funding, school funding, college funding, child care assistance, senior food assistance, mortgage assistance, WIC program funding, COBRA subsidies, child tax credit expansions and ACA premium tax credits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Garapetsa No, you said worst because you're pushing a bias narrative. The fallout from Katrina took years to get over, and FEMA failed the area dramatically as a result. For example:
After levees failed across New Orleans and water poured into the streets, disarray marked the response. With faint understanding of the city's topography, Brown and FEMA's top brass weren't aware of the magnitude of the flood. They dismissed reports from Marty Bahamonde, FEMA's only staffer on the ground, that the 17th Street Canal wall had broken and later that 80 percent of New Orleans was underwater. Brown told CNN that FEMA didn't know for three days that hundreds of people were trapped at the Convention Center with no food or water.
After rescues were well underway, FEMA turned away offers of personnel and supplies from the Department of Interior and denied a request from the state Wildlife & Fisheries agency for 300 rubber boats. It was slow to provide food, shelter, and supplies to first responders and stranded residents alike. Its leaders bickered with Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin over who was in charge.
And when the response switched to recovery, there were the infamous FEMA trailers, those glorified recreation vans, hastily built and steeped in toxic resins, that populated yards and vacant lots for years after the storm.
They were only supposed to be in place for up to 18 months. The last one purportedly left New Orleans in February 2012, more than six years into the recovery. By then it was the wrong kind of icon: a symbol of FEMA's grinding, inept bureaucracy.
Comparing the current series of flash floods to KATRINA is just a joke. Doing so because the price of flood insurance has increased, which is obviously should have given the frequency and intensity of flooding in the region, is unbelievably idiotic at best, horrendously insensitive at worst.
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
-
@springbloom5940
"No, hes saying that existing laws are insufficiently enforced."
Why did he even get that far though? If he had a drug habit shouldn't they have been able to figure that out before handing him a firearm?
"So, wanton violation of Due Process, then?"
If he was using the gun before buying drugs due process would be to not let him have a gun.
"Heres a little integrity test; every restriction you want to apply to 2nd Amendment Rights, first apply to other Rights you enjoy. For example: psychological evaluations and lengthy waiting periods for voting, internet posting, abortion, legal representation, etc."
Never seen anyone get killed from voting. It's almost like we introduce greater restrictions on things that are more dangerous. For example, misdemeanors don't stop you from voting, but domestic violence misdemeanors stop you from buying a firearm. Comparing voting, speech, abortion and legal representation to obtaining a weapon designed to kill people is a bit of a joke.
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
-
@freyfaust6218
"Colonialism, which is the forced takeover and suppression of other cultures, existed well before Marx insulted the challengers to the monarchies."
Agreed.
"Colonialism is what Marxism is in application: the forced destruction and suppression of existing cultures"
Not even close.
"Marxism is the violent, colonialist projection of an aspect of German culture on the whole world."
Except we already agreed it doesn't need to be violent. Also, pretty sure Germany already had a violent colonialist projection on an aspect of German culture onto the world.
"Current, so- called democracies are socialist Frankenstein monsters, i.e. Fascist."
Got it, democracy is fascism. Black is white. Up is down.
"Their governments manipulate the value of money and steer the markets, using the public purse to drive inflation and play favorites."
Which governments? You know there aren't any marxist government right?
"If Marx was truly interested in transferring all power to the hands of the people, he would have been against federalism, which has heralded a new era of top down control and the further concentration of wealth in the hands of the few."
Well he did. Communism's end goal is stateless and cashless. He forsore a future where democratic nations would be able to provide all the needs people would have.
"Revolutionaries have been stunned to find themselves in opposition to the proletariat, who want to own their own stuff, teach their children their own values and live as they choose."
Not really. Anti-vax nutters like yourself have always been around. You also have a vote. That's how democracy works. If you have enough voted then you aren't in opposition to anyone.
"Instead, Marxists insist that the working class are domestic terrorists for objecting to deforming the election process, for reclaiming the right to guide their children's moral orientation, sexual development, and pathway to health."
The election process is already deformed. It is wildly outdated and gives far too much power to small communities over the population as a whole. Why do you think Republicans stopped winning the popular vote? As for reclaiming rights, what about the children's rights? Are you saying we should be advocating for children to be controlled in their every decisions, from morality to healthcare, by their parents? If you beleive that then you are a crappy parent.
"Current Establishment Power is marxist, marked by the usual despotic corruption, militarism, colonialism and abuse of power that has accompanied all previous applications of Marx's theories."
I mean, at least we agree on the corruption in the US, even if you are ignoring the obvious corporate power and lobbying that causes it.
"Marx himself was no moral example for a new utopian era. He was a tyrant and a parasite, living off his friend's sponsorship, kept a domestic slave whom he impregnated and threw out on the street, neglecting his children."
Always nice to see you as a peddler of idle gossip.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freyfaust6218
"accepting that society treats people differently according to their skin... this is a tautology. A statement is not proof."
Right, but it does. If you want me to post data on this I can, but honestly is there even a need? I could simply point to a single ripple of redlining that people are still facing in predominantly minority communities, which is they have far less funding for their schools, leading to worse education, leading to worse outcomes.
Or I could point to the fact that Black individuals recieve prison sentences that are just over 19% longer for the same crimes when compared to White offenders. They are also 21% less likely to recieve non-government sponsored downward departure or variance (sentences lower than the minimum for a crime due to circumstances) and even when Black offenders did recieve those shortened sentences, they were still over 16% longer than White offenders. When accounting for violence in past criminal history the issue gets worse, with sentences not stretching 20% longer for Black offenders.
Or I could talk about stop and frisk in NYC, where 23.8% of people are African-America, but 59% of stop and frisks were on Black individuals. Only 7% of stop and frisks in NYC were on White individuals in 2022, out of 15,102 stops. Back when stop and frisk was being used sunstantially more, like in 2011, there were 685,724 stops, of which 53% were black. If you were black in NYC in 2011 the chances of being stopped and frisked were about 1 in 6 in that year. Those numbers climb sunstantially if you were aged 14-24, with 51% of stops hitting that age group. Your chances of being stopped increase to over 100% if you are in that 11 year age group.
This doesn't even touch on the various Black men and women held at gunpoint, followed and shot for simply existing, like:
Ahmaud Arbery for jogging while Black.
Philando Castile for driving while Black.
Dijon Kizzee for cycling while Black.
Breonna Taylor for sleeping while Black.
This doesn't even account the numerous increases in traffic stops for Black individuals, and their disproportionately negative treatment by police.
The Black community doesn't even trust doctors due to crap like the Tuskegee. And that doesn't even touch on the racism in how Black people are treated when they do go to the doctor. They are only half as likely to recieve opioid prescriptions compared to their White counterparts, allowing Black patients to exist in pain.
Then we get into the underlying issues with medicine itself, where doctors are primarily trained to treat White patients, meaning specific conditions that affect people of different races more commonly are ignored more often. Misdiagnosis is more common due to this issue. And who can blame them, when clinical trials usually have no requirement for racial diversity.
Then we get into things like mortgage loan algorithms, which have been shown to assign more risk to Black borrowers simply because of their skin colour when accounting for all other factors, leading to higher payments overall. This is all due to the algorithms being trained based on how loans were previously given out. They literally trained the system to be just as racist as the system that it was built on. Lenders were 80 percent more likely to turn down Black Applicants.
But sure, the left are the racists for accepting the reality of racism in the modern day. Maybe open your eyes for once.
Bonus points:
https://youtu.be/Vg_LNrRp6Kk
https://youtu.be/1WldZFy9Gzc
https://youtu.be/-e3T3VHmEkg
https://youtu.be/83WsgVnIQ8k
https://youtu.be/ds4H5IIy3kY
https://youtu.be/1PzraSeiXus
https://youtu.be/ZuZohmgOa00
https://youtu.be/j9TCXvx7Ie4
https://youtu.be/nETuhwq1URI
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner I actually can, glad you asked.
During segregation redlining means that neighbourhoods with even a single non-white resident were unable to recieve FHA loans. As such, over the course of around 30 years, White neighbourhoods became more affluent, which Black neighbourhoods tended to fall behind on home values. Combine this with the zoning of industrial buildings in historically Black areas and the funding of schools from catchment area property taxes, and you end up with dramatically less finding for Black schools.
Shoot forward to 1965 and although segregation ends, the people don't all suddenly move homes. Black neighbourhoods are still black neighbourhoods, mostly due to economic disparities caused by these generations of oppression. Since schools in Black neighbourhoods are also lower on funds, Black children get worse educations, and Black adults end up struggling to go to college as a result. While this issue has slowly been corrected over time, the simple truth is that education levels in Black communities are still the lowest in the nation.
The continued policy of funding schools using catchment area property taxes over a more fair country pooling system is both a holdover from redlining and segregation, and a blatantly racist policy that disproportiontely affects Black individuals due to generational poverty and historic racism.
Was that enough for you, or do you want an even deeper dive? Like when they just straight up stole property from Black people, or refused low cost loans to Black WW2 veterans. Let me know when I've explained enough for you to understand the situation we are in.
You're welcome for the history lesson by the way.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@UltralightMotorcycleCamping
Any in developed nations? Weird how gun nuts always points to places like Brazil, and not far more closely associated countries like Italy, France, Canada, Germany, Spain.
Because the issue is not the laws, but the fact they are worthless as they currently stand. Gun crimes would be lower, as they are in plenty of other developed nations, if the laws were more uniform.
Violent crime is broadly unchanged by local gun law changes. The real questions is where do guns in gun control areas come from. We already know the answer of course, it's from areas with lax laws.
I don't want to take you guns. Gun registration would substantially reduce illegal guns on the streets by making it substantially easier to track and trace the sources of said illegal arms. As for your decades of data, having a gun makes you more likely to be shot, fact. US homicide rates are high in all 50 states, not just the big cities, fact. The US is a major outlier in the developed world for having a ridiculously high homicide rate, fact.
History of US gun control:
1. Watch children get shot.
2. Do nothing substantial.
3. Claim nothing works.
4. Repeat.
1
-
@UltralightMotorcycleCamping
Never mentioned gun deaths, we were discussing the murder rate, which as I stated is substantially higher in the US. Nice red herring though.
All illegally owned firearms were at some point purchased legally. Buying guns from private sales doesn't change that those guns were once bought legally. There also is not a gun registry. All sale records are paper, and all paper records are only kept for 5 years. Of the guns used in crimes about 45% are purchased in private sales, and another 45% are bought in straw purchases. Criminals can report whatever they want, the fact is that owning a weapon makes you more likely to get killed. There is less crime in developed nations with gun control.
Why are you asking me to look at what someone else said? I advocate for registration, any attempt to claim otherwise is dishonest. The history of US gun control is failure. There are more guns than ever, with less ability to track them and more availability than ever for criminals. Every effort has been taken to make tracking gun origins and stopping the illegal purchase of guns almost impossible.
You know what would be a great defence against school shootings? Not giving people guns. Worked on Australia and the UK, both of which enacted stricted laws after shootings.
Again, you don't understand the second amendment, which is why you only post the second half of that sentence. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state". Of course, once you read that, and have half a brain in your head, you understand that it's about having a militia, not letting everyone have guns unfettered. If you look into it further you'll find that Hamilton wrote about a militia being an alternative to a standing army. So not only is it worthless as the US has a standing army now, it also means that anyone using the second amendment as a defence should agree to do whatever the military action the federal government asks of them. You should try watching the video you replied to.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
You can argue all day if yours is the correct definition, but you just admitted that the very ideology you are attempting to debunk does not use the terms private and personal property in the same way you do. Changing a term in an effort to warp a conversation has no real value. If you want to go ahead and talk specifically about private business ownership then we can do that, but we would also need to talk about how socialism and capitalism are sliding scales, how a nation can reduce capitalism and introduce socialism, and how many European countries have done just that to a very large extent even guaranteeing food, housing, medical care, social aid and more to all residents.
Wonderful, so we agree that North Korea's name does not match their policies, so much so that them calling themselves a democracy does not make them one. Not sure what your last point was about though, makes no sense to everything else that was said.
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
-
@oscartang4587u3
"no EU state aims to eliminate private ownership of means of production"
Hospitals are a means of production. Many hospitals in EU countries are owned by a democratically elected state.
The same goes for a lot of basic infrastructure such as roads, telecoms, trains, ferries and more, as well as police, fire and other rescue services. These are all businesses that have been bought by the state. Those are examples of socialism. In fact during the financial crash in 2007-08 the British government bought massive amounts of stocks in several banks, which it eventually sold once the business had turned around. They created specific provisions for the banks to hold to in order to reamain in business. When the stocks were later sold the people got their money back with a bit on top, which the people in those banks maintained employment, keeping the economy afloat.
These are all examples of ownership being moved into common control for the people under their democratically elected government.
Maybe you should go back and try to actually understand what my defintion of socialism is, because as I said before, it's when the means of production are owned in common.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry: the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state."
"Such a form of society cannot be stable, it is a form of retrogression, against which the working class will again rise. Under it a certain amount of order can be brought about but production remains restricted. Social development remains hindered. Russia was able, through this form of organization, to change from semi-barbarism to a developed capitalism, to surpass even the achievements of the Western countries' private capitalism. In this process figures the enthusiasm apparent among the “upstart” bourgeois classes, wherever capitalism begins its course. But such state capitalism cannot progress."
"Dictatorships, as those in Italy and Germany, became necessary as means of coercion to force upon the unwilling mass of small capitalists the new order and the regulating limitations. For this reason such dictatorship is often looked upon as the future political form of society of a developed capitalism the world over."
This one REALLY undercuts your Hitler and Mussolini claims.
"The arguments for a new labor movement, which we designate with the name of Council-Communism, do not find their basis in state capitalism and fascist dictatorship. This movement represents a vital need of the working classes and is bound to develop everywhere. It becomes a necessity because of the colossal rise of the power of capital, because against a power of this magnitude the old forms of labor movement become powerless, therefore labor must find new means of combat. For this reason any program principles for the new labor movement can be based on neither state capitalism, fascism, nor dictatorship as their causes, but only the constantly growing power of capital and the impotence of the old labor movement to cope with this power.
For the working classes in fascist countries both conditions prevail, for there the risen power of capital is the power holding the political as well as the economic dictatorship of the country. When there the propaganda for new forms of action connects with the existence of the dictatorship, it is as it should be. But it would be folly to base an international program on such principles forgetting that conditions in other countries differ widely from those in fascist countries."
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
It doesn't say other socialists, of it did it would mean what you imply. Instead he drew a firm distinction between Lenin and socialists.
It's very sad that you also have to ignore the points he made about state capitalism.
Anton also describes state capitalism and state socialism as synonymous, but specifically named the articles and used the term state capitalism more, helping readers to understand the capitalist nature of state capitalism.
"Second, we find that a condition is defined as state capitalism (or state socialism) under which capitalist enterprises are controlled by the state. This definition is misleading, however, as there still exists under these conditions capitalism in the form of private ownership, although the owner of an enterprise is no longer the sole master, his power being restricted so long as some sort of social insurance system for the workers is accepted.
It depends now on the degree of state interference in private enterprises. If the state passes certain laws affecting employment conditions, such as the hiring and firing of workers, if enterprises are being financed by a federal banking system, or subventions are being granted to support the export trade, or if by law the limit of dividends for the large corporations is fixed – then a condition will be reached under which state control will regulate the entire economic life. This will vary from the strict state capitalism in certain degrees. Considering the present economic situation in Germany we could consider a sort of state capitalism prevailing there. The rulers of big industry in Germany are not subordinated subjects of the state but are the ruling power in Germany thru the fascist officials in the governing offices."
You get the point. It's all state capitalism all the way down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Again, the word other is not used. It just means socialists alive at the same time as Lenin. I recommend reading Lenin as Philosopher, specially chapters 6 and 7, where he absolutely dismantles the idea that Lenin understood Marxism or ever introduced socialism. He ends chapter 7 with this:
"We cannot speak of a victory of Marxism, when there is only question of a so-called refutation of middle-class idealism through the ideas of middle-class materialism. But doubtless Lenin’s book was an important feature in the history of the Party, determining in a high degree the further development of philosophic opinions in Russia. Hereafter the revolution, under the new system of state capitalism – a combination of middle class materialism and the marxian doctrine of social development, adorned with some dialectic terminology – was, under the name “Leninism,” proclaimed the official State-philosophy. It was the right doctrine for the Russian intellectuals who, now that natural science and technics formed the basis of a rapidly developing production system under their direction, saw the future open up before them as the ruling class of an immense empire."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnkrstyen
The core idea of socialism is common ownership, also called social ownership. In short, things have to be owned by the people collectively. This can be done through a variety of avenues, such as worker cooperatives or a state, however there is a common theme among all of these, democratic control over the thing that is owned directly, or indirectly through a democratically elected manager of some type. These can be a board of elected members in a business, or government at the state level. In short, without democracy there is no common ownership, and without common ownership there is no socialism.
Tik however says that social ownership = state control. He skips over Marx taking about social ownership being a third type of ownership that has nothing to do with state or private ownership and is entitely based around people having collective ownership through democracy, and instead claims that the more state control you have, the more socialism you have.
Tik uses this misconception and hides it within hours and hours of content. He will even defend the claim, and states that totalitarian nations like North Korea are in fact democracies.
As for James Lindsay, you'll have to fill me in on his stance, but the fact that he has a page dedicated to him on the Southern Poverty Law Center website says a lot.
1
-
@johnkrstyen
The core idea of socialism is common ownership, also called social ownership. In short, things have to be owned by the people collectively. This can be done through a variety of avenues, such as worker cooperatives or a state, however there is a common theme among all of these, democratic control over the thing that is owned directly, or indirectly through a democratically elected manager of some type. These can be a board of elected members in a business, or government at the state level. So, without democracy there is no common ownership, and without common ownership there is no socialism.
Tik however says that social ownership = state control. He skips over Marx taking about social ownership being a third type of ownership that has nothing to do with state or private ownership and is entitely based around people having collective ownership through democracy, and instead claims that the more state control you have, the more socialism you have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelalbert8474 No he hasn't. His comments were:
"You know, it's a danger to the people who are trying to control the demonstration, and it's a danger to the people who are demonstrating. So at the end of the day, it is a risky procedure."
When asked whether his advice also applies to Trump’s plans to resume campaign rallies next week, Fauci said "I am consistent. I stick by what I say. The best way that you can avoid -- either acquiring or transmitting infection -- is to avoid crowded places, to wear a mask whenever you're outside. And if you can do both, avoid the congregation of people and do the mask, that's great. If you're going to be in a situation where -- beyond your control there's a lot of people around you -- make sure you wear a mask."
He openly supports mask wearing at both types of super-spreader events, and openly states that even being at those places is a risk.
What makes Trump rallies so much more serious is the lack of masks and the contempt for masks in general, combined with the close proximity for hours on end and everyone passing through the same areas.
I'm also not sure why you feel that Fauci should be personally criticising every single person out of line. During Obama's birthday of at most 700 people, including the 200 staff, there was a 700,000 person biker event. Guess which one triggered a massive surge in covid in the region it happened in? Obama's birthday was also attended by vaccinated people just as Delta was becoming a thing. Fauci never said anything about the gathering being "okay" though.
Halloween is not secular, it's a religious holidays. It's also not the sort of holiday where people travel across the entire country to see family they haven't seen in months, or even the whole year. We saw the fallout from last Christmas when January was the biggest surge so far, a record only just broken by this summer. Christmas is indeed religious, although calling it Christian is a stretch when every single thing celebrated is pagan.
What's hilarious is that not only is Fauci religious, he even went to a religious college, and yet you think his personal preference is anti-religion.
1
-
@michaelalbert8474 Those are direct quotes. He never said anything about the right to protest being paramount, and even stated that:
"Every time I hear about or see the congregation of large crowds at a time and geographic area where there is active infection transmission, it is a perfect set-up for the spread of the virus in the sense of creating these blips that might turn into some surges. So I get very concerned."
Your claims are just false.
As for masking, there was little data at the time, however over a dozen studies did in fact measure their use and effectiveness and found the exact opposite of your claim. While they are not perfect, they do greatly reduce the risk of spread. When those studies came out Fauci took a public position, which he had not done beforehand. cloth masks are like keeping a goop covered mosquito out using a triple layer of fishnets. While it's not perfect, there is a good chance it will stick to one of the layers. Then it has to get through another triple layer to get to someone else, making it even harder.
While it's still possible to contract covid through these cloth masks, the likelihood is dramatically lower.
Sulphur dioxide, also known as "fart molecule" for the less cultured among us are also hundreds of times smaller than covid. Your claim is just silly. Covid is 50-140 nanometers, while sulphur dioxide is closer to 0.3 nanometers. What's more, I actually own 1nm masks, so I think I'll be fine.
If you're really worried put on a mask and try to blow out a candle to see just how effective masks really are.
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
-
@mikevanover1721
It's not theft, it's a social contract. Society collective agrees to contribute based on a set of rules. Taking from that society, the society that has allowed you to work and make money, while refusing to contribute, just makes you a parasite.
Yes, the government has a responsibility to provide and guarantee human rights.
I'm actually shocked that of all the parts of that example you could review, it was minimum wage. Again, as I was explaining, it's not the government's fault when life kicks people when they're down, but the government does have a responsibility to provide a safety net.
Advocating for lower paid work is just a recipe for more poverty.
What is it with you libertarians and rape? You know that's illegal BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT right? And no, it would be a violation of someone's human rights, therefore it would not be okay.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loc4725
"We ban people from working mainly because so many get their application refused, and so it doesn't make sense allowing them to work in the meantime."
So you would rather they take benefits without paying into the system at all? That costs us dearly in the long run. Acceptance rates are also actually pretty high as well.
"One of the big pull factors of the U.K., besides the language is the benefits available;. we provide money, housing, training (including University education) and help learning the language or support if they don't want to do that, which many don't. But as I understand it in the U.S. once asylum is granted they're on their own and it's left to the charitable sector to provide all the post-grant assistance."
This is actually one of the ways the UK is superior to the US. Housing is a human right and we should be doing far more to provide it. Getting people into higher education is the best way to get them to contribute more to the economy.
"As for Rwanda the idea here is that it acts as a deterrent."
So we cut off our nose to spite our face. Great.
"We even had a stabbing and a murder recently after a jihadist turned up here after failing to get asylum in 3 other countries."
Using an anecdotal example doesn't change that asylum seeker crime rates are lower than the average.
"By making it clear they will not get to stay here if asylum is granted we remove the incentive"
What? If asylum is granted why not allow them to stay? This makes no sense at all.
"By making it clear they will not get to stay here if asylum is granted we remove the incentive, and according to the Irish government this has already started to have an effect"
This is all based on the idea that seeking asylum is bad and we want less asylum seekers, while ignoring everything else that has been said up to this point. They pay into the economy, cause less crime, would be able to work and pay even more into the economy if restrictions were pulled back and are on average genuinely in need of asylum. Why would we want less people? We have this whole argument about the benefits vs the costs, then you go off on a tangent based on your own idea that asylum seekers are bad, without considering anything we just talked about. It totally undermines everything being said and just shows you aren't actually interested in a discussion on the cost/benefit analysis of people in need of genuine assistance while seeking asylum.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
You mean like The Structure of the Nazi Economy written by Maxine Yaple Sweezy Woolston in 1941?
Do you not know how to read sources?
It should also be noted that while businesses were heavily regulated, they were still privately owned, and profits were still private. For example:
"Beneath these headlines the reader will find many facts and figures designed to prove their truth, figures relating to the scarcity of workers, the increase in production, the rise in building activity, the rise in profits. These figures, upon analysis, prove to be largely correct"
"Krupp's firm profited more from the armament boom than any other industrial enterprise in Germany."
What's funny is as you read, you realise that nothing in there disagrees with me, it's just some dude complaining about government overreach, but that really isn't a far cry from corporations in any capitalistic market. The mere mention of profits means it's private business, which Reimann freely acknowledges.
So thanks kid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Dems in the House passed several bloated stimulus bills full of a bunch of things they knew damn well would never pass the Senate"
Not sure why you think trying to help fellow Americans is bloat? God forbid they try to increase the stimulus payments to $2K. They also are literally waiting on Republicans right now.
"All $15 min wage will do is cause even further job losses and business closures in the restaurant industry and other small service businesses that are already getting obliterated by the pandemic"
False. By increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour you automatically put up to $1000 a month (after tax) into the hands of millions of workers currently earning below $15 an hour. That alone would be a solid regular stimulus payment for the poorest Americans, causing increases in spending in poor communities. Increased spending means increased business. Increases business means businesses are doing better, not worse. Restaurants also don't pay their tipped staff, so not sure where you get off claiming they would be worse off with a minimum wage change. Federal taxes from these workers would also increase, lessening the deficit. Best of all it would cost the federal government literally nothing, all so people can live like actual people. Finally, you would be able to reduce the number of workers getting federal benefits such as food stamps. You would literally save the federal government million, and make them even more millions, stimulate the economy, and help those who are most vulnerable in a single sweep.
"The executive orders that were just signed that are killing tens of thousands of jobs in the energy industry"
Ah yes, the temporary pipeline jobs. God forbit we steer away from outdated technology and use that 2 billion for people who actually need it. The renewable energy sector has been adding jobs for years now. Pushing funds into it to retrain oil workers is ideal. The pipeline itself was also a disaster for a multitude of other reasons. 2 native american communities were suing the construction of the pipeline for violating treaties for starters. They also didn't "eliminate" any jobs. The construction hadn't even started yet.
"blah blah politicians lie"
Yes we get it, you support some really crappy politicians. I don't believe that applies to all of them though.
"If government-mandated wages and checks actually helped anybody, why don't Dems just propose setting the min wage at $1,000/hr and sending us all checks for $1MM."
Minimum wage is designed to be the minimum a family needs to earn to live above the poverty line. 50 years ago it was closer to $12 an hour in todays money, and by the time the $15 comes into effect it will be sitting around that point as well. Arguing using an appeal to extremes is just pathetic and does nothing to push your actual position. Instead, it shows how dishonest you are about the situation. It would be like trying to explain that we're having power shortages so we need to build another power plant and you claiming "that's ridiculous, what are you going to build 100 power plants, that doesn't even make sense". See how dumb you sound? Minimum wage workers are short on funds constantly. If you really want I can break down your obviously absurd argument, but you don't really want that, you just want to make an idiotic point that serves no purpose.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Increased labor costs mean that in order to maintain the same profit margin they will need to either cut costs elsewhere or increase revenue."
McDonalds would need to increase prices 4% to cover this. Most business expenses are in rent and goods, not staff. Staff become expensive in low rent high skills jobs, like marketing and IT. This small increase in prices would still net a 99% increase in wages for those on federal minimum wage. Even if the inflation was 20%, they would still be on way more money.
"There is still a minimum wage for tipped employees, and if the minimum wage gets increased for kitchen staff a restaurant will likely have to take more from the tips of the wait staff to cover, reducing their total compensation."
Restaurants don't take money from tips, that's not how that works. They pay kitchen staff a wage and barely pay front of house.
"Even if that were true for some workers, their increased income is coming from business profits. Low-wage earners pay a low tax rate, in many cases as low as 0% after deductions and credits. The corporate tax rate is a flat 21%."
Full time minimum wage earners with kids would currently be paying almost exactly $0 in taxes. If you double their wages almost all the new wages are taxed. You are also not focusing on medicare/medicaid/social security, which you should really factor in. Corporations on the other hand do everything in their power to pay zero taxes. There would also be more business as minimum wage earners have more disposable income, leading to more profits, not less.
"Also false. In addition to the prior point, another way many companies handle a jump in the minimum wage is by eliminating full-time positions and replacing them with part-time positions that don't qualify for benefits like employer-sponsored health insurance or paid time-off. It's also easier to cut their hours. Where do you think those workers go for health insurance?"
So you didn't actually refute the point, you just stated something that businesses already do and would be literally the same regardless of a wage increase. If they would do it then why not do it now?
"NYC, DC, San Francisco, Seattle, those cities already have $15 min wage. I'm sure $15/hr has boosted their economies, kept cost-of-living from skyrocketing, and reduced instances of poverty and homelessness, right?"
They increased minimum wages because their prices were already high. Minimum wage was not the reason for rising costs, but the money flooding into these cities from outside. Some stockbroker is willing to spend $1m on an apartment close to his work, his buddy spends $2m, the next spends $3m, and so on. Outside investors buy property and never even use it. Restaurants start increasing prices to match the increasing rental costs due to rising property values. They then pay their staff more to compensate their staff for the increases in their cost of living. Wages increased after, not before.
"I used the extreme example to bait you into admitting that there is some point at which government assistance moves from helpful to harmful or financially unsustainable."
Right, and we disagree about line to a pretty substantial degree. You think the point is where people on minimum wage are still getting food stamps, are unable to have literally any savings, have healthcare so terrible if they ever use it they'll go bankrupt and the rich get richer. I think we should go back to the days when families could actually be supported from a single income with relative ease.
"But Democrats, progressives, liberals, SJWs - whatever you call yourselves nowadays - tend to want to debate by attacking the arguer from a presumed position of moral or intellectual superiority, instead of debating the merits and supporting evidence of the argument itself. It's pretty disgusting."
I'm sure the irony is lost on you.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"So your best defense of a min wage hike is that the largest fast food chain in the world can handle it?"
They're a franchise. Each individual McDonalds is a small businesses. They even receive government funds allocated for small businesses.
"For many of them labor costs are their largest expense."
No, they aren't. Profit margins on goods automatically put labour costs at well below the cost to purchase goods. Unless they are tripling the price of their products and their rent is practically non-existent this is just not true. Labour costs are only high in businesses that require skills and have low numbers of physical products, like desk jobs and trade jobs.
"Yes, they already do it, and artificially raising labor costs would cause that practice to accelerate."
Speculation. They do it when they can get away with it. If anything we should be releasing partial benefits for part time employees to discourage this practice. Changing minimum wage will not do anything to this.
"You're not accounting for how that is offset by individuals who have their hours cut to compensate, which would not result in an increase in what they are paying in taxes, and the individuals who lose their jobs completely and the businesses that close for good, all of which then generate zero income or payroll tax revenue."
Right, because everything you just said is bullshit, for the many multitude of reasons I have already outlined. You don't have any clue when it comes to encouraging spending to stimulate the economy or labour costs in small businesses. You don't account for a small amount of inflation to pay for a huge increase. Minimum wage used to be pretty much at this level, and businesses weren't closing their doors left right and center. Moreover, while at this level, GDP per capita was half what it is now. So not only could businesses afford it then, then could afford to double it again now. Imagine paying people for their worth.
"Now you didn't actually refute the point, you just stated something that was already a problem, and that a subsequent forced min wage hike not only demonstrably did not fix, but only exacerbated other problems."
No, my point was the increase in minimum wage came AFTER the increases in costs. Prices were already increasing due to rent prices in New York continually increasing, which is due to housing prices jumping, which is due to outside investment causing massive spikes in prices. It was a response to a need, which is exactly what we need now.
"I just believe that an ever-increasing amount of federal government spending and intervention is not the path to getting there"
Again, minimum wage increases would decrease government spending and generate more taxes while also stimulating the economy.
"and that there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that government overreach is what has lead to many of these issues to begin with"
Like reducing oversight on the housing market....oh wait no, that's the opposite. Seriously, what is your "substantial body of evidence"?
"To suggest that more government manipulation will fix the problems related to the fallout from prior government manipulation measures makes no sense to me."
Like? You're just broadly claiming that government is the reason people are poor, which is laughable.
"My comment about the disgusting nature of progressives who attack the arguer rather than the argument was not necessarily directed at you or our policy-based debate, but more so at the sentiment often pushed by the left that the right disagrees with them on policies because they don't care about people, which is a character attack, not a policy debate."
So you decided to poison the well by trying to bait me with a blatantly absurd argument? Sounds like the work of a true thinker right there, really looking for an honest debate. It would be like me saying "why do we even have a minimum wage? Why not just set everything to zero?" and expecting an honest discussion out such a ridiculous proposal.
"Your original comment was that there is one party doing the pissing."
Right, in reference to the belief that trickle-down economics actually works. That and the 50 Republican Senators that are refusing the increase the minimum wage while voting unanimously to cut taxes for businesses, leading to the deficit climbing every year since Trump took office.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"This has been done before and there's literally zero evidence that it's ever helped an economy, and substantial evidence that it likely causes more harm overall than good."
Oh well, if you say so. After all, you nonsensical argument that says absolutely nothing about consumer habits couldn't possibly be wrong.....
"You obviously have no clue, evidenced by the fact that you believe you can forcibly raise the price of labor in an economy where the demand for it is already dropping and the supply is increasing, and that that will somehow stimulate economic activity."
Demand for labour will not continue to drop over the next 5 years, the timeframe for these increases. The fact that they are mailing out stimulus cheques is proof that giving people money stimulates the economy.
