Youtube comments of TheEvertw (@TheEvertw).
-
1200
-
1100
-
929
-
808
-
620
-
618
-
564
-
369
-
364
-
345
-
About your question at 5:35: 'whatever is inside it'.
The banger produces a certain amount of hot gas, which is what causes the light. That is generated suddenly, at high pressure. That high pressure spike pushes the water away in a spherical bubble. So initially, the bubble is filled with gas.
The water around the bubble is accelerated by the gas pressure. As the bubble expands, the pressure in the bubble decreases, causing its temperature to drop. Thus it stops emitting light. At some point, the pressure in the bubble drops below the ambient pressure, and will start to decelerate the waterfront around the bubble. But due to the amount of kinetic energy in the water, it can not stop immediately. The bubble will continue to expand even as the pressure in the bubble drops to near vacuum, but the speed of the water is decreasing.
At some point, the water comes to a stand still. At that point, the bubble is at its maximum, and inside is a near vacuum. The water will be drawn back in to fill the vacuum. As that happens, the pressure inside the bubble will rise again, heating up the gas inside. At some point it starts to glow again, just before the bubble collapses.
During the internal collisions as the bubble collapses, most energy of the blast is dissipated. Thus we do not see a second spherical bubble. What remains is an irregular 'cloud' of combustion gasses, at near-ambient pressure. This cloud is pushed to the surface by the water it displaces.
So the short answer is: the bubble is filled with a modest amount of combustion gasses. When the bubble is at its maximum, the pressure inside is near 0 Pa (absolute).
322
-
294
-
268
-
265
-
264
-
257
-
257
-
240
-
229
-
227
-
223
-
214
-
182
-
181
-
181
-
178
-
173
-
166
-
161
-
156
-
155
-
147
-
147
-
146
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
139
-
132
-
130
-
128
-
128
-
126
-
122
-
120
-
115
-
115
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
104
-
104
-
101
-
96
-
93
-
92
-
90
-
89
-
87
-
87
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
75
-
73
-
72
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
This whole "that can never be done here" idea only demonstrates a lack of vision and/or commitment by the planners responsible.
We Dutch changed our infrastructure gradually, fitting it into our regular maintenance schedule. Sewage & drainage systems need to be overhauled every 40 years, and road surfaces every 20-odd years, which make great opportunities to add bike lanes. This way, building this infrastructure is essentially for free: you were going to tear up the existing road surface and put in new anyway.
So to get to the state where we are, the only thing you need is a long-term, decade-spanning vision of where you want to go, and make sure that every time a road is maintained, it is used as a step towards that vision.
Except if you have built an unsustainable mess that is left to collapse due to neglect, as most US cities have done, using money that should have been spent on maintenance to finance cheap homes for the top 50% that do not generate enough taxes to maintain their infrastructure....
Greed is destroying the USA. Greed and shortsightedness.
56
-
56
-
54
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
@chownful tolerant, foreign, HAPPY*, *RICH socialists.
But most foreign nations are not pure socialist. Most try to take the good bits from liberalism and socialism and mix them into something that more or less works: encouraging entrepreneurship and self-improvement, while providing protection and support for those threatening to fall through the bottom.
And disregarding this advice is plain stupid. My country consistently has a top-three score on happiness, while being an economic power-house for its size: we are 12th in GDP/capita (USA is 8th). So we do seem to get it right. Or you could look at Norway: also in the top-three for happiness, and 4th in GDP/capita--so beating the USA on both scores.
And you could look into history. Before you guys lost your direction, in 1960, you were leading the world in GDP/capita. In 1970, you were second. In 1985, you were 6th (1980 you were much lower, an outlier). So the world has been catching up with you, you are doing poorly indeed, economically. Being less mean will improve your economic performance! Just try it, what do you have to loose?
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
While software developers have a professional duty to do their best, I feel the main responsibility lies with their principal. This team did not have the skills & knowledge to build this system. Otherwise it would have instituted processes, tests and mechanisms to ensure ACID behaviour. But I don't think you can blame people for something they did not know. The final responsibility is with the principal who trusted them, not the developers. Fujitsu is not a small company and has a LOT of experience with critical systems.
In a normal situation, in a healthy company, the pattern of faulty transactions would have been picked up quite quickly, remedied and its victims compensated. There must have been logs from which the behaviour of the system could have been reconstructed, and the culprit identified. The Post Office didn't do its due dilligence in find the root cause of the problem, but instead assumed the office managers were at fault. Without proof.
And it is a dire indictment against the UK legal system, that they followed the Post Office in its findings, without demanding proper proof that the SW system was not at fault. Courts must be aware that SW can be at fault.
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
I wonder where he gets the figures for the "benefits" of regulatory relaxation from.
Lowering regulations can make you more competitive in markets where regulations are lower, but closes markets where regulations are stricter. As the EU is by far the largest trading partner of the UK, this means that lowering regulations will mainly make it easier for other countries to export to you, while local production needs to maintain high standards in order not to lose their existing market. A company can not change its standards depending on who they produce for: they need to comply with the highest common denominator. This undercuts local production, which is exactly what we see happening in e.g. UK agriculture. Soon other branches of the economy will see the same effect.
Also, new foreign markets can never make up lost exports to the EU, as it is the largest trading block in the world, conveniently placed at UK's doorstep. That is the biggest Brexit fallacy. There was nothing preventing companies from targeting those markets pre-Brexit.
Economically, both short and long term, deregulation therefore makes no sense.
That is not even talking about the social and environmental effects, as being able to compete with low-regulated markets means UK living standards will need to drop substantially. Which is exactly why the EU is raising standards: to improve living standards for its citizens.
Which is why one of the very few examples of Brexit success we saw was a company exporting glass eel: a protected species that should not be trade in this way.
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@brachiator1 A simple question with a very complicated answer. There was no question of giving up offices, in those days nobility believed it was their divine right to rule. William was Prince of Orange (a region in southern France). In the Netherlands, he held the office of Stadthouder, which was an office that was not hereditary then but was offered by the various provinces, who were known to declare that office vacant or give it to someone else. The victories in the Anglo-Dutch wars had put it in William's head to become King of the Netherlands, but that was not in the cards.
Politics in the Netherlands at the time were dominated by the power struggles between various organisations and factions at the provincial and federal levels. There were fights between Republicans and Orangists, and with e.g. France who wanted to take over those rebellious Netherlands. Some politicians lost their heads.
William saw an opportunity to become a real king, and many of his entourage welcomed the stability his kingship offered, leaving the uncertainty of the Netherlands behind. This was the real cause of the end of the Dutch golden century and the rise of the British Empire.
After the Glorious Revolution, the Netherlands were a vassal state to France for 20 years and had a powerful monarch for 30. The other 110 years it was a more-or-less loose collection of states with a more-or-less powerful federal governmental system, and the Orange dynasty with various offices, all vying for power.
It would take till 1815 until the political fights were settled and the Netherlands became a sovereign kingdom. Well, they still continued, but less violently. In 1830 Belgium separated from the Netherlands because its interests were under-represented, and in 1848 the power of the monarch was finally taken away through a constitution that made Parliament pre-eminent.
Our history since the middle of the 16th century has been dominated by the belief that no single person should have absolute power. As they say, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Sadly there are always people who want absolute power, and sheeple who want to give them that power because of "stability".
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
I do not agree with Twain here.
Putting a stupid person in his/her place will not mend the stupidity of that person, but will show any onlookers who is stupid and who is right, if you do it properly.
Currently, we allow far too many to dismiss Science just because it does not suit them. The consequences so far have been no less than disastrous in the USA and the UK (Brexit, anti-vax, Covid response), and if the climate change deniers are continued to be given a platform, the whole world.
Just to look at Brexit: those advocating it dismissed the warnings from EVERY economic expert by saying "England has had enough of experts". They got away with it, and now GB is experiencing the greatest self-inflicted economic disaster since Stalin decided the Ukraine should Industrialize.
So instead of ignoring the stupid, we need to learn how to properly discredit them, and make them look like the fools they are.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
While the economy of the UK is currently suffering under Brexit, wait to see what happens when the EU relocates the handling of EU transactions, and many of the financial services associated with that, from the City back to the mainland.
This will happen in July 2024, or rather before then, as starting on that date, no EU transaction clearing will be allowed outside EU soil.
After some time, the City will only be left with less-than-savory characters wanting to launder money. And that will result in the City being blacklisted, no more financial services from the City for the EU zone.
We want less Russian money in the EU, not more.
<edit:> The deadline is 30-6-2025, not 24.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
"they used every trick in the book"
No, they re-wrote the book, adding new tricks that had never been done before, certainly not at that scale. Two immediately come to mind: the acting - CGI mix that put life to Gollum, and the Massive software that animated whole armies. Both had never been done before.
Another was creating the massive amount of mail armour by literally linking millions of rings together, instead of using knitted sweaters. They invented a machine to cut the rings, but put them together manually.
And filming the three movies back-to-back, meaning that at some times the were filming one movie, had another movie in pre-production, and another in post. That had never been done before, but added a wonderful continuity that could not have been achieved otherwise.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hope3761 There is a huge difference between condemning a man (casting the stone) and endorsing a man. By endorsing someone, you become a partaker of their sin.
Do not be deceived. By voting for Trump, his sin becomes yours. Your church will be tainted by his sin. This is very serious, spiritually.
And don't think that Gods Grace will keep your church alive when you consciously choose sin like that. In fact, that you are not appalled by what Trump has been doing these 4 years, in your name, mean that God has probably already left your church, without you knowing it...
When Jesus was merciful to the adulteress, he did not say that what she had done was OK. He told her to "sin no more". By voting for Trump you tell him: "Continue to sin! We want your sin! More sin!"
And I am not talking about Trump's personal sins here. Those do not affect you very much. I am talking about his public sins, the sins he committed or caused to be committed in your name, as president of the USA. Those will have seriously consequences, spiritually, for all those who voted for him.
One of the most grievous sins Trump committed in your name was to separate thousands of children from their parents, and make the records disappear so that they can never be reunited again.
Another grievous sin was to take away money from the poor and give it to the rich, in his infamous tax cut.
Yet another grievous sin was to deny and underplay the seriousness of the Covid virus, causing many thousands of unnecessary deaths, just to improve the chance of his re-election.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@thotslayer9914 Almost every language in Europe is Indo-European, including the Celtic spoken by the Britons.
If you go back to the Bronze age - early Iron age, the peoples of Europe are even more connected than the North-Sea peoples of the dark ages. The Celtic peoples were closely linked from Ireland to Turkey, and major trade routes spread British Tin all over the continent, in exchange for e.g. Mediterranean wine.
Nations are a recent invention. All throughout time, people have been much more mobile than we give them credit for. Except for a single class during a short period (serfs being part of the land in the Feodal system). But even then, e.g. traders, monks, soldiers (mercenaries) and artisans traveled all over the continent, and all over the seas. In fact, sea travel was preferred over land travel because it was safer and easier. So, Britain being an island was no obstacle at all to intermingling with the people of the continent. Hell, fit people can even swim across the channel.
