Comments by "sharper68" (@sharper68) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

  1. 138
  2. 109
  3. 109
  4. 65
  5. 65
  6. 61
  7. 46
  8. 41
  9. 37
  10. 36
  11. 31
  12. 28
  13. 27
  14. 22
  15. 22
  16. 21
  17. 21
  18. 20
  19. 20
  20. 19
  21. 19
  22. 19
  23. 19
  24. 19
  25. 19
  26. 18
  27. 18
  28. 18
  29. 18
  30. 18
  31. 17
  32. 16
  33. 16
  34. 15
  35. 15
  36. 15
  37. 14
  38. 14
  39. 14
  40. 13
  41. 13
  42. 13
  43. 13
  44. 12
  45. 12
  46. 12
  47. 12
  48. 12
  49. 12
  50. 12
  51. 12
  52. 12
  53. 12
  54. 11
  55. 11
  56. 11
  57. 11
  58. 11
  59. 11
  60. 11
  61. 11
  62. 10
  63. 10
  64. 10
  65. They are very much like fundamentalist Christianity, when given power fundamentalists are universally repressive misogynist, intolerant, violent homophobic and oppressive. Evangelical Christianity has all the innate problems fundamentalist Islam does but has been watered down here because it exists in a secular environment that curbs it's worst impulses which are nearly identical to those of the Muslims you attack. You are literally advocating treating of Muslims as the other and your spin is tone deaf as you complain about the treatment of Christians which is based on the same kind of spin from Muslim conservatives. Under secularism all religions are more moderate. In the US Muslims for example support gay marriage at higher rates than fundi Christians do. The worst aspects of any religion do not define all followers and the reason Muslims are more conservative as a rule is they come from societies that do not benefit from secularism like the fundamentalist Christians do. When they exist in a framework that promotes religious freedom followers of Islam become ever more like moderate Christians and less like the christian fundi's who are very similar to the deeply conservative Muslims even as they are their loudest and most vocal critics. In the context of modern Muslim extremism we need to acknowledge the external powers including our roll in it's rise. Intelligence agencies have trained and funded extremists for decades to further other political goals and those terrorists who share nothing with us ideologically have since turned on us when our alliance was no longer convenient, this should surprise no one. These people are scum but they are largely a monster we created to solve other issues. We have consistently empowered conservative dictators and over turned secular governments to replace with them religious yes men ass holes. In almost every case the deeply conservative Muslims you point to as the problem are backed or were originally trained by one colonial non Muslim power or another for political and economic reasons that benefit the investors at the cost of the freedom of the people who live there. As of right now we are close allies a country that spreads the radical Wahhabi sect in the Saudi's because they sell us cheap oil. There seems to be little concern that they are chief exporters of Muslim terror, including the ass hats that did 911. I loathe all fundamentalists as regressive cancer, I do not single out Muslims as a group while i have no issue attacking the worst actors in the same way I kick fundi christian policy that we as a secular society should not be supporting either.
    10
  66. 10
  67. 10
  68. 10
  69. 10
  70. 10
  71. 9
  72. 9
  73. 9
  74. 9
  75. 9
  76. 9
  77. 9
  78. 9
  79. 9
  80. 9
  81. 9
  82. 9
  83. 9
  84. 9
  85. 9
  86. 8
  87. 8
  88. 8
  89. 8
  90. 8
  91. 8
  92. 8
  93. 8
  94. 8
  95. 8
  96. 8
  97. 8
  98. 8
  99. 8
  100. 8
  101. 8
  102. 8
  103. 8
  104. 8
  105. 7
  106. 7
  107. 7
  108. 7
  109. 7
  110. 7
  111. 7
  112. 7
  113. 7
  114. 7
  115. 7
  116. 7
  117. 7
  118. 7
  119. 7
  120. 7
  121. 7
  122. 7
  123. 7
  124. 7
  125. 7
  126. 7
  127. 7
  128. 7
  129. 7
  130. 7
  131. 7
  132. 7
  133. 7
  134. 7
  135. 7
  136. 7
  137. 6
  138. 6
  139. 6
  140. 6
  141.  @Madmartigan6  1) It was approved under emergency use to get it out fast. The fact is pfizer is being fully approved this week and that undermines this entire spin. 2) The analogy is apt and if there was an anti cancer drug movement this is exactly the same kind of nonsense they would push to get to you avoid taking the treatment. It is completely valid in it's comparison to claiming the vaccines causes heart attacks because there is no corollary data to support it outside some reports people had one after. The analogy is to show the error confusing causation with correlation. 3) The vaccinated are contacting covid (especially the new variant) because the mutation end runs some of the protection offered. They still get it at far lower rates than the unvaccinated as proved in places like Israel where they have very high vaccine rates and half of the people contracting are unvaccinated. A minority represents half the cases reported. The efficacy of the vaccine against he original strain is still very very high. The chance of you contracting it after being vaccinated is very very low. 4) The threat of long covid is not nearly as rare as adverse reactions to the vaccination. But even if you dismiss the personal threats of getting the virus you stand to a better chance to pass it on to others just to achieve some immunity. You become a link in a chain that kills others instead of gaining your protection from a inoculation which has no chance of harming others and at very very low risk to you. 5) Waving away numbers that do not agree with you makes you look like a cultist. There is every indication of this and that you are ignoring data that you dislike is not an argument or reason to pretend it does not exist. 6) Ya, they made billions. What does that change? He never said they did not make money on selling it. It is not clear you understand what cognitive dissonance is as you accuse him of it here. 7) The viral load spin is more meaningless anti vax nonsense that does not invalidate the use or the advantage of being vaccinated over getting this novel virus unprotected. Those who are vaccinated die from the virus less frequently and get less sick than the unvaxed. This is what we would expect if the vaccine had value. 8) Your numbers are ridiculous. I have spoken to others in your camp. They consistently bring up places like Israel in an attempt to undermine the vaccines effectiveness without any understanding of the numbers in the places cited. When you cite percentages it is always to mislead. In your case I have no doubt that throwing out the 80% number covers up fo the fact the numbers admitted are a fraction of what they were in the peak last January. In the case of Israel half the people reporting are vaccinated even though the unvaxed are a tiny minority. But the over all numbers are 1/10th what they were in January. Hard to paint the vaccine as a failure in that context. You are not thinking, you are parroting fear and ignorance under the guise of being informed. You are not. You are acting like a cultist. I do not care if you reply at all.