"but you oppose tax cuts"
I do, because tax cuts:
1. Don't effect people already not paying taxes.
2. Save far more money in the long run for those at the top.
3. Serve to temporary plicate the masses, only to rip away their tax cuts while leaving them in place for those well off already.
"which will only lower the pace at which wages are able to increase in the long-term"
Well sure. If wages have already gone up, they no longer need to go up. Not rocket science. Minimum wage earners however never see wage increases without this increase taking place.
"Yes, prices were already increasing, and raising the minimum wage did nothing to help anything"
It gave people enough money to live, meaning we didn't see increased bankruptcies, which is good for the economy.
"The government forced banks to reduce underwriting standards in home lending for certain groups of people, causing a surge in subprime loans which is where the meltdown started."
Um, no. They ALLOWED them to reduce their standards by REDUCING oversight and RELAXING laws. LESS oversight caused the meltdown, not more.
"How has government-backed student loans for college worked out? How has the ACA worked out for the healthcare industry? How's the future funding for Social Security and Medicare looking?'
Poorly, because they're all half-arsed watered down solutions to a problem so that corporation can be placated. You want to actually fix the issues, okay:
Universities are required to keep tuition rates at a rate determined by the government to make college more accessible for everyone. This can be by state or federal, allowing for a maximum fee. Student loans will also be government backed and interest controlled, meaning all interest is inline with COLA. Colleges will also be compensated for allowing this reduced rate.
ACA, Medicare and Medicaid are now scrapped. The government is building and buying hospitals around the country, employing their own staff and giving healthcare for free, using the funds previously going to Medicare, Medicaid and insurance. They will hire their own staff, charge their own fees, ignore red tape around insurance issues, and pay to send patients to private hospitals for specialist care as needed. They will also negotiate drug prices for the entire healthcare network as a whole. People can still purcahse private insurance to bridge the cap in aftercare or just pay for private care.
The government needs to take off the cap on social security and stop dipping into the pot to steal from those who paid in. SS will fix itself for decades with that simple adjustment. Long term they will probably reduce it by around 1/3 just because people are living too long.
"Venezuela was the third richest country in the western hemisphere less than 30 years ago."
True, and the government that came into power was both massively popular and did a lot of good for the people. Their issue was one of checks and balances. They had someone incompetent put in power and the system broke. For decades however poor people prospered. I should know, I was there 11 years ago when the value of Bolivars was high and the economy was doing well. They also relied very heavily on oil production to keep their economy growing, which eventually started to run dry, especially with government mismanagement. Allowing the free market to take over however would only be worse. Foreign oil companies would flock to the country, burn down the rainforest and leave people in squalor, so they can pay themselves millions. Only a government could stop that sort of activity.
"Yeah, why not? Having a minimum wage accomplishes nothing other than limiting opportunity and getting progressive politicians elected. "
They you advocate for a vast redistribution of wealth through other government systems? Maybe a reverse tax? Universal income? Let me know when you pick something that actually helps people and stimulates the economy rather than allowing Amazon and Wall Street brokers to profit off the poor and increase stock prices while not actually pushing money back into the economy because they're too busy setting up accounts in the Cayman islands.
"Taxes revenues climbed every year under Trump"
No: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-bill-did-not-cause-revenue-rise
Also, the ever rising deficit means he not only decreased tax revenues, he also increased debt. And for what?
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Your arguments got much weaker as this progressed."
That's not even an argument, and I'm getting pretty sick of your general lack of understanding economics.
"That's a snarky comment, but provides nothing to refute my point."
Again, ignoring consumer habits. it's like the very words themselves confuse you.
"Do you have any evidence to support that? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Given the impending flood of unskilled workers into the country and the ever-increasing amount of automation replacing low-skilled jobs, there are many more factors indicating that demand in that area of the labor market will decline."
That has been true for literally the entire existence of the US. Demand doesn't drop. More people means more money in the market, means more businesses being created and expanded, means more jobs. That has always been true and continues to be true.
"That's why I made the earlier statement that you mocked - if you believe just sending people checks will "stimulate" the economy, why not just send checks for $10,000 every month, or $100K every week. Maybe $1MM per day. Man, that would sure "stimulate", right?"
Because there is a balance to these things. You need to balance stimulating the economy with inflation caused by, as you say, printing money. Weighing up how much people actually need, and how much they would even spend, with inflation and how much to give them is key. You also talk about borrowing money to survive, but survive in what way? Survive economically, hence the term 'stimulus'? They are investing in people to spend money in the economy to grow the economy overall. They understand that giving people money is good for the economy.
"The idea is to get more of those people situated well enough that they start paying some taxes. They don't exist in a vacuum of just being the people who don't and will never pay taxes."
Like paying them more..... financial class mobility is lower in the US than many other western nations because of this lack of a social safety net.
"Why is that more of a concern than how it helps people at the bottom? That argument always kills me. That's like saying eliminating poverty would be unjust if in the process more billionaires were created. It's this farcical narrative that believes the rich get all of their money by stealing it from the poor."
Because the only farcical narrative we have been spoon-fed is that giving billionaires more money will help the economy because they will reinvest that money domestically. While that may have been true 100 years ago, these days billionaires horde their cash and spend it overseas rather building something here. They bet on the stock market, then bet on other people's bets, then bet on those bets, and don't actually create jobs. Giving more money to those at the bottom yields direct results as they now have more financial freedom to spend in the economy.
"That's counterintuitive to #1. Also, the "ripping away" is the result of bloated government spending and loopholes in the code that benefit political donors."
Sure, we need a sliding scale with less loopholes. Upper tax rates could do with being a lot higher too.
"Everyone always wants to be improving their standard of living, and the cost of living is always increasing. Without wage growth then standard of livings by default decline."
Right, so minimum wage not moving in years has caused a drop in standard of living, so we should increase it. Again, by the time minimum wage hits $15 under this proposal (which will be closer to $12 in today's money) it will be back to the same level it was at in 1969 (again, in today's money).
"The government forced banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to riskier borrowers from lower income areas under the belief that it would decrease the disparity in home ownership rates between classes and races. Banks responded by successfully lobbying for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had previously prevented institutions from commingling investment banking and commercial banking activity. The government also became the financial backer of the riskier loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which meant banks now had no risk on their subprime loans. Yes, there were loosened restrictions and decreased oversight, but that was all as a result of the government manipulating the market, distorting prices, and changing the market-driven risk/reward fundamentals. It had disastrous results that almost destroyed the entire worldwide economy. There's no reason to believe manipulating wages and distorting labor markets would work out any better."
Wrong. The failed mortgages that caused the financial collapse were not the risky ones. Risky mortgages were packages and financed accordingly, with appropriate interest rates to account for levels of risk. They accounted for a percentage of these to fail. The loans that failed en masse were AAA rated and were not checked properly when sold in packages by the thousand. These are the loans that failed. The government bought these loans with the guarantee they were correctly rated, which they were not.
"That explanation could be used to describe every US government program ever."
So why not advocate for real policy that causes real change rather than whining about the system not working and claiming we need to be saved by Amazon or some shit?
"because it's widely recognized that the US economy, by all traditional measures, was extremely strong prior to the pandemic - unemployment rates and labor force participation statistics were all at or near record levels."
Yes and no. Economies don't change overnight, and coasting off a good economy, then pumping billions into it to artificially inflate the numbers will make anyone look good. But as you said, they were borrowing from the future to survive, and in doing so increased the deficit by hundreds of billions.
"Lot of conjecture there, but the best way to stimulate the economy is to get out of its way, as evidenced by Trump's economic policies. Government should be small and limited, and only get involved to the degree needed to keep markets free and fair."
Lol. Sure thing. While we're at it why don't we lower their taxes and jerk off their CEOs. I'm sure that won't ruin the deficit as they lobby to have the minimum wage dropped to $3.
"And how do you square continuously advocating for the expansion of government programs, but then complain about deficit spending. Where's the historical precedent for massive spending that lowered deficits?"
Not deficit spending, 'the deficit', meaning not just more spending but also less income, either/or. Republicans have a long history of cutting taxes and increasing military spending, while then complaining we have no money for government programs. Programs which would be more than well enough funded without the constant tax cuts and increases in other spending. Investing in programs that actually help people pays off. Just look at Obamacare. They spend money to reduce those not covered by health insurance, which in turn reduce medical bankruptcies and improved the overall strength of the economy. The result was an economy that crawled out of recession, dropped the deficit to very low levels and dropped unemployment to less than half what it was. Spending helped the economy overall. Your argument seems to ignore that investment draws dividends.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Why do you think America has a fourth of the population of China and India, but has a larger GDP than both of them combined?"
Because after WWII they used the combined technological advancements and the fact that they were the only industrialised nation left to dominate the market. Most European countries had to completely rebuild. They also used immigrants consistently throughout their entire history. Sorry you want to close the door now you're already here. It will however negatively effect the economy.
"You're talking in circles and can't even follow your own logic thread. Subprime loans were rated AAA because they were being backed by the federal government. The rating is based on default risk. The default risk was justified as being very low when the government is the creditor, just like Treasury bonds."
Wrong. The subprime loans were not being properly vetted. Loans being government backed doesn't change risk or loan ratings. Loan ratings are based on the percentage chance of them failing. This is were you are confused. The problem was that the banks didn't vet loans correctly and sold them as low risk when they packaged and resold, when in fact they were high risk. Seriously, have you not seen the Big Short? They explain this all very very well. I'm sure Margot Robbie would keep your attention for at least a little while before you start whining about the government.
"Pay people what they're worth!"
Yes, a radical idea. Did you know that if wages increased with GDP minimum wage would be $24 an hour? People are being undervalued.
"Give us checks and free shit!"
A idiotic mentality really. People are earning an income for the business they work for. They are then paid a portion of this worked income as compensation. The lowest amount of compensation people see is currently less than a third of what it was in the past based on that income. Wanting things for free is the opposite of what I want. I want people to be paid fairly. Is that so much to ask?
"there is no magic government policy that fixes everything. Less government involvement and more freedom is the path to prosperity for more people"
The whole point of the government is to protect people from businesses overreaching and exploiting things, be it people's value, the environment, public safety or anything else we have regs on. The market on the other hand does everything it can to monopolize and cut worker rights, protections and conditions. Really not sure why you love monopolies and hate workers rights.
"that the economy was good under him"
Pretty much. Employment was in a nosedive when he took office. He reversed it and dropped unemployment down to 4.7%, less than half what it was when he took office. Blaming Obama for the financial crisis and the deficit, even though jobs grew consistently, is simply objectively stupid. As I said, and will say again, economies don't change overnight. Arguing that the entire financial crisis, the largest recession since the great depression, took a few years to right itself because of Obama just makes you look idiotic. Arguing that a crisis that massively hit homeowners is for some reason causing huge issues with the middle class makes you look idiotic. Arguing that zero interest rates are a bad idea when banks are literally refusing to write mortgages makes you look idiotic. Obama had slow and steady growth year over year. What more could you want in light of a recession? Are you angry GDP didn't increase 20% in March of him taking office or something? Seriously, what is your guidestick for a good economy after a huge global economic recession?
"Obama ran the biggest deficits of any president in history"
Big oof......
"I'm not even going to address the assertion that Obamacare helped the US crawl out of a recession and reduced deficits. That's too dumb of a claim to even discuss. There's a reason why the middle class became a minority class less than 5 years after it's implementation. What a magical program."
Of course you aren't, because then you would have to admit that the program lowered bankruptcies and actually saved lives by allowing people to get healthcare. That's not really the capitalistic way of living though is it.
"Let's all just quit our jobs and collect government benefits for everything. What would we call that program - the Progress Initiative?"
See what I mean about the argumentum ad absurdums. You really can't help yourself from being an inflammatory child. Social support networks help people to, more than anything, not go bankrupt. Bankruptcies are what broke the economy the last time. Support networks work just fine in other countries, and show that issues like mass poverty and homelessness shouldn't really be a first world problem.
I think the main issue is that you are far more interested in the bottom line than individuals. You constantly undervalue individuals in the hopes that large businesses can exploit them enough to grow. You think that this will eventually help those exploited individuals and the economy as a whole. So lets go with a hypothetical. Would you sacrifice 10% of GDP to have the US poverty rate drop by 80%?
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709 Okay, let's make this quick because you're being stupider than usual.
Other countries didn't have a drop in labour post WWII and neither did the US. The labour markets shifted in countries either to tech or rebuilding. Really not sure what your argument is here.
Historically legal immigration was purposefully made more difficult in the US because they were trying to encourage illegal immigration. Both types of immigration pay into the system more than they take out.
At this point you just need to admit that you have no idea what caused the housing market crash. It's just sad really that you're this far up your own arse. The low quality loans directly run by the government programs did not cause the crisis. Banks marketing subprime loans as AAA did. They were not encouraged to do this, they were underregulated.
Not sure what your argument is since highschoolers used to make that when comparing the income of the movie theatre. Also, yes, you literally want people to be paid less.
You think free markets protect workers rights? Are you joking?
Trump grew the economy and jobs at the same rate as Obama did after he stabilised the economy. The recession was only second to the great depression, so of course recovery was slow. A faster recovery would have made the market volatile. Hypocritically, you also can't help but strawman.
Big oof because someone hasn't looked at the deficit recently.
No, ACA did not cause prices to skyrocket. It actually reduced the increases in those substantially as they had been skyrocketing for years.
Yes, foreclosures are the sole reason the market was fucked, and almost everyone that foreclosed went bankrupt. The credit crunch and job losses were knock on effects, not the main cause. Personal bankruptcies are also not good for the economy. Arguing otherwise is just sad.
Historical precedent? Wow you are a moron. Historically workers rights and personal wages for those at the bottom have only improved with government intervention. Read a fucking book.
Not an ad hominem if it's true though is it. Larger businesses don't support higher minimum wages, not sure where you got that idea. Also, arguing wage growth while literally arguing against a wage increase makes you look idiotic. Here, this is how you sound:
"You can't be paid $15 an hour. How will you ever manage to earn more than minimum wage?" - some business arsehole who pays their workers $8 an hour.
Seriously, go break up a union or beat up a teenager for earning too much or some shit. Would be right up your alley.
So to cap it, you keep regurgitating the same points then claiming that you are such a fucking genius with the economy. You are of course not, and it's embarrassing talking to someone so smoothbrained. I'm not here to undo years of indoctrination that makes you believe cutting wages actually increases them. You can't even argue what the current deficit is without declaring victory like a pathetic politician at a podium. You're an embarrassment that shills for businesses, and you're part of the problem. I'm sure you'll go off and decide you won this argument because you're just that simple. Maybe you'll even know what a deficit is pretty soon, but until that day enjoy being an idiot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toddscanlan2574
It's not a false correlation at all. Both are North American countries with relatively similar GDP per capita ratios, similar cultures and even an exposure to the same media. Very little about the USA and Canada is particularly different, making them quite easy to compare.
There are several issues with your measurement of gun violence in such a short time. You need to take into account the years it may take for some of the illegal weapons to dwindle in ownership, overall crime trends and more. You want to know where had zero changes to gun laws but saw a huge increase in gun violence? That's right, the USA.
Aside from the fact that gun violence is actually very widespread in the US, not just in specific cities, with all 50 states boasting high homicide rates and dangerous levels of gun violence, you also need to take into account the makeup of large cities. Large cities expose people to a wide range of ideas and people, meaning most people in large cities tend to vote democrat. Cities also attract younger populations, who are more prone to crime and also vote democrat. The idea that those cities having high gun violence is caused by democrats is nonsense. What's worse, the guns used in crimes in those cities are sourced from outside said cities. And where are all these black market weapons being bought and trafficked from? Oh right, Republican states. The truth is that gun laws are so lax in Republican areas that they are making it more dangerous, not just in Republican areas (Republican states having higher levels of gun violence as a result), but also in Democrat areas. So the issue is not that gun laws don't stop gun violence, it's that the lack of uniformity of US gun laws is the reason for the high levels of gun violence, proven by the fact that weapons used in these acts of violence are sourced outside the cities, and often outside the state, where they were used.
Of course, if we want real proof that gun laws work then we can just look at any other developed nation, all of which have gun registration as a minimum.
1
-
@toddscanlan2574
"Then explain Switzerland and Mexico."
Switzerland has mandatory military service, gun licensing and registration.
Mexico are not a developed nation, they are officially a developING nation, although I am glad you mentioned them as most of their illegal guns come from the US.
"Also, you accuse me of blaming democrat cities and then immediately blame republican "areas", hypocrite."
But that's where the guns come from. That's just a fact. And worst of all the reason for it is the laws put in place. You seem to be blaming Democrats without an actual cause, while with Republicans we can see the cause plain as day.
"Also you point out that "red" states are responsible for the most violence but conveniently leave out that the majority of violence spawns from democrat run cities with strict gun control located WITHIN these red states."
Right, because the weak Republican laws allow for more weapon trafficking.
"If this had even a modicum of truth to it, then the rural areas with "lax" gun laws would have an equivalent level of gun violence to democrat cities or even higher"
Nah. Crime is just lower in rural areas in general. As I explained before, cities have younger populations that tend to commit more crimes. That's true the world over. Doesn't change the fact that gun violence is high across all 50 states, cities and rural areas included.
"Also, your assertion that criminals are purchasing weapons legally in red areas and then bringing them back to blue cities where the guns immediately become illegal (which defeats the purpose of purchasing them legally) not only makes no sense but is not backed by any evidence whatsoever."
To be more specific, weapons traffickers are purchasing weapons legally in Red areas then selling them illegally in highly restricted areas, a practice that is only necessary because of gun control laws. There are also straw purchases, due to ineffective background checks and a lack of a registrations, all of which is done, again, outside of the cities.
"The majority of gun violence is committed by criminals who have illegally acquired firearms, either through theft or black markets, which due to their illegal nature you cannot possibly blame on "lax", LEGAL gun laws."
Actually they can. Black market guns are almost enitely made up of recently purchased legal guns, usually in private sales in states with no background checks on private sales.
At the end of the day, just look up the stats for where weapons used in crimes originated. You want to know why guns used in places like Chicago are not bought in Chicago? Because of the laws making it near impossible to do so, proving they work. You want to know where they get them from? Gun shops surrounding Chicago either within the state or outside of the state.
Actually what's quite funny is St Louis, literally the most dangerous city in the US, has been stopped from enacting any sort of gun safety multiple times by the state of Missouri. No permits, no registrations, open carry is allowed, concealed carry with a permit, and the result is the higherst homicide rate in the nation.
1
-
@toddscanlan2574
1. Again, Switzerland has licensing, registration and mandatory military service, all things the US does not have. Most gun control advocates are pushing for registration more than anything.
Mexico getting their guns from the US is not irrelevant. It's yet another example that lax gun laws increase crime in strict gun control areas.
2. Crime is low in rural areas everywhere. There can be more than one factor affecting crime rates. You are assuming my argument is that guns are the only factor that changed crime rates, which is just a strawman.
3. Yes I can. Current laws do nothing to stop trafficking because the systems in place have been purposely designed to be ineffective. A registry would substantially lower black markets.
4. Nope. The workaround only exists because of areas with lax laws. If the laws were the issue then illegal guns would come from the same area, not outside. At this point however you seem to just be arguing against laws, because people will break them so why bother. Funny you use Japan as an example though, given they have one of the lowest homicide rates, and one of the lowest firearm death rates on the planet.
5. Switzerland does not have similar gun freedoms. As explained, they have mandatory registration, personal licensing and mandatory military service with firearm training. This is so far from the US it's not even funny. You just look at the weapons and ignore the steps they take to secure them. But thank you for agreeing that your mention of Mexico was dishonest, even if it was with another strawman.
Here, this will help:
Gun licensing and registration would substantially drop misuse and black market sales. Registration makes them far more traceable and adds accountability, while licensing creates markers for assessing mental state and knowledge. Switzerland has both, the US has neither. So yes, let's be more like Switzerland, great idea.
1
-
@toddscanlan2574
1. Licensing creates a way to check both weapon competency and psychological state, reducing both accidental and on purpose shootings. Interview were people show intent are also useful for weeding out people looking to misuse a firearm. Registration allows for far more stringent tracing of guns. Private sales without a record of registration would be against the law, and therefore liability of weapons would be tracked back to those original owners. As a result the initial sale in the gun trafficking issue would be illegal, not just the final sale, discouraging the original seller. Straw purchases would also be cut as tracking guns to straw purchasers would be far easier. And finally is the military service, which is just a layer of weapons training, discipline and respect for guns. Add it all together and you see less crime as a result.
As for other factors, no I'm not ignoring them, I'm just pointing out how gun laws play a role. There is a direct link between lax gun laws and gun crime, that's just a fact. By admitting that guns being trafficked out of the US is a border issue you are agreeing that US cities are getting guns trafficked into them in areas with no border checks. Really shot yourself in the foot there.
2. Again, gun control can reduce gun violence is not the same argument as gun control is the only factor that effects crime. You are strawmanning my position and acting foolish.
3. The fact that guns are trafficked from areas without registration is proof. I don't need you to believe me, obviously you're beyond help.
4. Yeah, that's not how gun laws work. While they can stop firearm purchasing in gun shops, it's basically impossibly to stop black market sales when people can travel literally 30 miles to obtain guns to sell. That's not the fault of gun laws, that's the fault of weak laws in other areas. You are proposing a checkpoint getting in and out of a city, which is just silly. As for Japan, you are using anecdotal evidence. He also wasn't Prime Minister at the time. Do you want me to list all the CURRENT US presidents to get shot? Certainly makes your argument look silly yet again.
5. Your point is wrong. Many European countries allow guns with proper licensing, registration and sometimes training. Switzerland just has more, not lax laws. As for Mexico, oh dear you appear to be backsliding. I'll let you figure out why the US always has to be compared to developing nations just to look half decent.
6. The serial number system is just not the same as a full registry. We track weapons sold, but only using paper records and only in gun shops. Private sales don't need to be tracked at all in most states. As I explained, registration adds far more accountability. And yet again, you use the argument of "it won't be perfect so don't even try" which is just a fallacy.
7. Agreed. You don't understand gun laws and want to live in a fantasy land where guns are ethereal unstoppable magical machines. It's insane, and you're an embarrassment.
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
-
@muchacho2141 Someone seems to be confusing the bipartisan bill that passed with the proposed bill, with a smattering of propaganda.
It was a $1.2 trillion bill, $550 billion of which was new spending, and that's over 5 years, so $110 billion a year.
The funding is for clean water, road and bridge repairs, high-speed broadband, airport and port improvements, Amtrak expansion, EV chargers, clean energy, weather protection, cyber attack prevention and legacy pollution cleanup.
You would know all that is you read the bill, but now you don't need to. You're welcome.
Let me know why you think making America better while increasing our energy independence is a bad thing.
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
-
@jackfredricks6223 I'm actually really concerned for the US education system. It seems okay, then I see things like this that prove otherwise.
The three amendments to the constitution on voting rights don't restrict anything. They in fact do the exact opposite, giving people more rights, not less. Where your confusion lies seems to be in how we deal with things not mentioned in the constitution. The simple answer is that we make laws. Laws are then weighed against the constitution to see if they are constitutionally sound. Non-citizen voting is not restricted in the constitution, and therefore creating a law that allows non-citizens to vote would be constitutionally sound.
"If you weren't wrong, you would be saying that non citizens could be denied the right to vote if of a certain race/color/sex/age"
Yes. Again, there is nothing in the constitution about non-citizens voting or not voting, meaning making it legal for them to vote would not be against the constitution. Since they have no specific protections, you are absolutely right that they could restrict voting to people of certain backgrounds, hues, genitals and oldness.
If you think you are right, post the line in the constitution that talks about non-citizen voting restrictions.
1
-
@jackfredricks6223
"In fact they do just that. The 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments restrict the government's ability in VERY specific ways."
Right, but it doesn't restrict people and their rights in any way. In fact it does the opposite.
"You tried to make the argument that because they all specify "US Citizen voting rights," that it does not restrict the government from doing that to non US Citizens. That's when I told you to not be ridiculous. The constitution is there to restrict the government, not its citizens."
But that's exactly the point, if they also restricted the government from doing that to non-citizens then non-citizens could vote as the amendments would apply to them. Non-citizens are not mentioned, and are therefore not applicable to these amendments. You calling me ridiculous doesn't change what's written. Accusing me of an ad hominem, then coming out with this garbage is peak hypocrisy.
"This is absurd as a statement, especially since the three amendments I referenced all include very specific words that specify that the right is for US Citizens to vote."
Meaning none of those amendments apply to non-citizens. Meaning they are not being given the rights, nor are they being restricted. They are neutral in the constitution when it comes to voting.
"The right to vote. Whose right to vote are we talking about? Citizens to the United States."
Again, proving my point. We aren't talking about non-citizens in the constitution. They are not being restricted in any way.
"Do you see the part where it says "and citizens of the United States?" Every time voting is mentioned (outside of Congress), it includes "citizens of the United States." Do you think that non citizens have a right to vote in the US?"
Wow, you are really missing the point here. Let me rephrase:
Where is the line in the constitution that bans non-citizens from voting?
Would a reversal of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 combined with a separate law stipulating that non-citizens can vote given certain stipulations be considered unconstitutional?
If so, point out the part of the constitution that this would violate.
I think the real issue here is that you seem to believe that not being able to vote is the default, when in reality the default is that anything not specifically outlawed is allowed. When you get that through your head let me know.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffamckee No. You just didn't read my comment properly. To reiterate I said to post the headlines of the articles. This allows me to search them myself and figure out the full context of what you are talking about. I'll have to find it myself:
Tear gas used to disperse protesters outside Arizona Capitol building, officials say
...
Late Friday, law enforcement in Arizona used tear gas to disperse a crowd of abortion rights supporters protesting outside the State Capitol in Phoenix.
“Troopers deployed tear gas after a crowd of protesters repeatedly pounded on the glass doors of the State Senate Building,” Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bart Graves told CNN.
The crowd then moved across the street to the Wesley Bolin Plaza, where police used the tear gas after a monument was vandalized, Graves said.
So according to the article protesters banged on the doors of the Arizona state capitol building, moved away from said doors across the street to the Wesley Bolin Plaza, where they were then tear gassed. The article has zero mention of breaches or attempted breaches, attacks against police, weapons or any other indicators of an attempt to overthrow the leaders. No cries came to storm the building. There is no evidence based on the article YOU told me to look at that this was an attempt to overthrow the state government.
The building was only evacuated because the gas the cops were launching into the crowd drifted into the building.
So it's not that I don't believe the articles, it's that I don't believe you. But keep upvoting your own comments so you can get a nice pat on the back.
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
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"unions are an old fashioned labor relations which is capitalism"
False. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Unions do not own means of production, and are not private entities. They are collective entities.
"socialist theory involves the unification and not division of labor"
They are literally called UNIONS. In what way is that a division? Not only that, but many socialist theories are built off the idea of mass-unionisation of the workforce. Collectivist anarchism or syndicalism would be 2 such examples.
"Authoritarianism refers to abrogation of autonomy and not democracy."
False. Democracy and authoritarianism are direct opposites. Any element of authoritarianism is at the cost of democracy. Authoritarianism is specifically the errosion of democracy, and a forced adherance to state rule rather than democratic rule. In fact the word authoritianism literally comes from the Latin auctor, meaning master or leader, a ruler not bound by laws or opposition. This is a direct opposite to democracy, which has leaders bound by the people, by laws and by constitutional decisions.
"Personal freedom refers to autonomy."
Personal freedoms are not human rights. I have the personal freedom to decide if I want eggs for breakfast or if I want porridge. But there is not universal human right to eggs or oats.
"Democracy is enfrinchisement, representation or mandate, but it is not personal nor freedom. That's a reference to human rights"
Democracy is literally listed as a human right.
"Unions are capitalist because they are all private companies"
False. Unions are neither capitalist nor companies. Unions are collectively owned by the workers that they represent, making them not privately owned but collectively owned, and are organisations of workers not private businesses. The legal designation is entirely different.
"It has to be central and unilateral to be collective"
False. An economy made up of worker cooperatives would be both decentralised and collective. Collectivist anarchism would be decentralised and collective.
"In the United States, the federal government evened this playing field with unionists resisting."
Capitalists have resisted every single action to improve worker pay, safety and rights throughout all of human history. Unions were the ones that pushed public opinion enough to increase popularity on worker conditions and worker pay, pushing government to make that change. In what universe would unions resist those changes?
"Capitalism is a pluralist approach instead of the unilateral democratic approach which socialists propose."
Unions are literally democratic. But thanks for admitting that democratic government actions are also socialism and socialism requires democracy.
"United States features the highest job satisfaction and highest median wages of any developed nation."
So we're back to lying. Cool. We already established that Randstad has some serious issues with their methodology. Meanwhile, more comprehensive surveys taken from individual countries, such as Pew Research, The Conference Board, Adecco France, Lanes Group Careers and more from specific countries show the US in a much less flattering light.
So all in all I don't think you actually know what socalism is. I suggest doing some actual research before spouting off again.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Unions are private"
False, they are collective, not private.
"competitive corporations"
False, they are not corporations.
"which allocate the labor component"
False, they do not allocate labour. Workers are employed then join a union. While unions can help fight for a labourers rights, they are not allocating labour anywhere.
" in addition to them being developed by anti-socialists"
Nonsense. Again, plenty of socialists are in favour of mass-unionisation.
"they are private enterprise everywhere in the capitalist world"
Much to the dismay of capitalists, who spent generations trying to destroy unions.
"They don't exist in the socialist world"
Again, see collectivist anarchism and syndicalism.
"Unions are separated by trades and they are competitive with one another."
Trades do not compete with one another. A tiler is not competing with a brick layer, they do entirely different jobs.
"Labor front was developed by Marx and joins all trades to one union."
You get that there are more socialists than just Marx right?
"Personal freedoms refer to human rights"
As I have already explained, no it does not. Choosing what I have for breakfast is a personal freedom, but I don't have a right to eggs or bacon.
"Specifically socialist theory abrogates the personal freedoms which are recorded in UNCHR as human rights"
False, as explained already.
"By providing protection for these, a society is guaranteed to be capitalist"
False. As has been explained, a model based on worker cooperatives would not violate any human rights.
"As soon as these rights are provided, authoritarianism is abolished."
False. The only right that deals with authoritarianism is number 21, the right to take part in government IE democracy.
"Socialist political economy is authoritarian"
False.
"allocation of te means of production, democratically or not, so democratic workplaces in Russia were authoritarian"
Nothing you said here makes a single bit of sense.
"huma rights were the only aspect of the 1991 soviet referrendum which altered political economy"
Wait, you think current day Russia isn't authoritarian?
"Present the citeable source which proposes the political science term "authoritarian" relates to democracy rather than human rights."
The literal definitions of the words. Also, a authoritarian government that does not restrict human rights, other than the right to democracy, would still be authoritarian.
"American unions were established for segregation"
Total nonsense. The first unions was in the 1700s.
"They resisted the FLSA on the principle of unionism"
False. SOME unions resisted the FLSA because it did not encompass all industries. In fact it actively excluded some insustries. I imagine unions that represented those industries felt pretty upset about it. Of course who actually resisted the FLSA. Oh right, literally every capitalist business.
"Authoritarianism is not about democracy. United States had democracy, but in the south, socialist theory like that of socialist George Fitzhugh denied capitalism to my ancestors - specifically they were denied private property, free assembly, free expression, and free contract."
Multiple issues here:
1. The US did not have democracy. Aside from the fact that only men who owned land could vote, that also actively excluded, as you said, your ancestors. If the entire democracy is reliant on about 30% of the total adults within that population then it isn't a democracy at all.
2. George Fitzhugh was not a socialist, he was a sociologist. In fact he wrote "We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism"
3. Your ancestors were literally privately owned capital owned by capitalists. Capitalists actively owned the labour means of production by owning your ancestors. This practice was stopped by government, not by capitalism.
"It is illegal for Norway to regulate a minimum wage"
Not sure you understand how Norway works. Unions negotiate a minimum wage collectively. The reason they don't want a government minimum wage as it would make their socialist collective bargaining less strong.
"Personal freedoms refers to rights with no mention of democracy"
Wrong, as explained.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Unions are private"
False, they are collective, not private, and this is the last I'll bother replying to this tired claim.
"competitive corporations"
False, they are not corporations. Again, not replying to this nonsense again.
"which allocate the labor component"
False, they do not allocate labour. Workers are employed then join a union. While unions can help fight for a labourers rights, they are not allocating labour anywhere.
"in addition to them being developed by anti-socialists"
Nonsense. Again, plenty of socialists are in favour of mass-unionisation. I gave specific examples to this which you did not respond to.
"they are private enterprise everywhere in the capitalist world"
Much to the dismay of capitalists, who spent generations trying to destroy unions.
"They don't exist in the socialist world"
Again, see collectivist anarchism and syndicalism. Until you can respond to these points your argument is moot.
"Unions are separated by trades and they are competitive with one another."