I am so glad these ultra-nationalist fantasies of British exceptionalism are being thoroughly thrashed by research.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sheadoherty7434 My point is that the feminists had a point 50 years ago, but not anymore. And that by denying that their goals have already been met, they have moved over to an extreme position where men are the enemy and are baaaad.
What we need instead of feminism is a renewed appreciation for the differences between men and women. And I mean real differences, not those caused by habit or tradition. Because men and women are different, though of equal value. Current feminism doesn't acknowledge this simple fact.
If you think I am misogynistic, you are wrong. The same qualities that make a woman good at managing a house hold, make her excellent at managing businesses. Some of the best managers I have known are women. I wish there were more female managers. The world would be a better place. But to become one, you need to engage in a constant pissing contest with other people that want that position, which is something even most men do not want.
So a feminist would say that this pissing contest needs to stop. And that is happening in some companies. But because power is involved, this is just how it works at most places. You either play the game or you don't, your choice. But don't blame the game for not wanting to compete.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
No, you do not understand entrepreneurship. In building a company, it certainly is possible for one (wo)man to build something that is worth many billions.
What a billionaire has is not disposable income, it is capital. It is not a wage that he gets every year. It is what his company is worth, and that he has built over decades. The worth of the company is completely unrelated to the disposable income that "billionaire" receives during a given year.
You can not tax the billionaire in a way that will stop him from being a billionaire: as long as the company is worth billions, and he is the sole owner of it, he is a billionaire. It is unjust for the IRS to force someone to sell his company, just to keep him from becoming a billionaire. However, you can and should tax the super-rich so that they contribute their fair share to society.
Most developed nations have both a tax on disposable income, and a tax on wealth. The tax on wealth in my nation is determined from the expected increase of wealth during a year, where that increase is added to your disposable income over which tax is calculated. This should boil down to something like 1 or 2% of tax on wealth. I believe there also is a system to compensate losses in one year with gains in another.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hope3761 Trump is sinning in your name, again and again, every day.
I am not a democrat, but I know my God. And I know that he is very sad about what Trump and the GOP are doing to the people of the USA.
For crying out loud, the first thing Trump did when he came to office, in his inaugural speech, was to dedicate the nation to greed and selfishness. That was a truly evil thing. I don't say that lightly. Trump formally cursed the nation in that speech, and he did it in your name (if you voted for him).
If you love God, wake up and open your eyes. See what Trump is spreading. Hate. Greed. Fear. Lawlessness. Then consider how you will vote.
If you think Trump does not encourage lawlessness, look at how he treats the constitution. Trump has broken the law dozens of times, often in plain sight. For example, twittering how he will exact revenge on someone testifying before a House committee is the crime of witness intimidation. Asking a foreign leader to investigate Hunter Biden in order to get many millions of money released is the crime of corruption. Preventing government officials from appearing before a house committee is a crime against the constitution in preventing the House of Representatives from executing their duty of oversight. Preventing the IRS from delivering his financial details to the House Committee is again a crime against the constitution.
Trump has likely committed thousands of crimes while in office.
Now, come on and explain to me how he can be the president of Law and Order. He encourages people to take up arms to prevent people from exercising the 1st amendment. That is not law and order. Only in a very small minority of cases have protests been linked to violence, but Trump is making you believe the whole nation is in danger from the BLM protests. That is not law and order, that is spreading fear and inciting hatred.
If you are interested in the crimes Trump commits, have a look at Glenn Kirschner's channel. He is a former DA who patiently explains some of them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
This is the big issue. How do you heal the rift?
A more just distribution of the wealth in America will go a long way to heal the fear. Poverty breeds fear. Poverty also breeds ignorance, so a strong focus on good education for the poor will solve this problem in the long term.
Also, one of the reasons of the anger in the USA is that the political apparatus does not serve the people anymore. It serves the rich only. This needs to be stopped by strong anti-corruption laws that outlaw the many ways money can currently buy influence in the White House, the Senate or the House of Representatives.
And finally, it needs to be made abundantly clear that the many abuses we saw during Trump's reign are not acceptable. Those responsible need to go to jail. That includes police that use unnecessary violence against the public, be they black or white, but also the idiots that shoot paintballs into crowds or drive vehicles into them, that maniac swinging the baseball bat, that couple aiming guns at protesters, the Postmaster General that is a stakeholder in competing businesses, the AG who directly influences ongoing cases on behalf of Trump and demands journalists be fired for speaking out against Trump, and of course the Criminal in Chief for the dozens if not hundreds of felonies he committed, some live on television.
In other words, the rule of law must return. And that law must apply the same to all people, poor or rich, black or white.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@planereality3675 You are very rude, mate, and also dead wrong.
I understand that a favorite idea with flat-earthers is "if the earth is round, why do navigators use maps". The answer is of course that maps are easier to store than globes for the same level of detail.
However, every navigator will tell you that maps are compromises that try to optimize for either true directions (Mercator projection), true distances, true surfaces, or true shapes. Maps can never get all those aspects right because the earth is a sphere, and you can only navigate accurately over long distances if you account for that.
E.g. the Mercator projection is popular with navigators because it gives a correct heading for sailing from point A to point B. But the scale of that map is not constant: a specific distance on that map represents different distances on earth depending on latitude.
Now I ask you, if the earth were flat, why would there be different projections for maps? And why can those projections be explained using a sphere?
And you are wrong about globes never being used on ships: there have been globes made for navigators, such as those by (again) Mercator. While globes are difficult to use for actual navigation, they are very good for doing sanity checks on your calculations.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mra5975 Lovely words. But all the experts strongly contradict you.
If Brexit were about the things you say, they should have been honest about it, and honest about the consequences. They weren't, and you aren't either. Brexit promised green uplands, extra money for the NHS, better trade deals, no barriers to trade with the EU, etc, etc. NONE of those promises have been fulfilled, nor will they. In most cases, Brexit delivered the exact opposite of what was promised.
And now you and others are trying to gaslight the people claiming that those promises were not made, and that Brexit was about other things.
All I say is: LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I know it is an aside, but it is crazy that a single man can stop legislation from being passed in a democracy.
Mitch McConnell has killed numerous laws that had majority support by simply not scheduling them for a vote.
The USA is, as a democracy, sick. It MUST be possible for a simple majority (or better still, much less) of the Senate to force the speaker to schedule a specific vote, in order to be called a democracy. In my country (NL) a single member of the Senate can call for a debate on an issue, and during that debate a motion can be put to the vote with the support of 4 other senators. Such a motion can force the speaker to schedule a vote on proposed legislation. Also, the speaker is replaced when he/she has lost the confidence of a simple majority of the senate.
Also other mechanisms to subvert democracy, like the fillibuster, are not allowed in NL. The speaker assigns limited speaking time to each speaker, and will cancel someone's opportunity when he/she goes off-topic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sorry hoor, meneer Wilders, maar "omvolken" is per definitie descriminerend. Dat kan je nog zo hard ontkennen, maar wat kan er anders mee bedoeld worden? Ook als dat wat men "omvolken" noemt hier gebeurt is, blijft dit land Nederland en het volk dat hier woont, Nederlanders. Dus als het niet over de nationaliteit gaat, waar gaat het dan over? Jawel, het gaat over óf het ras, óf het geloof. En dat maakt deze term discriminerend.
Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat men vooral op het ras duidt, en daarom is het volkomen juist voor Timmermans om de mensen die deze term gebruiken, racist te noemen.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You are very right in pointing out where the film got the anti-Catholic actions by Blackthorne wrong. But there definitely would have been enmity between the Jesuits and Blackthorne, for three reasons: 1). Blackthorne / Adams came from the Netherlands which was actively fighting a war of liberation, mainly to regain the freedom of religion. 2). The VOC was part of this war, attacking the Catholic empire and building the Dutch empire. The Jesuits were there to gain Japan for their empire, Blackthorne for his. Blackthorne's captain would more than likely have carried letters of mark, authorizing him to attack Spanish & Portuguese outposts and ships. 3). the Catholics actively persecuted and murdered Protestants all over the world at the time, so Blackthorne had to fear for his own safety. And more than likely, Blackthorne / Adams wouldn't mind to do a bit of his own proselytizing, at least in the beginning.
So, their (adoptive) nations, their employers and them personally were in a state of open war against each other, and both were trying to gain support for their respective religions. No, their interactions would not have been friendly. In the book, one Jesuit seems friendly towards Blackthorne (i.e. not intent on burning him on the stake), but Blackthorne does not trust him and remains antagonistic. Other Jesuits he meets do want to have him killed, but the Japanese protect him. So Blackthorne has good reason to be hostile towards the Jesuits.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Staying in sync with EU regulations is the only sensible thing that can be done in the near future. It is a per-requisite to rejoining the EU.
For all the morons wanting Starmer to commit to rejoining the EU: in order for that to become an option, a LOT of the damage that the Tories did to the UK will FIRST need to be fixed, permanently. That will take a decade at least. Starmer is wise to not commit to such a far-off project while the country is still split over Brexit and how to rejoin.
Face it, Britain. The Tories did considerable harm to the UK and the relationship with the EU. That has consequences. If you don't like the consequences, you should have been more forceful in telling your government to behave, because you were warned by many that there would be severe consequences. But you didn't, so now you have to lie in the bed you made.
In a democracy, votes have consequences, but so has inaction and remaining mute on a subject. Don't blame the media (well, the media should face the consequences for misleading you), every Briton is to blame with the exception of Steve Bray. Why for F's sake was he alone protesting against this mad government? OK, James O'Brien did his bit as well, and Phil Moorhouse. But very, very, very few Britons in Britain joined them in fighting the madness.
I get really angry with the turds calling on Starmer to take the anti-Brexit route, or maligning him for not doing that. THERE IS NO QUICK WAY TO UNDO BREXIT. But getting Labour in power is the first step of a decades long process of recovery, whereas leaving the Tories in power is continuing the slide back into the 19th century MINUS the empire. You think you can be forceful against Starmer to make up for your laxness against the Tories these past 6 years? You are wrong. Starmer is not blocking rejoining. It is the EU you insulted and attacked in so many mean little ways. They will roll on the floor laughing if you were to ask to rejoin now. Before telling you to study the Copenhagen Criteria, and study them well. And give annual reports on your progress towards compliance.
Ukraine will join the EU long before the UK rejoins. You think Ukraine is corrupt? The UK is even more corrupt, and at least Ukraine is fighting corruption and jailing corrupt politicians. As it stands, there are no laws to jail all those corrupt Tories. But jail them, and make the BBC impartial, and replace the House of Lords with something elected, and do a hundred other things, and we can talk about rejoining.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Personally, I think this is not all bad. It means that most likely, the next GE will not be a free one, and that the Tories will remain in power after 2024. That means that they will be the only ones responsible for the continued collapse of the UK. For me, a worst-case scenario would be that Labour wins the next GE, gets blamed for the Brexit fall-out, to have Tories back in power after them without any reform in the UK. But now it is overwhelmingly clear that the UK is no longer a democracy, and who are to blame for that. It is obvious that reform is necessary, and it will happen at the earliest opportunity.
