Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
193
-
85
-
74
-
69
-
63
-
@MistaOneGuy
Fine, no insults.
No, What I'm saying is Trump shouldn't have any businesses while running for or residing in office.
Reagan stopped acting, Carter gave up his peanut farm, the Bushes gave up their oil companies.
if they hadn't, they would also, like Trump, be violating the Emoluments Clause.
You're right, there is nothing else to say. That is the smoking gun.
Trump violated the Constitution while President, and should be impeached, and promptly removed from office. End of story.
55
-
51
-
27
-
27
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
@johnrogers235
I don't think he's wrong- there's plenty of research poking into the issue, before Weinstein even became a grad student. This took me all of 5 minutes:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.bi.65.070196.002005
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/28/22/4474/2383801
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867401800064
What's very important to remember, even more than the content, is the situation itself. You are watching a Joe Rogan podcast/interview, on YouTube. To turn a phrase from Mark McLuhan, the medium is the message.
The context surrounding the information you're taking in informs you of its character and, possibly, validity.
In this case, a biologist has taken 3 full hours, and at least a few more to plan and arrive, to do a media appearance.
In most scientific fields, consistently doing that often indicates a lack of current research
(you can only devote so much time if you're constantly doing public speaking events) or a lack of credibility
(Ken Ham, every Theology PhD, Bill Nye- yes, him too. Marketing yourself as a scientist generally tells you that there is a reason to do so unrelated to actual science).
Most scientists- especially prolific ones- genuinely don't have the time to interview, or to hone their communication skills.
I was only able to find 2 publications where he was directly involved, and most scientists haven't registered a website with their name as the domain. Or a Ted Talk, or multiple media appearances. Again, not damning, but something to consider.
That's also not to say that every single person on Joe Rogan's podcast is a 'fraud', but if someone is well-known and just so happens to be very media-focused, don't ignore that.
Dr. Oz does have an MD, but he does weekly TV appearances on his own show. That's crucial information and should be the lens through which you look at what he's telling you. Oftentimes it's so obvious (because it's woven into your knowledge of them to begin with), that you can forget that it's there altogether. Don't miss the frame for the painting.
Sorry for the text block, just bored and wanted to help out, since I was waiting foe his reply too lol
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@tacostwiceaweekMAX
No, at the time the Saudis paid over $200K to stay a collective 500 nights, Trump personally owned the hotel. They paid in December 2016:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-hotel-in-washington-d-c-to-open-ahead-of-schedule-1454901018
https://web.archive.org/web/20161002024408/http://www.fox5dc.com/news/204637134-story
And he only gave the Trump Organization, which through which he owned the D.C. hotel, in January 2017, finalizing the transfer in mid-January.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38587628
He received the Saudi money. All of it.
He's gonna get impeached.
Even if that doesn't work, this is a permanent stain on his Presidency that can never be undone. It's shameful that he was this careless and reckless.
Not even going to bring up that his fucking kids are working in the White House with him, and the only reason he's not thrown out on his ass, out of the Capitol, for nepotism, is because of a legal loophole.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Adam-dn5oc
Yes, that's right! The point's clearly gone over your head, so I'll say it real nice and clearly:
cracking your joints isn't a long term solution.
Your knuckles, and every other joint in your body, reform the nitrogen bubbles very quickly. Going to a chiropractor who looks to crack your (whatever body part) is pointless. You can go back in a few weeks to another chiropractor and receive the same diagnosis-
"you have x pain, x range of motion! Let's crack your joints to fix that!"
If you're able to re-crack of all those joints within a short time period, then what has the chiropractor actually done for you?
"Popping/cracking your joints can provide relief by relaxing muscles and improving range of motion."
That's the problem, dumbass- they don't!
Explain please, how the fuck joints have any effect on the tension of muscle fibers, or the tendons connecting to them. They don't interact with each other!!! How the fuck does your chiropractor explain it to you?!!! I'd genuinely like to hear what comes out of his mouth. Please, 'enlighten' me.