Trades do not compete with one another. A tiler is not competing with a brick layer, they do entirely different jobs.
"Labor front was developed by Marx and joins all trades to one union."
You get that there are more socialists than just Marx right?
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Personal freedoms refer to human rights"
As I have already explained, no it does not. Choosing what I have for breakfast is a personal freedom, but I don't have a right to eggs or bacon.
"Specifically socialist theory abrogates the personal freedoms which are recorded in UNCHR as human rights"
False, as explained already.
"By providing protection for these, a society is guaranteed to be capitalist"
False. As has been explained, a model based on worker cooperatives would not violate any human rights.
"As soon as these rights are provided, authoritarianism is abolished."
False. The only right that deals with authoritarianism is number 21, the right to take part in government IE democracy.
"Socialist political economy is authoritarian"
False. Socialism is by definition democratic, as you have already admitted.
"allocation of te means of production, democratically or not, so democratic workplaces in Russia were authoritarian"
Nothing you said here makes a single bit of sense.
"huma rights were the only aspect of the 1991 soviet referrendum which altered political economy"
Wait, you think current day Russia isn't authoritarian?
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Present the citeable source which proposes the political science term "authoritarian" relates to democracy rather than human rights."
The literal definitions of the words. Also, a authoritarian government that does not restrict human rights, other than the right to democracy, would still be authoritarian.
"American unions were established for segregation"
Total nonsense. The first unions was in the 1700s.
"They resisted the FLSA on the principle of unionism"
False. SOME unions resisted the FLSA because it did not encompass all industries. In fact it actively excluded some insustries. I imagine unions that represented those industries felt pretty upset about it. Of course who actually resisted the FLSA. Oh right, literally every capitalist business. Meanwhile many unions applauded the new laws.
"United States had democracy"
The US did not have democracy. Aside from the fact that only men who owned land could vote, that also actively excluded, as you said, your ancestors. If the entire democracy is reliant on about 30% of the total adults within that population then it isn't a democracy at all. The US has instead become more democratic through the centuries.
"but in the south, socialist theory like that of socialist George Fitzhugh denied capitalism to my ancestors"
George Fitzhugh was not a socialist, he was a sociologist. In fact he wrote "We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism"
"specifically they were denied private property, free assembly, free expression, and free contract."
Your ancestors were literally privately owned capital owned by capitalists. Capitalists actively owned the labour means of production by owning your ancestors. This practice was stopped by government, not by capitalism.
"It is illegal for Norway to regulate a minimum wage"
Not sure you understand how Norway works. Unions negotiate a minimum wage collectively. The reason they don't want a government minimum wage as it would make their socialist collective bargaining less strong.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
Honestly, I would reply, but you are just repeating the same lies. The only really new points that need addressed are:
"Unions are private, competitive corporations which allocate the labor component of the means of production"
False. Unions do not allocate any labour, or own any labour, because workers do not work for unions, they are members of unions while still working at businesses. Unions represent workers to negotiate with businesses.
"United States had democracy, but in the south, socialist theory like that of socialist George Fitzhugh denied capitalism to my ancestors"
No, the US did not have democracy. Voting was heavily restricted to white male land owners. While things are better, the US still falls short of a true representative democracy. Also, George Fitzhugh also openly said that "Abolition is the first step in Socialism". Considering he was pro-slavery, it's odd to call him a socialist, especially when he was a sociologist. I know the words sound similar but try to keep up.
"specifically they were denied private property, free assembly, free expression, and free contract."
By capitalists. They were owned by capitalists who treated them as capital.
"Russia were authoritarian and huma rights were the only aspect of the 1991 soviet referrendum which altered political economy"
Wait, do you think modern day Russia is not authoritarian?
"American unions were established for segregation"
The first US union was in the 1700s, long long long before segregation.
"They resisted the FLSA on the principle of unionism"
Actually SOME unions resisted the FLSA because it specifically excluded some professions. Yet businesses were 100% against FLSA.
"It is illegal for Norway to regulate a minimum wage"
Because the minimum wage is negotiated between the collective union representation and businesses. Government getting involved with this process would erode the socialist union's ability to negotiate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Paying serfs ends serfdom, Einstein."
False. Plenty of serfs throughout history were paid. Serfdom didn't magically end when this happened.
"Capitalism is a limitation on the state and not an exercise of power by the state."
I agree there, and when the government limited slavery they also limited capitalism, since capitalists were slave owners.
"under conditions of free contract, free assembly, free expression and private property. Only if these rights are guaranteed is there a private allocation."
So if a nation has a free market, private ownership of the means of production, free expressions, but they ban union assembly, you would consider that a non-capitalist country?
What about if they just ban painting? Is that still capitalist?
Honestly, your definition is flawed to no end.
"In socialist and other mercantilist theory like feudalism"
This sentence is nonsensical.
Not only is socialism not mercantilist, but neither is feudalism. Seriously, do you just pull this out of thin air?
"these rights are limited to authoritarians who do all the economic allocation rather than it occurring broadly through broad guarantees of personal freedom."
You're confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism. This does in fact explain your previous errors. Authoritarians simply subvert democracy and remove power from the people to control the state, which I will note is not one of your listed freedoms meaning authoritarian capitalism is perfectly possible.
Again, capitalism is just private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism is common ownership of the means of production.
That's it, really simple.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"the right to free contract is the right not to be held as a slave."
Unfortunate isn't it that there is more than 1 type of capitalism. Free market capitalism works for you, but you have to admit that the slavers of the US were also capitalists.
Socialism is also perfectly possible without disrupting the work, choose employment and recieve just compensation.
"When I present the human rights that socialism abrogates and capitalism is based on, this goes right over your head because as a socialist, you have never looked into the topic of human rights."
False. In fact socialism is by far the best way to achieve universal human rights. Arguable capitalism can never deliver on the promise of just compensation, since it is built on a model of profit, and compensation is always as little as the business can get away with rather than being "just".
"For example, if you understood conventional human rights, you wou stfu because socialism is an open assault on private property."
This is a misnomer. Socialism is an attack of the private ownership of businesses, not private property in general. Marx made the distinction of personal property to describe things simple owned by people, and private property to describe the ownership of the means of production. Human rights however deal with private property in regards personally owned things, not the means of production.
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Capitalist philosophy and state support for it was what ended slavery."
False.
"American populists were actually who supported slavery "populism" was the approach of the Tammany Hall organization. They formed Democratic Party to give the people what they want and in the south, that was slavery"
Which businesses ended slavery in the South? Oh right, they didn't, the democratic populism of the North ended slavery in the South, through government. It also ended slavery in the North.
I also encourage you to look up the British Empire's changing position on slavery. As public support grew the government decided to take out a massive loan and buy and free every single slave in the empire, then actively patrolled the oceans to stop the entire slave trade permanently. Businesses didn't do this, elected officials did. Early support for the British abolition movement actually came from Quakers, a Protestant group who also pushed for prison reform policies. They worked all the way from the late 1700s to the abolition movement in the 1830s to end the practice. Taking their decades long achievement to build massive public support, sign hundreds of thousands of signatures, organise protests and far far more and boiling it down to "capitalist philosophy" is not just a lie, it's downright insulting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Name socialist countries"
There are no socialist countries. Socialism requires democracy, and the nations you mentioned are not democratic.
"the feudal labor relations was slavery"
Serfdom actually. Serfs were a part of the land, while slaves are considered property. It's a slight improvement where serfs are considered people and have at least some rights.
"Even though United States was not a monarchy, the means of production was allocated on a feudal basis with landed gentry playing the feudal role of lords."
It seems you missed the most important part, which is that land in a feudal system is allocated to lords by a monarch. The American gentry are not the same as lords because they could buy and sell their lands. Lords in feudal systems cannot do that without approval from their higher lord and technically they also do not own the land. It is a fief from the king, meaning they would actually be selling their title, not the land itself.
"capitalism has its basis in exploiting labor-POWER"
Glad we agree that capitalism is about exploitation.
"Marx called for slavery"
False.
"My ancestors worked under coercion and only received attention to minimal needs"
Nobody said minimal needs. I said "free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services".
"By the state"
Stop. There is no state in Marx's ideal world.
"slavery condition via coercion of starvation"
So capitalism... If you don't work in capitalism you starve.
"Fungible pay for work"
Again, there is no money in Marx's ideal world.
"All slaves in history were abrogated a right to fungible pay."
So we agree that serfs are not slaves, since many were paid.
"You say that it is false that collective bargaining is specifically to set the allocation of labor"
It is to force the allocator to make the allocation more preferable to workers. That's not the same thing as allocating labour.
"If we agree on something or if you have learned something, if you made a mistake or misunderstanding of something, it's ok to admit it."
I'm waiting for you to learn that unions aren't businesses, that employers allocate labour, and that Marx argued againt the very existence of both money and the state. Any day now I'm sure.
"Instead of this basic honesty, you are spamming with disagreement"
I'm starting to think you genuinely are not capable of learning.
"Only capitalist labor power is allocated via "influence of decisionmakers""
Except, again, they are not allocating it, they are influencing the people that allocate it. You see the difference?
"soviet workplace democracy used state force"
That's just an oxymoron. Either they had workplace democracy or they didn't. In this case they didn't. In the case of multiple workplace democracies around the world in worker cooperatives the workers decide their own leadership and therefore influence the decisionmakers through democracy. It is a far more effective method of giving workers the ability to decide their own labour allocation.
You're also telling on yourself since you already argues that unions are outdated, meaning you think the only mechanism workers have in a capitalist system to argue for their working conditions should be removed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"That force is just allocation."
So if I go to work for a company, they offer $20 an hour, and I say I won't do it for less than $22, then they up the agreement and pay me the $22, did I allocate the change in pay, or did I convince the company to change the pay?
Again, businesses allocate, workers do not.
"In a socialist political economy, the force is created by collective monopoly."
Market socialism uses a free market, no monopolisation. Capitalism however trends towards monopolisation and only government intervention stops this.
"In a capitalist political economy - that's the exclusive application where unions are found"
Right, they are collective groups of workers who are using their leverage through a democratically elected representative to get better working conditions and pay. In a market socialist system these workers would simply own the company collectively, effectively making the union and the owner of the company one in the same. The union collectively owns the business. The only difference is the naming convension of the collective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
"Income inequality is not equal to real wages."
Right, but if total wages are keeping up with productivity, but a substantial number of people are falling below the average due to inequalities, then using total wages to explain the wages of say, the bottom 90% of earners, is entirely disingenuous. As for affordability, it doesn't take 2 seconds to look it up. You could just research housing prices and you would know you're wrong instantly. In 1970 the median house price was $26,600, while the median wage was $9,870. In other words a house cost about 2.7 years of salary. These days however the median wage is $59,228, while the median house price is $419,200. That's over 7 years of work. That means it costs more than double just to own a home, and the downpayments on homes like that are of course also substantially higher, leaving many at the bottom far less able to get on the market. As a result, younger generations are losing out on home ownership, and older generations are living longer and skewing home ownership statistics. Only 42% of millenials owned a home at age 30, compared to 51% of Boomers. Current rates of home ownership in under 35s are 38.6%, yet in 1970 that number was 41.2%.
And that doesn't even address that you still couldn't respond to the study that openly showed that wages did not keep up. You keep just making excuses that made no sense.
"I already proved this wrong in the HobbsO is a liar pt 6 video"
You mean the video that referenced a CATO Institute study where they said that more income earners are moving into the top earnings quintile....which is a segment of the population meaning as some people moving into that group others have to move out, making their entire point nonsensical?
This is why you read your sources.
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Businesses are not said to allocate"
Yes they do. There you go, you learned something. Good job. Or are you seriously arguing that business owners do not have the power to hire, fire, set hours, set pay and even decide where and how people work?
"a collective is not everyone. That is capitalism"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
"a plural result of everyone's opinion"
What are you smoking mate. In what way is a business owner making unilateral decisions somehow a group decision? Especially when you have openly argued against unions, which according to you is literally the only party standing up for workers and trying to influence pay and working conditions?
"A collective is 1 decision with mandate - supposedly - from everyone."
1 decision...after you ask everyone their opinions, they vote on it, then they come to an agreement based on that. So everyone's decision, you just already collated it into 1 decision by asking everyone their opinions rather than arguing about it and striking.
"When I say collective monopoly, that 1 decision is not competing with other decisions nor negotiated with counterparties."
Except it is, because everyone already voted on it. So it is in fact a group decision, not some singular one.
"It is the dictate."
No, it is a collective decision. Unlike capitalist businesses which literally dictate.
Honestly, it is so utterly unbelievable that you are attempting to argue that a decision made collectively by the workers of a business about the direction of that business is someone some sort of fascist autocratic decision with zero recourse, but a capitalist business owner making decisions is somehow an honest, fair and even negotiation between unions and businesses. I cannot fathom the mental leaps that have caused you to believe something so fundamentally incorrect.
Here, let me hwlp you with a comparison. You have 2 options for the government of your country.
Option 1: A monarchy. They can control everything and can make unilateral decisions at will because they literally own everything in the entire country by law. If people aren't happy about it they can form a group of people to argue against the monarch, even going so far as to stop working to put pressure on the monarch to change their decisions.
Option 2: A democratically elected government where the people elect their own representatives and those representitives carry out the will of the people. Should they fail to do this the people can elect a new representative to carry out their will.
Now, which of these is preferable?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
1. Might want to look up the usage of the term and how it was used almost entirely in the
2. False. He meant democracy. In fact Engels spoke of the importance of democracy and how it is the first thing that must be done to ensure democracy.
3. Right, a state run by the people democratically, which would then dissolve over time.
4. The central committee would be elected.
5. To quote Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League: "the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff"
See how it says "elected" there?
6. Marx never describes his own theory as state capitalism, and by pointing out that Lenin's government fits the description of state capitalism you are outright admitting that it was not communism. As for a call against democracy, let's have a read shall we:
Marx stating that France's new empire does not manage to be democratic:
"While carefully preserving all the native beauties of her old system, she super-added all the tricks of the Second Empire, its real despotism, and its mock democratism, its political shams and its financial jobs, its high-flown talk and its low legerdemains."
Marx stating that government officials should be able to be recalled by the public at any time to maintain democracy and stop corruption:
"From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
1. No, it wasn't. Usage of the modern term was popularised in the early 1900s.
2. Wrong, he meant democratic. Engels even stated that establishing democracy is the most important thing a post-revolution socialist state can do.
3. Right, a democratically elected state that would dissolve over time.
4. The central committee proposed was not just elected, but also subject to recall, as shown below.
5. "the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff"
6. At least you admit that Leninism was state capitalism and not any form of socialism. As for Marx's writings The Civil War in France:
This is a call to make elected officials, without exception, subject to voter recalls at any time.
"this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment."
Really wondering why you keep focusing on Marx so much. Are you aware that other forms of socialism exist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Please repeat your explanation of how a capitalist political economy cannot guarantee human rights"
Capitalism cannot fulfill positive human rights.
"Explain how it isthat EUCHR and capitalism is in effect at thesame time in Eurozone/EU, with no exception."
Because not a single one of the EU countries use capitalism to fulfill positive human rights, they use government.
"Following this, explain why no socialist theory ever addresses human rights."
They do actually. The terminology tends to be different since a lot of people talk about Marx, who died long before they were codified. But even Marx talks of egalitarianism, which is the the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
"What does that have to do with the end of socialism there if human rights were not abrogated due to marxist ideology?"
Again, you are starting with a supposition and trying to slip it into the question.
1. Russia was not socialist and never has been.
2. Russia does not fulfill human rights and fails to meet basic standards on many many levels.
3. Marxism is egalitarian, Marx said so multiple times.
Here, allow me to help you. If you have no money but need things like healthcare, food, water or shelter, what would a capitalist do to address your needs?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
You should really read the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights before just making up your own. They list the 30 inalienable rights of all people.
As for your rather short list, it ignores article 25, which states that:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
The reason for this is that without these things people would die. That's what makes them human rights.
Oh, and don't just make up a right. "Free contract" is not listed by the UN.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"Marx referred to both Germany and France as dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in his The Class Struggles in France"
You should probably actually read his points on France, as you seem somewhat confused. Most notably he mentions that the peasants elected their own government, and at another time referred to this government as a dictatorship of the poletariat. It becomes very clear upon review, especially given your own choice of source, that Marx used the term "dictatorship" to simply mean "leadership" and not the modern day equivolent that was not developed until long after Marx's death.
"A dictatorship was a plenypotential governorship under Holy Roman Empire"
You're confusing the Roman Empire with the Holy Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire had temporary leaders appointed by the Senate in times of strife who were called dictators, they had terms limits or goals, and could be pushed to step down. They were still elected leaders, even if their power was greater than a standard government, mostly due to the temporary nature of the appointment. The Holy Roman Empire had no such position. In fact the Holy Roman Empire did not have a singular leader, or even a single leading government, at any point in the entire empire's existence.
The term dictatorship was not used in the modern context until the 1930s.
Maybe if you spent less time insulting and more time reading you would know all of this.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
I'm sure some unions were, but most were not. Union membership also only hit 6.2% in the private sector in 2020. It has been dropping for decades, not just a few years as you claimed. Really throws your Civil Rights claim out the window.
Fascist syndicalism isn't a thing. You either believe that unions should have the power to control the state through worker action, or you believe the state should control businesses and workers.
Again, George Fitzhugh was a sociologist who believed that socialism was the path to abolition, which he was against.
Victor Berger's party wrote this:
“The Socialist Party is the party of the working class, regardless of color — the whole working class of the whole world.”
As for sanctions, he was sanctioned under the 1917 espionage act during WWI because he was an Austrian born immigrant.
And yes, congratulations, Marx was a socialist. He was also Jewish, but I suppose you missed that part.
Tell me more about how the US South wasn't "real capitalism" as was instead a form of feudalism, but without any of the rules that surround feudalism, such as a monarchy or the distribution of land and titles by said monarchy.
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
The CIO was one of the strongest anti-segregation forces of the US in the 1930s. By accepting all workers when organizing an entire industry, including women, African Americans, and immigrants from eastern and southern Europe and their children, the CIO welcomed a variety and unskilled and semiskilled workers the AFL had often neglected. Even poorly paid, young, female sales clerks at Woolworth’s used the sit-down tactic to demand better conditions. Benjamin Stolberg, a noted labor journalist, wrote, “the C.I.O. has changed significantly the relation of social forces in American industry. . . . It is gradually killing off the A.F. of L.” Lewis’s extraordinary leadership, he added, had made the CIO “the most vital and progressive force in American life today.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
No, I have not generalised Marx as all of socialism. All socialist thories have an underlying theme of common ownership. You cannot be in a separate class while also collectively owning things. The same is true for race. You can't collectively own things with people of all races while also being race segregated. It makes absolutely no sense.
The USSR was not socialist. As you have openly admitted, it was state capitalism.
As I have shown several times, not only did Fitzhugh describe himself as separate from socialists in every single one of the quotes either of us has posted, he also referred to all of socialism as both a path to abolition, and said that all socialists get their philosophy from outdated greek republics. He outright said socialism is outdated and directly against his own worldview.
Lenin was a socialist at least at some points in history, but his attempt at a government was not.
Again, socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. I asked you for a definition because I like to see where your own view differ from reality so we can find the holes and patch them using actual socialist theory rather than whatever nonsense you like to spew out.
Your definition of socialism in this particular comment is flawed in 2 ways:
1. It claims that monarchies are socialist, which goes against centuries of political arguments on the topic. Monarchists are classically right-wing.
2. Market socialism does not allocate control nor monopolise control of the means of production.
So by ignoring actual socialism you have invented this strawman claim that socialism is in someway linked to government, without any actual understanding of even the very roots of the various theories around socialism, including communes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
Given your recent comment on feudalism not being a collective, I think you need to rethink your entire argument again. Sounds like I don't know what your made up version of a collective is, which just seems to be whatever you don't like the sound of at this point.
Earlier you told me that unions were businesses (they aren't), that unions allocate labour (they don't) and that pluralism is great because unions can argue against companies to come to a mutual agreement, while also arguing that unions shouldn't exist.
No, there are many theories of socialism, but all theories of socialism require common ownership.
You are confusing your imaginary idea of collectivism (whatever you decide you don't like) with socialist common ownership. Common ownership doesn't require collectivism, it requires democracy. Democracy requires human rights. Market socialism requires human rights. Capitalism does not.
You also claimed that human rights were written to stop communism, yet you also claim that one of the nations that helped form the UN Declaration of Human Rights was communist.
While Mussolini morphed the idea of syndicalism into his own political and economic theory, the end result has abslutely nothing in common with syndicalism. The two are entirely different in a number of ways, most notably the mechanism of governance. In syndicalism government can be influenced by trade unions to affect policy. In Mussolini's Italy unions didn't even exist. The fact that someone can start with an idea and end somewhere entirely different doesn't make those things the same, or even remotely similar. You have to show similarities in the actual theories, not just handwave and say they must be the same because some guy who used to believe in syndicalism created an entirely different system.
Next time I fry a egg and ask you how long until it hatches.
Are all extreme capialists such utter knobends?
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
"They are suitable for industrial modes of production like the 19th century and are poorly suited for post-industrial economies like 21st century United States."
Nonsense. Aside from the fact that unions for plenty of jobs that don't involve 19th century style factories exist, including in the 20th century when union membership was at an all-time high, I cannot think of a single reason current jobs cannot unionise. Teachers have unions, as do figherfighters, police officers, any trade job you can think of, pilots and more. Not to mention the current members of some of the old industries still holding hundreds of thousands of members. These include auto workers, steelworkers, machinists, carpenters, longshoremen and warehouse workers, postal workers and more. Not to mention the current unions for food processing, healthcare and even more recently individual starbucks locations. Unions are in every single industry and are not limited to factories.
"The wages, benefits and enfranchisement of unions is inferior to other career paths in modern economies"
Total nonsense. Wages, benefits and enfranchisement are all higher in unions.
"Unions were developed specifically for capitalist economies."
Right, because workers were being exploited and wanted a stronger voice for themselves. So they banded together and created a democratic group of workers who would fight against private business owners for them.
"Unions can never facilitate socialism"
Well sure, unions don't own the means of production. They are however member owned organisations with democratic elections.
"Unions will always be in capitalism, dealing with enterprise."
Correct. Workers will band together and fight against the owners of their companies.
The part you missed, which I already said before, is that if workers band together and simply own the company outright, we call it a worker cooperative. But if you think about it cooperatives function much the same as unions.
"Trade unions will never be a socialist labor relations because this is a competitive (marxianly sectarian) and not collective allocation of the labor component of the means of production."
In what way is a union capitalist. And I don't mean how do they argue with capitalists, I mean secifically how does a member owned group of workers with democratic election count as private ownership of the means of production?
"The matxist call for worker unity is anti union."
Unions are literally worker unity you spanner.
1
-
@ExPwner
"Your claim was that someone else had to move down for someone else to move up."
Right, because they are EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF THE POPULATION!
Oh, and fun fact, if someone retires they move DOWN the income scale, meaning someone else will move UP the income scale.
And yes, your initial claim is built off the idea that the top 20% of income earners growing massively in income while the bottom 4 quintiles did not, and that is somehow justifyable. You are claiming that somehow the top quintile growing in total population means that the bottom 4 quintiles should just suck it up, ignoring that all 4 of the lower quintiles also grew in population in this same time period. It's still 80% of the population with minimal income growth while 20% grew massively. Nothing you say will ever change that.
The best you have come up with is that people are retiring, but that was true 50 years ago as well. Do you think that people didn't retire in the 70s?
Yes yes yes, I know you are but what am I. Honestly, the fact that you've mentioned me calling you an incel about a dozen times already shows how deep that cut goes. Let me know when you move out of your parent's basement and get some real life experience.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cobaltblue5523 Jesus dude, punctuation.
To sum up:
Andrew Neil is the interviewer.
Ben's entire page of dumb things he has said would be great, if he didn't still believe those things. He regrets being so blatant, not his beliefs. He openly states he still believes several of them in this very interview.
An objective interview is one that poses opposition to the viewpoint being presented by the interviewee. Allowing Ben to go unchallenged would be the opposite of objective. Andrew does a great job, and has done in numerous interviews, when he challenges interviewees.
Ben lied when he said that he did not post the videos that use combative language, specifically the word "destroys". Those videos are on both his personal YouTube channel, and the Daily Wire channel, which he owns. When he said "are those videos posted by me" the answer was yes, yes they are.
The reason the Twitter posts were so valid is they show perfect examples of the coarse political discourse that Ben claims he is so heavily against. Instead of denouncing this, Ben doubles down quite heavily, defending his old tweets, while also claiming they were just dumb.
The points made by Andrew Neil are not his own political agenda. He is presenting a position for the sake of conversation. This is explained in the interview. Andrew commonly plays Devil's Advocate when interviewing.
Not only did they do plenty of research, Andrew Neil read Ben's book and openly quoted it multiple times. The best part is that Ben didn't notice he was being quoted because he wasn't prepared to answer anything about his book, and instead wanted to proselytize on a podium.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Yes, TIK ignores half the quote, specifically the point on common control. He doesn't say state control, he says common control. Common control is control by everyone, not just the state. It seems you missed the point about social ownership in the wiki article too. This point in both definitions completely subverts your argument about party, state or technocratic directed socialism, as in all of those you still require social/common control of the means of production, ie democracy.
You are confusing private property rights with private property. Private property both existed and grew, regardless of rights. So your entire argument falls flat on its face there. Again, having the power to dissolve stocks is not the same as doing it.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of reality, and it's just sad. The US government has the right to indefinitely imprison people. That doesn't mean everyone is in prison, it's such a stupid argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
If you're calling that an opinion then your interpretation that it doesn't mean that is also an opinion. Of course, mine matches far more closely with Marx and Engel's other writings where they advocated for universal suffrage.
Again, you continue to change the meaning, then hide behind TIK without a leg to stand on. Common control does not mean state control, and it never has. Claiming that it does just makes you look stupid.
Because socialism is about everything being owned or controlled in common. A bunch of businesses being owned or controlled by an authoritarian state is not giving control over to the people (ie in common), therefore it does not fit the definition of socialism. I think the issue is that you are confusing this dictatorial collectivism with socialism, but socialism is not the concentration of assets, but the sharing of assets among everyone, giving everyone some element of ownership or control that cannot be removed. Yes, it can be done via a state, but ONLY if that state is beholden to the people.
Glad you dropped the point about privat property though, watching you fall on your sword with that one is funny, but also sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"The formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution."
Almost as if its a sliding scale, and not an absolute.
"Regardless, what Marxism believes, private owned businesses would not be eliminated before the establishment of the Communist Stateless Society"
Yes it would. Nothing in what you quoted says what you claim.
"Therefore, owner of businesses can co-exist with proletariat, and ruling class in a socialist state"
Ahain, nothing in what you quoted says that at all. Look, we can all just make shit up, but nothing you said makes any sense. You have invented this imaginary "ruling class" while ignoring how democracy works, then claimed that Marxism allows people to own buisinesses, even though common ownership of the means of production is LITERALLY THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. Jesus, is this really the level of critique that comes out of the braindead libertarians? Can you just not read so you have to invent meaning where there is none?
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"The formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution, the pre-dictatorship of the proletarian stage where proletarian have no control of mean of production."
That's not what he was saying at all. He was saying that society naturally becomes more socialist over time, and he was right.
"If Democratic processes are able to stop people from becoming the ruling class, how can you explain the cases of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump?"
Hunter Biden is a citizen who admitted to crimes and took a plea deal recently. Trump is under about 5 different investigations. The US is also lacking a lot of democracy for several reasons. What you're really complaining about is money in politics, which is just crony capitalism, and is a massive issue with US "democracy".
"I have provided you the source that Marxists would not confiscate any property from the cooperative bourgeoisie from the revolutionary measures of the Manifesto. There is no private ownership of businesses only under the Marxist Communist Society."
Actually you didn't. You just don't understand what you quoted.
Not really sure what you were hoping to prove by posting things that agree with me. On the one hand you sit there and claim that socialism totally doesn't take property out of the hands of private ownership, then on the other you post a manifesto saying they would centralise communication, centralise transportation, socialise education, confiscate property from migrants and rebels, abolish inheretance, have massive progressive tax rates, abolish all private ownership of rented property, et cetera et cetera, all of which are examples of wealth redistribution and would move dramatically away from private ownership. These are gradual steps to achieve a goal, and move more and more towards socialism. Again, you are confused because you think the world is black and white.
"Thus, under the "dictatorship of the proletariat," not everyone would have control of the mean of production. "
Yes they will, through democracy. Have you learned nothing.
"So regardless of your opinions on Marxism, you still didn't change the fact that business owners can co-exist with the proletariat and the ruling class in a socialist state."
Again, you are using black and white terms like "socailist state" when in reality it's a sliding scale. Private business owners that do not give ownership to their employees are an example of a move away from socialism. An aristocracy as you called it before would be a move away from socialism. Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. If the populous has no control of the means of production either directly or indirectly through elected representation then it's not socialism.
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"A graduate process includes both the starting stage of Socialism, where the Socialism State is still run by capitalistic mode of production, where the proletariat has not yet seized political power."
But again, there is no "starting stage" as it isn't an on off switch. You are contradicting yourself in your first 9 words.
"Even the USA's Democracy is flawed? Which country's Democracy isn't flawed, then?"
Yes, for a large number of reasons. The electoral college, the disproportionate power in the Senate, the two=party system and a number of other factors. US democracy, as per the democracy index, is flawed.
Norway is the most democratic nation on the planet. Conincidentally it is also the least corrupt.
"Those are privileges that money cannot buy. Their special treatments were due to the presidency of Trump and Biden."
You're joking right? Rich people get away with shit all the time. Trump paid for lawyers to stall on everything for years at a time. The added corruption of politicians who are bought and paid for is a separate issue. It's nothing to do with being a "ruling class" though. Again though, Hunter Biden entered a plea deal. He went and sorted it out. Not sure what you are whining about.
"According to Marxism, total class difference abolishment can only be archived in Communist Society, not Socialist State. Thus there must be different classes (i.e., bourgeoisie) within Socialist State under Marxism."
You are continuing to ignore that this is a graduated process, even though you already admitted as much. Does the concept of something not being an absolute offend you somehow? Do you truely believe that socialism is some sort of on-off switch?
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"Next time please uses "immediate process""
Why would I say that, it's NOT an immediate process? Are you okay Oscar?
"A gradual process includes everything from the starting stage to the ending stage of Socialism. In the starting stage, Socialist State is still run by capitalistic mode of production, where the proletariat has not yet seized political power. "
So according to you a socialist state is when capitalism....
"What do you mean there is no starting stage in a gradual process? Every process start from somewhere and end in somewhere."
Again, you seem to think that this is an on-off switch, even though you admit it's a gradual process. This makes no sense. You are contradicting yourself again.
"A ruling classes still formed within the Norwegian rulers, they would still use or misused the system to further their own interest, the Norwegian Housing Scandal was a good example, Members of Parliament exploited generous state benefits to live free at taxpayer expense and evade taxes."
Except the fact that it was a scandal is proof that it is actually a poor example. Scandals are evidence of something being found out and stopped. Moreover, the politicians caught up in the scandal resigned.
"Both of them should be in jail years ago, when their incidents were first uncovered."
Oh, so lets just throw away due process shall we. Honestly Oscar.
Again, gradual process. You really need to look up what that means.
"For a person using English as the first language, can't you see the contradiction between two statement?"
There is no contradiction. Again, as it becomes MORE socialist class differences and separate classes altogether become LESS. It's a scale, not an absolute.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Again, I'm not the one calling this an on-oof switch, you are.
Again, you are treating this like an on-off switch. You have also eroded the meaning of socialism so much you think that capitalism is a socialist state.
Yes, it does mean common control. Literally everything in Marxism is about common control. Socialisation as a concept is about making things socialist. Your comment however did not say socialisation, because that term didn't even exist in Marx's day, instead it says socialised, which is not the same thing.
Those are second homes that allow politicians to attend parliament as needed. They are in fact removing financial barriers to being a politician, giving anyone elected the means to serve, moving further away from a ruling class, not closer.
Sounds like you've made your mind up on the charges Oscar.
Yes, communism, but not socialism. Communism is an absolute, socialism is a sliding scale. And again, the society has elements of socialism, is moving more towards socialism, but is not some absolute socialist state. That is not how those terms work.
Nope. Universal suffrage is literally the dirst step in socialism. Engels said so himself.
They are the same thing.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"That is a new low even for you. Did you deny that you are the one who used the term "graduate process" and "on-off switch" to describe/distort my statement?"
I didn't distort anything. That is an accurate explanation of your claims.
"That is not my word; that was the description of Bourgeoisie Socialism in the Communist Manifesto."
No, it was your interpretation, and it's wrong.
"Besides, the "Socialism" wiki page also suggested that Socialism can exist in Capitalist States, like the "Western countries, such as France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have been governed by socialist parties or have mixed economies sometimes referred to as "democratic socialist.""
