Youtube comments of oolong2 (@oolong2).
-
2300
-
1000
-
835
-
696
-
696
-
583
-
563
-
548
-
533
-
388
-
380
-
370
-
341
-
316
-
316
-
287
-
272
-
266
-
239
-
225
-
222
-
216
-
203
-
199
-
188
-
184
-
174
-
173
-
165
-
159
-
155
-
142
-
139
-
132
-
127
-
126
-
123
-
121
-
113
-
112
-
106
-
106
-
104
-
98
-
98
-
96
-
94
-
94
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
85
-
82
-
GTFO... "She has a bald head like Demi Moore in GI Jane" is not rooted in anything. It is one of the most benign jokes I've ever heard in my life. And yes, it would be the same joke if it were a white woman, because in case you didn't realize it GI Jane was white... It might be a Sinead O'Conner joke if they were a singer instead of an actor. Chris Rock didn't even know she had a condition. Also, depending on the person, it is perfectly acceptable to make a joke about someone in a wheelchair or deaf, based on whether the person is sensitive about it or not. Believe it or not, lots of disabled people have no problems laughing at their condition even the deaf woman you just pictured. Laughter can be something that unifies people, and the most well-adjusted people can laugh at themselves. Furthermore, I really don't think telling more people they are "disabled" is a good thing. Most people on this planet have some kind of physical, medical, or psychological issue. Just embrace the diversity instead of acting as if anyone who looks slightly different is automatically "disabled".
81
-
79
-
79
-
70
-
69
-
67
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
You had PLENTY of chances to speak. It's because your points were incoherent and nonsensical. Your "examples" of libertarian societies are only examples that ignore the clear cases of either government or communal efforts in those societies. Guess what? Our society and economy today is a million times more complex than it was in 3500BC or even 1800. You people are like teenagers who simply take for granted the roof over their head without having any clue what it took to get it. Then you scream "I don't want any rules!" Humans have by and large ALWAYS lived in tribes and those tribes had structure, rules, and communal efforts that benefited everyone. In fact those societies that you claim are libertarian had far less "freedom" than we do today.
The reason you only mention "ancient" societies is because we know little about how they function, so you're able to project onto them your Utopian fantasy that never really existed. However our modern concepts do not apply at all to these ancient societies governed by family, religion, customs, superstitions, etc.
Governments are simply extensions and a more complex form of the same tribal, clan, and family concepts that humans have had for thousands of years. It is practically built into our DNA. The only reason humans have language, bonds, and tribalism is to reinforce these societal constructs. That have been the very key to our survival.
However the latest incarnation of that tribal union that we call "government" is currently corrupted by private systems and money. We have no check on the power of money, the accumulation of property, or the major influence it has on our governing systems. Throwing what little government checks we have away and insuring that the wealthy have more power and influence is not somehow the answer to our problems.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
YES, which is why we heavily regulate cars (safety courses, licensing, insurance, traffic laws enforced by traffic cops, speed limits, seat belts, emissions, drunk driving laws, registration, titles, etc.).
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
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
-
Never said Clinton wasn't corrupt. However if you think that Trump is somehow less corrupt or just as corrupt, then I'm sorry but you're fucking gullible... It was OBVIOUS that Trump's corruption far exceeded any politician in the primary. He has a long history of cronyism, conning people, discrimination, paying off politicians, using his foundation for personal presents or paying legal fines for his company, and even working with the Mob. Trump has an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to his scandals as well as numerous sites listing the hundreds of issues that he's flip flopped on, as well as the most lies of any candidate for president by politifact, fackcheck, & snoops. Yet SOMEHOW you think taking donor money or giving a speech on wall st is the SAME? fucking absurd..
Are you surprised that he's appointed the CEO of Exon Mobile as Secretary of State?
Are you surprised that he's filling positions in his with Goldman Sachs representatives and donors? Are you surprised that he wants an office for his daughter in the white house to run his companies out of ?
Are you surprised that he brings his family members along when visiting heads of state so they can get inside information and help put pressure in getting his realestate deals through?
I'm not surprised because it was OBVIOUS that he would do these things once he got into office. But "oh my!" there were emails so I guess all that is moot right? As if Trump's own emails wouldn't be far more devastating, but those weren't leaked. How convenient.
TRUMP WANT'S TO GET RID OF OBAMACARE!!! The ACA has saved the lives of at least 100,000 people or perhaps even closer to 200,000 people since it was enacted. Why? Because #1. new hospitals regulations has caused fewer deaths (at least 87,000 from just 2010-2014). #2 there has been a 25% reduction in the people who are uninsured. So based on the 45K figure you mentioned it means 10,000 fewer people dead EACH YEAR.
So HOW THE FUCK can you compare someone who wants to kill THOUSANDS by getting rid of the ACA with nothing substantial to back it up vs. someone who wants to keep the ACA and work on legislation to make it better? Yeah Single Payer would be better, but fucking hell dude how can you even begin to compare those two positions?
Sorry but taking the HUNDREDS of cases of lies and corruption from Trump and the few cases of corruption and lies with Hillary and "calling it even" is no different than what CNN does.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
Sorry Jimmy, but your argument falls apart with George W. Bush. I would put Bill Clinton against allowing 911 to happen, invading two countries, killing a million civilians, torture, abu Ghraib, gitmo, illegally wiretapping, creating the TSA and having no plan for the aftermath which led to ISIS, a 2008 recession, and trillions of debt and hundreds of billions of deficit, ANY DAY.... Trump is basically GW Bush on steroids. If he got elected along with a republican majority it would change this country to an even darker direction.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Completely disagree.... All my life I've never smoked, did drugs, or drank alcohol really, never even been drunk... However a few months ago I decided to try some edibles while I was in Colorado. First of all since it was my first time I made sure I went to a highly rated place. Being cautious is something most people do when trying ANYTHING for the first time. Secondly my experience at this particular place is that they hand you a menu telling you exactly about the types of Marijuana and their effects, each type of edible, the THC content and the recommended dosages (for an average adult) for each as well as what you should do if it is your first time having an edible... Not only that but you have the time to ask questions from very knowledgeable people before making up your mind.
Furthermore if that wasn't enough there is recommended dosages and serving sizes on the packaging itself....
So the idea that someone is going to grab an edible and not know what they are getting is nonsense. You feel far more informed and in control getting an edible from a legal place where exact dosages, THC content, etc. is spelled out in exact milligrams, than if one of your friends decided to bake a batch of brownies with some stuff he bought off the street one day.
If you're going to ban edibles then you might as well ban liqueur, cocktails, and other sugary drinks. If people can't figure out how much to consume based on all the information laid out for them then they probably shouldn't be trying it in the first place...
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
Way to create a straw man Kyle.... Maybe, just maybe, this isn't about a single smoking gun but rather a consistent pattern of behavior with a particular foreign government. 04:30 Guess what? That DIDN'T HAPPEN WITH OBAMA. Obama wasn't constantly repeating propaganda from the Russians, the RNC and Romney wasn't hacked by the Russians, Obama's campaign manager wasn't getting paid by the Russians, Obama didn't obstruct an investigation into his campaign, Obama didn't have millions in investments and debt to Russian oligarchs., Obama didn't have the former FBI director imply that there could be collusion in his sworn testimony, Obama didn't have people in his own party who have access to classified information saying "it looks bad". I could go on and on. The problem isn't a single case, it's an ongoing pattern of behavior that you're IGNORING
Yes information in a democracy is a good thing, but when you hack and release information from ONE PARTY and ONE CANDIDATE and not the other then OF COURSE you're going to manipulate an election The population getting skewed information IS NOT FUCKING DEMOCRATIC. Just like money in politics which allows information to be skewed heavily to one side IS NOT DEMOCRATIC. How could you not realize that?
Guess what? The RNC WAS ALSO colluding against Trump and was trying to change the rules to not allow Trump to win however it didn't become a huge story because there wasn't a massive leak of their emails. Holy shit how can you be so freaking naive?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Honestly Kyle, "Obama" destroys your argument against Clinton as well. If you "hate" and "despise" Clinton because of Wall St, special interests, and corporate favoritism then you should hate and despise Obama just as much.... Not only has he taken just as much money from Wall St, but there are also many examples where he has flipped to support corporate interests against the will of the people (dropping the public option, failing to prosecute Wall St, negotiation of drug prices, TPP, etc.). I'm not saying that the criticisms against Hillary aren't legitimate, they are, however you have to acknowledge that there is far more animosity towards Clinton based on a lot of conjecture and speculation. I don't think that bias is based on sexism I think it's based on the fact that Obama is much more charismatic. Unlike her husband, Hillary is a very in-artful politician. If someone isn't likable it allows people to project whatever bad intent they want onto that person. It's kind of the opposite of Trump where Trump supporters like his personality and it allows them to project whatever they want onto his constant flip flopping positions.
7
-
People who think Venezuela's current economic problems are directly the result of socialism have the admit that places like The Congo, Afghanistan, Somalia, and dozens of other 3rd world countries are poor because of capitalism.... However they're not going to to do that because they don't give a shit about facts and consistency they only care about the bullshit propaganda that they've been fed. Look at Germany, Sweden, Denmark, France, Japan, Iceland, Finland, and many other countries that have implemented the exact programs that we've been talking about for years who have more stable economies and better outcomes for education, healthcare, and even innovation. If you're going to ignore all of those countries and instead pretend that Venezuela is somehow representative of those programs and polcies then you really don't care about truth or science. You really don't give a shit about anything except blindly following your ideology like it's a religion.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I have no idea who Ana was arguing against at the start. It's weird how they start arguing against fictional characters. However, the problem has and always will be CAPITALISM When you talk about "the system" and "corporate rule" you are referring to CAPITALISM and the profit motive. Because that's the motivation that leads to corporate rule, it ALWAYS has been. Capitalism is good in some cases, but it is far too prevalent in our society. Until we get into the mindset of reducing capitalism in places where it interferes with basic human needs (food, shelter, healthcare, free speech, education, etc.) we're always going to have these problems. The middle class was not a natural phenomenon, it was invented when progressives (Republican and Democratic progressives) and unions started fighting capitalism by breaking up corporations (trust busting), implementing social programs like social security and Medicare, and created regulations to make life better for people.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Scott, there isn't any "research" to be done on anonymous writings on social media... Research is based on facts, data, or repeatable experiments NOT conjecture. If I told you that lizard people were real and to "go research it" all you would find is a bunch of stories where people take unrelated things and tie it into a cohesive story that concludes "lizard people". If you like the story and hear it enough, eventually you start to believe it. However it doesn't make the story true. This is no different than a religion. People want to feel part of something bigger than themselves.
This is all just human psychology and people projecting their hopes and fears onto something imaginary. Just like in the past it was aliens, ghosts, elves, witches, mermaids, trolls, etc. Humans have always created stories/fantasies to explain their world. Which is why all of these conspiracies usually involve Satanist and/or pedophiles, because that's what a large part of society today sees as "evil".
I don't watch much TV news anymore. However the fact that many people such as yourself believe anonymous stories that people make up on the internet over broadcast news is quite frightening.... TV/Cable news might have some bias, but they are not openly lying to you like the president does daily.
One day you'll realize that Qanon is total bullshit. Probably a prank that simply took advantage of the fact that conspiracy minded people like to make shit up on the internet
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
-
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
-
***** You made a huge a non sequitur between "quantifying resources" and the fact that organisms need resources to survive. One does not rely on the other....
The fact is animals, especially human animals, do not need money to survive, we've simply created a system and environment where it is impossible for people to survive without it.
Furthermore money is an abstract representation of wealth, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with quantifying resources.... Money simply represents our perception of "value" at any given point.
The fact that a cellphone costs $800 when it's released and then $99 a year later has absolutely nothing to do with resources. The entire FIRE economy (Financial, Insurance, Real Estate) where a great percentage of the wealth is created has absolutely nothing to do with resources. The sudden rise and fall of the price of gold and many other commodities has absolutely nothing to do with the actual resource.
Because we have this abstraction rather than a REAL representation of resources, it allows for things like rampant pollution, factory farming and other unsustainable farming techniques (example: the Dust Bowl from 30s), mountain top removal mining, millions of tons of edible food ending up in landfills while people starve, islands of garbage the size of Texas floating in our oceans, celebrities getting paid millions of dollars for being attractive and popular.
Furthermore out of the need for money comes the all powerful "profit motive" which is the root of all corruption. Humans are trained to covet money (an abstraction) as the most important thing in this world and when you live in a society where having money is more important then how you acquired it then it's not surprising that people make moral trade offs to get it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
lol Anthony, nice try... Please reread my comment and try again. Show me where I said the Russia thing was definite. Oh wait! I said the exact opposite didn't I? My point was and still is that people like you and Jordan were willing to spend MONTHS drooling over nothing but circumstantial evidence when it came to HRC however when it comes to Trump and Russia ties, where the circumstantial evidence is FAR GREATER, he sits on his hands and doesn't do shit, all because Clinton's campaign brought it up.... Sorry but that is not acceptable from ANYONE who calls himself a journalist. Yeah Jordan spent weeks going over those leaked emails and what did he find? Well when it came to HRC herself, he found DICK, he found SQUAT. At most he found MORE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE... What Donna Brazil did was wrong, but honestly who gives a shit about her. Other than someone losing their job It wasn't some huge story, at all. Meanwhile we have the most powerful man in the world systematically screwing over this country and possibly the world and Jordan's sitting on his ass acting high and mighty not doing dick about it. All the cases, convictions, and fines I brought up regarding Trump were real, the reason why you're ignorant about it is because you've had HRC's emails up your ass for so long.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Daily News Mysteries My feelings aren't hurt, I'm just trying to educate you because you're clearly uninformed. Oh wait.... Is this the part where you assume that just because I advocate for policies that will benefit the poor and the disenfranchised that I must be poor myself? lol... Before you make a complete fool of yourself maybe you should look at my past videos and see all the ski trips I've taken and realize that I do these trips several times a year and it is not a cheap habit. No I'm doing well for myself. I'm just intelligent. I was a libertarian myself for about two weeks, but it didn't take long to realize how flawed the ideology was. It doesn't take but two minutes of research to realize that the entire philosophy is flawed. If you're scientifically minded you look for evidence, but most of you guys don't care about evidence you just care about ideological feelings.
I even donated to Ron Paul's presidential campaign, mostly because despite some of his flawed views he was the most reasonable guy in the republican party at the time.
No I don't need anything from Sanders. I just know that many of his his polices have a proven record to be a net benefit in places like Iceland, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Japan, South Korea, etc. Most people just don't do research so they're just ignorant to this fact.
Understand that the entire human condition is based on community. Families, villages, towns, cities, countries, etc. There is no point to even develop language without society. Every great achievement in human history has come out of the societies and governments that we've built.
If you think you will be happy just focusing on yourself then you were told a lie.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This entire segment you talk about grifters, but don't actually show people grifting... If you're actually following the science then it says that natural immunity has about the same effectiveness as someone fully vaccinated Pfizer plus a booster, based on the latest findings. The number of people who have died from a secondary covid infection is practically zero. Yes, there is a reduced protection with Omicron, but it is nearly the same reduction in protection as someone fully vaccinated plus booster. Furthermore, even if you get infected your T-cells will still get activated and prevent hospitalization and death. So, if you think creating a law based on that fact is "grifting" then you have to ask yourself who is grifting here... Furthermore, you can prove natural immunity with previous positive test or a blood test. It really isn't that difficult. For most other viruses, prior infection gives a person immunity that is most of the time better than immunity through vaccination. It is AMAZING to me that TYT is so caught up in the culture war over vaccines that they don't realize that it is in the pharmaceutical company's best interest to sell more vaccinations, so of course they're going to ignore natural immunity. The reason why there is more "data" for vaccines is because it is in their best interest to fund more studies that are favorable to their product and most of these studies are using subjects that are recently vaccinated when antibodies and effectiveness are at their peak. After 2 months that effectiveness wanes considerably. Plus, you have to worry about "immune system fatigue", injecting people with boosters over and over is really not a long-term effective strategy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, she's "anti-vaxx" simply for saying people should have a choice whether to vaccinate or not? It's pretty sad how you put people into camps simply for being against a mandate. There are lots of vaccinated people who are against vaccine mandates, yet you've given zero room for ANY nuance in this discussion. The fact that there are people calling her to be replaced and recast, and essentially lose her job, pretty much confirms what she was talking about. Progressives have no idea who much they've fed the flames of this culture war. The Right may be wrong on a lot of the science, but at least they haven't spent the past year defending people losing their jobs simply for not getting vaccinated. And yes, the federal policy wasn't a strict mandate for most companies, but it was a mandate for healthcare workers, and many companies used that policy as a pretense to create mandates that are far easier (cheaper) to enforce than weekly testing. This is literally no different than anti-abortion laws that don't directly ban abortion but make it difficult enough that abortion is effectively banned. And if you're following the science then EVERYONE should be tested not just unvaccinated people, because we've known for almost a year now that vaccinated people also transmit the virus, yet most policies don't reflect that reality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Kehvan Sure I am, for a very long time. I said if I owned any of those things, I would have access to logs filled with strings of public IP addresses. So clearly, you're not paying attention to what I actually said. Fox News said they hacked, infiltrated, planted evidence and that it was just like Watergate. All those things were 100% lies.
I'm not shilling for anybody. I just know that all political campaigns pay for opposition research and many companies and individuals are willing to do unscrupulous things for an easy paycheck. It doesn't matter if you are Clinton, Obama, Trump, Romney, etc. They ALL pay a lot of money for opposition research. If you're somehow surprised by that or you think that Clinton did something special here, then you would be extremely naive.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
SamStam12 I perfectly understand inflation, as does anyone whose taken a beginning economics class.... However you don't seem to understand that inflation is something common among most economies, it isn't something unique to the US economy. Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, Iceland, Denmark, etc. all have higher rates of inflation than we do on average. Furthermore the rate of inflation over the past 5 years or so has been at an all time low. Certainly MUCH lower than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s, & 90s. It is nowhere near what anyone would call "hyperinflation".
So basically when you boil down economic problems, poverty, and inequality to just inflation you really don't know what your talking about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fundamentalism is simply a strict adherence to an ideology or scripture. Buddhist Monks, Sikhs, Hasidic Jews, Sufi Muslims, Shinto Priests, hundreds of various sects and Gurus in India, Roman Catholic priests at the Vatican, the Amish, hell even Scientologists are all *fundamentalists". You could even argue that Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, & the Dali Lama are fundamentalists as well. Pretending as if some kid who decided to be a Muslim one day and kill his friends for insulting his religion is suddenly a "Fundamentalist" is rather silly. Just like when that abortion doctor was killed by that Christian dude when in fact the bible says nothing about abortion. Sometimes people just do violent things because they're fucked in the head and they gravitate towards religion because they think it gives their life purpose
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Cave Johnson Well the fact is that any industry that has been run by certain groups of families for decades is naturally going to have bias towards a certain group of people. You're more likely to want to work with your friends and family. You're more likely to acknowledge people in your social circles. There's nothing malicious about it, but it does create a situation that perpetually limits the opportunities of "outsiders" whether they are black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, Middle Eastern, etc.. Which is why you have black directors/producers which try to balance things out by creating "black movies" (Spike Lee, Tyler Perry, etc). I don't like that idea either because I'd rather watch a movie, not watch a movie making a statement about the people who are acting and working on the movie and it doesn't matter how good the performances are in those movies they're not going to get nominated for awards because of the bias. So you can say "Equality in opportunity", but doesn't that have the same issues with "equality of outcome"? You're not going to be able to force directors, writers, and producers to somehow cast minorities everywhere in high profile movies. That's also going to interfere with the creative process right? So perhaps the only thing people can do is speak out about it and make people aware of the issue so that at least people are thinking about it and keeping and open mind when they're writing the next script, or producing the next movie, or considering the next nomination for an award. Being aware of your own bias is the first step towards mitigating it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Joshua Hester Instead of regurgitating campaign spin and sounding like a drone why not list Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as senator? Other than supporting military intervention in Iraq that was based on a lie, supporting the TPP (until it became clear that it wasn't popular), supporting a violation of our rights and government overreach with the Patriot Act, and being an avid supporter of wall st and the healthcare insurance industry, exactly what has she accomplished as senator with this "courage" that you speak of?
Furthermore it's clear you don't know what the definition of "partisan" is. In order to be "partisan" you have to be part of a PARTY. Bernie Sanders has been an INDEPENDENT since 1979. There is no "partisanship" when for the most part you're a party of 1.
The irony here is that you actually WANT a partisan.... You want someone like Hillary who is going to vote based on what is popular within their party at the time and vote for things like DOMA, NAFTA, TPP, Iraq Resolution, Patriot Act, and "evolve" on marriage equality, and skirt the issue of legalizing marijuana. You want someone who is going to put on a nice show and say they are going to attack those "pesky republicans" meanwhile being just as hawkish on foreign relations and kissing up to the same multinational corporations and Wall St donors.
On the other hand I want a LEADER. Someone who's been ahead of the curve when it comes to equality, civil liberties, preemptive war, marijuana legalization, trade/labor protections, taxation, single payer health care, infrastructure, bank regulation, climate change, green energy, and a slew of other issues many of which he has been talking about consistently for DECADES while Hillary is just now playing catch up...
The campaign spin and name recognition might work for you, but it's far too easy for me to see through that bullshit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kasch 1. There is in fact news that is fake. This wasn't something invented, it was reported.. Sites like snoops, politifact, factchecker, etc were created YEARS AGO specfically to combat against fake rumors and fake reports. This isn't somehow something new. It should concern you that your president regularly lies on TV almost daily. If you're trying to normalize lies and fake information, then you're part of the problem in this country.
2. First you say the term "fake news" was invented after the election. Then you say it won Trump the election. You pretty much contradicted yourself there.
3. The MSM didn't win or lose anything. You've brainwashed yourself into thinking that reporting facts that make your candidate look bad means there is something wrong with the reporter instead of your candidate. There are many ways to fact check information. I suggest you do that instead of automatically believing that anything negative is "fake". That's how a child handles things.
4. Alex Jones has in fact reported many false stories. Most of his show is based on making false assumptions. There might be a grain of truth in what he says, but the vast majority of it is just made up. Which is the reason why I stopped listening to his show years ago. He's does nothing but make money off of fabricated fear. If you think Alex Jones is a reliable news sources then I'm sorry but you are grossly misinforming yourself and your on going ignorance is a danger to this country. PLEASE start fact checking yourself and the things that you believe.
5. I'll respond to anything and everything. First off the provision you're referring to is called the: "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act" It has absolutely NOTHING to do Breitbart, Alex Jones, or other "fake news" sites in the US. It is specifically to counter propaganda and disinformation coming from foreign governments. Why would anyone be against that? Why would you be against that? Do you want people to be manipulated by propaganda from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any government? Secondly it was a bi-partisan bill that was introduced and written by a Republican Senator. You pretend as if just because Obama signed it that he personally created the provision. He didn't . The president signs law he doesn't draft it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nwagner643 Classic projection. You complain about straw men and then turn around and create your own... At what point did I ever say I was putting "faith" in anyone?
Organize and promote progressives at the local and national level. Of course. Duh... However in the system we have every election is a binary choice and when one of those choices is the lesser evil, YOU PICK THE LESSER EVIL. You don't just step back and whine about your choices.