    6
  142. 6
  143. 6
  144. 6
  145. 6
  146. 6
  147. 6
  148. 6
  149. 6
  150. 6
  151. 6
  152. 6
  153. 6
  154. 6
  155. 6
  156. 6
  157. 6
  158. 6
  159. 6
  160. 6
  161. 6
  162. 6
  163. 5
  164. 5
  165. 5
  166. 5
  167. 5
  168. 5
  169. 5
  170. 5
  171. 5
  172. 5
  173. 5
  174. 5
  175. 5
  176. 5
  177. 5
  178. 5
  179. 5
  180. 5
  181. 5
  182. 5
  183.  @idimo7976  Pretending the corporate or financial institutions have some plan to override the mono cultures is empty nonsense. The ability to easily and cheaply travel the world has been their demise. What has moved us toward "globalization" at an ever more rapid pace is our increasing ability to do it cost effectively. As long as these corps write the rules for us we can not expect them to be beholden to arbitrary lines on a map. We can not expect them to be good citizens of anywhere unless we give them some legal obligation to do so. Globalization as you describe it has had some downsides. It has seen the west's total strangle hold on modern manufacturing broken. This is especially true in the developed world who had a total monopoly on mass production coming out of WWII that has since been diluted by trade and outsourcing policy written by said corps. The problems with pollution and the decline of western manufacturing communities are due to a lack of will to regulate industries on behalf of the respective constituencies in service to overt greed. The exact same greed the right often lauds as some kind of bizarre virtue. To problems of globalization are all economic and are directly tied to blind greed as mentioned. We are getting exactly what we should expect from corporations that have the ability to write trade policy to benefit them against that of their workers and the populations they serve The spin that economic globalization or support for manufacturing saving money by polluting is a left wing idea is ludicrous. A quick glance at who is deregulating said industry makes a lie of it. Every single right wing government in the west has put the polices driving it on steroids and ignoring that is myopic. You are attempting to link globalism with immigration and it is not valid. That large scale immigration is fairly new to Europe does not mean it's implications are not well understood and detached from your empty concerns. Your spin is actually identical to the backward Americans conservatives you seemed to deride. You are spitting the same nonsense they always have and are as wrong as they were. As for who liberalism benefits? Everyone including you who is far more liberal than your ISIS associates. The most conservative places on earth are universally considered backward freedom hating hell holes. They are universally repressive and advocating for that is a tough sell as I see no model among them to emulate. Freedom is not something the conservatives have ever valued as they are always about the status quo. They have been on the wrong side of every single fight for it. The economic totalitarianism you call globalism is an elitist concept populated by monsters that pretend to be both left and right wing but are really just self promoting greedy assholes that are ok with stepping over bodies for an extra dollar. They are not owned by the left and your spin they are is ignorant identity partisanship. Anyone that calls others "human filth" based on skin tone is a simple minded moron who is unlikely to be superior to anyone. You are the kind of loser that builds your own value on the effort of others while doing nothing of note yourself. Bigots like you are a problem as you promote stasis by swinging down not up. By doing so you consistently give cover and votes to the monsters you say you hate even as you own their spin.
    5
  184. 5
  185. 5
  186. 5
  187. 5
  188. 5
  189. 5
  190. 5
  191. 5
  192. 5
  193. 5
  194. 5
  195. 5
  196. 5
  197. 5
  198. 5
  199. 5
  200. 5
  201. 5
  202. 5
  203. 5
  204. 5
  205. 5
  206. 5
  207. 5
  208. 5
  209. 5
  210. 5
  211. 5
  212. 4
  213. 4
  214. 4
  215. 4
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. 4
  219. 4
  220. 4
  221. 4
  222. 4
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 4
  227. 4
  228. 4
  229. 4
  230. 4
  231. 4
  232. 4
  233. 4
  234. 4
  235. 4
  236. 4
  237. 4
  238. 4
  239. 4
  240. 4
  241. 4
  242. 4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 4
  251. 4
  252. 4
  253. 4
  254. 4
  255. 4
  256. 4
  257. 4
  258. 4
  259. 4
  260. 4
  261. 4
  262. 4
  263. 4
  264. 4
  265. 4
  266. 4
  267. 4
  268. 4
  269. 4
  270. 4
  271. 4
  272. 4
  273. 4
  274. 4
  275. 4
  276. 4
  277. 4
  278. 4
  279. 4
  280. 4
  281. 4
  282. 4
  283. 4
  284. 4
  285. 4
  286. 4
  287. 4
  288. 4
  289. 4
  290. 4
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. JAY MIDDY Why do you imagine I excuse our government bombing anyone? Why do you imagine I am unaware of the fact our "liberal democracy" supports 70% of the world dictators? Why do you imagine I am not aware of the fact our government is sale to the highest bidder on both sides? Why do you think I am concerned about attendance at "frat parties"? I do care if one citizen here fights to systematically marginalize another because of stupid counter productive bigoted reason. I do this because I believe personal freedom and equality of opportunity should be the corner stone of our system. I can care about bigots and the issues you describe, I am not restricted in that way. I see no allies on anything I stand for in the crowd of bigots you want me to ignore because of other things I also oppose. Bernie got cheated because he actually cared about the people and was progressive. He was not focused on the donors and so they just barely succeeded in marginalizing him as their ideas not popular on the left. They are not acting on our behalf or according to our principles and so they had to cheat to win. Pretending what i said is about a party is myopic as I never once mentioned the democrats establishment or otherwise. That the establishment democrats have abandoned liberal principles does not mean those principles do not exist or that there is no right wing to fight. The world is and has been backward for a long time and no matter how many terrible things you can point at there is no reason not to stand against overt bigots who marginalize and hold back people based on nothing but skin color. I could not disagree with you more as there MOST CERTAINLY A RIGHT WING for me to fight. The people who vote for the right are the same people who universally support the policy you outlined even as both parties do it.
    3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 3
  337.  @idimo7976  I did not contradict myself at all. I see you erroneously linking the promotion of mono cultures and economic globalism. If they have any connection it is incidental as people seek to move where there is opportunity and a better class of life. Immigration has increased because it is easier and cheaper. That is not attached to globalization at all, it connected to the expansion of technology that has made the world a much smaller place. At one time people rarely went 50 miles from their home, those days are gone forever. So "they" did not. Any assertion "they" did is silly. There are economically right wing liberals and they are the problem as much as economically right wing conservatives. Liberalism is not the issue at all in any way you have highlighted. Because you do not like it does not mean you get to link them. I have noted in places that have enforced religious freedom the troglodytes are an ever smaller minority year to year. The places without religious freedom are dens of troglodyte behavior. Fundamentalists exist in every single society but the troglodyte cancer they represent is mitigated in places secularism is enforced. As long as they harm no one and do not demand their nonsense is pushed into law their right to be deeply conservative idiots is protected. The more conservative the place the more they act in a troglodyte way, so blaming liberals for that phenomena seems bizarre. These foreigners you despise are deeply conservative and only become tolerable from your stated perspective once they adopt liberal western values of plurality and equality. As you talk about black criminals and sexual deviants you sound like the kind of old man who should be and generally is ignored. You and yours never valued freedom and spit on it as you attack things feigning morality you do not show. When you shove your personal standards down other adults throats to make you feel better I see that as actual moral filth. it is the reason I oppose conservatives generally. I have no interest in maintaining the status quo but have not bought in to the tribal nonsense that owns you. I see you as controlled opposition on behalf of the real monsters that are fucking us all over to throw another bucket of money onto the pile. Your passion and concern is 100% real but is misdirected to attack people with no power. You do this while consistently giving cover to the actual cancer of establishment types who do.