Yes, and?
"Engels used socialisation in Anti-Dühring. It also didn't contain any meaning of the common control for everyone involved."
Again, you are confused as both Marx and Engels talk about common control, universal suffrage and control by the people. The term socialism was literally created to explain a system where society as a whole controls things. In your specific quote Engels was talking about democracies that socialise elements of their economies during economic downturns.
"Without income checks, it will just become resource misallocation, at the end it is just a tool to make the rich richer."
Except that's a load of bollocks. Plenty of lower income politicans use this exact program to allow them to go to debates and make votes. It's a vita; part of democracy, removing the barrier for entry. When it is misused the law cracks down and people even resign. It is working as intended.
"In Marxism, the Communism Society is the only correct ascension of the Socialist State."
And?
"Real Socialist State is determined to evolve into the Communism Society"
Can you define "real socialist state" for me.
"In other socialist theories, like "democratic socialist," ownership of private property is always permitted. "
Nobody said private property was not permitted.
"Your definition of the Socialist State, in which the populace has common control on rationally regulating the means of production interchange with Nature either directly or indirectly, is not the only definition of Socialist State among all Socialist ideologies."
Yes it is. All forms of socialism require common control on some level.
"Maybe for you and Engels, but not even for the Socialisms (i.e., Bourgeoisie Socialism )Karl Marx recognized in the Manifesto."
Yes it is. I know English is hard, but your entire argument makes sense once you realise that they are one in the same. Again, socialism is a sliding scale. Common ownership is more socialism. That's it, that's how it works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Marx wrote:
"But universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the continent. Its inevitable result, here is the political supremacy of the working class."
Engels:
"Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat."
There is a bunch more throughout, but the long and short of it is that both Marx and Engels openly approved of democracy and pushed to make it standard.
For example, Engels wrote the following:
"Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dannyboiii22 Well sure, because the vaccine was created for Alpha, not Delta. The end result is that, while they have a high vaccination rate, people can still get infected. That being said, Vermont's "all time high in cases" is just over 200 cases a day when averaged over 7 days. With their population that puts it to 346 per million per day. Compare this to some of the less vaccinated states and you'll see the issues. For example:
Florida - peaked at 26,951 infections, adjusted for population they had 1,255 infections per day per million. That's almost 4 times Vermont.
South Carolina - peaked 5,532 - adjusted 1,074
Louisiana - peaked 5,839 - adjusted 1,260
How about weekly death peak per capita, maybe they're better for the various states:
VT - 25.6 (in December, recent peak is only 14.4)
FL - 122.7
SC - 118.3 (in January, recent peak is 83.5)
LA - 98.1 (in April, recent peak is 72.9)
Amazingly Vermont is doing better than any of these places, and is having less deaths than even itself back in December, just as the vaccine was rolling out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Freedomtospeak1
"Nothing you said about Carlson was true."
Check the NPR article "You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers" He won a lawsuit on the premise that:
"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
"Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
He, legally speaking, has zero reason to tell the truth, and anything he says cannot be considered slander because he can lie, meaning he cannot be considered news.
"CNN and MSDNC back the left. They’re their mouthpiece. They race bait, they divide us along racial lines and demonize anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their blatant lies."
Ironic.
"You cannot look at the state of this country under Biden and conclude with critical thinking skills that he’s doing a good job."
Jobs are up. GDP is up. Wages are up. What exactly is the issue here. The wages even increased on par with the recent high inflation, meaning we aren't seeing a shrinkage in buying power, even with the 7 trillion the Trump administration added to the debt.
"It’s impossible and it defies logic."
You just think that because you accept the lies told to you as fact, such as literally anything out of Tucker Carlson's mouth.
"He’s cognitively impaired and largely controlled by his administration."
Sure he is. Pull the other one.
"They’re tanking the country on purpose."
Tanking what? Again, things are improving, and this is despite a global pandemic and massive debt increases.
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
-
@partydean17
Well of course, it's not like you're being malicious.
There are other benefits to a national system. Things like nationwide bargaining power means that drug prices are dirt cheap in other countries compared to the US. The NHS even posts the prices for different procedures, and while dental is only covered for children, prices are maintained for adults at rock-bottom prices compared to the US. Checkups including xrays and cleanings are only about $30. Fillings and root canals are less than $100. Also, if you get multiple fillings or root canals done at the same time it's just 1 price, not per tooth. Compare that to the US and I'm being quoted at hundreds per tooth.
I think it's a little condecending to say that you are keeping workers away from having power over their own jobs because you don't trust them. "I kept you in the dark to protect you" is one of the worst things someone can say.
Well again, the changes would be salaries and compensations. Low-income wages have been stagnant for decades now. Cooperatives also tend to use wage ratios to guarantee fair pay, meaning the highest paid employee cannot earn a certain ratio more than the lowest paid, which allows for fairer distributions. As said, salaries would be open, as would business expenses, expenditures, revenues, budgets et cetera as every employee is part owner. It just creates a lot more open knowledge and a more fair environment.
The sort of capitalistic abuse would more likely be in the form of things like stock buybacks, owners draws, high salaries, benefits for some employees that low-wage earners don't see and other dramatic differences in compensations.
Cooperatives would still have a market, and therefore planned obsolescence would still be a thing, however I certainly agree that working towards ending that should be a real goal for a society. I suppose one could argue for planned obsolescence to be a criminal offence that could be investigated, but anyway.
Considering the poor workers have not really gone anywhere in 4 decades, I think it's difficult for them to get hit any more than they already have. There are certainly ways to invest in cooperatives that guarantee a return without giving equity through loans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1stsampan I would argue that Cuba doesn't fulfil the criteria of a socialist country as it fails to meet the main goal of socialism, which is to put the means of production into common control. At a government level this would require a democratically elected government, allowing the people to decide who is in charge of these commonly controlled assets, and forcing accountability on that government. The whole point of socialism was always common ownership, or social ownership as you may call it instead, meaning authoritarians and dictators just don't qualify. They may have begun with socialism in mind, or even socialist rhetoric, but the end result was just the same as any monarchy.
Social welfare in democractic nations however does fulfil that criteria. We democratically elect a government, and that government manages social welfare programs on our behalf. If we don't like the management then we can vote in new leadership to manage it instead. The more democratic the government of these nations, the more socialistic the government run services are.
So yes, social programs are not inherently socialism, they require democratically elected governments to be socialism.
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
-
@MidnightMark12
Actually unemployment is based on unemployment benefits claims, which are substantially down. Retirees leaving the workforce doesn't change unemployment, but that has happened a lot. As such we are seeing a smaller workforce that has to fight for workers, which they do with higher wages. Which leads me to point 2.
Inflation is not near the wage increases we have seen. Even if it were, then that just proves that inflation means nothing, as wages increased too, making the price increased null and void.
Nope. Airlines, hotels, casinos, movie theaters, tour operators, concerts, taxis, real estate, oh and weed. All of these are up 30% minimum.
The debt ceiling is artificial and enforced by petty Republicans that just spent trillions, but are now making a show of not spending a cent more. Debt always increased with Republicans because they can't keep a budget straight.
Suicides are indeed up, but this is nothing new and has been increasing for 20 years straight.
The shipping backlog came from more people ordering goods, which was a result of the pandemic. Our shipping has never slowed.
Afghanistan? Where they removed those servicemen and women, as well as the citizens, from a dangerous region. The best part was when Republicans started saying they wouldn't take a single refugee in their state, even though the refugees were US allies saved from the region.
Poverty is down. Your claims to otherwise are for naught.
Infrastructure does effect humans, and roads and bridges lower the annual costs to those people in fuel, car repairs and more. The hidden cost of our crumbling infrastructure is something you need to look into.
As a fellow Floridian, I feel safe in calling you a blind moron. During delta hospitals here were at breaking point, with many over capacity, and many being turned away for one reason or another. I had to be seen in the emergency waiting room because there were no beds or rooms to take people back and look at them. We had the worse delta numbers in the country, and deaths spiked like crazy. Thanks Deathsantis.
The IRS has avoided going after larger income taxpayers for years due to a lack of staffing. There is millions to be gained there. What's worse is it sounds like you're a tax dodger too.
I know exactly what's going on at ground level, and it's an absolute travesty. This will blow over eventually, but Florida is not the leading cause of this ending, not by a long stretch.
Who cares if she has a place in Florida? Why do you even care about her vacation home? As for her galas, because she's an idiot who puts her own image above people's mortal wellbeing. At least they're vaxed though so that's something.
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
-
@YanPagh
Nah, he's defending his libertarian nonsense. It's a failure from the getgo.
No, that's not the core belief of socialism. It's about control by the people collectively, not the state. Socialism doesn't require any state ownership to exist.
Again, private ownership of businesses increased, that's a fact. Profits went to business owners, that's a fact. Businesses were still owned by those private individuals after the war, also a fact. TIK tries to claim that control over markets is the same as owning businesses, which obviously is just false.
The actual historians TIK quoted directly disagree with him, and when he presents his definition of socialism on the screen he openly misinterprets it. He also actively changes source materials to suit his own agenda, changing their words to match his views, removing words like "fascism" from documents about Nazi Germany.
Stick to TIK's comment sections so you don't have to have your echo chamber burst. Everyone here blatantly disagrees with you.
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
-
@hikikomori_trader
"Recent experimental research shows that many mammals, including cats, dogs, bank voles, ferrets, fruit bats, hamsters, mink, pigs, rabbits, racoon dogs, tree shrews, and white-tailed deer can be infected with the virus.
Cats, ferrets, fruit bats, hamsters, racoon dogs, and white-tailed deer can also spread the infection to other animals of the same species in laboratory settings."
Like candy from a baby.
"The chimpanzee version of the virus (called simian immunodeficiency virus, or SIV) was probably passed to humans when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came in contact with their infected blood.
Studies show that HIV may have jumped from chimpanzees to humans as far back as the late 1800s.
Over decades, HIV slowly spread across Africa and later into other parts of the world. We know that the virus has existed in the United States since at least the mid to late 1970s."
Just too easy.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@salan3507
"Deaths have been labeled as "covid" that were other causes."
Very rarely, if at all. All states have their own way of counting covid data, and the vast majority determine the cause of death before labelling the deaths as covid deaths. Your theory would also mean that deaths didn't really shift from 2019 to 2020, which is wrong deaths increased massively, and other types of disease related deaths would decrease, which also didn't happen.
"Also, people are being admitted into hospitals with both reactions to the vaccine and vaccinated with covid."
Very rarely. Almost everyone in a hospital bed are there because of covid. I say this as someone in the medical industry with a hospital that is literally full, in a county that is also full.
"Why is that shocking, though, considering people are being offered fast food if they get this so called vaccine, or being entered into a "lottery", or other shady ideas."
That's not shady. People are being offered positive incentives to get vaccinated in an effort to increase vaccination rates. That's a good idea.
"I trust my friends who work at the hospitals and are seeing this first hand far more than what is being "reported"."
Okay, I trust myself more than your imaginary "friend".
"There is obviously a huge agenda to push these vaccines using fearmongering tactics and bribery"
Sure. So?
"and if people aren't questioning that they are blind or asleep"
Questioning what? Fearmongering is the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue. That doesn't make it inherently bad. Bribing people to do something health is also not a bad thing. "Hey kids, if you eat your vegetables you can have dessert". Totally normal. The Sad part is we have to treat the unvaccinated like children to get them to do something that could save their lives.
"Delta version....delta is also the term for deep sleep. How fitting."
Because it's killing people? More accurate than you could imagine.
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
-
@brandona.deimel5155 They saw it coming and hedged their bets. People had seen an even like this coming for years, and preparing a vaccine early is the only way to get to market.
The co-founder of BioNTech designed the Pfizer vaccine in an afternoon on the 25th of January 2020. They made an agreement with Pfizer, and created the physical vaccine in a few weeks. Due to the simplicity of the vaccine the turnaround time was easy to keep short.
From there they were allowed by the FDA to do simultaneous pre-clinical trials, meaning they were doing cellular and animal testing at the same time. They were also putting billions behind the endeavour, allowing them to put hundreds of people on the task. Usually drug trials are done by a couple of scientists slowing working through the steps over years, but with the urgency they used massive funding to accelerate the testing, running hundreds and hundreds of plates a day knowing they would be at the front of the FDA queue.
By late April they already had clinical trial approval, with the phase 1/2 trials (combining them for speed) getting their first dose on the 23th of April and running until the 22nd of May.
Recipients were reviewed over the course of 6 months for side effects, but with no immediate problems they started their phase 2/3 clinicals (also combined) in 4 different countries, recruiting thousands as early as July and running to November.
EUA came through in December, and by them the earliest injection had been over 8 months ago, far past the 6 month threshold set on long-term side effects by the FDA given the urgency.
In February they started phase 3 trials on adolescents aged 12-15 and pregnant women at 24-32 weeks.
Now that it is fully approved the earliest injection was around 16 months ago. Earliest largescale trial was 14 months ago. They were testing it on cells and animals around 18 months ago.
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
-
@keepinghealthy3332 8 months is the time between EUA and now, not how long it was in development total. They started developing it months before the EUA, meaning it has been tested for over a year. Their clinical trial alone started almost 14 months ago.
They were also allowed to run concurrent testing. Before the clinical trials cellular and animal trials took place over the course of 3 months, pushing total development time to 17 months. These also overlapped considerably due to Operation Warp Speed.
This is not an unreasonable amount of time considering the overlapping testing and huge number of people in the clinical trial. Vaccines also don't need stage 4 trials as we aren't giving the vaccines to unhealthy people, but to people not yet infected. Usually clinical trails for new medications take so long because the testing pool is expanded several times, putting clinical trials into 4 separate phases. They practically leapt to stage 4 trails, cutting of years of clinicals. Then they skipped stage 4 all together, saving years of work.
For reference, mumps took 4 years to develop, and that was in the 60s without modern technology, massive bursts of funding and an immediate need.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1stsampan
1. It doesn't make you more violent, it makes a violent act more extreme.
2. But they all have far less homicides than the US, the place with the most firearm freedom. No licences, no registration. You continue to use this entirely false Czech Republic comparison, yet they have licensing for both proficiency and mental health, and registration, and far lower gun ownership rates.
3. Conscription has its own issues of rights. Forcing people to conscript just because you want guns is pretty bizarre.
Israel is a racist country founded by expelling hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, and continuously occupying and settling on their land. Israelis hold some of the most horrific views of any nation. Yes, Palestine is also awful, but let's not sit here and whine about Israel being attacked when they've killed far more Paestinians both before and after they were attacked. They shut an entire regions water and electricity off, trying to starve out hundreds of thousands of people. They flattened rows of buildings. They've indiscriminately bombed hospitals, schools and homes. But sure, that's what Israel needs MORE military personnel shooting civilians and medical aid workers.
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
-
@nonhatespeech
"None of what you speak of is as restrictive as many of the laws already in place in many blue states"
That's just not true. Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas and Wisconsin all have strict voter ID laws. Only Wisconsin has a Democrat governor.
The next set of states, which are less strict are Alabama, Florida, Montana, South Carolina, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Texas. Of those 11 only 3 have Democrat governors. That means of the 18 strictest states for voter ID laws, 15 are Republican.
The next 4 states all require non-photo ID to vote, and they are Arizona, North Dakota, Wyoming and Ohio, which are all Republican.
So stop with the blatant misinformation. Even if you ignore this, Georgia's election is a perfect example of long lines designed to stop people voting. Georgia's population has increased over 8% from 2012 to 2020, yet the number of polling places dropped by 13%. The reduction was more stark in highly populated areas, where people in some counties are averaging only 1 polling stations per 8K-9K eligible voters. This results in lines through the night, with people joining the line hours before the polls close, and finally voting (with provisional ballots I might add) well into the next day.
Statewide, the number of voters served by the average polling place rose 47%, from 2,046 voters in 2012 to 3,003 as of Oct. 9
Some polling stations had upwards of 22K voters assigned to them.
You're an ignorant troll who has absolutely no clue of either the history or the current efforts to suppress votes. You disgust me.
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
-
@CSPORTPDX
"In what kind of bonkers universe do you claim that because they funded SAFETY and the virus ESCAPED"
Again, this is a completely unproven theory. Show some evidence that this even happened.
"dude I was being sarcastic about the clinical trials"
So you were just pretending to be dumb. Wow, genius there dude.
"they have been torturing monkeys there for decades with little to show for it"
How do you know? Show me the monkeys, the testing, the papers. Show me what they did.
"And again of course there are animal trials for infectious diseases."
You literally just spent hours arguing against this.
"insert weirdly homoerotic rant here"
I mean seriously, you should talk to someone about fantasies like that rather than ranting online. Very unhealthy.
"in all seriousness, how many boosters are YOU going to take"
Depends. Currently boosters are for people with compromised immune systems who see much earlier vaccine waning.
"think about how whacked out and destroyed your natural immunity will be after 6 or 7 of those shots"
That's not how any of that works. Vaccines encourage your immune system, not suppress it.
So you don't understand animal research, research funding, clinical trials, vaccines or the immune system, and now you're attacking the man who is literally the messenger for the entire government scientific community because you don't understand his job either. Truly disheartening really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CSPORTPDX
"I never said there was some alternative."
Actually you challenged me with finding one. This admission is a big win for me though.
"You again fail to see my point about trusting fauci at all."
I fail to see it because it's irrelevant. He is not the only person in charge here. He is a messenger for a much bigger organisation.
"And you want me to single handedly prove right now that it was a lab leak?"
Your entire argument assumes this to be true, so yes.
"All I can say is occams razor."
You think that it's more likely there was a string of experiments and cover ups that caused this outbreak rather than a natural mutation, like the last few Sars viruses we have seen? How is that more simple?
"And now these people want to vax the kids and slip up and say "we wont know the side effects until we start injecting them""
Not really a slip up. They did clinical trials, but the difference in population sizes is pretty enormous. Kind of hard to find a 1 in a million side effect when dealing with a few thousand doses.
"people who approve questionable research on animals are now pushong vaccines on 5 year olds. And you honestly dont see the issue there."
Nope.
"Because you dont seem to understand what "busy" means... and no you cant write the same things as quickly or effectively, my phone makes tons if typos."
Busy seems to mean incompetent.
"Do you understand most of what you do is gaslighting?"
Taking your own points to logical conclusions while showing blatant lies and suppositions is not gaslighting. Calling scientists making breakthroughs in an attempt to cure deadly parasites "puppy killers" is also not gaslighting, but it's a really terrible angle to approach this from. I don't think you know what gaslighting is though, it more seems to be something you don't grasp, but throw around in an effort to "win" yet again. It is however factually incorrect.
"You're the metaphorical horse player you not only defends the cruelty of horse racing but also tells people they picked the wrong horses when they win and they just lucky."
So now you're comparing scientific research to cure deadly diseases to....horse racing. False equivalencies are fun aren't they. The last part of your statement makes literally zero sense. It's more pointing out that overall people lose money while gambling, and even if you won this time, over the course of your entire horse betting career you will more than likely lose money. This also means that for you to win, others must lose, leading to your actions perpetuating the suffering of others. Even if you win, things still get worse for everyone but the track in the long run. So I suppose it's a pretty apt description of vaccines and the pandemic I suppose. Not getting vaxed is like betting on horses. I like that, I think I'll keep it.
"You haven't destroyed anything I've said. You just respond in slightly of kilter ways while not quite understanding what I'm saying"
I understand it, and clearly respond to it line by line.
You asked me to find some alternative to animal testing, then admitted there isn't one.
You blame Fauci for things while ignoring that there is an entire agency and dozens of massive professional organisations backing him and what he is saying.
You claim a lab leak with no evidence, then try to use Occam's razor as some explanation, even though a lab leak is infinitely more complex than it naturally occurring, as it has done this dozens of times in the past.
You take quotes out of context while ignoring that the quote about vaxing kids was made by a committee that approved the motion.
You claim questionable research when you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support that.
You are a disgrace.
"how many shots are you going to take?"
Depends on how my immune system holds onto the current antibodies I have. I don't think mine will wane quite so quickly, but we'll see how I get on. Might go for an antibody test next month.
So if you really need anything else spelled out to you as you seem to understand literally nothing, then I'll be happy to do so. If you come out with the same gutter tripe as before then I'm not going to bother. You will have shown yourself to be a lost cause unworthy of mine, or anyone else's time, aside from perhaps others who share your obvious religious levels of belief in blatant propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Buckshot530
"We have a fundamental disagreement, you and I, I suspect, as to what is needed to insure we do have orderly integration of society. I am not just talking about education, but all of society.
I do not know your total position. Mr. Taylor has stated his, as have others. I am anxious to hear from Mr. Flemming of the US Commission of Human Rights.
Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions being built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make a move on this.
You say I am throwing the brick. I am not as good at analogies and homilies as all of you are, but I think pushing busing in a way in which it goes beyond the constitutional mandates is like throwing a bus through the civil rights window. I think it has repercussions that are extensive in terms of the ultimate objective of seeing that we get integrated neighborhoods, of seeing that we eventually eliminate job discrimination, of seeing that we change housing patterns, of seeing alterations of the tax structure."
He goes on and on, but you get the point. He was pro-integration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingDom2020
Okay, then lets get into this, as you seem completely clueless:
"He said science backs him up on what he said in his book."
Right, he played the "life begins at conception" card, which is not a point of science, it's a point of law and personal feelings. Medicine shows that said fetus cannot survive if born that prematurely, so why are we considering it life? They aren't even conscious for 6 months. Especially when technically people who are brain dead are still alive, but legally they are dead. What's worse, he skirted around a question about the legal ramification of miscarriages and abortions, and mischaracterised said question with a question about the moral implications of it. One is not the other. What's worse, he avoided a question about abortions at 6 weeks, so early that many expecting mothers don't even know, and threw in a response question on late term abortions, after 6 months. The obvious shift to a question that has nothing to do with anything being discussed is classic Ben.
"If I was Ben I would been pissed to if someone tells me they wanted to talk about a book I wrote, probably even told him that he liked his book, but then when I get on their show the person attacks me with tweets that are 7 years old."
Because his whole point was about how angry American political discourse is, and his own tweets show that he is playing into that anger, not stopping it. He even lied about his Youtube channel, which had at the time a 2 year old video that was indeed titled (and still is btw), "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgenderism". He also "destroyed" Piers Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Seth Rogan, Black Lives Matter and Karl Marx for good measure. Ben is part of the problem with political discourse in America, and his claims to the contrary are marred by numerous examples of him doing the very thing he claims his political opponents are guilty of.
Ben ran from an interview because they asked questions that showed how much of a hypocrite and a liar he is.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulcapitalist6204
You seem to be confused about my point on businesses.
If you claim that businesses are run by governments, that there is no logical reason to argue that a democratic business has a government but a non-democratoc business does not have a government. It would instead be a different form of government.
Therefore, socialist worker cooperatives use democracy to decide who is part of the business government, while capitalist business use a system of authoritarian oligarchy.
As for your examples of democratic authoritarianism, neither were democratic. The US banned about 75% of adults from voting, and Russian elections were, and still are, a sham. Both relied on minority rule, which is the exact opposite of democracy, which is a majority rule system.
So in arguing that socialist workplaces have governments you unwittingly showed that capitalist workplaces are dictatorships.
And in presenting Russia and pre-civil war US into the mix, you openly admit that you have no clue what democracy actually is.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robotron17
"approximately 100 million people have been fully V'd for an average of 5 months (far more if you include people receiving a single dose) Almost 3 million people die in an average year, so statistically, over 1 million of those V'd people have died"
Well yes, but actually no. The severely immunocompromised don't get vaccinated, such as late stage cancer and kidney failure type people. Their bodies don't have the immune response to actually process the vaccine, so they just don't get it.
"“If you look at the history of vaccines, you know that virtually all long-term adverse effects of a vaccine occur between 15 and 30 days after you get the dose – 45 days at the most", there should be 200k-300k reported deaths"
Well actually no. If you use that specific quote as your basis then the deaths would have to happen within that 45 day window, meaning instead of using a years worth of data to come out with you numbers you should actually be looking at the proportion of people who died within 45 days. that means your number is off, assuming we're looking at 3 million, by around 8-fold. They also only report suspected cases, which doesn't include a whole host of potential causes. They aren't going to submit the guy crushed by a vending machine to VAERS.
"Also, they dismiss every V death because the V likely kills you by exacerbating pre-existing conditions, so when you have that stroke, they just say "it was your time"."
Actually they review the coroner report, figure out based on how many people annually have strokes if there is an uptick in frequency and look at if there is any actual reason this could happen through the mechanisms of the vaccines. The idea they just say "it was your time" is utter lunacy.
"Of course, an all-cause mortality study of V vs. UnV would tell the true story, which is why THAT is not reported"
It's not reported because the FDA and CDC already do this, they just aren't prone to giving out personal medical records.
1
-
@robotron17
There is a big difference between health immunocompromised and dying in a hospital bed from cancer. You know, the people really close to death. Also, quoting something that advocated for boosters while push an anti-vax angle is more than funny.
"I already adjusted for this."
No, you didn't. you just took 10% of 3 million and called it a day, ignore multiple other factors. For example when you say:
"Roughly 2m people in the over 65 group die every year. So 1M is a good ballpark for V'd deaths at this point. And of those 1M, roughly 300k should die in 45 days"
Wrong and wrong. Not only are your vaccination numbers for over 65s too low, amusingly, your 30% proportion isn't even close to accurate. The real number is more like 12% at best, which also ignores people dying before than can be vaxed, meaning they wouldn't count in the vaccination stats, and people at deaths door not being vaxed.
"The coroner, Brenda Bock, says two of their five deaths related to COVID-19 were people who died of GUNSHOT WOUNDS!"
Colorado clarified that they draw a distinction between something being related and something being the cause. the related deaths don't go into the state stats.
State stats are also not VAERS making this even more irrelevant than it already was.
"They don't do this"
Yes, they do. I even quoted where they said they do exactly this. Your ignorance of government institutions is your own folly, not mine.
"They very clearly don't want accurate reporting of this. You're ULTRA naïve and just plain wrong to boot."
Projecting again I see.
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
-
@sumduma55
Sure. With Delta surging last summer we can see when US infections really started to take off. For the sake of easy stats we'll just start in July and end in October, using that 4 month span as the main Delta time period.
Florida over this time period went from 38,340 deaths to 61,175, a 22,835 death increase.
New York in this same time period went from 54,032 deaths to 56,998, an increase of only 2,966.
If you want me to figure the rates on those I can, but a disparity of over 7 times as many in 2 states with similar populations is a pretty solid home run.
Florida also has its worst performance of the entire pandemic during those months, seeing over 10K deaths in September 2021.
The simple truth is, between their previous infections, high vaccination rate and relatively strict rules at the time of Delta, New York's surge over that time period was barely a blip compares to even January of the same year. For Florida however it was their worst time period ever.
Your issue is that you are letting the performance of New York when we had no vaccines, no idea how to deal with this, and they were the gateway of the infection, cloud your judgement as to how they are performing more recently. Around half of New York's covid deaths happened in a 3 month timespan at the very beginning of the pandemic. Florida in that same time period only managed 5% of their current totals.
"The Vanderbilt variety saw a reduction in efficacy and the Vir Biotechnology brand saw virtually no reduction in efficacy."
Which the FDA agrees with. Florida however is not using these. In their statement the FDA said:
"In light of the most recent information and data available, today, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments – bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments."
Of course Florida uses Regeneron, since one of his top donors who gave DeSantis $10.75 million are massive investors in the stock.
According to Regeneron themselves back on the 16th of December when they issued a statement publicly about their product:
"Currently authorized REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) antibodies have diminished potency versus Omicron, but are active against predominant Delta variant"
You can read more where they have developed a newer set of antibodies for use, but Florida hasn't bought any of them so...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@John.T.
"Relaxed them for party members only"
Glad we agree they relaxed them.
"“Sold” to a completely controlled market to establish their state"
Yep. They had private ownership and a controlled market. State capitalism.
"Then most, if not, all of the existing trade unions’ infrastructure and staff was repurposed/rehired for the party’s trade unions."
Correct, they destroyed the unions and formed a state worker group that was not a union.
"You just argued an alliance was “irrelevant”. "
That's not an alliance. Current US Nazis are party members of the Republican party. They aren't allied with the Republicans, they ARE the Republicans.
"Both socialism and communism are left wing…"
And they were neither.
"I’m asking why the Soviets supported and allied themselves with them instead of the Allies to begin with? "
Because they were physically closer to the Nazis and formed a non-aggression pact to carve up Eastern Europe.
"You’re suggesting an enemy-of-my-enemy alliance is stronger than that of a voluntary alliance in which they established territories together?"
Actually yes. The Soviet pact with the Nazis was for non-aggression. They never actually formed a full alliance. They did however form an actual alliance with the Allies.
"You believe the Soviets favoured the Allies more than them?"
I believe it's irrelevant. My point was, and still is, that who they ally with does not mean they share ideologies.
"Pal, the video established that the Soviets were left wing"
Except they weren't. They claimed to be so, but socialism's guiding principal is democracy, which the Soviets actively fought against within their own nation.
"Each of the the regimes you just mentioned utilized a communist/socialist revolution to gain power."
And then quickly dumped all the socialist principals for authoritarian rule.
"State capitalism is an oxymoron."
Nope. The state controls the markets while private individuals own businesses. Sounds perfectly logical.
"State Capitalism is a form of statism; socialism; State Socialism."
Yeah, that makes zero sense. In state capitalism businesses are privately owned. Private ownership of business is capitalism, not socialism. Your leap from statism to socialism also makes no sense. Were monarchies socialist? Then you have to look at the likes of market socialism, where business are owned and operated by worker unions made up of the workers within each company without any state ownership or control, and you can see why claiming that statism is the same as socialism is entirely nonsensical.
"The video only mentioned a list of regimes that lie about their nature in which all of them were a result of communist revolutions/civil wars. "
And then proceeded to dump said principals. I said this one already.
So please go back and read up on capitalism, socialism, state capitalism, market socialism and democracy. They should all help you to understand what actually happened.
1
-
@John.T.
No, they had a non-aggression pact.
Nazis in the US are literal voting members of the Republican Party and openly endorse them. That's not an alliance, they are one in the same.
Can you define socialism?
And Hitler was not a communism. In fact when Bavaria became a socialist state and he was in the military, he actively forced his unit not to fight in favour of the Bavarian government.
Democratic socialism is not impossible to impose.
Actual socialism requires democracy. Actual communism doesn't even have a government. They were all just fascist states.
Can you name a fascist policy of the communist manifesto?
The Cold War proved that capitalist states like fighting.
Markets are not the same thing as businesses. Profits and ownership are still controlled by the owners. Post-war ownership of businesses was not by the state. There were also no unions.
Your inability to understand something doesn't make it a contradiction. Markets are not the same thing as businesses. businesses operate within markets. But I would expect nothing less from a fascist.
Now you're into full on fantasy, claiming the state owned shares of businesses. They did not.
Amazing. You agree that monarchism is not the same as socialism, while ignoring that monarchies have the power to control anything within their kingdoms at any time, meaning by your definition of statism they are statists and therefore socialists. I'm glad you agree this is a ridiculous notion, but it does mean that your own logic contradicts your conclusions.
Most unions operate without any sort of state intervention. They are literally just groups of workers coming together to vote in leaders and give themselves bargaining power, something no "union" members had in Germany. Do you seriously not know what a union is?
Then you just showed, yet again, why the Soviets were not socialists.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@John.T.
So your argument changed from "they were allied because they had the same ideology" to "they had the same governmental structure", which as I already explained is not what makes nations ally with each other. Monarchies existed and fought each other for millenia.
If it's fascism then it by definition cannot be socialist, and if it's government of any kind it cannot by definition be communist.
Any nation that wants to implement a socialist government must do so democratically. In fact, the Soviets voted in such a government, only for them to be killed in the October Revolution by fascists.
Both were state capitalism. As for differences, the Soviets believed in an irreligious nation where the workers are the cornerstone of the people, and they need an upper vanguard class to guide them. Race was not attacked, and the large focus was on workers contributing to the greater good.
In contrast, the Nazis were ultra-nationalists focused on racial superiority and global domination. Religion was not attacked, and the largest focus was on racial purity. They claimed it was the Aryan race that was strong, not the workers.
These two ideologies weren't even close.
1
-
@John.T.
"No I argued, ““mutual gain” is ideological agreement.” "
But you just said they don't have ideological agreement, meaning according to your own argument they didn't have mutual gain.
"Alliances indicate ideological agreement. "
It wasn't an alliance, as has been explained to you time and time again. It was a non-aggression pact which was broken when the Nazis attacked the Soviets.
"Especially when you’re rendering a literal front line against the Allies. "
The Soviets never had a front line against the Allies.
"They’re all bundles of sticks, bro."
Got it, so you literally have no clue what any of those terms mean.