There is absolute no doubt that when it comes to the Military Industrial Complex, Courts, Regulations, Taxes, Healthcare, Immigration, Race Relations, Pandemic Response, Corruption, Climate Change almost EVERY metric you can think of has taken a big step backwards under Trump. If you cannot recognize that then you simply have ideological blinders on and the only reason you're into politics is to smell your own farts and feel good about yourself rather than actually helping people.
Fighting Biden and making some progress is far better than fighting Trump and moving backwards. Period.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mastervz4806 It's a topic that is badly in need of discussion. I've heard the same spiel against factory farmed beef and dairy for at least two decades now. Maybe there would be more progress towards sustainability if people were more educated on the options available, other than just being vegetarian. Which also doesn't solve the problem, only makes it less severe. People could talk about insects, rabbits, goats, and many grass-fed/sustainable farming options. However the only message people have been beaten over the head with for decades has been based on the consumption of cheeseburgers and milkshakes from fast-food chains. Most people don't even know that cows aren't supposed to eat corn.
If people were more educated on other food options, and those food options were more normalized, you could create a greater demand that gets us further away from factory farms and chain restaurants. Instead, the only option pushed for decades is being a vegetarian and replacing burgers with fake burgers and replacing milk with fake milk and pretending that it will magically fix everything.
The fact that food is not local, shipped all over the place, and a large percentage ends up in landfills, is a huge general problem and it's a shame that public education doesn't include farming knowledge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. And those two people are just as dumb, arguably more so.
2. Yup, idiotic tribalism comes in all shapes and sizes. Same thing in Africa , there can be many different tribes in a country, from our perspective they can be all black/brown, but as soon as there is an election a lot of times it comes down to what tribe they belong to. Being in a tribe is something innate in humans that allowed us to survive, but it makes us really stupid in the modern age. Same mentality behind gangs, many join just to survive and then it becomes their identity. So the Irish were "the other" until they were assimilated and people could hate on polish and other immigrants. Eventually people will realize they are being stupid since we're all virtually the same genetically. However if aliens came to earth it would be humans vs aliens.
3. Already black, but if I turned white for a few weeks I'm sure I would be shocked by the casual racism of other white people when there aren't any black people around. I've certainly heard the "I've got that one racist uncle" stories from my white friends.
4. And my argument is "So what"..... We have people who abuse the speed limits, drive drunk, etc. does that mean we should eliminate cars because a small percentage of people abuse traffic regulations? Pretty much every system that exists has some percentage of abuse. However liberals don't have this constant irrational fear that conservatives have, so we look at overall costs vs benefits and the people who are impacted. Do you realize that historically immigration is practically nothing today compared to what it was in the 19th and early 20th century. Between 1800 and 1900 the population of the US would grow 30% or more each decade purely from immigration. The country didn't implode because of it, instead it became a world superpower.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I wasn't surprised that Florida's numbers were lower for three reasons... Sunshine, Saltwater, and Selenium. Florida is consistently warmer than other states, including California. It was also discovered early that people with adequate levels of selenium are less likely to die from Covid and people in Florida consume an enormous amount of crab and shellfish. That along with he fact that most of the border is a beach is probably a good reason why Covid didn't spread as easily. California obviously also has lots of beaches, but it's also filled with lots of hills, mountains, valleys, etc. that just don't exist in Florida which could easily be covered by the entire ocean if the water raised by a couple hundreds feet. Furthermore most of the major cities in Florida are on the coast. I would guess that the salt air that easily travels over Florida also has an effect in reducing the spread. Whereas a lot of California cities are a lot further inland, with hills, tall buildings, etc. Florida doesn't have a lot of tall buildings because of hurricanes so that ocean air can just sweep all across most of the state without much obstruction. That is my guess.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We grow animals the wrong way just like we grow plants the wrong way.... The problem is that we see the downsides of factory farming animals faster than you see the downsides of factory farming plants. However factory farming plants is still depleting the topsoil, relies heavily on oil (pesticides, fertilizers, machinery, etc.), is killing the bee population, as well as birds, amphibians, and small animals. We're destroying the land by doing this. Life isn't meant to be treated like machines where we put a bunch of organisms in rows or grids, it's meant to thrive in an ecosystem not a factory. People that believe that we can magically solve everything by being vegan are misguided by a warped morality, and are simply slowing down the problem not solving it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
seeibe, Not saying we shouldn't talk about it, we should. However if you dive into the specifics the allegation is that Clinton was more likely to meet with foreign leaders if they gave to the Clinton Foundation. Okay, I get that maybe there might be a problem with bias or neutrality. But let's not forget that she wasn't getting money from the Clinton Foundation (It is a non profit afterall...), let's not forget that her job is to meet with foreign leaders, let's not forget that there wasn't any policy changes based on those meetings. If you say "what about the weapons deal with the Saudis", then I'll just say we've been making these weapons deals with the Saudis for decades. Trump did an even bigger weapons deal with the Saudis. People pretend as if the State Dept. can personally dictates weapons deals, they can't. They operate on behalf of the president.
Meanwhile we have Trump meeting with his friends and then immediately changing trade policy to benefit the companies of those friends. Trump allowed an exception to tax law that would personally benefit his businesses. Many of his businesses are ties to Russian Oligarchs and many other conflicts of interests and by the way the GOP platform was changed by the Trump campaign to be more pro-Russia when that was never an issue for the republicans, nor was it anything that Trump ran on, the campaign just suddenly changed it. He's been having private meetings with people at Maro Largo who pay the $200,000 initiation fee (which was doubled after Trump was nominated and elected), where he's discussed classified material out in the open over dinner. His family has already made tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on this presidency. Stories of corruption come out weekly (sometimes even daily) on this administration.
If you pretend that "suspicion of corruption" is anywhere on the same level as the actual corruption in Trump's past let alone the present then we have a problem.... It's like being on a sinking ship with a gaping hole somewhere and them someone says "Well what about the squeaky door we definitely have to look at that". I never even liked Clinton, but the double standard is just insane.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
U Swoor, the point is that there is a reason that things like McDonalds, KFC, Jeans, Nike Sneakers, and crappy Hollywood movies have spread all over the world. They are things that people can go enjoy without it being forced upon them. Those are the kinds of things that change perceptions and create acceptance in the same way that crappy Chinese food, sushi, and crappy martial arts movies, and Japanese cars/electronics changed the perception in the United States of Asian people and cultures. Sure those representations might be highly inaccurate, but that's not the point.... You want to expose people to that diversity and things they can choose to like, not just give them threats and something to fight against.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robe2504 You're acting as if I'm okay with smoking in public places, when I already said in my original comment that I was okay with banning smoking in public places. So therefore, your argument is entirely moot. Yes, we ban behavior that negatively impacts others which is why we also have noise ordinances, laws against littering, speed limits etc. But we do not ban the ability to buy a loud stereo or a fast car. We only ban behavior in a specific context.
Furthermore, someone getting drunk is not the same as shooting children, driving into a parade, or poisoning people. You very well know that. So please stop with all the nonsense false equivalences and straw man arguments.
When you start making things up in order to have an argument, then your argument was weak to begin with. People are now making the same asinine arguments that right-wingers make against abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, etc. When you justify authoritarianism with outlandish ideas, then you're going down the wrong path.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. Whether it was the earthquake or tsunami caused by the earthquake I think is pretty irrelevant to the point...
2. No reports of hair falling out? Here's the wiki on 3 Mile Island:
"The reported health effects are consistent with high doses of radiation, and comparable to the experiences of cancer patients undergoing radio-therapy,.[14] but have many other potential causes.[13] The effects included "metallic taste, erythema, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hair loss, deaths of pets and farm and wild animals, and damage to plants."
Completely lying? I don't think so. It's pretty normal for the government to downplay the effects of a nuclear disaster which happened in Chernobyl as well as Fukushima.
3. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Water vapor is actually a green house gas.
4. Besides the obvious Chernobly and Fukushima which have caused NUMEROUS birth defects, in the brief search I did I was able to find a couple studies on increased birth defects of those who worked in or lived around nuclear plants. Of course these plants were older plants from the 80's and 90's so I don't know about newer . I also found anotherstudy in Germany where they found no difference in birth defects. However you can't say that he was lying about it, because there are indeed studies that do show an increase in defects.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adaminfinity1733 It certainly would happen if everyone who supported it suddenly started protesting, but that's not likely to happen because of human nature.... We could have stopped Covid if early on everyone in the world decided to wear a mask and social distance for a month at the exact same time, but people aren't that coordinated. Also. you could argue that if it weren't for television showing the violence and racial disparities in the South, we may not have had a civil rights movement to being with. If news media started covering healthcare stories every week of people dying without insurance, people not getting treatments because of financial bureaucracy, or families going bankrupt trying to keep people alive. Then you might see a big movement, but those things aren't as sensational as violence.
We've had hundreds of thousands of people die from Covid each year and you have people who don't want to do anything about that so why would there be a big movement over the tens of thousands who die without health insurance? 🤷🏼♂️ Unfortunately, human nature makes us care a lot more about violence than slow illnesses.
Hundreds of cases of black/brown men getting killed, falsely arrested, and imprisoned by police over the years, but when people saw the violence against George Floyd on TV and suddenly you have a national (and international) movement.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rgwf1908 Sorry, but you're not really saying anything or making an actual argument. You seem brainwashed by some sort of ideology. On your one comment on the pandemic. A lot of countries got hit by the pandemic, but countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand. Japan, etc. took it seriously in the beginning and we didn't... The death tolls in those countries are a tiny fraction of what we have here (even when you account for population) and their economies are doing fine. In fact life has been more or less normal for them for months
The fact that the richest country in the world could not do anything is an absolute joke. It's a failure of leadership.
South Korea was testing their entire population in February while Trump was golfing holding campaign rallies and pretending that concerns over the virus was a "hoax" and pretending that the virus was going to "disappear". He then went on to downplay the virus and encouraged people to not wear masks. Never mind all the numerous failures of not replenishing our national supply of PPE, not making testing available, and putting his son in law in charge of handling the pandemic. There was absolutely no national plan to speak of for months and this country paid the price.
Trump has fooled millions of working class people so I wouldn't assume anyone who supports Trump is rich, just people caught up in a cult of personality and fooled by a pathological liar. Sorry, but you still haven't listed any actual accomplishments....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
roy romano If "all you know is black culture" then you don't know much at all. If you don't understand the effects of poverty, socio-economics, and the studies on institutional bias then you don't have the tools to solve the problem. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm calling you uninformed. Simply wagging your finger at a community and telling them to stop listening to a type of music (which has been said about rock n roll, hip hop, heavy metal, etc.) or stop playing violent video games, or stop reading certain books has never helped any community in the history of mankind....
Creating economic opportunity, education, fixing systemic racism, reducing inequality, and creating functioning communities where civilians work with and trust the police. THAT is what solves problems.
What you claim to have "seen". I have actually experienced. So it's not like I don't understand what you're saying or where you're coming from. It's just that your perspective is limited and you need to understand a lot more than you currently do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
orlock20
--"In 2014, Business Insider had a poll and the liberal viewers picked the liberal stations I picked as their news source."
So what? If lots of people who call themselves "liberal" by a certain car does that make it a "liberal car"?
Being informed doesn't somehow make the information coming from the station bias in any way.
--"In 2013, the president of Disney had to defend itself from investors accusing ABC news of liberal bias."
The president of the US had to defend himself from people and politicians accusing him of being born in Kenya and being a Muslim. Does an accusation make it true? No it does not.
--"ABC reporters include Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel and George Stephanopoulos."
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. ABC also included John Stossel who is a self proclaimed libertarian pundit. Who after being on ABC for 30 years and even went to Fox News a few years ago as a pundit.
-- "For this election cycle, NBC hired TargetSmart for polling data even though it was founded by two people that worked for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party also uses TargetSmart for its data."
You can really tell how asinine the conversation is when "data" is now somehow supposed to be bias...
Magazines, News outlets, blogs, and political organisations whether they are democratic or republican use polling data from Gallop, Pew Research, Rasmussen, and a variety of sources. They often use the same data.... It's data... not punditry.
None of these "guilt by association" arguments you're trying to make point to any real bias from these news outlets.
I can easily show how all of these media outlets completely ignored Bernie Sanders campaign until now meanwhile they followed GOP debates and Trumps every move. I can even show where they took stories directly from Fox News.
However all these claims about "liberal bias" from conservative politicians is just a way of making sure that the public ignores facts in favor of bullshit.... There is no bias in the mainstream media except when it comes to the establishment and corporate interests which is why you NEVER hear talk about TPP, income inequality, or campaign finance reform which is blasted on all the progressive media.
You will hardly ever hear these topics on MSNBC either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NYS Math Regents Preparation First I didn't disrespect anyone. Second I'm doing quite well for myself and have gotten far in life and will likely go further. I just happen to give a shit about my country. As a result I care about the thousands of people who die each year from lack of health coverage, the middle class shrinking and wealth inequality growing (which has been proven to be unhealthy do any society), discrimination against gays, women, immigrants, Muslims, and people who just want to lives there lives in peace, thousands of lives destroyed due to the drug war, the lack of auditing of the Fed, labor killing trade deals like the TPP, the thousands of civilians killed in our wars and drone strike programs in the middle east, not to mention our infrastructure that looks like crap compared to other countries. So perhaps you should worry about your own mindset because I have yet to see any real reasons that people vote for the GOP other than xenophobia, fear, greed, or nonsense ideology that isn't based in science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europe followed trade routes, learned about gun powder and different metals, made guns, then proceeded to invade/colonize the rest of the world, took their resources (inventions, architecture, cuisine, people, minerals, agriculture, etc.), wrecked/disrupted every civilization on the planet, now complains about immigrants and losing their identity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandray7609 Animals that we eat don't eat the same plants that we eat at least not naturally. All the land and grass that cows would use naturally can offset their carbon footprint, it can actually offset the carbon of the entire farm. Again, it's not like this country wasn't full of millions of large animals that produced methane in the past. It also has numerous other benefits for soil health. It would be more expensive and burgers would no longer be cheap, but it would far better for the planet, our health, and the cows if they were raised in an actual sustainable manner.
A lot of meats aren't "conventional" (insects, deer, many other small animals, etc.). However we've created entire industries around specific kinds of animals and plants since those industries are profitable. Even when we go to plant based foods they largely try to mimic meats (burgers, turkey, bacon, etc.) that we're already accustomed to. Instead of adapting our diets to a natural ecosystem we decided to industrialize everything to suit what we wanted instead. Many Native American societies learned how to coexist with the environment, we haven't.
Keep in mind that you cannot grow most plants that we eat without animals, there is a balance there. The only reason we can is because we rely on fossil fuels in the form of petrochemicals for fertilizers and pesticides to replace what would happen naturally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lorrie Sigley Not saying that she did much but she did help with taking down Bin Ladin and bringing Iran to the table for a nuclear deal. Clinton is basically an continuation of Obama's policies. Whereas Trump has advocated for fascist/nationalist policies such as banning all Muslims, deporting all immigrants, expanding the drone program to target the families of suspected terrorists, advocating that we should bring back torture, and he has absolutely no tact when dealing with foreign relations. He's already hated around the world by the people and leaders of other countries. He can't even let the smallest thing go in his campaign, so I cannot trust a guy like that with nukes and our military.
So in my mind there is no question that she would be better than Trump. The main reason people like trump is that sine he hasn't had a political career they can easily fool themselves into thinking that he's something that he's not.
It doesn't change the fact that he's a maniac, a serial liar, a birther, a racist, misogynistic, and cheats people any chance he gets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** It depends on what do you consider a "noticeable amount".... There are some states that still have blasphemy laws on the books, sodomy was illegal in many states for a very long time, people used biblical justification for slavery, Jim crow, and making interracial marriage illegal, the ten commandments are displayed at many of our courthouses, people are required to swear on a bible in court, public officials are sworn into office on a bible, God is even on our money, and we speak of God in our pledge of allegiance. On many occasions Christians in the military have dropped religious pamphlets in Muslim countries. Not to mention our politicians constantly running on religion, wanting to ban gay marriage, keep gays out of the miltary, etc.
Not only that it was Christian politicians from the US that were behind a Christian revolution in Uganda where it is now illegal to be gay. It is now a crime that is punishable by imprisonment or death.
Living in the US this all looks very benign but from the outside looking in it doesn't look very good.
Uh.. yeah there are many predominately Muslim countries who have lots of non-Muslims living there. Why on earth would you think there wouldn't be? There are even thousands of Jews that live in Iran.
1
-
***** So you're comment proves two things.
1. Christians, like all religious people, can use religion to discriminate as well as help. Such as Christians who used the bible to pretend that black people had the "mark of cain" and since there were slaves in the bible then owning slaves are okay. Versus the Christians who were abolitionists.
2. Location, socioeconomics, and education are more important than religion. So you can have a modern, educated, and rich country like the US rely more on democracy and openess. Whereas you can have the poorer and less educated countries in Africa rely more on superstition and fear.
I brought up Iran as an extreme example, but you must know that life in Iran was very different before the revolution in 1979 and the CIA's meddling in Iran's politics.... http://all-that-is-interesting.com/shah-iran
But obviously I could have brought up many other countries like Tunisia, Turkey, Indonesia, Morroco, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. There are many other predominantly Muslim countries in the world besides the ones that you hear about in the news every day that are in constant conflict.
Yeah all christian majority countries don't all have draconian laws because they are mostly all rich stable countries... duh...
When Ireland was in constant conflict you had extreme christian groups. So.... why would it be surprising to see extremist coming out of the countries in the middle-east that have been in constant war and conflict (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.)?
In the US after the civil war we had the KKK which was a christian group who killed thousands of blacks and jews. If you look at it as a socio-economic problem it makes sense. If you look at it as a defect with particular religion then suddenly you have to cherry pick and make logical leaps in order to preserve your bigotry of one religion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leopold Crayons She was head of the state department.... So who was she supposed to be getting approval from? Again, never said that she shouldn't have used the server. People also shouldn't write down their passwords, but they do. I'm just saying that there is absolutely no reason for her to be prosecuted let alone be in prison for it.
You've been brainwashed into believing that being less than careful with confidential information somehow warrants being put in prison. If that were a crime then half the people in government would be guilty. We've had people purposely leak classified information and not face any consequences. Yet somehow when it comes to Hillary she should be put in jail because some IT staff set up an insecure server.
Sorry, but the whole idea is absurd. Can you name anyone who was ever put in jail for such a thing in the US? Of course you can't,
I see how lazy your thinking is. You resort to mindless insults to cover your tracks.
No I've been a Bernie Sanders supporter for YEARS long before people even knew who the fuck the guy was. I've given well over a thousand to Sander's campaign. Ron Paul was the first candidate I ever gave money to, mainly because I wanted someone more principled with an anti-war stance on the Republican side.
So I've never cared about parties, only policies.
So many people jumped on Bernie's bandwagon because he has had superior judgement for DECADES, yet as soon as he says that the best way forward is to support Clinton then everyone says "fuck your judgement". People are so caught up with mindless hysteria over fake scandals and focusing on the 2 or 3 things that she's different from Bernie on. That they completely ignore dozens of other policies.
I was against the Iraq war when most of this country was for it. I was for Sanders and single payer, drug legalization, campaign finance reform, free college, etc. before most even heard of those issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
diapersFTMFW11 Trump wasn't winning from the start. When he started he begged just like everyone else to get rich donors to fund his campaign. The problem is that they said "no" because they were already backing people like Jeb Bush, Rubio, Walker, etc.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/trump-wooed-GOP-mega-donors.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/donald-trump-sheldon-adelson-paul-singer-koch-brothers-215540
Again, loaning yourself money with the idea that you can pay back that money from your campaign (donations) later isn't "self funding". If he was really self funding he would just pay for it, not give himself loans. Do you seriously think someone would incur interest and fees on a loan if they were planning on paying themselves back with their own money? Of course not.
Trump is corrupt because he's running for president for his own ego. He openly lies, changes position, engages in ad hominems, racism, and xenophobia to reach that end. He makes money off his name and there's no better name recognition than running for president or even being president. The reason why he's using loans instead of his own money is because he looks at it like a money making venture. Trump has spent years influencing politicians to gain more influence and money. During all that time he has never given a shit about politics, war, or anyone else in all that time. He has barely given any of his money to charity. And what he calls "charity" are favors he's done to get more influence over politicians. Yet magically he found religion in 2015? lol... It's a show, nothing more. If he actually cared about money in politics HE WOULD BE OPENLY SUPPORTING LEGISLATION AND THE AMENDMENT TO GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. But he doesn't, he just makes a show out of it to get himself attention while not proposing a thing to actually change the system. Meanwhile Bernie has been fighting against war, oppression, and for the middle class for his entire life. Comparing Trump to Bernie is like comparing a leech to a saint.
It should be obvious at this point that I support Bernie Sanders. He's the only one who has been railing against money in politics for decades and even drafted legislation to change the system. He's the only one who's honest because he's said the same thing today as he has for the past 30 years and doesn't change his positions conveniently (like pretty much all politicians) just to get elected or win a primary.
To your next question... No, I won't be supporting Hillary Clinton and I doubt that will change unless she can prove to me that she will propose real policies to change the system instead of just playing lip service by riding on Bernie's coattails....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Disentropic Sorry, not swallowing your bullshit here. Your comment was:
"So your reason for supporting Hillary is to fight election manipulation?"
Nothing in my original post had ANYTHING to do with Hillary Clinton or why anyone should or shouldn't vote for her. It's about as dumb as saying "So the reason for supporting Hillary is because you think Burger King has good cheeseburgers?" One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Pretending that my comment was related to something else when it clearly wasn't is what made you sound delusional. It's Alex Jones like bullshit conspiracy nonsense.
What I meant was that during the primary, there was clear bias in favor of Hillary from the DNC and various officials in New York. However I don't see that favoritism or election rigging in the general election.
Sorry, but misreading one part of your question and then clarifying my answer, is not same as "making shit up" like you did in your original reply.
"Conjecture, and I disagree. "
When you accuse someone of conjecture and then proceed with a long diatribe of your own conjecture, it makes your arguments less credible. Have you heard of the term "projection"? because this is a classic example. The paragraph you just wrote after that statement is full of opinion, unsubstantiated claims, and generalizations.
Kyle clearly has a chip on his shoulder from the primary against Hillary. He's been pushing the narrative that he's not going to "fall in line" and support the Democratic nominee. So he goes out of his way to pretend that he's fair and balanced when it comes corruption. If he ever says anything favorable about Hillary he says something bad about her so that he doesn't lose his street cred in the "hate Hillary crowd".
Anytime he talks about Trump's corruption he always has to bring up "scandals" with Hillary as if they are apples to apples. Some are, but most of them are not. However he rarely if ever brings up any Trump's corruption or shady deals when talking about Hillary scandals or leaks.
The rare occasion that he says something defending the baseless accusation against Hillary his dislikes go way up, because no one wants to hear that here. They all want to stay in their echo chamber.
The reality is there are far more horrendous stories of corruption shady dealings with Trump than there are with the "suggestions of corruption" around Clinton. However you wouldn't know it by watching this channel. He wants to call everything "even" and pretend that he's being even handed when he's not. Sure he'll say that he supports Hillary over Trump, but if you look at his videos and the content on either candidate he's obviously appealing to a certain crowd who wants to remain perpetually angry at Hillary after the primary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
War450 Wow you are seriously oblivious to facts aren't you?
