Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "The Rational National"
channel.
-
141
-
28
-
20
-
19
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
Again, you are completely wrong on what caused labour to lose the elections.
- In 2017 they didn't win or lose due to brexit, every party was about honoring the vote, so it just wasn't a large issue. Labour won in 2017 because the conservatives did really badly in the campaign and Corbyn wasn't as disliked.
- Leave parties got a lower share of the vote in these elections compared to remain parties, so clearly supporting a second referending wasn't a bad option. It was just that the remain vote was more split and that labour had both strong leave and strong remain constituencies. Not taking a stance would have alienated both kinds of constituencies, choosing to support brexit would have lost them most constituencies in the larger cities and choosing to support a referendum would loose them the red wall (like now). There was no good choice here, they'd have lost constituencies either way. the main problem is that they took their stance too damn late and didn't gain remain constituencies due to a split remain vote and their tardiness to take a stance.
- No matter what you say, Corbyn's popularity was one of the most important reasons labour lost. Corbyns (in)actions/leadership during the brexit debate and smears made him woefully unpopular. In 2017 his popularity was neutral (0%) in 2019 it was -40%!. No party going into an election with such an unpopular leader can hope to do good. Remember, many people don't just vote based on policies, but also on who will lead the nation, how many people didn't support labour just because they thought Corbyn would be a bad PM (and personally I'd agree with them, Corbyn showed bad leadership during brexit as the opposition, normally an easier task).
So I hope you'll read this and actually look better into this and hopefully change your mind. You usually are quite right about things, but being so wrong on this I just can't stop wonder if there might be more things you are wrong about that I am missing. Labour lost due to 1) Corbyn, 2) a not truly popular/easy to understand program and 3) dragging their feet on brexit, period.
4
-
4
-
Usually you are right on the mark, however this time you sometimes weren't.
Supporting a second referendum didn't cause labour to lose, not fast enough supporting it did. For too long the labour stance was ambiguous "do they or don't they support another referendum" and for a long time they didn't. Their official standpoint was (due to Corbyn) to renegotiate a better deal (eventhough the EU rejected any renegotiation) and then get the UK out with it. Furthermore labour didn't work enough together with the other remain parties. A remain alliance that always only put the strongest remain candidate for election would have trounced the conservatives.
As for the brexit party, they didn't do anything to favour the conservatives, the opposite is true. In some consituencies Labour held on BECAUSE the brexit party split the brexit vote. If the brexit party didn't run, most of their voters were most likely to move to the conservatives. This could have been an even bigger landslide for the conservatives without the brexit party.
Also the comparison with the 2017 election was wrong.
- First of back then the conservatives ran a bad campaign that made them weaker than they were now.
- Secondly, the labour manifesto now was considerably more left wing. Even as a leftist European it would have been too left for me. Sure the labour party doesn't need to go to the center, but they should also not slide of to much towards the extreme left. And the lib dems only lost due to the system, in number of votes they did gain 4%, half of what labour lost in number of votes. So no, the lib dems didn't lose, the remain side did due to a split vote and the bad system
- Thirdly, yes brexit played no major role in the 2017 election, but that was only because it was right after the referendum. If labour can't change their strategy based on what happened in the last few years, their loss was their fault.
Now, as for the media, yes, that was bad, but isn't the same happening in the US with Bernie. The main difference is, they can't really get Bernie on anything and Bernie is liked. Corbyn has never been liked outside of the core of his party and his party was split. Hell Corbyn isn't even for remain, but did "campaign" for it.
Labour won the 2017 election despite Corbyn, not because of him. And now against a more focused opponent, an internally weakened and divided labour, he just couldn't make it.
Pro-brexit parties got 46,5% of the vote, so clearly it was the remain split that caused them to lose, not their remain stance. If labour had been pro leave, they'd have lost many remain votes to the lib dems.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I am sorry, but you are still wrong on the UK election.
First, comparing it to 2017 and pointing to labours good showing as an argument that it was brexit and not the policies is stupid. During the 2017 campaign the tories ran a really bad campaign and labour overall a solid campaign. Basically labour did good back than for a large part because of weak tories. This time the tories campaign was a good populist campaign that resonated with many voters.
Secondly, the backtracking on brexit isn't exactly the problem, the late decision was. Sure labour would lose some seats in strong labour regions, but also might have taken seats in originally not labour regions. Furthermore if labour didn't support a second referendum they might have lost many seats elsewhere, possibly more. After their clear decision to support a second referendum their polling went up from 26% to 32-32% and just so you know, remain got a majority of the votes, they were just much more split up.
Thirdly, Corbyn's popularity might have been the greatest problem. Whether this was due to the smears or not (I think it is both due to the smears and just his own appearance and leadership), it doesn't matter. The fact is Corbyn was the worst candidate to go into this election as the head of labour. During the 2017 election his popularity was mixed, neither popular nor unpopular, but smears and the way he handled brexit made him hugely unpopular (average net popularity was around -40%! last few months). They should have changed leadership during the summer, just like the conservatives did.
3
-
This exactly might also be one of the reasons why his support is highest among young voters and low among older voters, younger voters tend to research more, watch alternative media, ... While older voters mostly watch MSM if they watch news at all. And all of these MSM networks portray Warren and Biden positively (or at least more than they should) and either don't mention Bernie or otherwise if they mention him, it is to attack him.
Ofcourse people who only watch MSM aren't going to see Bernie as a viable candidate and support him and this is also a reason he doesn't do to great in the polls, people underestimate the impact of the MSM on voters. Even lots of bad coverage is better no coverage (see what happened to Trump) because then people might do more research themselves if it becomes to obvious. The thing is, there isn't enough bad things to cover about Bernie.
And this is indeed why bernie voters in general need to speak about him to their family and keep their family up to date about him and his campaign (especially older family members/MSM viewers).
I wished Bernie's campaign talked more about this media black-out, not on these media channels (they'd just black it out again and find some excuse) but on rallies and to say at every rally to spread the word, to inform family members, maybe even promote some non MSM news, like youtube channels (this one, The hill for people more used to "regular news outlook", secular talk, the humanist report, ...)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pietersteenkamp5241
1) Yangs UBI is a libertarian one and favours the middle class much more than the lower classes. Those who get certain benefits now would have to give them up to get UBI, which means they get less 1000 dollars per month net, but will still see prices in the stores go up. And the groups receiving benefits are the lower classes. On the other hand, middle class people who do have a well paying job would always get 1000 a month net (or 2000 for a family). So in the end they'd be the greatest beneficiaries. Higher income earners won't feel the difference, neither the 12000 year, nor the price increases; middle class will get more use from the 12000 a year than the price increases and the lower classes will feel the price increases more, while experiencing less of a benefit from the UBI.
Yang's UBI just isn't progressive, and the way it is tailored isn't even taking on the problem it is meant for: job losses due to automation. UBI isn't enough to live from, so these people who lost there job due to automation and can't find another job easily, will live on the brink of poverty, even with UBI. The better option would have been to (temporarily) increase the UBI for people who lost there jobs or earn less than X a year, while lowering it with increasing income (for example up to 40-50k a year income) or just increase welfare benefits and create better unemployement pay (like universal income for people without a job).
2) The problem with a public option in the US (possibly in contrast to other nations) is that the private insurance companies are really strong and the entire system is corrupt and bloated.
A. IC's (insurance companies) will just offer different plans for sick and healthy people. The plans for sick people will be so bad and expensive that the sick people will move to the public option; while the plans for the healthy people won't cover much, but are cheaper than the public option (and many healthy people might be trapped by this). This will cause all sick people to move to the public option, increasing costs there, while the healthy people will go to the IC's, decreasing income for the public option, while still allowing the IC's to make large profits (although maybe not as much as now).
This will force the government to increase the funding and allow politicians and other actors opposed to government interference to say "see how inefficient it is. If a public option fails, how can m4a ever work" and bring it back to the same private insurance system it was before.
B. Furthermore would a public option not deal with othe problems of the current US system, the costs would remain high, because the government will have less leverage to force drugcompanies to lower prices, costs in hospitals and doctors will still remain high due to the enormous amount of administration due to fragmentation. The difficulty to see what is covered, where you can go, which doctor you can visit, things like ambulance choppers that still will work privately and can charge people whatever they want (no one can start negotiating prices when they need to urgently get to the hospital), ... Basically the public option doesn't allow to increase efficiency, streamline everything and will basically end up being just another cog in the insurance/healthcare machine. So in the end a public option WILL remain more expensive than m4a and might even become more expensive than the current system overall.
The US system now already causes healthcare prices to be twice as high per capita compared to the average of other OECD countries, so this system needs to be changed completely, something that won't happen with a public option.
An option might be to get a m4a plan like Bernie's, but replace the ban for duplicative coverage with a demand that ALL private plans MUST offer AT LEAST the same coverage as m4a and allow everyone to pay the same price (so no discrimination based on people's medical history, current medical conditions, ...). But this would be a cosmetic difference mostly, because IC's wouldn't be able to make a profit with this. The only difference between these plans would be price (probably higher for IC plans than m4a, due to profit incentive) and extra coverage. But then again, this extra coverage can already be offered under Bernie's plan and who would want to pay a higher price? So the endresult would be similar.
2
-
@eragon78 I believe it should be taxed on income with a very progressive taxrate (eventually 80-90% on anything above 1 billion). And I'd include the sale of stocks as income. But I don't think it is a good idea to tax perceived wealth, which stocks essentially are. Stocks can rise quickly only to drop even more the next day, how are you going to tax that? Is the government going to return taxes when the value of the stocks drop? it just isn't a good, nor easy thing to tax that. However when turning this perceived wealth into real wealth (selling stocks) this is something different. So just tax all income (regular, bonus, stock selling, dividends, ...) with a progressive tax rate. As long as people don't sell stocks, the value of stocks don't matter, they can't use it to do anything else than have a say in the company.