"Yes, but each voting member must be socialist to begin with. Otherwise the election is tainted. "
Not at all. In fact Marx and Engels spoke at length about the ability to turn to socialism democratically.
"Otherwise they wage a revolution, (like the Bolsheviks did.)"
You mean like they did against a literal monarchy? The French did that too, as did the US.
"The ‘October Revolution’ also known as the ‘Great October Socialist Revolution’ was carried out by Lenin’s Bolshevik Party."
Except Lenin was a fascist, not a socialist. He killed socialists to enact his plan, and overturned the results of the election he lost.
"You just said the Soviets were fascist….Are these social economic systems synonymous? "
Yes
"These people were Marxists"
Incorrect. They claimed to be Marxists then ignored pretty much every single part of Marxism.
"This is a superficial difference"
Wrong. You are just trying to draw as many similarities as you can, regardless of how far apart their actual positions were.
"Yeah in Germany the worker’s party was operating the same way for the same logic. "
Wrong. Again, their definitions and ideals were not the same.
"It was a Orwellian collectivists hive mind in both regimes."
Actually, no. While both had their own forms of market controls and planned economies, they did in fact differ in many ways at this level.
"Racial superiority Vs party/moral superiority is a superficial difference. "
Total nonsense. The Allies fought for moral superiority over the Nazis. Were they the same?
"Adolf bastardized the Christian Religion, muddying it with Arianism"
Hardly. Every religious figure throughout all of time has their own mad interpretation of religion. Yet religion was a staple used to justify their regime, and almost all of their followers were religious.
"Comrade, in order to truly be an apart of the workers party, you had to be Aryan."
You're literally confusing party with people who have jobs. Plenty of workers were not party members.
"Kinda like in order for there to be true socialism, everyone voting has to be socialist."
Not everyone, just a majority.
"It’s literally the exact same avatar with a different skin."
Genuinely shocked you are this ignorant of these positions and ideologies.
I guess we can at least agree that none of them were socialists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikhailtolstykh4104 No, it's not splitting hairs, it's giving you a best case scenario and showing how obviously you just made up numbers. As I already said, which you ignored because you're blinded by your indoctrination, this is a best case scenario for you and doesn't take into account the sharp reduction in infections and hospitalizations in this same time period. To make it a bit more clear for you if you look at the infection rates of the prior month due to the amount of time between infection and death, and use a 7 day moving average to account for slight shifts in trends day-to-day, you end up with a much clearer picture. It makes sense that the height of infections match the height of deaths, so for this example we'll use the peak in new infections at the start of May and compare it to the peak of deaths at the start of June. This matched the majority of death trends when reviewing new infections vs deaths. What you'll see in this timeframe is a 7 day moving average of new infections at the peak at the start of May of 414,188 cases. The deaths at the peak around 2 weeks later were 4209. This gives a death rate of almost exactly 1.0162%. If we then transpose the number of new infections over the current deaths using the same 2 week time period we get a number of infections of 46,617, and a number of deaths over the same lag time, we get 542, which is a death rate of 1.1627%, an increase of 14% when compared to the previous time period when there was a peak of infections.
So when you actually look at the data, not only are you wrong, you are really really wrong. Deaths in fact increased, and it's far more likely that the introduction of ivermectin was so insignificant it fell between the cracks of standard deviations in a normal distribution.
Or, put simply, the death rate increased in India after they switched to your magic drug.
Funnily enough they have been trialing ivermectin since December 2020 and haven't included it in the MATH+ protocol for a reason, because there is nothing to suggest that it helps.
1
-
@midwestmusic1909
"Unemployment rates during trump admin fell to 3.5 (lowest since 1969) while Obama's dropped from 6.2%- 4.9%."
Obama inherited a financial crash, and immediately started to turn it around, with unemployment starting at 7.8% when he took office, and increasing to 10% due to the disastrous trend the unemployment was going. You are referencing the unemployment when Obama was elected, not when he took office. Obama reversed the rate at which the unemployment rate was increasing. Trump's unemployment rate was a continuation of Obama's in almost every way. You also conveniently left out the massive unemployment under Trump due to his poor handling of the coronavirus response. In the end Obama managed strong and stable growth, with jobs being added every year and the financial sector becoming more stable than ever. Obama created over 11.5 million jobs, Trump lost 3 million.
"Under trump the stock market index rose by 12.2% vs 7.5% under obama."
Not only did Obama inherit a recession, the stock market is also not a good indicator of the economy as a whole, but more a sign that the rich are getting richer. This is also not true when you include Trump's failed last year. Your numbers are yet again wrong. Obama's S&P 500 growth was 13.84%.
"Lastly, annual GDP growth under trump averaged 2.0% vs obama at 1.4%.
"
Again, global recession and Trump crashed the economy. What was the GDP growth in 2020? Trump averages 0.95% growth, while Obama actually hit 1.62%.
Funny that was your last point and not the deficit, which Trump immediately started to increase when taking office, which is the main reason for his apparent successes. You can make any of these numbers look great by pumping billions into them, which is exactly what Trump did. Obama got the deficit down to under $500 billion. Trump took office and the deficit is almost a trillion and growing, hitting 4 trillion when he failed the economy and the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaunkellison1761
1. Again, still need confirmation on what XXY is.
2. No, it's insufficient to basically everyone. You're the only one proclaiming to be an expert. My examples alone show how shortsighted your view is.
3. Now you're really showing your ignorance, as they are different things. Gender dysphoria is real and has been catalogues for decades. It's not my fault you're behind the times. You're literally arguing against the science while claiming to be an expert.
4. You did, but that's fine we can skirt over that too. And no, it doesn't end up that way the vast majority of the time. What's worse, the conditions I listed are just 3 in a vast array. XXYY, XXXX, XXXXX, XXXY and so on. All of these exist, and yet your original definition seems to only address either XX or XY, which many of these have both of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zs3101
"just one person can not be poisoned with a military grade chemical weapon and survive, but 5000 people WILL with immediate irrevocable death"
You would know, ey comrade?
"The Lancet research showed no traces of chemical agent that would go against OPCW convention in Analny tests"
Oh look, the actual Lancet article about the Novichok nerve agent poisoning:
"Severe poisoning with a cholinesterase inhibitor was subsequently diagnosed. 2 weeks later, the German Government announced that a laboratory of the German armed forces designated by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had identified an organophosphorus nerve agent from the novichok group in blood samples collected immediately after the patient's admission to Charité, a finding that was subsequently confirmed by the OPCW."
The Associated Press reported on the 31st of January this year that 5,100 people were arrested at pro-Navalny protest across Russia:
"Over 5,100 arrested at pro-Navalny protests across Russia
The massive protests came despite efforts by Russian authorities to stem the tide of demonstrations after tens of thousands rallied across the country last weekend in the largest, most widespread show of discontent that Russia had seen in years. Despite threats of jail terms, warnings to social media groups and tight police cordons, the protests again engulfed cities across Russia’s 11 time zones on Sunday. Navalny’s team quickly called another protest in Moscow for Tuesday, when he is set to face a court hearing that could send him to prison for years. The 44-year-old Navalny, an anti-corruption investigator who is Putin’s best-known critic, was arrested on Jan. 17 upon returning from Germany, where he spent five months recovering from nerve-agent poisoning that he blames on the Kremlin. Russian authorities have rejected the accusations. He was arrested for allegedly violating his parole conditions by not reporting for meetings with law enforcement when he was recuperating in Germany."
My favourite part is the last bit where he was arrested for not reporting to law enforcement while recovering from almost dying. You can't make it up.
As for London, those 190 people were all fined. None of them are still in jail. So sure, sanction away comrade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fegelfly7877 Well that can't be the exact title as searching the exact phrase yields no results, but no issue, I'll dig it out myself.
Alright, found it. So according to the actual article, 80% of the UK population is vaccinated, and of those there were there were 22,318 cases in the last week of August. This compares to the 20,744 who were unvaxed.
He then clarifies the stats for the whole month. According to the quote from the article:
"The data actually shows that between 7th August 2021 and the 3rd September 2021 there were 47,580 cases among the unvaccinated population, 21,020 cases among the partly vaccinated population, and 41,748 cases among the fully vaccinated population. Meaning there were 15,188 more cases among the vaccinated population."
Counting partial vaccinations is dodgy at best but I digress.
Then he says this:
"So now that we’ve cleared up that the experimental Covid-19 injections clearly do not prevent infection or spread of Covid-19"
Well that's just not true. According to the very stats just presented case rates among the vaccinated are lower. This is because there are 4 times more of them. To get an accurate rate you first need to even out the population sizes when looking at cases. This means the number of cases per population of the unvaxed is 4 times higher than the vaxed.
"According to table 16 of the report between the 28th August 2021 and the 3rd September 2021 there were 36 admissions to hospital related to Covid-19 among the unvaccinated over 60 population, whilst there were 7 admissions on the partly vaccinated population.
However, there were a huge 299 admissions among the fully vaccinated over 60 population, and the same pattern can be seen for the weeks previous all the way back to the 7th August 2021."
This shift to the over 60s is a bait and switch. Over 60s in the UK are 92% vaccinated (just checked, it's actually 93.3%), so any stat relevant would be related to rate, which is 12 times (the higher percentage actually pushes this to 15 times) higher in than the numbers given for the unvaxed population. This actually pushes the hospitalisation rate to higher in the unvaxed group.
The author even shows a complete lack of understanding of this when he says:
"Therefore, this shows that the Covid-19 injections are increasing the risk of hospitalisation when exposed to Covid-19 by 70% rather than reducing the risk by the 95% claimed by the vaccine manufacturers and authorities."
"Therefore, the true number of deaths by vaccination status between the 5th August 2021 and the 26th August 2021"
This is just playing with the stats. He took out the last week intentionally as the trend didn't meet his needs. He then goes on to say:
"Therefore, this shows that the Covid-19 injections are increasing the risk of death when exposed to Covid-19 by a huge 566% rather than reducing the risk by the 95% claimed by the vaccine manufacturers and authorities."
Completely ignoring the rates and population differences again. Even if you take his cherrypicked timeline at face value, you're still looking at the same number of deaths in vaxed and unvaxed overall. What's worse is the majority of those deaths are in the over 60s population, which means you are against focusing on a group with a 92% vaccination rate. So his numbers show the exact opposite of what he claims, with death rates dropping in the vaccinated over 60s.
Maybe pick someone who understands what a rate is next time, or maybe someone who presents all relevant data.
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
-
@papaaddy9269
"Take for example Andrews refusal to understand the irreligious-ness of Jews in America/ or who voted for Obama. Ben had to explain that to Andrew to try and dodge Andrews "anti-Semitic" gotcha attempt."
Except Ben only views Zionists as true Jews, even though many religious Jews are not Zionists. His ideas on what does and does not constitute a Jewish person are clouded by his own bias. Someone can follow the Torah and the 613 commandments without being a Zionist. Of the 7.6 million Jews in the US, 64% identify as religiously Jewish, a stark contrast to Ben's claim where he said they were "largely irreligious".
"haven't you coarsened public discussion"
then Andrew snakes around with the titles of random videos not uploaded by ben"
Then ignores bens answer
Except Ben DID upload those videos, they are in fact still there. He also didn't ignore the answer, he got an answer and moved on. He also uploaded them to his news network, The Daily Wire.
more "gotcha tactics"
"arent you part of the problem, not part of the solution?"
"arent you part of that anger"
Those are just questions. He tried to answer these questions by stating that he is open to debate, but when shown blatant examples of him NOT being part of the solution, and very much being part of the problem, he throws a fit and leaves the interview. This isn't gotcha questions, this is good journalism showing that Ben likes to throw stones from his glass house.
But sure, keep calling Andrew Neil, the climate change denying conservative that left the BBC to join the new right-wing news network GB News, a bias left-winger. See where that gets you. Meanwhile Ben apologised for this interview and openly stated that Andrew won.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnbob95
"You don’t get to claim new jobs as Biden’s as the world is recovering from a global pandemic"
You've literally sat here saying we have to attribute inflation caused by massive spending to recover from the pandemic, mostly scheduled by the previous administration, but now you're saying we can't give Biden credit for job growths from the same pandemic. So which is it? Is the pandemic causing job fluctuations and inflation that have no bearing on who the president is, or are jobs and inflation both caused by direct actions by the president?
What's worse is you fail to acknowledge the fact that the deficit was far worse than it should have been when the pandemic hit because of the Trump tax cuts, and your entire outlook on a growing economy under Trump is shadowed by the increasing debt to make that growth possible. It was never sustainable, and the pandemic smashed the economic bullseye, making the rest of the dominoes fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
"the stock market is not at an all time high"
I gave you exact growth percentages. This year is the highest for the market ever. Not that it matters as that's true for almost every year, but the pandemic did push the market down for close to a year, only recovering recently, arguably from the new administration's push to reduce infections through vaccinations and masking. We've already seen that massive infections and deaths cause shutdowns, which cause economic shrinkage. The measures put in place lessen the effects of spikes, meaning we see a better economy overall.
"Both gas and oil prices are not falling, they’re increasing day to day."
Wrong. Oil prices have been dropping since mid-October, falling 16% in 2 months. Gas prices have followed suit, falling an average of 10.6 cents in the last 30 days.
"There is not a global oil shortage"
Yes there is. Production was struggling but demand rapidly increased. Some companies reduced production when oil went negative, causing the current prices. Other companies went under entirely.
"Biden cut off any chance of us being independent with oil."
Domestic oil production, just like the global market, dropped sharply a few months into the pandemic long before Biden was elected. Production has only been increasing since he took office. The difference is that demand sharply increased this year. Nothing he has done would reduce domestic production.
"He’s forced us to buy from other countries"
We've always bought oil from Canada, and in fact we refine a lot of it and sell gas globally. Low oil prices are actually really bad for the likes of Texas for example. The only time we didn't do this was when oil demand was heavily reduced.
"not to mention he dipped into the oil reserves barely and tried to claim he saved us even though he released enough oil to last three days"
That's actually a lot of oil though. When you're say 5% below the required oil production, 3 days worth of oil can last 2 months.
"I’m not sure you understand anything you’ve tried to lie about."
I'm not sure you understand anything at all.
"If you did some research you’d find out that quite literally nothing you stated is not only false, but it’s the complete opposite."
I agree, nothing I stated is false, and is in fact the complete opposite, which is true. Thanks for agreeing with me there champ.
Tell you what, how about you actually look into some of these issues rather than acting like a reactionary right-wing mouthpiece. Sound like a plan? Any more dumb comments like this and I'll know you're being this idiotic on purpose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnbob95
Jobs are going up. The numbers alone show that. Your inability to attribute success where it is due is your own downfall.
Wages going up is not a bad thing. It doesn't contribute to inflation, and in fact directly counteracts the effects.
The stock market is higher than before the shutdown.
Oil and gas are both down. Again, oil dropped 16% last month. Stop looking at 9 months ago when it has dropped in the last month.
Oil production has been higher than it was in January. Not sure where you're getting your BS numbers from.
The XL pipeline would have IMPORTED oil your cretin. In what universe would a pipeline that imports more oil make us more independent? He also didn't cut off the pipeline, it was never built, meaning nothing will have changed with import export numbers. Trade between us and Canada also has nothing to do with global prices.
The point I'm making in regards to Texas is how we export petroleum from there. They see big boosts at a time like this.
Global oil prices beg to differ, that's why they dropped, even when production continues to be lower than pre-pandemic levels and demand grows.
So Trump cut taxes, mostly for big businesses and the rich, to undo something Obama did? He doubled the deficit before the pandemic even hit for...what exactly?
Trump lost so many jobs he has literally the worst jobs history ever. He lost 4 million jobs. Thanks to Biden we're finally seeing levels return. These losses were due to numerous failures of his administration to appropriately react to the pandemic.
I'm not blaming the GOP for inflation, I'm pointing out that the vast majority of the spending during the pandemic was passed and approved by Republicans. You can talk about "highest inflation in current history" but you seem to be ignoring the mixture of international shipping holdups and massive spending that caused it.
You're such a clown and you're too stupid to see it. You've done nothing but flat out ignore stone cold facts, while presenting boldfaced lies. It's not hard to understand you, the hard part is reconciling your statements with reality. Get back to me when you have the ability to honestly argue a point rather than lying. You can't even understand what I'm saying, which is why you think I'm being contradictory. It's truly special to read your twisted worldview as it gives me a deeper insight into the propaganda machine that is the GQP.
Get stuffed John you clown
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FreeMan..-._.-._._.
"there are videos of the police moving the barricades"
Correct, as I said, there were very few cops and they moved the barricades before being overrun by thousands of people. Those in front had already been forced back. They figured out that they should move earlier rather than later, which was smart given how violent the day turned out.
"video of FBI agents starting riots at another entrance"
Nope. All the people entering have been identified as Trump supporters. If you have a name then give it, otherwise GTFO.
"There is video of Antifa doing damage and the protesters stopping them."
Antifa weren't there. Again, names or GTFO.
"There are videos of the people inside walking around taking pictures. It was more like an unguided tour of the building than it was a horrible incident."
Besides the breading down doors, smashing windows, climbing over barricades, chasing cops, and my personal favourite, the hours of fighting that happened outside between Capitol Police and the insurrectionists. I guess to you all unguided tours chant to hang the vice president and cause millions in damage right?
"What BLM did over the summer was way worse than Jan 6th."
BLM tried to overturn the results of a federal election?
"If it was a take over there would have been a lot of dead people."
So your entire argument hinges on the violent rioters who injured over 100 cops not being violent enough to be deemed insurrectionists? Even though the only reason they were there was to stop the certification of the election results.
"If you call anything BLM related peaceful then what happened on Jan 6 was a hippie fest."
Who said I called BLM events anything? Your whataboutism doesn't change what happened on Jan 6.
You should check out the New York Times video Day of Rage. It has a full breakdown with dozens of videos taken from the day. It's about 40 minutes long.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SeanWinters
"no I'm not. I'm arguing for the bottle of autonomy of the child"
Children, by definition, have to be born to be considered children.
"something that you refuse to Grant because you love dehumanizing people."
Define people. Again, you are removing rights because you don't know the legal definition of a person.
"No, it's exactly the same. Republican states voted to ban slavery, just like we are voting to ban abortion."
Southern states did not however vote to ban slavery. Check out the southern strategy for more details. The states that were pro-slavery are now anti-abortion. Both center around the idea of states rights.
"but you have no right to own a slave and you have no right to abort a child."
We get it, you want to take away rights and are using slavery as a shield from that.
"My ancestors fought a war to end slavery, they won, and by God I will fight you to end abortion."
Doubt. If they lived in the north then sure, but those are the very states that are in favour of women having bodily autonomy.
"Abortions of convenience is the reason why republicans are against abortion in the first place."
You misspelled religion, but okay.
"If you are going to tie in abortions of convenience to guns, you would compare it to mass shootings"
You misunderstand the argument. The point is about rights being taken away because you don't like the way people are using them.
"Slaves were once not legally considered people, they are now."
Right, because of the 13th amendment.
"Children will be considered legally people very soon"
They already are, as children have to be born to be considered children. That's just the definition, both legally and in dictionaries.
"Exactly how they are. All of the evidence shows that at least 80% of abortions are abortions of convenience, given with zero explanation or reasoning other than "i Don't want it"."
Again, you are advocating for the removal of rights because you disagree with the use, see the point about guns. What's worse, giving zero explanation is not the same as not having a reason. Women are not required to give a reason, but can have perfectly valid reasons to do so regardless of any survey.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3 It's not my fault you choose lie about the democracy index. It measures democracy, plain and simple. Here:
"The Democracy Index is an index measuring democracy"
See.
Nope. They do not have universal suffrage because universal suffrage isn't just voting, it is voting to decide the governance of the nation. When you don't have a choice it's not a decision, therefore not universal suffrage, by definition.
I never said anything about my personal views. Marx on the other hand drew a strong distinction between private property (capitalist owned businesses) and personal property. And no, changing how businesses work would not negatively effect civil liberties, in the same way that banning businesses from wage theft and pollution are not negative factors on civil liberties.
Yes, under your imaginary definition, not under any definition used by literally anyone else. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population, end of story.
Hang on, while we give you another 20 yards.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Again, it measures democracy, your own sources say that. Adding your own definition doesn't change theirs. Trying to manipulate the meaning of the quotes by adding your own commentary is idiotic.
No, I am referring to the fact that universal suffrage allows you to choose the leadership of a nation. If you have no choice, it's not universal suffrage. Check the definition.
Again, nobody is abolishing personal property. People would still have personal property in a Marxian world. Socialising the economy has already been done in areas. Expanding that to all businesses would not effect personal possessions. By confusing businesses with people's homes you confused the point, purposely it would seem.
Confusing the point AGAIN doesn't change your claim that democracy equals voting, even if you can't actually vote for anything meaningful, or your vote does nothing to change authoritarian control, is not used by barely anyone at all. It's an obscure definition that flies in the face of your claim to the democracy index, which measures democracy in a way that the vast majority of people use the term, as explained.
Honestly, the pathetic approach you're taking, stooping to sad semantics and word games is just ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"you are the one who tried use a state legitimacy theory created a Monarchist to disprove the ruling legitimacy of the UK Monarchy. "
No, I didn't. Again, they don't actually rule anything. It's nothing to do with perception, it's just how it actually works. You are confusing tradition with reality.
"The certain system already existed, there must be social contract backing up its “right of rule” from the people to the ruler."
Again, you are confusing social contracts with democracy. How people act and how people vote can be 2 very different things. People act out of fear, while they may vote out of belief. The existence of a social contract cannot be used to claim democracy.
"Contract is always about consent, if individual surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order."
But it is not done singularly, but collectively. Or are you saying that people consent individually to totalitarianism?
"The representation of individuals power by the state can also be interpreted as a consent, thus making the state democratic (people power)."
But it isn't a representation of individuals power, it is a representation of individuals lack of actions against a state. That also isn't how democracy works.
"If North Korea have the right of rule because of its existence"
Which is funny because North Korea acts as a monarchy.
"should would the UK monarch have the right of rule to the UK because of the legal position there already have in UK law (“constitution”)."
Again, the UK does not have a constitution. Laws are not the same as a constitution. And no, they don't have the right of rule, because they don't actually rule anything.
"You cannot objectively prove my claim wrong, because it is just interpretation of interpretation."
I just did. You are completely confused about several terms. You seem to think democracy just means the leader in charge isn't religious, which is utterly stupid to no end.
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
'How do you get consent with the whole without the consent of individuals, you may need to elaborate your definition of “whole” and “individual” here, are you also said that people give consent to North Korea ruling is out of the submission of fear. Fear is an emotion that only able to be experienced as a human not a group, how come the consent is given as a whole instead of individual."
Simple. If given an actual choice people would choose another system, but as the system already exists they fear it, and therefore do not act against it. The existence of the system is the reason for the continuation of that system. If everyone decided to act against the system at the same time, then it would break, but they do not out of fear. The lack of democracy therefore is evident, meaning there is no individual consent, while the consent of society continues. The system exists because collectively people allow it, even if they individually do not consent to it.
"If a regime existed, it must de facto have the consent of the people."
But it doesn't exist. There is no British monarch regime.
"the democracy that the state is being legitimised by the constant"
Again, not democracy. You need to learn what democracy is kid.
"No legislation in UK can be validated without Royal Assert. The King is still the C-in-C of all UK Military. As long as UK citizen having their daily lives while the Monarchy still having and practising their legal(constitutional) power, they are still the source of legitimacy and the entity being consented to with the “right to rule” from the UK citizen, under your social contract theory."
Nope. You really are clueless about the UK aren't you. It's sad watching you confuse your fantasies with reality.
The UK monarchy are not monarchs, as they do not have actual monarchistic power. The King has no control over the military. The King cannot stop laws from being enacted. There is not constitution in the UK. They are meaningless figureheads, that's it. If you cannot grasp this basic fact then it is no wonder you think North Korea is a democracy.
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
-
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
-
@ExPwner
Aww, you don't want to say it because you just figured out what reduced labor share of revenue is didn't you. FYI, it means labor is getting paid less per unit of productivity.
But sure, lets break down you new points:
"Namely improperly using two different measures of inflation"
Except BLS addressed this exact point, using an appropriately matched deflator, and were still left with a gap in 83% of industries.
"trying to compare only some compensation to all of productivity"
Nope. BLS account for this as well. They use all wages and benefits combined.
"If you start with the false comparison of only part of the compensation to all of the productivity then you will get a manufactured and totally fake “gap”"
Again, BLS uses all compensation.
"Part of this will be because of labor being a lower share of total income."
Pretty sure you meant to say they are a lower share of total productivity here.
And this is why you only compare labor productivity to labor compensation. Why would we use a mismatched metric for productivity here? There is no reason to include something like personal rental income when reviewing labor productivity and compensation.
"From the sources I have seen, labor constitutes a lower share of total compensation over the years."
Which again, is why you only compare labor productivity to labor income. I mean seriously, one of your main arguments is that we should be using total factor productivity, but we are expressly measuring if labor is being compensated for the production that they produce. Why use anything other than labor productivity?
"If that has methodology issues I am happy to hear, but it wouldn’t seem to square with a larger retired population that doesn’t work but does draw incomes."
They don't use retirement income at all. They are reviewing people working and comparing the revenue they produce in their industries with the compensation they receive.
So it seems like you realised your error, tried to cover desperately, but since you don't actually know anything more on the subject than what the Heritage Foundation has told you, you are stuck trying to actually understand and argue these points.
Sooooo checkmate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
Yes, that is the productivity of labor.
"Labor productivity, is a measure of how efficiently labor is used to produce goods and services. It's calculated by dividing the real output index by the hours worked index, which includes all workers, such as employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers."
"Total factor productivity compares output growth to the growth in a combination of inputs, including labor, capital, energy, materials, and services. TFP measures the overall efficiency of using all resources in production, and accounts for technological advancements."
1
-
@ExPwner
Again:
"Labor productivity, is a measure of how efficiently labor is used to produce goods and services. It's calculated by dividing the real output index by the hours worked index, which includes all workers, such as employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers."
"Total factor productivity compares output growth to the growth in a combination of inputs, including labor, capital, energy, materials, and services. TFP measures the overall efficiency of using all resources in production, and accounts for technological advancements."
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke
"This is the same as zillions of Americans live below the global poverty line of USD $2.15 per day!"
Still struggling with that calculation I see. Before it was 350,000 and now it's "zillions".
Maybe Jimmy can help you figure out what 1.2% of the US population is.
"He ignores basic logic, because nobody can buy enough food to survive on $2.15 a day or less, so all these people would be dead."
Again, a week's worth of fortified rice is $2. You would have $12 to spare and would still be below the poverty line.
"He then appeals to food banks, except that just means that total received benefits exceed $2.15 a day."
Food banks are not benefits, they are charity. Charity is not a benefit. This is a fun point though, as World Bank uses data based on consumption, and would in fact account for food banks.
"If you read the paper by Shaefer and Edin, then you discover that the $2.15 a day figure is based on ONLY considering actual wages, and not other benefits or entitlements."
Not only is this false, as the World Bank uses data based on consumption rather than income whenever possible, but even in this very study they use an income + SNAP calculation and find that poverty is still not 0%. In fact it has been increasing in the last 30 years, and was at 0.6% in 2012, which is still 2 million people. They also don't have numbers for this decade.
"And it's based on at least 1 month in 12 of unemployment."
False, for 3 reasons.
1. It's based on 3 months of zero income.
2. Unemployment usualy gives people unemployment benefits, which are income.
3. Again, World Bank use consumption data. So they would be measuring how much people used, not how much they earned. This would mean things like SNAP, TANF and all the other benefits would apply as they would directly contribute to consumption data.
"Yes, if you're a gig worker, maybe you won't get a gig, hence earn income, for weeks at a time."
Depends when you are surveyed, but if you are purchasing and/or consuming less than $60 of food and/or clothing in a given month then that's clearly a poverty situation. You aren't using your wealth from the gig work to take care of yourself, you are actively spending as little as possible making it through the tough time period you are currently living in.
I would strongly suggest just going to the World Bank website and reviewing their methodology section, rather than relying on an 11 year old study that likely isn't even reviewing the same methodology as the current data. They don't even use the same dollar threshold.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnwoke2452 Oh boy, lots to break down here.
"Biden has done nothing different for the [pandemic] except for crowing about how much he had to do with the vaccines."
Well that's not why Biden won. Biden won because Trump handled the pandemic so poorly that hundreds of thousands of Americans died, and they were sick of the huge misinformation campaign he had launched. So the pandemic is why Trump lost more than why Biden won. He also ordered more vaccines, made deals to setup vaccination sites and signed the stimulus billing giving funds to distribute the vaccine.
""Kicked out in a heartbeat"???? Not so."
42 court cases and 0 wins. Sounds like they got kicked out the door to me.
"Trump's win was about to be so massive, 7 states had to stop counting"
None of the states stopped counting, much to the dismay of Trump supports outside polling stations yelling to stop the count....or keep counting depending on the state.
"There were plenty of videos of ballots shipped in after midnight in all these states."
Well sure. They have to be moved from where they were submitted to where they are counted, which they do after the polls close. That is completely normal and legal.
"The Dominion vote switching software wasn't even enough."
The same Dominion who are suing basically everyone involved in the attempt to overturn the election, damaging their name in the process? That Dominion?
"The democrats are terrified of a silent Trump right now."
Why? He just had his taxes pulled, who cares if he talks or not any more?
"A massive crime like this will not go unpunished by legal authority."
Like in Georgia where Trump called up all the officials and tried to get them to 'find' votes for him?
"An evil ruler will burn his own country down just to rule over the ashes."
Sounds like the insurrection to me.
"While democrats obviously didn't give that one a second thought and tried it for a year, it is obvious Trump has chosen a different path. Feel free to scoff. But it is also obvious, the SCOTUS had to jump through several hoops to NOT pursue the fraud cases. Roberts feared more riots and destruction and said so. As much of a spineless corrupt coward as he is, he was probably correct. By the courts all making a big show of not doing their job, they have allowed Trump to begin a procedure to exact justice on these vermin, democrat and republican alike."
Now you're just not making any sense. Seriously, what are you even trying to say here?
Still waiting on those concrete numbers btw.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MissMalevolent It's an objective fact that you are wrong, nothing semantic about it.
"We don't know what he did as a "clerk". Looks like it was a launchpad to public service to me."
Ah yes, clerk at a law firm, the classic launchpad to the public sector. God you're a joke.
While we're at it:
"Many of those laws you're touting as precedent weree based on the eugenics movement. Which tracks, leftists have always been for eugenics."
Politics has been moving further and further left for years, and would you look at that, less eugenics these days than 100 years ago. The Nazi's even got their ideas for eugenics from the US. Both parties were right wing by today's standards back then.
"Exactly, facts are against decorum."
Not a fact, I've already proven that.
"This from a group of people that lied (and still are) for years about the prior President being a Russian asset."
Not in the chamber they weren't. But yes, Trump was and is a Russian asset, deeply indebted to them to keep his failing businesses alive.
You're a child and it shows.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
"no they aren’t, because other people who came up with other forms also exist"
Except they based their theories on these original ideas. Take communism. They claim to be directly working with the writings of Marx and Engels, but Marx and Engels didn't agree one bit with the systems that were put in place in supposed communist countries. Marx and Engels openly wrote about the need for a constitutional democracy, for the people to have ultimate ownership over the products of their own labour, over the means of production to be owned in common, et cetera. They did not at any point write about a non-democratic state that oppresses its people. Even the concept of a vanguard was taken wholey out of context. Marx and Engels wrote about a vanguard socialist political party that could lead the socialists as a singular unit until they could complete a democratic revolution, then split into multiple parties that would then allow the people to vote on various types of socialism. Russia never actually needed a vanguard party as their revolution was not democratic, they overthrew a class of slaveowners. So in 1917 when they had a socialist vote and the democratic socialists won, Lenin decided he didn't like that and started a war to instill his malformed idea of vanguardism. It was completely contradictor to the writings of their originator, and subsequently not Marxism, socialism or an effort to instill socialism at all. All you do get is authoritarianism, which is compeltely incompatible with the idea of giving ownership over to the people.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@sababaratashvili8629 I was merely refuting the idea that deaths are down in Florida, but if you really want to get into it then we can.
First of all, I was referring to all DeSantis policies, including his anti-mask mandate. Banning schools from masking, which is a valuable and tested method of reducing transmission, is simply an attempt to gain favour. Masks are designed to be worn by everyone in a particular area to protect those around you from yourself. Stopping mandating will just increase transmission and make schools hotbeds of viral infection.
As for the vaccine, while it doesn't stop all infections, it does stop a large proportion of people from getting covid, even delta. Israel numbers put efficacy in around 42% without a booster after several months of waning. With a fresher second dose or a booster efficacy can rise much higher. This means zero transmissibility or mutation potential in a large proportion of vaccinated people. The vaccines also reduce deaths, which was the whole point of this comment. If you want to stop people from dying then vaccinate them. Finally are the long term damage issues of covid. 75 of covid-longhaulers experience organ damage, with 2.5% getting multiple organ damage. Don't you think that's something we should be trying to prevent?