My advice to Labour would be to boycott Parliament, like Sinn Fein does. Start as soon as the new session of Parliament starts. It is no use continuing to play along with the Tory's game. The UK is no longer a democracy, and Labour needs to act accordingly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielb8982 Het schandelijke van populisten zoals Baudet is dat ze wantrouwen zaaien tegen de bestaande partijen, zonder aan te geven waarom precies ze niet te vertrouwen zijn. Ook maken ze geen gebruik van de reguliere manieren om de overheid te laten bijstellen, zoals WOB verzoeken of rechtzaken. Ze roepen maar wat in de media.
Daarnaast stellen zij zichzelf op als het "enige betrouwbare alternatief", maar zonder in detail uit te leggen wat hun plannen zijn. Het blijft bij mooie woorden, grote beloften en vage vergezichten. Als bijvoorbeeld een journalist ze vraagt om concreet te worden, blijkt dat wat ze willen vaak onrealistisch of zelfs illegaal is.
Trap er nooit in!
Mensen als Baudet blijven vaag over hun plannen, oftewel omdat ze geen plannen hebben, of omdat ze weten dat als men precies zou weten wat ze van plan zijn, niemand voor ze zou kiezen.
En geloof NOOIT iemand die roept dat een regering crimineel bezig is zonder dat hij/zij een rechtzaak begint. En mocht er een rechtzaak begonnen worden, controleer dan of wat hij/zij in de rechtzaal zegt overeenkomt met wat hij/zij in de media zegt.
Kijk naar Trump: die roept luid in de media dat de verkiezingen gestolen zijn, maar in de rechtzaal duft hij dat niet te herhalen.
Dat is omdat liegen in de rechtzaal consequenties heeft, maar liegen in de media niet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
For those wanting Torvalds to simply give a list of the mistakes, you have to realize that in order to be able to list those mistakes, one has to spend CONSIDERABLE time diving deep into the RiscV architecture, while having a LOT of experience optimizing systems for other architectures and seeing them improve over the years. Torvalds is probably not the right person for that, and his answer shows me that he knows that. He is just warning the RiscV team that, watch out, the path you are treading is not new, others have been there before, and you should learn from them.
Probably the best people to talk with are compiler builders, people who implement e.g. the Java virtual machine on specific platforms, people who design and study performance benchmarks, and those who optimize system performance for various computing platforms.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The USA should have learned from Europe, that a Constitution must have safeguards against parties who frustrate the democratic process. Things like voter rights and reproductive rights should have been put in concrete long ago. The Senate must either better reflect the People's will, or have less power. There must be guarantees that Congress and the Senate do their business promptly. If Congress is hung, unable to do its business, it must be possible to call for new elections. The role of Head of State and Head of Government must be separated so it becomes possible to let a government that does not have the confidence of Congress fall. Etc, etc, etc.
But the USA knew better, they were the "home of democracy". Now we have in many parts of the USA, minority rule, imposing decisions on the Public that are not supported by the majority of the People.
Time for reform. Radical Reform. Let successful democracies like France, Germany, Denmark or the Netherlands explain how it is done.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hollywood has repented of white-washing like Taylor playing Cleopatra. But at the time it was a logical decision. Movies at the time were made for white people by white people. Because white people invented the medium and popularized it, and it took some time before it spread to other ethnicities.
For that particular movie, they wanted a true STAR to play the leading character, and at the time there simply were no great stars of Macedonian ethnicity. Nor any other ethnicity than white Caucasian, with a few exceptions like Omar Sharif. But I don't think Omar would have been a great choice to play Cleopatra, even though he was actually Egyptian.
An actress like Irene Papas, who was actually Greek, might have played her, but she was nowhere near the box-office draw that Taylor was. And at the time, whether a movie was a success or not was largely determined by who starred in it. So then it is an easy business decision to cast Taylor instead of Papas. Gina Lollobrigida was considered for the role, which might have been a better match to Cleopatra's ethnicity, but other matters than ethnicity were more important at the time. Like business interests.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
@blktarockstar818 Sending the first letter perhaps wasn't obstruction, as it seemed Jordan was ignorant on the bounds of his authority. The second was. And his utterances on television are also obstruction of justice, as these might influence a jury on the case.
Politicians must always stay out of criminal investigations. Any involvement they have is obstruction of justice. That is why in a real democracy, politicians will ALWAYS respond with "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation", even when asked by a reporter. Which is also why in a real democracy, every politician who is indicted will step back so as to be able to defend themselves.
Except in very rare cases like the "Minder, Minder" charge against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, where the question was about what a politician can say without it becoming a hate crime, i.e. clarifying the bounds within which a politician must operate.
18 U.S. Code § 1503 (a) "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United State, ... shall be punished as provided in subsection b"
So it is a crime for any politician to comment on any criminal case and say "this is a witch hunt" or "politically motivated". Or, Jim Jordan calling Braggs indictment of Trump an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority." That is threatening language, and language designed to influence and intimidate.
So, respectfully, please refrain from calling for people to "research topics before making assertions", when in fact it is you who are wrong. There is plenty of evidence to indict a whole slew of MAGA politicians with regards to their Obstruction of Justice in this specific case.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Excellent video!
The whole abortion debate is the typical red herring populists use to gain power. For Hitler, it was the Jewish scheme to oppress the German People. For the Republicans, it is Abortion that would earn the USA God's wrath. As appropriate, the whole issue has been surrounded by fear and emotion, referring to "baby killers" etc, and many un-truths -- like the ones you pointed out.
However, even more fundamentally, it is not Biblical to condemn the practice of Abortion. There are only a few references to abortion in the Bible, the clearest is one where a pregnant woman is abused so as to loose the fetus. That is treated as an economic crime instead of homicide. Also waiting with the naming & circumcision ritual until the 8th day after birth indicated that a baby is not recognized as a person until that day. The Jewish People inferred from this that abortion is permitted under Biblical Law.
So, people who claim that God's wrath is coming because of abortion, or denounce those in favour of a woman's right to choose as "evil demons" are on very shaky theological ground. One might even call it shifting sands.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blortsnergfud7647 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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zix_zix_zix And what do you think the world would do if China pulled a stunt like that? Apart from the military problems of invading a mountainous island nation, China would be fighting the combined navies of Taiwan, Japan, the USA, Australia, and perhaps even Indonesia and the Philippines.
But the real shocker would be the economic sanctions. China would be cut off from international trade just like Russia has been cut off. India, Indonesia and a dozen other countries would love to take over its place as producer for the world. And China already is in a massive debt crisis, teetering on the brink of economic collapse and civic unrest. It would be the end of the Communist regime.
China has no chance winning an invasion of Taiwan. None at all. In fact, such an invasion would likely end in either the final dissolution of China as an empire, or its unification under Taiwanese leadership. Because not only does China claim Taiwan is rebelling against it, Taiwan claims China is rebelling against its authority. Chiang Kai‐shek used to rule China, before the Communists rebelled against him and he withdrew to Taiwan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ukraine is, as far as I know, following the rules pretty closely. I have never seen any evidence of Ukraine breaking the Geneva Conventions, and plenty of them doing great kindness to e.g. captured Russians. One exception: they videotape POWs for propaganda purposes, which I think is a no-no.
About Israel, I will not judge them quickly. There is far too much misinformation going around for us to make quick judgements.
About the undressing: there are few practical alternatives to having Hamas captives strip. These people INVENTED the modern suicide bomber. The few alternatives I can think of are just as unpalatable to Muslims, like having bomb dogs walk through unattended and sniff them. Or, simply taking no captives. Which is what US Marines did when they discovered some captured Japanese would detonate grenades as soon as Marines came near.
You have to take into account that soldiers, like anyone else, will game the system. If the danger to themselves, either real or
perceived, of treating captives as they should be treated becomes too great, there will no longer be any captives.
At least they let the prisoners keep their underwear!
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
No, they did not. Yamato and its accompanying heavy squadron caught an american squadron of light ships by surprise, destroyed a single light escort carrier (Gambier Bay, of 7.800T and 860 men), and was then driven off, later to be sunk by carrier airplanes.
Musashi made no casualties at all, and was destroyed by submarines and carrier airplanes.
So, in return for this enormous investment, and a huge strategic surprise that should have cost the americans the liberation of the Philippines, Japan only got a single escort carrier. They did not hinder the american plans at all.
They were the proverbial white elephants. Awesome to look at, unfit for actual use.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I well remember my first visits to the Main Library in my university. They awe at the knowledge that is there, just waiting for you to make it your own. I spent many hours in there for fun, reading various periodicals, browsing the books, often in field that were no my own just out of interest. My own faculty had its own, much smaller, library, I spent many, many hours in there are well, just reading random stuff. Hundreds of hours, probably.
As a graduate I can still access the various publications in digital form, and I could visit the Library in person. But nowadays I just browse Wikipedia. Less glamorous, but much information is there and quite reliable. Google has specialised search functions for scientific publications if I really want to dig into a subject.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@j.ceasar Having the right to spread opinions that hurt others is called Freedom of Speech. There is no right Not To Be Offended, it doesn't exist.
People take offense at certain opinions, that is an active choice. THEIR choice.
Now, if I dehumanize or demonize specific people groups, or incite hatred against them, that is NOT (or shouldn't be) covered under Freedom of Speech. Except in cases where a higher body has judged the situation, as in calling Trump a rapist or Hamas a terrorist group. Those are facts, established by courts of law / government bodies. But having an opinion that clashes with your opinion, that just means your opinion is wrong. Usually. Because I think my opinions through and am open to correction. But dehumanizing me for my opinion, that is actual hate speech -- which is done far too often by people who get offended by someone's opinion.
So we have the weird situation where many people use actual hate speech because they accuse someone else, falsely, of using hate speech. That has a name, and it is HYPOCRISY.
Case in point: J.K. Rowling. Those who rail against her often use hate speech, while I have NEVER caught her in uttering actual hate speech. She does pose questions, and points out where women are endangered by policies that promote rights of trans people. But that is healthy debate, NOT hate speech.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PvblivsAelivs I did not make any such claim. The same holds for Communism. As I said, the economy is very important for the government.
However, there are far too many people that think that the purest form of capitalism is the best form to organize an economy. This is just not true, as pure capitalism leads 1). to monopolies, which are very bad for consumers, and 2). will lead to Plutocracy and through that to either Kleptocracy or Oligarchy. The governmental system needs to be prepared to meet those challenges by preventing that a few people / organisations gather too much wealth and thus, power. But when it does that, it interferes with capitalism, making it less pure.
The USA is currently in dire need of stronger government regulations to limit the power and influence of its richest citizens. But many <censored> people are dead against that, claiming it will somehow stop the USA from being a capitalist nation, and that that would be bad. Which is foolish in the extreme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kennethgriffin1093 Rent payed over the mortgage is tax-deductible for individuals, as it is for businesses. But only the rent. Not the repayments. The measure was introduced in the 19th century to compensate for the tax on owning a house ("Huurwaardeforfait"). In the Netherlands, a fraction of the value of your house counts as income, and is taxed as such. That is extra to the council, community or property tax, water tax and sanitization tax, we pay those as well. Those are for maintenance of the infrastructure, but the "huurwaardeforfait" is pure wealth equalization and disappears in the national budget. When that tax was adopted, the deduction of interests payed was added at the same time to prevent people who had borrowed money to buy a house from going bankrupt on the double payments. Remember, profits made by the banks (i.e. our interests payed) are also taxed, so without the deduction, the interests are taxed double (as profit for the banks and as the huurwaardeforfait). The huurwaardeforfait was introduced to let people who inherit houses or have finished paying from them, contribute their fair share to the national economy.
Is your taxable income increased just because you own a house? It definitely adds up, especially for people who have a high income, because the income tax is progressive, and so the huurwaardeforfait is progressive as well.
Anyway, the government is getting rid of that tax reduction -- but not the huurwaardeforfait -- due in part to pressure from idiots like this guy that do not understand the Dutch system but are more than ready to judge it.
The biggest problem in the Dutch housing market is that there are too few houses. Building more houses is the only solution to the current housing bubble, tax measures will only backfire.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They call themselves the Party of Law and Order.
Wow, that self-description aged like fine milk.
I am shocked by how short-sighted many Americans are. Trump stands for the exact opposite the GOP used to stand for.
Family Values? Trump, the two-time divorcee with 20+ plausible r@pe accusations, and adjudicated to be a r@pist.
Business man? Trump, who bankrupted his own casino and is forbidden to do any business in NY state.
Religious? Trump, the biggest liar ever. So much for Thou Shalt Not Lie. He is a child of his father, who is a liar from the start, the Dev!l.
Law and Order? Trump, facing 80+ indictments in 4 different courts. Convicted fraudster. Convicted slanderer. Incited a violent insurrection.
Patriot? Trump, who believes Putin more than his own CIA, and who shipped hundreds of secret documents to US enemies. Whose son got 2B$ from Saudi Arabia, presumably for selling secrets.
Love the Constitution? Trump, who incited an insurrection. Who wants to be a dictator. Who only loves free speech for himself and his pals, not for others. Who appointed three Constitution-hating justices who undo the jurisprudence of generations.
I am shocked that there are still people who would support this clown.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bifurioussiren > Communists don't think there are only two ways
Yeah, there are distinct differences between Stalinist and Mao's communism, and Cuban is different again. I don't know all the differences. But I do know that the term 'communist' is greatly misused in the USA to demonize anyone who would want to somehow limit the freedom for companies to make money at any cost.
Truth is, there is no communist movement in the USA of any size. Even the much-feared Bernie Sanders is by no means a communist, he is slightly left of center. Biden is still pretty right-wing.
> I support the Represent Us movement
Excellent! Corruption is rampant in the USA and needs to be stopped, before you can again be called a true democracy. In fact, I consider corruption to be a much greater evil than the extreme right-wing politics. Politicians tend to do what is good for the voters. Except if the political system is corrupt, then they do what is good for whoever is paying the checks.
The problem is how to get rid of corruption. Politicians that are benefiting from it are not likely to enact laws to stop it, which is a real problem. Also the parties doing the corrupting will fight tooth and nail to keep it going, as it benefits them...
But the #represent.us movement has a strategy that has the potential to make a real difference, as far as I can tell!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@jamesnabors3643 You are very right. Stories and conspiracy theories are NOT considered proof. For a reason. Anyone can claim so-and-so did or said this-and-that. Doesn't mean that it is true. Not even when 10 million people think it is so. Not even when all anchors at Fox repeat it as fact.
Trust me, Biden is not perfect, but most if not all of the accusations that you and yours hurl at democrats are completely false.
To put it simply: IF THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE TRUE, TRUMP WOULD HAVE HAD THEM PROSECUTED!!!!
It was his responsibility to have them prosecuted. He didn't, so either Trump derelicted his duty, or there was nothing to prosecute. You choose which it is, the latter is the more likely.
BTW, if there are democrats that did incite riots or other violence, I do think that they should be prosecuted for that. Inciting violence is unacceptable, no matter who is doing it, or why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is happening at Disney is so outrageous, I am starting to believe that this is exactly what its leaders want it to be. Next question is, WHY?
I don't for a second believe it is because the higher-ups want The Message to permeate the world. That is what the underlings want, but not the higher-ups. Disney is controlled by some of the most wealthy individuals and organisations on this planet. And they are ONLY interested in money.
So, they believe it will financially benefit them to drive Disney into insolvency by letting it make stuff nobody wants. That does not compute. EXCEPT if in doing so, they can protect their other assets. Which, I believe, would be by triggering an anti-woke, pro-fascist movement that is too distracted to vote for parties that would reform tax laws to make the ultra-rich pay their fair share.
We will see what happens next. If for example Kennedy stays on, and this Headland creature, this conspiracy starts becoming more plausible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From a systems point of view, trying to control the ship by giving specific rudder actions is completely inappropriate for a pilot. The pilot does not know how quickly the rudder moves from port to starboard, how strong the action is, and other characteristics of the behavior of the ship for different loads. From the plot I had concluded in 2021 that the ship was steered in a way that was unstable, i.e. giving too much rudder action for too long, causing overshoot in the opposite direction. The compensation of that overshoot introduced more overshoot, etc. An unstable control loop caused by inappropriate command of the rudder.
To be honest, that the pilot gave hard port or hard starboard commands to the helmsman should have been a red flag for the Master, at which point he should have kicked them off the bridge. Or perhaps when they gave instructions for a high speed, which aggravated the squat, push and suction effects. At low speeds, the action of the bow screw would have also been more effective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephensedlon8414 You might want to edit your remark a bit, the second sentence makes no sense.
But aside from that, I fully agree with what you are saying. That is why I urge any american to get involved with the #represent.us movement, which is rooting out corruption from the US political system.
Still, what Dump is doing is extremely dangerous. He, and the republican-led senate, are blocking aid plans from helping the people bearing the brunt of the current epidemic, for political purposes! All those people being laid off, being evicted from their homes, and not having money to care for their sick, are first going to destroy your economy, and will then cause a world-wide recession.
Just as in 2008, it is republican laissez faire that will greatly exacerbate this crisis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ant_Man211 > we disagree on some things but in the end we just want the best for all
That's right!
The reason I pick on Dump is because he is part of a world-wide trend of populism, which I find extremely worrying. I define populism as politicians that promise easy solutions to complex problems, draw voters by making groups ("others") out to be enemies, ignore or even ridicule scientists, fight the free press (and any voice that dares to question their false promises), and blame the "others" when things go to pot. Currently, Russia, the UK, Poland, Hungary, Turkey and the USA have fallen for populist leaders. All these countries are suffering as a result, some more than others, and I do not want it to spread.
Dump has demonstrated all the things I listed when handling Covid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure it has.
It is called upholding the Law.
In my humble opinion, anyone claiming the election was stolen, is rebelling against the government of the USA, and should be imprisoned, thrown out of any office, and kept out. With these conclusions so clear and damning, it is time to uphold that law (U.S. Code § 2383).
It is time to have some mass trials, where it is sufficient to have evidence an individual repeated the Big Lie to get them convicted. And that includes the likes of Boebert, Green, Hannaty, Fox hosts & commentators, and Trump himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Putin can't admit he has lost"
True, but Putin can certainly declare that he has won. So this is a non-argument. Him not being able to admit he has lost is NOT a hindrance to him stopping the war.
We fail to understand the situation of a dictator like Putin. He can do as he likes, and he has a large staff that is payed to spin all his decisions in a way that is more-or-less acceptable to his populace. Russia is not like the UK, where there are party members, opposition and journalists who pounce on a leader who is out of grace. Putin takes care there are no dissidents who could be a threat to him.
He can declare victory, organize a parade, have an actor portray a captured Zelenski, have the media hail him as a victor, etc, etc, next week if he wants to. The ONLY thing that keeps this war going is the will of Putin.
1
-
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"
That is one great one-liner. And so true.
You could also say, "You may not be interested in Russian aggression, but Russia is interested in you". At least 70% of all the turmoil and pressure western societies are experiencing right now is caused, directly or indirectly, by the Putin regime. That includes Brexit, the rise of right-wing extremism, global food shortages, a large part of our inflation (that which was not caused by the Covid crisis), a good part of international migration, and the Gaza war. Putin has been undermining our democracies for a decade at least, and he will continue until either we lose or he loses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sadly, Johnson is a dictator in Congress. He has a LOT of power. This is a major flaw in the US political system, the power these speakers have to determine the agenda.
Where I live, the agenda for Parliament is determined by Parliament itself. Parliament can decide to put motions or debates on the agenda. The threshold for a motion is very low, only two signatories are required to put it on the agenda and have a vote on it. That is democratic: it is always the safe option to discuss something and vote on it, even if may be a waste of time. And if the issue is very clear, it can be dealt with very quickly by a count of hands.
In the USA, the agenda is determined by the Speaker and ONLY by the speaker. If he wants to ignore an item, he can do so. Which is NOT democratic. As we see here, a bill that would likely have the support of the majority of Congress is blocked by a single man. That is minority rule, an abomination in a "democratic" country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@M1Abrams-HEDP-loaded From even before Biblical times, humanity has had to deal with dangerous contagious diseases. The Old Testament already tells us how to stop them: isolation, lockdown and quarantine.
Your statement that the disease will invariably infect 80% is absolutely wrong. Otherwise, we would all have died from Ebola, Rabies or Syphilis. There are lots of contagious, deadly diseases for which no real cure exists, and still humanity survives, through effective use of isolation, quarantine and lockdown.
As an example, take New Zealand. Covid has been completely eradicated there. If Trump had done a better job, that could have been the case for the US as well.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53274085#:~:text=Getty%20Images%20New%20Zealand's%20approach,%2C%20in%20their%20%22bubble%22.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When Tokmak is under fire control, Russian can no longer send supplies between Crimea and Donbass by rail, which in itself makes Crimea difficult to hold. If it is liberated, the Ukrainians will have broken through the main Russian defense lines, and they will have many options on how to proceed. There are no major natural obstacles from there on. They can cut south to the Azov sea, they can cut west to liberate Enerhodar and the rest of the Kherson province, they can cut SW through to Crimea west of Melitopol, they can surround Melitopol, etc, etc. All of these will cut off Crimea for car transport. With the new sea drones, Ukraine can establish naval supremacy around Crimea and blockade its ports, as well as permanently destroy the Kerch bridge.
This means that when Ukraine liberates Tokmak, the Russians will lose Crimea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edwardbernays8514 You don't know history. I have seen e.g. Brezjnev do whataboutism hundreds of times in the seventies and eighties. The term itself is from the seventies. It is trying to deflect one issue by raising another issue that is fundamentally unrelated, implying hypocrisy. Which is exactly what you are doing.