    3
  338. 3
  339. 3
  340. 3
  341. 3
  342. 3
  343. 3
  344. 3
  345. 3
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. 3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. 3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. 3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363.  @kodekorp2064  Objectification of woman? Are you kidding me? You have to be either a strange special snowflake or an overt liar to even make this claim. This misogyny garbage is a naked establishment opo attack you have fallen for. I have been watching for as long as the show has been on. I have watched Jimmy on and off over his entire time on this venue. I do not see what you do and recognize these attacks on them as a variation on right what wing trolls in the comment section have spat for the whole time. The characterisation of them attacking allies and misrepresenting others is much better applied to Jimmy and those like him than it does TYT. I do not have to like or agree with everything TYT says and does to reject your empty spin that has no value. These attacks are like wedge issue complaints that do little more than attack a group that agree's with me on policy and has been part of positive change we need. I can not say anything remotely similar for an actor like Jimmy. They were pointing out Jimmy's character as he uses 5 year old troll talking points to attack them on baseless bullshit while not even denying he was abusive at work. His defense in this example is a story of him being abusive for gods sakes. You are like the 3rd person I have talked to that complained they asked for money like that is some kind of fail. Did you get some emails? That must explain why you are so mad. No one is making you pay anything and your spin is an appeal to a problem you have that I do not remotely understand. All these attacks are old school nonsense. When you use right wing smears to attack someone you may be a npc, just so you know.
    3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. 3
  368. 3
  369. 3
  370. 3
  371. 3
  372. 3
  373. 3
  374. 3
  375. 3
  376. 3
  377.  @Vanderearden  It is not complicated. The fact is Schumer backed by a stain like Joe is still better than Mitch and his pack of sellouts that have every single fail the neo liberal centrists do plus a raft they don't. Schumer is primarily better because his base is better. He will not block everything that is attempted. Even if they only pass incrementalist change because of his donor based limitations it is still better than what mitch will do. Mitch overtly supports raw patisan do nothing but super serve the donors stasis while having every single issue Chuck does. I totally understand that the establishment democrats in leadership have the same limitations as the GOP because they chase the same donors. The key difference is one has a base that values ideas like democracy and basic governance. The GOP clearly does not and win by cutting voter roles, gerrymandering and overtly lying about what their opponents stand for. If there is a choice of which corporate party is in charge that is an easy choice for me as one party has a base that agrees with me and another who I directly and consistently oppose as fact free dupes We are literally represented by elected law makers even if the system has been traditionally skewed toward one type of candidate. Neither focus's on me but one is overtly hostile to what I stand for and the other at least pretends not to be a corporate sellout. Choosing one is not a matter of who I support but who I wish to oppose in power and fight see their policy changed. I see no path to do so with the GOP but see the establishment democrats can be bent or broken as the movement I belong to gains power. Progressives have literally put major polices on the map over the last 4 years. Ideas like a living wage and M4A now have majority support with all voters even as the establishment wings of both parties ignore that fact. Rome was not built in a day and your estimation of progressive wins is famed by a dishonest narrative that promotes stasis and encourages hopelessness in the face of real appreciable gains. I have no idea why you are talking about 40 years when this movement is a scant 4 years old and has already shifted the Overton window in a way it has not moved in decades. I know exactly what neo-liberalism is and would argue the progressive movement is the only response to it that has any hope of effecting change. Neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism have the same economic and military goals and are the enemies of what I stand for. I hold the positions I do because I see the establishment as feckless and vulnerable. It is ripe to be taken over as they stand for nothing and as you point out do not serve their voters at all. That is their innate weakness, it is the reason Donald and the Tea party were able to crush the establishment GOP even if their actual opposition to it was a mirage. I know exactly what the words I use mean. If you do not see that the GOP openly pines for a federal cop on every corner police state or the idea elections overridden by fiat is fascist then you define these terms differently than I do. There is little on this subject you can inform me on as I have forgotten more about this subject that most will ever learn. Your spin I do not understand what I am talking about is empty dismissal that has no substance. So stop with the unearned superiority, it is not remotely compelling.
    3
  378. 3
  379. 3
  380. 3
  381. 3
  382. 3
  383. 3
  384. 3
  385. 3
  386. 3
  387. 3
  388. 3
  389. 3
  390. 3
  391. 3
  392. 3
  393. 3
  394. 3
  395. 3
  396. 3
  397. 3
  398. 3
  399. 3
  400. 3
  401. 3
  402. 3
  403. 3
  404. 3
  405. 3
  406. 3
  407. 3
  408. 3
  409. 3
  410. 3
  411. 3
  412. 3
  413. 3
  414. 3
  415. 3
  416. 3
  417. 3
  418. 3
  419. 3
  420. 3
  421. 3
  422. 3
  423. 3
  424. 3
  425. 3
  426. 3
  427. 3
  428. 3
  429. 3
  430. 3
  431. 3
  432. 3
  433. 3
  434. 3
  435. 3
  436. 3
  437. 3
  438. 3
  439. 3
  440. 3
  441. 3
  442. 3
  443. 3
  444. 3
  445. 3
  446. 3
  447. 3
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. Triangle Man Shrug, what you propose would not mitigate their power only grow it.  I am talking about groups that manipulate any system that is in place and if there was none would form their own.  Without a hand to control or limit those with power there would be nothing to curb their worst excess.  This is not about envy as you imply but the idea a society should not be contest of survival of the fittest especially when the contest is rigged from the start.  The system you propose would not be a meritocracy in any sense of the word. The idea of a classless society is an ideal that has been attempted and failed spectacularly in contact with reality.  Weather you support communism or libertarianism they both have the same basic flaws of being impossible to implement in a form that benefits the society that adopts them.  Anarchy is chaos anytime it has reared it head in human society. To imagine your vision of it is any different is bury your head in the sand and deny reality.   The government is force, tax is theft mantra is popular but simplistic and valueless as anything but a catch phrase that has a visceral appeal but is poorly thought out. Our society would be a shadow of itself with out them and you can point to no society in the history of man that has prospered with that as a guiding principle and certainly no modern one.  I know that the state "interfering" in the market helps, heck the market would not even exist in its current form with out the infrastructure and legal framework that allows it to exist.   Does that mean I do not think it has problems and it it is perfect, of course not.  I just do not think throwing the out the baby with the bathwater is a solution in favor of hope based nonsense that has clear and definable issues.  We are much better to try to work to change our existing system and curb its worst excess's than to throw the whole thing out and then throw ourselves on the mercy of the greedy and most powerful.
    2
  478. 2
  479. Triangle Man You are an idealist, I am a realist.  I do not seek perfection I seek a system that is workable that serves us in a way that promotes freedom, ingenuity and equality of opportunity.  I know that does not sound much like our society today but that does not mean with the correct changes our system could morph to be more like what I am talking about.  I have heard of no workable solution attached to your views.  I seen no set of polices that would achieve it after a great deal of searching.  I am no slave to the system and the idea I can not see beyond it means you have no idea who I am or the path I have taken to come to my conclusions.  The farm analogy is pretty funny as few animals who live in on a farm do very well outside it on their own.  Out in the wild it is literally dog eat dog and that you imagine most wild animals are better off or lead more comfortable lives than those on a farm does not say much for you spin.  Almost all animals who live on a farm would not exist but for the farmer.  Now do I not imagine our society is a farm and my government is a farmer. We know what happens to a society when there is no common education.  We know what happens to a society that does not have taxes and can not enforces law.  We have examples of these societes and they are not remotely desirable or workable in the management of a large population like ours.  I have long rejected the taxes is theft mantra as thieves NEVER give you value or provide services for your money.  The fact is I look around this country and then compare it to tax free states like Somalia and it then make an easy choice.  Until someone explains how this tax free classless society you imagine will work I will continue to regard it a pie in the sky fiction.   I will instead work to ensure the taxes collected  are spent in the most productive ways to encourage growth and innovation.  To promote equality of opportunity and that a high standard of safe comfortable living is ensured.  This can be and is already being acheived in a great many societies throughout the world who have found a much better balance than we have.  I have sound models and examples to base my changes on, I can not imagine you an say the same.