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
-
@jfangm
"The original script is irrelevant"
So the script sent to casting agencies that shows the original concept from the writers, both of whom are trans, is irrelevant? Honestly, get a grip.
"that character clearly never appeared in that form"
Except in the original script. The studio changing their vision, or even themselves looking to tone it down due to their own insecurities, does not change what the original script was, or the general allegory that is apparent in multiple ways throughout the film. You should probably take the time to read an actual critical review of how The Matrix handles these concepts, as obviously it went over your head.
"Voting is not a universal right, nor should it be."
Ever think that you're the fascist? To counter your obvious bollocks:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1992):
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity without unreasonable restrictions to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
There are like 6 more, but you get the point. Voting is a right.
And I'm sure at this point you want to argue that nationality isn't a right, therefore citizens being the only ones who can vote is perfectly in line with at least 1 of the quotes I posted, except:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Right to nationality - Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
"Every nation puts some kind of limit on the right to vote."
Yes, and usually the line stops at "over 18". When it goes further you usually get some for of voter suppression, leading you further and further away from democracy.
"Even our own Founders did not believe the general population to be responsible enough to make informed decisions"
Oh, the rich slave owners? No way, tell me more.
"Heinlein believed that only those who understood the responsibility of voting, of exerting force, should be allowed to vote."
That's not true. He did write about solving a quadratic equation to vote though. Kinda the opposite of only allowing meatheads to vote. It does however prove my point about Starship Troopers and desperately erode whatever dignity you thought you had left.
"He had a friend summarize it and conflated a libertarian stratocracy with fascism simply because that society put an emphasis on military service as a means of achieving citizenship - it was not the ONLY way."
Right, the other way is serving a full service in a government job, and you only get the right to vote after that service has ended. So you either work for the government or die for the government to get to vote. Wow, so progressive, totally not fascism.
"The government in no way oppresses non-citizens, and non-citizens are treated just as well as citizens."
Except they have absolutely no say in anything, must pay higher tuition fees and aren't allowed to have more than 2 kids. The book literally refers to military personnel as "citizens" and everyone else as "civilians" drawing a very specific distinction. Again, you are sucked up into the glorification of the military again.
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
-
@willnitschke
"For real world businesses that self describe as worker co-ops, they are typically small business LLC's with shareholders."
Except shares are given to employees and cannot be bought or sold. They are owned in common by the workers. So that's not private ownership at all.
"Of course. Because every single Socialist catastrophe we've seen 100% of the time in the real world is not Real Socialism"
Glad we agree.
"So morons like you get to advocate for identical policies"
Ah yes, democracy, famously the policy of authoritarian dictators.
"If you mean collective ownership, then there is no ownership."
So according to you worker cooperatives are owned by nobody.
"Cooperatives rarely pay dividends because they are not very profitable."
Except they do pay dividends. That's because the workers own the business. They are even motivated to work harder to see better dividends.
This last one you can just argue against yourself. It's more fun:
"That value is zero. I don't own equities so I can vote in the shareholder meeting"
"Democracy in the political sphere is there to act as a safe guard against government tyranny."
Safeguarding against tyranny is the value. Your ability to vote for or against leadership within your own company, as well as voting on key issues such as company bylaws allows you to create a democratic work environment.
"democracy is ugly, inefficient, unrepresentative, wasteful, corrupting, and horribly inept. But even with all these flaws, it is STILL superior to the alternative"
I agree. So why are you in favour of a workplace tyranny? It's shocking to me you keep advocating for authoritarian rule, only to then tell me over and over how great democracy is. In fact here is my favourity quote.
"superior to the alternative, which is government tyranny"
Right. You hate tyranny...unless it's in businesses then it's totally fine.
Like I said, right-wing politics is just anti-democracy.
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
-
@neighborhoodwatch470
In 2017, the Proud Boys' founder published a video he titled "10 Things I Hate About Jews." In it, he said Jews have a "whiny paranoid fear of Nazis.”
The Proud Boys’ actions belie their disavowals of bigotry: Rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists. They are known for anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric. Proud Boys have appeared alongside other hate groups at extremist gatherings such as the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Former Proud Boys member Jason Kessler helped organize that event, which brought together a broad coalition of extremists including Neo-Nazis, antisemites and militias. Kessler was expelled from the group after the violence and near-universal condemnation of Charlottesville rallygoers.
Stop kidding yourself. His failure to call a spade a space IS supporting white supremacists and neonazis.
You also skipped over the part about David Duke openly encouraging and supporting Trump and his comments.
You quote doesn't exist. Just Google it and you can see how you got the quote wrong. His actual quote was:
"I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay?"
What he did here, is exactly what you are doing, which is a no true scotsman fallacy. The basic idea is that everyone is a very fine person, unless they do something wrong, in which case they must have always been a neo nazi and they have nothing to do with us. You just keep doing this over and over while ignoring actual neo nazis.
1
-
@neighborhoodwatch470
"He disavowed Duke. Duke also supported Biden."
Not in 2016 or 2020. You're thinking of Richard Spencer, who hates Libertartianism and called the GOP ineffective. He called the GOP incompetent as well, which is hard to argue with.
"Biden has a very racist record. Byrd was Biden's mentor."
And? Trump wasn't mentored by a racist, Trump IS a racist. Biden on the other hand has been on the right side of history for a very long time, including protesting for racial equality in the 70s, as well as supporting fair housing laws and integrated neighbourhoods around the same time. You also seem to forget he was Obama's Vice President.
"Enrique Tarrio"
Weird you pick the guy who turned out to be an FBI informant lol.
"The left have no problems calling minorities that are Trump supporters, or just conservative for that matter, racist"
I agree. You don't have to be white to be racist.
"You know...the 94 crime bill Joe was so proud of."
Which part are you not in favour of? Republicans at the time actually considered the entire bill too soft, and were the reason the 3 strikes rule existed, the cause of the mandatory life sentences and the main race related problems caused by it. It also dedicated a lot of money to prevention, which Biden was in favour of, and Republicans were not. It was at the end of the day a compromise, and trying to claim that Biden is some grand soul author is just silly.
Biden was also voted for by a large Black majority, so try to justify your idiocy all you want, the vast majority do not agree with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jason Mccandless
"umm drone strikes are a good thing"
He says, complaining about a drone strike.
"not sure where Obama came into the conversation"
It was a comparison. Trump more than doubled drone strikes, killing thousands of the civilians you were just complaining about dying.
"trump never made direct decisions on a specific drone strike"
Yes he did, all the time. In fact the strike on the Iranian general was a direct order from Trump. General strike policy is also directed by the president, so if they increase, guess who ordered it.
"the new guy that basically was just a classroom of kids"
Wouldn't be the first time. Again, civilians die in strikes. This is why they aren't a good thing, and getting out of the region is a good thing.
"his poor withdraw that funded terrorist with 85 billion in military weapons equipment"
Not really. Most of it is unusable, and they'll run out of ammo in no time. We also gave this equipment to our allies to cover our escape, but Trump's plan to allow Al Qaeda over a year to make deals with local leaders caused the region to collapse far quicker than anticipated.
"shortly after making the largest border crisis in a hundred years"
The border had been ramping up before Biden even took office. This was inevitable, and a damn site better than separating parents from their kids, some of whom are still not reunited.
"here people from a foreign country are now given executive privilege from his organization to shoot across our borders into US soil"
I'm assuming you mean metaphorically rather than actually shooting, although with America you really never know. People coming across the border are asylum seekers, and it's always been a thing. You should probably also look up the US involvement in the governments and politics of the countries people are now coming in from. Immigrants are also a net positive for the economy, paying in far more than they take out.
"from a foreign nation"
Where else lol.
"I've never done any of that however the fact I'm not defending it with def ears so ya I'll take the moral high ground on that one lol"
No idea what you're even trying to say here. Are you arguing that you're on some sort of moral high ground? Because nothing you said would be considered moral by any reasonable standards.
1
-
@Jason Mccandless
"not complaining about drone strikes at all just the way it was carried out that avoided previous and proper protocol it was completely blind previous strikes were confirmed by visuals"
God you're naive. Visuals like what? Most strikes only have visuals from the drone, which shows very little in the way of who is inside a vehicle.
"yes some civilians died but also a target and anyone including Trump who kills innocent civilians is in fact a murderer this includes Biden and Obama Bush and Clinton as well"
Yet you only whine about it now. Also, the fact Trump openly covered up the strikes is more evidence that they were not hitting targets.
"don't get us started on the negligence of the Clinton's echo don't understand secure emails"
But her emails.
"that particular strike was just hey let's bomb something"
It really wasn't. They, like many strikes, were working on the information available to them.
"see if we hit a terrorist we just gave 86 billion dollars in weapons and equipment to and announce publicly we are working with them as they snatch up child brides in a country our military has occupied for 20 years"
I'm sure you had a better plan for Afghanistan. The fact that it took 20 years to leave is the real travesty.
"come on man I can honestly call Trump an asshole guilty of several bad deeds but dude Biden is truly in your heart just like the rest of your cult"
Hardly. Trump scandals filled the news so often it was impossible to see anything else. Face it, we're back to the days of tan suits and dijon mustard.
"he's also the most recent person to actually condone a foreign people to openly fire into the united states from across the Mexican border"
Still genuinely confused on this claim. Were they shooting at anyone? What was Biden's statement?
"you acct like he's freaking Jesus that's the factual point you are at right now and you can't even deny it"
Maybe if you stopped making things up and criticising things either out of his control or things that really aren't a bid deal then we could actually have a discussion about things that should be criticised.
For example, this lackluster hodge-podge of a covid response needs to be ramped up. We just had a massive surge, and are expecting another January surge like last year, and instead of passing legislation to protect businesses and individuals, they are allowing states to block necessary precautions. This level of control the states are exerting over life-saving measures is a joke.
The splitting of the infrastructure bill was another half measure. While compramise is important, the GOP has spent decades holding the nation hostage until they take power, so they can then go on a spending spree, ruin the economy, and blame Dems. Investment in times of economic downturn is so important, and we're letting congress play games with it.
We need better clean energy programs, including enhanced incentives for individuals and businesses to go solar, and better investments in green energy. Why on god's green earth are we still using coal for energy in this country. It's a disgrace.
Financial markets need tougher restrictions, and zero emphasis has been put on this. The recent rises in housing prices are going to cause some big issues soon if we don't start seeing much tighter regulations.
I also think the pandemic is a perfect opportunity to outline the issues with US healthcare, but lets be honest, you lost me at "compramise".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"So if Marxist failed to do a democratic proletarian revolution democratically, even they can't get collective consensus, they forcing people to do things."
Except the very first thing a socialist government is supposed to do is establish democracy. So in your mind the minority of the people, since they didn't get a popular vote, are going to rise up, take over a nation, install democracy, then hold a new vote...which they will also lose since they lost the first one. It's utterly nonsensical.
"Does this action or approach contradicted to your Definition of Socialism?"
Does the action of a minority of the people trying to overthrow a majority fit the defintion of socialism? No, it doesn't. Socialism is about social control. If the majoirty don't want it, then it doesn't happen, and trying to make it happen is just ignoring the whole point of social control.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@backalleyburrito1815 No, it isn't. The US is democratic constitutional republic.
Democratic: The vast majority of citizens have the right to vote and decide who leads the nation. The more people who can vote, the more democratic somewhere is. Arguably the US was not really a democracy for a very long time, really only finally crossing that threshold in 1965, or I suppose 1975 depending on your stance.
Constitutional: We have a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.
Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. The word "republican" is commonly used to specify that someone is anti-monarch, such as during the French revolution.
Or, in short, we vote in leaders, have an established foundation for the government and have representatives. A nation could easily use any collection of these 3 separate things, or none of them at all, but we as a nation use all 3.
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
-
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
-
@nealamesbury1480 Then you need to try opening your ears. Ben went on to talk about his book. Andrew Neil was well prepared, having both read the book and researched Ben's history to find either supporting statements or contradictory ones to Ben's book. He went in prepared with numerous examples of Ben contradicting himself, and Ben's inability to respond effectively, instead deciding to attack a conservative interviewer by calling him left-wing, was him getting slowly choked out throughout the 15 minute exchange. You can see how Ben should have responded when he answers questions on Trump, which makes sense as supporting fascists is his home territory. Imagine if he answered all the other questions as effectively. He of course could never do that as it would reveal too much about how extreme his actual viewpoints are. For example:
On the questions about abortion Ben changed the question from "6 weeks" to "6 months", changing the relative context of his answer as a result. Roe v Wade doesn't even allow 6 months (cutting at 23 weeks), yet he felt content to argue the point this way.
Lying about his own Youtube channel, claiming he has no control over his own titles.
Attacking other Jews as not real Jews, when in reality he means Zionists.
Tries to dismiss all of the terrible horrible things he has said on Twitter, even lying about the context of those "old dumb" Tweets such as attacking the Palestinian people while claiming he was attacking Hamas. Even better is when he gets called out on the context, then doubles down on the lie.
Attacking the interviewer while not understanding what Devil's advocate is or that the positions being proposed are not Andrew Neil's own position, and are literally there to be argued against.
Attacking the BBC as trying to make money off of him, even though they have no advertising and no sponsors, and do not earn money from viewer numbers.
Ben got absolutely torn to shreds here. To say otherwise is to be completely blind.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BillyTheKidder You would be correct, assuming that was the only case of the right being violent, but there have been multiple instances of the right politically attacking the left. Take Charlottesville. Some white supremist drove his car through anti-Unite the Right protesters, killing 1 and injuring 28. These attacks are not uncommon, and the rhetoric of Trump's supporters in the last 12 years has only been increasing.
"in which case arguing one party is better than another should seem ridiculous."
Not really. Just because you have to choose between 2 things, doesn't make those things the same. For example: your choice of sandwich filling is Nutella or literal dog shit I found on the front lawn. Still 2 options, they even look similar, but obviously they are very different.
I created that narrative to your response that the election results were fishy. They weren't, Biden won, and arguing Biden cheated is even less nonsensical than arguing Trump cheated. At least one side has the ability to show that the candidate at least attempted to cheat. Unless of course your comment was offhand and has nothing to do with a claim of cheating, which makes it a meaningless statement.
You claim Biden cheated. Can you name some instances of his cheating?
1
-
@BillyTheKidder Your last comment said they rig the game, they cheat. So did Biden cheat or not. Moreover, did he cheat the system, or did he cheat within the system? Trump definitely tried the former, and partially succeeded.
I agree that reasons fornnot wanting to shout your candidate from the rooftops are generally more personal. My point what that incidents like Charlottesville, various right wing shootings, the attack on the Capitol and other situations like that are just points in a huge web of various instances and rhetoric pushed by the right over the last 12 years. I would also point to the nationalistic style of support very common on the right, that requires a huge amount of chest thumping, something less nationalistic people tend to steer away from. You call it cowardice, I personally call the signs unnecessary.
As for the sandwiches, it really doesn't matter what you consider either side, as long as you understand that a choice between 2 is not automatically a choice between 1.
1
-
@BillyTheKidder The historical evidence is that candidates with a more extreme following tend to attract people with more extreme beliefs and more extreme actions to fit those beliefs, such as covering your house in 20 Trump flags or flying the confederate battle flag. Biden supporters tend to steer away from such blatant displays of nationalism and what essentially amounts to thumping your chest like a gorilla to prove your point. They voted rather than shouted, and it worked.
If you really want more examples I can give them, but arguing against it due to an insufficient number of points being made simply because you determined it so doesn't really help you case. Even if these were the only 2 newsworthy examples, it wouldn't really change much. But sure, by all means. I would like to preface this with the fact that Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020.
El Paso Walmart shooting
2020 boogaloo killings
Kenosha protest shooting
Poway synagogue shooting
Jeffersontown Kroger shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Planned parenthood shooting
Portland train attack
Charleston church shooting
LAX shooting
Attack on Pennsylvania State Police barracks
2018 mail bombing attempts
These are just the public attacks in the name of right wing ideals. This says nothing for the hundreds of videos and actions of right wing supporters calling for action:
Trump tweeted a video that included the statement "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat"
Fox News claiming that "All the Democrats have is lying and deception"
Dinesh D'Souza on Larry King claiming that the Democratic left are fascists
Trump proclaiming that only his supporters are true American patriots
Numerous videos questions and attacking Colin Kaepernick as a thug
Numerous videos of people being shot, choked and beaten by the police without repercussions
Militia groups actively preparing for civil war in the lead up to the 2020 election
Increased KKK signups and marches
The direct attacks and lies about Obama including:
Calling him a Muslim and saying he swore in on a Quran
Claiming he was born in Kenya
Saying he is the literal coming of the anti-christ
Calling him Satan
Trump co-chair wishing death on Obama
Syracuse "hang Obama" threats
Warning ISIS of incoming airstrikes before they happened
Failed to stockpile ventilators
Obama Foundation owns mail-in ballot printers
Obama's full name means COVID (seriously, these are just bizarre)
The Capitol attack was just a culmination of years of rhetoric coming crashing down as Trump supporters angrily reach stage 2 of their grief journey. They probably won't get much past that either.
Add to all of this the fact that conservative gun ownership, violence and terrorism are all increasing, and have been increasing for over a decade, at a steady rate. Rhetoric from these conservative groups has been growing steadily. The silent majority is a thing and they voted accordingly.
Also, again, not that this matters, as the absence of what you consider to be an appropriate number of examples is not indicative of there being no issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Czech Republic has a rather significant gun licensing test that requires knowledge of laws, firearms, ammunition and forst aid. They also require a practical exam with firearm inspection, field stripping, preparation, loading, shooting and handling of malfunctions procedures. Finally they have to pass a health evaluation, checking for amnesia, eyesight, hearing, balance and any known illnesses or disabilities. This is redone every 10 years.
You will be banned from ownership if you got a DUI in the last 3 years, misused firearms in any way, or were recently released from prison.
All firearms are also registered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@countschad This was in a draft of the 1776 Virginia Constitution and never made it to final copy. It was not within the Federalist Papers and was likely removed in the next draft to correct the obvious error. Want to know what did make it into the Virgina constitution?
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
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
-
@Abraham Rodriguez
"That's like me saying to you. Show me your evidence Biden won."
They counted and recounted votes in multiple states and held up the counted votes against multiple claims of voter fraud in court. You on the other hand are making a positive claim of voter fraud, which needs some sort of evidence to back them up. Let me know when you find that.
"But common sense tells me that guy you watch speaking which has no Charisma, was never popular, that's why he always lost when he ran in the past."
Biden did well with college educated white voters, a demographic that tends to be more split in previous years. In truth this group were probably voting against Trump rather than for Biden, but that's what caused the massive swing. There was also record voter turnout for under 30s, another Democratic strong voter group. Finally, there was a general swing in some areas that Trump had categorically failed with his policies, Pennsylvania being one. There was also of course the mismanagement of the global pandemic.
"People talk about how much influence Trump had on people and followers and even got more votes from African Americans and Latinos than his prior election"
Correct. Biden performed poorly overall with those groups but was able to influence, again, college educated white voters. Under 30s also voted more than ever.
"but some how he lost to Biden who never even left his basement"
Probably something to do with the global pandemic. I mean honestly, if you were worried about a pandemic that could potentially kill millions worldwide, do you vote for the guy hosting super spreader events?
"receive the most votes ever."
Yep. Say it again for the people in the back.
"Really think about it...he got the most votes ever for a president....Yes that guy you just watched"
Yep. He did. Cool right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Abraham Rodriguez
"Yeah the results provided by who?"
Individual states the votes were counted in. Georgia for example has a Republican governor but called the race for Democrats, even with Trump calling him to try and "find" votes.
"Whats being taught now is white supremacy, microaggressions, unconscious bias, gender which is all divisiveness in itself."
Lol, no it's not. The vast majority of schools don't teach this, and many are even pushing laws to require some pretty shitting things to be taught. There's a reason Texas has their own textbooks.
"If you can't vote due to a disability or out of the state or country you should be able to vote by mail."
Great, glad we agree, voting by mail is perfectly safe and legal.
"It's not like you have to vote every day so don't see the difficulty."
You also live in a predominantly well supported neighbourhood with a high number of voting locations. After all take a look:
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl
Georgia has specifically targeted black neighbourhoods by reducing polling locations and causing lines to drag on for hours and hours. They even made this trend worse in 2020 by removing polling locations. If you are too simple to understand how this is voter disenfranchisement then there is no hope for you. Even worse, imaging waiting in like for 6 hours, only to realise you don't have your ID. You can't go home to grab it because the polling location has technically closed and they are only allowing people in line to vote. So now what? you can't vote because of a shitty exploitive system.
"Haven't read in detail about not supplying water but if what you say it's true then I would say if it applies to everyone then don't see an issue with it since regardless of color they can't provide water."
Unless of course you are forced to wait in line longer because of where you live, which just so happens to mainly be people of a certain race.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner Got it, so we agree that you still need labour, making it something produced by labour.
And again, this calculation has always existed. Do you think we didn't have capital investments in technology in the 70s? Your argument is that we have greater capital invesments now in proportion to labour and output, except you have not shown that at all, and even if you did it would literally be you agreeing that there is a gap in labour compensation.
And all of this is while manufacturing as a share of total output has been falling for decades, meaning there would need to be some massive capital investment in some other industry, which you also have not shown. And even if you did, you would need to account for it at literally every single industry, since almost all of them show a shortfall.
But since you recently stated that retail does not produce through labour, which is nonsense as literally every industry produces through labour, you straight up called yourself out when not realising that retail is literally the most labour centric industry. Labour is responsive for all of the selling, moving and managing, with very little technological investment. The only thing you can possible hope to point to is that stock has to be purchased using capital...but that YET AGAIN shows you clearly don't understand that buying stock to sell is just pushing the production down the line to a different business that produced the goods that you just purchased, meaning it's STILL labour production.
Even if we assumed you were right, that capital investment has grown massively and the result is workers are simply paid less. Even if that happened without any of those purchased machines adding to the GDP. You would still have to go back to your marginal revenue product of capital calculation to see that when you add more capital investment without adding labour you get dramatically diminishing returns. Meaning you are openly saying that the reason workers are paid less for what they produce is that business owners are using their funds less efficiently than 50 years ago. That they are failing to hire the appropriate amount of labour, and as a result they are blowing far too much money on machinary that does not get used.
So thank you for this jaunt into the ever darkening reaches of your feable mind. It really does underpin how utterly entrenched you are in your beliefs, beliefs so utterly insane that even Billy thinks they are nuts. He was so triggered when I called him an ancap he replied saying they are "dumber than socialists" which I found pretty hilarious.
Anyway, thanks for the laugh Jimmy. Shame you don't actually understand the points being made and continue to grasp at straws. I wish I could say this is just a phase for you, but you have literally done this over and over for years, maybe even your entire life.
Cya kiddo 🙃
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
"the marginal increase is not from labor"
So labour isn't needed for the production? Can you prove that?
"The labor didn’t change."
False. The labour is using different tools. Different tools require different skills. Their output is higher because of their new skills.
"It’s the same guy driving the same type of machine."
False. Driving a machine 4 times larger is not the same skill. You need years of experience to drive something that huge.
"The only thing that changed was the capital equipment used."
False, as just explained, but this also adds another layer of issue, because as I previously explained, farmers are paid based on their own production. So you are, yet again, advocating for higher compensation.
"Capital stock at Current Purchasing Power Parities for United States"
Okay, can do. Oh look, when you overlay that chart with the Real GDP you find that in 1970 GDP was 5.3 trillion, while capital stock was 21.3 trillion. This ratio is almost exactly 4 to 1.
Yet in 2019 GDP was around 20 trillion while capital stock was at 69 trillion, roughly a 1 to 3.5 ratio.
Meaning that capital investments as a percentage of GDP are actually about 12% LOWER now than they were in 1970.
But I suppose you saw a line going upwards and just assumed that made you correct.
1
-
@ExPwner
"The labor was there and accounted for."
What labour? The one driving the small combine or the one driving the big one? Is the worker being compensated for the higher level of skill required to achieve this?
"MARGINAL production is from capital and not labor."
Literally all production requires labour, as you have yet to disprove.
"And no, the skill set for driving a combine is not different."
This is a monumentally stupid take. You think maneuvering something 4 times larger takes zero extra skill?
This goes back into the marginal production calculation as well, as if you have a small farm, getting a huge combine will do very little to increase production. You could spend masses of cash on something with a tiny improvement, or even a loss of productivity, due to lack of maneuverability, lack of surrounding supporting resources or the small size of the farm making it wildly non-cost effective.
And again, you are arguing that equipment is being purchased more than it was in 1970, yet as I just displayed that is not the case. In other words production has increased despite falling investments as a proportion of GDP, not due to an increase.
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
Since I really can't be bothered to go around in circles on this whole combine thing, lets just use a much wider ranging example to help you out.
Farms used to be much smaller, and farmers used to cover only a few hundred acres each. Their tools and equipment were small, and they required a lot more workers to sew, fertalize and harvest the crops.
Then comes the improvement of technology. This can be seen at many stages of farming, from hand plows, to mule drawn plows, to small tractor plows, all the way up to the massive monster machines that plow 20 rows at a time.
There are however several issues with looking at this in isolation. For example, the ability of farms to plow much wider areas led to the creation of massive super-farms with thousands of acres owned by a single person. The staff they employ when compared to the food produced is far smaller, yet the total food producing area is the same as those multiple smaller farms. As the new staff are not using hand tools and are required to use larger machines they have different skillsets that requrire better compensation. Beyond that the improvement to fertalizers means that food production also increased per acre. Then you have to look at supply and demand and understand that more food does not exactly correlate to more dollars. Then the remaining workers who no longer work the fields because you don't need dozens of farm workers any more and can make due with just a handful will enter into different industries. Then you have to factor in that the equipment purchased to manage these larger farms comes from factories that produced them, factories staffed by labourers. I mean you're starting to understand the issue here right, that using a single farm as an example in a much MUCH larger economy means that you are dramatically oversimplifying the true capital investments and labour costs over time, and how that effects individual labour compensation. Then you have to review if getting a second piece of equipment will be cost effective, and if you get a second rig then you also have to employ someone to use it, otherwise you just see dimishing returns on the capital investment.
So again, you really can't oversimply this and just look at the head of a combine.
"So you admit we are getting more productivity from our capital investments. Thanks for finally admitting that I am right. The capital investments grow productivity more now than in the 1970s."
Let me break down your points for you so you understand your own argument:
1. Productivity is increasing faster than worker compensation because capital investment is making up a larger proportion of expenditures.
Except we just found that not to be the case. Capital investment is lower as a proportion of production, not higher. People are investing less money but seeing more productivity.
2. Capital investment per unit of production is smaller because capital is creating production more efficiently per dollar.
But your previous argument was that capital investments are larger and that is why production is up more than compensation. Now you are arguing that capital investments are smaller, and that ALSO proves your argument that capital is causing productivity to go up faster than labour compensation?
So which is it? Is capital investment per unit of production increasing or decreasing. Should workers be compensated for their usage of tools to generate revenue.
Not only that, but again, as technology improves you have 2 types of labour. Labour that learns to use the new technology and is then compensated as a result, and labour that must change industry due to a lack of a need for more labour. In both cased labourers will be compensated more overall in the general economy. But as explained, that increase is lower than the total production.
So what we really have is you arguing that since technology has improved so much in the last 50 years, we should not be compensating workers as much as we used to, even though the price of the techology we are using to increase production has reduced. In other words, you want employers to see a higher return on their capital investments without any justification as to why they deserve this rather than compensating their works.
1
-
@ExPwner
"You are wrongly equivocating inputs and outputs. Expenditures are not outputs"
Expenditures have to spend that money somewhere. In the case of capital equipment, you are spending money to purchase from a different company. Your capital investment is another company's revenue. You are literally adding to the GDP. Again, this is the issue with not addressing this at a macroeconomic level.
"There is more total capital expenditure."
But less per unit of production.
"This capital expenditure is more productive."
Sure, and? Nobody is arguing otherwise. The productivity graph literally already accounts for that increase. It's literally the entire point of the graph, and you are trying to add the fact that production went up into the graph again, accounting for it twice. It makes zero sense. The point is that the people using these tools more advanced, the tools that cost less money than before, are being compensated less for the revenue they are producing.
"The fact that the expense to production ratio went down proves my point, not yours. "
So let's just ignore that your previous argument was that capital expense to production ratio went up.
If we are spending less on capital per unit of production, and less on labour per unit of production, where is that extra production revenue going? It's not going on capital expenditures, and it's not going on labour, so where is it going?
"Again, go back to the apples and oranges basket example. I went from 3 apples and 3 oranges to 3 apples and 5 oranges. Did my total oranges go up? Yes, it did. Did the ratio of oranges to total sales go down? Yes, it also did that. We can clearly see more oranges being used and a higher output per orange sold."
Except we just showed that the number of oranges went DOWN not UP. Capital expenditure as a proportion to GDP is DOWN not UP. We aren't dealing with 5 oranges, we are dealing with 2.
"None of this has anything to do with anyone’s feelings about what you think people should be paid."
I agree, it has to do with what labour produced. Labour produced more, by your own admission, by using more advanced tools, as you agreed, tools which cost LESS than they used to cost. So if the cost of capital is DOWN, and the skills of the workers using those new tools is providing MORE production, why are we compensating them LESS?
"It has to do with the fact that a total dollar amount increase in capital expenditure has created a disproportionate increase in GDP and total production"
Right. They spend less on capital and GDP went up by more. They literally returned more money per dollar spent. Now what made the difference between those two stats? Oh right, labour.
"one that is present in YOUR cited total productivity figure from BLS and which you erroneously attributed all to labor when you claimed labor wasn’t being compensated for its portion of total productivity."
Name a single thing that can be produced without labour. I mean you are literally arguing with the definition of labour production at this point, yet cannot name a single reason why we would not consider labour when talking about production.
1
-
@ExPwner
So many wrong things in this analogy. Why you even chose a number not divisible by 3 is already baffling, but then arguing that things within the basket are worth X amount that doesn't even correlate to the actual value of the items is mind-blowing.
I mean seriously, if we take your analogy and actually figure out the values of apples and oranges, it makes absolutely no sense with your claim of $3.33 or $4. Neither of those numbers are correct.
3X + 3Y = 10
3X + 5Y = 20
2Y = 10
Y = 5
X = -1.667
I mean seriously, what were you thinking?
And again, as we have already proven, there are less oranges, not more. Capital injections are smaller when compared to productivity, not larger.
The only way your analogy would work is if you replaced the oranges for some new type of orange that sells for more.
Of course that new orange would have to be grown and harvested on your own land while requiring zero change in farming practices.
And the addition of more of this product to the market would effect the price.
And then you have to account for other farms not doing the same, since they are also selling oranges and their change to how they grow them, the yield they produce et cetera would effect your prices.
Then this new crop has to be purchased from somewhere else.
Plus you have the lead time on the trees growing, they take years to mature.
......
My point is that you are really oversimplifying literally the entire economy into a discussion about apples and oranges, and really not understanding that we are talking about tools used by labour, not apples and oranges.
In fact, in your analogy there would be LESS organges, as the capital investment per unit of production has gone down, meaning we are spending less on oranges but seeing more output from the remaining labour. Meaning the value of apples has increased as labour is more valuable when it can produce more value.
But how about this. If you argument is correct, then why do companies pay workers more money, and not just pay them the same compensation they had in 1970?
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
-
@ExPwner
Actually I'm trying to help you understand the relationship between worker compensation and GDP.
On a microeconomic level you can sit and argue that if we pay workers less as a proportion of what they produce then the economy can keep growing.
The issue however is that the main driving force of GDP is labour using their earnings to then purchase things.
The productivity is literally a measure of how much revenue companies are making by selling goods and services, and the labour compensation is a measure of how much money the labour force has to spend on those goods and services.
As a result people used to save 12% of their income, but that number has halved to just 6%.
Incomes are not keeping up with cost of living leaving people left worse off than they were 50 years ago.
As labour gets squeezed they home ownership rates are dropping among those too young to join the market when it was cheap.
And this is without even addressing other issues, such as an increase in items produced causing a drop in price, meaning produced items and production are not a 1:1, as I explained earlier.
This is why we use compensation and capital contributions as a percentage of total GDP, not as standalone figures. You could use a standalone figure to argue that wages have increased or that capital contributions are up, but the point is that they have not increased as much as revenue, and revenue largely comes from labour spending their earnings, and is a key indicator of issues like wealth inequality. The same is true for capital purchases as well, with reinvestment percentages actually being lower than in 1970.
So I hope you at least attempt to learn something rather than spitting vitriol like you usually do. I found it amusing you talked about ad homimem attacks, when you used some variation of the word "dumb" in about 25 separate comments in this thread alone.
Peace James. I'm sure we'll chat again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JorgeCastillo-gb7vy
The document is sourced.
