Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
Posts in the political forum...
I imagine that the internet is filled with people that have too much time on their hands. Apparently some of them can't even go to the bathroom without having lengthy arguments as to who should be telling them what to do. I wonder what it will be like in 30 years when people who grew up during the age of the world wide web start retiring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Often the money makers get tax breaks because they bring jobs in, but the people that have jobs end up paying the taxes the money makers did not.
The money makers apparently have no job and people working unprofitable jobs are somehow affording taxes? That reads like fictitious nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think they just wear house shoes and drink more beer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
SEEEE GERMANY IS A SHITHOLE
Oh, be honest now. Eminently fixable is just what everyone is thinking. Someone had to say it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Do Germans own homes and have refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, heaters, ovens, etc...?
There is a culture of frugality there that doesn't exist over here
Okay, this I am interested in if you would elaborate. I happen to relate to this sentiment, though with different reasoning.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
Are Antifa anarchists or something? I tried to research them once and all I found was a special kind of stupid.
Created:
-->
@Castin
A government agency overtly sending a memo to mitigate the politicizing of their work in trending press releases wouldn't really seem all that out of line to me.
I think their party has been taken control of by an ego-consumed child who isn't even really all that Republican, and they're just going along with it, even though they know how insane it is, because they're afraid of going against their party. With a few notable exceptions like Jeff Flake. Politicians have always been afraid of going against their party, Democrat or Republican, but I personally have never seen it have such dramatic consequences.
Do you mean dramatic consequences in terms of politics, or policy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Please explain the significant difference that occurred in the early 20th century.
Does "quasi-communist" mean a centrally coordinated economy?
Created:
-->
@Castin
I think Republicans don't actually care about the general public, and pander to a "special" group -- rich one-percenters who are all about control, control, control.
This seems utterly ridiculous to me. I mean, I can just as easily say the republican party has always been the party of equality, and the democratic party remains the party of special groups as it always has. There are democratic candidates who will back me over and over again, pandering to special groups, and giving special deals to corporations. Members of both parties are associated with corruption so there's always going to be scape goats. There are republicans who say the same thing about "democrats", but just because there's a few fire eaters and brutes right now, not all of the democrats are corrupt and abusive of power.
It's fine to participate in a political party, but if you are going to vote you should have an informed vote for individuals seeking to serve their jurisdiction, not along party lines. Obviously there are times when a strong candidate will come along in either party and they should be selected through a fair election process, and the party hacks will take note. Do you really want the republican party to get all its feedback from those vile and ignorant deplorables who are voting for the evil one-percenters over and over again? There are certainly some candidates in the democratic party right now that I would like to oust in the primaries, and would not vote for in the general elections. I tend to disagree with their economic policies, and I have my views on regulations and public services, but I would take no issue voting for a qualified republican, and waiting until a democrat comes along who will act in the interest of their constituents. If someone says they'll protect the constitution and wants to cut some fat and a few benefits along with taxes, I'll take that for a couple years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
so you ar eokay with a wlfare state the size it is in germany?....
This is basically what socialism as a political force has been relegated to these days. They've conceded the real debate, and they're reduced to appealing to populism within a capitalist framework for their political entities to have any relevance, their vestigial persistence hinged upon the ignorance of the masses.
Created:
-->
@billbatard
Which people are making the decision?no its a decision made by the people carried out by the federal govenment
Created:
everyone has care, dont be daft, do people here decide? no the decisions are made byprivate comanies that over charge and bankrupt people peope are dying how is that freedom
Look, you're talking about Canada and socialism. Somehow I doubt you're here to talk about royalty, and its a fair assumption you want the people running the government to take our money for health insurance and decide how it shall be spent. I didn't mention freedom but I can see where you're coming from as a matter of choice. I want to know why we have to run that through the fed.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Yeah, you would think Congress would be able to agree as well, but it seems they keep trying to sneak stuff past one another in big mega bills.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Hopefully we are making it known to congress to take border security more seriously, and to disincentivise illegal activity as a means of seeking asylum.
Maybe we should be reconsidering the effects of NAFTA as well, not that it should be abandoned.
Created:
-->
@billbatard
Why does the state making your health insurance decisions have to be an issue for the federal government?
Created:
Posted in:
I say the 2000's a new millenium with the internet and cellphones. 2010's wasn't better.
The 2000's are the golden age of the internet, and cellphones are helpful, but I kind of hate smartphones in terms of their immediate effect on society. The video games are great as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Studies have shown that most people think the decade they were born is the best and that things have declined ever since.