Range of motion, are you insane?!! Forcefully jolting your joints and muscles around is the exact opposite of what you want to do to increase range of motion!! If your range of motion is decreased because of muscle tightness, jerking them around like ragdolls will only cause you to pull, or god forbid tear, one of those muscles.
Same with joints or tendons. They aren't dislocated shoulders, you can't just yank them back into place. They need to be trained, over time. They can gain or lose flexibility, depending on your habits.
Oh, and "spinal subluxations" aren't a thing. They have no medical definition. It's complete jackshit.
I can't believe these basic concepts, easily discoverable through personal physical experience, are lost upon you. This is really sad to me.
3
-
@Adam-dn5oc
Yes, I did.
What you're advocating for is anti-scientific and physically dangerous. Every second spent convincing someone that people shouldn't jerk their own necks around like a dog's chew toy is worth it.
If chiropractic isn't a long-term solution, then why the hell do you support it? It isn't an emergent solution to some incurable problem- you could spend similar amounts of money on an osteopath, massage or physical therapist and stop having to go to them altogether within a year's time! With the same- permanent- results!
Also, you don't re-align your tire by pushing it back into place. Bad analogy.
And that (not popping your joints on your own) is why you should instead focus on what's keeping you simply moving your neck or back along its full range of motion to begin with.
General medical consensus is that cracking your joints too forcefully or too often is what perpetuates pain- you know, the thing that you get done with regular visits to a chiropractic?
Wow, it's almost as if that's not what I'm referring to. Imagine getting fully "healed" by a chiropractic, coming back a few weeks or months later, and having the same issues be "solved." Still have "spinal subluxations"? (you didn't address that, because it's horseshit and you know it is)
"We'll just crack your joints again! You're fixed! ...see you in a few months, when your harmless air bubbles reform!"
Also, if ("may take multiple visits") really is the case, then please show me the study(ies) that demonstrate what part of the spine can only be fixed with numerous sessions of pushing against joints and popping air bubbles.
It's not an opinion. What you said is false.
Cavitation just describes the phenomenon of cracking your joints. Small cavities of air inside the synovial fluid in our joints collapse, causing the "cracking" sound. More of a pop, really.
Nerves shouldn't stretch- actually, they can, but this causes injuries, such as carpal tunnel, if we're talking about nerves in the hand.
If you meant to say that "stretching" nerves improves their movement through our joints, then you're wrong about that too. The restriction of nerve movement is- surprise!- inactivity, and subsequent muscle tension. Stretch the muscles, and your nerves will be fine. I should also add that "stimulating the nerves" happens all the time- otherwise you wouldn't feel anything. You'll have to be more specific.
Now, imagine being so spiteful and dumb that you resort to name-calling instead of addressing the rest of the arguments.
I'm not taking shit from a man who believed that you can regenerate complex parts of the ear by pressing on a spinal joint. Look up your brilliant founder.
Instead of acting like a 5-year old, you wanna start discussing facts? Or retreat back into the world of re-enacting murder scenes in a pseudo-doctor's office?
With a camera, of course- everyone knows that the best doctors have to advertise how good they are on YouTube.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dominykask0742
If by supernatural you mean, beyond testable and measures means, then sure. Something supernatural had to have happened before the Big Bang, because everything in our universe follows our natural laws (physics, thermodynamics, etc).
I don't, however, see why that automatically means that a deity, much less something sentient, would have to have caused it.
Also, multiverse theory is based on a simple concept, that every change in the universe that occurs is simply a branching off point between two events— for example, you either propose to your wife or you don't.
If you did, then this is the universe where that happened. So what happens to the possibility that you didn't? Everything in our universe is tangible in some way, so you can't just wave it away as "it didn't happen".
It has to be expressed somewhere— in another universe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yosefmacgruber1920
1) You must not understand how airplanes work very well.