And ofcourse close all tax loopholes (though for this I'd essentially burn down the complete tax system and built it back up new, including incentives, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnbuckner2828 Moving away was maybe putting it strong, more hesitant maybe. Though they are expected to replace several of their reactors, there doesn't seem to be a huge push. It is possible they'll get nuclear more as a baseload (+-50-60% of the grid) and the rest be from renewables. Honestly it isn't entirely clear. What is clear is that they are investing in renewables the last few years and that production from nuclear slightly tapered of a bit at the same time and there isn't an official response on the price of new reactors offered last year (othey asked for the quote). It is possible they think the price is high and are considering other options, a different mix, ... At the very least they aren't gun hoo in regards to nuclear.
I was under the impression that once nuclear plants, especially with newer technology, we're up and running that the maintenance costs were pretty low, & it's just the startup cost that deter investment.
Yes and know. The greatest cost is obviously the initial investment, which makes it a risky investment without government assurances (taxpayer money assurance essentially). However maintenance might be rather cheap in comparison, it is still expensive. And it seems the latest plants being build in Europe currently are going to have a rather high LCOE cost compared to older reactors (possibly more than doubled).
Also with these newer small scale plants that can just be buried in concrete and left to run for 20 years and die don't seem to require maintenance?
That sound rather idealised. Often SMR's are brought up as a cheaper, better solution, however several SMR's I looked into seem to have a comparable price in the end. Their main advantage seems to be flexibility, maybe. Most of the SMR that are hailed as great etc, aren't yet in operation anywhere. So it is difficult to actually see their capabilities.
Honestly I'd wait for gen 4 reactors, they seem much more promising, though they still will have to live up to their expectations/hope too.
There just isn't a clear cut "this is the best" answer to electricity generation, each one had advantages and disadvantages. It is clear it will be renewables and/or nuclear, and personally I expect some kind of mix in the long turn (with nuclear more focused on industrial, especially with electrification there, and renewable more for households/commercial buildings). Though also the public adversity will play a part, for example in Germany I don't see any new nuclear plant in the next 20-25 years, possibly even longer, because there is just no public support for it (the opposite).
2
-
2
-
@eddefy22
Saudi Arabia is probably the most fundamentalist islamic nation in the world and supports countless terrorist organisations. The only reason the US didn't go after them is because they were allied to the US and US needs their support in the middle east.
Oh BTW we targeted the Iraqi military and ousted a dictator.
Oh and how did that played out? Decades of instability, hundred thousands dead, the rise of ISIS, .... Yeah that was a great job the US did. Eventually the same happened in Syria, a dictator was ousted, and the country fell into chaos. These dictators might go against our feeling of democratie and might do horrible things, but they provided stability and the suffering they caused was less then the suffering caused by war.
US intelligence knew there weren't WMD's, this was just an excuse. There were several politicians that argued against the Iraq war like Sanders, who realised that there wasn't enough proof and that there wasn't a good enough plan for after the invasion.
Al qaida killed 2900 people, the US a couple 100k, seems a more then fair answer.
See we don’t attack a whole populace on the basis “some people did something in New York”. Which is in that case kill 29 hundred people.
Oh yes, you did. It might not have been the official reason, but that was the reason many american supported the Iraq war and why only so few people were against it. People were much more easily persuaded that there were WMD's exactly because of 9/11.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are somewhat missing the mark here.
For one space exploration is incredibly important for humanity. The resources on earth are finite, however in space you have practically infite amount of resources. A lot of problems now could possibly be fixed with future space advancement, going from resources to energy production, to even ensuring the survival of the human species. The truth is that we actually don't spent enough in space.
Now as for the wealth tax, for some time I was in favor of this, however I changed my stance on it a bit. The main problem is that a lot of wealth is due to stocks. Sure they can sell them to pay the tax, but how are you going to calculate the tax? What if right after paying the tax their wealth suddenly halves due to the stocks plummeting? Should part of the tax be payed back? That is the problems, stocks are essentially perceived wealth untill they are sold. The better solution would actually be to tax the sale of stocks (with a progressive taxrate). Untill they sell the stocks, the wealth value of them are worthless to their holders, they then are only usefull to keep a hand on the company's direction/actions.
So rather than doing a wealth tax, close the loopholes and tax all income (regular income, stock sales, dividends, bonus, ...). Also have all transference of stocks, no matter in what context (eg. inheritance, gift, ...) be seen as a sale and thus taxed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I disagree with you on this. Sure there might be cops more open to the protestors (possibly same political ideas?), however it looks to me even in the video you showed that the cops realized they'd get overrun and possibly isolated if they make stand and instead just pull back and call/wait for reincorcement, possibly even redirecting manpower to evacuating the capitol instead.
In the video where you said 'they let them in', to me it looks more like the cops were trying to plug a hole, realizing how futile that attempt would be and instead moving out.