So basically the greatest generation paved the best ten years, ever. Myth confirmed
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
No better choice than Trump .
Tulsi Gabbard...Look her up!!
None of them actually want to help the U.S. they just want to get elected.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
While the popular vote system isn't perfect, it's better than the electoral college as at least votes aren't silenced based on location and certain states which don't represent the majority of the country aren't given absurd power.
Petition your state representatives to adjust the rules of the electoral college so that the votes cast are proportional to the popular vote of your state.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
The KKK is so small now that their demographics are probably less diversified, but for much of their history I wouldn't say they were opposed to either the democratic or the republican party insofar as it was not opposed to the white race and their religious affiliations. I think they gained a foothold with the Republican party in the early 1900's. Past that point it would still not be unusual for them to favor the democratic party 2:1. To my knowledge, the last known (ex) KKK member to hold high office succeeded until 2010, as a Democrat. It's possible that David Duke would be a democrat if it were not essential for him to affiliate with the republican party. In the late 1900's the South started favoring the republican party, and he eventually switched in the late 1980's after he failed to attain office as a southern democrat.
Civil Rights Act 1964
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
As I understand it, the issue isn’t necessarily the removal of votes; but that it’s very hard to unwind the completion of the debate when removing a vote. You’re not just removing a vote - you have to unwind everything that occurs when the win happens. Tying those mechanics to the rather simple removal of a vote entry is more complex and problematic than you may think. While there may be other possible updates that could work around this, I suspect they all come with their particular issues too.
Maybe a simpler solution could be had in a delay between the time when votes can be entered and/or flagged and the process of concluding the debate, rather than redoing it after the votes are finally counted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also how are we supposed to stop the predicted fossil fuel increases in China, India, and Africa...all of which are experiencing their own industrial revolutions requiring massive amounts of fossil fuels but their usage is magnified by their relatively much larger populations than the USA...at least 5 times more people in those emerging economies than those living in the USA and Europe combined....Do we just docilely accept the damage these countries are inevitably going to do to the planet while we ride our bicycles in the snow munching on soyburgers?
We won't stop people from rising out of poverty around the world, but maybe we can choose trade policies that respect our values, deal more closely with countries that respect those values, and encourage manufacturing in the US and its allied countries where it is most accountable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What happened to hydrogen cars?
It's promising. The Hydrogen fuel cell is superior both in terms of maintenance and efficiency to petroleum, but the internal combustion engine has the advantage of established infrastructure, and the fact that there is no inherent need for the scarce resources which are most conducive to the demanding environment of catalytic converters. Hydrogen fuel cells have been proven to have greater long term viability than lithium ion batteries for quite some time. There's some irony with lithium storage mediums in that you need to drive them more to see savings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Al Gore recently purchased a multi-million dollar home on the beach with money he collected as a shill for the green energy industrial complex.
The established companies are diversified. Look up some of the heavy hitters producing the country's electricity and you'll probably see wind and natural gas operations among their other (aging) facilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I know how my car works, and if someone messes with the wheels, I retorque them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
For me the pro climate change arguments have equal if not less credible than the anti. Perhaps more evidence will change that but I haven't seen any yet. Al Gore was so convincing and positive, see how well that went for him.
Are there any missing links of evidence that might convince you? Usually the articles are awful. There's too much writing out there that doesn't offer an explanation proving a greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, that it is significant at atmospheric levels, and how we know that the additional material is mainly caused by man. They also tend not to explain how our global measurements were obtained very well. The research on that particular topic is all fairly recent, so how many samples do we really have?
Created:
Posted in:
“There’s been this persistent argument that if we cut taxes, the economy will grow enough to make up for the lost revenue, and it just simply doesn’t happen,”
Classic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The reason most people will not have voted for the person has not to do with the electoral college, but the nature of elections. Only a minority of people may actually consent, even if a majority of the votes are counted in someone's favor. There's no such thing as the "will of the majority", which would probably be awful if it were assumed, mobocracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Most people will not have voted for the person selected to be president even on a year with high turnout. The president is ultimately decided by the electoral college of the United States, and there is nothing unfair about that process.
The governor of each state is decided by popular vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
One of the deciding factors in my decision not to vote for Donald Trump in 2016 was his disgusting appeals to fear mongering among Christians. Really an appeal to fear is a backhanded insult to the people he was trying to court if you understand Christianity. Perhaps the lowest point for me was when he basically said he was Pro-Life so he would pick a supreme court justice who would overturn Roe v Wade. I couldn't swallow the prospect of having a president normalizing the polarization of the courts painting groups of Christians as ideologues willing to pack the courts for 4 years. Normally if anything I would hope we could count on Republicans to side with the Rule of Law.