    2
  480. Triangle Man What is ironic about your pig analogy is the pig is one of the few animals on a farm that can survive on it's own in the wild.  If you imagine just because it can do that it is better off you are missing some key facts.  The freedom to go hungry, the freedom to die early of preventable disease, the freedom to never grow as large or live as long are not freedoms the sane fight for.  There is no time in human history where so many were so comfortable, so many were so rich, so many were so well fed and few children died just after birth. The west meaning our societies have real problems but represent the pinnacle of comfort of lifestyle for all of human history for the vast majority within them. That you imagine your system would do a better job is not validated by anything other than your imagination.  We  know what happens when the type of stateless chaos you desire is enacted, we have real world examples. The way we run our society is a failure except in comparison to every other system or proposed system I have have ever seen or heard of.   Since you have an inside track that is not propaganda I am more than happy to have you lay it out as I do not think you have an actual workable system but would be interested to hear what you think it is. Be warned I have watched a great many clownish ideas be put forth and have rejected them for very good reasons that have nothing to do with my love of "slavery". There is nothing desirable about Somalia and that they had issues before does not mean any of them have been addressed in chaos.  If they are your buddies example of a society in transition then he will be correctly dismissed as sharing nonsense. I compared Africa to the west because it is the only place on the planet that has that has a semblance of the system you desire.  A society free of a social contract where the individual rules supreme and everyone looks out for themselves with no responsibility to anyone else.
    2
  481. 2
  482. Sasha Shepherd Your anecdotal assertions are simply not true.   The idea of patriarchy is well established and is not a demoization of men but instead speaks to a way off a society organizing itself.  In the past we most certainty were a patriarchy and have been moving away from it but the legacy of that truth still lingers.  Most men had no more say in how that society was run than woman and were pigeonholed into roles not of their choice because of societal standards thrust on them just like they were for woman. There is nothing wrong with talking about the enduring legacy of patriarchy even as we move away from it.  Again this concept is not a men against woman thing and anyone who thinks it is has it wrong.  They may believe it, because in many respects it is still true. Of course it is not the 1950's anymore but to say that being a man does not have distinct unspoken advantages in specific circumstances is silly.  Woman have their own advantages in our society too as dictated by social standards. It is very arguable our move toward banishing these kinds of standards has been unevenly applied but it is invalid to say they do not exist.  Some believe a) and b) but not many do in the context you imply they do.  You are a denying these ideas are remotely valid and in doing so you have taken an position that ignores historical and societal truths.  None of these issues are distinctly about males or females but instead are about societal expectations and rolls thrust upon us by society rather than individuals choosing them.  Anyone who plays the woe is me card is missing the point that we are not trapped by anything anymore and are free to break the chains that held our grandparents into an assigned place based on their sex.  That does not mean there is not continued pressure based on the way we did things that will not push back sometimes. You can hold both mentioned positions and not represent the simplistic caricature you draw.   There are radical fems that miss the point too but as you take the stance you do you become their polar opposite and become as misguided in your passion as they are.
    2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539.  @MrNH718  I simply know better than you. I read everything I could on this subject and it boils down to investigators did not agree with your spin at all. Dollars to donuts you have no idea what the investigators found based on your parroted nonsense from a specific media type. It is pretty clear Trumps team did collude with the Russians, some of them went to jail for lying about it. Ignore that chestnut at your leisure. The argument is he sought out Russian help to get a leg up in the election. This is a pretty well established fact based on the evidence. He specifically was looking for dirt on his rivals. Asking Russians for help in doing so is deeply illegal and he does not get a pass from the likes of me even as you do not seem to care. Hillary did the same kind of thing and I would see her charged as well. Pretending it is ok because anyone else did it is empty nonsense. But then I support the rule of law and it is pretty clear people like you and Trump only want to apply it sporadically. Education is not your thing sparky. I would not even say the Russia thing was Trump's worst crime. I blame the weak feckless democrat's for choosing this esotaric and easily dismissed case in a huge filed of issues they could have more easily convicted him with. That being said the whole thing was a dog and pony show anyway, they knew impeachment was not going to fly before they even passed it in the house. If the dems are bad on anything here it is the fact they gave false hope to many that this was going to result in change.
    2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. ThE DuCk Your entire narrative is total nonsense and Bernie is popular in the internet and in real life according to every real world poll he is in. Bernie lost at the ballot box because he was going against a person who started with massive name recognition and cheated in the primary while the corporate media ignored him. Despite everything being against him he came within inches beating Hillary who the establishment had crowned queen before the primary even started. If you think her win was huge at 4 million votes you have no idea what you are talking about because this race was not even supposed to be remotely close. If any one of the factors had changed or the primary ran for another month there is zero chance she would have won. If the same match up happened today Bernie would crush her neo-liberal sellout incrementalist ass early. She had a massive head start, support of the entire establishment and the media and still barely won against a no name guy with bad hair who actually spoke to the voters and not just the donors. Hillary was a terrible candidate who spit on half her base and promised the status quo in a cycle when people were demanding change. She owns the loss and the establishment democrats need to stop talking about knowing how to win as they are overt losers who can barely win when shooting fish in a barrel only to lose in most general elections. How many houses of government do we have to lose before you are willing to try it our way. Buck up you can always go vote for the GOP when we take over.
    2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578.  @joemoore4813  You are incorrect. Numerous studies overtly rejected it. You pick and choose the medicine you want based on the media you like. Taking medicine meant for other animals especially in the concentration meant for horses is always problematic and is not tested on humans at all. That a drug has existed for a long time does not mean taking outside the care of a doctor is anything but Darwin award brain dead. You have no idea what you are talking about and when you call it gene theory in a pejorative way you look clueless. That this spin has made you scared of it as and taking a drug meant to deworm horses does not makes you look pretty crazy. This vaccine tech was started in 2012 and was in full testing against other spike virus's in 2014. The drug was the ideal candidate to attack this particular virus with very few changes. It was well understood existing technology that was quickly adapted to covid which was in the same family as the original targets. The vaccine may have been quickly developed but the technology behind it was not a new idea. That is the reason they could produce it so fast. Pretending it is somehow dangerous when compared to getting the novel virus, or taking unprescribed horse pills and malaria drugs is poorly informed. Pfizer has been was officially approved now, it is no longer is under emergency approval. You can let your always flimsy experimental talking point go. I will stick with the vast majority of doctors, experts and anyone with a lick of common sense who thinks taking horse deworming drugs for a virus is loopy.