While the Palestinian situation is complex, it comes down to the Palestinians continuously choosing leaders who want Israel destroyed. That is not going to happen, ever. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the nation of Israel will stay there. So if the Palestinians want peace, they must make peace with Israel and prosecute anyone who attacks Israel. Then Israel would not have to come in to punish them herself.
Israel has extended the olive branch often enough, even giving the Palestinians their own land. "Land for Peace", that was the deal. So they gave the land, but did not get the peace that was promised. Instead, they got several intifadas, and a daily rain of rockets on their cities. And a lot of loud-mouth terrorists complaining when Israel bombs the site where those rockets were launched from.
Palestine wants peace? Prove it by getting rid of the terrorists!
<edit:> Also, remember that Israel is the ONLY functional, secular, democracy with a functional Rule of Law in the region. The nations that want her gone are all religiously fundamentalist dictatorships who have very poor human rights situations. But they have the audacity to constantly accuse Israel of atrocities. But that makes sense, because Satan, who leads them, is also called the Accuser.
Guess you have picked the wrong side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@schmetterling4477 To understand Biblical concepts, you need to study the meaning of the words in the original languages. The English words have slightly different meanings, and are often strongly associated with wrong understandings of the Bible that are a result of human traditions, not divine inspiration.
The word sin, in its Biblical meaning, can mean breaking Gods law, moving away from the path of blessing, or missing Gods purpose.
Gods law is clearly defined in the Bible: "Love God with all thy heart, and love thy neighbour as thy self" (Mt 22:35-40). The other forms of sin are personal, and are related to Gods plan for you personally. It is possible to miss Gods plan by e.g. failing to see an opportunity God gave you, and that would be "sin".
The Bible teaches that all have sinned, and that all can be restored into Gods perfect plan by accepting His Love and Grace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Several things can be said. First, we all thought Russia would not invade because it would be suicide to do so. As we can clearly see it was. For China, an invasion of Taiwan would be suicidal as well. And as it is watching what happens to Russia unfold, it can't fail to see that.
Second, Taiwan is MUCH harder to invade than Ukraine, by virtual of being an island.
Third, unlike with Ukraine, Taiwan can count on the explicit support of its neighbours Japan, Australia, the USA, etc, etc.
Fourth, the west has also learned from Ukraine. It will be much quicker to voice and demonstrate their support for Taiwan if the threat starts to look real. Expect troops from various nations to be stationed in Taiwan if things get serious, and increased weapon deliveries in advance of any invasion, not only after it started.
Fifth, what China is doing now is nothing unusual. It has always been doing these things around Taiwan. It is only that the MAGA media are trying to scare people into dropping their support for Ukraine, in order to help their buddy Putin. And yes, CNN has been part of the MAGA media ever since their new CEO got rid of the critical voices in September 2022.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimbraatz4514 Super power? Don't let me laugh. Russia is good at terrorism, and that is the only thing it is good at. If NATO were to get involved in the Ukraine war (not invading Russia proper), the war would be over in a week or less, depending on the strategy it took. If it limited itself to taking out the logistical routes, it might take a bit longer.
Russia is pathetic compared with NATO.
And don't come here talking about nukes. For all we know, the state of the military is so bad those nukes probably won't even fly. And even Putin realizes that if he ever were to use tactical nukes, it would make no difference to the war. Strategic nukes would only turn the whole world, including China, against him. Special Ops teams would have to organise a lottery to determine if the English, Americans, Ukrainians, Poles, Dutch, German, Israeli or Chinese teams would have the honour of taking him out. Very slowly and very painfully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seamuspadraigsanders431 That is how ministers are supposed to act, because ministers are politically responsible for what the ministry does and has done, even if it happened under their predecessors. Their duty is to report any misdeeds to Parliament before they become known outside the ministry, and do their utmost to repair them. Even if it is only clear in hindsight that something was wrong.
I have seen ministers resign over the acts of their predecessors, in other nations. The fact that Tory ministers get away with blaming others for failings at the ministry is one of the more disgusting elements of UK politics.
So, a question for you: how are regulations doing under the current crop of Tories? Is there another time-bomb with a lit fuse, waiting to scupper another Labour government? I can see several: Brexit, the environment, NHS, housing, etc, etc, etc. The school building time-bomb went off a little bit too soon, I am sure the Tories regret that. Not that the school buildings are collapsing per se, but that they are collapsing one year too soon.
Tories ALWAYS wreak the country, and then complain that Labour is not quick enough in repairing the damage. Filth, that is what they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@orcencart7215 I had overlooked India. In Myanmar there seems to be a government that is against any form of dissent, and of course there is the problem of refugees from China. I don't know whether the violence there is particularly religiously inspired. The current regime seems to be altogether nasty.
Palestine is more complex than most people realise. In general, the Israelis shoot at known terrorists and don't worry too much about innocent bystanders -- which is wrong, but then Israelis have been having terrorist attacks for a century or longer. This situation would improve a lot if the Palestine government started to co-operate with the Israelis to prosecute terrorists, but the Palestinian Authority benefits from the hate. Because they are the terrorists. Arafat had persisted in his desire to drive the Israelis into the sea, and Hamas is even worse.
Israel made the first move towards reconciliation, by giving the Palestinians are region to govern, as requested by the Palestinians. It is time for the Palestinians to make a step towards Israel, demonstrating goodwill and sincerity. Instead, they still want to do genocide to the Israelis. As they say, you can't negotiate with people who say what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable.
But as a result of perceived persistent attacks, hate is also growing among Israelis. Which is understandable, but very disturbing. Things are getting worse instead of better. Hate consumes those who carry it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@liammorgans7329 That is a bit off topic, ain't it? Also, a large portion of those laureates have non-British names, pointing to the importance of immigration for top quality research. Just to mention a few: Canetti, Fleming, Dirac, Hayek, Ishiguro, Kao, Katz, etc, etc, etc.
If you wanna argue about "Fleming" being British, that name literally means "From Flanders" (modern Belgium).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Though I loath Trump, and think he did indeed handle the crisis very poorly, I do think it is a bit unfair to criticize Trump for down-playing the crisis before March. Many world-leaders were playing it down at that time, hoping the virus could be contained through targeted quarantines. They were trying to prevent panic.
However, by March 1 it was clear that the virus was no longer containable, e.g. due to the massive contaminations occuring in the Italian alps in late Februari, that spread the virus over the whole of Europe. I would hold March 1st as the date that all leaders should have changed their messaging on Covid, as by that date the speed with which the virus was spreading was clear to all. BTW, the WHO was a week late in calling Coivid.19 a pandemic (which they did on March 11th).
A key factor in the spread of the virus was that many people had booked expensive holidays in the Alps and were unwilling to forfeit that money, as they were not being reimbursed. So, greed was an important factor in the spread of this disease. The Alps should have been closed much sooner, and the holiday makers reimbursed, that would have saved the world a lot of grief. Sadly, a week is a very short time in politics, but a very long time with this virus.
But Trump is fully to be blamed for his actions after March 1st.
1
-
1
-
The economic outlook for Russia today is "disastrous". Some economists predict the Russian economy will "die" this winter, due to a combination of foreign companies ending business, the brain drain that has occurred, the loss of men through the draft, and the economic sanctions.
This condition may well continue even though the war ends, as the purpose of them is to end Putin's regime, not to affect peace in Ukraine.
Also, Russian funds will be confiscated to pay for rebuilding Ukraine.
So, long term, Russia will lose much more than Ukraine ever did. However, if it means the end of the Putin kleptocratic regime, or even the dissolution of the Russian federation, many Russians may feel it is worth it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Guys, it is nice to have complex discussions about why Trump's behavior is wrong, but all that is needed is the upholding of the Obstruction of Justice laws. These already make any communication that threatens any person involved in a court case, be they a judge, a clerk, the prosecution, the FBI, a jury member etc, a felony crime. The language describing the crime is quite broad, Trump's behavior certainly falls within it.
This is what is WRONG with the USA: the Law is no longer upheld when crimes are committed by the rich and powerful. When you see a person committing a serious crime, they are arrested. So why is Trump not arrested when he commits the crime of Obstruction of Justice? And if a person is out on bail, and he commits a crime, his bail is revoked. So why is Trump's bail not revoked?
Again, every day that this hood is out on the streets committing crime after crime after crime, is an indictment against the USA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
Speaker Johnson claims to be a Christian. But that is also a lie. The Bible has already told us where he will go. Because the Bible doesn't make exceptions. Those who think it is OK to lie in some deluded attempt to "build the kingdom" deceive themselves and will find out the hard way.
According to the Jesus, the Devil is a liar and the father of lies, and those who try to achieve their goals through lies do the Devil's work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It must be me, but I still don't understand how double-jeopardy would apply if Cannon grants a motion to dismiss after the jury was sworn in instead of before. Because it has been widely established that appealing a decision by a judge or jury does not constitute double-jeopardy. And certainly when the judge does not consult the jury in a decision to dismiss, that should CERTAINLY be appealable. And when the judge makes a decision to dismiss on a point that was raised long before the jury was selected, that should be grounds for disbarment of the judge.
The USA needs some very serious reform of its judicial system, and this time allowing for the situation where a judge is corrupt. So much in the US government system assumes honorable behavior by officials, and this is exactly what Trump & Magats are abusing all the time.
For example, it should be much easier to recuse a judge. In my country (Netherlands), either prosecution or defense can call for a review by a panel of judges, to consider whether a judge has demonstrated apparent bias to either party. If so, the judge (or the court in case of multiple judges) is recused and replaced by another. This procedure usually takes about 1 day from initial challenge to conclusion. No proof of bias is required, simply the appearance of bias is enough. No decision by the judge is needed either, if she displays partiality in the way she runs a case, that is enough.
Cannon would have been long removed from the case under these rules.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
About the number of cannons: The VOC ships were first and foremost cargo vessels, they were not naval ships. Mary-Rose was a naval Ship of the Line, a different class of ship. Superficially, cargo and military vessels were similar, but on closer inspection the cargo ships had different lines increasing their holds, and military ships were more built for speed and coping with a lot of mass relatively high in the ship (cannon had to be above the water line).
The slightly later (1628) Batavia carried 32 cannon of various types, with 24 being cast iron, 6 cast bronze, and 2 "composite". For the bigger cannon lower in the ship, cast iron would have been the preferred metal (cheap). The Dutch had been at war for some 30 years by the time, and cost mattered.
I have seen quite a few cannon of the period (they are still littered around the country), and NEVER have a seen a highly decorated piece like the one shown in the movie clip. That, as you say, looks like a renaissance cannon from the 15th century. An actual early 17 century Dutch bronze cannon looks like this: https://www.levedevestingbrielle.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/aus-6.jpg. Very boring, straight-forward and functional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesjones1962 Nor with blackmailers. The USA is being blackmailed politically by the GOP. "We want to co-operate with you, but you need to stop prosecuting us or our companies. If not, we will make life for you as hard as possible".