Beside that point, I think Roe v Wade was made in such a manner that it would be increasingly less obstructive over the years, and that process naturally gets abused enough by politicians as it is. To go as far as he was saying could take a constitutional amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
@Christen
@ebuc
More lies to USA peoples than any other president ever.
Okay, how exactly do you deduce this? I'm interested in "weapons of mass destruction" "you can keep your plan" "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or when someone makes up stories and such. Most of Donald Trump's one liners are narcissistic interpretations that benefit him ie "alternate facts" or he watches some news story and spouts out some BS in relation to it, and apparently he doesn't think twice about what he posts on social media. Is Donald Trump more dishonest about his agenda then past pesidents?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Well, if around 5000 of them were Mopac, and if you consider an average of 1 reply each that would account for 10,000. He pretty much carried the religious forum on his back for awhile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Evolution is irrelevant to extinction. Conservative right wing republicans do not care because they lack access to their empathy centers and cannot get beyond personal principles of money over all other is what matter most to them and they falsely believe matters most to humanity.Poor = bad to conservative right wing republicans and after they eat the brown skinned people they will eat their own in order to have the most money and influence. They like Trump because trump is the pinnacle of 'its all about me' and that is the bottom line for those who chase money above all else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If this is serious then what types of corporations are you saying would want an increase in emission regulations? Seems to me corporations would want less restrictions.
I'm gonna go with
Importers
Multinational corporations
People vested in lithium, lead, and rare earth metals
The energy industries
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The leftiest person to ever learn they aren't an Indian once said, "I am a capitalist to the bone"
Capital is conducive to accountability, and private accountability is necessary to the American way. It isn't capital that creates jobs though. People create jobs, and people who are up to the task of going above and beyond what is necessary for survival sustain successful business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
The procedure is shielded out of respect for the right to privacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
"Weapons of war" is another narrative piece to ban "assault weapons", which people will never agree on and apparently works in favor of the demographics of the democratic party in certain areas.
Of the two terms, I prefer assault weapons, since the basis for banning them tends to be based on things like pistol grips and collapsible stocks, things that are associated with deviants and criminal behavior in their culture. I can respect that.
The question is not whether it is a "weapon of war" but whether it is "most useful in war". A machine gun is most useful in war, much like a cannon but causing general destruction in a different way. Not long ago "weapons of war" were associated with service and reliability, promoted through the civilian marksmanship program. A Semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip simply looks "menacing" to some people, and certain features may have localized implications. To you it might elicit "fear", but to the next person the primary emotion may be "trust".
The AR-15 is simply the Kentucky long rifle and the Winchester Lever action of our day, and that's why its so popular. It's just practical, American, modern.
The market really is just as popular as ever, and these get used for all sorts of things. Making a big deal out of the product is just extra advertisement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Assault rifles are light weight, easy to reload, typically chambered in an intermediate round and capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire.
This is actually a pretty decent and concise read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
The whole progressive article is pretty much propaganda. I mean, I respect people's difference of opinion, but its obviously a basic narrative they are pushing to be spread around and be generally adopted. The talking heads in charge of these operations are attacking "assault weapons" based on public perception. If the public perception shifts, they'll make something else up. Even if you didn't know anything you could take the cue that in reality something like "high capacity" is either subjective or relative to the design of the instrument. Those types of people trying to make something like that a top-down affair are not to be trusted.
There are numerous political activists who advocate these so-called progressives drop some of their narratives, because they actually want to make a difference, but the politicians and the media are mutually interested in recycling these sorts of things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Sir, I'm simply telling you how it is. An "Assault weapon" is a legal designation and an assault rifle is a technical term. Most if not all rifles classed as "assault weapons" in California are not assault rifles. Assault rifles are legally classed as "machine guns" in the eyes of the ATF. Also, the author of that article managed to write a full paragraph answering the question "What is a high capacity magazine?"...Impressive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Here is a basic overview of "machine gun" regulations
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Assault rifles are legally classed as "machine guns", and they were put out of production by the fed.
All legally owned assault rifles in the United States are at least 30 years old. They are useful for education, target shooting, and investment. I'm sure a few are used for hunting which many are suited just fine for since they are light weight and rugged but they are a really expensive commodity, so that would be impractical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Assault rifles were sort of banned, I think, in the 1980's during the Reagan administration. They were never really popular to begin with and there is not any movement of consequence to put them back into production in the private sector.
Created: