Total posts: 28
-->
@Athias
What are the inherent flaws of Capitalism?
The profit motive for Capitalists causing a number of harmful (minimising worker salary) or inefficient behaviours (Massive amounts on marketing to buy a drug X that is fundamentally no different from drug Y), the alientation of workers from their labour, the concentration of wealth also being a de facto concentration of political power which runs counter to democratic tendencies, etc.
And did a worker co-operative system not fail as far as macroeconomic implementation?
What are you referring to? I'd guess the USSR if I had to hazard a guess just because that's the usual go-to example, but that doesn't really fit.
Created:
-->
@Rishi_D
Those aren't intrinsic values of Capitalism, Communism or Socialism.
There is also no inherent safety net in socialism. Socialism is based around worker owned means of production and is usually distinguished from communism by socialism being about each according to their merit, e.g. people get back what they contribute in,. if someone doesn't contribute they aren't guaranteed anything. It's worthwhile noting however that while no welfare is guaranteed, the kind of people who would push for a socialist economic set-up would also be the kind of people I'd expect to promote a robust welfare system.
Also just to clarify, by ownership you are only talking about the means of production/private property, right? You don't think that everyone's personal property is communally owned?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
That study is very limited and one study certainly doesn't represent most studies. For instance, this meta-analysis (A meta-analysis is essentially a study of studies, analysing what the results of a large selection of studies on a topic say when looked at today) finds "other fiscal variables like a flat tax system, tax rates, and tax amnestieshave unambiguous negative impacts on tax compliance".
Really even if it did produce some modest growth benefit it wouldn't really win me over as economics idn't simply "Get numbers higher" but also moral calculations of what is right and fair to enact.
Created:
-->
@Rishi_D
Capitalism doesn't advocates for people to own the means of production that they themselves earn, it means people owning the means of production based on the capital invested in it. E.g. you can have a child who is given a large inheritance. They may own some of the means of production, but they certainly haven't earned it.
The classical Marxist difference between socialism and communism is that socialism still has money or some other form of measure of people's efforts/value which people can use to purchase commodities while in communism most commodities are either post-scarcity or shared equally.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This might be true, but a reliable source is needed. If it is true, then people with those names should change their name to something western. Transgender people change their names to fit into their desired gender. Some other people change their name just because they feel like it. Besides the fact that most minorities have at least 1 European name(out of first name, last name), anyone who feels victimized because of their name is free to legally change their name to something that they think will give them a better job.The solution, if this problem exists, is certainly not racial reparations as this costs an insane amount of money, it keeps minorities dependent on government handouts, which keeps them poor, and it worsens race relations. Sadly, this is backed by most black people, even though it encourages government dependency, which should apply to no one except government employees.
This is a very well known type of study which has been performed multiple times across different countries and finds consistent results showing statistically significant racism in hiring practices. Based on your unawareness of it and your other comments about racism which seem very superficial and uninformed, e.g. not knowing about red-lining but seeming happy to talk about how people aren't effected by historic discrimination, I think it would be best if you did more reading or investigation into the topic before throwing out your harmful and largely incorrect opinions.
Even reading a single book on the topic of racial discrimination on modern nations would probably clue you in to most of the issues you are missing.
Some examples of the study for reference:
How far does your argument for de-colourifying people go BTW? I mean you're happy for them to change their name, their identity, to something stereotypically white to fit in better. If they have money should they lighten their skin? Have plastic surgery to adopt more normally caucasian facial features? Basically how far do you want to have people of colour bend over backwards to avoid having to actually tackle the sources of racism?
Would the simpler and more moral option not be to stop racism rather than to try and stop people being a race other that white?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Which are, to be honest, just their personal experiences. So, what's different?