You can't accept that.
It is, however, with a very heavy heart that I say this. I am all for compromise and harmony, building bridges. But Justice is paramount. You can not, ever, turn a blind eye to crimes for the sake of "unity", or try to build bridges when the other party demands that you come all the way to their side.
The Trump administration has violated the Constitution in dozens of ways, if not more. The USA can not afford to turn a blind eye to that.
In relationships like marriage, you can sometimes opt to give the other party a second chance (not a third one!). But the more authority the wrongdoer has, the more critical it is to hold him/her accountable. If the POTUS gets away with a crime, any crime, the Rule of Law in the USA has failed. And that is unacceptable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't often disagree with Sanders, but he is wrong about the Palestinians. He steps over the fact that Hamas governs Gaza. That is a problem, as Hamas has lost its legitimacy in the 7 Oct attack. No government can do such a thing and expect to remain in power. Much less Hamas, where we can be certain they would do it again if given the opportunity.
There are only two possible ways to resolve the conflict: 1). Palestinians themselves prosecute Hamas, or 2). Israel takes over governance of Gaza. As the Palestinians are both unable and unwilling to do 1, it will be option 2 (which is what Israel is doing now). It is not an option to go back to the status quo ante (Hamas is in charge of Gaza and Israel withdraws), the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October are too great for that.
If Sanders is so concerned with Palestinian welfare, he should work towards a third option: An international coalition of peace keepers to take over governance of Gaza. I sincerely doubt anyone would want to participate in that, but Sanders has no right to protest against option 2 while not providing a viable alternative.
So I wholeheartedly agree with the way Biden is acting: admonishing Israel to minimize civilian casualties, and leaving it at that. The quicker Israeli rule is established, the quicker society can be rebuilt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
paul lochman > the riots are not peaceful protesters
Yes, you got that right!
The vast majority of protesters is completely peaceful. I have seen no proof that the rioters or looters were in fact protesters. I did see a lot of police violence against peaceful protesters. Perhaps you call that riots, but the protesters were victims there, not perpetrators.
And don't quote Faux to justify yourself. Faux has been caught with their pants down several times, photoshopping together images of peaceful protesters, flames and broken shop windows to make it seem that there were riots. If Faux says it, I am inclined to believe the opposite of what they say, because they lie even more than Dump.
For a group that says they love the constitution, you forget that the right to protest is the FIRST amendment. And thus more important to the minds of those that created it than the amendments that came after it.
Why don't we hear you hypocrites complain more about FIRST amendment rights being violated?
There is this nice principle in the Bible, that when you violate one law, you become guilty of violating the whole law. You can't be selective about which parts of the constitution to uphold. You either uphold ALL of it, or you don't uphold it at all.
Republicans have made it overly clear that all their words of upholding the constitution don't mean anything at all. You piss on the constitution, by allowing Dump to frustrate congress in its constitutional job of performing oversight over the executive. You piss on the constitution by refusing to hear witnesses during the impeachment trial. You piss on the constitution by letting federal, unmarked troops intimidate and harass protesters. You piss on the constitution by holding that the president can not be indicted for any crime, and thus placing him above the law. You piss on the constitution by supporting systemic racism. You piss on the constitution by defunding the US mail service, which by article 1.8.7 of the constitution is a federal responsibility. You piss on the constitution by letting Dump interfere with the prosecution of criminals. You piss on the constitution by letting Dump use the the DoJ to sick his enemies. You piss on the constitution by letting the president invite foreign interference in elections, live on television. You piss on the constitution by allowing Dump to withhold funds that were allocated by congress. You piss on the constitution by allowing the president to have corrupt quid-pro-quo's. You piss on the constitution by allowing Dump to intimidate witnesses, live on Twitter.
And I could go on. And on.
The GOP is morally bankrupt. Time for it to be taken out of its misery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I can't image anyone would still support Dump. But apparently, there still are 60.000.000 people that do...
Why is this Dumpsterfire nominated to run again? Why is he not impeached and removed from office, and replaced by Mike Pence? How can so many people fall for such a known idiot, known incompetent, known threat to democracy, known violator of the constitution, known money grabber, known wannabee dictator, known fascist?
Can't you find anyone who would better represent you?
Stop the idiocy, PLEASE!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blaksu Don't presume to know how Putin feels. For all we know, he doesn't feel a thing. And as dictator, he will just blame his generals, some of whom will probably have unfortunate accidents with open windows on high floors. Serves them right, those traitors of the Motherland!
Just as with Stalin, the dictator is always right. Any failures are totally due to his underlings failing to do their duty.
As Ambassador McFaul recently wrote, we should not attempt to understand Putin using a democratic mindset. Just look at how Trump acted. He calls big defeats successes, and makes almost half the USA believe in outright lies in spite of the evidence of their own eyes, with the help of sycophant media. And he is as popular (and dangerous) as ever, in spite of his massive failures. Add to that a large network of informers/spies and teams of trained assassins killing everybody who might become a threat, including their families, and you get a picture of Putin (and where Trump / the GOP is going).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blortsnergfud7647 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
-
18:40 "Putin can not afford to loose this war"
That is nonsense. Absolute BS.
It fails to recognize that Putin is a dictator, not a politician. For a dictator, optics are something he controls himself. He will ALWAYS be able to make himself look strong to the common man. And while he plays the FSB, the military and the oligarchs against each other, he will actually be strong in the eyes of potential rivals.
Which is also why I strongly suspect that Prigozhin and his associates that have been missing for almost two weeks are somewhere in a gulag right now, if they are still alive. By making his rivals disappear, Putin demonstrates he actually is strong.
The only reason this war is still going on, is because Putin wants it to go on. He hopes the west will loose interest or offer him some victory out of fear of escalation. Like we did before, shame on us.
Putin does not need an off-ramp. Nor does he deserve one. Nor will giving him one, prevent future violence. In fact, giving him an off-ramp will guarantee future violence, because it demonstrates that using violence pays off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MJ Onzin. Rusland heeft 3 keer het aantal mensen, maar de Russische bevolking is sterk vergrijsd. Daarnaast ga je bij een invasie niet al je manschappen inzetten, ookal omdat er voldoende soldaten moeten blijven om het eigen volk te onderdrukken, en omdat China graag een stuk Rusland zou inpikken. Oekraine kan daar door een veel groter percentage van haar bevolking naar het front sturen.
En zelfs als Rusland Kiev zou kunnen veroveren, heeft het niet voldoende manschappen om Oekraine te bezetten. De gemiddelde Oekraïner haat Rusland met een diepe, diepe haat, dus het zal niet kunnen rekenen op voldoende steun van pro-Russische Oekraïners. We zien nu al dat collaborateurs in bezette gebieden bij bosjes vermoord worden. De pro-Russische burgemeester van Kherson is bijvoorbeeld gevlucht naar Rusland. Niet naar de Krim, nee naar Rusland zelf.
Door de westerse steun heeft Rusland nu alleen een voordeel in de grootte van de bevolking. De informatie, wapens en het moreel van Oekraine is veel, veel beter, en dat is wat uiteindelijk de oorlog bepaalt. Naar verwachting zullen deze winter de eerste westerse vliegtuigen richting Oekraine gaan (F16 en A10), en dan zullen ook westerse tanks volgen. Dan zijn de Russen net zo kansloos als de Irakezen in de eerste golfoorlog.
Rusland is een uitzichtloze oorlog begonnen, die haar nog veel meer zal vernederen dan de invasie in Afganistan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you are not American, none of this will make any sense to you"
Maybe, just maybe, that is because it doesn't make sense. Americans may be jaded about political dysfunction, but this is not normal for a democracy. In fact, if a minority can stop the operation of the government, it isn't a democracy.
Americans have been gaslit about their country being "the best democracy in the world", but in objective truth, it isn't. There are many countries that are much more democratic than the USA. But sure, some dumbass will shout "that is socialism" and think that is all that needs to be said. But he confuses "socialism", whatever he may mean with that, with a functioning democracy. The USA is a dysfunctional democracy that is sliding towards a fascist dictatorship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If hate speech can not be banned outright, it should be easy to convict people who utter hate speech when it likely caused people to be hurt or properties to be damaged.
Speech can have consequences. In case you haven't noticed, the USA is getting in a zone where people are prepared to do violence because they feel their rights are threatened, as a result of hate speech. This can get very ugly.
You may frown at these stupid Europeans for having anti-hate speech laws, but they have learned through painful experience what it can lead to. That the USA has yet to learn that lesson is not due to nobody being hurt there through hate speech, but by the victims mainly being minorities, like the native Americans, immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ+ people etc.
The thing about hate speech, and the fallacy of "hate speech should lead to more speech", is that if the hate is spread by a large-enough group, it will drown out the victims and the silent majority. As happened in 1930-ies Germany, and is happening in the USA right now.
A minority group can not defend itself against an onslaught of hate. It needs the protection of the Law. Especially when ruthless politicians and media moguls are spouting the hate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That "hearing" with Higgins speaking just makes me wonder about the sanity of the USA. In a country with any democratic standards, he would have been shut up immediately by the chairman. Because the man is making completely unverifiable claims that should be made in a court of law, under oath, under the rule of Audi alteram partem, and in a way that gives the other party time to do their own fact finding with regards to the claims. A hearing is NOT the time to launch wild accusations, but to ask simple questions and listen to the answers. The moment Higgins refused to let the expert speak, he should have been shut up by the chairman. What is the point of a hearing if you refuse to listen to the answer? That is a violation of the principle of Audi alteram partem and thus of truth finding.
This hearing is a farce, that one would expect in a kangaroo court, not in the highest level of truth-finding in the USA. But it is all too common in congressional / senatorial committees. Committee members like Higgins are not interested in the truth, they want to grandstand and make vile accusations without any consequences if they are false.
Shameful. The USA needs to change how these hearings are held. Because this is how the People of the USA are misled. By news media that take this segment and tell it as if it is truth, which it so clearly isn't. But also in the media the accused party should have the opportunity to respond to the accusation. Audi alteram partem is also a basic journalistic principle. But journalism in the USA is just as terrible as its political system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This wonderful country once called Ukraine"
That country was also the original Russia, until the Moskovites appropriated that name in the 18th and 19th centuries. We shouldn't call Moskovy "Russia" anymore, Russia was western Ukraine, the region around Lviv, in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, and there are map calling it as such made in the 18th and 19th centuries. Which, coincidentally, includes that map on which Putin failed to find the name Ukraine although it most definitely was there. That was a 19th century map. If he had looked carefully, he would have seen his country marked as Muskovy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gorillaguerillaDK I am aware of Abiogenesis, however that vast majority of people in this discussion are not. "Evolution" has different meanings in different contexts. If you are aware of the difference between Abiogenesis and "the Theory of Evolution", you must also be aware that most people, including many scientists in other fields, believe the Theory of Evolution proves God is no longer necessary to explain Life. While obviously, it does not.