    2
  579. 2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586.  @idimo7976 Total nonsense. Please show me the bank or the country for that matter randomly offering housing to new migrants as some kind of incentive. New immigrants consistently have very limited access to welfare and social services and pretending that is why they come is just common anti migrant partisan framing and purposely misrepresents them. Lumping liberalism and neo liberalism together is patently ignorant as they are not the remotely the same thing. The modern conservatives are neo liberal too and fail because they serve donors and the MIC first before anything else. That is where all our economic problems spring from, they have NOTHING to do immigrants or the social safety net all neo liberals have sought to erode to serve the elites that own them The idea that live and let live is some kind of fail is really gross and marks you as a repressive monster. The societies that share your views on fornication and homosexuality are universally backward and are the source of the foreign troglodytes you dislike but agree with on social policy. That we stop repressive assholes from picking how other adults have sex has nothing to do with our problems. Becoming more like the backward societies you point at has zero merit and does nothing but make authoritarians like you feel better as they put a boot on others neck. What you advocate for culturally is literally degenerate by definition. Know you are always going to be putting lip stick on an ancient and ever more hideous pig with your freedom hating spin. When you agree with ISIS on anything you are going the wrong way. No one in my camp advocates for rapists and lumping immigrants and those who fight for individual freedom with them is pretty sick and more idiotic than you appear to be from your diction. You would be much more at home in Saudi Arabia than anywhere in the west.
    2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608. 2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 2
  617. 2
  618. 2
  619. 2
  620. 2
  621. 2
  622. 2
  623. 2
  624. 2
  625. 2
  626. 2
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639.  @kodekorp2064  I see people with your spin as the divisive ones as you attack ostensible allies over nonsense. You are the ones on the side of stasis and are tearing down the work done not me. You make assertions of false claims and expect that to be taken for granted. Back in the AIU days I saw endless claims of lies and misrepresentation always framed by right wing smear merchants that had no connection to the truth. At some point you get tired of running them down and snuffing out concern raised by the claims. The charges of lies and poor sources always amounted to a mountain out of a mole hill. JD is causing a commotion to get views and does not give a flying F about policy, the movement or getting anything done. He appeals to a latent anger generated by our broken system to lash out at those who are working for positive change while do nothing to forward us. What Jimmy says does not have to be valid to resonate. That he picked up old establishment and right wing talking points to do so speaks to the veracity and value of his complaints. I do not always agree with everything they do but as a progressive TYT are inarguably allies. They push for workable change and take no donor money. They support humanitarian crisis/condemn genocides and give correct news sources as a standard. They are reaching out and talking to an entire set of witnesses/ guests of all different walks of life and professions representing a wider range of the social spectrum outside the standard TYT audience. The money complaint is stupid. Just yesterday I was told by a Dore fan he was better because he did not ask for money and they were corrupt because they did. Let that float around your brain a bit and perhaps you can see the irony in it. Again you make baseless claims about spin that has been adjudicated a long time ago. I know Cenk may have said some off color things in the past but he has stood up and taken that on the chin. You may or may not know that. The claims of them covering things up is poorly founded and the idea they do not take responsibility for mistakes even less so. Your questions are nothing more than talking points made by people who are in stone not allies of the progressive movement. All those old questions have answers if you honestly look. So this attempt to pretend you are just raising concerns marks you as clueless or just another hater. Either way you should do more digging outside TYT hate piles to get greater context on the concerns you have. You seem to have been contaminated by your chosen bubble as something in the content appeals to you personally.
    2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656.  @Vanderearden  Why do you think they can not coalesce in a block? They most certainly have. That block just got significantly bigger as the number of corporate dems decreased. That block is represented by Justice democrats who all take no corporate money and rely on small donor money to get elected so they can pursue a platform focused on those who fund them. These polices are core issues for them. The fight against the corporate democrats is harder than the establishment GOP as they are not as apparently terrible as many of their republican counterparts. Their rhetoric is better and they run as being better than the GOP by attempting to be just left of them. This suits their donors needs and until their mask is ripped off by a challenge they seem hard to unseat. The fact the change is slightly slower is primarily driven by main stream media control of the narrative, that is rapidly eroding and that process will only speed. The tea party was a movement before Obama but was spurred to action by the hunger for populist sentiment on the right which was not being met by establishment republicans. See any parallel there? I am not sure what you expect the first handful of unowned leaders to do. They consistently have opposed leadership on many key issues and have been on the correct side of most issues. Any failures you may point to does not dismiss what they represent or the successes they have planted the seed for. They can do what they can do, your cynicism that they do not support the policy they purport to has not been validated yet. There has been no option to more than has been done. Your concern seems like a style over substance issue and I would ask you to look at the good and not just what you have been told is bad.
    2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. 2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 2
  686. 2
  687. 2
  688. 2
  689. 2
  690. 2
  691. 2
  692. 2
  693. 2
  694. 2
  695. 2
  696. 2
  697. 2
  698. 2
  699. 2
  700. 2
  701. 2
  702. 2
  703. 2
  704. 2
  705. 2
  706. 2
  707. 2
  708. 2
  709. 2
  710. 2
  711. 2
  712. 2
  713. 2
  714. 2
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774.  @RogerStarks  The FDA does not consider that using ivermectin as useful in treating covid. Animal versions of the drug are not the same in dosage and are highly concentrated so using them is ALWAYS problematic even for worms. The only data that validates using a fucking deworming drug against a virus is CHERRY PICKED! Your projection and asserted ignorance is off the scale. Pretending I am the one who is clueless because I do not consume the same nonsense self serving media you do daily is silly. This is as you advocate for medicine that is literally detached from the issue. It makes you a poster child for your cognitive dissonance you accuse me of. Please understand I am aware of everything you are on this subject. Seems like I may know more because you add in total nonsense and some how rationalize that in. So yes I am aware that the vaccine takes a while to take after your shot. They tell you this as you get it, that it takes 2 weeks to activate. What is your point? What about this well known factoid makes you think the vaccine is a fail? The virial load talking point is entirely irrelevant. The fact is it is harder to contract the virus if inncolatied and you do not tend to get it as bad if you do. None of that changes with your empty spin about viral loads which is discussed by doctors for an actual reason. In the fully vaxed countries you are discussing the infection rate is 1/10 of what it was in January. This wrecks your talking points. It makes sense that in a country where everyone has the shot most people who get the virus have had the shot, this is not a fail of the inoculation. The raw numbers are what matter and they are LOWER! I have seen all the data and am not sure why you think it validates your spin or why you think I did not know it. Your conclusion it is not working is born of the spin you are consuming and is not attached to the data which clearly shows it is. You are starting with a conclusion and working backwards not me. You assert I am not informed tell me stuff I know like it is a drop the mike moment and then they say crazy things. You have to understand that is not compelling. No one you know ever came to you for your critical thinking skills. You are a mess and should not be lecturing anyone that does not want a deworming drug packaged for horses to attack a virus. Informed, pfffft! Broaden your news sources, you stuck in a bubble that has you saying things with assurance that are not attached to reality. Let go of this secular vaccine death cult you joined, it gives you nothing back but empty assurance just like every empty self serving faith.
    2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. Kadrick Ninness I disagree being a self identified liberal.  It is a straw man any time it is asserted we support factions that undermine anyone's freedom.  There is no unilateral defense of Muslims by the vast majority of liberals and all of them call out the guilty consistently.   What they stand against is the blanket assertion that the whole group is complicit and of concern when in fact the moderates you alienate in doing so are the ones best placed to help curb the real concern of extremism.   I believe Ben responded to Sam correctly.  Blanket criticism of Islam should be no more excepted than blanket criticism of all christens like they are homogenous.  We know that within both groups there are sub groups who are extremist and would impose their will on others with force.  To paint the entire group with the same brush is simplistic nonsense that ignores the fact the vast majority should not be lumped in with the most radical elements.  I personally like Chris a lot even if we disagree on some political issues.  That he was divisive and had some controversial spin is not in question.  That he had enemies on both sides of the political fence is also not in question.  What any of them said is not a really reflection on any community and especially a broadly defined one.  I defend or reject issues on a case by case basis and unlike many conservatives I deal with and do not feel the need to march lock step with the most radical elements inside a movement Identify with.  We know there are ass hats in both political spheres, we do not have to take responsibility for them because we both self identify as belonging to the same broad grouping. 
    1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. John DOH If you think the only fight for rights is on behalf of men you are juiced and completely out of touch with reality.  I fight for equality not the equality of the 1950's you seem to prefer.  All real femisists want equality and that is exactly what mrm people should be fighting for too.  Not the brand of equality that only works for me or demonizes the other but the kind that gives everyone options with their sex restricting them.  We have come a long way in that respect but still have a long way to go.  This process is driven by neither "men" or "woman" but society as a whole.  People get herded into the limitations set on them by those around them and the community. This occurs to men just like it does woman and it should be everyone's job to combat the stasis of social advancement.  Feminism has taken woman a long way but the fight that stated long ago is not over as you ignorantly assert it is.  It is people like you that fought against them ever stepping up in the first place and in the your perfect world they would be pushed back to lose ever single advancement they ever made.  From my perspective this moment has freed men from the shackles of convention from men as well, iy has given men options that were unacceptable just 40 years ago.  I correctly fight the radical fringe of both sides loathe the man hating feminists with the save verve you do.  I no more support them than I back up your ilk.  In your passion to  see things enacted you both miss the point in the exact same way only on opposite sides of the fence and are far more alike than different. The answer is not in the divisive rhetoric of both you spit but in understanding equality will only be achieved when we fight for it on behalf of everyone not just one sex or the other.
    1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. Global Warming Skeptic We have better uses for our fossil fuels than burning them when we have better safer cleaner renewable options.   We are using 100 year old tech as the first world countries switch away from it.    The costs are coming down and will continue to as the tech continues to get cheaper.  That is the great thing about tech it always gets more cost effective as we mas produce it.  We are talking about resources we will NEVER run out of and it high time we started to switch too so we are not left with the third world.  There are plenty of things to use oil and even coal for besides burning it and we would be better to preserve it for those uses if we have other options.   "We produce energy more effectively than European countries."  We currently buy  $2.38 billion of electricity from green Canada who have very few coal plants and export almost exclusively green energy.  If they can make it an sell it to us then there is no reason we can not produce it.   The coal burning tech is old and very very very inefficient and dirty.  The idea we hang onto hundred year old power production and distribution methods because they are efficient is bullshit.  The powers that be own our leaders and the resources we use to generate power do not want change and you sing their nonsense.   They do not want to kill the golden goose and it has nothing to do with markets or efficiency or the consumer. We are not being driven by a democratic desire to burn coal but a political one sold to our leaders with campaign donations.  Your silly claims are nonsense personified and mark your spin is fossil fuel shill or a moron. I am not sure what you are talking about when you say Europe is behind us.  It is a phrase with no meaning.  By many many stats they are way ahead of us.  We are not on top anymore and can not hope to be as long as we are behind the curve on innovation and the desire to move forward and not keep doing what we did 5 decades ago.  The world is changing and we need to change with it.  Cons hate this concept but then you value stasis in every single case. 
    1
  889. Global Warming Skeptic We have to drill deeper because the cheap easy to get fuel is being used up.  The technology I am talking about is attached to energy generation not procurement.   Your spin does not address that fact. Costs for renewables are coming down but not fast enough because the volumes purchased are still low as we have barely bought in.   Like all technology it starts expensive and gets cheaper as production methods and availability increases.  There is no reason that solar power can not be very cheap and that it is renewable means the cost is up front does not have any of the additional costs assorted with it in terms of lives, pollution or security that oil does.   It is worth noteing that oil is very expensive in Germany and Europe as well and the extra costs have nothing to do with renewable tech but the way they choose to manage their energy and the cost of sources and future investment we ignore.  They pay more for all energy because their policy is forward thinking and they are planning for more than the next fiscal quarter as it correct. We pay little for power but there are additional costs associated with our choices and those have to be factored in.   Not the least of which is the fact we are falling behind the curve when compared to other modern counties who are making the investment now we are eventually going to have make as well.  Pushing it down the road is business as usual for you but is not a well thought out policy. Not just new, but renewable, clean, creates a new manufacturing base for jobs and phases out old tech like the rest of the first world.  Your voice is does not serve the poor it servers the very richest of us.   It serves stasis and the status quo over advancement. This is not a surprise because you belong to a group who opposes change no matter what especially if it steps on your billionaire masters toes. The only reason we are ahead is because of the stimulus we enacted when Europe picked austerity after the crash.  If we had  it your way and the gop was in charge through the crash we would have recovered just as slowly as Europe.  To make the claim we bounced back because of cheap power is fact free when Oil prices were at near record highs for us through most of the recovery. Your policy does not get credit for our success even as you people demonized all the actual efforts that made it happen.  
    1
  890. Global Warming Skeptic let me make this very clear for you, I DO NOT CARE WE PAY LESS!   Our energy policy is short sighted and will cost us far more down the road if we ignore where the rest of the planet is going.   We pay less for everything including fossil fuel because our policy is short sighted and the extra taxes attached to power in other places that go to infrastructure and transit development for the rest of the planet go uncollected by us.  We pay less because we operate using 100 year old tech when the rest of the planet is upgrading not to mention we are the fathers of oil use.    In the same way Germany will be the owners of the new tech we ignore.  The only ones this short sighted approach really helps are those who control the status quo and arguing for stasis will always be an uphill climb that people like you will make.  All technology including oil and coal was expensive when new.  Technology always gets cheaper and better with time and so it is with anything we have ever mass produced.  The costs of oil are not negligible.  It drew us into a 2 trillion dollar war and has us allies with some of the most regressive and backwards countries on the planet.  It has costs us many lives taken by the pollution it generates.   It costs us jobs as we ignore whole new seconds of manufacturing that are opening up in other parts of the world.  It costs us innovation as we will be forced to buy others designs instead of being the leader and doing it ourselves.  It puts us behind the curve and beholden to groups we do not agree with on anything.  It empowers dictators and some of the worst actors on the public stage as we pour money into their hands for a product we could do without if we h ad the will.  The costs are not negligible and it is myopic to say so. We are not far ahead in quality of life,  in the development technology anymore,  our manufacturing is on the decline and you regularly hear how china and even India is kicking our ass on economic indicators.  We are not far ahead and hitching our wagon to a resource whose price is determined by what happens in the chaotic middle east is a licence to have trouble.   I say great about our reserves and argue we  should be saving them for things we can only get from oil.  Power is not one of  those things and the oil will not get less valuable or useful as time goes on and it gets even more costly.   There is no reason to burn such a valuable resource when we have other options if one is forward looking.   You are dead wrong they recovered better or more quickly.   They languished behind us the whole time and have stayed there.  Both Canada and the States did stimulus and both recovered far more quickly than Europe did.  They did nothing well and their current state is a direct reflection of what they did.   You can not say they are behind us and did a better job with their economic plans, the ideas are mutually exclusive. 
    1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. Jononutoob It is a misnomer that it is primarily small business that take advantage of min wage when in fact the biggest benefactors are places like walmart and McDonalds.   It is your assertion that it crush's small business when in fact the actaul numbers we have show the opposite.  Calling the min wage fascist is a joke as it is your spin the real corporate fascists and think tanks fight for.   You are talking like you are some kind of populist when in fact you are fighting for the very richest to be richer.  You really should cite one place on the planet that has got it right as your ideas have never survived contact with reality as a beneficial concept. Slave wage is a valid term and even if it offends your sensibilities it is more than valid.  When you require government assistance just to get by while working full time you are working a virtual slave wage.  It is in fact your policy of fighting the min wage that has kept them at borderline poverty and that you imagine it has nothing do with how people are paid by the greediest is myopic at best and plain blind at worst.  That you excuse the cuase of the problem and blame the workers is typical.  You are the kind that sees a group who has got exponentially richer as the rest of us had flat wage increases all the while we have improved productive and still fight for the richest. Your question of which is worse is a non starter as the company making a billion a year will make 980 and that is better than the zero they make with no workers too.  The companies in question rely on their workers to make their profits and that you imagine they should have no social responsibility while you call 1/3 of the work force lazy is a sickening outlook.   The choice is not between 8 and 0 and that has been shown again and again by real world examples.  There is no need to trust your gut or the think tank propiganda on this subject.  You can say it is kicking the can down the road but that is just another talking point from the derange right and has no basis in reality.  You really need to find out what that term means as it refers to borrowing money and in the case of min wage it makes no sense. I don't blame walmart but then I do not think we have to let them run over the poor because they can.  We have options and one of them to raise the min wage as it has been shown to be a positive thing and while none of your spin has been validated mine has by example.
    1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. You tried to make the claim it is unfair to make them pay more and that is countered by the argument it is unfair for them not to because they get far more from the society than those who make less. That at one time we did not have this facility for tax collection does not mean it is immoral or wrong that we have it now. Even bringing up that we did not have it at one time is now meaningless. In my worker example they are same the only factor that is different is one guy has been there longer. So it is with someone having a higher wage, they are different because one makes more and therefor they not in the same group. You can not say it is ok for the one guy to be paid more and not ok to charge the higher earner more, additionally you can not dismiss the point with a wave of your hand because this example is in the private sector. There are innumerable qualifications for any number of government programs. You as a smaller farm do not qualify for the exact same subsidies as a larger one, nor are you bound by the same regulations, etc. You as an American qualify for legal aid or not based on income. Most normal tax payers can not take advantage of the built in tax loop holes because it takes a certain amount of money invested many will never have so they work. Most citizens are not in a position to take advantage of paying income as a corporation with it's requisite advantages even as some are. You are equal but effectively different as a low earner by design, why not a higher earner? There are all kinds of things that make you the same but different depending on if you qualify any given program or responsibility. Paying a higher rate of taxes based on your reported income for that year is simply one of them. There is nothing unfair or uneven about this as it is universally applied and one year you may pay more and another you pay less. It is based on your level of success and what you gathered from within our shared system. Taxing income progressively is by far the most equitable way to determine how much tax to pay. A progressive tax system is eminently more fair than a regressive one especially if delivers a free stable productive frame work for society and earning to exist and prosper in.
    1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. When you say the left being more racist is "established" you mean by a bunch of clueless overt bigots say it all the time ... only in a the bubble of the ultra stupid and consistently racist is what you say true as the right still own the racists and do not even pretend otherwise. The idea gender identity is linked to mental illness is old and debunked spin that has nothing to do with what modern science or mental health professionals stand for. It deeply fringe conservative spin that you should care at all how another adult identifies. The idea we should censuring these people because of who they are ever more less popular position in places that value freedom. Your views are very similar to the paragons of virtue like Saudi Arabia who hate western values as you point out, you fundamentalist clowns are not and never have been remotely "scientific". What is not compatible with the west is any fundamentalist strain of thought be it christian or Islamic. Thankfully secularism pulls the teeth of both of these failed sets of ideas by promoting freedom for people to choose to ignore it. It is proven when given a choice over time less and less people buy into the dangerous fundamentalist strains of these faiths and we are protected from their policy by a separation of church an state which prevents them from writing of shitty laws that banning trans people like they have in the middle east. In the end we have far less to fear from fundamentalist Islam than we do fundamentalist Christians as the Islamist's have no power and although neutered by our constitution the Christians brand of cancer does.
    1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158.  @micksc1 According to any kind of professional evaluation the process of getting as sex change is not considered a mental illness. The process of transitioning from one sex to another is a medical procedure that has safe guards built into it to make sure the patient understands the ramifications of the change. They dress and live as their chosen sex for a measured period of time before any surgery is done and psychological evaluations are part of the process. The only ones calling it a mental illness are bigots who never valued these people from the start and trope is transparent cover for their own problems in that they want to marginalize them. No one on your side of the debate should pretend to care about the quality of life for any trans person as you don't. You appear to be concern trolling as you talk about caring about these people "mutilating themselves". You should be able to take great comfort now that you know there is deep concern for patient's psychology and state of mind as they seek this change. It is mitigated by mandatory counseling for everyone that goes through it, Imaginary problem solved. I think it should be established no one should be taking your medical advice on these issues. That you have a strong opinion on if these people should even be able to transition at all is very odd to me. You really do have the exact same arguments fund's have switched to because saying god hates something is now a dead argument in a country where no one has to follow his stupid rules.
    1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. ThE DuCk Fuck you condescending sack of dishonest shit. I know how they work and in this case the dnc decided hillary won before one vote was cast. They cheated and were exposed as cheaters. The entire democratic machine and the media were entirely focused on handing the crown to their chosen sellout. You are either deeply ignorant or entirely dishonest as you pretend this is not the truth. They did not force anyone, that is not even the contention. They cheated by denying coverage, kicking off voters, manipulating polling stations and lying about what he stood for, they put their finger on the scales in undemocratic way and were exposed to the countries benefit. The only fake popularity is that of your favorite neo-con shill. Bernie is the still the most popular leader in the county by a mile and crushes the base loser you supported. Bernie is progressive and pretending the Russians want him over a trump or hillary is pretty stupid. The fact is hillary has deep ties to Russia too so the spin that Bernie's popularity is fake and generated by Russians is empty and silly on the face. You are about to find that out how popular he is , the shills you support are STILL exposed/unliked and establishment donor loving wing of the party has no candidate that has a snowballs chance against Bernie this time. It seems you do not know what misogynist means as you call me that and it makes you look simple to throw a word around that does not apply. At least you assholes are consistent, I will give you that.
    1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532.  @scotthullinger4684  Inflation had already started to rapidly rise, long before Biden took office. It is a world wide phenomena, meaning it is not driven by our economy. Biden never had control of it, he inherited the issue. Biden continued trumps policy at the boarders including work on Trumps uncompleted/unpaid for wall! He continued trumps policy of holding refugee claimants in mexico, much to his own voters anger. The idea he widely opened the border is counter factual nonsense not attached to reality. Texas taxes are higher for working people than they are in California because of brutal property taxes there. The only people fleeing to the states you mention are rich assholes looking for another tax cut from a deeply sympathetic sold out leader. Employment under Biden was down at near record low numbers, I see no one like you even mention that. How odd. Housing costs have been on a rise the entire Trump presidency. That trend only continued under Biden. This is due to polices that both the GOP and the establishment Democrats are bipartisanly complicit on that empower wall street vultures. Your outrage about your quoted stats seems very mono dimensional and applied like you have only been told half the story. I have been hearing these same complaints the whole Trump presidency, that you have transferred them all to Biden speaks to the news bubble you are lost in. Get this strait! I am NOT A FAN of Biden. He is largely the same fail Trump is without the mean tweets and weekly sacking of some staff member. Biden is a 90's republican! The only reason you can not see it is you have been bizarrely convinced he is a communist. Even a 90's republican is better than the bat shit crazy, anti-democratic version represented by Trump or cronies that are complicit in his lies.
    1
  1533.  @scotthullinger4684 You miss the point pretty badly. Biden is not wonderful, he is establishment business as usual, just like Trump proved he was when being led by the nose when in office. Biden inherited a collapsing shit show from Trump. Funny thing, just like Obama did from Bush. As stated he DOES NOT ignore illegal immigration. His polices are basicly the same as Trump as he rolled back almost NOTHING. On immigration: If either party wanted to attack illegal immigration they would hit the people who give them Jobs and lure them here. The fact neither party does speaks volumes about them wanting to "solve" the problem. Take away the Jobs and those people go home. Biden's presidency is hallmarked by the fact he has done almost nothing. That means all the failures you pile at his feet do not make sense in any way. As stated he barely had press conference, your list of his accused failures do not line up with his do nothing actions. I would challenge you to explain how his polices are different than that of trump on most things? Even trump once said we should bring everyone home from Afghanistan, that is before the neo-cons who started the war got in his ear. There is a party today who is literally Anti-American. Their leader, much of the party and a handful of now convicted voters attempted to overturn our democracy illegally. You do not get to larp as pro american and then try to spit on our constitution and democratic will by supporting these clowns. You are right about one thing, there are people calling evil, good. It is you and those like you who have changed the definitions. The idea of overturning our democracy through violence would have been unthinkable to a Conservative 20 years ago. Now you call it good, you have turned your world upside down and that is why you see the other side as evil. Dude it is the red states that have the worst numbers, it is not even close! From violent crime per capita, to child mortality, to teen pregnancy, to poorest populations, to worst education outcomes the right owns them all! The 10 poorest states in the union are all deep red. They are the welfare queens who take more than they give back. California alone is the 4th largest economy in the world. You look silly and out of touch painting it as a failure. The establishment democrats you call Marxists are actually conservative corporatists that lean left on well established social issues. They are owned by the same donors as own the GOP. They are in NO WAY Marxist! You can't call them that without radically redefining the word. Just stop! Perhaps get some help. You are so lost in a hyper partisan, zero grey bubble that your identity is blinding you. You are spitting nonsense that one day you will see as silly, when the fever finally breaks.
    1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551.  @Jfre2  Ya they are, you may agree with them but it does not make them any less bigoted. The definition of the word has nothing to do with left or right in English! I am no where near far left even as you clearly show your tendency towards fringe right. Your stated ideology is intolerant and bigoted by definition, you hide it behind a demand the world does not change around you. You should own where you stand if you believe in what you say. Don't hide from it and pretend some imaginary enemy is mispresenting you. The people who are not enraged by trans people or do not care if someone is gay are not far left, they are now pretty normal. No one is asking you to call yourself woman, what the hell do you care if people that don't effect you, call themselves a woman? or a turnup? or whatever they want to? It literally costs you nothing. That it is strange to you and does not make sense does not mean it is "far left". You would love thought control if the media did not see the economic value of being inclusive as a public face. You would be perfectly happy back in the day when they did not put black people on TV unless they were drug dealers or they canceled actors who came out as gay. They have always curated a version of what was acceptable to appeal to sponsors. That they are marginalizing groups you identify with now is the difference. The market has changed, they have simply followed it like hungry grazing animals. Corporate media, including this venue chases market's and always has. They have no ideology outside seeking more profit. Their programing follows the market they are focused on, greed and profit is the only motivation behind anything they do. No one is dictating how you or beard boy should think, you are free to be outraged over nonsense fed to you by your chosen outrage machine. But as a business they have an innate right to regulate what is on their platform. They have to in order meet a standard demanded by advertisers. You are free to do what you want at home or to a lessor extent in public, when in someones home you can expect to follow the house rules or go home. If you can't do that, they are free to kick you out. In this case they did not kick Matt out. They simply demonetized there by de-incentivizing his speech do to his contractual breech. If you can't follow the rules of the house you can expect consequences, Matt ran into them. Contracts have value in the US. This is not about ideology, left or right. It is about the fact we have always given the corporations power to do this very thing. You are just outraged because it effects you now.
    1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. Blue Jay It is the misleading framing I object to. You blame Clinton and the democrats in general for deregulation of the banks conveniently forgetting they had a gop congress and senate that passed those bills. Ignoring that fact and putting it on the democrats alone is dishonest partisan nonsense of no value. You have every right to be more disappointed at the democratic failures because they were supposed to be better but that does not make them objectively worse by any normal standard. They would actually have to be worse or you would have to show how the GOP was better to make this assertion of yours stick. Look at history of the failed do nothing drug war which has imprisoned millions black people and shattered their families. This is owned by the GOP and was literally used as tool to attack constituencies that did not support them. Every step at deregulation or trade policy that saw outsourcing of the black communities manufacturing jobs was fully backed by the GOP. Every three strikes law, every expansion of the industrial prison complex, every cut to funding to help communities or pay education is always supported by the GOP. They have gerrymandered the districts to minimize the value of black votes while changing and wrote voter laws to disenfranchise them and stop them from voting entirely. This whole trope that the democrats are worse for black people is nothing but spin to help otherwise good people ignore every KKK member on the planet votes for the GOP and no one in the white supremacist movement has voted for a democrat since before desegregation. The spin that the dems are worse is directly from the mouth of clowns who spit racist tropes and ignore what group (conservatives) have systemically been at the root of the problems facing black people since the beginning even as the democratic establisghment were sometimes complicit as they chased the same money. The democrats have failed us all because they have sold out, but the GOP is fully owned. The democrats are the Washington generals to the GOP's Harlem globe trotters of corruptions and are therefore implicated in many of the economic failures they mutually push. That being said pretending the dems have been worse for the black community in the last 50 years is dishonest nonsense spin.
    1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1