Comments by "TheEvertw" (@TheEvertw) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
214
-
115
-
111
-
63
-
41
-
32
-
20
-
19
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@yuehan6711 If there was a pistol involved (which is news to me, and I seriously doubt that report is true, but anyway), that will be taken into consideration when all evidence has been presented.
HOWEVER: This should serve as a strong warning that civilians should not go play at cops when tensions run high. Especially under-aged people.
Calling me a trump supporter, however, is below the belt, and you will not be able to plea self-defense for that.
One reason I am doubtful of the report of the pistol, is because much of the violence that occurred while protests were going on, were in fact perpetrated by right-wing extremists and Trump supporters. However, Trump has used it as a pretext to vilify BLM protesters.
This is a time-tested tactic used by fascist movements: start violence, and then use that violence as an excuse to oppress people. That is happening right now in America.
So again, what happens to this boy is now in the hands of the court system. If he truly is innocent of any crime in the sight of the Law, good for him. If not, it is what it is.
But this is what upsets me in this situation: With Blake, people are saying: it is right that he was shot, he had a knife in his car--while he didn't actually hurt anyone. But with this boy those same people say: he is innocent--while he actually took two lives. If you can't see the hypocrisy and discrimination in that, your cortex has been eaten up by the Trump virus.
Btw: I decided to call the suspect "The Boy" because I don't want to plaster his name all over the internet, him being presumed innocent and all. I mentioned his name earlier, I'll rectify that. It is not right to use his name unless he has been convicted. But don't take it as a slight--it is not intended as such.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you David for making this video.
I am also a progressive Christian, and am very angry at the way these conservative christians are smearing the Christian faith.
As your caller said, the conservative christian movement has departed from many of the central teachings of Christ, such as walking in Faith, Hope and Love, and "My Kingdom is NOT of this world".
Many if not the vast majority of Christians all over the world are appalled at the level of mendacity, hypocrisy, bigotry, selfishness and racism in the GOP, and would never in their life vote for the likes of Trump, Cruz, and all these other republican clowns.
Obviously, there is freedom of religion, but I do feel I have a duty to call out against these "christian" leaders.
A true Christian leader will very rarely comment on the pros and cons of political leaders, but rather encourage people to pray for them regardless of their political ideas. Exceptions would be politicians who clearly mislead people to take advantage of them to the detriment of the nation, like Trump and the rest of the GOP.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Blort Snergfud I am no legal scholar, but here goes. Also, 4 violations of the constitution is a pretty high bar, 1 should be more than enough. I do not know what the penalty is for violating the Constitution, probably these have been detailed in Federal law.
1). From article 1, section1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in [a] Congress." This includes the power to gather information with which to review and create new legislation. However, the president has forbidden government to provide such information to congress.
2). From article 1, section 8, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes". This includes the power to obtain detailed information on the taxes for an individual. When the relevant committee subpoenaed for this information with regards to D.J. Trump, the IRS was ordered by Trump not to provide it.
3). From article 1, section 9: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended". However, when a Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued for the children of certain immigrants, it was found that the relevant documents necessary to comply had been ordered destroyed by the government.
4). This is the biggest offence: From Article 2, section 1: (with regards to counting the electoral votes on jan 6th) "The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;"
Yet, Trump put pressure on Mike Pence to do otherwise, then incited a mob to interfere with this process. But the race had been won, the electoral college had cast its votes, and the constitution is crystal clear on how to proceed after that. Trump is still insisting he should be president. But after the electoral college had cast its votes, those complaints were unconstitutional and seditious.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It may be. Trump is definitely a populist racist, but for fascism you need an overall vision of how you want to re-create the nation. MAGA is a start for that, but I think it is a bit too vague to count as a goal.
But apart from that, Trump ticks all boxes by S.G. Payne: negation: (anti-liberalism, anti-communism, anti-conservatism), and style: (mass mobilization, positive view of violence, promotion of masculinity, charismatic authoritarian leadership).
The mass mobilization can be seen in the citizen militia's that are springing up, though it is still in its beginnings. The anti-conservatism can be seen in "clearing out the swamp" and the "Deep State" hoax. The masculinity bit is weak, but e.g. the way he treats women would count towards it. It is just that the goal is weak or ill-defined.
Personally, I think Trump doesn't have the conviction or vision to be a true Fascist Leader. He is just a selfish slob who wants to profit personally. But the GOP is awfully close to being a true Fascist movement.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When Trump looses, I can see several scenarios unfolding. The most likely is, I think, is that Trump (with assistance from Congress) declares the election null and void due to "irregularities", flatly refusing to leave until the Supreme Court rules on it. Then the world will hold its breath to see how corrupt the supreme court is. If they rule there was nothing wrong with the election, I expect the rats to jump ship, and people with real authority will tell the president he has no option but to leave, and that he will comply.
If the Supreme Court goes along with Trump, the US of A is no longer a democracy.