A word means what the listeners hold it to mean, not what you or a small group of scientists intend it to mean. So, instead of moaning about fools that do not understand Evolution, please set all these people straight that angrily attack Christians for upholding that God created Life.
This is my biggest gripe about this video, btw. The persons asking the questions expect Yes or No answers, while in order to be able to answer the question, I must first negotiate with the asker to determine what he means with "Evolution". If not given that opportunity, I will answer according to how the majority of the people understand Evolution, and my answer would be NO. But from your remarks, I get the feeling that if we had a discussion about it, my answer to you would be YES.
But aside from that, in my earlier comment I mentioned the origin of the cell because it is the most obvious refutation of the idea that Evolution disproves God. However, the same argument can be used to refute Macro Evolution -- the creation of new features in an organism by the combination of Chance & Natural Selection. Consider for example sight. There are too many genes required that must all appear at exactly the same time and location for sight the become possible. And again, as with Abiogenesis, Natural Selection does not help because all these genes have no function before they are all perfect.
As you are probably aware, the Theory of Evolution only discusses Micro Evolution, i.e. the little adaptations in phenotype due to random mutations in the genotype, and the selection of these by nature. Nothing about the origin of species, dinosaurs, etc, which all children are indoctrinated by when introduced to Evolution.
So, Yes, I think it very dangerous that governments mandate that Evolution is taught at schools as the one true source of life. Something that has absolutely no scientific basis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are several severe flaws in this argument.
Most obviously, Zelensky will NEVER accept, nor should they, the mere promise of eventual NATO membership. Not if actual membership can be blocked indefinitely by e.g. Orbán. There will be no agreement between Russia and Ukraine until Ukraine is actually ratified by all member states as a full NATO member.
Secondly, differently from the the East-Germany situation, Ukraine knows that the situation for its people that are under current Russian oppression, is truly horrendous. Russia is not being a good homeland for these people. So only for this reason, it is amoral to let this situation persist any longer than absolutely necessary.
My belief is that after Harris become president, the USA will take a much more confrontational stance against Russia, making this war impossible to win for Russia. And as signs of economic collapse are starting to appear in Russia, it is not to be expected that it will be able to continue this war much longer. The pressures on Putin to withdraw will become extreme in 2025. So either I think he will just give up, or other events, e.g. Chechnya breaking off, will force him to.
1
-
This is a video every american should see.
The USA has had an ultra-right government since the 60ies, with growing corruption, which resulted in this grossly injust economy. To solve it, some simple measures are needed to protect against exploitation: a mandatory 40-hour work week, mandatory payed sick leave for a reasonable period, a fair minimum wage, such things.
But most of all, top management needs to be educated on the benefit of being fair to your workers. Ford (I believe) discovered that paying workers more actually meant the company actually made more profit, due to the increased effectiveness and creativity of employees. If people work more than 40 hrs/week, productivity drops quite drastically. So being so mean to your workers is plain bad management.
These measures are not communist. It is just plain decency. E.g. the Bible calls for us to care for the sick and weak, and that the laborer is worthy of his/her wages (meaning: a wage that he/she can support their family on, a good wage). That means the employers have a responsibility to their workers, as well as the other way around: if not the employer, who do you think Jesus was addressing? The family of the worker? Who says they have family?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Only having one chamber"
Many European countries have a 2-chamber system. (12 out of 27 EU nations), including France, Germany, Italy, UK, etc. However, those two chambers usually do not have the same rights. The upper house is usually used to check the quality of legislation, not so much its political direction. Either the country has a method to overrule the upper house, or it has recurring discussions to remove it if it gets too political. It is accepted that the lower house has the biggest mandate.
But the US situation where the Senate is involved in many executive functions like appointing officials is crazy. Our fail-safe against government misconduct is that Parliament can remove the government or a specific minister with a simple majority. The US situation where the President is both the Head of State and the Head of Government is not common in Europe. The Head of Government is the Prime Minister, not the President.
Which is why in Europe you will NEVER see a minister say to a Parliamentary Committee "I have no time for this", like Bill Barr infamously said. If he'd have done that in Europe, he'd be without a job as soon as Parliament could be convened to debate a motion of No Confidence. And because these committees have real power, their witness interviews are not performative drama pieces. They ask real questions and listen to the answers. If someone doesn't show up or refuses to answer questions, they get sent to prison until they do. Even if he is the head of government. I have seen Prime Ministers sweat like a pig in front of such a committee, singing like a budgie.
A Parliament is a much better reflection of the Will of the Voter than that single President. That is why Parliament should have (much) more power than the President. Trump has proven that the "three co-equal branches" thing doesn't work. Parliament, specifically the lower house, should be primus inter pares.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I do not think there is a theological answer as to why the American church has backsliden this badly. The closest you will get is warnings in the NT against e.g. wolves in sheep's clothing, who are people trying to mislead the Church.
The theological explanation is that the American Church has replaced the Biblical Jesus with a "god" of their own making, be that America or Trump. The moment it did that, it left the confines of Theology and became detached from Christianity.
Many of the tenents of the "evangelicals" are directly opposite to the Teachings of Jesus. Much of it is from fear, fear of violence, fear of being persecution, fear of foreigners, etc. The Bible says "Whatever is not from faith is sin". So, packing heat, and voting Trump because you fear Wokeism, are sins. And a church that preaches these are not the Church of Christ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stripping Hungary of its voting rights is difficult, because there is no legal framework to do so. The EU is a federation like the USA, except that the member states are absolutely sovereign. The EU has no authority over any member state, and work only gets done with the agreement of each member state.
Several EU members have been pushing towards more authority for the EU, for instance to allow decisions to be taken by a majority of states instead of unanimously, which members than would be required to follow. Other member states have been strongly against that. Stripping Hungary of its voting rights would mean a radical step towards more authority for the EU. Such a step would, ironically, require the agreement of Hungary.
This is why the EU is politically weak, while it is economically very strong. For this reason, some believe that the feet of mixed iron and clay that Daniel saw in his vision in the Bible, belonging to the statue of the empires of the future, represent the EU.
But this shouldn't matter too much. The reason aid through the EU is better than individual member states is because of the ECB, which could manage large sums of money given to Ukraine better than member states. Also it allows member states to hide anonymously behind "The EU" and not risk being targeted directly by Putin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That MAGA has been twisting Christianity is obvious, at least to me. Thank you for dissecting it, because far too many Christians have been deceived. Good also to expose the evil work of Opus Dei.
There is so much wrong with this Opus Dei / MAGA infected "christianity":
* They are afraid of persecution. There is no reason for Christians to be afraid of persecution: that is part of being a real Christian.
* They believe Trump will "save" christianity. But there is no vacancy for a "saviour" in Christianity, that position has been filled for 2 thousand years already. To propose a second "saviour" is literal sacrilege & idolatry.
* They believe God will punish them for abortions. But God has made very clear that he will not punish the righteous for the acts of the ungodly.
* They presume they have the right to create laws for unbelievers. That concept is anti-Christian. The Law has no power to increase godliness, and a Christian has no authority to judge others. Period. Do not judge lest you be judged.
* Same for their attitude against the LGBTQ+ community. God told us to LOVE people, not to judge them according to their sexual preferences.
* They are afraid of immigrants and want to treat them badly. But according to Matthew 25, how you treat immigrants is one of the tests God applies to see who follows him or not.
* They believe Christians & the Church should govern the country. But the separation of Church and State is something Jesus himself instituted: "My Kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my disciples would fight". Jesus Himself submitted to the secular authorities, without trying to replace them. Woe to anyone who thinks they can do what Jesus Himself refused to do. There will be a time when the Church takes over power, but that will be AFTER THE SECOND COMING, and it will not be "the church" grabbing power, it will be Jesus Himself. Any "church" that tries to take secular power, or any secular leader who thinks he is doing God's work is an enemy of Christ. This is the biggest heresy that the Catholics have embraced and which has caused much, much evil against humanity. Think inquisition. The USA is heading straight for it, if you let these people fulfill their designs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The idea that those Russian funds are in some way protected is ludicrous. In law, there are many principles that would have Russia forfeit those funds, like the Biblical principle of "making Shalom" and the latin principle "restitutio in integrum", that someone who damages something should restore it to its original state, if at all possible.
To actually do it, some court, probably the ICC, should condemn Russia for the crime of aggression, and Ukraine should make an estimate of the total damages resulting from that aggression. Then Russia should be given a chance to repair the damages. If it doesn't, then those funds in foreign banks can be appropriated.
To take the funds or properties of the various oligarchs, their personal responsibility in the war would need to be proven, which will not be straightforward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is totally expected. If they had ruled otherwise, the USA would no longer be a democracy. Because the President MUST be subject to the Law lest he place himself above both the Law-Giver (Congress) and the Judiciary.
Otherwise, the President would be a tyrant just like we had in medieval times, that did as they pleased. He would even have the power to remove anyone opposing him from Congress, or from SCOTUS. He would BE the Law. He wouldn't have the right to do those things, but he would have the POWER. And before long, his newly appointed stooges would have amended the Constitution to also give him the legal right.
POWER is a dangerous thing. That is why the Constitution distributed the Power of government over three separate and independent bodies: Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary. The first makes the laws, the second executes those laws, and the third judges whether EVERYBODY abided by those laws.
You have to wonder how any American can vote for a man who thinks he has the rights of a dictator.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TeaParty1776 True on the first count. But that has nothing to do with my argument. Capitalism allowed the growth of the middle class, which caused the enormous growth in welfare. However, hyper capitalism reduces the middle class, forcing a separation between the Rich and the Poor.
Your second point is absolutely false. Social democrat governments have been demonstrated to give more economic growth than neo-conservative ones. This has been demonstrated in both the US and the UK, where social-democrats and neo-conservatives take turns at governing. The neo-conservatives always cause a recession, the social-democrats cause long-term economic growth.
The recent economic growth in the USA (which Trump likes to boast was caused by him) was actually caused by Obama. Trump caused the upward trend to go down, even before Covid hit. Obama, on the other hand, skillfully turned the economic disaster he inherited from Bush into economic growth.
Intelligent social democrat policies always improve the economy, as they invest in the motor of the economy: the average working man/woman. They invest in their education, their health, their quality of life, and that always leads to a stronger economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KiddyCut "Lean" is a method for optimizing a manufacturing process, based on 5 principles (Defining Value, Value-Stream Mapping, Creating Flow, Establishing Pull, Continuous Improvement), some of which are vaguely applicable in SW development, but certainly not all, nor the most important. It focuses on reducing waste by manufacturing only that what is explicitly required, cutting stocks, shortening supply lines, etc.
If done right, it starts with holding Top Management responsible & accountable for waste in current processes. That often means publicly humiliating the CEO, if he is reluctant to take responsibility. Which is why usually it is not done properly, and has gotten a bad name as a result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pavel9652 You need to start watching commentators that actually know what they are talking about.
Just the difference in morale, by itself, means that when the Ukrainians apply serious pressure the Russian defense will collapse. These terrorized Russians are more than likely to shoot their own officers if they try to stop a retreat.