Selling shares is privatisation when the shares were previously owned by the government.
Selling them to one of the 8.5 million party members does not make it suddenly not privatisation. They selected who they sold to.
They were not transferred to the party, but to party members. Political parties do not own everything that their members own.
Yes they did have control over the economy, but those businesses were still privately owned. The profits went back to the private business owners.
"These firms belong to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public services, shipyards, shipping companies, railways, etc. Furthermore, the delivery of some public services that were produced by the government before the 1930s, especially social and work-related services, transferred to the PRIVATE SECTOR, mainly to organizations within the PARTY"
That's not a contradiction, as explained already. They picked and chose who they sold to, only selling to members of the Nazi party, but members of the Nazi party numbered millions and still owned private property. You are confusing party membership with government. Being a member of a political party does not make you part of the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shevetlevi2821 There have been talks about this since day 1. Literally the year is happened the residents protested. There were calls in 1801, 1803, 1888, 1921, 1961, 1967, 1972, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1987, 1993....you get the point.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@willnitschke Oh dear, more butthurt from Will. Here, let me help you out with your loaded questions:
"Why do you always defend slavery"
I don't. In fact I openly stated that government ended slavery and stopped capitalists from keeping slaves, which is a good thing. You then came back and defended literal slave owners, for some reason blaming government after they ended slavery.
"why do you always defend...war"
I don't. I am openly opposed to a number of wars, including the more recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Russian invation of Ukraine. I do however defend the Ukranian people's right to protect their lands from foreign invaders. Some of us aren't pro-war Russian spambots like you Will.
You should also look up the Just War Theory. Let's apply it to the Ukranian people's efforts shall we:
having just cause - Most theorists hold that initiating acts of aggression is unjust and gives a group a just cause to defend itself. Russia invaded, therefore Ukraine can defend.
being a last resort - They were invaded and all current negotiation is asking Ukraine to give up land, and the people within that land, to Russia. This is their last resort to protect the people of Ukraine.
being declared by a proper authority - Yes.
possessing right intention - Protecting the people of Ukraine.
having a reasonable chance of success - They seem to be doing well so far.
the end being proportional to the means used - Ukraine has already successfully protected many civilians from the horrors of the Russians. The ends have already justified the means.
See. So support for Ukraine is support for a just war. Support for Russia and their attempts to kill Ukrainians and steal their lands is unjustified, as their war is not just.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
Because North Korea is called "democratic".
In the end, Hitler killed all the socialists and created a totalitarian kleptocracy, not a socialist state.
When the Economist used the term "privatization" they were indeed talking about it the same way we do today. TIK claiming that "clearly" it's different is not an argument. In reality Hitler privaltizes huge segments of the economy:
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining,
banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of
some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and
labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector"
Hitler's government transferred business to private citizens that were members of the Nazi party, not to members of the government.
You can't have socialism without social or common control, which is control by the general public, not the state. TIK conveniently ignores this part of the quote at 26:00. He does this again at 25:50 when he ignored that the wikipedia entry talks about social ownership and democracy.
1
-
@in39484
"the general population benefited from his policies"
So long as you were a Nazi. A lot of the population did not benefit, and many of them were literally murdered after their businesses were taken away. But call it corporatists if you want then.
Nobody actually cares about the reorganisation of political movements in a fascist state. They were fascists and people trying to get power or not be killed by fascists. That's it.
" but with respect to all 3 banks No, just as we can't trust the words "National Socialism" or "reprivatization", Tik has a video called "Desperate Historians Try to Defend the Nazi "Privatization" Myth, which talks about those 3 alleged "banks" "reprivatized" , using sources such as Adam Tooze and Gunter Reimann."
The government sold their shares. What exactly are you even trying to say here?
"public services were transferred to the Nationalsozialistiche Volkswohlfahrt and the Deutsche Arbeitsfront"
First, that claim needs a reference. Second, even if true the service management was split up into many organisation, as listed. Third, yes these groups are non-governmental, and therefore private.
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
-
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
-
@willnitschke
"And humans owned slaves for hundreds of thousands of years. Why didn't the Roman Empire stop slavery?"
Public opinion. The British ended the slave trade because in 1792 every single county in England, Scotland and Wales presented parliamentary petitions to stop the trade. It was then outlawed in 1807. Further political pressure from abolitionists pushed the ownership of slaves to be outlawed in 1834, and as a result the British government took out a loan so large it took until 2015 to pay off. Absolutely no part of the British abolition of slavery financially benefited them, and was driven entirely by massive political pressure from the general public.
The same is true for the US. The abolition movement gained huge popularity and drove the federal government to outlawing the practice. This drove the nation further apart and eventually lead to the civil war. Now imagine trying to argue that the US civil war, a war that killed around 800,000 working age American men, 2% of the total population, was a financially benefitial. A war that added billions to the national debt.
The truth is that capitalism and slavery are not only compatible, but even flourish together. Any industry that benefits heavily off low income long-term stable workers, such as farmers, servants, factory workers et cetera, benefit massively off slavery. Even to this day endentured servants continue to thrive in a black market of enslavement. What stops this horrific practice? Government every single time.
If you don't ban it Capitalists will do it, because profit is more important than people.
So again, what ended slavery? Democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rossthomson1958 Vehicle attacks are much harder to actually fulfil. They require a lot of factors that do not exist for guns. First and foremost, the existence of roads, lack of other vehicles, lack of bollards and other vehicle blockers and so on. You need a large group of people out on a road, and even then actually hitting them is usually non-lethal unless you are moving with some speed, and it's much easier to get out of the way of compared to bullets.
Knives are even harder to achieve this kind of mass attack with. From the knives attacks we've seen around the world they are more easily stopped, have less victims, have a lower mortality rate, require a certain level of strength and skill to achieve and the attack is far more personal. You don't get kids going into schools and killing 6 people with a knife.
The idea that someone could go to a hotel room and kill 60 people, injuring over 400 more, with just some knives is silly. The idea that someone could go into a nightclub and kill 49 people with knives is also silly. I'm sure you'll point to the Nice truck attack as an example of how cars can be worse, however the very special set of circumstances for that to happen mean it can only happen on a couple of days of the year. That fact is also overshadowed by both the ease of an event like that using guns on any less populated day, as well as the specific even that happened only months before in Paris, where armed terrorists killed 130 people.
Guns are specifically designed to kill. They are impersonal, fast, long-ranged, accurate and incredibly lethal. That is why attacks using guns are so much worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rossthomson1958
"did you forget that criminal no longer have to fear a gun owner trying to defend his store or home"
Which assumes they have guns in the first place. With much heavier restrictions you both make the risk of being seen with a gun too great, and also make crimes with guns too risky. Sure, it will still happen in isolated incidents, but far far less. You also seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I am saying people should never have guns, but I can go into this more in my points later.
"what countries have stopped Gun ownership or stricter gun laws and has stopped crime"
Nobody is suggesting they stopped all crime, however, Australia put a massive swathe of restrictions of firearms after a mass shooting there. With 35 deaths and 24 more injured they decided enough was enough. In the 26 years since they have seen drops in both violent crime and murder, and have also sharply reduced mass shooting events. Guns are also still legal there, but the types of firearms are restricted. The culture around guns changed.
"no it won’t because your encouraging criminals to get into that business. Just like with petty thieves in Columbia they saw a opportunity to make money with the cartels and they took it"
They're already in that business, but if the market becomes more expensive and many criminals get squeezed out of the sector by both danger and expense then the market will shrink, not expand. What's worse is the cartels you mentioned get their guns from the US.
The US is already many times more lethal than other developed nations, with guns making up around 3/4 of all US murders, and the high murder rate putting you below Kenya Niger and Pakistan.
Countries with restrictions however see much lower murder rates, such as Japan, Germany, Austria, the UK, Australia and more.
Many Americans like to point to Switzerland as an example, however Switzerland has a tonne of reasons for the gun culture being vastly different. They have, for example:
Required military service for all men.
Weapon acquisition licenses only good for single purchases.
Acquaintance and police interviews before the application is granted.
Have to pass exams both theory and practical to carry.
Doctors can inform the police of people with mental health problems should they own or try to own a gun.
If used for sport the gun can only be taken too and from the shooting range, and cannot be loaded during transportation. Ammunition must be separate.
The mixture of high levels of training and the laws surrounding ownership make a country that has a lot of guns infinitely safer than the US.
1
-
@rossthomson1958
"actually Australia has seen an increase in crime from 1980s to 2010s"
Which peaked in the late 90s and decreased from there on, you know, just after the gun restrictions and buybacks which saw drops in violent crimes and suicides. Using the 80s to cover the 90s is just silly.
"the cartels don't fear the law neither do criminals in the US"
You're missing the point, they get their guns from the US. If they didn't fear the law they would try to get their guns from Mexico. Obviously Mexico's restrictions work.
"Many places In America it takes 20-30 mins for a police officer to arrive on scene by that time the home owner is dead and the criminals are gone"
So why are you in favour of giving them guns?
"so it won't be a suprise that you see people take safety in their own hands and buy a gun to protect themselves"
Which is fine, as long as they pass the proper requirements to get a license and register their gun.
"https://youtu.be/gy_wrTVIuqM"
Missing the point 101. How about we stop giving guns to criminals.
"if you want mental health checks that's good but people can always manipulate that, and when that doesn't work they will turn to gun restrictions"
Works everywhere else, and has been shown to be a good way to stop several shootings already where a mental health check would have seen the issue, mainly around school shootings. Even if they can be manipulated, all you are advocating for is better mental health checks. You're too scared to use a better system because it might not work 100% of the time. Well now it works 0% of the time because we don't use them at all.
But keep writing several separate comments of pure ignorance, showing that you are so far from seeing the point that your eyes aren't even open, while complaining about having to read less than a page of words.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arielkarat4338
"pay attention where you have most crimes in the country New York , Washington ,New Jersey ,California , Florida, Illinois...
in this places you have a lot of gun control."
1. You're just naming the places where the most people live. Of course these places have a lot of crimes, that doesn't mean they have high crime rates.
2. You've never been to Florida either have you. The idea that we have a lot of gun restrictions is laughable.
3. Here is a list of states with a higher crime rate than the states you just said:
Louisiana
Missouri
Nevada
Maryland
Arkansas
Alaska
Alabama
Mississippi
And finally Illinois
Or we could look at the violent crime rates:
Alaska
New Mexico
Tennessee
Arkansas
Arizona
Louisiana
Missouri
South Carolina
South Dakota
Michigan
Montana
Nevada
Oklahoma
Alabama
Texas
And finally California
So you were off by a LOT, even naming some states that made it on the crime and violent crime lists above the totally violent states you listed, claiming they are more safe. It's actually comedic how wrong you are.
"more than 3 million US Americans use guns to defend their life every year. "
This stat is pulled from a phone survey, and includes people who open carried and felt safer. Harvard has an entire page on the issue, even showing a study where:
"Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal"
So relying on a self-reporting study where people are openly admitting to committing crimes with guns isn't exactly a starting point.
"and 40,000 crimes with guns including gun accidents."
So who the hell are 3 million people defending themselves from? This number is also only deaths, not injuries, and not armed crimes.
"in 2019 :
1,470 homicides with knives.
350 homicides with rifles.
630 homicides with handguns.
800 homicides with bare hands."
Not according to the FBI. In fact, according to the FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8, in 2019 there were 13,927 homicides. Of these homicides by various methods are shown below:
Total firearms: 10,258
Handguns: 6,368
Rifles: 364
Shotguns: 200
Other guns: 45
Firearms, type not states: 3,281
Knives or cutting instruments: 1,476
Personal weapons: 600
So according to the FBI, firearms where the cause of almost 5 times as many homicides as knives and personal weapons combined.
No idea where you go the number 630 homicides with handguns, you probably missed a digit and rounded down by the looks of it.
"I support Ted Cruz"
So the guy that failed to effectively support his states energy grid, and abandoned his people during a blizzard. Why am I not surprised.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arielkarat4338
The truth is that Tucker cannot be taken seriously, as per HIS OWN LAWYERS. Tucker is a lying, white supremist supporting, fearmongering, conspiracy theory spreading, sexist, fascist, racist who finds it all to easy to stoke fears in cult followers.
Also, those videos are all too easy to make. Here:
https://youtu.be/NzDhm808oU4
I mean, there are mostly unprompted and are active rally supporters. Some of these people have been interviewed multiple times, and are consistently stupid while also being incredibly strong supporters. Your video is nothing in comparison, and there are a good 60+ of these.
But sure, lets go with the 9 year old video of people on the street, and not the up to date video of active political supporters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dekanogiulogilvstaples4430 Considering the conspiracy theory clown nonsense you believe that's a compliment.
For example:
"by creating HIV" - Not only did Fauci not create HIV, he is thoroughly appreciated by the AIDs community for his work in allowing new drugs in the treatment of AIDs, drugs that are still used today.
"Or torturing puppies" - His department approved funding for an experimental vaccine for a parasite that currently can only be cured with chemotherapy. It would save millions of lives. All animal testing like this has animal care techs, veterinarians, internal reviewers and federal reviewers who are all capable of stopping the trials should the need arise. Animals are kept as humanely as possible while advancing scientific research. The only alternative is testing an experimental vaccine on people, which I'm sure you agree is far too dangerous. Fauci also had nothing to do with the approval of funds personally, it was the department as a whole.
"Or helping create SARS" - This is demonstrably false. SARS-1 was naturally occurring, as confirmed by basically everyone everywhere.
"Funding Covid" - The US government already confirmed that the virus being studied in the labs was too far away from the variants we see now. SARS-1 is nothing like SARS-2.
"BLOCK actual Doctors from reaching out to HELP people?" - If you're referring to the supposed treatments that don't actually work, as confirmed by studies from dozens of countries, the most extensive of while is probably India, who were giving Ivermectin to millions of people, only to remove it because it doesn't work, then you're going to need to try again. The current treatments work. MATH+ works.
"well except those flooding across the Southern Border" - People crossing the border are detained, tested and quarantined, and vaccines are offered to them the same as everyone else.
"It took them fifty years to admit to the Agent Orange in Vietnam" - Sounds like you've been through a lot of trauma and it's clouding your judgement in other situations. Have you seen a therapist about all these deaths you've had to deal with?
"MASKs, which are a crock" - There are dozens of open resource studies that show they work.
"They work well against bacteria, are worthless against virus." - The water droplets that the virus particles travel in are caught by the mask. They are also triple layered, meaning the holes in one layer are covered by the other layers. Don't believe me? Try blowing out a candle in a mask.
"And they are NOT super Spreaders?" - No, they are quarantined.
"And NO one believes the CDC anymore than they believe you" - Doesn't really matter, what matters is the facts, which is what the CDC uses when applying their recommendations. How much you believe them is neither here nor there. Your ability to curl up in a cult-like bubble of ignorance has no bearing on reality. Your shouting and screaming is just to the choir at the end of the day.
I'm serious about that therapy btw. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, I think that you would really benefit from it given what you have been through.
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
-
@jakeglenn2246
> "Facebook Co- founder(“World Economic Forum”) , Bill Gates , Fauci and Big pharma planned C 19 and removed Trump from office.
Interesting claim. Got any evidence for that? Honestly, you think that they started a virus, in China of all places, and spread it all over the world, just to prove Trump is incompetent? Even if you are correct all Trump had to do was not be incompetent.
>Why wasn’t the white house and GOP senators invited to event 201?
Because at every turn they have been working to undermine the whole pandemic response.
>Why weren’t the American people allowed to attend?
Which American people? American people were there.
>Which Big pharma reps were there and why?
Probably the ones producing the vaccine.
>Why was the CIA and NSA there?
Why wasn’t Trump notified?
These are contradictory. I'm sure Trump was notified and has the CIA and NSA acting on his behalf, or he skipped that briefing like he always does. Either way.
>John Hopkins was the organization that also tracked and reported on the C19 actual event!!!
Correct. I'm glad they were there since they obviously know the most about all of this.
>The American people have NOT elected Gates, Fauci, Big pharma or John Hopkins or the CDC to direct our healthcare.
Well, sort of. The CDC head is appointed by the president, who is elected. The rest of them were hosting a private event and invited officials, who decided it would be a good idea. Gates, Johns Hopkins and the rest have no obligation to help people, but maybe they aren't complete sacks of shit like Trump. Gates for instance donated billion upon billions around the world to help people, yet you think he is somehow orchestrating a pandemic just to get at Trump?
>Why is Roxanne S. Austin- Verizon BOD also on BOD of big pharma?
Why not? Maybe because they know a thing or two about business and can provide a unique approach that more pharmaceutically driven individuals cannot?
Here's an idea. If Trump and his personal team are being attacked so hard, why don't they do some investigating and prove it? They appointed judges and had the head of the department of justice on their side, and found literally nothing. No lawsuits, no trials, no evidence. Also, are you saying the virus is fake or the vaccine. Wouldn't the vaccine still be a good thing?
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edhuber3557
"Good point. Any pipeline can carry any product in any quantity in any direction at any, all, and the same time."
Again, they already have a keystone pipeline. Building a larger line, especially one that goes over indigenous lands and breaks multiple treaties, while increasing domestic oil prices, is a waste.
"On the other, hand these are present US gov't funds which will be well managed, as always, because of politician's extensive knowledge of technology and infrastructure."
They don't need to have extensive knowledge. They are given recommendations, most notably the recent US infrastructure report care, to advise their decisions.
"We know this taxpayer outlay will be spent for useful, albeit as-yet-unclear infrastructure"
Almost like there isn't a bill yet.
"If holes, pits, or pockets in roads are not filled, then pols will find ratholes, bottomless pits, or pol pockets"
Oh please. They're not the military.
Honestly, you're just throwing out conspiracy theories with nothing to show for it.
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
-
@Jack-xy4fy
"In this quote, Hitler clearly explains the reason for his hatred of Jews is that he is a socialist and the Jews are seen as the personification of capitalism. "
He said this, as you explained, in 1920. Almost as if he was using propaganda to bring a connection between the socialists on the left, and the anti-immigration movements of the right, in order to garner as much support as possible.
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute therefore the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
Imagine using a quote where he says he wants to destroy Marxism.
And no, socialism can be individualistic, and capitalism can be collective. You're confusing free market capitalism with all forms of capitalism and state socialism with all forms of socialism.
"National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism."
Except as Hitler explain in another quote, his idea of socialism has absolutely nothing to do with socialism and is just racism.
"In this quote Hitler clearly shows how similar national socialists and communists are, and clearly shows that he is not “anti communist” at all, his party simply were opposed to certain communists at one point in time."
This was about 6 years after they imprisoned all the communists in the county and purged his own party of communists and socialists. He is just justifying the NAP with the Soviets.
"logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realise its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd"
If it's not democratic it literally isn't socialism. Socialism is about SOCIAL ownership. That is not possible through a state without a democratic election process. He is literally admitting that he isn't a socialist, while using propaganda to trick people like yourself.
So thanks for proving that Nazi propaganda still works 80+ years later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jack-xy4fy
"you clearly know nothing about Marxism. You think Marxism is opposed to revolution?"
I don't think that, but Marx and Engels wrote extensively about when a revolution would be needed. They specified that in nations with democratic processes that socialism could be achieved democratically, and that nations without such processes, that have an unelected head of state, such as Russia all the way until the Communist revolution, would likely require a revolutionary uprising by the workers. The thing is, Russia already had this revolution, then had a socialist election in 1917. When Lenin lost he resorted to a second civil war, which had absolutely nothing to do with marxist revolution and was in fact an attempt to thwart marxisian democratic processes.
"Modern US Democratic party is a Marxist party"
HA! Okay.
"So to summarise: democratic state, people's state, workers state, makes no difference they are all inevitably collectivist authoritarian regimes."
Except democracy and authoritarianism are polar opposites. A democratic authoritarian state is an oxymoron. I would simply argue that these names are tools to garner legitimacy, votes and control. Nothing more.
Seems we are really stuck on terms here. Can you define democracy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jack-xy4fy
"I thought you said everything that came out his mouth was a lie?"
This is where you need to use your historian brain to actually draw a distinction between what was being said about ideology, and what was being said about language.
For example: When he says he is a National Socialist he is using a completely undefined term to describe his position, catapulting off populist positions of the time. While he did later define his position on socialism, including in a quote you posted, it's very easy to see that his position had absolutely nothing to do with any socialist ideas at all. You even alluded to Leninist regimes around the world using this exact same tactic, claiming they are democratic when in fact they are the opposite.
However when we see a quote that actively states a position on a particular issue, we can both view the position being advertised, and can compare those points to actions of his party.
For example: When describing Marxists he likened them to the exact opposite of Germanism. And when describing nationalism he talks about the Aryan race, and says that the state is a vessel made up of the people it contains, and the state needs to guard and preserve the racial elements of the people. In other words, his entire argument around Nationalism is he believes that the ethnically aryan German people are the true people of the state, and his view is that nationalism is about preserving that race. So his idea of "Germanism" is literally his idea of nationalism. He is openly stating that Marxists do not fit inside his model for a Nationalist nation.
So what exactly did he mean by "socialism". Well thankfully, he tells us:
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
What's interesting about this description is that "common weal" simply means the overall wellbeing of the people, and there is nothing to suggest that he was a supporter of the people actually deciding what was good for them. Because of this, and his later policies and actions, we can see why this idea of a his "socialism" having anything to do with actual socialism, which is entirely centred around the idea of common ownership, is a completel farce. In fact he seems to be promoting a return to the Kaiser and the former German Empire, installing himself as a king rather than an elected official. Given his later actions, this seems to line up perfectly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theorderofthepurplephoenix3321
"the majority of shootings/murders (including “mass shootings”) are black on black violence"
Unsurprisingly when you marginalise a group of people for centuries they have poverty and crime issues. Adding to this however, even the least violent US state has a homicide rate higher than almost all developed nations, and even the homicide rate by race for the white population is around double that of other developed nations. So lets not bury the lead here, it's a gun issue.
"Gang culture is a massive contributor to gun violence, and the majority of that violence is concentrated in impoverished areas."
That's true of literally every country on the planet.
"While mass shorting in unlicensed spaces still occur and are a major problem, the statistics massively overstate the amount of mass shootings that occur. Because the government defines mass shootings as shootings in which 4 or more people are killed with a gun."
Mass shootings are not the main issue. Shootings in general are the issue. Mass shootings are also not defined as 4 or more people killed, but instead 4 or more people shot. They could all live and it would still be a mass shooting.
"The worst part about all of this is that politicians try to make it seem like we have hundreds of serial killers every year"
No, they just point out that over 24K homicides a year is a lot of homicides.
"which leads to them making it harder for law abiding citizens to carry a gun, and weirdly, more and more laws"
Right, because restricting how, when and who can carry a gun is actually solid policy that reduces instances of gun violence. There is a reason guns used in Chicago are not purchased in Chicago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@algheroman6476
"It will definitely make inflation much worst for everyone both short and long term."
Nah. Tax changes and a growing economy will offset this. The recent inflation was caused by over 6 trillion in spend in 2 years. As you stated, this bill wouldn't even equal that over 10 years, even at the worse estimates.
"The "human” infrastructure bill is a gigantic tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. There is a provision would lift the SALT cap from $10,000 to $80,000 on income tax deductions for state and local taxes (SALT). Benefiting some states and penalizing others that are more working class than rich."
That tax cut is miniscule for millionaires, but big for middle class and lower class families. It would also only lower taxes meaning those in lower tax states would not see tax increases.
"$80 billion in mandatory spending for the IRS to hire and empower 87,000 agents to go after working class people."
Incorrect. The IRS almost exclusively targets lower income people because they don't have the manpower to target higher income earners. These new agents would allow them to target higher profile earners.
"$3 billion for “tree equity.” WTF??"
Urban green spaces have massive positive impacts for both the mental and physical health of people living in dense areas.
"$15 million for older people who are “underserved” with gender identity issues."
Good. What's the problem?
"$25 million toward developing “anti-discrimination and bias training” for the health care sector. Making things more racists will never be helpful."
The bill agrees with you, which is why they are trying to REDUCE racism, discrimination and general bias. That's the point.
"$4 billion for “neighborhood access and equity grants”."
Nothing pandering about it. By reconnecting segregated neighbourhoods that continued to see separation during redlining, the US can further heal the racial divide. This can then end location based discrimination that effects people living in those, usually racially segregated communities.
"$7.5 billion for Biden’s “Civilian Climate Corps”"
So a grassroots plan to improve the environment on a national scale using small groups of local environmentalists spread throughout the nation? Sounds like a great plan with low cost. Act local, think global.
"$5 billion for environmental and “climate justice”"
Requiring polluting companies to clean up after themselves, and not leave entire communities poisoned, is not unreasonable.
"Give citizenship to over 2 million illegal aliens, bypassing the normal channels and disenfranchising all those that follow the law and became citizens legally"
You're referring to the 2 million DREAMers, who were all brought to the US when they were young and undocumented. They have lived here almost their entire lives, go to or went to US schools, and identify as Americans. Why are you punishing people who were brought here when they had no choice? You can attack them for not going through legal channels all you want, but they had no choice in the decision. DREAMers btw have all been in the US for at least 5 years, and anyone here legally can go for citizenship after 5 years anyway, so why not just let them go for it?
"Bigger, more inflated, and debt ridden government."
You're partially correct. Most of the plan is already paid for through tax changes that the plan would introduce, meaning we wouldn't see more debt. The debt we would see would be completely offset by future gains. If you only argument boils down to "the government would be bigger" all I can respond with is "so what?" Give me a reason the government being bigger is a bad thing based on size alone.
The truth is that all you have displayed here is that you simply dislike parts of the bill that would actually help people, communities and the environment. You have also skirted around the vast majority of the spending of the bill in favour of not even 10% of the total spend. Why ignore child tax credits, child care, healthcare, dental care, vision care and more so that you can point out that some old people with deep-seeded gender identity issues might get some help in the form of less than 0.0001% of the total bill? You even admit that what you pointed out was a drop in the bucket, but fail to address the meat of the bill.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vantagepoint9270 Lotta stupid in 1 comment there champ. Lets break it down for you:
"creates record inflation"
Inflation isn't instant, as is usually a knock on effect of the previous year of the economy. Massive government debt increases to keep the economy afloat during huge Trump unemployment rates will do that.
"record gas prices"
Not even close. They were higher in 2014 and the 3 years before that. Even then, what do you expect when a bunch of frackers went out of business when the price went negative? They need high prices to survive, and production has yet to recover.
"abandoned Americans in Afghanistan"
The timeline set by the previous admin was just too short. Trump also authorised the release of the now Taliban leader, and thousands of their fighters. Withdrawal would just take far longer than it did. That being said, almost all the Americans there left without any real issue.
"supported segregation"
Literally the opposite. Biden was so anti-segregation that he thought bussing didn't go nearly far enough, and argued that we needed to do more to integrate communities, a problem that still exists to this day.
"vilifies those who criticize him"
When the questions are dumb you get called out. Not rocket science. Your misinformation is proof of that happening.
"cowers when questioned"
Lol
"shows severe cognitive decline"
You just watched a 30 minute speech. Oh wait, you didn't, you went into the comments to be salty.
"has caused more Covid deaths than under Trump"
He took office just as Delta was spiking. Deaths from covid take around a month from initial infection. The new policies put in place reduced infections, but overall the majority of covid preventative measures are state controlled anyway. The difference is the planning and the rhetoric. Biden got hundreds of millions of vaccine doses out the door.
Americans really don't mind Biden. He's more popular than Trump was at this time, and has only been in a year. He's getting a lot more done as well. After all, can you name a single Trump policy that actually did anything useful?
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
-
@doctorstrangelove9487
Not communism, socialism. People like to call them communist, but in communism everyone is paid the exact same wages. Cuba however has a minimum wage which even varies by job. There real issues are authoritarianism and global economic sanctions, not their economic system.
As abaabaaba was saying, the main problem is that the US government makes a point of overthrowing, attacking and sanctioning any country with some sort of socialist movement. For example lots of people are quick to point out Venezuela as an example, however socialism there pulled the entire country out of poverty, and nobody wants to point out the sanctions the US put in place to aid in the countries downfall. Their shady government and immense external pressure led to their eventual destruction, not their economic system. They have the worlds largest oil reserve and the US banned oil trade with them. They also had a suspect election, with accusations of voter intimidation, and with no way to enforce investigations into it. The economy was grossly mismanaged as well. All of these issues happen in capitalist nations with the same result.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke
"I do consulting, been doing it for nearly 40 years. Sorry, I need office space, electricity, transport, advertising, telephones, computers"
Except you don't actually need any of that to consult. You think consultants before any of that were out of the job?
"So you're admitting you don't even need labour to create a service?"
Except you do, as explained.
"And those programmers who were paid $250,000 salaries were 'exploited' were they?"
Was their labour used to produce something that has a higher value than what they recieved?
"Electricity created by a solar panel doesn't need labour"
Other than the panel, the install, the maintainence, the constant live work done by staff to keep the grid going.
"The solar panel was likely created in an automated factory, that didn't need labour either."
Lol, okay champ, not even close, and even if it was you are just describing people's labour that created said factory being exploited. It's all just labour exploitation, no matter how many layers removed you try to get.
"At least you're finally admitting you can have goods and services and labour is not essential, although obviously capital still is."
Literally the opposite. Again, consultants can consult without any capital.
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
-
@MTMILITIAMAN7.62
"COVID has a mortality rate of .003% or less for children 19 years and younger"
CDC numbers are actually for 0-17 year olds, not sure where you got 19 from but okay. your numbers also don't account for the increased risk from Delta, and children left permanently injured. This also doesn't say much for the spread and mutation of the virus, which is the primary reason for the vax.
"The CDC even admits, COVID accounts for only .2% of deaths in children"
It's actually 0.85%. 499 deaths out of 58,167 total. We also DO mandate flotation devices all over the place, as well as fencing and locks.
" .04% or less for Americans aged 39 or younger."
Actually it's 0.1%, although expecting accurate results from you is a joke. Again, this doesn't account for spread, variant mutations or permanent damage.
this is also sad as you seem to think anyone over 40 deserves what's coming to them. Also, for the average to be 1.6%, and the majority to be around 0.1%, that's a VERY high mortality rate for people over 40.
"There are treatments available, but they have not been used much inside the United States"
Actually they have. the MATH+ protocol exists for a reason. It works.
"So they suppress access to Ivermectin and call it horse medicine, even though it is the preferred treatment for politicians and celebrities, has been wildly effective treating COVID in Japan and India"
It was trialed all over the world, and India literally stopped using it because it doesn't work. Oh, and I know people who actually took horse dewormer, so just stop.
"so they can push their new miracle drug with Ivermectin as its primary ingredient for $700 a pill."
No it doesn't. It's a completely different anti-viral. You can actually find the chemical formula of both drugs and see the differences.
"If a) then you can get vaxed and cease your concern over the vaxination status of others, because their private health decisions no longer affect you."
Incorrect, for several reasons.
1. While the vaxes are very effective against the original wild type of the virus, they have reduced effectiveness, in both efficacy and survivability, against the delta variant. They do however reduce the spread and make living decidedly more likely.
2. When reducing the spread it's important that large segments of the population take action to stop the formation of new variants.
3. Many people are too immunocompromised to get jabbed, and rely of herd immunity for protection.
4. Your conspiracy nonsense can convince people that they are fine without, putting their lives in danger.
"And science doesn't censor dissenting opinion."
Never said it did. I said they censor lies, which they do all the time. Try getting published on a lie.
"Marxist group think demands conformity without question."
Define marxism. You also fit your own definition exceedingly well.
"Science is a method of learning through testing and observation. Science must be falsifiable to be valid, and real scientists are skeptics who invite discourse."
Like how dozens of countries tried out Ivermectin and stopped using it as a result. You also missed out repeatable.
"Dissenting data is never censored in real science because science is about data."
Again, but lies are censored.
"Real science is not afraid of competing data and invites competing view points."
Like? Oh that's right, your nonsense.
"If you ask a question and are told to shut up and fall in line, that isn't science."
"Just asking questions." Either do the actual research or shut up. Arguing with people who have decades of experience without actually presenting anything factual is not science either, it's a joke. you're a joke.
"If you provide data and it is censored as "misinformation," and you're called a "science denier," that isn't science, and you're not talking to a real scientist."
Unless of course it's fake data that shows you are providing misinformation. Like people claiming that Ivermectin helps or that the vaxes don't. that kind of misinformation.
1
-
@MTMILITIAMAN7.62
"I already told you where I got those numbers; from the American Council on Science and Health. I also get information from Statista"
Both get them from the CDC. The CDC are the only ones who have that data.
"The CDC receives funding from it's non-profit, the CDC Foundation"
And? The vast VAST majority of their funds are from the government. And even that it's irrelevant as the data speaks for itself.
"You still attempted to refute information I got from the CDC, which makes me wonder where you get your numbers"
I got mine from the CDC, yours are just out of date and according to you NOT from the CDC..