1. What federal laws did Hillary break exactly? Trump's campaign has actually been caught several times soliciting foreign donations (UK, Germany, Russia, etc) to his campaign. Which is in fact against federal law. He is currently "getting away with it"
2. Trump has been caught in more lies than any politician in history. Every political fact checking site (politifact, factcheck,org, etc.) has come to the same conclusion. But clearly you don't care about facts, because you want to live in your delusion and irrational hatred over Hillary.
3. Who said anything about starting a war with Russia? Meanwhile you have Trump who wants to bring back torture, target civilians with drone strikes, thinks about using nuclear weapons, wants to deport millions of people, ban an entire religion from entering the country. Not to mention he suggested the same no-fly zone over Syria that Clinton did.
4. The Koch brothers simply said that they are less afraid of Hillary than Trump because trump doesn't care about defaulting on our debt which is a huge thing for the global fucking economy....
You seriously have no idea WTF you're talking about.
if you're going to base you ideas on a one sided argument and not even look into the history of fraud, abuse, and illegal activity from Trump then you really have no business voting. Especially when all you want to do is do a knee jerk reaction and vote "for the other guy" without doing a shred of actual research on them.
Trump Foundation is even currently under investigation and was fined by the IRS for paying off an Attorney General to not do an investigation into Trump University.
1
-
War450 Have no idea what "paycheck" you're referring to, but nothing surprises me from you guys that live in "conspiracy land"
1. Wrong. The FBI director made it clear that there was not enough evidence of wrong doing to bring a case.
2. Trump has lied about every position he has ever had, yet somehow you believe he's telling the truth now and Hillary isn't. Sorry but that is just as naive. Trump has absolutely no reason not to flip on TPP. He makes money from globalization and outsourcing. Not to mention deals with the Saudis, UAE, and Russian oligarchs, etc. He will do anything he can to open more business relationships with foreign companies. If it means pushing through the TPP he will certainly do that.
3. Trump also called for a no-fly zone in Syria genius. He also called for ground 30,000 troops. So I guess by your logic he also wants war with Russia too right?
4. He never used the words "default", but he pretended that one could renegotiate the national debt as if it's a real-estate deal. Which most countries would treat as a default. The very idea is enough to tank global markets and It's about the dumbest thing that you could say to threaten the entire US financial standing with the rest of the world.
5. No Trump is the worse candidate and the polls in the US, Mexico, and Europe show that. Sure I suppose everyone who disagrees with you is a "paid shill". That doesn't make you sound like a child or anything.
6. No the difference is that you've clearly spent a lot of time on the Hillary Hate blogs, but you haven't done dick to research Trump. You just think he's better because he's "the new guy" and he said a couple good zingers.
Never-mind all the shitty policy positions of Trump (fascism and discriminatory policies, wanting to prosecute journalists, creating a bigger torture program, targeting civilians with drone strikes, a tax plan that's a give away to the rich, prosecuting women for abortions, etc.) not to mention his shady past with corruption, buying off politicians, rape, sexual harassment, dealings with the mafia, fraud, etc.
You think Trump is the better candidate based on nothing more than ignorance.
I supported Bernie Sanders before most of the county knew who he was. I'm well aware of Hillary's faults. However compared to Trump she is a godsend.
1
-
War450 And Trump pays people to protest and he's also paid actors to show up at his rallies. Wow, are you really oblivious to this? Furthermore the Kremlin has paid online trolls to support Trump: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7
And we all know (or maybe you don't) that Trump's former campaign manager was in a big scandal because it came out that he used to do propaganda for the Russian government and was still on their payroll.
1. No, I listened to what the FBI director actually said. You listened to what you wanted to hear. When your argument is "read between the lines" then you have no argument.
2. You seriously have to be brain-dead to not know how how often Trump lies.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/
The guy is still a birther for Christ's sake. All you have to do is google "Trump Flip Flops" because honestly he has lied too many times and flipped on too many issues to list them here. If you think he is "consistent" then you are either brain-dead, brain washed, or you yourself are a paid shill.
3. He has in fact called for a no-fly zone in Syria. The same no-fly zone you accuse Hillary of "wanting to start a war with Russia".
You are being a complete hypocrite here.
4. He did imply we could "renegotiate our debt" which is what freaked people out all over the world. But hey I guess you don't care about a president that says things which ruin our standing with the rest of the world.
5. Uh no, polls have had Hillary consistently up for several months now. And internationally it's not even close.... Trump is a joke to the rest of the world, in every poll conducted outside the US he has record unfavorables compared to Hillary. We are a joke for even considering a guy like that for president, but somehow people like you get brainwashed by bullshit.
6. Again, Trump also supported the Iraq war initially. He supported the Lybia intervention. He wants to escalate the drone program and specifically target civilians
Somehow you think that just because he hasn't been in office his policy positions don't mean anything. It's rather frightening that you're willing to elect a guy who wants to escalate everything you don't like, just because he hasn't been in office.
Your whole irrational argument is based on "well I really don't think he will do those things"
You're jumping on a bandwagon without even paying attention to a person's platform or policy positions, just because he's the "new guy". Sorry but that is just dumb. You don't trade something bad for something worse.
I could understand supporting Jill Stein or Gary Johnson if you're truly anti-war or ant-aggression, but to blindly support a guy who says he wants to escalate everything you don't like (including torture), not to mention giving more leeway to the police to do unlawful searches, seizures, arrests, and shooting of unarmed suspects.
It means that you're a lemming who cares more about personality than policy and it's truly sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
zeroceiling From politifact:
---
"First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.
Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.
Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.
The bottom line: While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there’s simply no proof of any quid pro quo."
---
When you state positive things happening to people loosely related to the Clinton. it sounds like quid pro quo. However if you have ALL then a completely different picture is painted. The State department doesn't act unilaterally on hardly ANYTHING it does. It's always based on US policy along with working with many US agencies not to mention presidential approval.
There seems to be a disturbing trend on the left especially on Secular Talk to adopt the "Alex Jones" ideology of identifying everything as a conspiracy when it related to Hillary Clinton. I don't know why, but it's kind of crazy.
You guys seriously need to check yourselves on all the blind Hillary Hate and get back to facts and reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Boo Radley Money started out as a tool which then became an abstraction for accumulating power for banks and a few wealthy families. In a global sense money and trade benefited many western countries (Britain, France, the Netherlands, and by extension the United States) but it was all at the expense of the people of Asia, Africa, middle east, North/South America, Caribbean, etc. Many of the countries that came out of that mess are still dealing with massive amounts of poverty, war, and chaos. People of African and native American descent in the US are still dealing with massive poverty and inequality and corporations are still oppressing people for the same reasons all around the world. So I'm sure there are pockets of examples where people were brought out of poverty through the magic of markets, however in the grand scheme I see far more detriment than benefit.
Unless you give dictatorship powers to a single immortal individual with perfect morals and perfect insight to write perfect laws when needed then regulations will ALWAYS be nothing more than temporary patches. The incentives always lead towards corruption.... There hasn't been a single point in history where this hasn't been the case. Today money wields a lot more power than people and the financial sector is manipulating more money than the entire world's GDP. The only way to stop this is to take power away from money and bring that power to individuals and objective science.
1
-
1
-
Boo Radley Pretty much all governments are largely driven by "factions" in the form of political parties (republicans, democrats), ideologies (conservatives, liberals, libertarian), or social movements. All this does is foster tribalism where decisions are made based on a label, against a label or based on a familiar positive or negative emotion associated to something. This makes for an environment that is easily manipulated by those who are good at advertising and messaging.
However we already have a method for understanding our world and the systems within it. It's called the "scientific method". We can already decipher what variables lead to better outcomes for the health, happiness, and well being of people. There are hundreds of these studies published and reviewed every year. However none of this is part of our conversation on governing ourselves, managing our systems or sustaining our planet. We choose "gut feelings" and whatever our faction's dogma is over facts and reality. We're okay with science when it gives us a better smartphone, but we revert to guesswork when it comes things that can actually save lives.
Until people make this shift culturally, we will continue to have a needless amount of wars, mass incarcerations, violence, mental disease, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-"How can you possibly claim to represent your people if you're taking money from corporations who pay you to do the opposite."
Personally I would have no issues with someone who took money indirectly from corporations (which is how it happens unless you're talking about super PACs or 501c4s) if one of their prime objectives as president was campaign finance reform. Keep in mind there is also an argument for "universal disarmament" when it comes to running a campaign, when one candidate will end up with less resources for ads and organizing than the other. It may not matter as much for the presidency since there is so much free advertising from debates, press, etc. However it sure as hell matterswhen it comes to state and local races.
Keep in mind that you're running against Trump who's businesses get's billions from corporations.
-"I, personally, am perfectly fine accepting that some people think voting for Clinton was necessary and accepting that there is valid reasoning for not trusting her too. Maybe two different ideas can both be valid?"
The problem is that one idea objectively leads to Trump winning again when one party is in lockstep on racism, xenophobia, fascism, hatred against "socialism" while the other party is fractured.... If one side is bickering on which candidate is "pure enough" and then decides to take their toys and go home when election time, OF COURSE you're going to end up with Trump again.
-"Russia story is a complete digression from the anti-establishment people's movement"
No, it's only a digression if you make it out to be. If your mentality is that the Russia thing is nonsense simply because Clinton brought it up, then you're just not being rational. The establishment can be ruining our democracy and Russia (essentially the Russian Establishment/oligarchy) can be manipulating our elections to their benefit. Guess what? BOTH THINGS CAN BE TRUE! Ignoring a truth simply because it doesn't fit your narrative is not helping. At the very least one party/candidate was hacked while the other party was not, specifically to manipulate the election. That should concern ANYONE. Pretending as if hacked emails show up on your door step by magic with absolutely no agenda is dangerously naive.
Once again, bitching about the Deep State, Clinton, the Primaries, "the establishment", is not going to win dick in 2020. I'm more than willing to join a movement on single payer, money out of politics, free college, reducing the pentagon's budget, raising taxes on the Wall St speculation and the wealthy to pay for things in the US, etc. However if you expect me to join "sit around and bitch about the establishment 2020" then sorry I'm not on board.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
--"Most policies are based on values, not science and data."
Which is precisely the reason why those policies don't work. Which is why you have more teenage pregnancy in abstinence only areas or more crime in a country with that has more of a percentage of it's population in jail, or no change in in drug use despite a "war on drugs". Creating policy based on your gut simply creates bad policies.
--"It is impossible to quantify such things"
It's entirely possible to quantify outcomes. However if your focus is on an ideology, religion, or some other dogma rather than a poverty index, homelessness, economic mobility, or income per capita. Then obviously you would be looking for a feeling rather than a result.
--"While I fully believe that data and scientific approach is necessary, it is not the only information that should be utilized. The human element has to be taken into consideration."
The "human element" is simply deciding what is important in society. For example thinking tax breaks for wealthy people is more important than lifting people out of poverty or that war is more important than education, infrastructure, or health care. After that is decided, there is absolutely no reason that science/data shouldn't take over.
The only reason why science isn't a bigger part of policy making is because it's far easier for politicians to win elections based on feelings rather than facts. Then they can keep benefiting themselves and their donors by making sure that reality is kept fuzzy.
1
-
--" Policies like gay marriage, women's suffrage and anti-segregation laws? None of those were based on science."
Yes, my point exactly. People (white christian men) created policies based on their own prejudices and biases, so eventually those policies fell apart.
--"Unless you are basing the results off of a repeatable, observable, controllable process, you can't determine causality for the outcome"
You don't need controllable processes when you have enough data. Thousands of studies are based on statistical analysis where you simply control for extraneous variables to understand outcomes. This is the whole reason why "Climate Science" exists.... We know there is global warming not because we can somehow change the weather, the sun, or the planet's atmosphere and run experiments. We know that man generated CO2 effects the climate because we have enough data to control for many different variables and figure out what the outcome will be based on the existing data.
Same reason why the FBI knows that poverty and population density are the biggest factors to violence and crime which can be seen all over the world.
--"However, "how" is also just as important to us. We are not a civilization of "we don't care how it get done just so long as it's done" If that were so we would have nuked the Middle East by now."
Agreed. Though the constant fear that people have of drones flying over their heads, where children spend their lives being afraid to play outside when the skies are sunny and clear, is not much better.
--" I put the blame of that squarely on the people of this nation for choosing to not take an interest in how their country/state/cities are ran and by whom"
It's a little of both. There are certainly politicians, people in media, etc. who benefit greatly by keeping people ignorant to what is going on and purposely making it more difficult for people to vote. If voting was mandatory, a national holiday and if all states encouraged absentee ballots, then I think people would be much more interested and we would have better results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cave Johnson There are numerous studies proving that there is a disparity if you are non-white when it comes to marketing, hiring, promotions, perceptions of violence/age perception, prosecutions, sentencing, etc. It's fairly easy to search for these studies if you're truly interested.
Of course you don't feel privileged, that's the point.... It's just a term, no need to get bent out of shape over it. It doesn't mean that you're a bad guy, it doesn't mean you're racist or bigoted. It just means that in a western European based society you go through life completely unaware of the effect your race has on your life. Unlike someone who's Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, middle-eastern, etc. It's just an aspect of the society we've created. If you were in a different country like Japan or Singapore you might experience Asian-Privilege. Although some Asian countries are more favorable to Caucasians actually.
So it's a societal issue that we need to be aware of and mitigate. It's not a personal one. However understanding this dynamic instead of just pretending it doesn't exist would be helpful to you personally in being more well rounded in your thinking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TonyisGaming I knew what you were getting at. I just see that as the same mentality of thinking we can treat all life like machines.... Whenever we've tried to industrialize our food or create fake versions of food we've only succeeded in creating unhealthy products (trans fats, HFCS, soy, pesticides, aspartame, certain GMOs, and a slew of other things).
For me the best solutions lie in permaculture and other forms of sustainable ecosystems (aquaponics, etc.). People forget that plants just don't grow from nothing... They also need food and today that comes from a lot of fossil fuel based fertilizers.
Instead of having all of these mono-crops that rely primarily on fertilizers (fossil fuels), pesticides (also made from fossil fuels), and destroying our top soil we maintain self sustaining ecosystems. Where plants and animals live symbiotically like they are meant to in nature anyway. It might mean changing the types of meats that we eat, but you cannot talk about sustainability without animals.
We also let life/farms thrive in our cities and incorporated into our city planning (roofs, greenspace, etc) rather than keeping it as something separate that gets trucked or shipped in over vast distances wasting even more fossil fuels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joe Crockenberg I explained myself very clearly, but it's obvious that you're not being a rational actor here and that you care more about your cause than the environment.... Keep in mind that your original comment was on the environment
" Plants are much more nutrient dense. "
Actually that is not correct. When it comes to calories animals are far more dense than plants. When it comes to vitamins it all depends on the animal (and part of the animal) and plant you are comparing. Furthermore Insects are more nutrient dense than pretty much anything,
There are also vitamins we need that mainly come from animals, such as B12, CLA, creatine, carnosine, & DHA,
Again, this is basic "circle of life" stuff. If you think that all plants can survive by just eating themselves and growing from nothing then you have an incomplete picture of what an ecosystem looks like. Animals provide nutrients in the soil, they keep plants from overgrowth, they (chickens, ducks, etc) keep insects in check so pesticides become less necessary. You need to stop looking at life as a factory.
I suggest watching the BBC documentary A Farm for the future: https://vimeo.com/136857929
1
-
Joe Crockenberg Again, we also bred vegetables, grains, and fruits into existence. What's your point? All the plants you eat are also the result of genetic manipulation.
Again, my entire point is to get away from factory farms and monocrops.
Calories are food energy which is the bases for any metabolic activity in the body.
B12, CLA, and the other nutrients I mentioned are important. And come in higher concentrations in pasture raised animals.
Sigh... The reason you don't know these things is because you don't know about your food.
Did even you know that Ducks, Chickens, and other birds eat bugs? They pick the bugs off plants and keep certain populations in check. Their droppings also keep grasses and pastures fertilized.
.
Cows belong in pastures their primary diet is grass. NOT corn. They also eat various shrub and leaves. In other words they're designed to eat all the plants that WE DON'T EAT.... They are not designed to eat corn and all the other garbage we give them in feedlots.
Again, agriculture today is not sustainable..period . Do you not get that? It is not "green", it is only "greener" than animals because of our factory farming methods. However if you take away all the animals YOU STILL HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.... People like you don't seem to get that because you're so caught up in your ideology that you cannot see straight. The entire farming production cycle is completely dependent on oil from the fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, transportation, etc.
However If we move to sustainable farming methods like permaculture, aquaculture, and sustainable farming methods that uses the right symbiotic relationship between plants and animals as they have lived for BILLIONS of years then we can COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the carbon footprint of food production and rely on NO OIL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paul van de Loo Again, the reason people don't have as much buying power is that they aren't being compensated as much as they used to be.
http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/
Saying that the "GDP is inflated" without providing anything to prove it is just deflecting. It's a non-answer meant to ignore evidence and facts.
Even if were inflated, it's still far higher than it was in the 60s. We currently have a RECORD number of millionaires and billionaires in this country. Do you understand that? Wealth is being created it's just being concentrated to the upper 1% because of low upper income tax rates, low capital gains, and a lower minimum wage.
All of which have changed since the 60s. YES we need to work on our trade deals and bring back manufacturing, but we ALSO need to change our tax rates so that money doesn't pool at the very top which only serves to fund Wall St, Cayman Islands, and buy politicians. Instead we should be funding large infrastructure projects (transportation, roads, bridges, internet, modern power grids, education, etc.) which will stimulate the economy and put more money into communities.
We need to raise the minimum wage which will also stimulate the economy (create aggregate demand) and bring more money into poor communities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
daheat0627 Based on that logic there would be an epidemic of people breaking into homes and killing people in the UK, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Denmark, etc. But there isn't. You should rely on evidence not common sense.... "Common sense" is based on the propaganda, hearsay, and anecdotes that people are bombarded with every day from NRA lobbyists and their right wing media outlets. "Evidence" doesn't give a shit about agendas, ideology, political persuasion, or your personal opinion. It is data that is provable and repeatable.
In the age of the internet, there is no excuse for not being able to find statistics, studies, and other research that proves your ideas. The fact is, there is absolute no evidence that having more guns leads to less people shooting each other.... However that's essentially the flawed argument that people try to make. It's like saying more water around makes things dryer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PrussianEngineer Oh I see, so all other races are "conquered" in your mind so therefore they should all live where today's white people want them to live? I suppose we should reinstitute slavery as well right? You seem to be deluding yourself onto thinking that your skin color gives you some kind of divine right to rule over other races and grant you certain privileges. Such as if your ancestor owned slaves or conquered other minorities on the past then therefore you should be able to do the same today, right?
There are millions of descendants of Genghis Khan scattered around the world. I suppose using your ludicrous logic they should get together and lay claim to all of Asia right?
Sorry, but that's not how things work... I find it really sad that the idea that you share some irrelevant genetic markers with some humans that "conquered" other humans in the past somehow makes you feel good about yourself... As if somehow that achievement is genetically passed on to you. To define yourself that way is sure indicator of having low self esteem.
Again, these migrations were opened everywhere based on the trade, imperialism, and colonialism of the past. Humans have always migrated, our species originated in Africa and spread throughout the globe. Trying to equate this natural migration to the mass killings of the past (holocaust, Rwanda, darfur, slave trade, etc.) so you can try to feel like a victim is utterly pathetic....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JFB1111 1. A US based network is obviously going to focus on issues more relevant to the US..
2. Again, a US based network is obviously going to focus on issue more relevant to the US. Not sure why you think it should be different. If we were to take global threats which kill more people each year we would be talking about things like droughts, malaria, potable water, and healthcare. Yet somehow you think coverage should only be skewed one specific way, targeting one group of people. Why is that?
3. Whether the word "Islamaphobia" is made up or not is completely irrelevant.... Humans make up lots of words each year. The problem on the other hand IS real. You may not give a shit about it or the people effected by it, because it doesn't effect YOU, but it is a real problem for millions of people in this country. The irrational position is wanting to constantly talk about Muslim terrorism when it doesn't effect you at all.
4. Yes visited. And buy your grossly misinformed responses it's pretty clear you don't know much about any Muslim countries... Yes some muslims are fleeing a couple war torn countries, but understand there are MANY predominantly Muslim countries in the world that we don't talk about. However your perception is completely skewed based on what you see in the news. This is causing a lot of ignorance, bigotry, and violence in this country.
You pretend as if there haven't been Muslims for 1500 years.... Do you honestly think that there has been constant terrorism all this time? We get things like Algebra and many other inventions from Islamic culture. What's going on now in some countries is based on the region not the religion. Don't know why that is so hard to understand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HyperOpinionated
1. Grants don't have anything to do with capitalism either. Which was my point.
My point isn't about soclialsm my point is that innovation comes from people. Making a buck or owning the means of production has little to do with it. Most people doing real hard research in the sciences which may eventually get monetized "some day" are not doing it to run a business. They are doing it out of curiosity, creativity, and personal achievement.
2. If the US didn't have a stable government, currency, and regulatory environment, patents, grants, and subsidies, public education, roads, bridges, court systems, police, Treasury, US postal service, etc. etc. It would also have next to no innovation as well.
Capitalism doesn't come from nothing, it is created by laws and enforced by governments as well as treaties between governments..
3. Sometimes they do use the private citizens and sometimes they don't NASA and the "space age" and the thousands of patents that came out of that would never have happened The Military also had a huge impact on technology. Without these purely non capitalistic investments you could say good by to your computer, internet, cellphone, GPS, microwave, duct tape, medical isotopes, and thousands of other things.
1
-
HyperOpinionated 1. Sorry but "self interest" existed long before capitalism which is a very specific economic system.
However people try to conflate capitalism with every single thing out there. Which is really part of the propaganda that you repeated in your first statement. The suggestion that everything good came out of capitalism.
Grants are given to individuals and all sorts of, private and public institutions. It is not based on capitalism but rather public interest.
Again. Wozniak and Jobs did not invent the computer or the PC.... It was invented long before them. So was satellite communication, internet, etc. We've already covered this yet you keep repeating the same falsehoods.
The idea that you think these things came from Apple just because of the branding and advertising is a reflection of the sad state of brainwashing in our country...
R&D magazine suggests that 90% of the innovations in the last 40 years are all the result of federal funding. Of course you wouldn't know that because the government doesn't advertise and the people who actually invented these things, rather than merely profiting from them, are unknown.
2. Again capitalism is a system setup by governments. You have it backwards... You cannot have capitalism the way we know it today without currency, a treasury, and federal backed banking. Not to mention all companies (LLC, Corporations, etc.) are entities created and regulated by the government. Without which they would not exist. Just like you can't have football without rules, a ball, and a stadium. The government provides all the infrastructure needed for these games (markets) to be played.
Before there was a US government there were the colonial governments and the British Empire that served the same purpose.
3. There is also nothing done in the US that isn't done without relying on socialization.
1
-
HyperOpinionated 1. Capitalism doesn't exist without the laws, currencies, and regulations that government provides period.
Without government(s) there is only barter and simplistic exchanges. I dare you to find any evidence to the contrary.
2. Capitalism is good at distributing certain kinds of resources and products as well as making refinements to various technologies, but it is horrible on the environment, managing resources, or stabilizing economies, taking care of the sick, disabled. It also promotes mental illness, corruption, inequality, and violence.
However for large endeavors and large leaps in technology ( trains, roads, air travel, space travel, computers, communication, energy, etc.). These require large investments that doesn't immediately yield profit.