Generally, autopilot will take over the duration of the flight, with the exception of the takeoff, landing, and taxi. i.e., all the basic functions that a driver tends to behind the wheel in the form of starting, stopping, and turning.
Pilots are still expected to be mindful of the plane's flight, and only extremely new models can land themselves (which was my point- we are just barely scratching the surface, and it will take decades to reach the consumer market at large scale).
2) They can, but again, pilots need to land and navigate the plane in poor conditions. This is why every runway is plastered in guiding lights.
3) Not sure what you're saying here- I'm just being realistic. I'm extremely excited to see electric, self-driving cars take off, but hyping yourself up will leave you with deflated expectations.
4) Obviously, the cars (the drivers, rather) will travel cross-country. I'm just basing my prediction off of what we currently have, which is precisely what I said- navigational systems can't deal with snow and poor visibility yet. Tesla's entire lineup freaks out under bridges and in snow, thinking every snowflake is a lane line. It's simply the reality right now.
When the cars come to market, they'll be allowed to self-drive in certain regions/weather conditions, and drivers will need to take over in poorer conditions, or farther north.
5) They do, but radar and especially lidar- the main technology behind getting to Level 5 (as opposed to the current 2) cars won't work in some regions without en entirely new technology or workaround.
For this reason, liberal cities will receive the earliest forms of the technology first, because most of them (in the U.S.) are in sunny or temperate climates.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ilyaivanov9283
I think the way it really works, is convenience.
In every country, free speech tends to be permitted as long as it has no power.
For example, in China, anti-China literature is available! 1984 and other works are sold on shops— but you will never find a Chinese author on the shelves. Nor will you find literature from the Dalai Lama.
Criticism is allowed, but the second you translate it into Mandarin, so that the common person will be able to read what you say, then they come after you.
The ssme is true in Russia. There are many anti-Putin radio stations in St Petersburg, but things like TV Дождь are raided by FSB officials because they talk about corruption in Moscow's business class and the Duma— areas where Putin is active and, if word got out, could threaten his money and power.
Joe falls into that category, so I don't think it would be safe for him to come. Unless he has many Western eyes paying attention, forcing Putin to show them "see how safe we are?".
Otherwise, he gets a knock on the hotel door in the middle of the night..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Colt-fr3hd
You're gonna have to be more specific. Prove that he's an idiot? That he's one of the worst presidents? That most people didn't vote for him?
'Idiot' is subjective, but there is some evidence he's way in over his head.-
He said "I know more about ISIS than even the generals do!"
1 year later and he's assigned fucking Jared to create peace in the Middle East. He sent his son-in-law, a Jew, to negotiate peace in the Middle East. And before you pipe up that he's American first, you think the Iranians or Turks are going to believe that, or even give a shit? No understanding of foreign policy. Sounds like an idiot to me.
January 15 2017, Interview with WaPo:
"We’re going to have insurance for everybody,”
“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”
Feb 27 2017, White House meeting:
"Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
... No one knew?! That's the only thing obvious about it, that's been the crux of the issue for years!
It's too fragmented, bloated, and inefficient, and 45 thinks he can swoop in and pass a bill that makes no compromises and takes no time. Jesus Christ.
"One of the worst presidents"-
This one's subjective too, but making most of the Armed Forces hate you by forcing them to abandon the Kurds (the ones who actually beat ISIS, Jared be damned), leaving them to die at the hand of Turkey, is pretty impressive for a single term.
"Most" people didn't vote for him. Hilary won the popular vote (more people voted for her than Trump), but Trump won the electoral college. Again "most" is subjective, but Trump sure as hell didn't win a majority of American votes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wyattlong8321
That's simply not true.
Conservatives like to "debunk the myth" that FDR helped the economy, by citing the dip or Recession of 1937.
Unemployment spiked from 14.3% to 19%. What they forget to mention, is that FDR inherited an America with 24.9% unemployment.