Mine aren't just personal experiences, so it's different because you're wrong and making silly ads motions to avoid the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Obviously logically incorrect. If someone says "there is no such thing as race" they are using the word "race" but are not supporting the concept of races. Similarly if someone defines their anti-raciam as an opposition to the idea of race at all. Are you racist because you have used the word race and therefore reinforced the false idea that race exists? According to your own argument, yes!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, agreed. That doesn't equate to anti-raciam being racist.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your criteria is has Capitalism worked for you specifically. No-one else cares about that, so it's irrelevant. Try engaging with people's arguments and rationales.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Read Marx and books analysing Marx. That you assume socialism has to be Marxist though is a major mistake on your part.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
In that example the fisherman controls his own means of production, so by definition it'd be socialist.
If someone lent him a rod but required a fifth of the fish he caught and another person let the fisherman use a stretch of river they controlled in return for half the fish he caught - then twenty years later they decide they'd rather use a newly designed auto-fishing rod and so cancel their deal with the fisherman and leave him starving - that would be Capitalist.
Also you don't seem to have understood my criticism. Regardless of my own personal wealth, several million children will die this year because the Capitalist system which allocates commodities based on income to generate greater profits for capitalists will intentionally not distribute food to them even though we grow enough food to feed everyone on Earth. I am doing well and in terms of self-interest a completely egalitarian society would be a significant step down for me if income and wealth was shared truly egalitarianly. The focus on "Oh well if you get rich then everything's okay, please don't pay attention to all the people who don't do so" is the exact problem with Capitalism - not to mention that even if everyone were superhuman geniuses with incredible will to work hard and become rich - the owner/worker structure of Capitalism ensures that a majority of the population HAS to be exploited workers because the system doesn't work with just leeches - it needs people actually working.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Or "Total failure" could be read to mean that not for a single second throughout it's entire history has the USA managed to produce equitable results and not cause masses of harm and/or injustice to masses of people.
Frankly the problems with socialism seem temporal and surmountable, the problems with Capitalism seem inherent to the very concept of Capitalism. You can't rely on greed as a motivating factor to drive the economy and then not also have greed impact lives in disparate other ways (High concentrations of political power in a rich elite, environmental damage, being adversarial to improving worker conditions)
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The USA is a total failure though. It fails to look after tens of millions of it's own citizens and it's externalities not only cause more deaths than all "socialist" countries ever combined, but the consumerist production culture it heads and embodies is literally leading towards the collapse of all human civilisation as we march inexorably towards catastrophic climate change.
Your benchmark for success appears to be "exists for X length of time" which I guess makes American capitalism less successful than aristocracy, which has numerous examples which lasted for far longer.
Created:
Posted in:
In terms of actually biology etc, race is not real. You are correct. However in terms of human interaction, race is very real and people are massively discriminated against because of it.
Anti-racism is about recognising the damage that racism does - which extends down to the existence of the very concept of race as a whole - and fighting against it.
If you'd like to learn more I'd suggest reading How To Be An Antiracist by Ibram X Kendi.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Socialism is a system where the means of production (factories, etc) are owned by the people as a whole.
Capitalism is a system where the means of production are owned by capitalists.
They are mutually exclusive if you are trying to follow them absolutely. Most countries are actually already a mixed market economy, with portions of the means of production controlled by capitalist businesses and portions controlled by the government which is elected by the people. Obviously this doesn't apply, in some countries the government is a monarchy or a theocracy so it can't be considered an organ of the collective public's power.
Most arguments about socialism and capitalism are actually about trying to move towards one of the ends of the spectrum (e.g. move healthcare in the USA from capitalist to socialist provision to try and make it less awful). Few people actually argue for pure socialism or pure capitalism, though I'm one of the former and believe Capitalism has inherent flaws that cannot be constrained and must be checked with socialism giving superior outcomes though I don't advocate state control as the best method for governing the means of production and prefer worker co-operatives.
Created:
The argument that using "racism" is bad seems like it comes from someone who has lived in a cellar all their lives and never interacted with humans.
Putting aside the issue of you raising racial IQ, a highly contentious and misunderstood topic where the basic 'fact' in no way encapsulates the truth of what is going on - there is nothing that makes truth mutually exclusive with racism.
I know plenty of people who have tried to use the "I'm just stating facts argument before", like people who for some reason like to just post lots and lots of articles about people of colour committing crimes but are never interested in doing the same with white people committing crimes. In that case although the individual articles may themselves be factual, the desire of the individual to continually use facts to attack particular races is itself indicative of racist viewpoints and individual facts are not themselves address the overall POV being hinted at.
This really just seems like a way for people to avoid criticism and critical analysis of their points of view and be able to say racist stuff without being challenged. If you say something that is deemed racist, you should be able to defend your statement on it's own merits and not retreat behind "But it was a faaaaaaaaact" because facts are not mutually exclusive with a racist POV. Do you think no racist has ever used a fact to support hatred of another race?
An example of this (though using a superficially harmless slogan rather than a fact) can be found in the "All Lives Matter" slogan used as a response to "Black Lives Matter". By itself and devoid of context it can be viewed as an affirmative egalitarian statement. In context however, it was actually used to dismiss issues with discrimination against black people and show that all lives didn't equally matter. Afterall, if someone was lamenting the death of a loved one would you say "Oh don't you know, lot's of people die all the time, ALL LIVES MATTER"? No it would be horribly insensitive. If a Jew was remembering the millions of Jews lost in the shoah, would you say "Don't you know lots of ethnic groups have faced genocide and even been wiped out entirely? Why are you focusing on one group? ALL LIVES MATTER!"? No, again it would be horribly insensitive and the action of trying to criticise empathy for a tragedy of that scale would be monstrous. yet for some reason some people think it's perfectly acceptable to use that slogan to shout down people raising their voices about black deaths. In some circumstances's, based on context, it's therefore reasonable to conclude that All Lives Matter is a racist slogan..
Created:
Posted in:
So he was banned from twitter, so what!? Twitter as does face book, ban anyone they don't agree with. And they were British Muslims.
He has been banned for twitter for hateful comments, such as claiming that all British Muslims were involved in the 7/7 bombing. That is a racist bigoted statement.
How do you know there aren't
The idea that all refugees are fake is not only laughably insane, but the burden of proof isn't "We just assume racist claims are correct".
If they are real refugees, then the law states that they should claim asylum in the first "safe" country they land in. But they are not doing that.
False. Aren't you embarrassed about all the lies you're telling?
Many of them are. In 2017 it was reported that the "UK home to 23,000 jihadists" and more recently it is reported that there over 30,000 Muslim jihadi extremist in the UK and over 3,000 of them are high on the anti terrorism watch list according to MI5.
False (If you check the details you'll see 300 people are being investigated for Islamic extremism and 20,000 have been involved in past investigations and could post a residual risk) and also irrelevant as he wasn't claiming that some Muslims were enemy combatants but all Muslims, any random Muslim in any random house minding their own business and doing nothing. Tommy Robinson is a outright racist.
You way out of whack with that one. Rotherham was at the height of the rape gang epidemic, there are cases going back way before the first convictions. I told you just in that Milton Keynes alone these rape gangs had been operating for nearly 40 years.
Do you have a single iota of evidence to support your claims? Which you're already retreating from as your argument falls apart? What happened to Tommy Robinson being the reason all of this was exposed? Decide to ignore that once you realised it was yet another piece of Facebook fake news you'd gormlessly swallowed without any critical thinking?
I haven't used the report function. That was you. You informed me that you had reported me. here at post #99 TXHG you said >>>"I have reported you for this".Deary me, you are in a muddle and are in a tizz aren't you?
I didn't say you had used the report function. Your reading comprehension isn't great, is it?
Daren Osborne is on COURT RECORD as saying that what drove him to do what he did was a BBC drama called Three Girls a three-part drama based on the true stories of the Rape and hiring out and sex trafficking of white schoolgirls by Pakistani Muslims in Rochdale.