3. I could make up some wild improbable thing that you think capitalism does, but it would be just as silly and nonsensical.
4. If governments are not necessary for capitalism show me one instance where it is functioning without government backing. For something that has been around for over 500 years surely you must have many such examples....
It is simply the brainwashing I was referring to that leads you to think the two are not related. The reality is the capitalism and government are directly related like Siamese twins. One cannot grow without the other.
1
-
HyperOpinionated You know.... When you proceed to regurgitate the typical libertarian mantra while completely ignoring the facts I laid out as well as the clear questions I just asked then you're only reinforcing my point that this is more about brainwashing, dogma, and blind ideology.
1. You still haven't demonstrated a single case that proves your point. Where is this capitalism without government? Reciting mantra only proves that you know how to repeat stuff...
2. Humans being social creatures and living in groups has always been the core part of our survival. It's the whole reason why we developed language, live in tribes, and created societies. For hundreds of thousands of years we hunted in groups, gathered food in groups, and built each other's shelters as a group.
There are dozens of a examples of tribal cultures all around the world still living in this same way today.
There is no "natural state" of constantly competing other than for leadership or women.
3. There are at least a dozen countries that are far more socialist than the US. (Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Canada, etc.) not one is in an active war or constantly bombing other countries...
In fact our police kill 70 times the number of other first world countries. We're also at the top of the list for imprisoning far more of our population than other first world countries.
So please wake up and bring facts not your brainwashing about how socialism = totalitarianism.
It's like you would rather go through life in a dream like state believing the propaganda sold to you by think tanks without ever looking into whether it is true or not...
1
-
HyperOpinionated You 'd like to think you are an independent thinker, but it's clear you are not. Have you ever actually looked at the data on taxes as a percentage of GDP, socialist policies and authoritarianism, violence, health, and war?
Or do you just blindly make assumptions? People who are scientifically minded actually care about the numbers. Unlike you, I've actually looked at the data, because I rely on facts not propaganda.
The other problem is that you think that the economic system and the governing system are somehow unrelated when in reality one effects the other. If you can corrupt the system with money then that system isn't effective. This is no different than a Banana Republic. So this is why studies show when their is less economic equality in society then there is more violence, authoritarianism, etc.
If you believe that all government is evil and the existence of government itself is the problem, then explain how countries with far more government (as a percentage of GDP) and much more socialism (banking, healthcare, etc.) imprison less people, don't engage in war, lead happier lives, have better health coverage, and even have more buying power than we do?
I'll ask you for the third and final time. Where is a SINGLE example of capitalism without government functioning anywhere in the world and at any point in history?
The fact that you can't even answer a simple question. Basically implies that you really don't care about anything other than having an ideology.
1
-
HyperOpinionated Instead of presenting any facts or evidence you simply come up with one straw man after another. No I never brought up utopia, never said happiness is quantifiable (although there is something called "polling"), never said good and evil are quantifiable.
Since you can't support your arguments or answer my questions you just start making up what I think so you can argue against it. This is stereotypical of someone with weak arguments.
It's also clear from your phrase "leftist professors" where your particular brand of brainwashing comes from.... The idea that being educated somehow makes someone "left" is pretty sad. It shows just how bad the propaganda is.
Secondly, you really don't understand what Capitalism is... Trade existed long before Capitalism. They are not one in the same. It's like the difference between a car and a transmission or engine.
Capitalism is primarily identified by the private ownership of the means of production. Which means that people who own companies with laborers, own stock/commodities, venture capitalists or vulture capitalists (where they own companies long enough to downsize and profit) are "capitalists". So people like Warren Buffet, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Koch Bothers, George Soros, and most people in any high level position in the financial industry. It doesn't require skill to produce or make anything it requires skill to own and manipulate debt/money.
Trading your labor or selling your car is not capitalism it is trade. The fact that I have my own company to sell my labor doesn't make me a "capitalist".
http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-capitalism-and-free-market/
This is why people classify the former Soviet Union as "state capitalism"
It is the propaganda coming out of well funded think tanks is what makes you think capitalism is somehow different than it 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GiantSandles I didn't say she shouldn't be accountable for her vote. I'm just putting it into perspective. She was following the will of the people. Some would call that democracy. She also went to the left in response to the popular support of Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders stood up against the Iraq Resolution, even though most of the country was against that idea. Some would call that leadership. Now that same leadership, that same insight and judgment that was proven to be correct is telling people like you to support Hillary Clinton. However when it's someone you don't like you don't believe it.
I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt, and the more I thought about it and weighed the issues. The more began to see this perspective. I can see Hillary as someone who is pretty smart, works hard, has great temperament, does well under pressure, knows how to wield power and doesn't buckle to the republicans, and if you go down the issues she really isn't bad. Not as great as Bernie, but not bad.
However if all you are is triggered by emails and Clinton Foundation innuendos, then you're not going to see straight.
1
-
GiantSandles No, there was absolutely no guarantee that there would be tens of thousands of deaths and destabilize the region. Again, for you people that don't know jack about the situation back then. Many people voted for the Iraq Resolution in order to create leverage against Saddam so that he would go ahead with the inspections (although the administration lied about this as well and the UN inspectors were already on the ground).
The vote WAS NOT a vote to go to war (only an authorization for the Bush administration to use force), it was not a vote on how that war was waged, it was not a vote for torture, abu ghraib, gitmo, targeting thousands of civilians, having ZERO plan for the Iraq aftermath, disbanding the Iraqi army, allowing an illegitimate leaders to seize power, and battling an insurgency for years. None of that was part of the original vote, yet somehow people think that it was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Gun control, healthcare, environment/climate change, LGBT rights, taxes, infrastructure, education, prison reform (getting rid of private prisons, ending the school to prison pipeline), immigration. There are literally dozens of issues, issues which directly impact people but it seems that all people care about are TPP and emails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-" it doesn't "magically result in rich people investing into that country" but poor people don't invest at all. "
Exactly, which is why you implement policies (safety nets, education, healthcare, wages) so that poor move into middle class and you have a much larger pool contributing to the overall economy.
--"Also as is evident from every socialist country now in operation that Sanders type policies aren't "middle out" they are bottom up."
Examples please? Because all the countries that Bernie Sanders talks about (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc.) are doing quite well economically.
--" Having a $15 min wage but charging even them 60% taxes"
It all depends on your buying power and what you're getting back in taxes.
If you're getting a $10 wage and paying 20% in taxes but paying 50% of your wages for healthcare and school debt then you're in a much worse situation. Look at the bigger picture.
--" Indegogo campaigns are nice and all but account for such a tiny portion of total investments thats laughable"
TYT has literally raised millions online in various campaigns. Not to mention their memberships. So I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one who took a single factoid and assumed that was how TYT was funded.
"NOT A SINGLE leader or inhabitant of a 3rd world country makes the top 20 richest people in the world"
And? You basically just made my point for me. lol... Those 3rd world countries all have super low taxes, low investment in their infrastructure, unstable currencies, little regulation, etc. In other words without taxes and investment in the people and infrastructure you can only grow the economy so much....
There is a reason why taxes increased in the US along with the economy. We invested in railroads, public schools, libraries, federal highway system, works program, healthcare and retirement for the elderly (which lifted a huge burden from families), even NASA was an investment that contributed to a lot to the technology that we have today (GPS, cellphones, computers, etc.). As well as countless other things. All of these things gave more equality of opportunity to millions of people.
No progressives are educated and informed. You guys are just brainwashed by a lot of propaganda so you believe that the world still reflects the cold war from 30 years ago . Meanwhile most of the world has moved on to policies that actually work, not some bullshit ideology.
You really need to stop believing that the world is as simplistic as "Communists vs Capitalism" that notion is complete bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1st off lets acknowledge that Venezuela is nowhere near #1 in equality like you claimed. Secondly Iran is 2% higher than the US not 12%. Third comparing countries that have similar style governments, economies, and modernization is of course going to be more beneficial than comparing those that are completely different. Which is why we focus on those countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Iceland, etc. Fourth the measurement of income equality doesn't account for the economic polices of those countries., it is simply a measurement. Lastly this whole idea that somehow things can't be done in this county simply because we have a lot of people is nothing but pure bullshit.... The fact is we already have federal roads, bridges, public school system, minimum wage, medicare, social security, police, firemen, and post offices all over this country delivering mail day after day for over TWO HUNDRED FREAKING YEARS... Not to mention railroads, oil & gas subsidies, land grant programs, GI bill, and hundreds of other programs that at the time benefited and greatly expanded this country.
1
-
1
-
So equality was better before the economy tanked. Sounds about right. There are not many countries are same size of the US so your argument is moot. You might as well say that countries with colder climates have higher HDI, because it would be the same irrelevant correlation. However what you're NOT saying is whether we have implemented the same policies for healthcare (Which is the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US), Education (students are 1.3 trillion in debt ), and Wages (wages have flat-lined despite productivity going up) as those other countries and what kind of impact that has on.
Guess what? There is waste EVERYWHERE.... I hate to burst your bubble, but you have the same waste in the private sector. A couple years ago I worked for a large corporation where my bosses were willing to waste 1.5 million a year on a product providing a service that we could have done in house for a fraction of the cost. The reason? Politics, nothing more. This happens in big corporations everywhere. Guess where all that waste in the government is going to? IT'S GOING TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR! LOL.... It's going to companies like Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, and hundreds of other PRIVATE companies who pay off politicians to get private contracts and charge enormous fees. That's why campaign finance reform is so important, because without democratic representation, these corporations, these oligarchs, will continue use the government to screw over people like you. That's why they don't want single payer healthcare or free college education because many large corporations will stand to lose millions if not billions of dollars on the private sector "waste" that they profit from today.
We've spent 40 years practicing Reaganomics (in one form or another), it's about time we stop this trickle down nonsense. It doesn't work it never has. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and we ended up trillions in debt and a huge deficit. Trump wants to do it again. They tried it with that health care bill, and now they're trying it again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheGamingg33k I'm well aware of Clinton's downsides. She's centrist and to close to the establishment and Wall St. Got it. It's been beaten into our heads for months now. However unlike Trump she knows WTF she's doing and she has real actionable policy ideas when it comes to Taxation, Education, Environment, Gun Control, Private Prisons, Healthcare, Infrastructure, Foreign Policy, etc. As opposed to just "winging it" and not studying a damn thing like Trump.
I will take "3rd term Obama" over mindless bravado, fascism, and racist policies any day.
1
-
Simon Jonathon Well the fact is the platform that she's running on is miles more progressive than the platform that Trump is running on. A platform that Bernie helped put together. I care more about specific policies than cult of personality.
I refuse to vote for the huge tax cuts for the rich, national police stop and frisk, laws banning people of a certain religion, exiting out of our current environmental agreements such as the Paris (because apparently climate change is a "hoax"), ignoring and stop funding clean energy efforts, making abortion criminal, abolishing the affordable health care act, rounding up millions of immigrants during the first days of his office, and wanting to wage a drone strike program which purposely targets the families of terrorists.
Because those are EXACTLY all the things that Trump is running on and he has the support of all the nationalists, white supremacists, and antisemitic groups in this country.
Hillary may not be likable, she may be part of the establishment but there is a difference between that and what this country will turn into if Trump is elected.
The reality is YOU don't know what you're talking about because you're not seeing this shit here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm a black man and even though I spent most of my childhood in the suburbs I remember being ridiculed for being black, older kids grabbing me by the collar and picking me up shaking me saying "I hate black people" when I was like 7 or 8. At that time I I also met a girl I liked who became my best friend only to lose her suddenly because her parents were bigots and didn't want her playing with or even talking to me anymore. I remember growing up in highschool and both of my closest friend's parents were basically half bigots. They were "okay" with black people but weren't thrilled that their children was hanging out with one. My best friend's mother was always antagonistic towards me and sometimes would even hang up the phone when I called. I met another girl I really liked, but her mother was bigoted and even called the police on me and my friends when we came by. I don't cry ever, but I remember breaking out into tears that night sitting in the police station explaining that we were just there to visit a friend. Spending years being suspected of being a thief every time you walk into a store wasn't really a big deal. The thing that hurt the most was how bigotry sabotaged my close friendships and relationships. Since then my best friend's mother has seen that I've been the most stable and financially secure friend that her son has ever had. So now she thinks I'm the greatest, but I can easily see how people can grow up hurt jaded and with PTSD from experiencing that at a young age. I've had many black friends who have turned out fine like me (arguably, since I still have issues with close relationships), but I've seen many end up broken and suspicious of everyone. It's especially bad in the workplace, black people have seen other's getting promoted, praised, and highlighted for doing less work. So they're always suspicious of racial bias and many times they don't try as hard because they think "what's the point?". It's kind of like the old experiment with the dogs that were get electrocuted over and over, eventually they just give up and except the pain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're Fired ! This is your train of thought, not mine.... I simply said that libertarianism, "austrian economics", "small government", are nothing but bullshit concepts. However if you want specifics I admire Iceland for prosecuting and jailing it's bankers which effected the economy with their shady practices, I admire Iceland, Norway, Germany, Denmark, etc. for their commitment to be on 100% renewable energy With some already close to meeting that goal. I admire all other democracies in the world except for ours for having a healthcare system that doesn't just work well if you're rich or leave families bankrupt.
No..... I said comparing the economic policy of a country that's nothing more than a large financial district and trading port is as silly as comparing New York to the rest of the country. Not every state can be an international banking center, stock exchange, and trading port. So believing that it is some kind of model for the rest of the world is pretty nonsensical. Making money from the money, products, and labors that come in and out from other countries is not a model that every country can follow.
A progressive tax code exists for a reason, every country in the world isn't somehow stupid. It is completely dumb to think that a flat tax is anything more than a tax hike on the poor and a tax cut on the rich.
A sales tax hike is also a huge tax on the poor. Poor people spend most of their income buying products and services to survive. Rich people don't, they horde it or use it for gambling (speculation, etc.). Raising sales taxes is the surest way to make poor people poorer and kill businesses in poor communities.
--"get rid of a lot of the regulations and rules that makes it harder for people to start businesses."
Which regulations and rules exactly? A lot of people talk about regulations and don't know WTF they're talking about because they've never actually started a business. Are you talking about medical incenses? Food safety? Which regulations exactly are you willing to get rid of so that someone else can make a buck?
Sigh... Social Security has kept millions of people out of poverty Genius,... It dropped the poverty rate among seniors from 35% to %10. Not only that but it allowed the middle class to flourish because people weren't having to spend all of their money just taking care of their aging parents. Furthermore it is not just for the elderly it's also for the disabled. Do you realize that geniuses like Stephan Hawking wouldn't even be around today if he weren't for safety nets?
Like I said. All you know is "Waaaah!!! I don't want to be forced to pay for stuff!". Without having a single clue why these things are in place or how many lives they have saved and how this country (and many others) have benefited because of them.
A child growing up poor, sick, and uneducated hurts society (violence, crime, lack of innovation & economy activity) whereas a child growing up fed, healthy, and educated is a benefit to society. You foolishly think that by "taking away stuff" or removing support mechanisms that you're somehow "teaching people a lesson" and that everyone will just magically straighten if you pretend that people are children who just needs tough love.
In reality there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to support that....
Third world countries remain third world countries despite no regulations, low taxes, and no public infrastructure. You're not teaching anyone a lesson by letting millions die, or leaving millions in poverty, or leaving millions uneducated. You're only hurting yourself by making the country worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump also called for "safe zones" in Syria which is effectively the same thing. You cannot enforce any kind of protected zone in the middle of a war without the military, period. As far as overthrowing Assad, some of Trump's surrogates have said that needs to happen, others have not. Trump himself has been on every side of the issue when it came to overthrowing Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. So I don't see how you can trust what he wants to do one way or another. Like I said military spending and bombings have increased under Trump and he has bombed the Syrian government at least twice already.
--"And when you say you want an investigation into Trump/Russia "collusion, what does that even mean?"
If you don't know what that means then you really haven't been paying attention. No it doesn't mean that the Trump campaign somehow said "hack them for me". It means that they made a deal to guarantee certain policies favorable to Russia in exchange for a financial deal or relief of debt that he owes. Russia We already know that the Trump campaign changed the GOP platform to include policies more favorable towards Russia and lifting the sanctions for absolutely no reason. It wasn't anything that anyone was running on. So it came out of the blue. We also know that Trump appointed the CEO of Exxon mobile out of nowhere as secretary of state, a guy with absolutely no experience with that job, However he just so happen to run the same company who is advocating for those sanctions to be lifted which would be a 500 billion dollar boon to Russia. Of course Trump didn't lift those sanctions yet, however that was after the Russia allegations were flooding the media. However it was clear what the intentions were by changing the GOP platform and appointing someone like Rex Tllerson. We also know that his previous campaign manager was actively getting millions from Russia and then we learn that Russian officials bragged that they could use Micheal Flynn to influence Trump. Meanwhile we have Trump is obstructing justice telling Comey not to investigate Flynn even after he had already fired Flynn, why? Then later Trump fires Comey for investigating him. Now I don't know how far it goes or even if Trump is actually involved (perhaps he was just being used) but I damn sure want to find out, don't you?
Keep i mind that this wouldn't be the first time a Republican president colluded with our adversaries during a campaign, both Nixon and Reagan did this. Nixon with the Viet Cong and Reagan with Iran.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Smith That's sort of my point. There is a reason why pure sugar, pure salt, and even pure water is bad for humans to consume. And it took a long while for us to realize this. So when you start adding and removing traits that have naturally occurred for thousands of years you don't know what the long term implications will be on the growth of that organism and how it effects the nutritional profile or the effects of it on other organisms consuming it. We are just now starting to understand the symbiotic relationships between plants (like corn) and other species of fungus and microbes in the soil. Organisms that GMO corn completely kill off which changes forever how that corn used to develop.
We have changed dramatically the food that we eat in this country. An animal grown in a factory farm does not have the same nutritional profile as one grown on a pasture or in the wild. And it's the same for a lot of GMO foods that are built to produce insecticides or withstand weed killers. Do you think there would be a long term difference in something like wheat or corn (which is used in MANY products) that produces far less magnesium, calcium, zinc, or iron than normal?
These things matter a lot more than we think they do and throwing off the balance in our bodies between vitamins, fungus, bacteria, & parasites is really no different than doing so in the environment.
The more we think of plants and animals as simple machines that we can just replace parts without consequence instead of living things that are shaped by evolution then the worse off we will be....
If someone was in charge of "growing humans". They probably wouldn't think of things like love, socialization, exercise and a hundred other things that are essential to health.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
German Carranza Again, the US is not a homogeneous ethnicity. African American is an ethnic group in the US just like Latino. I don't get why that is difficult for you to understand. Black people have had music, art, language/slang, fashion, cuisine, comedy, that has been distinct from white culture and much of it was derived from African culture. Furthermore of course she wasn't embarrassed to say "american", because "american" is part of "african american"...... She was simply being accurate. BTW since you want to be specific "American" is not even the correct term.... In case you didn't realize there is a North, Central, and South America. In fact people in South American countries get a bit upset by that sometimes. It's just that "America" and "American" have become shorthand for "United States" and a "United States Citizen". Not much different than how "African American" has become a short hand for "US citizen of African decent".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Beeftender Again, Trump has gone on record wanting to expand the drone program and explicitly target civilians. How could you now see that as worse?
Trump was also on record arguing for regime change in Lybia in 2011. So we really don't know his stance on regime change is. However I do know that bombing civilians, torture (even if it doesn't work according to Trump), blindly supporting the settlements in Israel (saying they should build more), and declaring all Muslims bad will lead to more conflict, more war not less. Not to mention the racial conflict in our own country. Violence has already escalated because of Trump.
Clinton is not that much different than Obama on foreign policy. Yes we don't like the existing drone strikes and playing fast and loose with the idea of regime change, but at least she can be moved left as she has already moved left because of the debates with Sanders. At least she UNDERSTANDS foreign policy and is not going to accidentally start a war or completely piss off other leaders, or strain the ties with our existing allies.
Trump, like George Bush, will blunder his way through foreign policy.... He is a loose cannon who has absolutely no clue what our allies are doing for us or what our enemies are doing against us. He has already managed to piss off Mexico, UK, Scotland, China, France, etc. Many leaders around the world have come out saying that he's a joke and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Most of the world leaders have ZERO respect for Trump. He says things like maybe Japan should get Nukes. The UK parliament has voted to ban the guy from the country. There are protests in Mexico every week against him. Electing a guy who is already hated around the world is not a smart thing to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Beeftender Just because every leader doesn't represent their people on every single issue doesn't mean that democratically elected leaders don't represent their people at all. Those leaders are our trade partners, can help us against terrorism, or go to war against us. Pretending as if they are somehow irrelevant is extremely dumb.
It literally takes two seconds to search on Google where Trump said that he would expand the drone program and target the families of terrorists. The fact is there is only one candidate in the current race who has claimed that they would expand the current drone program and that is Donald Trump.
If you're using words like "evil" then you're clearly not being rational....
Again, I never said that both candidates weren't bad... It is just really clear that Trump is far worse. Like I said, he wants to expand the drone program, target families, bring back torture (whether it works or not as he claims), he is spreading xenophobia and nationalism everywhere, send ground troops to Syria, played around the idea of using a nuclear weapon in the middle east, most world leaders already do not want to work with the guy, and even the people of those countries hate the guy.
Again, your hatred of Clinton is blinding you to a much bigger monster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
777SilverPhoenix777
Look... People DID leave because it was getting bad. Which is why when the snow started at 12 "rush hour" started at 1:00... However by then it was too late. And as people were sitting in traffic the highways started completely freezing over.
People were stuck behind major hills, ramps, etc. that were completely coated with ice, not "snow", but ICE. Being on an incline that is iced over is a dangerous situation no matter where you are.
No amount of "pumping your breaks" is going to help that situation. And YES car dealers don't somehow stop selling anti-lock brakes at the border, they are the norm here....
It's really easy to sit back and blame people you've never met on what they "coulda shoulda" did when you're in a completely different situation... Especially based on little more than pictures that don't tell you the entire story. To this day you can find cars abandoned on the roads and highways because people had to walk for miles to get home or to the nearest shelter, because the ice made certain areas impassible by a car without chains and the traffic was so backed up it took some people 10, 12, 16 hours to get home.
What should have taken place is that the city should have started treating the roads before it hit. At least those with inclines (Atlanta is hilly), but they didn't expected ice to form so quickly... Like I said this isn't the first time it's snowed here, but it's never been like this.
The only thing you are right about is that with climate change these unusual situations will be far more common so people will have to start preparing for the worse... But that doesn't just apply here that applies everywhere. Floods, Tornadoes, hurricanes, can all happen in unexpected places.