Even ignoring the fact that government spending— which was central to the New Deal— propelled the U.S. economy by 1941, thanks to the war, FDR brought unemployment down by 6%, at his worst. That, in a single term, is incredible.
I know you don't like admitting it, but he did restore the American economy. America experienced an economic boom under him.
If a fiscally conservative President were elected, Keynesian economics wouldn't have rebuilt Europe, or made America into a superpower.
1
-
@wyattlong8321
Yes, it did. We still rely on the idea today, unless you want to tell me that Trump (and Obama, and Clinton, and Reagan, etc) actually reduced the budget ceiling? Or have you forgotten the word 'deficit'?
Our "greatest period of growth" is a subjective term. GDP was fully fleshed out in the 1930's, so we can't exactly measure "growth" in conventional terms before then. If you have a metric you're using, let me hear it.
That being said, I agree that America expanded massively during that century, but remember this:
-Lewis and Clark were sent out by the Government to chart for them.
-Most "Wild West" towns were sponsored by the Government. Their creation was to increase their Treasury size.
-The 1800's were primarily marked by the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad and the Erie Canal. both Gov't projects.
-When there was 'no regulation whatsoever,' a few robber barons were extremely wealthy, and the rest of America was dirt -poor. Remember tenements? Slums? Political machines? It wasn't called the Gilded Age for nothing. Without regulation, cities were filthy cesspools. People died of starvation, and worked for pennies.
-The Interstate Highway System was (obviously) Government funded and built. We wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today, without it.
About the rest of your comment: if it was geography, then economics had nothing to do with it either way, why mention it?
And yes, it did. What the fuck do you think the Marshall Plan was? A not- government funded handout to stimulate Europe? Do you think the "Free Market" just "swooped in" and made everything better? The Government spent trillions to help rebuild.
I know no one paid the 90% (btw) rate. The effective rate was still much higher than what we're paying for today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@happygilmore5948
I can't really comment on Idaho or Utah, because they're the fastest growing by percentage increase (indeed, 2.1% and 1.9%, respectively). But with their tiny populations, that "enormous" increase of ~2% is only ~40,000 people per year. That's peanuts in a country of 330M.
As for Texas, ever consider where most of the migration in Texas is occurring, specifically?
No prizes for guessing- it's Harris and Dallas counties. Travis' is especially impressive. They all exceed the Texas average.
So, what I said is still true.
People dislike boring, conservative places. They'd rather be in a bustling city, no matter which state that city happens to be in.
The only difference with Texas is, they're not dirty and homeless because (credit where it's due) they haven't regulated their housing market to hell.
Oh, and I could just as easily ask you why Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia have lost population, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simongold2739
Lol, I'm not convinced that that's your pfp. You sound more like a middle-aged man from the South. Give it up Cletus, I know you're there in front of the screen! (username checks out lol)
Also, to entertain the gibberish you spouted:
You're wrong. China's bureaucracy is enormous, especially because they have over 3x as many people as the United States. Corruption is rampant there, too.
And even if it wasn't, your logic stops short of finding any real solution.
If the government were small, what would stop Amazon from taking over every industry and then pricing things however it wants? What would stop Martin Shkreli from bringing insulin prices to $800+ per pen? What would stop companies from knowingly lending to people that didn't make enough to pay off the interest rates they advertised, causing a housing crash of 2008?
Why are all conservatives so naive?
You understand perfectly well that people are inherently self-interested, but suddenly when a company is formed,
everyone is altruistic and prefers to spend its money to create new products, instead of taking the easy way and pocketing its income?
Give me a fucking break. Even Apple hoardes its money offshore.
Government needs to be bigger than companies. Otherwise, we'll slip back into the 1920's, with a few wealthy men working their employees to literal death and crushing any new business ventures because the government is too small to force them to stop.
P.S. I need a source for your claim that teacher's unions are the biggest contributors. As of 2018, it was the Chamber of Commerce with the largest dollar amount.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1