Then why did Tommy Robinson email Darren (or Daren as you call him) Osborne telling him "There is a nation within a nation forming just beneath the surface of the UK It is a nation built on hatred, on violence, and on Islam"?
Or to reference the court trial:
Ms Andrews said her partner became a “ticking time-bomb” as he was “brainwashed” by material including posts by Mr Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
In fact just after picking up the van to commit the attacks he was specifically googling Tommy Robinson and reading tweets like those complaining there wasn't a "Day of rage" and complaining there wasn't enough anger about Muslim terrorist attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You don't have to. I am asking to you support YOUR claim. Show me where Robinson has said or done anything racist.
I already did, 2 posts ago, and you just responded with a weird rant about how he is a journalist as if that makes his racism okay.
You mean your claim that he is racist . For which you haven't shown one iota of evidence. I am not here to prove your claims.
Already done. To reiterate what I've already said:
He has been banned for twitter for hateful comments, such as claiming that all British Muslims were involved in the 7/7 bombing and claiming all adult male Muslim refugees were fake. That's aside from being identified by Matt Collins, head researcher at the anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate, as "one of the main drivers of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/28/tommy-robinson-permanently-banned-twitter-violating-rules-hateful-conduct
He's also a former member of the BNP which specifically stated in it's constitution that it was dedicated to a white nation and "is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples". https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-bnp-when-you-watch-question-time-tonight-1806874.html
He's called British Muslims enemy combatants who want to destroy white people https://twitter.com/OwenJones84?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1069644037936828417%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fresistinghate.org%2Fyes-tommy-robinson-you-are-a-racist%2F
Robinson along with author Peter Mcloughlin exposed this scandal . McLoghlin sat on this story for ages for fear that his left wing cronies " would shun him". He finally found his nerve (he was writing for the daily Mirror at the time) when Robinson after years of his own investigations started exposing it to anyone that would listen.
The investigation into the Rotherham grooming gang, which started the focus on Muslim dominated grooming gangs, started in 2008 and lead to convictions in 2010. Neither Peter McLoughlin or Robinson were involved and the story got national exposure: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11696508
You can check the internet for Robinson's activities and he has plenty to say at this time about Christmas being cancelled and being against "Poppy Burners" but a search for Tommy Robinson, Rochdale and sexual grooming during this time period brought up 0 results. he was not involved. he merely leapt onto the phenomenon after it was revealed and used it to help stir up racial hatred as already shown.
Good for you. Thank you for the platform maybe I can give the story a push on my arrest, such as how Islam stones women to death for getting themselves raped.
Reported you using the report function on the forums, where presumably a moderator will review your post for deletion. Something of a persecution complex I spy?
You are a confused little petal aren't you.. Islam is not a race and neither is being a Muslim. And to remind you, it was a vicious Muslim criminal that blew up mothers and children (mainly little girls ) at a concert here in England in the name of Islam and allah after he came here as an asylum seeker. It was a Muslim criminal that recently went on a shooting spree in the name of Islam and allah in Vienna killing and wounding 22 people. I gather these are truths that you refuse to hear. I can take it that you won't be starting a thread on Islam here in the religion sub forum.Do me the favour of watching this interview . it only 10 minutes or so.
As already explained to you, he was a member of the BNP which was explicitly against Non-Europeans, not just muslims. But then again that was another bit you didn't respond to because you can't face the truth.
Muslims are predominantly non-European and racists frequently use criticism against Islam as a vehicle to criticise people of colour as it isn't instantly as reprehensible to most people as outright racism.
Also seeing as Tommy Robinson is responsible for causing terrorist attacks in the same way as Mohammad is (Anders Brevik who killed 76 innocent people was inspired by the EDL and Darren Osborne who drove a van into a crowd of people killing 12 was converted to extremism by Tommy Robinson videos) - why aren't you treating Robinson with the same disgust you find for Islam? Something to do with the paleness of his skin? Terrorism being okay when it's being done by the right kind of people? Can't wait for your excuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I didn't say that. You are choosing to read things into my statements that aren't there. I was simply saying it takes one to know one. I was agreeing that he is a "fraudster".