Meanwhile today is sunny and 50 degrees...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Watson Lubin What about him? Bernie Sanders is pretty much the only honest politician in the race. One of the only honest politicians in the country actually. People have a knee jerk reaction to his policies because they have been brainwashed by decades of the Cold War and most don't know the difference between places like Denmark and Finland vs the former Soviet Union because they have been brainwashed for years by republican politicians "running against" something and making shit up. Meanwhile many western democracies in Europe and outside of Europe (Germany, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Japan Australia, etc.etc.) who don't have this baggage or brainwashing have implemented these policies which have been working great for decades. Anyone spending two seconds researching the outcomes in these countries when it comes to healthcare, education, wealth per capita, innovation, social mobility, etc. would understand this as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Racists, religious bigots, and xenophobes, are flooding these comments lately. Look we know the economy isn't great, we know where the animosity towards immigrants comes from. However Vice is just reporting what the reality is here. It's great that YOU were born in a stable, rich, industrialize county, lucky you. However not everyone was that lucky and for those millions this is their reality. If you can't take that, and you have to find excuses to hate them, demonize them, and think they deserve to die just because they're looking for a better life for themselves and their families back home then I'm sorry you are a piece of shit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Afanasi Bushmanov There is no one cause..... That's like asking "what is the cause of physical illness?". Could be psychological, social, physical trauma to the brain, heavy metals, infections, poor nutrition, or drugs. Or it may not even be an illness at all such as in many cases of ADHD where it's about understanding that different people learn differently and they always have. There have been studies that show that schizophrenic patients who were not on drugs had fewer psychotic episodes than those who were for long periods of time. Not to mention studies that show that therapy has just as good of results compared to treating depression with drugs and with more long term changes.
Nuerotransmitters are physical things that the brain changes and rewires over time, changing or interfering with a chemical signal sent or received by a Nuerotransmitter with a drug is not the same as changing the pathway.
Again, there is no such thing as a "chemical imbalance". It's a phrase meant to make people think "the brain is made up of A, B, & C chemicals and if they are out of balance and I have less B chemical then all I need to do is add more B chemical and everything will be fine! yeah!" It's an absolutely ridiculous notion meant to sell drugs.
The APA came out with a story a few years ago that explained that more often than not "Americans are taking medications that may not work or may be inappropriate for their mental health problems."
In many cases we are giving these drugs to children as young as five with little regard to the long term effects these drugs will have on the long term development of that child.
My point is that drugs are the lazy way of treating a mental illness, they are a quick way for doctors and pharmaceutical companies to make lots of money over a long period of time. Sure there are many cases where drugs are needed, but in general they are being over-prescribed and causing more issues than they are solving.
Therapy and nutrition should be the first go to methods for treating mental illness not drugs. Unfortunately we live in a society where the patients are begging for drugs before the doctor can even diagnose them.
http://davidhealy.org/psychiatry-gone-astray/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Shannon Cassel .... I can respect people, but I can't respect what they believe. If your answer is to "have faith" then all you're saying is that belief is worth more than outcomes. That if I put on a robe, recite some text, and visit a holy place then die because of something that happens when you put millions of people in one place then I'll go to a "magic place", but if I die slipping on a banana then I don't. It's absurd.
That's not to say that there aren't things beyond our understanding and our consciousness. There are many things beyond our knowledge, beyond our perception, and way beyond what we can begin to understanding. However to admit this is also admitting that human morality has absolutely nothing to do with it. That if something as simple as 700 people dying in a stampede is beyond our understanding then our concept of morality, scriptures, rituals, special robes and clothing would also be utterly meaningless to something of a completely different consciousness.
Having faith is nothing more than fulfilling a human need to believe in something. My biggest problem with believers in Abrahamic religions is that they resolve themselves to thinking that all spiritual insight and knowledge ended 2000 years ago. It's like someone growing up and still using crayons and play doh to communicate and share ideas. It's a spiritual ignorance that leads to repeating silly rituals, believing in special places, hating themselves, hating others, and placating themselves on the idea that if they just have enough faith then they will get to a 'magical place" when they die. It's all based on weakness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
kathy kelly
1. Which only means you completely don't understand what "regulations" are.... The First & Second National bank of America where private institutions. Just like the Fed.
2. Red Herring fallacy... Nothing of what you said alters the fact that it was the Energy Crises led to the economic problems in the 70s. Nor does it change the policies that led to the biggest boom in our economy inthe 40s, 50s, & 60s. (high upper income taxes, minimum wage, new deal, social security, public works, etc.)
2. You said:
"I don't deny that gov't stimulus makes the economy grow, but it is inevitable mal-investment by definition, since gov't is involuntary and markets are voluntary"
In other words you acknowledge that "facts exist", but choose not to believe them because of your ideology. This is the problem with our country today... Too many people following their "gut" instead of the facts. In the meantime there are REAL people dying of poverty or health issues because people like you choose to blindly follow a feel good narrative from a TV pundit instead of looking at the facts.
4. We were talking about economic inequality. High tax rates on the upper income bracket in the 30's, 40s, 50's, & 60's did in fact decrease inequality. You can see this clearly in the data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_Top1percentUSA.png
I already stated that revenue as a % of GDP has increased steadily since the beginning of this country. Did you forget?
The difference is that the distribution of that tax revenue and wealth changed with policy. Corporate taxes has decreased enormously through many loopholes, the high 70%-90% taxes on the upper income bracket were cut providing an incentive for CEOs to take money out of companies as bonuses instead of leaving it in. So all that wealth suddenly shifted to the upper 1% after Reagan. The lack of tariffs, free trade laws, union busting, and not enforcing antitrust laws since the 80s also killed the middle class.
1
-
kathy kelly
1. Clearly you have no idea how the Fed works, nor the history. Ummm.... the IRS has nothing to do with the Fed.... The Fed is a private institution. It was created by bankers for banks in a private meeting on Jekyll Island. Why do you think the "audit the Fed" bill proposed by Alan Grayson & Ron Paul in 2010 had to be passed for the government to even know what the Fed was doing? Because the Government has very little control over what the Fed does and little knowledge about it.
Because you don't understanding these nuances means you have no clue what the "cartel" is or where the real power lies.... Which is exactly how people become gullible tools.
2. I've already explained this over and over.... The reason the middle class and inequality declined starting in the 80s was because of. Tax cuts on the upper income tax brackets, free trade policies, union busting, not enforcing Antitrust laws, deregulation of the financial sector. All of these policy changes started with Reagan and continued till the crash.
I'm sorry, but If your answer is to simply "ignore data" then you are part of the problem and there is no point.
Whatever corruption you see in government all stems from the "profit motive". That same motivation is behind the cartels in Mexico, created several central banks, and kept slavery in place for decades when it became illegal in all other western countries.
That motivation is also funding the propaganda telling you that somehow if the people who get rich by taking advantage of others and the system were "left alone" that somehow things would magically work itself out. Of course the data doesn't support this at all, in any country, or at any time. Yet somehow this makes sense to you to the point where you will abandon all facts and reason because you've been sold on this over simplistic narrative of a "free market" which is nothing more than a pure fantasy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When the left was unified under George W. Bush it did give us a few positive things like unified progressive media (cable, radio, blogs, youtube, etc.), The Zeitgeist Movement, and the first black president. However the downsides of 911, a million Iraqis dead, thousands of soldiers dead, gitmo, torture, and our rights taken away through warrentless wiretapping, TSA, NSA, and potential war with Iran were just not worth it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
kathy kelly I seriously don't know how you people that listen to nothing but propaganda and stupid theories to support an even dumber ideology even live with yourselves....
http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/04/aurora-and-the-gun-free-zone-theory/
"It’s commonly asserted that James Holmes choose the only posted “gun free” theater in a 20-mile radius, bypassing targets both closer and larger.
In reality, Holmes bypassed the Cinema Latino de Aurora, a small complex dedicated to serving the area’s Hispanic audience. It shows Spanish movies, and English movies with subtitles. Holmes, needless to say, was not Hispanic.
Holmes also ignored the Harkins, the largest theater in the area, due to the lack of privacy it would have provided. The Harkins is located in the middle of an open-air mall, with restaurants, shops, and bars to all sides.
Which leaves the Cinemark Century 16, 3.6 miles away, and the closest “megaplex” to his apartment. It was known. it was secluded. It was perfect."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 thing about "criticizing Islam" is entirely dependent on how generic the criticisms are. If you're saying "Islam and Muslims are bad" or "Islam needs to fix this problem" or "we need to put a ban on religion or religious people" then you're being entirely too vague and bigoted. Nearly all mass shootings are committed by young males so it would be just as ridiculous to make those same generic statements about young males. Now if you say "Wahhabism is bad" or "ISIS is bad" or that religion has no business condemning gay people, then I'm right there with you, but isn't that what we do anyway? I think there is a tendency of confusing and conflating someone arguing against generic arguments and statements against religion and defending all religion. It's the difference between being politically correct and just correct. We can talk about the gun issue and be nuanced about which laws and regulations need to be enacted, yet when it comes to "the other", whether that is Muslims, Mexicans, Gay people, Transgender People. etc. Then tribalism kicks in and we lose our minds. We don't make those same arguments with Jews, Christians, blacks, and people that we know, we only do it to "the other".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loweedwards7807 Do you not realize there are far more PCBs and electrical components than what's used in a PC? Wow... There are far more batteries than what's in a car....
Jeez dude you're only making yourself look bad. Again, pure aluminum is used in wires, components, PCB traces, busbars, shielding, and has many different applications. That doesn't mean it is used in PCs, all PCBs, all electric components, or car batteries. Just keep repeating the same straw man. That'll work, right? 👍🏼
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loweedwards7807 Yes I already said like 5 comments ago that pure aluminum doesn't have to be used by itself and I wasn't talking about "structure". Just like most electrical components, wires, and foils are encased in something or placed on a surface. Just like with gold. And it if was used as shielding,, a trace on a PCB, torn cable, wire coating, etc. A tiny piece could have flaked off of anything.
I can go to Ebay or Amazon right now and buy large rolls of aluminum foil that is 99.99% or 99.999% pure. In an area that is commonly used for weather balloons, scientific research, special aircraft, bombs, and numerous other tests over the coarse of a hundreds years it wouldn't be weird to find these things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loweedwards7807 Quotes from people who actually produce pure aluminum for manufacturing:
"To be considered pure aluminum, the metal needs to consist of 99% aluminum. Pure aluminum properties include an electrical conductivity that is twice as high when compared to copper and thermal conductivity that is about three times greater than steel, making it an ideal material for heating and cooling applications. It is also characterized by its high reflectivity and resistance to oxidation."
"1060 alloy is a high-purity alloy with a content of at least 99.6%. Has excellent weldability, formability, and corrosion resistance. Various forming processes such as impact, cold drawn, deep drawing, and bending can be easily carried out. 1060 aluminum alloy has a copper content of 0.05% and a conductivity of 55% IACS, making it an ideal conductive material.
1060 aluminum plate is suitable for various applications, such as food containers, battery connections, automotive components, signage, lighting fixtures, curtain walls, luggage racks, flooring, decorative panels, and industrial storage tanks. Thick plates can also be cut into aluminum strips for use in electrical fields such as transformers."
1
-
@loweedwards7807 And as far as it's use in electronics for even higher purity aluminum. Something common to telecommunications, SATCOM, radar, delicate sensors, etc. :
"The primary form of aluminum—from the Hall–Héroult process—has a purity range of 99.7 to 99.9%, with major impurities of iron (Fe), silicon (Si), zinc (Zn), and gallium (Ga). While this purity range is sufficient for most industrial applications and alloying, the use of aluminum in high-technology fields, such as semiconductor, electronics, superconducting, and so forth requires higher purity levels exceeding the ones obtained via classical aluminum production processes"
1
-
@loweedwards7807 No, just repeating what I already stated. Several times at this point.... It's used in busbars, traces, batteries, and electronic components. It's also used for PCBs, I've bought LED modules based on aluminum PCBs before simply because it works as a better heatsink than copper.
It's sold as spindle wire, foil, sheets. precisely for this purpose. But apparently you think it's pure aluminum is sold in large rolls, wire, and plating, because no one uses it.... right? 🙄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3. Sorry, smartphones weren't "free market". The gov't invested *heavily* in computers, microprocessors, & satellites (NASA, military, research grants, etc.). This led to "silicon valley", satellite communications, GPS, etc.
Many scientific advances in (technology, medicine, cures for diseases, etc.) all come from gov't investment in research.
The gov't doesn't spend billions advertising. People foolishly believe everything comes from the marketing slogans they are brainwashed by every 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
-
A horse has it's merits, but is obviously outdated compared to a train, automobile, or passenger jet...
WE HAVE been trying to improve capitalism....
We banned slavery, child labor, created a minimum wage, 5 day work week. overtime, the Fed, we busted up Standard Oil & Ma Bell, created anti-triust laws, expanded courts, prisons. progressive tax code, social security, created an FDA, EPA, etc. etc.
Much of government only exists in response to "patching" or improving the flaws in capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mauris For some reason you conveniently forget how English works.. "biggest factor" is not the same as "only factor" and "crime and violence" is not the same as "deaths". Obviously when you add more dangerous weapons to that "crime and violence" it means that more people will die. This is the same reason we don't let people like ISIS get their hands on a nuclear device.... obviously.
"so why don't you just leave the rural areas alone"
Because then people in the cities will just get their guns from the surrounding rural areas. This is PRECISELY what happens in Chicago and the Gun Show Loophole... Do you think people are incapable of driving for a couple hours to get guns?
Hunting rifles that people use in a rural area to protect their property from animals or shoot deer isn't the problem here. It's handguns, semi-automatics, ARs, etc.
"So at the very least, more guns doesn't mean more homicides"
Nope. Correlation does not equal causation. Again... There are factors outside of guns that effect crime and violence. And when you look at the studies referenced at the Harvard School of Public Health which SPECIFICALLY control for those factors, they clearly show that more guns equal more deaths.
Fun fact, for decades it was known that lead gasoline was basically poisoning the entire population. Lead causes psychological problems and violence, especially in cities with lots of cars. So many scientists believe that the EPA's phasing out of lead gasoline (late 70s to early 90s) caused a dramatic reduction (some say 56%) in violent crime and homicides across the country.
Of course you could also look at the fact that the US has the most guns per capita and also one of the highest homicide rates in the industrialized world. Just look at any country with similar wealth, industrialization, and demographics and it's not hard to figure out why the UK, France, Canada, and Australia have FAR lower homicide rates than the US. Or why they don't have any mass shootings like we do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Loudermilk As long as profit is the primary motivating factor of our society, there will be collusion. there will be corporatism, there will be monopolies, oligopolies, there will be oligarchy, there will be corruption. These are natural results of profit and extreme wealth being a primary motivation in our society. People will collude to attain wealth, they will collude to maintain wealth. They will create propaganda, start wars, pollute the environment, and buy politicians to gain and maintain that wealth.
Regardless of the "etymological root" of "capital" and "capitalism". The definition today is the ownership of the means of production. Which is entirely different than a "marketplace of ideas". It is basically owning the copyright or patent on someone else's ideas and using that to create and own more ideas.
I think capitalism can run certain aspects of our society, but it should be small enough to "drown in a bathtub" as they say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Try asking a woman, a black person, or Asian about "freedom" in the market 100 years ago.
Again, your beliefs are based on a fantasy... Yes technically white males (non-catholic, Irish, or Italian) coming from wealthy families had more "freedom", THAT'S IT.
2. No the difference is that democratic institutions are accountable to people & private institutions are only accountable to profit regardless of how it is gained (slavery, child labor, pollution, additives, war profiteering, etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you look throughout history no big change ever happened overnight. Emancipation of slaves, woman's, suffrage, civil rights, New Deal, etc. Change takes years or decades to happen.
And yes, things do usually get worse before they get better... So I'd expect more infrastructure collapsing, more inequality, homelessness, protests, and maybe even riots, etc.
It's a shame that people are more likely to react and listen to a message of change when things are at there worst.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MRELTUCO2
Only if you're interested in making strawman arguments.
Are drivers licenses, drinking and driving laws, licenses to practice medicine, licenses to practice law, litering laws, 40 hour work week, weekends, building codes, restaurant health inspections, meat/poultry regulation, all supporting security over freedom?
No... it's called having reasonable regulations so that average americans are protected from those who abuse their freedoms at the expense of others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 average person in Britain, Canada, France, are MUCH more satisfied with healthcare than in the US.
You'd realize that talking point is BS if you knew anyone that lived in those countries.
A "free market" cannot exist without rules, regulatoin, and GOVERMENT.
It's funny to be against "socialized medicine bureaucracy", yet be perfectly ok with applying for plans, filling out information for every doctor , verifying coverage, verifying if certain procedures are covered, etc. :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barneys4236 That study is a pre-print whereas the study I'm referring to has already been peer reviewed, is more recent, and has more data backing it up. Secondly I don't think you're interpreting the abstract correctly. They specifically did not say vaccinated people are "63% less likely" to transmit the virus than unvaccinated people. The study is also a bit strange as they purposely adjusted the results. They have a SAR of 22% and 13% for the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups. Then they decide to adjust the final score in the vaccinated group based on age.
Maybe that's the reason why it didn't get peer reviewed. Not sure.
What I'm saying is not controversial, look at the article: "Delta variant: Vaccines protect from severe disease but do not stop all transmission"
The scientific community has long since acknowledged this fact. Which is why we are supposed to still wear masks indoors regardless of vaccination. It's only controversial here, because people on TYT, other news outlets, and the media keep repeating the idea that you're "protecting others" by getting vaccinated. Repeating that falsehood is only convenient for demonizing unvaccinated people, but it's not really true. At most it's only marginally protective against transmission because of the lower infection time.
One thing is for sure, we know that masks are more effective at stopping transmission than a vaccine, so why are healthcare workers, who wear PPE anyways, being fired for not getting vaccinated?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 consolidation of corporate power and money is far more influential and dangerous. The reason we have people like Soros, Epstein, Bezos, Sheldon Adelson, etc. in the first place is because over the decades we've lowered taxes on the rich and allowed them to consolidate money and become powerful.... The only direct power from socialism is our military, the president can randomly kill people and threaten other countries with that power. So our military industrial complex needs to be far smaller than it is. Other than that there is no real "power" from highways, parks, libraries, post offices, public schools, or health insurance, that is nothing more than a silly scare tactic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ihatecandy02 Alex Jones is obviously a grifter and David Ike is probably crazy, but the fact that Joe Rogan invites people to challenge him and looks into their claims during a live show, pretty much shows he's not a grifter. He may be "wrong" on certain issues, but that doesn't mean he's purposely being disingenuous.
What TYT is doing here is attacking people with more popular platforms. They're also not investigating the facts properly and misrepresenting information presented. I'm sorry, but as soon as you start misrepresenting facts, you're in grifter territory. As much as I like TYT, they're starting to also venture into grifter territory, and I really don't like it.
When you accuse someone over and over of taking "hose paste" when they didn't do that, you're acting like a grifter. When you pretend that what Joe Rogan said was wrong when it comes to young people and myocarditis, when more current studies actually support what he said, then you're acting like a grifter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buddy-hu1vr Your attempts to rationalize irrational thoughts using the Bible just makes you sound crazy. People who want to justify their bigotry often turn to religion and begin making things up. Sorry, but God/Jesus won't accept your bigotry either. Also the Bible wasn't even written in English.... According to the story, God literally created a woman out of a man.... Both "natures" came from the same body.
And from a scientific standpoint, we know that sex is on a spectrum, people can be born with both sexes, intersex, and without sex. Gender is also on a spectrum and based on a societal construct. Kilts are masculine in Scotland, long hair can be considered masculine in some cultures, pink was considered masculine color in the past, men used to wear wigs and heels, etc.
1
-
1
-
@buddy-hu1vr lol, I'm not the one literally making things up and pretending it's an argument. 😂 YES, someone in drag is a "he".... But apparently you don't understand drag. Someone in drag is a male who is putting on a show for fun. They can be gay, straight, or whatever. However it is performative. They might call each other "girls" for fun, but again, it's a show. RuPaul has done drag for many years, but he is still a man.
However someone born with male genitalia, but has gender dysphoria, and transitions into a woman through surgery, socialization, etc. is a "she".
Just like there are people born as hermaphrodites or multiple sex organs and they get surgery so they can align with a certain gender.
The world is a lot more nuanced than you want it to be. However a little education goes a long 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. Drugs aren't "used in crimes", they are consumed. Again, there's a reason why after the NFA fully automatics stopped being used in crimes.
2. Most "liberals" are for decriminalizing pot, gay marriage, abortion rights, preserving social security, immigration reform, universal health care, ending wars, drone strikes, and indefinite detention PRECISLY because they can understand the problems of others.
So in other words stop using junk science to support bullshit ideas about people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pariah_carey Yes we're starting from different places, because you decided to ignore my response and completely start over. Very well:
1. Yes a thousands reasons can cause something to "happen". However when you look at the entirety of a set of data. Or you create a study that isolates for race then you can understand what impact race has by itself, without guessing. There have been numerous studies that have done this.
2. Pretending that racism doesn't exist, or ignoring any problem, doesn't solve the problem. No one is boiling down anything. We're just acknowledging that this is a problem that has existed for a long time time, effects millions of people, and needs to be fixed.
3. Yes police can be brutal to everyone. No one is denying that. But the fact is it disproportionately effects certain races more so than others.
4. All I'm hearing from you is: "Because racism doesn't impact me personally, no one else should care about it"
Sorry, but that's not how this works... Just because I may not have gone through some of the problems that YOU have experienced, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend those problems don't exist or that the system didn't fail you (or others) in some way. At the same time it is YOUR responsibility to understand that racism is a real systemic problem that does impact millions of people.
This isn't somehow a zero sum game were only one problem can exist at a time. Reforming the police has ALWAYS meant reforming it for how minorities are treated, poor are treated, mentally ill are treated, drug users are treated, how rape victims are treated. There are NUMEROUS problems within the system, not just one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dionlandon479 The fact that you resort to name calling and ad hominems, simply because someone disagrees with you tells me all I need to know about your mentality. I don't know how old you are, but you sound pretty childish.
Simply because someone is famous doesn't mean they should be considered a role model for anyone. TYT isn't winning anyone over, by preaching to the choir over a dumb culture war. That's the bubble you're in. Picking out a celebrity who said something you don't like and talking about it on your show, is the exact same stupid tactics that Fox pundits do, because their listeners are also in a bubble. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carson, they all pick out celebrities and "M&M's" to do dumb commentary on in order to feed their audience a culture war for ratings.
Maybe you get off on the vapid commentary of criticizing random celebrities, calling them names, and hoping their football team loses, in order to feel good about yourself, but I don't sorry. It's stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnJ469 I already considered mental illness, substance abuse, and I gave option #2 So I've been accepting all sorts of scenarios outside of what I've experienced. Unfortunately when you're dealing with poor people you're dealing with people who the system has failed since birth. Inadequate education, exposure to toxic chemicals, lack of health care, lack of a stable home, etc. I can certainly imagine you are going to come across more people who are less likely to be rational all the time because poverty can literally stunt a person's growth mentally and physically.
However, someone born relatively well off like the dude in this video who never had to worry about nutrition, a stable home, and access to great education, is far less likely to have those problems.
Pointing out the fact that there have been numerous issues of misogyny, sexual assault, rape in the military as well as numerous cases corruption, racism, and violence in various police precincts around the country isn't prejudice, it is stating a fact. That does not mean I think all people in the military and police are bad people or make bad workers.
If you cannot acknowledge that "problems exist" without thinking it is personal then you are the one with the bias not me. Like I was saying before, Institutions/systems create these problems not 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They're both not wrong, but Ana is more wrong.... Republican politicians have used racism, xenophobia, and bigotry, over and over BECAUSE IT WORKS. The "Southern Strategy" caused a lot of conservative racists to join the Republicans Party. They weren't somehow tricked into becoming racists. Similarly today Republicans have started adopting Q-anon and "stop the steal" nonsense, because that is what a lot of their voters want. If you don't understand that dynamic you're a fool. If you think talking nicely to republicans while conservative media is calls leftist commies and pedophiles, then you end up looking like you're just as feckless and weak as the Democratic leadership calling for a "strong Republican party". That tactic might work for a handful of normie Republicans, but it's not going to work for everyone.
Furthermore, you cannot have political discourse without generalization. Even Ana talking about people voting for Obama are the same as people supporting Trump is a broad generalization that isn't specific nor factual. Generalizations are often necessary to make a specific point. and the fact is Democrats are far more likely to welcome investigations and accountability than Republicans are. That's a fact. At the same time it's also good to address things that we have common ground on, but you cannot let "common ground" dictate how you address every issue, because you come across as weak and without conviction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elfornse
If you choose to stay in this country, no one is "robbing you".
You take advantage of our roads, public utilities, parks, clean air/ food/water, government backed currency, rich economy, protection/safety and a court system, so you PAY TAXES.
If there are problems in our infrastructure, military, and other services. then we use DEMOCRACY to fix it.
To just sit there complaining about our country and having to pay taxes is just selfish, infantile, and does not solve a damn 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really Briahna? 😂Sure, because the green party has accomplished SO much in the past 30 years, right? The Democrats may not have enough votes, but the Green Party literally has non-existent votes. How many decades do you want to sit around accomplishing nothing while giving the Republicans super majorities to roll back our rights even further? Because I can guarantee that a national abortion ban is coming next once Republicans take total power, but you're willing to let that happen because you're mad at some of the corrupt Democrats. The bottom line is we do not have ranked choice voting in this country instead we have a "winner take all system" which eventually leads to two major parties. We also don't have proportional representation and other mechanisms that were created in later democracies. The only choice is to take over one of the existing parties which has been done many times in the past. Even Ralph Nader admitted that Bernie Sanders was right when he ran for president in the Democratic Party. Meanwhile Ralp Nader was just blamed for giving us Gorge Bush for 8 years because he ran as a Green Party candidate in 2000 and took some votes away from Gore. The progressive coalition has been building in the Democratic party and has started to weld real power. it is undeniable that Bernie Sanders started a movement in 2016 that has been slowly building in the Democratic party over the past 6 years. Yes, there are setbacks like Nina Turner, but you would have to be incredibly naive to not know that Nina Turner would have lost just as badly, if not worse, running in the Green Party. It's not like the Democratic/Republican establishment, and the money behind them, simply ignores you because your party affiliation has changed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eagles980
1. And the Bush admin didn't convict anyone while giving an UNCONDITIONAL bailout.
2. The Fed operates outside the US government...
3. Who created the Patriot Act in the first place? Not to mention Homeland Security, TSA, Wireless wiretaps, TORTURE, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, outing an undercover CIA agent for political reasons, LIED us into a war, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, turned a blind eye while 3,000 civiliians were killed on 911.
Yes "Nowhere Near"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
True morality is SUSTAINABILITY... Looking at how much it takes to grow a cow and thinking the only answer is going vegan is pretty dumb. There are some animals (like rabbits & goats) that are far more sustainable than many vegetable crops. Furthermore most plants don't get fertilized from magic they rely on animals because that's how these things evolved. Today most of our industrialized crops rely on petrochemicals (fossil fuel) based fertilizers and insecticides because these huge profitable yet unsustainable mono-crops that we created can only survive that way. What happens when we run out of oil? The reality is we grow our vegetables in the same horrible and unsustainable ways that we grow our animals. It's just that the effects are less. The true answer is permaculture and creating ecosystems where many varieties of plants and animals can flourish and support each other, as well as changing the types of foods that we eat to include rabbits, goats, and possibly even insects, many of the things we evolved hunting quite frankly, instead of just steaks, cheese, burgers, wheat, & corn. If your morality centers around "not killing creatures similar to me" then you're basically being an arrogant asshole who thinks that the rest of the animal kingdom is (by your own definition) immoral...
Life consumes life, that is the law of this planet. Eventually you're going to figure out that plants also express themselves in ways that are very similar to animals. You're also going to figure out that bacteria are capable of "learning" and doing things that we didn't think were possible. Then what? You're going to survive on sunlight and water then? Maybe we should just acknowledge that we're all just animals and that even though we've evolved to build tribes and communities with other humans to survive, that it is ridiculous to apply the same survival mechanism to every animal, plant, and bacteria on this planet. It is arrogant, dangerous, and counter productive to do so. Instead we should respect all life in the same way Native Americans respected all life who understood balance with the land that when you take something you should also give back. The reality is we want to treat the earth like our bitch while we go to church and be nice to cute fuzzy animals so that we can feel good about ourselves. You can't complain about treating animals like machines and then turn around and treat plants like machines and pretend that it's "better". It's not better, it's the same bullshit. We can't keep doing the same shit indefinitely with unfettered growth of the human population
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Loco Chang Or how about we have no court systems, roads, parks, bridges, public schools, police, miliary, libraries, museums, sidewalks, currency, etc. If you need a road? you just trade for one with gold. Someone robs you? You just pay some things to protect you. We should just go back to a feudal system where powerful people with resources own their own fiefdoms, because heaven forbid we create any sort of society that benefits a common good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great, we're going to lose while Kyle & Ana feel good about their arguments.... It's pretty foolish to think that just because people in FL voted for Obama, Trump, and Medicare that it somehow represents the same group of voters. It's not. A lot of times what matters it what is motivating people to turn out to vote. Obama motivated more people. Then Trump motivated more people. You can say that the culture wars are a distraction, but it's a distraction that motivates people to vote and if you're not addressing that, then you're going to end up losing while trying to be "intellectually fair" and smelling your own farts. Do you think Trump's popularity came from being fair and honest or being careful with his generalizations? NO, OF COURSE NOT. 🤦🏽♂ Constantly generalizing and summing things up into sound bite is why Trump became popular, not because he created a 20 minute speech on facts. DO YOU NOT GET THAT? I'm sick and tired of "the left" thinking that the right wing, or even the general public, processes information in the same way they do. The facts around the election not being stolen and campaign finance violations by Cohen have been out there for YEARS now. If laying out the facts and details had any effect what so ever, then a large chunk of the Republican party wouldn't still be thinking that the election was stolen and Trump was innocent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@serendipity9649 The flu death rate in the US does not "far exceed" other countries. Of course it fluctuates from year to year, but According to 2018 WHO data the US was 27th out of 169 countries in flu deaths. Below Israel, France, and Germany. But above the UK, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, South Korea, etc. We ranked pretty closed to Canada that year. We certainly have a huge problem with our health care system which leads to tens of thousands of deaths every year and I'm sure some of that leads to additional flu deaths, but I don't think you can directly tie flu deaths to any anti-vaccine rhetoric surrounding flu vaccines. That seems to be an assertion not really based on anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many people died in the 20th century from companies profiting on new technology and pretending it is safe. Lead poisoning (lead gasoline, lead paint, etc), radiation poisoning (x-rays, radiated paint, etc.), hydrogenated fats, etc.
People died horrible deaths under the guise of making things "better", "more efficient", "healthier", etc.
It would be foolish to not be concerned about having something genetically altered with unknown longterm "side effects" end up in the diet of millions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@makelvin Again, nowhere has Yang's UBI been implemented anywhere in the world. Again, Alaska's dividend is not anywhere close to what Yang wants to do and is not an example of Yang's UBI. These are facts.
--"You are confusing with details with thoughtfulness."
Someone who has spent decades thinking out a detailed plan for the country is indeed being thoughtful even if people like you are unable to see it because you simply don't care, are uninformed, and have no stake in the issue.
--" I kept saying Yang is implementing the actual existing Medicare are making it available to all."
Again, your beliefs and wishful thinking is not reality.
--"The rest of Yang detail healthcare plan is about reducing the root cause of driving up the healthcare cost"
M4A will reduce over 5 trillion in costs over 10 years by getting rid of huge administrative costs of insurance companies. Not to mention giving more leverage to negotiate all costs in the system, not just drug prices. All other plans that rely on leaving the insurance infrastructure in place will actually increase costs over M4A.
You're confusing details with generic surface level statements that have NO DETAILS. You think Yang is being thoughtful, but he's actually not. He's saying the same vague crap on reducing costs that politicians have said for decades. Obama literally made similar statements during his campaign.
First off I care more about thousands of LIVES over thousands of jobs. Sorry, but I'm not going to let someone's family member die to save a job at an insurance company. Second, the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical debt. You literally have 1-2 million people who are impacted by medical bankruptcy each year. Third, it is harder for small businesses to compete with large businesses because of health insurance costs. They don't have the numbers to get the same plans that large businesses have. M4A gives more freedom to the economic engine of small businesses
This is just a few of the many things you're entirely ignorant about because you "don't have to worry" about your healthcare....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArchitectOfSound01 We've been under corporate tyranny for decades and that includes pharma, Finance (Banks, Insurance, Real Estate), Agriculture (Monsanto, etc.), Energy (Exxon, BP, etc.), Tech (Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.). So this is just another aspect of it.
Make money off of sickness then you're going to continue that sickness. Make money from a life saving drug and you'll raise prices or patent drugs in order to increase profits. Even if it means that more people will die.
Make money off of prisons and you'll try to get more people in jail. Make money from weapons or military equipment and you'll promote war and conflict.
Make money off of legislation and you'll bribe/corrupt politicians to change legislation.
This is what the profit motive always leads to when it becomes the main motivating force in a society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slayerfan209 Again, do you think the places with armed insurrections and every day terrorist bombings are somehow better off? Seriously, WTF kind of backwards thinking is that? I suggest you actually take a good look at the world before you start whining about how bad you have it here, because warlords, armed militias, and watching your family die in front if you is not better than whatever imagined rights you think are being taken away from you.
If you want to fix the problems in government, then organize, get money out of politics, and learn to see through the BS coming from politicians, pundits, and media. Thinking you can shoot your way to a better society is moronic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
12227UserName. Immigrants are Immigrants regardless of the paperwork. So I’m guessing you’ve never Jaywalked, drove over the speed limit, or consumed an illegal substance in your entire life huh? The bottom line is you’re okay with other families getting screwed over who aren’t harming you in any way and using the law to justify it. Net immigration has been down for years (in some years it’s been negative), the only reason you think it’s an issue today is because Trump told you to hate immigrants and some pundit sold you the argument.... Prices are actually LOWER because of illegal immigrants and most of the agriculture in this entirely dependent on illegal immigrant labor. Try talking to a farmer about how their prices would change if they couldn’t hire illegal immigrants.... and of course when food prices change so do the prices of other products. Furthermore most illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they ever get back in benefits. Over half of illegal immigrants even pay federal taxes. What you have been told about illegal immigrants are nothing but lies in order to make you afraid of “the other”, so that a slimy politician can get elected on your fear and screw over a bunch of families, kids, and students who are only making a life for themselves like everyone else.
LOL... you say “multiculturalism” as if it’s somehow a bad thing. In case you didn’t realize it the US is a melting pot. We wouldn’t have things like pizza, hamburgers, hotdogs, tacos, fortune cookies, and French fries if we weren’t constantly taking in ideas from other cultures and if people weren’t coming from other countries and incorporating ideas from their country into our melting pot. It’s sadly another thing someone told you to be afraid of. No one is forcing you to eat that taco.
Yes unemployment goes up and down, but at least you’ve now looked into it so you know that the downward trend started well before Obama left office. You now know that Trump is lying to you when he’s tries to shamelessly take credit for it.
1
-
12227UserName Immigrants are Immigrants regardless of the paperwork. So I’m guessing you’ve never Jaywalked, drove over the speed limit, or consumed an illegal substance in your entire life huh? The bottom line is you’re okay with other families getting screwed over who aren’t harming you in any way and using the law to justify it. Net immigration has been down for years (in some years it’s been negative), the only reason you think it’s an issue today is because Trump told you to hate immigrants and some pundit sold you the argument.... Prices are actually LOWER because of illegal immigrants and most of the agriculture in this country is entirely dependent on illegal immigrant labor. Try talking to a farmer about how their prices would change if they couldn’t hire illegal immigrants.... and of course when food prices change so do the prices of other products. Furthermore most illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they ever get back in benefits. Over half of illegal immigrants even pay federal taxes. What you have been told about illegal immigrants are nothing but lies in order to make you afraid of “the other”, so that a slimy politician can get elected on your fear and screw over a bunch of families, kids, and students who are only making a life for themselves like everyone else.
LOL... you say “multiculturalism” as if it’s somehow a bad thing. In case you didn’t realize it the US is a melting pot. We wouldn’t have things like pizza, hamburgers, hotdogs, tacos, fortune cookies, and French fries if we weren’t constantly taking in ideas from other cultures and if people weren’t coming from other countries and incorporating ideas from their country into our melting pot. It’s sadly another thing someone told you to be afraid of. No one is forcing you to eat that taco.
Yes unemployment goes up and down, but at least you’ve now looked into it so you know that the downward trend started well before Obama left office. You now know that Trump is lying to you when he’s tries to shamelessly take credit for it.
1
-
1
-
12227UserName Sorry, but I base my views on facts not anecdotes and since you aren’t providing anything that anyone could use to verify your claims all I can say is that statistically the crime rate for immigrants, including illegal immigrants, is far lower than for citizens. Again, the illegal immigration rate has been zero and less than zero for years. In other words..... More illegal immigrants were leaving than entering the country before Trump got elected. So I’m not going to sit here and pretend that your irrational fears are anything other than a knee jerk reaction to a politician’s fear mongering to win votes. “OMG!!! There are more Hispanic people around.” “OMG!!! People are speaking Spanish somewhere!” Sorry, but these things aren’t scary to me like they are to you apparently.... I don’t care that there are Hispanic, Indian, Asian, etc. people around. Like I said, no one is “forcing” you to eat that burrito, taco, or slice of pizza. We don’t have this irrational fear of “the other” like you people do.
You cannot find any serious economic study that shows that we have an illegal immigrant problem, because it’s nothing more than a manufactured wedge issue designed to get people like you to vote out of fear.
I don’t know why you would lie to me like that... Either that or you’re listening to people who are lying to you. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Black unemployment was 7.8% when Trump took office and as of March 2018 it was 6.9% After Obama took office following the economic crash under Bush it rose as high as 16.8% so yes the recovery under Obama was quite significant. It’s amazing to me how Trump has tricked you people into giving him credit 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Zeitgeist Movement was saying this over 15 years ago.... Most of the workforce employed today is not needed to meet humanity's basic needs. We use the labor of poor and disenfranchised people to make food production, manufacturing, and construction cheap, but the reality is most of that can be replaced by automation, robots, drones, etc. However the capitalist class has no incentive to invest in expensive automation. AI is a threat under the current system because it's cheap so people can make money from it without requiring a big investment that other forms of automation require. As long as we have a system where productivity gains only benefit the capitalists and profit/growth is the only way of maintaining an economy then inequality will continue to rise along with pollution, poverty, crime, war, and everything that comes with fighting over scarcity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kyle is a bit more right, but really you're all fucking wrong.
1. Fran Lebowitz is an idiot. Claiming that Bernie Sanders is a narcissist compared to a woman whose been running for president for two decades is just a moronic statement. You have no policy complaints so you attack a person's character. I was embarrassed for her when I watched that.
2. Bill Maher is right in that there are a lot of liberals (and yes that includes you Kyle) where they make the perfect the enemy of the good. The bottom line is if Hillary Clinton was president we wouldn't be banning Transgender people from the military, exiting the Paris climate accords (we would be talking about investing more in green technology), preventing the EPA from using climate science or using the phrase "climate change", had a muslim ban, we wouldn't cause panic for millions of people by resending DACA, emboldening racists and xenophobes all across this country, waving our dick at North Korea every 5 minutes, a real threat to a repeal of Obamacare which will fucking KILL PEOPLE. So please stop pretending as if Hillary Clinton presidency would be no different, it is fucking moronic.
3. Salaman Rushdie is right in that we really need to stop being obsessed over Clinton vs Sanders and the 2016 primaries. I was a Bernie Supporter before most people even knew who the fuck he was and there is absolutely no evidence to say that Bernie would have magically won the primary if it weren't for those pesky establishment democrats!... The fact is she was way ahead in the primaries before any of that happened and it was for the same reason that Trump was ahead, NAME RECOGNITION. They were both celebrities and people recognized the names. That's why they won the primary. However here you a year later still bitching about it as if there is nothing else going on in the world.
You're projecting your own bias in thinking that being a progressive automatically means you will win. Keeping it real, there really isn't any evidence for it. Yeah the polls have shown that people prefer liberal policies for over a decade now, it doesn't magically mean that a progressive can easily to win elections. People vote with their emotions more than their heads.
Bitching about the 2016 primary for the next 3 years only plays into Trump's hands. Hate to break it to you but other than Bernie Sanders there is no perfect candidate. If he doesn't run and we get someone else. You'r purity tests are just going to give us a another 4 years of Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonysmith6967 Okay, that is "something."... However there's still no action on reducing or eliminating the military industrial complex which is supposed to be her main issue....right?
AOC literally just got there so you're comparing a bill someone introduced after being in congress for over 3 years vs someone whose been there for 3 months.... Furthermore AOC and Bernie Sanders are working on the Green New Deal. It's far more comprehensive and massive than what Tulsi proposed and it's going to require a LOT of support, as well as an election to get passed. Think about it... Why do you even know about the Green New Deal? Why do you think it's something that everyone has been talking about? Why do you think Pelosi and others have been putting together panels to work on it and discuss it? Because AOC along with Sanders have been effective at branding, getting the message out, and gathering support.
I'm not up AOC's ass. To be honest I wasn't on the AOC train until very recently, but I had to admit that she's been far more effective than I ever imagined and she's using that spotlight to highlight the most progressive ideas and polices. Meanwhile no one knows or gives a shit about the "Off Fuel Act". I hate to be blunt, but it is what it is. If you can't gather support for your cause or rally the country and congress behind it, then your idea is dead.
Yes I know Medicare for all was Sander's idea. He's been talking about this concept LONG before he decided to run for president. Which is why Sander's won my vote over a decade ago. I want leaders for progressive ideas not someone jumping on the bandwagon and then deciding to run for president after a couple years in congress. DEMONSTRATE that you have what it takes to actually get your ideas through Congress as Bernie, Warren have done, as AOC is now doing.
Again look at Tulsi Gabbard's twitter feed and you'll see it's mostly about fundraising and running for presidential. Look at Sanders, AOC, Warren, etc. feed and it's mostly about the ISSUES.
1
-
1
-
Sorry, but in my mind that is nothing more than arrogance....
Every animal on this planet consumes other lifeforms. Humans are not somehow "special" in this regard.
By making up silly words like "speciesism", you're basically saying humans (specifically "vegetarian humans") are better than lions, tigers, cats, dogs, bears, dolphins, birds, lizards, and every other animal on this planet that consumes other animals.
We are what we are, no more or less than any other animal on this planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jesus.the.Christ If I wanted clarification on a point or an argument. I would simply repeat it until I got an answer. Either that hasn't occurred to you, or you don't care about your arguments, or you actually don't have an argument. There is no way that I would spend all day avoiding my own argument. So please stop pretending. Cause you're not fooling anyone.
I've already stated this SEVERAL times already. Clearly Biden would be better on healthcare, immigration, handling of the coronavirus that has killed thousands of our people, Iran nuclear deal, environmental regulations, taxation, court appointments, our relationships with other countries, and slew of other issues If you don't understand the basic notion of "one guy is better than the other guy". Then I don't know what to tell you since you're not even trying to think rationally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maximmatusevich3971 My point on Libya is that the argument on the left is about saving lives. It's the same argument for Darfor. The argument on the Right is about asserting power and pre-emptive action. The Right didn't care about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were killed, we did. The Right doesn't care that the US is supporting Saudi Arabia's war (genocide) in Yemen, we do, The Right doesn't care that we occupied Iraq for years, we did. The Right didn't care that we were planning a war with Iran, we did. The right didn't care when Trump left the Iranian peace deal, we were screaming about it. The right didn't care when we did air strikes on Iran or assassinated one of their top leaders, we did. The right doesn't care about drone strikes killing hundreds of civilians each year, we do. And we cared about it under Bush, Obama, and Trump.
My point wasn't whether Libya was the correct action or not, it was the motivations behind it and the fact that you are drawing a false equivalency between the "liberal" support for military action vs the right wing support for military actions. You're trying to say that every situation is the same and that is not the case.
The fact is we got in and we got out of Libya, we did it with the support and cooperation of other nations, and we left on good terms. This is not the same as Iraq, Afghanistan, or Venezuela.
--"According to a 2012 poll conducted by Gallup, 54% of Libyans approve of U.S. leadership, compared to only 22% and 19% respective approval for China and Russia's, and 75% of Libyans say they approved of NATO's military intervention in the civil war."
1
-
@maximmatusevich3971 As far as voting goes. In 2016 Russian's infiltrated political organizations, manipulated social media, created "fake news", and had a massive hacking operation that hacked both the RNC and DNC (although only the DNC emails were leaked) and hacked voting machines themselves. Google: "Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds".
Dozens of indictments were made and a lot of Russian diplomats died suddenly after the 2016 election.
All of our intelligence agencies confirmed the meddling that was taking place however The right pretended that any concerns over Russia were all lies and made up, because it benefited Trump to ignore it.
And now you pretend that the only fraud and hacking that could have occurred is ONLY to benefit Biden. It's absurd.... The difference is we let whatever investigation take place if there is any merit to it, because we care about the truth. We don't pretend every investigation that doesn't benefit us is a hoax.
All anyone on the left ever asks for is to count every vote and to not disenfranchise voters. Which happens every single election. Brian Kemp literally kicked hundreds of thousand of likely Democratic voters off the rolls just before his election.
A lot of companies are connected to right wing pundits and politicians as well. The difference is we don't automatically discount information just because of some "connection". FusionGPS was originally hired by a right wing media outlet to do opposition research on Trump before the Clinton campaign. You guys have no problem with Trump, or the Right wing, paying for opposition research, which they do all the time, yet somehow it automatically becomes nefarious when the same thing is done by Clinton.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robe2504 It's actually not difficult to find the limits. Rights end where other people's rights begin. Prohibition was all about forcing people to not harm themselves with alcohol. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Using force in this way has always been authoritarian in my opinion.
It's very typical, and basic human behavior. to want to ban things that you don't participate in. I'm sure most people in New Zealand don't smoke so it easy to ban cigarettes. Change the topic to alcohol, desserts, fast food, sausages, or driving cars and suddenly no one wants to ban those things regardless of health implications. It's entirely hypocritical. Same reason why gay marriage was unheard of for some many decades, because it only impacted a minority.
Personally, I've never drank alcohol, smoked, or wanted to gay marry anyone. but I've always found laws banning alcohol sales, drugs, gay marriage, etc. to be completely insane. In my mind you're either for freedom and autonomy or you're not.
--"a company would be able to put a new product on the market if it was known to be toxic, addictive and dangerous?"
Protecting people from toxic substances they don't know about is entirely different than protecting people from their own wishes and desires. For example, a toxic food additive should be regulated. However, warnings about consuming bleach, or cigarettes, should be on labels.
I've done various activities like snowboarding and skydiving which can be very dangerous. Should I also be banned from endangering myself? Should all dangerous activities be banned? In my mind the "limits" are far harder to define when you go down this path.
1
-
@robe2504 I think I was pretty clear when I said, "personal rights end when other people's rights begin". You seemed to gloss over that statement and suggest that I have no limits. When that is obviously not the case.
Umm... Cigarettes and Cigars have no value "to you". Just like gay marriage and alcohol have no value "to me". However, it is not my job, nor is it your job, to decide what other people should "value". It would be incredibly arrogant for me to think that my opinion on whether something is valuable should dictate how other people should live. Are you going to start dictating whether movies, TV, video games, comics, etc. is valuable or not? Again, this is no different than the right wing's stance on abortion, porn, trans issues, etc. And it's amazing to me that you cannot see that.
Yes, I'm saying that people need to be protected from toxic substances that they don't know about. But things like alcohol, drugs, sugar, fats, etc. that people know have downsides, and we have clear labels for, should be entirely based on their own judgement. There's nothing nonsensical about that point. That's called respecting people's freedoms and allowing people to live their life.
I have no ambiguity here. I've been pretty consistent in the idea that it's not up to the government to dictate that people should protect themselves or decide what they can and cannot consume.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your "media" arguments are kind of bull$hit. The Bush Administration lied about Iraq, the media blindly went along with it because they assumed they weren't being lied to, especially given the state of the country following 911. This is ENTIRELY different than Fox News, OAN, News Max, Alex Jones, making up vast conspiracies and calling for people to be jailed. Furthermore you've claimed NUMOUROUS times that the Clinton Foundation was corrupt and you have zero evidence for it even though it's been investigated multiple times, so by your own standards you are responsible for this too....
There's a difference between being complicit and not understanding when you are being lied to by authorities when it came to Iraq. There is a difference between speculation on Trump and Russia based on the overwhelming evidence that was coming out during the course of that investigation. There is a difference between that and the outright propaganda that comes out of Trump, Fox, OAN, NewsMax, etc. I'm sick and tired of these false equivalences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rancidwraith3298 Corporations buy off politicians, use their influence to start wars and "coups" in various countries, perpetuated slavery and various forms of inequality for hundreds of years, pollute our environment, and are literally destroying the planet... If you are truly concerned with "power imbalance" then you should understand that money is the largest influence in the world today... Money usurps justice. The founders never devised any economic check and balance even though they repeatedly warned against "aristocracy". The only check we have today against an oligarchy is government and democracy, despite the fact that money is the main corrupting influence on that government. Resources are finite, however the profit motive will always exploit every last resource (oil, diamonds, gold, rain-forests, people, animals, etc) for the sake of profit no matter the long term consequences.
1
-
@rancidwraith3298 Yes I've heard the argument many times before... The basic flaw and naivete of your thinking is that you somehow believe that corporations (or any groups of individuals) cannot have weapons, use force, enslave people, steal property, force children to work, pollute rivers, etc. The ONLY reason corporations cannot use force is because they are constrained by a greater force. Laws, regulations, courts, police, FBI, etc. Keep people and the profit motive, in check. You were born into a society were all of this was just handed to you, so you take it for granted and believe that only government has force when that has never been the case... Just travel to Somalia or Afghanistan and see a world ruled by warlords and groups of individuals without democratically controlled force, and see what the alternative is like.
This is why societies like ours do not just magically appear. Even the money that you were taught to covet, is nothing more than a societal construction. It has no value outside of the government that regulates a stable currency.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chasedown5928
--"Blockchain, while Bitcoin does use it to validate the coins and trace where the coins go to, that is really all that it has to do with the Blockchain"
I know, and Blockchain, at least the version employed by Bitcoin today, is horribly inefficient and wastes tons of energy and resources. Which is why a large chunk of the farms are in China who can afford to waste all of this energy that is mostly used to gamble and buy illegal shit online.
-"I'm talking about the SSN or alien ID number that every citizen gets that helps identify them."
Yeah I got it...
-"If somebody can login to a government website and provide their SSN and answer some basic questions that shows on their credit, then that should be proof enough to allow them to vote and that vote would be carried out on the Blockchain making it difficult to hack (assuming that the website is secure)."
My point exactly.... IF we could do that already then block chain isn't really required now is it? Other than recording the transaction, block chain relies on all sorts of internet mechanisms that would be vulnerable in that situation.
In a lot of ways the bureaucracy around voting (having to show up in person, showing proof of residency, license, paper ballots, etc.) makes the process more secure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alienzenx It's called using your brain, logic, and a person's history instead of just going "Der... she said pretty things!". I didn't say it was a guarantee that she was trying to be Biden's VP pick, but it seems likely to be the case. Not only has she never gone after Biden who is a target rich environment for the establishment, war, criminal justice reform, etc. She went out of her way to DEFEND Biden when she didn't need to. Furthermore she attacked the one other person who would likely be Biden's pick for VP, because in this political climate Biden would be thinking of picking a woman, specifically a minority woman. (They already floated the idea of picking Stacey Abrams)
Notice how you never addressed my other complaints on Tulsi, you just cherry picked this one... 🤔 Here's one more: Tulsi NEVER SIGNED THE PROGRESSIVE PLEDGE. She gave no reason for not signing it, even though she "claims" to support all the issues on the pledge... Both Warren and Bernie had no problems signing it.
Again, you can blindly believe Tulsi if you want, but I'll just wait and 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Like "progressives" today, early progressives fought against corruption & waste, "robber barons", advocated gov't control by average citizens, education, land/wildlife conservation (Grand Canyon, Yosemite, etc.), rights of women, workers, minorities (abolitionists), etc.
One thing changed is the stance on "prohibition", early progressives favored prohibition because of the detrimental effects of "saloons" on women & the poor.
Now progressives are against prohibition of alcohol,marijuana, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mike C Voter ID is just a form of voter suppression. The only reason why republican politicians create those policies is because the people less likely to have a driver's license are young people and minorities who live in cities and don't need to drive. The fact is there has never been ANY case of rampant in person voting fraud in the history of this country so we're basically fixing a problem that doesn't exist while ignoring all the numerous problems with voting machines, access to polling locations, long lines, people who have to work, polling people throwing out ballets,, etc.
You want a voter id, create a national id card FIRST. Handle all the logistics and costs of everyone getting that card (which is most difficult for the elderly and poor). THEN create a voter id laws. Otherwise you're just suppressing people for no reason.
"Also I don’t get why you would want to have the public funding, for politicians?"
So that they are not corrupted by special interests and corporations....
"I would rather see a federal state and city coffer for election financing and a public nomination
Process, where people could electronically petition for their candidate or some other similar
Petition process."
That is public financing for elections. So I'm not sure what your issue is. That's like saying "I don't agree with Cars, but BMWs are great"
1
-
Mike C Just to be clear I simply copied and pasted what was on Bernie's website to clarify his positions on "money in politics". I agree with those positions, but they are not my words. My interpretation is that the idea of "small dollar donations" is currently popular in Democratic campaigns. So I believe it is just a marketing tactic to say that with public financing those who give small dollar donations today will have more influence when elections are publicly financed tomorrow.
Effectively amplifying the effect of what we call "small dollar donations" today, even though it's much more accurate to say it allows elections to be financed by the masses instead of a few.
The problem with Voter ID is that it's never paid for. If the GOP supported a national id card that wouldn't cost anything and be automatically assigned to everyone in the country, that would be one thing, but they're not... For them having a "pay wall" or other hindrance to voting is something they're perfectly okay with. It suppresses just enough people to make a difference.
And again people voting more than once or voting as someone else is something so rare that spending tens of billions to fix compared to all the other problems in our voting system (hacking vulnerabilities, ballot tampering, not enough polling locations, people unable to get to a polling location, long lines, etc.) just seems like misplaced priorities....
Is it really a democracy if 20% or more of the population can't vote for a variety of reasons compared to the maybe 5 or so cases every year of in-person voter fraud? (most of which usually turn out to be simple mistakes). Determining which is worse for democracy is just basic math.
Also with better transit systems, Uber, self driving cars, other personal electric transportation (bikes, scooters), etc. I would imagine that fewer people will have driver's licenses in the future. Especially those living in cities. Personally I rarely drive my car.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bobs & Vagana Surgeons, nurses, etc. have been wearing masks for the past 100 years or so specifically to protect patents from the pathogens coming out of their mouths and noses. Which is the same reason why we wear masks in the middle of a pandemic. This isn't a new or made up or anything. Masks are for protect others and slowing the spread, where it is likely to happen (indoors), they are not primarily for protecting *you*. Even a bad mask will at least slow the stream of air coming out of your mouth, so the droplets containing the virus don't travel as far from your body.
Now if you're trying to protect yourself, then yes, something that is designed to filter pathogens from air with a tight seal around your face is going to better than a cloth mask. However even a cloth mask will at least slow some of the virus from entering your body and decrease your viral load. So if you're exposed, you'll still get infected but since your viral load is lower, it is easier for your immune system to keep up with it.
In other words, if you're wearing say an n95 mask then getting 5% of those virus particles entering your body is far better than getting 100% and having your immune system completely overrun.
Asian countries have been wearing masks during flu seasons ever since the Spanish flu and because of that culture, their deaths per capita during this pandemic have been a fraction of ours.
The question isn't whether masks work or not, the question is how best to handle a virus that is becoming endemic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Again, Capitalism is not "moral", otherwise we wouldn't have slavory, child labor, sweatshops, polution, child porn, ponzi schemes, bought politicians, and war profiteering.
Capitalism is niether "productive" nor efficient as 70-80% of businesses fail & billions of pounds of food are thrown away while people starve.
Capitalism feeds the oligarchy & inequality.
Yes many teachers, farmers, scientists, artists, & engineers work for enjoyment not to become "rich".
We are all slaves to money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vla1ne Wrong... The 2 million dead was if we did absolutely "nothing". Not 2 million dead if we actually did something like shut down, wear masks, social distance, etc.. However if we were proactive like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. we would be looking at a few thousand deaths not a few hundred thousand deaths. Furthermore we are projected to have 400, 000 deaths by January. So it's pretty reasonable to assume that on this current path we will be close to a million deaths 2 years into this pandemic.
A quarter million Americans are dead today because of people like you constantly downplaying the numbers. Stop the bullshit already.
--"please don't hop over to the "well trump said it'll be gone by X" as an argument. nobody with common sense believed that claim at the start,"
Most of Trump's supporters lack common sense which is why they believed him. They are the ones not taking it seriously TODAY They also believed that Hydroxychloroquine was a magical cure simply because Trump said so.
This is why we shouldn't elect leaders who lie constantly, because their stupid followers will believe them. We cannot stop a virus when a quarter of the population are idiots who blindly follow an "Idiot in Chief".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
golden taco Right... because as long as you point your fingers at people and say their culture is bad it's going to magically fix their problems? Sorry, but the reason that people don't concede to that idea is because it is complete bullshit. It's nothing more than an excuse for apathy and non-action. The main problem is poverty and inequality, period. It doesn't matter your race or where you are in the world, children who grow up in poor schools and poor environments grow up with poor mentalities. Yes that also includes irresponsible behavior. There is a huge link between environment, IQ, opportunity, and social mobility. Tell me, what exactly are you proposing to fix these issues? Point fingers? Tell people to "do better"? Because those are not real solutions. Poverty and violence is a social and economic problem. It is a fact that societies that are more unequal have more violence, mental issues, unwed mothers, prison populations, etc.
You can't look at it as "this is a problem that those people have over there". Like any system, you have to look at the problem *holistically*.
If you're not looking at it that way, you're not fixing anything. You're only trying to make yourself feel better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theojackson3853 Again the border had nothing to do with Covid. Trump restricted some flights, however he also allowed 40,000 Americans to travel back from China without any *testing*. He also didn't do anything about the virus traveling from Europe until it was too late. Yes, Warp Speed expedited vaccine development, however not all vaccines used Warp Speed, such as the BionTech vaccine developed in Germany.
The reason no one was getting vaccinated under Trump is because the vaccine WASN'T AVAIALBE to people. The rollout was abysmal, and Trump spent all of November, December, and January being obsessed over his election loss instead of fixing the problems in getting vaccines distributed. If Trump wasn't so preoccupied with himself, he could have helped with the vaccination efforts and less people would have died that winter.
Trump did one good thing with Warp Speed, but we could have stopped this virus early on if he didn't spend years trying to defund the CDC and firing most of the CDC people who were stationed in China right before the pandemic hit. Also if he didn't allow Bolton to disband the NSC pandemic response group then we could have had proper PPE, testing, and contact tracing in place, Instead Trump put is son in law in charge and decided to pretend the virus didn't exist or you could fit it by ingesting disinfectant, hydroxychloroquine, and other nonsense. He downplayed wearing masks and held campaign rallies allowing the virus to spread amongst his own supporters.
Ultimately Trump was a completely failure when it came to protecting this country when it actually mattered. Spending billions on a useless "wall" while ignoring the pandemic protections this country had built up since George Bush
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jrpone
1.Comparing the Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, TORTURE, Abu Guhraib, Git Mo, Rendition to signing the NDAA is apples and oranges.
2. You seriously want to compare the civilian and military death toll under Bush vs Obama? All I need to do is start with 911, finish with Iraq, and then rest my case.
3. I'm sorry but continuing some of those policies is a completely different level than STARTING those policies, creating a police state (TSA, Patriot Act, HS, etc) and lying us into war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barkoczigabor8485 1. I’m entirely familiar with the fiction you people created. You think that because Trump gave you a platform to be as racist, misogynist, homophobic, and antisemetic as you want, that somehow anyone not liking that is “Cancel Culture”. When in reality it is just something you made up entirely. Bush didn’t go around emboldening white supremacists and Islamaphobes, but now you want to cry because it turns out that people don’t like that.
2. TYT never once called for “white genocide”. That’s just you being crazy.
3. Okay then correct Ana if she said something not quite accurate about Gina’s possible transphobia, she would be the first to correct it if she thought she was staying something incorrect. However It’s clear you don’t have the same standards for your own statements and claims that you’ve made here. There is always a double standard where the right gets to make shit up every day and the left has to be 100% accurate.
4. No they just read a statement from Disney that made the holocaust reference. TYT didn’t make that claim.
5. Aggression starts with discrimination and hate. Hate crimes rose to a 16 year high under Trump. White supremacists have killed dozens of people since Charlottesville. Never mind the shootings at El Paso, synagogues, churches, stores, all because of their race or ethnicity. Countless people have suffered and died. So you can spare me on getting your feelings hurt on the internet because your positions are criticized. Those positions should be ridiculed, sorry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackgreen5627 At what point did I say "Chauvin killed Floyd due to racism"? 😂 All you people do is make up straw man arguments. I hate to brake it to you, but you can buy a house and care about what's happening in poor black communities at the same time.... Those two things aren't somehow mutually exclusive. 🤣 And I'm sorry, but if you're going to sit here and pretend that people who can get a mortgage for a house can't possibly care about others then either you're a hypocrite or you've never voted for a single Republican politician, who are all multi MILLIONAIRES. I don't recall people asking Trump to give all his money to the poor.
It's about time you start educating yourselves on actual issues. I'm sick and tired of you idiots who listen to right wing pundit garbage all day. All you can do is repeat nonsense labels like "Marxist", "socialist", "communist", "leftist", "liberal", without having a single fact based argument behind it.
Then suddenly you pretend that people buying houses, Mr. potato head, or Dr. Suess are real issues when you have nothing else.
News is not there to make you feel good about yourself, you people really need to grow the hell up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I wish Cenk would stop talking in terms of "big government". I know he likes to use conservative terminology in his arguments, but it's a loaded nonsensical term.
Obviously he's talking about "effective government" that can invest in roads, bridges, transit systems, parks. green technology, healthcare, education, that can help GROW societyas opposed to pot criminalization, wire tapping, indefinate detention, TSA, etc.
We shouldn't fall into the silly simplistic "spending vs no spending" BS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a rich psychopathic Republican president lie us into a war in Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, torture, indefinite detention, warrantless wire tapping, huge deficits through tax cuts, and ended on an economic collapse. So what do people do 8 years after that disaster? They elect another rich psychopathic Republican president who lied about a virus and allowed hundreds of thousands of Americans to die from a preventable illness, separated children from their families, detained immigrants for months, huge deficits through tax cuts, tried to overthrow the government, and ended on an economic collapse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KB-sv7fm Dude, I know exactly what Obama did. I was there... I'm talking about POLITICS, you know.... the conversation we were just having?
--"There are ALWAYS some people who are not doing well economically."
Which is what Trump exploited to win 2016. Again, this is POLITICS, keep up. The Democratic establishment DID NOT address the problems that were there BEFORE the economic collapse (remember the "occupy" movement started under Obama) and instead of addressing the problems with NAFTA, inequality, etc. they moved onto TPP which also had problems
People like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Warren have been speaking to these economic issues. And so did Trump.
I literally talk to Republicans every day about how the economy was improving since 2010. What you don't get is that it was NOT ENOUGH for a big chunk of people, particularly in the rust belt where Clinton lost miserably. People like Sander's have been speaking to those people for decades and proposing solutions to those problems. People like Clinton just ran on branding and "kumbaya"...
You may not want to hear it, but a lot of people voted for Trump because they thought he was going to do something about trade and manufacturing. And if all you do is talk being "centrist" and being "civil". then we are going to LOSE THE PRESIDENCY AGAIN....
1
-
@KB-sv7fm I can handle the truth just fine. People like me were warning about Trump and the fact that Hillary was a weak candidate whereas people like you thought Hillary was a safe bet. We were right, you were wrong. I find it hilarious that people who were unable to read the political winds in 2016 and got it completely wrong magically think they will win using the exact same strategy today.
Sure, just blame voters that will totally work right?.... "Free stuff" like roads, parks, public schools, libraries police, fire fighters, miliary, etc. Right? Do you honestly think these empty talking points are really a winning strategy? Are you somehow oblivious to how other countries handle health care? Or Medicaid & Medicare in THIS country for that matter? How do you expect me to take you seriously with that nonsense? 😂
--"Bernie lost in 2016 because blacks and Latinos mostly sided with Hillary. "
Hillary won because of decades of name recognition. Not to mention superdelegates, the media, and the overwhelming support by democratic establishment. However if you recall Sanders went from 2% to like 50% support nationally following the debates and went on to become the most popular politician in the country. That should tell you something....
Heaven forbid you look at a poll to see that Sanders has the black and Latino vote TODAY.... Heaven forbid you look at which candidate has the most enthusiasm and support. The longer you stay in that bubble of yours the worse it will be for our country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
magicwackywacko I don't engage in flame wars, only discussions. People have a right to their opinions. I have dear friends who enjoyed the movie and it's perfectly fine that they do. I can talk about what I hated and they can talk about what they liked and it's no big deal, it's just a movie. There are some movies that I can enjoy and just watch without worrying about plot holes and character inconsistencies. Like I can watch tthe Fast & Furious and suspend my belief and just enjoy it for what it is. However movies like Star Wars engage my imagination and intellect on a completely different level so when I see inconsistencies and plot holes it just takes me out of the moment for a movie franchise that I have such reverence for. I think that's the case for a lot of people.
Yes the director change left us with an absolute mess. It's clear that there isn't any cohesive direction and Rian Johnson just dismantled everything that Abrams had built. So at the end of the day you really have nothing to look forward to for Episode 9. Typically in a trilogy like the Original Star Wars trilogy, or the prequels, or Lord of the Rings, at this point the audience has grown with the characters and everyone is looking forward to the final showdown/development of the story. With this new trilogy there really isn't anything to look forward to in Episode 9.... Rey has already confronted Kylo twice now, Snoke is dead, Luke is dead, Leia might as well be dead, Akabar is dead, the rebellion is just a handful of people and apparently the rest of the galaxy doesn't care about them, the kids are still slaves on Canto. So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to look forward to in Episode 9.... Another Rey and Kylo encounter? What is there to really care about?
Also everything that Luke went through in the original trilogy was apparently for nothing.... So maybe the First Order should just rule the galaxy? Apparently the only people who care are a handful of "rebels" and one Stormtrooper who defected. No one else seems to really care. Even Luke didn't care. He just showed up to send his hologram to say goodbye and then die alone on his Island like he wanted 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mauris
--"Capitalists by definition cannot benefit fro socialism in their country as then they would not own the means of production."
Sorry, but that makes ZERO sense. You're saying that a retail shop doesn't benefit from roads? Police? Sidewalks? Stable power grids? A restaurant doesn't benefit from clean water reservoirs? A dispute between businesses doesn't benefit from courts?
--"Not socialism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production."
Which are things like city planning, roads, police, military, water processing plants, power grids, middle schools, high schools. Does it only count as "socialism" in your mind when it's not things you grew up with?
--"Romans had roads, you'd be hard pressed to find any leftist thinker who'd call them socialists."
You would be hard pressed to find someone on the left who would use dumb reductive blanket statements. Romans practiced some forms of socialism just like all governments do. They weren't just a band of roaming nomads doing nothing but trading with one another.
--"Hell, pretty sure plenty of people in the left dislike police, no?"
Plenty of people on the left dislike the president to, that doesn't mean we want to eliminate the executive branch.... No one wants to eliminate the police, just FIX the system. Sheesh, why is that difficult to understand? Do you somehow think we want no police? 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonycalce8223 I did with #3.... No one wants to be "illegal". They don't have a choice because they have no path to citizenship or they're afraid of leaving because they'll be caught at the border with the increased security, or they're afraid that they won't be able to cross again because they have family, etc. in the US. If you provide basic incentives for people to do the right thing, most people will try to do the right thing. If you don't, then people will will do whatever they have to do in order to survive. If you just demonize them then they will go into hiding, not cooperate with police, etc.
886 billion dollar pentagon budget plus 75 billion to Ukraine, plus billions to Israel, plus billions more for Japan, south Korea, etc. to check North Korea. You could easily argue that the US spends billions daily on war and miliary power abroad. Even without Afghanistan/Iraq.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People don't realize that the same things was happening during Covid with the vaccines. It's not that the vaccines didn't work or weren't effective, they clearly were, but there was a concerted effort to push the narrative that naturally acquired immunity offered no protection... I was reading a pretty comprehensive article in the British Medical Journal where people wondered why the US was not taking into account naturally acquired immunity in it's vaccination policy. There were these tiny, incomplete, studies that promoted "vaccine only" immunity that were promoted, while the larger more comprehensive studies that clearly showed that natural immunity was a thing, were entirely ignored and they pointed out ties a few in the CDC had to pharmaceutical companies. It became entirely politicized in this country, whereas nearly everywhere else in the world people understood that once you recovered from Covid you were less likely to to have a reinfection and if you did, you were far less likely to be hospitalized. Which is no different than a "breakthrough " infection. It's the same reason why poor countries had a tough time getting vaccinations, because it became an easier sell in rich countries with deep pockets, even if tens of millions of those vaccine doses ended up expiring and wasted.
The profit motive literally kills and people really need to understand these nuances.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonysmith6967 So your tactic now is to call me names and lie about Bernie's record? You're now claiming that Bernie "tried his best" to topple regimes? wow... Sorry, but you've gone completely off the deep end and abandoned all logical thought.
Sanders was one of the lone voices opposing the Iraq War since it started. With NUMEROUS videos of him speaking out against it and many other conflicts on the floor of the Senate while others just sat by. He's currently speaking out against our intervention in Venezuela.
I've listened to this man for about 15 years so I'm very well aware of his positions on war and the military industrial complex. If he ever supported any kind of intervention it was when lives were literally at stake. If he wanted a regime change it was for a peaceful transition, not by force.