Another scenario is that Trump will so cook the elections that the democrats can not vote, and he wins the elections. Then there will be a large inquest into voter fraud, and probably a ruling that the election was OK, with many low-echelon officials coming out that the elections were rigged, that are then silenced. In that case, the US of A will no longer be a democracy.
Trump can also postpone the elections due to e.g. Corona and any number of other reasons. He may try to postpone indefinitely, or until everybody has forgotten about the mishandling of the crises of this year.
It is going to be an interesting autumn...
2
-
@yuehan6711 It seems you feel strongly for the boy. Fact is, he took the lives of 2 unarmed, innocent protesters, who had done nothing worse than move in his general direction. That is a very serious fact.
Self-defense laws take into account the amount of danger a person is in and whether the "defense" is proportional to it. The boy's life was not in danger from the protesters. He was not threatened with any deadly weapon. We do not know why the protesters moved (reportedly, they were being herded by police), but it was very likely had nothing to do with him. You are right in pointing out some people had attacked him when he fired his last shot, but I mainly saw people trying to take his weapon from him. Thus his response was probably not appropriate for the amount of danger he was in, and thus a self-defense plea will probably not fly. When someone pushes you, that does not give you the right to shoot that person dead in so-called "self-defense".
But, as I said before, the judges and/or jury will have to decide that. Them awaits the difficult task of balancing the fact that he knowingly and willingly placed himself in harms way, carrying a deadly weapon, without any official mandate, and the futures of the people who's lives he squashed, with his own youth, his panic, and his future.
I do not want to ruin the boys life. But he did take away the lives of two people, and punishment is due for such a fact--unless there are strong mitigating circumstances. You just can not take away someones life and expect not to be punished. For his sake, I hope he is judged as a minor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@Alexander-wq7qo That is absolute nonsense. The people who did these things, felt culturally and morally superior to the Africans and First Americans, but Christianity does NOT give grounds for that feeling. Quite the contrary, actually.
These people were blinded by their own pride and hubris, as happens with most peoples when confronted with a people that has a completely different culture and is perceived to be "weaker" or "less advanced". Religion is often used as an excuse / justification in those situation, but it is certainly not the cause. It is caused by a perceived difference between US and THEM, a deeply ingrained tribalism in mankind. Religion has nothing to do with that, except that some use religion to form a tribe.
As a proof, consider that this US vs THEM mentality has been seen in all major religions, but also in politics, sporting events and many other activities, and has led to excesses in all of them, including bloodshed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thelastnwah4743 "The entire rich against poor perspective is often simplified misleading"
In the case of the USA, it is not. Research has shown that since the sixties, US government has operated to benefit the rich, not the majority of the voters. In all metrics that say anything about the welfare of a nation show that gap between haves and havenots is growing ever bigger in the US. The richest 0.1% of the nation, own about the same in assets as the poorest 90% of the nation. So even if 5% pays 60% of taxes, that is still grossly out of balance.
And about medical care: in the US that is a complete rip-off. Common drugs like insuline cost about 10 times in the US what they cost in Canada. And collectively, the US pays double per capita what France pays on healthcare, yet France has universal healthcare, while in the US many people have to choose between bankruptcy or death, and the US is one of a few nations where average life-expectancy is dropping (before Covid).
It is absolutely essential that the USA is reformed, back to its social-democratic roots, or the nation will blow itself apart. It is an example of what happens when Capitalism is left unchecked for too long.
I don't know much about Canadian politics (though I have visited a few times in the seventies and eighties), but I think you can be glad you have a more-or-less sensible government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
About the monopoly analogy, the fallacy is not that people do not have the same starting point, but that while the rules may be fair, the application of those rules is not fair, as witnessed by e.g. the fraction white/colored in jail for drug possession, and the fraction white/colored using drugs. More white people possess drugs, yet more colored people are in jail for it. That is systemic racism.
But the most important area where the rules are not applied the same is in education. By the rules, both colored and whites have access to the same quality of education. In reality, they have not. That needs to be fixed. Education is the most important factor in how well a person will do in life. If you want to break systemic racism, break the inequality in education.
And I am not talking about public vs private schools, I am talking about government-financed schools. These must all have the same level of quality, across the nation. Not doing that means the talents of many young people go wasted, to the detriment of us all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theropod0001 Of course not. For starters, people can pray without it being visible on the outside.
This ruling does prevent interested kids or parents from praying in a group. Before this ruling, it was very common to have prayer groups at schools. Purely voluntary groups, which those who participated thought were important for the welfare of the school and its students. Having those suddenly taken away made a lot of people angry and bitter, especially as it was so obviously out of spite against Christianity.
Again, try to substitute "prayer" with "football" in this ruling, and you will see how ludicrous that ruling is. This ruling makes all team sports illegal at schools, all drama groups, book-discussion groups, anything in which a group does something outside the formal curriculum so that those outside the group can feel left out if they want to. But somehow it is only applied to prayer.
It is especially nasty as the point is not that prayer groups were exclusive. They were not. Anyone wanting to join, could do so. But the ruling prevented prayer groups to spare the feelings of those who felt left out, but did not actually want to join.