You're just admitting that what I said was right, you're just trying to make it sound more reasonable. You believe that because he is a known and convicted fraudster, he should be trusted as knowledgeable about fraud. Also "takes one to know one" is a schoolyard insult, not an actual criteria for assessing facts.
Yes well I wouldn't take too much notice of those left wing twats at the Guardian. They have to make a living I suppose. But saying Robinson is not what he purports to be is simply full blown lies. Robinson is a journalist, he has written books.....
I'm not going to bother quoting the whole thing, because you're not really responding reasonably or relevantly.
As shown with evidence, Tommy Robinson has a long history of racism. That is supported by factual evidence I provded such as quotes and videos, unlike your arguments such as "I wouldn't take too much notice of those left wing twats at the Guardian".
Not only that but none of your points rebutt Tommy Robinson being a racist thug. Sure, let's say he's a journalist if we're willing to count people who just rant on social media* and repost false conspiracy theories as journalists. Are journalists not racists? Are they somehow mutually exclusive? Of course not. Your argument does nothing to address his racism.
Also Tommy Robinson did nothing to stop Muslim rape gang" the police arrested Muslim perpetrators based on their own work, then Tommy Robinson spent years spreading hatred against all Muslims based on it.
*The social media he hasn't been banned from for racism.
I am too anti Islam. It is a barbaric ideology that cannot reform . So millions of modern day Muslims are trapped.
I have reported you for this.
I don't think so. I have never heard Robinson say anything "racist". Robinson has many "different coloured" friends and staff and to be honest I don't see anything wrong with loving ones country. Do you not love your country?
I've literally linked in my previous post to him claiming all Muslims are vicious criminals, as one example. Also "I have black friends" is an illogical defence of racism that is so bad that it's literally a joke.
Lovely, back on track.So you do recognise some voter fraud has gone on and all committed by Trump supporters. I see. And that is you fair unbalanced opinion is it?
All the actual evidence supports there being little to no fraud and what fraud there is that has been highlighted being Republican fraud. It's not an opinion, it's just looking at the evidence. if you have any actual evidence to the contrary, feel free to provide it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
@Conway
You're both being rather vague. Can you clarify the points you're making and even what side of the debate you're on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
To quote the full context of my post which was a reply to a different poster in a different thread:
So your argument is that this is largely a natural cycle and man's influence on climate trends is negligible? Which judging by your response to Chris, you are largely assuming is based on Milankovitch cycles.That's a claim that is rather easy to disprove as we know what should be happening under a Milankovitch cycle and we're not seeing it."Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago." [1] This isn't happening. We're warming. Not only that but "Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period." [2] So we're not only warming when we should be cooling, but we're doing so ten times faster than has been recorded in over a hundred Milankovitch cycles.We are in fact experiencing the exact opposite of what would be expected from a natural cycle - so claims that this is due to the natural cycle hold no weight.If you're not relying specifically on Milankovitch cycles but rather some other portion of earth's climate cycle you need to make that clear as your whole argument is very vague and lacking in specifics.To further address some other claims of yours.Beef production vs RiceYou claim "rice paddies [cultivated wetlands] in combination with natural wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans emit more methane than do cows.". I'm not sure why you are comparing beef to a combination of rice AND all emissions from 70% of the earth's surface, but the truth is Beef emits more than 20 times more greenhouse gases per kilo than rice. [3] This lessens when you include the greater calorie per kg for beef, but it's still ten times worse. The total for rice is only higher because although it is far more efficient, there is also far far far more rice grown.As shown by my source, beef is just about the worst food around from a climate perspective.ForestsYou quote a source stating:"The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land..." and "In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period."You don't, however, make a larger argument on this point and by your own admission "400 years ago, the land mass that is now USA had 1B acres of forest" and that has declined by hundreds of millions of acres despite recent reversals. In addition, the total amount of deforestation is relevant on a GLOBAL level in terms of how the climate is affected and you make no argument about how that the loss of hundreds of million acres of US trees over the last 400 years is supposed to reverse the massive increase in carbon emissions.The Scientific ConsensusYou claim 'The "scientific community" is as diverse as is "Congress.' This is incorrect in terms of the consensus agreement of climate scientists on climate change.In fact an overwhelming majority of experts state that humans are causing global warming. Different studies find different amounts (even up to 100% for some) but it tends to be around 97% of experts [4].Vulcanism"Sure, but is it reasonable to assume that the age of massive vulcanism is passed? I live within the sure kill zone of the Yellowstone caldera, and it is overdue. So says the science."The volcano isn't overdue [5] and even if it was, it wouldn't be a case for the effects of all volcanos suddenly changing by orders of magnitude for the foreseeable future. You are the one that says that nature follows cycles. Why would these natural cycles suddenly change for no reason simply to suit your beliefs?