There have been far too many "experts" predicting that the war would last a week, that they wouldn't be able to keep Odessa, or that there would be a stalemate a year ago, or that they couldn't possible take Kherson, etc, etc, etc. They were wrong all the time. And they are wrong now as well.
This war will have two possible outcomes: a total defeat of the Russians, or a total defeat of the Ukrainians. Those who argue for negotiations and cease-fire at the current lines are crazy idiots at best, or traitors working for Putin at worst. Because that has been done before, in 2014, in the Minsk accords. Putin wiped his bottom with that accord, and he will wipe his bottom again with any new accord. The definition of madness is repeating the same action and expect a different result.
Seeing how things are going, my bet is on a total defeat for Russia. Time is working in favour of the Ukrainians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hope the Democrats are ready to take an amendment to the Constitution to Congress, it may well be that the Voters will give them a mandate to put an end to the rot. Like making explicit in the Constitution that EVERYBODY is subject to the Federal Law, including the President, SCOTUS, Senators and Representatives, when acting in function as well as when not. That means that e.g. SCOTUS is subject to emoluments and anti-corruption laws, which would mean the end for at least two of them.
And to boot, they should put a hard limit on any donations, promises or loans in money or kind any legal entity can give to a political party, an individual politician or that would benefit their campaign(s) in a single year. A limit of 1,000 USD sounds reasonable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are so right in calling out how anti-Christian the MAGA movement is. I am a Christian man, and I am disgusted by them. They are the literal opposite of Christ: selfish, hateful, spiteful, arrogant, angry, have no respect for others, violent, bullies. They are EVIL.
The first thing that Trump did as President, in his inaugural speech, was dedicate the country to Greed and Selfishness. That was a demonic act. Anyone who says or preaches that Trump would lead the USA back to Christ is either deluded, or serving Satan outright.
If you love Jesus, you can not vote Republican.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stewie7338 If you believe science is not challenged, you know nothing about science. Science subjects itself to BRUTAL challenges.
Science has one purpose, the discovery of facts & truth, and needs no government oversight, thank you very much. Science and politics do not mix. Same as for Justice and politics. Justice is also an organisation seeking to establish truth, and must have no political interference.
But if you believe that Johnny who does some "research" googling and makes Youtubes in his bedroom is "challenging science", you again have no idea what science is.
ANYONE is free to challenge established science using the scientific channels. Those who refuse to use the proper channels know they will be taken apart by true scientists, and instead prey on the ignorant.
Remember, science and the scientific method is a LOT older than our democracy, and has managed to deal with corruption a lot better than politics. In fact, science has played a big role in establishing democracy.
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
-
The USA can learn a LOT from other democracies.
There are several fundamental errors in the way Justice is done in the USA, starting with the election of Prosecutors, and the appointment of Judges by politicians. These have broken the Separation of Powers in the USA.
Additionally, several important mechanisms / rules are simply not enforced. Most importantly, the Obstruction of Justice rules. In a real democracy, no politician comments on an ongoing case, because to do so would be Obstruction of Justice. The recent antics of Johnson calling the prosecution of Trump into question, should land him in prison VERY quickly if that Law were upheld. That is again an failure to properly Separate the Powers of government.
Same with the way government officials treat summons to appear before a Congressional committee. Refusing to testify, in my country, means immediate imprisonment up to such a time that that person is prepared to testify. Which is again a failure to Separate the Powers of government.
The USA has been sliding towards dictatorship, where the Executive is all-powerful, for some time now. Time to stop it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troybaxter Excuses, excuses!
If no bridge can be built to safely span the harbour, dig a tunnel instead. That is what they do in my country. Either build a bridge with a single span so it has no pillars that can be knocked out from under it, or build the road on a dike with a single span bridge in the middle for ships to pass through, or build a tunnel, or a combination of a dike and a tunnel.
The best way to survive an allision is to prevent them by design.
OR, even better, don't build a bloody container terminal expecting to service sea-going vessels 150 (!) miles inland! We have built ours, the biggest in Europe, on an artificial island right on the coast. Big ships have to navigate zero bridges to get there. It sees MANY times the traffic this Baltimore midget-terminal gets, loaded with goods for a whole continent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akosbarati2239 Putin is making real threats, that is certain. But he lacks the strength to back those threats up.
Trust me, he is not going to launch nuclear weapons just because we are thwarting him in Ukraine, if he knows that NATO will reply in kind whenever nuclear weapons are used.
The fundamental question is, is freedom worth fighting for. If it is, we MUST challenge Putin's bluff. Because otherwise he and his successors will not stop at taking over Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland, Germany, etc, etc, etc. China will take Taiwan, parts of Japan, etc, etc, etc. All because they discover that nuclear blackmail works, that MAD is no longer assured. Unless we want the whole world to become slaves, and e.g. the USA being invaded, Putler must be confronted at some point.
It is wiser to confront him NOW, before millions of people have become slaves. Because if we give in to nuclear blackmail once, it will be harder to convince Putin that "this time we really mean it: don't invade Germany or else...".
In fact, giving in to nuclear blackmail once, makes it much more likely that in future there will be an actual nuclear war.
This really is a situation where NATO must be ready to retaliate for any use of nuclear weapons, in any form.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"God help us"
You will need it. The USA is very, very, very slow in upholding the Rule of Law with regards to Trump. To deserve the name "democracy", the Law MUST be upheld regardless of who breaks the Law. The Rule of Law is a conditio sine qua non for democracy. Which is why Lady Justice is always displayed with a blindfold on. Well, in the USA that blindfold is not just worn thin, it has holes in it. It is in tatters.
It is obvious Trump has blatantly broken the law many many times, we have all seen him literally break the Law dozens of times live on TV. Yet he still walks around a free man. THAT CAN NOT BE in a democracy. And that is not even mentioning the many ways in which Trump acted unconstitutionally towards Congress, rejecting any Congressional Oversight, not co-operating with the peaceful transfer of power, interfering with Justice, giving pardons for money, etc, etc, etc, which are extremely serious matters against which the USA needs to protect itself in the future.
Shame, USA. Shame on you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent video!
From a strategic sense, Putin lost the war as soon as he broke the Minsk accords. I don't think the West is going to agree to another such accords, Putin having proven that he only uses them to buy time to regroup & rebuild his army. Even if he had succeeded in overthrowing Zelensky & taking Kiev, the Ukrainians would not have accepted a Russian puppet, having run-off the previous one a decade ago. And Russia does not have the manpower to occupy Ukraine.
What Putin did achieve:
1). The west, his greatest financier, is now strongly motivated to move to a green economy, cutting their dependency on Russia.
2). The nefarious influence of Russian black money in western democracies has been laid bare and will be eradicated.
3). Western business has pulled out of Russia and will not return as long as his regime lasts.
4). This also means that Putin is no longer able to maintain his oil & gas infrastructure, witness e.g. the recent explosion of a gas field.
5). NATO is more powerful than ever, and all its members are renewing their militaries.
6). The myth of the power of the Russian army has been exposed once and for all.
7). Putin has lost his position among the G7 & G20.
8). Putin's imperial ambitions have been exposed.
To project the results of this ill-judged war:
1). Ukraine will recover the lands it lost in the Minsk accords.
2). Ukraine will become a member of the EU and NATO.
3). Russia will suffer greatly, leading to unrest & perhaps civil war in Russia. There may well be parts of it that go independent.
4). Belarus will probably depose its dictator and turn away from Russia.
5). The Russian economy will suffer for decades because of the men killed in the war, combined with a stark decline in population.
Putin has destroyed Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnSmith-fq7hj I certainly am. That was federal overreach if I ever saw it, exactly the type that the 2nd amendment was intended for.
It was overreach because a). it went against the express wishes of the local authorities. b). it went against the express wishes of the state authorities. c). it only made things worse. d). the violence was over the second the feds left. e). the troops were unidentifiable. f). the troops abducted innocent bystanders. g). the troops molested journalists. h). they operated not only to protect federal property, but were confronting protesters a long way from them. i). they misused "less lethal" weapons to cause serious and permanent injuries, and even death.
Don't come with the "law and order" and "they started" sh*t. Open you eyes. The dictator did this only so he could score in your books, not to help solve the situation. Otherwise he would have waited for an invitation from the major or governor. Or are you just another bigot that denies certain people their 1st amendment rights? That it is OK to murder innocent people of a certain race?
If so, shame on you.
Instead of shooting at the protesters, you should talk with them, listen to their grievances, and try to come up with sensible solutions. Because if you think there is no systemic racism in the USA, you are blind. If you think their plight is their own fault, you are a cruel monster. If you think the racism doesn't need to be rooted out, you are a selfish bigot.
In the BLM case, Law and Order is not what is needed. It just keeps the lid on the pot. But as long as there is a fire under it, the pressure is going to build until something breaks. The stronger the lid, the bigger the resulting explosion.
Strong investment in good education for all is the only long-term solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The SCOTUS decision, including the minority opinion, is deeply disturbing.
It holds the rights of a candidate to be eligible to be more important than the rights of the People to not have a President who is an insurrectionist.
Being a candidate for the highest office in the USA is a privilege, not a right. There should be more protections against bad candidates, not less.
IMHO, the Biblical standard for high office should apply as well for the Presidency: "to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full a respect."
Trump fails on all of these conditions, except perhaps "hospitable" by virtue of owning hotels and resorts. But if the way the Secret Service people were treated by some of his children is an indication (they weren't allowed to pee at the property they were protecting), they are only hospitable in exchange for a lot of money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonywilson4713 Are you trying to argue that no FMEA was performed for the 737 MAX? That is absurd.
My point is that apparently, the FMEA is not a panacea that prevents all accidents. Even when all parties taking part are dedicated, serious professionals, like yourself.
Systems engineering is all about filtering details and making abstractions. Sometimes the wrong details are filtered out, and the wrong abstractions are made, as happened in this case.
Yes, lessons need to be learned. Yes, some individuals need to face consequences, especially in the higher echelons that created a culture in which safety took a back seat to commercial incentives, and in the FAA that gave Boeing far too much leeway. But murder charges? No way.
<edit> In case of arguing that they didn't do the FMEA correctly: yeah duh. My point is that they tried to do the FMEA correctly. As you should know, if people fail to follow a process and f*ck up, it means there is something wrong with the process, not with the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't just blame Republicans. Democrats have a part in this as well, not in the least because it took TWO YEARS before Trump was indicted for his role in the jan 6 insurrection. In most democratic countries, Trump would have been arrested the day after he left the WH. That coward Garland treated the criminals in Congress with kid gloves, instead of indicting them for e.g. people trafficking, underage s3x, etc, etc. These people did crimes, and weren't prosecuted! That is on Biden.
And also, the democrat politicians should have been MUCH harder and aggressive against the Republicans. Instead, they tried to appease them and work "bipartisan". That was a mistake.
And the People should have been much louder in protesting & demolishing the fantasies promoted on the MAGA media.
Right now, you must take to the streets in protest, until the orange menace is gone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1