I also saw images from CNN from slightly before 5:15 where there clearly was a lot more police present and more police arriving constantly. I'd say these twitter pictures were just taken at the right angle at the right place at the right time. Afterall where are the protestors/rioters? There aren't any of the stairs and we don't have images from between the remaining protestors and the stairs, where the cops most likely would be positioned. Seeing how little protestors remain at that point, the police are possibly also relocated elsewhere in the surrounding.
There are several video's/images of cops standing against protestors and being pushed back/overrun.
I honesly don't know why you again need to make it seem like the cops in general let this happen, they didn't from what I can gather. They immediately asked for reinforcements when it was clear the protest was turning violent and tried to get to the actual capitol, they on several scenes clearly tried to make a stand, but weren't able to.
I'd like to see how you react when you are faced with maybe a dozen against several hundreds or more.
And I dislike any comparison with blm at this moment. BLM went on for days or more, so they would be more on alert after the first day. Now this was one official authorised protest that suddenly turned hostile. No one expected them to charge the capitol, they just weren't prepared.
Wasn't there a lot of initial chaos too on the outbreak of BLM protests?
And we all know things happened by police during BLM that shouldn't be condoned.
1
-
Honestly putting the cufs on initially isn't really a show of anything, other than that the cops play it safe. He is a man in a house that is not his, whose owner is recently deceased. Putting on the cuffs untill things are cleared is the prefered option. Because once they are on, the officers might feel safer and act more composed and the risk that something goes horribly wrong is decreased. That the officer loosened the cops also to me indicates this might just be a standard safety precaution and isn't anything unusual.
As for the lady calling the cops. If you see a strange man in the home of a recently deceased neighbour, people might call the cops, no matter the skincolor call the police. My grandparents are also quite "paranoid" and fear things like burglary, crimes, ... happening to them or their neighbourhood, despite me, my parents and siblings living literally next to them. There is for so far I got from this video nothing that shows the the skincolor played a part. Could it have played a part? Ofcourse, but do we know it did? Not really. People should be carefull to not make everything about race in such circumstances.
Also he wasn't handcuffed in his own home. Yes, he was allowed to stay there, but saying it is his own home is just false. That is like saying a motel/hotel room is someones home because he is allowed to stay there. I don't exactly understand what this lawsuit is based on, maybe it is an American law/right, but here in Belgium, there is no legal grounds that a lawsuit against this action could ever stand. The only thing maybe is entering the house without consent, but we don't know what happened, did Furdge not hear them and they entered after no response? Did they see him walking around the house and kicked in the door? I don't know, but this would to me be the only possible grounds for a lawsuit to succeed: unlawfull entry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think immediately trying to get rid of the electoral system is a bad policy, why? Because there will be too much political opposition, it will be too much change at once. A better way to go about it is to now push for changing the winner takes all principle into a proportionally distributed electoral system (ie electors within a state are distributed proportionally). This would make every vote count and as such no state will be left out (ofcourse smaller states might be more irrelevant, however many small states would still make a huge difference, like what is the case now.
I created this proportional distribution in excel for the 2016 election and the results were surprising. Neither Hillary or Trump got enough electoral votes with 261 and 260 respectively. Johnson with 15 electoral votes would be the deciding factor, and therefor he would be kingmaker. He could negotiate with either Hillary or Trump to accept some of his policies (or ask for a cabinet position) in return for his electors supporting them. (Stein and Mcmullin both got 1 elector)
This system allows more third party candidates (or independent candidates) to take part in the election without fearing a "split" of the left/right/center vote. It would also force candidates to negotiate with others if they don't get a full majority, which might make their policies a bit more measured across the field. It might also allow parties to select 2 candidates for the general election if both candidates were closely tied in the primary (or if the candidate who lost the primary is believed to have much support among independents for example).
The reason why I think this would be the best step instead of just abolishing the college is that this might get less resistance overall, because the electoral college is still there, but it would be more fair. And it could make the step to actually abolishing it in the future easier.
I would also have the house representatives elected proportionally in each state, because there too votes in certain districts at this moment don't really count.
As for reparations, seriously? Have any of the people alive been slaves? Are you going to pay reparations in some form to every person on the planet whose ancestors were ill-treated in the past? Should north African nations pay reparations to southern european nations, because they raided and abducted europeans in the middle ages? I understand if you want to improve their situation, because they didn't had the same fair start as others, but why should only black people be helped and not for example latino's who live under similar circumstances?
The better option is just to help all poor people and to give everyone the same changes by free/cheap education that is still to the same standards, by creating a single payer healthcare system for all, by supporting the poor with low taxes in low earnings and higher for high earnings (honest taxation system), by properly funding programs that help the poor with food, neighbourhood playgrounds, .... and also ofcourse fighting entrenched racism that still is around. In the long run this will pay off much better than just paying reparations of some sort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loki2240 The thing is that I have no idea what happened before or how they got into the house. So I don't talk about the entering part. That to me is probably the only thing that really might be wrong in this situation and but we/I don't know about that.