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You said this which is at least implying that he was the source." you continually posting links from a well known racist thug who is also a criminal convicted of fraud? ". But never mind.
You choosing to read things into my statements that aren't there is your business.
Well considering that you have brought an alleged "fraudster" into the mix , I think he is then in a better position than you or me to smell and spot fraud when he sees it. Don't you? Maybe his sharp eyes and clear sense of smell can smell and spot the alleged fraud going on in Pennsylvania and other states?
It's not an allegation. He's been found guilty of fraud in a court of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_%28activist%29#Fraud. Also if you have any evidence for your wild suppositions that he is now some super anti-fraudster, feel free to present them. Until you do, you're merely trusting someone who is already known to be criminally unreliable.
Can you support that claim. Can you give me e few instances when this man has behaved or spoken in a racist manner?
He has been banned for twitter for hateful comments, such as claiming that all British Muslims were involved in the 7/7 bombing and claiming all adult male Muslim refugees were fake. That's aside from being identified by Matt Collins, head researcher at the anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate, as "one of the main drivers of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/28/tommy-robinson-permanently-banned-twitter-violating-rules-hateful-conduct
He's also a former member of the BNP which specifically stated in it's constitution that it was dedicated to a white nation and "is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples". https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-bnp-when-you-watch-question-time-tonight-1806874.html
He's called British Muslims enemy combatants who want to destroy white people https://twitter.com/OwenJones84?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1069644037936828417%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fresistinghate.org%2Fyes-tommy-robinson-you-are-a-racist%2F
Why do you think that his opinion is less valid that yours own or mine?
I have provided sources which prove my interpretation of his evidence is correct and his interpretation is wrong, therefore I know my opinion is more valid because it's not just my opinion.
More generally, he's a well known racist fraudster far-right ideologue. There is no reason to mindlessly trust anything he says. When a person has a history of lying and making false claims, it doesn't mean their next statement has to be a lie but it fits a pattern and you should be wary of it. The basic you should be doing in any situation, not just for his content but overall, is performing basic due diligence to see if wild claims are actually true before spreading them further and acting like they have any relevance.
I am open to many opinions this man's included, as I am yours.
His opinion is based on racism and white nationalism. What is valid about that opinion? In fact, why merely rely on opinions at all. These are binary yes/no situations. In my prior post I was easily able to provide not opinion but facts.
Either ballots for dead people born in 1900 were being counted or they weren't. They weren't.
Either ballots were being picked up late for some illegal fraudulent purpose or they weren't. They weren't
Either sharpies were invalidating thousands of votes or they weren't. They weren't.
If all you do is listen to opinion you can justify anything. Start looking for facts.