You're comments are an embarrassment to free thought. Look... It's okay for you to like Tulsi, but you're letting your support turn you rabid. I have enough to deal with when it comes to mindless Trump supporters. I don't need that stupidity coming from the left as well.
Like I said. I appreciate her perspective when it comes to the debates, but she has no real record on changing the discourse in this country or getting any reforms through congress. Furthermore her previous comments on Torture, the wall, etc. are troubling.
She's spent a lot of time "coming around" to issues (like Medicare for all, LGBTQ rights, etc), whereas Bernie has been on the right side of those issues since probably before she was born. Yes, there are videos of Bernie speaking out on gay rights in the 80's.
The bottom line is you believe that Tulsi will be consistent, true, and effective on issues that she's literally only had for maybe 4-5 years at most. Whereas I don't, sorry. However I would be more than happy if she gained popularity and more support on those ideas and became an effective leader in congress while Sanders is president.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AntonioSantos-yh2tq He got the money from scamming thousands of students, using his presidential campaign to sell books and rent rooms on his own properties where he doubled the price, and doubling the membership fees at Mar-a-Lago so that people could pay his club to get access to the president. 😂 Never mind the hundreds of rooms that were rented and never used by the Saudis so they could funnel some money to Trump. Running for president was always a cash cow for Trump and his family. It still is.
Sorry, but when you ignore democracy, courts, and laws, you are in fact anointing someone as a dictator or King. Also in case you forgot, Hillary Clinton conceded the election THE NEXT DAY.... Despite all of our intelligence agencies talking about "Russian interference", she cared more about the country and the peaceful transfer of power than her own ambitions.
YOU supported a guy who NEVER conceded, even after losing 60 court cases and , because he cared more about his ego than the country... Trump didn't care about ripping the country apart, the thousands dying DAILY from a virus that we could have stopped early on, starting a riot at the capital, or anyone who got killed in the process... You do realize it was Mike Pence, NOT Trump, who finally called in the national guard right? Trump is a traitor to this country who deserves far worse than impeachment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@megagagnon1
Sorry you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not recognize CA's contribution to the world. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Silcon Vally, Google, YouTube, Twitter, the .Com boom, Skateboarding, Snowboarding, Cuisine, Hollywood, etc. Innovations & industries that changed HISTORY.
All with decades of large government programs, publicly funded universities & high tax rates.
Libertarians fantasize on how they *think* the world works, but it's simplistic ideology with no basis in reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 person resorting to petty insults is clearly the one getting "frustrated", because you have yet to produce a single factual argument...
Let me repeat... if you sell products/services within the US you are relying on the infrastructure the country is built upon. Roads, bridges, ports, clean water/air, sanitation, public education, police, fire, courts, even the very MONEY you exchange.
But apparently you think everything given to you is "free" so no one has to pay or contribute to society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ATGwrestling
They crashed our economy many times in the history & single handedly created The Fed...
Are you saying nothing has ever been accomplished without" profit"?
Many scientists, researchers, artists, musicians, teachers, police, military, inventors, etc. have worked throughout history without the promise of "profit".
"maximizing profit" is the corrupting force behind government and allows an oligarchy to maintain power.
There's no denying that money is control, influence, & 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How about you just move to a conservative country like Afghanistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia? Anyone mindlessly hating on California please don't use any products and services from Google, Apple, YouTube, Disney, Intel, etc. Don't use any phones, laptops, any tech, just sit your ass at home and don't you dare watch any Hollywood movies either because clearly you hate everything "California" right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
neurotransmitter I'm not "acting like" anything dude. I'm just acknowledging the facts. You should try it sometime. I very well know that based on my upbringing I've had lots of advantages compared to people who grew up in a trailer park or even some of my friends, simply because I grew up in the suburbs in decent neighborhoods, decent schools, etc. And quite frankly I've been lucky. I also know that statistically that isn't the case for millions of other black people who grew up in inner cities like in Baltimore, Chicago, NY etc. and there are historical reasons for why black people were concentrated into shitty neighborhoods with little opportunity. I ALSO know that if I'm stopped by the police there are a lot more assumptions that the police would make about me based on my skin color than someone else. There are a lot of racist assholes out there who have no problems with ruining a person's life.
"you see all kinds of people getting beat by police. it's a police problem not a race problem."
It's both actually.... Statically, it is indeed a race problem. The numbers don't lie. For example black and white people use drugs at the same rate, but black people are far more likely to go the jail and get longer jail time for the same offenses. Unarmed black people are also more likely to get shot by police than unarmed white people. About 88% of the people police stopped in the Stop & Frisk program were black & Latino, meanwhile 89% of those people were completely innocent. So basically minorities were harassed daily by the police daily for no reason.
It is ALSO a fact that police are trained to shoot first and ask questions later and escalate situations to violence when they don't need to be. They have been stocking up on military weapons and riot gear. This effects everyone, regardless of race.
Acknowledging these facts doesn't somehow mean that just because I'm black it automatically means that I'm more disadvantaged than you or any white person in the country. That's not what I'm saying, that isn't what anyone is saying. It just means that if everything else was equal, with the same background, opportunities, etc. That there are still advantages and disadvantages that are based entirely on race. Such as hiring for jobs, police conduct, incarceration, etc. as shown in many studies. This is something that should be fixed culturally and politically along with the other issues with the police.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youknow9092 1. Sorry, but you don't get to reinterpret my own comments and pretend that your interpretation is a "verifiable fact", lol 🤣 Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? 😂
2. Creating public schools, post offices, roads, etc. means they were accepting of policies that benefit the general welfare of the population. They didn't use terms like "large", so you can stop lying about their intent. The fact that they advocated for a central government at all was a huge departure from what was established at the time.
People like me also "value basics for society" as well. Which is a lot different today than it was 250 years ago. College is more important than basic literacy. Broadband and cellphones are more important than delivering letters on horseback.
3. "government is inherently evil" Sorry, but you sound like an complete joke when you call things "evil". Government isn't evil because we need one to govern our society. It's like saying cars or airplanes are "evil".
I'm glad you're finally saying "size is irrelevant". We finally agree on something.
4. --"America pre 1950s proves nations with less tax ensure their citizens are more prosperous"
You mean during the great depression? 😂 I hate to break it to you, but post WW2 after Medicare, social security, and even an 90% upper income tax rate this country had the most prosperous times in our history. Millions of people were literally lifted our of poverty, we created the "middle class", and the GDP grew like crazy.
If you actually cared about people being prosperous. You would look at poverty, wealth per capita, education, health, etc. But you're not.... All you're doing is repeating the empty slogans you were programed with.
--" what right is it of yours or anyone elses to take something from one person just to give it to another? "
I'm not personally taking anything. It's called a "social contract". You might as well ask: "What right do you have to tell people to stop at a red light so that other people can go at a green light?" These types of straw man questions is how people like you get fooled by propaganda.
Money itself is also a social contract. Our society (government) is the reason it has value. You are not personally printing money and I'm not "deciding for you" that it has value. We are participating in a society that makes it legal tender.
1
-
@youknow9092 1. It's called making a straw man argument. As you've done several times now. Again, you don't get to reinterpret my statements in order have something to argue against, especially after I long since clarified what I meant. People who have facts, state facts, they don't just say "verifiable fact" and "evidence" over and over. 😂
2. You speak out against "basic infrastructure" anytime someone proposes basic infrastructure and then you respond by crying and moaning about "socialism". etc. without actually ever even thinking about it.
Again, founders like Hamilton and Thomas Paine had no problems with a strong centralized authority. Stop pretending as if all founders thought the same way, they didn't. They were negotiating a new government with states that already had their own power.
Wow you really don't get it do you?... Infrastructure is never required. We don't NEED publicly funded roads, bridges, a post office, libraries, public schools, police, fireman, etc. There are plenty of 3rd world counties that lack the "basic infrastructure" we have in this country. The reason why Jefferson advocated for public education wasn't because he thought society could not function without it. It was a way of making society BETTER and more competitive with the rest of the world.
Your problem is short sightedness which the founders did not have.
3. The judiciary as well as "checks and balances" are all part of the same government... Stop talking about things in terms of "evil". It's cringe and you sound like a little kid who has been brainwashed by religious dogma. A clear indication that you're not coming from a rational place.
4. You said "pre-1950s" proves your claim about taxes and the 20s and 30s were before the 1950s... So are you changing your argument?
Social Security was signed into law in 1935. The top tax rate was over 90% in 1943 and remained high until the late 60s. It was dropped in the 70s.
You pretend other people don't know the economic history of this country when you clearly do not... You could have easily checked those figures yourself, but instead of verifying your claims, you would rather believe in a made up fairytale.
Money is a social contract and so is property. Please look up the term so you know what it means. You don't have "personal property" without a government enforcing your right to it.
1
-
1
-
@youknow9092 1. You actually didn't provide any evidence for why 3rd world countries with fewer taxes and regulations perform far worse than 1st world countries and you're still avoiding it.
2. Again.... There is no infrastructure that is "necessary". All infrastructure is there to make society better. So when you use vague terms like "necessary", you're not saying anything.
3. Please provide evidence that "most" founders disagreed with a "strong central government". I have given you several examples of founders who did not, while you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your claims. Hamilton, Madison, George Washington, and Ben Franklin were all considered "Federalists".
4. Wong again. Everyone does not use every street, sidewalk, or bridge. Not everyone requires police or fire departments. Not everyone has kids who benefit from public education. Not everyone has rural routes that post offices are required to service that are more costly than city addresses. There are literally thousands of services that the government provides which are not used by "everyone".
Social services are no different. They stabilize society because they're available for people when they need them, and limit people falling further into poverty which only creates a drain on society. For example when Medicare and Social Security were introduced people suddenly didn't have to rely on their children for care. This allowed the middle class to flourish, dramatically cut poverty, and improved most of society.
5. Again, "checks and balances" ARE government. Whether it's a monarchy, dictatorship, or a representative democracy. These are all forms of "government". Calling things "evil" and making assertions you have no evidence for only means you exchanged one religion for another.
6. No it just means you suddenly decided to move the goal post (again), because you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about.... However you can find a dozen of economic panics that hit the poor hard before 1913, such as the Long Depression from 1873 to 1896. Never mind the fact that the middle class didn't reach its peak in this country until the government got involved in a major way during the 20th century.
Moving the goal post to over a hundred years ago is just desperation at this point and you still haven't provided any actual evidence for your claims.
Taxes were raised dramatically AFTER the Great Depression Genius. 😂 Furthermore the Fed had even more power after the depression and we still had rapid growth during the 40's, 50's, & 60s. Once again you have no evidence for your claims
The Constitution is the very foundation of our government. So you're basically just proving my point. 😂 Again, the only reason you can "own property" is because of the government. It doesn't happen through magic, wishful thinking, or whatever religious dogma you follow.
1
-
1
-
@youknow9092 1. So in other words. You have no evidence or a real argument. 🤡
2. "Functional" for life, means healthcare. "Functional" is always relative to your goal. If you don't care about people dying then healthcare isn't important. If you don't care about illiteracy then education isn't important. The founders decided to care about literacy because they wanted our country to be competitive with the rest of the world.
It's a pretty simple concept.
3. Saying you have done research without actually providing it, means you're lying. I gave you specifics and named actual founders. Please give me a break down of the founders and which ones were Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Provide evidence that the people who created our government were somehow against it's creation or against centralizing power.
4. --"everyone does not use every single street, bridge or sidewalk is irrelevant. "
It isn't irrelevant because that's how society works... I don't have to use every single road, bridge, handicap rail, handicap ramp, for society as a whole to benefit. I don't have to use libraries for public libraries to have been beneficial to our society. I don't have to use public schools for public schools to be beneficial.
Again, Not everyone uses a research or land grant... Not everyone uses every road, bridge. Not everyone uses public schools. libraries. Not everyone calls the police. or fire department, coast guard, or an ambulance. However these things literally transformed our society for the better.
Do you think the founders believed that everyone would use a public school?
5. You might as well say that a judiciary was created to judge things. 😂 Again, the entire system of governing IS *GOVERNMENT*. Please show me where the founders thought that government itself is "evil"?
6. The rise of the middle class, reduction of poverty, GDP per capita, and the lack of constant economic depressions, panics, and recessions every few years clearly show how things were better after the Great Depression and the New Deal. What's your evidence exactly?
Repeating religious dogma instead of actual facts and figures is an obvious indication of brainwashing.
You are repeating the propaganda that comes out of think tanks as if it were religion (Heritage foundation, Brookings institute, Cato foundation, etc. etc.) I've heard the same crap over and over for decades. They create a message to that elicits an emotional response using words around "stealing" "taking" and "fairness" and it causes people like you to internalize a lot of nonsense.
Politicians, pundits, media use these talking points because they are designed to influence people. This is why every time I challenge you on actual facts and figures, your arguments fall apart.
1
-
@youknow9092 1. Not forcing you to do anything dude. Just calling you out for being a clown by lying about "evidence" you clearly don't have. 😂 The reason you've been talking in circles for a week is because you have nothing.
2.Again, it does with public schools, land grants, research grants, libraries, handicap access, rural roads, parks, coast guard, and hundreds of other services that I pointed out that you have absolute no response for. We pay for things that may or may not benefit us personally all the time, but as a society we benefit.
All you're doing is mindlessly repeat talking points, without providing evidence or examples of your arguments in practice.
3. I can claim that aliens landed in my backyard. It's not up to everyone else to prove that my claim is real.
People who believe in fairy tales without evidence are religious people. You've proven yourself over and over to only believe in stories without evidence.
Meanwhile I actually back up my claims.
4. Which is my point. Society benefited from public education, social security, and Medicare. Society will also benefit from public higher education and extending Medicare to everyone.
5. Again, the fact that putting pepperoni on a pizza makes it taste better, doesn't mean than pepperoni isn't part of the pizza. It doesn't mean that pizza is "evil" without pepperoni. It just means that there are types of pizza that people prefer. We prefer a government with checks and balances as opposed to a monarchy or some other form of government.
6. --"you act like the middle class didnt exist until our excessive tax code was adopted. Nice lie. "
You act as if I didn't say that the middle class "grew", "rose", "reached it's peak". Instead you pretend I said something else which is a classic straw man tactic when you're unable to argue against the point I actually made. Nice lie.
Again as I stated, looking at GDP per capita and the fact that there were far more economic panics and recessions prior to 1913 invalidates your claim and you're not giving me any kind of measurement that proves your assertions... Which means that your claims don't come from anything, they're just an idea someone told you, hence brainwashing from propaganda.
And sorry, but just saying the equivalent of "Nuh uh... you are!" or "I am rubber you are glue" is not a real argument. 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youknow9092 1. Sure someone who responds with novel's worth of text is worried about wasting their time. 😂 No one believes you dude. You've got nothing. Just admit that your feelings are more important than facts and figures.
2. Your argument was about being forced to pay for the benefit of others. Being mandated to pay for handicap access, is the same thing as paying for it through taxes.
Again, having a baseline for heath coverage doesn't prevent people from paying more. No different than having a baseline for education doesn't prevent people from going to private schools.
In 1973 most jobs required a high school education and in 2020 most jobs require more than than a high school education. So your definition of "basic education requirement" isn't based on anything other than your feelings.
3. No. I only respond to arguments, not emotional outbursts. There's no point in wasting my time with non-arguments.
4. Like I said. All of your arguments are based on emotion and demonizing people. without evidence to back up your claims.
People in red states take more from the federal government than they contribute in taxes. So you're mindlessly following a caricature for why "the left" pushes policies that benefit society.
5. Again, it should be pretty easy to provide a quote or something to support your claims, but you can't. Unlike you I don't mindlessly believe things without evidence.
--"You provided figures then interpreted that to mean society was better"
Yes I provided empirical evidence to back up my claims. You should try that instead of just believing whatever sounds good to you. It's the difference between an informed opinion vs. a religion.
All of your arguments are based on feelings.... You also believe in collectivism otherwise you would be in a 3rd world country that has less government, few paved roads, little education, police, etc.
6. Which studies show giving homes for the homeless doesn't work? And the question is whether most studies show a certain outcome, not whether there is a single study that does not Furthermore I don't recall ever advocating for a UBI.... Which for the record is not a "safety net".
Again safety nets have clearly worked in this country and around the word. They keep a significant part of the population from falling further into poverty and squalor which is a net benefit to society.
Again, you can preach your ideology all day, but I'm not going to follow your religion. I only believe ideas that can be backed up by facts and empirical data. Which you clearly don't have.
Sorry, but no one in their right mind is dumb enough to believe you're sitting on a mountain of evidence but just too lazy to provide any of it. That's obviously a lie and not even a very good one at that. 😂
1
-
@youknow9092 1. When you don't have any evidence to back up your claims you're not calling out anything, you're only making a fool out of yourself. No one here believes people who don't provide evidence and just makes up stories and fairy tales.
2. Again, people do not use public education equally. Many people choose private schools. Again, police, fire departments, parks, etc. are also not used equally. They are used in an emergency, no different than healthcare.
Study from Georgetown university entitled: "Job Growth and Education Requirements Through 2020". Shows that 65% of jobs in 2020 require an education level past high school. Sorry unlike you I don't lie, that's what you do. I actually back up what I say.
I don't just make things up as I go along as you have been doing.
3. No just more false accusations and statements based on your religious dogma.
4. None of your statements have been evidence based. No different than your statements on Social Security and Medicare. You're not referencing any actual evidence of stats before and after these programs were enacted. Your position comes from nothing more than ignorance. All you care about is some mindless blind belief that someone programed you with.
5. Like I said all you care about is ranting about your religious dogma that you cannot prove. I verify my statements with facts, figures, and studies. Every single one of your arguments fell apart because everything you believe is based on personal feelings and emotions. Someone tells you something simplistic that sounds good and you blindly believe it. That's what ALL religious people do. You even call things "evil" like some kind of crazy evangelical.
6. I don't believe you have ever looked at s single study on giving homes to the homeless dude.... All you are doing is lying and repeating the talking points you have been programmed wit.
You're nothing more than a drone at this point and it's sad.
1
-
1
-
@youknow9092 1. Just like the refusal for you to research the aliens that landed in my backyard. It must be true then right? All you're doing is clowning yourself over and over.... 😂
2. I just pointed out all the ways that universal healthcare it benefits society. Better for small businesses in being more completive to large corporations. Increases social mobility as people are not tied to workplace healthcare benefits. Better to slow the spread of transmittable diseases. Lowers the healthcare costs for the entire country, since we're paying 2 or more times the costs of other developed countries. Drops all the red tape that individuals and hospitals have to go through with dealing with insurance companies, coverage, co-payments, etc. Everyone will have lower costs as pointed out in numerous studies, including a study by the Cato institute who is antagonistic against the idea. Eliminating the half a million or more families that go bankrupt each year due to medical debt (even if they have insurance in many cases), which has impacts on individuals as well as our overall economy. Eliminating the tens of thousands who die each year from lack of insurance, which also has greater impacts on society.
So you cannot say it doesn't benefit all of society. I clearly laid it out for you.
3. No you're just another religious zealot who doesn't provide any evidence for your beliefs. The exact opposite of a rational person.
4. Yes it does. Sorry, but I don't blindly believe in lies and fairytales.
5. Lack of evidence clearly demonstrates a lack of rational thought.
6. I back up everything I say with facts, figures, and studies. Unlike religious ideologs like yourself. You might as well turn to Christianity, Islam, witchcraft, or Qanon. Because your arguments are no different.
I had a long argument with a religious friend of mine awhile ago and it was literally NO DIFFERENT than talking to you... They also claimed that I needed to spend a long time researching the Bible before I could dispute any of the arguments they were making.
It's a classic deflection tactic with you people. When you have no evidence for your claims and irrational beliefs you pretend that other people need to do research.
1
-
@youknow9092 1. No you just lie repeatedly about imaginary evidence. I don't need to bait liars, just point them out.
2. No you're just choosing to ignore everything I said, because you don't have an actual argument refuting it. So instead of addressing my points that explain all the benefits to society that universal health would have. You just ignore everything and repeat your religious dogma like some mindless drone.
3. Again, you have no evidence.
4. Again, all you've done is repeated fairytales without any evidence to back it up. Just like any other religious zealot.
5. It just means you're a liar who will pretend to have evidence that you don't have.
6. I provided you studies, stats, figures. Such as the historical figures on upper income taxes, various countries and their government revenue as a percentage of GDP, studies on employment, historical panics and economic recession, the growth of the middle class, growth f GDP per capita in the 20th century, actual statements in the Federalist papers, listing out founders who were Federalists as opposed to Anti-federalists. Once again, you're lying.
All you've done is make claims about "secret evidence" that you won't provide.
It's obvious at this point that you're nothing more than a liar and a religious zealot brainwashed by nonsense ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My guess is that most people get their "news" from opinion sources. You have right wing outlets who, for the most part, will just line up behind any right-wing leader. Then you have left wing media who will try and be "principled" and cover Democratic politicians fairly and because of that coverage will always be unbalanced. The right wing also lined up behind the Bush administration for years with barely any criticism of the war, torture, indefinite detention, Abu Gharibe, Gitmo, patriot-act, warrantless wiretapping, etc. Then when Obama got into office, he was constantly attacked by both the right and the left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikelouis9389 It's a coincidence only because our brains tend to create meaningless correlations. Authoritarians can be found everywhere. Russia (Stalin, Putin, etc.), China (Mao, etc), North Korea, Roberto Duterte, Saudi Arabia, etc. It doesn't really matter if they use nationality, skin tone, religion, or anything else as the basis of their ideology and cruelty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kyle sometimes your commentary on foreign policy can be rather vapid. OF COURSE, the US would offer to lift sanctions if Russia stopped invading Ukraine. OF COURSE, the US wants some kind of offramp for Putin, but only Putin can give an indication of what that is. The US president isn't a magic wizard who can just wave a wand and say: "here's your offramp sir.", "Here is peace!", "now the 60 year Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over!" You act as if there is some rational middle ground between Putin wanting major parts of Ukraine, influence over the oil and natural gas reserves (which for some reason NEVER gets talked about in the media), as well as regime change for the Ukrainian government and Ukrainians saying, "nah bro, GTFO". The bottom line is both sides are going to have to go through a lot of suffering before people get to a real point of actual negotiation, because Putin is going to try to take as much as he can and the Ukrainians are going to give up as little as they can.
1
-
If you like a savory breakfast, then it sounds like you would like grits. Like the southern breakfast "Fish & Grits". I mean it sounds similar to the other dishes you like in terms of flavor and texture. You have the creaminess of the grits which is similar to rice with raw egg or hummus, and it's a platform that you can add all sorts of flavors to (avocado, mushrooms, sprouts, etc.). Then if you add eggs and/or a grilled piece of fish, shrimp, etc. A lot of times I will use partially cooked eggs in my grits, which is similar to the rice and raw egg dish you were describing. And the type of grits changes the dish as well. It could be white, yellow, polenta, blue corn, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ulthanee And militias were used for that defense. There were plenty of laws against gun ownership for certain individuals in various states as well (natives, black people, criminals, people deemed mentally ill, permit requirements and justifications for ownership, etc.), so it was pretty clear it wasn't an individual right they were protecting only a State right to have citizen militias.
It's not like the concepts of self defense, castle doctrine, etc. were unfamiliar to the drafters of the Constitution. If that's what they meant they would state it explicitly, but in this case they were more concerned about state militias, specifically the "slave patrols" because that was an important issue for southern states.
1