Police officers in the US seem to get trained to be able to immediately react with deadly force if needed. Maybe the high amount of guns are a possible explanation for this? I sure as hell wouldn't go into a situation unarmed when there can be a gun around every corner, especially when investigating a possible crime. In many other countries (like mine) that risk is almost none existent in normal operations, thus police wouldn't immediately point a gun (though they do carry one). The second amendment can be blamed at least partially for cops quickly reacting with pointing their guns.
They handcuffed him as a precaution, to make sure the situation couldn't escalate. They don't know this person, for all they know he's lying, is a burglar and might turn violent when he's found out. In other countries this happens too, to protect the officers and de-escalate a situation. Him being cuffed meant he was definitely not posing any risk anymore and gives the opportunity to put away the guns and just talk in a safe and less tensioned way. The officer even untightened the cuffs when requested. He wouldn't if this wasn't just a precautionary measure. Putting the cufs on isn't an escalation, but a de-escalation, if they used force to do it, that would be a different story.
My brother had a mental breakdown a couple of months ago, we called an ambulance, and they also send some police officers to ensure the safety of the medics. After they arrived we/they were able to calm him down very quickly, but they still handcuffed him for his own and others security. Cuffing is just a great way to diffuse/secure a situation. It doesn't do harm and could prevent a lot of harm in the long run.
1
-
@loki2240 Lets make this short, I just got new information I missed/didn't have before from other people in another comment which made me lean towards it being racism, with only mental problems with the woman being another possibility. That was all I needed more information.
Guns drawn tends to be US officers standard action from what I gather, I don't agree with it, but I am not daily faced with the very likely probability someone opposing me has a gun, better safe than sorry probably is what they are thinking.
I am personally for other things first, like a tazer or batton for more regular "use"/protection (meaning not necessarily in hand, but ready) and guns truly being last resort or outright not used. I just don't see this ever happening in the US as long as the second amendment exists and there are so many guns in the US.
There isn't a violent gunman around every corner in the U.S.
I guess from the point of view of a police officer this doesn't necessarily seems true, though a lot might depend on the area also.
*There was no indication that the young man intended to physically harm the police or anyone else. So, there was no valid basis for using deadly force by pointing guns at him. *
The problem is that the officers can't know that for certain untill they see him and interact with him. It seems one of the cops is pointing the gun a bit more to the side and downwards, ready to aim and fire when necessary, but not directly aiming at him. Though might also be the camera angle, I am not an expert on that. The moment it is clear that he doesn't seem to pose any danger the cops holster their fire arms. If there was even the slightest doubt, I'd expect the second police officer to keep the gun drawn untill his partner has cuffed him. In hindsight ofcourse they might have acted less hostile (not exactly the word I'd want to use, since they seem to remain calm overall, but can't find a better one).
As for the next part of your comment, like I said earlier in this comment, I didn't have all the facts and changed my view on the situation. One of the problems I also had was that the camera seems to cut out between them announcing themselves and entering the house, thus it isn't clear whether he just didn't respond or that they entered the house immediately. I also didn't knew the situation outside the house (still don't fully) or what the officers knew/saw before the clip we see.
Your experience with the cop is what it should be ideally. But then you most likely didn't have a open door with possibly a car or truck in front of the house with stuff in it (since he was unloading, something the officers migth not know yet). Discussing police actions often is very situational, the only thing they should do differently is the guns imo and maybe entering the house but for that the video isn't clear, but again I am not a cop in the US and I don't know the neighbourhoods they patrol in.
The cuffs, sorry but that I will not change my mind on, it helps to de-escalate a situation in the long run and can be done for the safety of all parties involved. At least the way it was done here: not thrown to the ground or pulling the arms on the back violently, but just "gently" putting them on, even making sure they aren't too thight.
This was a lot longer than intended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Janet Baker They asked if it was his house, it wasn't, he was just allowed to stay there from the owner. Moreover he wasn't arrested but detained temporarily so the cops could verify everything was in order, without the risk of it escalating (like he getting shot, or they getting attacked if he was lying).
And if the woman truly believed the house was broken into, she didn't file a fake call, just didn't know the situation, which can always happen. It is better that people call the cops if they think a crime is occuring and them being wrong, then the opposite, where no one calls the cops, even when needed.
If she knew that he wasn't breaking in and still called the cops, that would be a different matter ofcourse.
1
-
@peanutawesome1 if you call the police on a black man assuming he is doing criminal activities, that has everything to do with race.
What the hell? And if you call them an a white person assuming they are doing a criminal activity, it has nothing to do with race right? What a double standard. Now if someone calls the police only because the person is black, it has to do with race. If there are also otherpossible reasons, like I don't know a strange man being in a recently deceased neighbours house, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with race, it could, but it isn't certain. The cops could just as well have been called on a white person in similar circumstance.
That racist that you are defending didn’t have any proof of any crime but saw a black man and called the police.
Or she just called the police to tell a unknown person is in a recently deceased neighbours house. Do you have the transcription of the call? I don't know if she's a racist, I don't know anything about her and I don't know anything about what she told the cops, I expect you do, since you immediately call her a racist.
Don't you see how ridiculous you are acting now? You are assuming she is a racist based on nothing, just like racists assume black people are criminals based on nothing. You might not be a racist, but you definitely are differentiating based on race alone, which at least brings you closer to racists than people who just want to now the truth by looking at the facts, not caring about race as just another possible factor.
I don't need to do any gymnastics, people that automatically make everything about race, without any proof other than it involves a person of color have done the gymnastics for me already. On the other hand, I use the data and evidence available. If you can convince me she called the cops on him because he is black (for example with the transcript of the phone call, or her testimony or anything else), I will accept that and agree this was a racist act, but if there is nothing but your opinion and the suspect being black, you have nothing but an assumption, no better than the woman who called and possibly even worse.
1
-
@peanutawesome1
It’s not a double standard since it doesn’t fucking happen.
Ofcourse it is a double standard and ofcourse it happens, or do you now say whit people don't commit crimes and are called on it? I bet you there are daily just as many wrong calls to the police involving a white suspect as black suspects if not more. But this obviously don't make the news or whatever because they aren't worth it, they are not sensational enough.
There was no other reason that racist called police because a black man was walking around a house he lived in.
If you see a stranger in the house of a recently deceased neighbour and you are a more or less paranoid person regarding crime (like my grandparents) they sure as hell might call the police, whatever the skincolor. breaking and entering into an "empty" house happens more than you think. Ofcourse the better thing to do is to call the owner, but it is likely the woman didn't have the phone number of the son/owner and thus called the cops to be sure.
Can there be racist motive? Ofcourse there can, but I don't have seen or heard any proof of this other than that the "suspect" is black. Guess what, many white suspects also afterwards were innocent and nothing was going on. Do you have actual proof that it was racially inspired?
Also he was living there for two months so the neighbor being deceased means nothing.
This I was not aware off, I must have missed that bit. This might change something, though the question would be if he was living there for 2 months, why did this woman call the cops now and not earlier? Maybe she didn't knew he was living there? Maybe she didn't knew him? If she only knows the son, maybe she did think he was an intruder?
Also it was clear that the women said black men to the police
Where? when? Again this is what I was asking for, proof that it was racially inspired and not just an assumption.
Also why is it everytime you make up hypothetical to defend your twisted views.
Because it matters if it is just your view against mine? If you have proof I am not aware of, I'd like to know.
the police as they broke into the house so technically the police are the ones commuting a crime as always
And again I have always been saying I don't know how the cops got into the house or what happened before the clip. And I said this might be a crime if they didn't ask entry first or something else. However if the police isn't let in and there is the suspicion of a crime going on, it would be logical to enter the house. Though since I don't live in the US, I am not fully aware of the specifications of police procedure/legality.
because he was black that’s all the proof needed.
And this is what I have problem with. This is an assumption based on race. Unless you know for a fact that his skincolor was a factor (like her telling the police a black man was commiting a crime or something like that). Just because he happens to black is not a reason. It can be the reason and in that I case I would definitely condemn her actions, but no one has actually come with anything else but "he is black, thus it is racially inspired".
the only movement was him putting things inside the house.
This again I was not aware of, and might chance the how I look at the situation.
You’re pure evil defending some racist women you don’t know instead of the young man traumatized by two thugs aiming guns at him.
I don't know the young man or the woman. Thus I will treat both without prejudgement untill I get all the facts. That he got guns aimed at him is definitely not good, but this to me is more of a general US problem due to the multitude of guns. Police tend to more quickly use draw their gun in an unknown situation compared to other nations.
If anything it should be illegal for white police to bother black people with their history of terrorism
So in other words you want segregation in policing? I'd rather just change the education/training of police officers so they treat all people equally, irrelevant of skincolor. This is just like with feminist that somehow seem to be treated equally in some situations, but better in others. I just treat people equally.
Should have never integrated with you demons
Calling people demons is certainly going to help :|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magnetohex703 look at my new posts. And ofcourse not everyone would call the cops white or black, but there definitely are people that would call the cops white or black. Some people are just paranoid of people they don't know and if they misinterpret a situation? It could even just be a mental condition. My sister has a mental "condition" where she always thinks the worst outcomes medically and that really affects her, sometimes almost throwing her in a slight panicked state, where other people wouldn't care at all. There are people that will have the same in regards to crimes and unknown people.
And if I am a racist, then at least more than half the world is racist. I always treat people equally, no matter skincolor, sex, sexual orientation, ... or I definitely try to, unfortunately not everyone is perfect and no one can treat everyone exactly the same (we're not machines). It is this equal treatment that causes me to first know the facts of a situation before judging, something that apparently ticks of people who either already have the facts or don't seem to need them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, I'd take that deal too. Sure, your viewership numbers might go down. But the contract is only for a few years and with possibly a 100+ million dollar, you're set for life, as well as your family. After the contract ends, just go back to the other platforms and reinvigorate his audience. With the money he might also possibly improve his show, though I am not sure if money was a limiting factor before.