"Like I said, the ACSH has studied this and concluded the maximum average mortality rate of COVID among those 39 years and younger in the United States is .04%."
Wrong. Go back and look at recent numbers.
" So when we see that half of the population has a survival rate of 99.96% or greater, and the youngest half of the US population is responsible for only 2% of published COVID fatalities, it shows how foolish it is mandating an experimental vaccine to the entire population."
Nope. As I said before, herd immunity is necessary to end the pandemic. You won't get that if half the population are not vaxed.
"Japan called Ivermectin a "miracle drug" for its effectiveness against COVID."
No. they called it a wonder-drug in 2011. As of a month ago it was still not approved as a covid treatment. Nowhere is it being used on a government scale.
"India's Uttar Pradesh State announced they were COVID free after implementing a treatment program based on Ivermectin."
Which also contained many other things, and currently the ivermectin has been taken out of that program.
"Natural immunity is not forming new variants. New variants of COVID are formed specifically by vaccinations"
No, they aren't. Variants are formed by mutations, which happen in people who catch covid. They are naturally selected for by things like immunity.
"which is why we keep getting new variants despite the increasing prevalence of vaccinations."
No, that's not why. Delta for example is from India, who at the time were very low on the vax rate, and still are pretty far down.
"My "conspiracy nonsense""
What about it? Is it still nonsense? Yes. Do you understand that? No? Is it depressing to see a human mind wasted like this? Yes.
"I've provided more sourced data than you have."
Try an up to date source. I've used the same sources, but not months in the past. Delta works differently.
"Maybe you can explain why Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries, experiences a massive spike in COVID cases?"
I can actually. Maybe you can tell me why this densely populated area who had a big spike are doing far better than the less densely populated, less vaxed Florida? For example, Florida had over 10K covid deaths in September. Israel hasn't had that many over the entire pandemic, and only had around 600 in September. So even accounting for population size, why did Israel do about 8 times better than their less-vaxed counterparts in Florida?
"O yeah, it is because the effectiveness of the vaccine wanes over time as well, and leaves the body immune compromised in the process."
You have that backwards. It wanes in the immunocompromised, which is also true for natural immunity.
"And maybe you can explain why these same politicians and celebrities are exempt from vaccine and mask mandates?"
The mandates are executive, meaning they cannot have any impact on Congress. Congress would need to pass their own legislation. Many celebrities are indeed masking, and are even in favour of the masking rules.
"Or why tens of thousands of educated nurses and doctors are willing to get fired to avoid being vaccinated?"
Mostly nurses, and at the end of the day your type of dangerous conspiracy nonsense can effect anyone. That's why your rhetoric is so dangerous and is getting people killed. The truth is that your claim of "tens of thousands" amounts to less than 1% of the total qualified medical professionals, and is by and large the least qualified.
"Or why hospitals are willing to fire tens of thousands of skilled employees in the middle of a pandemic?"
Why would you want someone unvaxed working in an ICU for instance? that's just dangerous and hospitals agree.
"You can get published on a lie, Just look at Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph."
The graph that was a speculation based on preliminary data, and was put forth as such, and has since been heavily supported by the last 20 years of data? Weird you would point to something that was never a lie and is now more supported than ever, but you do you.
"Science won't censor you if you lie. It will use data to expose your lie."
Or show your methodology is a joke, or point out inconsistencies, or anything else they look for pre-publication.
1
-
@MTMILITIAMAN7.62
"ACSH may receive some data from CDC, but not all of it, or even most of it. CDC is not the only ones to have this data"
They literally are. All the data from all the respective regions passes through them.
"he CDC does receive most of its funding from the government, from the same politicians whom also have stock in the pharmaceutical companies and are making billions of dollars selling a product, and are thus overtly biased."
Any evidence of bias other than your obvious confirmation bias? No? Didn't think so.
"I've studied the most recent numbers I can find from non-biased sources, which again, does not include the CDC."
Which is why they are out of date, as they all get their data from the CDC, and the CDC is up to date.
"Herd immunity is actually best achieved without vaccination, as even Pzifer's own scientists acknowledged stating that natural antibodies are far superior to vaccinated antibodies."
1. As long as your survive.
2. Until your natural antibodies no longer work because they don't have the correct antibody for the new variant.
"Sure, I can explain FL. The United States is over 30% obese"
That's lower than the US average. Israel is also 23%, so not exactly a massive void in the numbers.
"has some of the worst heart health and highest rates of diabetes in the entire world"
Now you're just describing America, as Florida is joint 17th for worst diabetes and actually 31st for heart disease, making them above average in heart health.
"All of these factors matter more to susceptibility to COVID than vaccination status."
Not according to Israel's stats that show vaxed people are about 10 times less likely to die from covid. The UK shows similar stats.
"The CDC admits only 6% of COVID fatalities are from COVID alone."
And? they did die of covid though.
"When we see that about 76% of all COVID fatalities are over the age of 65, it makes sense that Florida would have elevated COVID fatality rates compared to the rest of the country."
Even among over 65s their covid deaths are far in excess of the much more vaxed Israel. this also doesn't account for the massive discrepancy of 8 times as many deaths. I mean maybe we could talk about 20% or something like that, but 8 times the rate is unthinkable.
And no, Michael Mann was not sued. He instead sued a blog over a smear campaign over his research. You are literally falling into the very lie that he sued over.
"Anything else I can clear up for you?"
Literally anything would be a start. How about this, you could try not being a conspiracy theorist loonbag who puts millions of lives on the line over obvious propaganda while claiming it as "science" but that's not going to happen now is it. Lets face it, the most effort you've ever put into anything is fingering yourself while you moan Trump's name. Go take your horse pill suppository and stop endangering Americans.
1
-
@MTMILITIAMAN7.62
"As long as you don't die from it? Don't worry, I didn't."
But millions did. Millions more are left with permanent injury such as heart and lung damage.
"I didn't even miss a day of work."
Bit of anecdotal evidence to brighten your day, as useless as it is.
"Until your antibodies don't work because they no longer have the correct antibody for the new variant?"
Yes. Your body is basically taking out lottery tickets when it sees a foreign body like this, and keeps spilling out potential antibodies until 1 fits. Since the virus has 29 separate proteins, there are potentially hundreds of ways to latch onto it as an antibody. As such, antibodies created through natural immunity may attach to an area of the virus that has since mutated. There is also the memory cells forgetting the virus, which is the same as vaccine waning immunity. I've known multiple people who caught both the wild type and delta.
"You mean the new variant created by the vaccine"
Delta came from India in December, when there wasn't a single person vaxed there. There were also 3 variants before it.
"which not only doesn't work for as long, but doesn't work as well, as natural immunization?"
It's far easier to track and more predictable, meaning we know if you have immunity or not and the chances of that immunity lasting. Natural immunity, as I have already said, can wane and can be useless. It also requires you to put your health on the line at the risk of death or permanent injury.
"Numbers from Israel, UK, and CDC comparing vaxxed to unvaxxed consider only vaccination status, not BMI, cardiovascular health, immune system health, or a host of other factors that contribute to COVID fatalities."
And age. The weird part is your assumption that unvaxed people are fat or have poor immune systems. If anything these people are more likely to be vaxed, which only strengthens my argument.
"If you are obese, have a genetic disposition to cardiovascular disease, and you have diabetes, and then contract COVID and die, you more died with COVID than from it."
No, you died from it. Again, these people could have lived for decades. Claiming that obesity killed them and not covid is just a disingenuous attempt to change covid stats. If you really want we can just use excess deaths to show your idiocy.
"COVID in this case is just the straw the broke the camel's back."
More like the anvil.
"I never said Michael Mann was sued."
You know he won that lawsuit right?
"I said Michael Mann lost a lawsuit. He did sue, for deformation"
No, he didn't. They never showed that anything said was anything other than defamation, and instead passed the blame onto the individual who wrote it rather than the entire think tank. He won the suit.
"Subsequent investigation revealed him and the IPCC to be biased partisan hacks more than legitimate scientists."
Coming from you that's a compliment with the nonsense you believe.
"I've had more stimulating conversation with toe nail clippings."
That actually explains a lot more about you than it does me.
"You seem to struggle with even 3rd grade level literacy and reading comprehension. You have no cohesive argument and seem to only be able to strawman my argument."
I'm literally just refuting your points word for word. Sorry you can't explain all those US deaths, especially in less vaccinated and less masked areas. Must be tough for you.
"So I am going to let you get back to licking windows on the short bus."
But then I'll end up right back next to you Rob. You'll be sitting there talking to your toenails again.
Not surprised you're quitting though. Your entire argument boils down to trying to cherry-pick stats to make it look like covid didn't kill anyone, when in actuality it's killed more people than the stats show, not less.
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
-
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
-
@stevexyz1173 Obviously you've never had a mortgage, or you would know that being a year or 2 of gross in debt is not a big deal. My mortgage is more than triple my gross. It's also not worth paying early because of the low rate. Why bot borrow funds when it's so cheap? Then I can build things that pay back more in the long run.
As for teachers unions, they aren't in this bill. This bill is:
Roads and bridges, clean water, broadband, public transit, airports, ports, rail, EV chargers, green energy, infrastructure resilience and legacy pollution. It helps of you read the bill.
Again, less than half the spending is new. New spend is also over 5 years, meaning we are seeing 110 billion per year. That amount will be more than covered by the GDP benefits, and resulting tax revenues, of improving infrastructure.
Public perception of the administration is nothing on how they are actually performing. GDP is up, unemployment is down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevexyz1173 Ah yes, the Sun, the least reliable resource. Could you imagine if people had solar panels on their roofs. How on earth would they get the power all the way to their houses. Crazy. There is of course also geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, biomass and hydrogen, but who even remembers those. Did you know homes can be retrofitted with geothermal so that their heating costs become practically zero? Of course, the real short term goal is to use more of these types of alternative energy sources while reducing fossil fuels where possible, slowing lowering our oil dependency, but I'm sure you thought of that. The fact that you think clean energy will be expensive in the long run shows a real lack of forethought. Clean energy will make both energy and gas cheaper. Energy is cheaper due to more supply, and gas is cheaper due to lower demand.
Attacking you doesn't discredit my position if I'm presenting an actual argument. It's just a bit of fun, which apparently you like to use to not actually address anything I'm saying. That's called a red herring, which you should have also leant about in your debate class. Unless of course you did learn about it and now you're being intentionally dishonest. Either way, your blatant avoidance of my points isn't an argument.
Also, you seem to be mistaken, of course the Earth will still be here if we heat it up by a few degrees. The issue however is the thousands of species of animals that will not, and the billions of people on top of that for good measure. Sea levels rising, deserts expanding and extreme weather increasing. You think Texas freezing over was a 1 off? Get ready for that to happen a lot more often thanks to warming, specifically on the west coast, forcing polar temperatures to migrate further south. Like visiting Florida? Well get your fill because it's going to be a lot smaller at this rate.
Nobody cares about your stupid oil/Sun analogy. It doesn't change the fact that what your advocating for is a really dumb idea, and a lot of very smart people have been pointing that out for decades. That by the way is a valid argument from authority. You can check that one in your textbook.
Now, for the attack on you personally:
You're incapable of reading, and probably just hit the predictive text on your phone until you get bored and hit send, that would explain your replies.
See, totally separate from the arguments.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@roquesanta9769
Ben doesn't like Trump, but he is in favour of him over Democrats. He would rather have a different Republican, but has also warmed to his policies. He also thinks that the social damage done by him is finite, and electing his for a second term would not hurt our global standing.
He believes in life at conception, and likes to avoid questions on how strong a punishment should be for abortion.
He is both a Zionist and a gatekeeper of Judaism, believing that other non-Zionist Jews are not real Jews at all.
He thinks climate change may not be a threat and is open to debate.
He thinks Republicans can have a discussion about nationalism vs patriotism with a straight face.
He thinks all the Dem ideas are from FDR, while also praising a bunch of Republican ideas that are even older.
He lies when backed into a corner, such as the questions about his own YouTube channel.
He writes about political discourse, and thinks that talking to people is grounds for good discourse, when in reality his personal rhetoric shows that talking to people doesn't stop you being divisive or having "charged language". Ben likes to act like he is an arbiter of good discourse, when in reality he is a good debater with bad intentions.
He both openly stated that Arabs like to blow things up, while also backing away from his statement, showing his distinct lack of backbone when supporting his own horrific comments.
Oh, and he doesn't know what an interview is.
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
-
@throwfascistsintopits3062
"The person who most of all corresponded to the ideal type of a deputy, within the framework of the field of Soviet politics, received approval from both government institutions and the population."
Incorrect. As has been explained, public approval was not needed, and elections were massively geared towards approval. There is also nothing stopping government from just appointing another unpopular candidate if one gets voted out, with the voters becoming more and more apathetic as their votes are ignored.
"A necessary requirement for candidates for deputies was the approval of the collectives, that is, they, in fact, elected BEFORE the elections, and on voting day they simply officially confirmed their choice."
Total nonsense. You can't have a free and fair election before election day.
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
-
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
-
@fegelfly7877
"When thousands of people claim they catch COVID after getting jabbed, it's not a 'personal anecdote' anymore."
Well sure. The vaccines were created to fight the alpha variant. Delta is different and therefore efficacy goes down. We're still seeing some levels of efficacy and while you may still get infected, deaths are practically non-existent for the vaccinated.
"Nice try, but Israel has become the world capital on COVID cases, despite leading the charge on vaccines."
Florida is way worse than Israel.
"80% of deaths in August were from vaccinated individuals."
Also not true. "Per capita, for every death of an Israeli over 60 that had received the booster shot, there are 15 deaths of unvaccinated Israelis in same age group"
"1) 90% of people who are hospitalized with COVID are vaccinated individuals"
Unvaccinated. Check the CDC. I sent you the name of the article on this in a previous comment.
"
2) I don't want to risk my health by taking an experimental jab known for dangerous side effects"
Like respiratory failure, organ damage, blood clots and death? Oh wait, no, that's covid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"Is all monarch planned what and how every farm land should plants, or controlled how many horseshoe every ironsmith should made in its own territory?"
In feudalism, yes.
"So not all monarch can be a socialist state, maybe some can but I don’t know."
Literally none of them can.
"In the case of Market Socialism, why it didn’t include in the definition of Socialism?"
Market socialism doesn't give state control, but instead requires company ownership to be done via worker cooperatives. Market socialism doesn't go through the state at all, and in fact still has a free market.
"Pseudo democracy is permitted doesn’t mean society with real democracy or other better systems to represent its people are not within its definition."
It's not permitted at all. Socialist systems must give ownership or control to society. Pseudo-democracies deny that.
"A Society doesn’t need the consent to represent anyone within the society."
You're using the word society wrong. The society is the people. What you mean is that the state does not require the consent of the people to represent said people. This is of course total nonsense. You cannot claim to speak for the people if the people have no say in what you say.
"Just like your family, your school, your company, your country, none of those need your consent to represent you as a part of it."
And none of these are socialism.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke
Glad you mentioned Finland, the country where the government owns a third of the nations wealth, 90% of workers are in unions, and yet they are the world's happiest country, have a monthly benefit to pay for children, free childcare, free healthcare, almost zero homelessness due to housing first, 93% high-school graduation rate, 66% higher education rate, paid parental leave and much much more.
So imagine calling a country poor and then getting outperformed by them 10 times over 😂😂😂😂😂
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
-
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
-
@philroe2363
1. I believe that less developed nations have less infrastructure and more crime. Again, if you want to compare the US to underdeveloped nations rather than world leaders like Italy Germany, France et cetera then we can do that, but don't then tell me the US is some amazing country. Either it has crime like an underdeveloped nation, or it's an advanced and safe country, not both.
2. Which again, is still wrong. It's 13%. Perhaps checking actual homicide numbers would help you there.
3. Yes, because in 1921 there were far less cars, only about 8 million compared to the 290 million we have today, and they drove far less distance. By your own metric cars and roads are dozens of times safer. Also funny you say they were not registered, this is false. There was a car registration system in 1921, which is actually how we know how many cars were on the road.
4. So when a study does show something it's obviously biased and therefore studies never show anything. Makes perfect sense. This is what happens when you start with a conclusion then dig your heels in too hard. Your source is both incorrect as it criticises only one of many studies, and is obviously biased. My stats came from John's Hopkins, and used data from 2020, meaning your source is out of date.
5. Nope, you're just delusional. Claims of defensive gun use has been proven to be far more often offensive escalations than legotimate defenses.
Sadly, the fact is that the US has a homicide problem, and children like you refuse to fix it by licensing through training and psychological analysis, and registering the weapons used in more than 2/3rds of homicides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AllTheSmoke
"the virus is in every state. Every state had its lows and highs."
Sure, and Florida is having its highest high ever, with the most hospitalisations, infections and deaths of any surge. His response is to do nothing.
"He let us choose to get it or not. That’s what you forget. He didn’t force me to not get it. I made that choice, and he allowed me to make it. If I lived somewhere else I’d be forced to get it, or face loosing my job and ultimately probably go homeless lmao."
endangering yourself and those around you in the process.
"Desantis is about the only thing standing between oppression and freedom in Florida."
Freedom to infect others. Freedom to die. Sounds great.
"We appreciate it. And we remember it. Millions and millions in Florida think like that."
And millions don't appreciate that DeSantis' covid response has been dismal, leading to us being the worst state right now.
"Therefore they will vote for someone like Desantis without having to even think about it."
you said it.
"And he’s just straight up. He’s not bullshitting us."
Well that's just not true. He claimed that CDC guidelines lacked scientific grounding, that Florida's surge is Biden's fault for opening the border, even though Florida is nowhere near the border, that places with reduced police funding see increases in crime, that lockdowns have no benefit on stopping covid, last year he even claimed nobody under 25 had died from covid. The man is a walking lie machine.
"I don’t watch him and try to pick apart his lies, because if you try to “FaCt ChEcK” him, you’ll find that 95% of the time he is spot on with what he is saying"
Maybe if you did do that you would find the opposite. Interesting that you seem to believe everything you don't verify.
"he’s definitely more educated than many of these other politicians"
I mean, he's definitely educated. He knows how to trick people into voting for him for starters.
"Lol not only will Desantis win his next election but it will be a landslide."
Like Trump right? Oh wait. Face it, being bad at handling the pandemic is a losing position. Even while his core loves his statements and actions, the independents who actually decide elections are against them.
"True Americans are fed up."
I certainly am. We should have been over this whole pandemic nonsense months ago, but allowing it to run rampant has led us here.
"They want their freedom back and they want to keep it in tact. Desantis is their answer."
When those same people are screaming like toddlers about wearing a face mask why am I not surprised.
No hard feeling though dude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spartanboxing1 Here I'll do you a favour. I'll breakdown all that crazy you just posted just this once, but then on you're on your own.
"I have all the NIH emails to Fauci"
The emails that were discussions on the best course of action before they had proper evidence and have nothing to do with public announcements, and were instead a process that led them to their final conclusions? Good for you, what about them?
"you just admitted to a flawed product unleashed to the public"
Flawed for what? It nailed the wild type variant on the head, and is even managing to battle delta, which it was never designed to do. Infections and deaths are sharply reduced in areas with more vaxed.
"the excuse will be that there was no FDA chief signing off on it"
For the last time, the FDA does not require a chief to sign off on things. FDA approval happens at a much lower lever on a much mroe regular basis.
"The point of being healthy and doing things humans have done in the past to improve immunity is a joke to you because you're obviously weaker."
Some of the things you said are a joke. How is taking cold showers supposed to boost immunity? And sure, being healthy is a good start, but sometimes you just can't help but be unhealthy, and sometimes the virus hits you in ways that you can't control.
"The virus was germ warfare unleashed on the public as the "insurance plan" the cabal needed to subdue and apprehend freedom."
Baseless assumptions. Next.
"The virus was made deadlier by using human genome rats and to continually reinject the surviving rats to evolve the Covid 19 virus."
You're just pointing out that your own theory means that natural immunity is useless, if they were "continually reinjected" then wouldn't natural immunity stop working if it still killed these rats? Even your unsupported claims can be debunked so easily.
"An Atlanta zoo keeper that was vaxxed infected the gorillas there."
K.....And? Are you saying this would not have happened if he wasn't vaxed?
"You keep arguing that the vax is safe because you know the procedure. There are two procedures now, the regular procedure and the "emergency" procedure."
Nope, 1 procedure, they just accelerated it.
"The emergency procedure has not had any long term studies for full on approval."
They concluded that since the spike protein leaves the body in 2 weeks, that 6 months is more than sufficient for a long term analysis of side effects.
"You just admitted the FDA board has approved a flawed product capable of evolving into the deadlier virus that Fauci has lied about."
It's a spike protein, it can't evolve.
"Glad it's all here, let those that read this decide who's coversation is more truthful."
Probably the one that can actually point out all your flaws. Half of what you said is unfounded speculation, and the other half shows a gross misunderstanding of how any of this works.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke
"that his use of the word "insurance" doesn't mean what he claimed it means"
Yeah, it does. Insurance is practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.
"He then started to use the phrase "national insurance" which does have a different meaning."
It's an umbrella term that describes multiple state insurance systems.
"So I pointed out, therefore, "socialism" and "national socialism" mean exactly the same thing."
Which they don't. Applying this logic to the name of a political party is already shaky, but going so far as to not understand the inherent differences between common ownership between the means of production, and a political party that literally killed the socialists in their ranks so they could be fascists, is just sad. If this is the level of logic you apply on a daily basis, then no wonder you're so deluded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke
"If you have a Socialist regime ("the democratic embodiment of the will of the workers")"
Keyword, democratic.
"how can you have a second separate group, "the unions" that also claim to be "the democratic embodiment of the workers""
Because government represents all voting people, not just workers.
"Worse, if the two groups have disagreements, which is inevitable, this is now untenable under Socialism. One group (union representation) must be rolled into the other group (political representation)."
Or they just come to an agreement, you know, like all politics.
"Because none of those failures were "Real Socialism"."
Well they weren't. It's not rocket science Will. Removing democracy isn't socialism, by definition. It especially isn't Marxism, as per Mrx and Engels.
It's at this point you'll tell me to ignore the literal inventors of Marxism and to instead just accept whatever bullshit you decide to spew.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freyfaust6218
"Marx could not forsee, that the elite ruling class would organize their own revolution against the working classes"
That's just capitalism. You are describing capitalism.
"Gender mainstreaming, climate mandates controlling every aspect of life, digital prisons relative to forced addiction to vaccines"
Jesus dude, this is some medication level shit.
"confiscation of real estate"
Anything related to a crime has always been taken when they get caught.
"the controlled demolition of the economy"
You mean market speculation like in '07? Oh no, you mean the controlling of a lethal virus to stop hospitals being overrun and to stop people dying en masse. Tell me, what would be the economic fallout of millions of pensioners dying?
"most leftists endorse this autocratic crap led by their oppressors."
Health reforms are not autocratic, they are specifically to stop people dying.
"Kautsky and his contemporaries said that Marx's prognosis needed revision. Violent revolution was not necessary for society to evolve towards communism."
And Marx agreed that violent revolution was not necessary, but in nations that still had serfdom and royalty, what choice did they have?
"You imply that constitutional government is a sign that Marx was correct, that these societies are moving towards communism."
Socialism actually.
"Democracies are problematic because of a propensity to mob rule. The majority is almost always wrong, hence republics."
How very...authoritarian of you. "We cannot trust the people the make Decisions". Also quite funny as republics usually function as democracies, so not really sure what point you are trying to make.
"Socialism: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Ability and Need to be determined by an aparachnik, of course."
Or we could just use the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Seems much simpler.
"Public ownership is just another term for state controlled."
I agree, which is why socialists advocate for common ownership, not state ownership.
"If the people owned the means of production, it would look like a free market."
You're confusing private ownership with common ownership.
"Ownership translates as decision-making authority. Publicly owned industries and real estate are off limits for civilian initiative and curation."
If you did want to go the state angle with common ownership then you would need to give the people reasonable control over the government. They would have to have a strong say in who is in charge, IE democracy.
"People who work in public institutions offer shoddy service and are slow to innovate."
Like NASA right?
"There is no need for market discipline because there is no danger of losing the job. The best are so-called public servants and unelected administrators."
You get they can still lose their jobs right? They still have to meet criteria and do a good job.
"They can craft the protocol in their own interests and never have to get a vote."
And the people who have a vote can ignore it, or rewrite it, or fire them and get someone else to write it. Amazing right? Also funny you talk about not getting a vote. That's the main issue with capitalism, no vote from the workers.
"The problem with all ideologically obsessed revolutionaries is that they imagine that there are better humans, that we just need to get the right ones in power to make heaven on earth."
Actually the opposite. Marx for example was an egalitarian who believed that we needed to give society the power, not any individual.
"Corruption is inevitable, hence the notion of decentralization. What does decentralized power look like? Privately owned family farms and businesses, of course, hard evidence of owning the means of production."
Because private industry has never been corrupt. Never poisoned wells, never agreed on price controls, never monopolised. Private industry is of course incapable of any wrong doing...aside from all the wrong they did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheChallenger1000 Maybe read the next line next time:
"Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict."
In other words, "the FDA considers it gene therapy because they have never had to approve something like this, but it's not a gene therapy because it doesn't alter DNA" you absolute muppet.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keepinghealthy3332
No, they didn't. According to the Australian government's NPS Medicinewise website:
"Currently there are limited data to support the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. There are currently no known published data from randomised, controlled clinical trials on the efficacy or safety of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19."
"Some evidence of a positive benefit has been described by small observational studies. However, heterogeneity among the trial designs and methodologies limits any conclusions about the utility of this medicine to date."
"A pre-print study was recently deleted from the pre-print server after there were concerns about the data used by the authors of the study. The study derived data from the Surgisphere database, an analytics company who claimed to have assembled large and detailed databases that included real-time medical records from many hospitals around the world. The authors claimed that this data showed that ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 was accompanied by a reduction in mortality.
Several other articles on treatments for COVID-19 published in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet were also retracted, after co-authors of the studies could not verify the validity of COVID-19 patient data extracted from Surgisphere. Investigations by The Scientist and the Guardian identified discrepancies in Surgisphere’s claims going back years. The company website has now been taken offline."
"The Australian guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19 are maintained by the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Task Force.
They do not currently have any recommendations on the use of ivermectin for treatment of patients with COVID-19 infection.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) are currently investigating ‘promotion’ of an ivermectin-based regimen for COVID-19, by gastroenterologist Professor Thomas Borody. Professor Borody, who developed triple-therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, has recommended that GPs prescribe a triple therapy protocol using ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc. However, some of his comments are being investigated by the TGA as they potentially breach the ban on advertising COVID-19 treatments."
"The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) has stated there is insufficient evidence to support ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19."
You sure have some reputable friends don't you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you read the sources, not just the part TIK highlights, you'll see that both Marx and Wikipedia talk about "common ownership" or "common control". You can go even deeper and read sources from many other original socialism scholars from the 1800s. Socialism is, and always had been, about common ownership, not state ownership. You cannot have common ownership in an authoritarian state, as the people who actually own the mean of production is everyone collectively, meaning the only way to make decisions is to either ask them all, or to have them democratically elect someone to make decisions on their behalf. While that ownership can be done via a state, it does not have to be done that way. Market socialism is a perfect example of an anarcho-socialist system. You can't possibly call yourself an anarcho-communist, then in the same breathe call socialism state control.
When people call fascism right-wing they are obviously not talking about libertarianism or anarchy of any kind. They are talking about authoritarianism. Both fascism and libertarianism are right wing, but have wildly different levels of authoritarianism.
Fascism it usually used to describe the obvious two-faced nature of Republicans, who claim to want less government, then roll out legislation to suppress reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, indefinitely detain individuals, demonise immigrants and people of colour, and have a general hardon for nationalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
25:50
"Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. As a term, it describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can be public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee. While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element, and is considered left-wing."
"Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions"
Social ownership. Common control. Not state, not individual.
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
-
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
-
@lanefunai4714
"it was neither. It was the last hurrah of feudalism."
Slave traders were private business owners. Did you seriously never learn about it growing up?
"nobles in Africa sold their citizens to European nobles"
Wrong again. Slave ships were run by whoever had the money for the voyage. While a lot of the time that was a member of the nobility, there are many notable examples of politicians, bankers and just plain old sailors traveling to buy slaves and setup their own plantations, or selling to a plantation owner and going for another trip.
"Capitalists called "abolitionists" in Europe and the US collectively"
Just wow, get a clue. So all the cotton they had slaves picking in the US was totally not capitalism. Plantation owners had absolutely no actual ownership and all plantations were actually owned by the crown, right? Moreover, the US was it's own country for about 85 years before the civil war, but I guess that was also just feudalism. In what way was that entire timeframe not capitalist since they obviously had no monarchy and private ownership of the plantations was very much a thing from the start?
"The capitalists then made laws to prevent people from forcing others to work without pay."
Then the capitalists went to war with the other capitalists to decide is some individuals were considered property or people. If anything the promise of monetary gain from the capitalist exploitation of human beings was a perfect example of capitalism supporting slavery. The end of slavery was due to industrialisation more than morality.
"Socialists, on the other hand, have no problem making others work without pay, and still practice slavery today.
"
Well that's just silly. The whole point of socialism is that everyone owns everything. With that being the case, all products and services are offered by the state, and all workers work for the state. All people in the state receive a stipend for their work, as well as all their needs provided for. The stipend can then be used on all wants. So if you need housing, utilities, healthcare, enough food to live and such it can be provided without charge, your stipend can then pay for luxuries. All work goes into the system as is paid out to the workers. Now in practice it never works this way as corruption is impossible to avoid in a system like this and implementing it at such a huge scale is almost impossible, but theoretically it would be a society where poverty doesn't exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mallariculp3551 This is where people get a little confused. For starters Trudeau, Sanders and the Nordic model are not socialism of any kind. While they may use the term "democratic socialism" they are in fact not socialist. A more accurate term would be social democracy. Social democracy is a type of capitalism, not socialism, where the needs of the people are met without the people assuming control of the means of production. The people are not given full control, making it not socialism.
Your second confusion seems to stem from how Canadian elections work. Canada is a parliamentary system, meaning you vote for each member of the parliament separately. Trudeau was elected in Papineau by his constituents. Then, as a member of the Liberal party, he was elected as their leader by party members. So unless you have friends who either live in Papineau or are members of the Liberal party in Canada then of course they didn't vote for Trudeau. Moreover, Canada has several political parties that regularly split the vote a dozen different ways. As such the winning party usually gets well below 50% of the popular vote, however they get over 50% of the voting districts. Think of it like the senate or the electoral college. Finally, considering how much of a charmer you are, I don't think that your friends are a good basis for how the general Canadian population votes. Their elections are more fair than the US in terms of how democratic they are, that's for sure.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@deborahwyndham-lewis5188
"he said that 99% of people hospitalised were unvaccinated"
Well Paul didn't say that, nor the comments below, but you're right this is likely an exaggeration.
According to the study published under this name:
"New COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Among Adults, by Vaccination Status — New York, May 3–July 25, 2021"
The vax is able to reduce the number of people needing to be admitted by 90% among those vaxed. They found that a the unvaxed population in NY, which is half the sizes of their counterparts, were responsible for 4 times the number of infections, leading to 8 times the risk of infection. They put the hospitalisation numbers as 12 times likely in the unvaxed, so as a rate you're looking at 12:1. As a percentage difference of total population the actual number is around 83% unvaxed, bearing in mind they make up half the population. Deaths however are a different story. I need to do more digging, but deaths are far less common in the vaxed.
"Our government have been requesting statistics for the double vaccinated dying within 2 months of the vaccine for months!! Why is this not a priority when we are pushing the vaccine?"
We have those numbers.
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
-
@HiddenRoar
"Officers quitting due to lack of respect/belligerence from Defund the Police/BLM/Democrats BEFORE 2020."
Not really. Federal data on police leaving their jobs doesn't match your stats.
"bout 700 in all of the U.S., while you're looking at more than double of that from cops who are going home in just Chicago alone"
But not fired. They are required to report vaccination status, but are free to get regular testing without being vaxed. They'll come around eventually, they always do. Travelling nurse companies saw the same issue, right up until they didn't.
"Seattle, California as a whole, NYC, Honolulu, etc (notice it's all Democrat cities)"
Well basically every large city in the US is a Democrat city, so that doesn't exactly narrow it down. Expose to other people will do that. Even the cities in Texas vote left.
"Good luck with telling yourself the lie that people are lining up to replace cops that walk."
Considering around 1% of officer left between 2019 and 2020, the actual number of cops only changed by 0.08%. They were replaced in the same year. Now we are seeing a few extra quitting in 2021, but considering the number was only 1%, and the total is only increasing by 18%, that's only 1.18%. Even then the mitigation is massive as shown from 2020 numbers.
At the end of the say US cops tend to be more conservative, and are therefore more vaccine hesitant. Cops will threaten to quit, most won't, life will go on.
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