That's weird, isn't it?
Imagine you feel bad because you aren't in the book-discussion group. Yet if asked, you don't want to join them. Instead you want to cancel the discussion group, just to make you feel better.
That is what happened to the prayer groups. They were cancelled by people who did not want to join them, but just wanted them to stop.
I call that discrimination, and persecution. It is not 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
-
@Blort Snergfud I don't care either about Trump's "private" crimes. I do care about abuse of power and violation of the Constitution. Trump did that, many times, and that is absolutely unacceptable. He needs to be prosecuted for those crimes, and serve time if found guilty. Just like any president that does that.
Concerning the policies of Biden: his policies can be summarized as follows: 1). give a lot of aid to people that need it to survive Covid. 2). restore a little bit of the balance between rich and poor.
That second one is absolutely vital for the USA. Many of the deepest problems in the nation are due to the rich exploiting the poor, as can be seen in low wages that have been stagnant for the last 50 years or so while the economy exploded for everybody else. Trump has made it (much) worse, with a massive tax break for the rich and only the rich.
I am not against people being payed according to what they contribute (i.e., I am a capitalist) but there is a point where the poor are abused to the point social stability collapses. That point has been reached in the USA. Like it was reached in the late 19th century in the UK, as documented by e.g. Charles Dickens.
How can people say the USA is doing fine when there are people who can not afford basic health care? Or who are evicted from their homes?
According to most metrics that say anything about how well a nation is doing, the USA is somewhere in the middle -- right next to e.g. Chile. That is not something to be proud of. The USA is one of the few countries in the world where average life expectancy is actually dropping, even before Covid!
Experience has proven many times that e.g. increasing the minimum wage, or providing universal health care, actually makes the economy grow. Such measures are good for everybody, even the rich. So why are you so afraid of them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liamsloan5410 "the majority are not allowed to determine the rights of the minority."
True, but what does that have to do with this discussion?
The key issue is that an unborn baby may, in the opinion of the mother, violate her Constitutional rights. Whether or not abortion is legal is defined by whether an unborn child has rights or not.
As the Constitution is silent on the issue, this is an ethical discussion that SCOTUS is not equipped or authorized for. The correct procedure would have been for SCOTUS to declare that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and confirm the right of states to settle the issue in state law, and the right of the Legislative Branch to settle it in either the Constitution or federal law.
That is why I hold that SCOTUS overstepped its authority in ruling on Roe vs. Wade.
However, given the ruling, the Legislative Branch can invalidate it by changing the constitution. It has the authority to add a new amendment better protecting the rights of unborn children regardless of the Roe vs. Wade ruling. SCOTUS does not have authority to contest a change in the constitution.
Therefor, the "problem" with abortion in the USA is political, not legal. It is not the fault of SCOTUS or some activist judges, but of political parties who say they are against abortion to draw votes, but then do not put their words in action. And this is ultimately caused by the lack of support for such protection by the majority of the US 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
-
5:10: Fully agree with you. There can be no peace without justice, and soft healers make stinking wounds.
Being soft in prosecuting these crimes a). gives legitimacy to these crimes, b). does nothing to give (prospective) seditionists pause, c). leaves a lot of anger and frustration in the victimized nation that will only get worse, and most importantly: d). does nothing to show conservative Americans that this was indeed a crime.
They will just continue in their petty little corner feeling unjustly treated and victimized by the left, whereas in fact they were the ones doing the victimizing. Like that stupid lady that complained about being maced for stepping inside the Capitol. She needs a change of heart, and only a confrontation with the Law can bring that.
It is like raising kids: they will persist in stupid rebellious actions until confronted. It is not fun to do, but it is necessary. They need to hear NO, YOU DID WRONG when applicable.
These right-wing children need to hear, loudly, NO, you are not going to get a president this time, and YOU DID WRONG in attacking the Capitol.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdMelendez You were talking about "want to disarm you". Now, you are talking about something completely else. "Gun Control" simply means that it is ensured you are not a). a criminal or b). a complete lunatic before you get to own guns. Does the 2nd amendment authorize inmates to carry guns? No of course not. But the way you are carrying on, you would also call that an affront to the Constitution.
So stop the drama. There have been far too many unstable people murdering children in schools to not put some sensible controls in place.
It is stupid to vote for a corrupt party simply for this one reason. It is much smarter to just listen to what Democrats want, tell them what you want, and find a compromise. Or better still, become active in the Democrat party, and help ensure it safeguards things you hold dear.
By entrenching yourself in a party that is more and more filled with lunatics, that is being side-lined as we speak, you also ensure that no-one listens to you on things that are really important to you.
Personally, I am all for sensible people owning guns. My brother and my father had guns. My uncle was a professional hunter. I have shot .22 rifles, .45 ACP pistols, and a 12-gauge with boar-slugs. My wife doesn't like the idea of guns in the house, and I respect that. But I love watching people on YT doing weird and wonderful stuff with guns. As long as they do so responsibly and safely, and teach other people to do the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1