I don't see it as selling out, everyone can still watch him and he maintains full control of the show.
But it also depends on what kind of show you have. If you have show that aims to spread news, it can be seen as a duty to reach as many people as possibly, in which case such a deal would indeed be selling out. For Rogans show though, there isn't really a problem.
1
-
1
-
The store probably kept the food as long as it can be sold, they aren't going to pre-emptively hand it out, because if the power comes back on before it goes bad too much for it not to be sold, they can still just sell, maybe at a discount if necessary, so the food thrown out most likely is so bad in quality they can't sell it anymore (legally). As for not handing it out afterwards, I can sort of see why they wouldn't do it, for example what if people become ill due to consuming this food, the store could be held liable. Maybe they could have better worked together with organisations that hand out old food, passing off the possible risk of lawsuits, but it could just be that they didn't think of it, didn't know how to reach such organisations, ...
Essentially it seems they wanted to be too protective out of fear for possible lawsuits or similar things. I could definitely see a store manager of a larger chain wanting to overreact rather than take any risks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
stupid take that is caused by your bias. He doesn't admit treating his employees bad or whatever. He only speaks of the fact that without the success of Amazon (which is obviously only possible with employees and costumers) he wouldn't have had money/wealth to fund Blue Origin. He could say the exact same thing even if Amazon workers were treated great.
Every new company/organisation is founded or grown by money that come from employees work and/or other ventures, be it profit from other companies, stocks of companies that have grown, taxes payed to the government, ... If you don't realize this, honestly you are going too far into the woke society.
And you should stop using this wealth growth to look at payed taxes. Do these billionaires pay too little taxes and use loopholes to pay even less in taxes? Yes. However using wealth growth is not a good metric. The rise of stocks for example will contribute to their wealth growth, however they can't do anything with their wealth in stocks untill they sell it, which is when they should pay taxes on them, however these kind of tax avoidance articles generally don't take this into account. It is like saying a vase in someone's house suddenly is worth 100k instead of 1k, you'd see your wealth increase by 99k, but you won't pay taxes on it as long as you don't sell that vase, since it is virtual wealth, not cash in hand if you will. Or even better, someone's house goes up in value from 100k to 300k, you don't pay taxes on this increase in value untill you actually sell the house.
Also he went to space to proof the rocket is safe to use for space tourism. And before you wish to claim it is polluting more, the fuel used is hydrogen and oxygen, which creates water vapor, no other pollutants. And it isn't jsut meant for billionaires, millionaires? Yes, for now only for millionaires, but overtime the costs can go down so even regular people might be able to use it (though it will likely never become really cheap in our lifetime).
1
-
I think this is disingenious, Corbyn was and still is heavily disliked overall. In 2019 labour didn't had such low amount of seats (%) since 1935.
Moreover when you look at polling on both Corbyn and Starmer, it is -37% vs -11%.
It is easy to now blame Starmer (and well it is for a large part his fault), but do not insinuate the Corbyn certainly would have been better. If local elections were held in 2019, labour might have lost worse than they did now.
There are huge different circumstances between 2017, 2019 and now.
In 2017 May was a terrible campaigner and there was the aura of the opportunistic call for an election, when it wasn't at all needed. If you look at it, Corbyn was in 2017 sitting around 0% and by 2019 he was bungling between -30% and -60% approval, Corbyn just plummeted between those two elections.
What was worse is that by the 2019 election Boris Jonhson took over, he was (and still is) more popular than any well known labour politician in gross approval numbers and worse than only one labour politician in net approval numbers and a good campaigner (even though you wouldn't say that at first).
Now they replaced Corbyn with someone that is barely any better, taking on a better conservative leader than in 2017 while the brexit impact is limited due to covid lockdowns etc and with the conservatives capable of boasting about their covid vaccin roll-out and the consequent easing of restrictions, essentially wiping out their bad covid policy/reaction from last year.
Corbyn wouldn't have done better than Starmer, he would likely have had the same results if not worse. This moment just played greatly for conservative and terrible for labour. Another thing, if Starmer is said to be the biggest reason not to come out, this also must means the local labour politicians might not have been convincing either (at least were I live local politicians play a major part in the local elections decisions).
I find that sometimes you are acting a bit too biased, especially when it is Corbyn concerned. Corbyn near the end was terrible for labour as leader, that is just a fact. Starmer just isn't much better. In fact at this moment labour just doesn't seem to have any good leader available.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BartoniusAustinius
considering there was a 30% biological boom in Earth's plant life in 2017;
Dont believe so, think it is plant life in general
Your own source says that this increase in greening is primarily caused by the same thing that is also causing climate change. That the earth is greening at this moment is only logical. Plants don't mind climate change (and definitely not high CO2 quantities) as long as they have everything else they need (like water, sun, ...), this is litterally how the earth keeps an overall stable climate throughout the ages (and don't go fully out of control, like keep heating and heating). It is just like the wolfs and rabbits: many rabbits => wolf population increases => rabbit population decreases => wolf population decreases => rabbits population increases => wolf population increases => .... In fact this is one of the reasons why humanity couldn't grow very fast untill the industrial revolution, at which point we literally broke the system.
But it is common among Western liberals that you must believe that a person is physically the sex/gender they identify with, or you are a bigot. Attracted to girls but don't want to have sex with a trans-woman's mutilated penis?? You are a homophobe!
No, if you don't want to have sex with someone of the same gender you're aren't homophobe if you fully respect gay and transgenders rights and as persons. I think you mess up the criticism. People don't call other people homophobe because they don't want to sex with the same gender, they call people homophobe if these people are actively against gays and transgenders only because of their sexual orientation.
considering that they have used the man-made global warming lies to levy carbon taxes and make trillions, TRILLIONS!
Carbon tax map, its global and yes, worldwide trillions have been made over the years.
The carbon tax is just like a pollution fine. If someone dumps waste into a lake/stream/whatever, they need to pay to clean it up, not the public. It is the same idea here, why should the public pay to fight pollution of co2, while the companies that actually profit of it don't need to pay a damn thing? A carbon tax might "force" companies to think about ways to limit pollution, afterall why waste money on prevention when it isn't necessary? And at the same time the money made from the tax can be used to combat climate change.
Well, seeming that scientists have been caught manipulating weather data
Are you saying 99% of the scientist base their motivation for supporting the theory of climate change only on studies that have been manipulated. This would be the greatest magic trick in the history of mankind.
Ofcourse some people might have cooked the numbers (you have people that might do this everywhere) and this cooked research gets ignored or is actively fought against.
considering that it's not just Earth's climate, but all planets' climate changing together;
This doesn't even make sense.
considering that we've been told since the 70's that we only have a few years before our climate destroys us;
There always are and always will be doomsday people. Just like at the EU, people have been claiming it is going to fall/fail in the next few years for decades and it is still here (and yet people keep claiming the same thing over and over).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@f3tsch906 2 hours isn't much, it would probably take much more than 2 hours to take all that food and bring it to food banks or do something similar, especially during a power outage and a winterstorm.
Now they could tell people to just come and get the food, but 1. They need to get the word out and get those people to the store in 2 hours and 2. it won't be only people in need getting this food, hell, it is very likely people who don't need the food but just want to save some money would get there first, with better transport, access to news/power, ...
There is a lot more logistics coming into play than just handing out the food. Also it depends at what time the power went out. If it happened at night/during closing hours, the food might have gone bad by the time they get there.
It is easy to point fingers, but unless we are aware of the exact situation, it is only a hypothetical. Yes, it would have been best if this food wasn't thrown away, but I can't say whether this was the best thing in this particular situation. For all we know does this store in normal conditions send food that can't be sold to a food bank, but was now just not possible.
1
-
1
-
Like you said, he is there on his own with who knows how many lunatics. We know people (including a cop) have been killed, if he acts hostile towards them, he could have become just another victim. As long as they don't start vandalizing the chamber, I might have done the same thing, keep an eye out; hope for back up and act 'friendly' untill you can afford differently. No if he has back up, even just one person, that might change things, because then you have at least one person watching your back, but on your own? No. I would like to see what people that comment on this would do in his situation and how that plays out, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out worse or the same.
1
-
1
-
The reason for a wealthtax is good, the idea of a wealthtax isn't. Much wealth of people isn't liquid, meaning they might need to sell stuff to pay the tax, which imo doesn't make sense. Better is
1) just a much more strict tax on income (less exceptions/loopholes),
2) a much more general meaning of income (essentially everything you get in new liquid assets: wages, dividends, sales, inheritance, gifts, ..., this forexample doesn't include increase an increase in stockwealth/properties/other owned commodities, since you don't get anything from this untill you sell it after the increase in worth) and
3) a much more progressive tax rate (up to for example 70-80% on income above 5-20 million)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am still sceptical. Hell, this would be the perfect thing for the US. And the way the US reacts doesn't say much, it is actually the best way to handle it.
If the US uses this to increase tensions, they rally Iran even more against time, however by talking about an accident, they still blame Iran which might cause internal turmoil in Iran (government, military and population), all while they will be seen by everyone as "de-escalating" and being humane, ...
I don't know what happened, but untill there is tangible proof that doesn't come directly or indirectly from US intelligence, I'll keep an open mind.
What I also find weird is that a video of the take down only appeared +-36 hours after the crash and that you can't see blinking lights from the plane and that it first shows a huge flash, apparently something on fire for a few seconds and then nothing but darkness, while the plane crashed down as a fireball. Hell, why wouldn't they keep filming or post the entire clip?
1
-
1
-
1