And I have accepted that until anyone (including you) can come up with evidence to the contrary. Do you have any evidence for voter fraud? Or do you believe there hasn't been any at all and the republicans are just hanging on by their fingernails...... as is their right to do by all accounts.
There are a few instances of fraud on an individual level, like the Trump voter who tried to vote for his dead mother https://www.atinitonews.com/2020/10/trump-supporter-arrested-for-requesting-absentee-ballot-for-dead-mother/. The most major potential voter fraud to my mind is attempts by the Trump campaign to arrange large amounts of illegal ballots to be sent in: https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/06/trumps-wisconsin-campaign-asks-pennsylvania-cast-late-ballots/6182506002/
My larger concern with election integrity is the structural hurdles that have been put in place to stop people voting at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Did this "racist thug" record these videos himself, or are you just making that part up?
Did I say he did? No, so you are simply confused.
The issue is that you are using a convicted fraudster well known for being a racist thug as your main news source. Why would you expect such a source to deliver reliable or unbiased news? Why would you follow him at all?
The question is largely rhetorical, because we've reviewed the videos he's provided and proof has been offered they are nonsense. Whatever your rationale was for following him and trusting in videos he promotes, you were wrong to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I did . I couldn't make head nor tail of it.
The woman says one thing, the group of people harassing her then falsely claim she said something different. There is no controversy here besides people misrepresenting things to push an agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What economic system would you like to see and why? What are the key components of it. If a restrained form of capitalism, how do you envisage stopping economic inequality from running rampant again when the very rich will still exist in some form and be able to exert disproportionate power (including on future laws/taxation)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is it correct that ballots for people born in of 1900 and are well over100 years of age have been submitted, counted and allowed?
No, just people with the same names as dead relatives. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/0dd425c5
Thousands of ballots being collected only today!!!!!!!!! ? Why?
California mail mallot boxes are locked at 8PM and then collected to be counted the next day. That's exactly what's meant to happen. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-la-ballots-idUSKBN27M236
Did you even look at this? The woman states they used to say no to sharpies because they would impact the vote. They no longer do. Also why are you continually posting links from a well known racist thug who is also a criminal convicted of fraud?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
-“It’s my or the left” worked for almost every Republican in a close race and almost worked for Donald Trump himself. It’s going to work in every close race in 2022 and 2024 if Biden doesn’t temper the more violent and anti civilizational undercurrents on the left.
I'm really not sure about this. I haven't seen anything concrete but from what analysis people have made it seems support for progressive policies won votes. https://i.imgur.com/VFVhbmY.png
Not only that but some of their policies seem really popular: https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1323755297119363072
Lastly branding them as "violent" and "anti civilizational" seems very much like an ideological attack rather than a real criticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So your argument is that this is largely a natural cycle and man's influence on climate trends is negligible? Which judging by your response to Chris, you are largely assuming is based on Milankovitch cycles.
That's a claim that is rather easy to disprove as we know what should be happening under a Milankovitch cycle and we're not seeing it.
"Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago." [1] This isn't happening. We're warming. Not only that but "Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period." [2] So we're not only warming when we should be cooling, but we're doing so ten times faster than has been recorded in over a hundred Milankovitch cycles.
We are in fact experiencing the exact opposite of what would be expected from a natural cycle - so claims that this is due to the natural cycle hold no weight.
If you're not relying specifically on Milankovitch cycles but rather some other portion of earth's climate cycle you need to make that clear as your whole argument is very vague and lacking in specifics.
To further address some other claims of yours.
Beef production vs Rice
You claim "rice paddies [cultivated wetlands] in combination with natural wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans emit more methane than do cows.". I'm not sure why you are comparing beef to a combination of rice AND all emissions from 70% of the earth's surface, but the truth is Beef emits more than 20 times more greenhouse gases per kilo than rice. [3] This lessens when you include the greater calorie per kg for beef, but it's still ten times worse. The total for rice is only higher because although it is far more efficient, there is also far far far more rice grown.
As shown by my source, beef is just about the worst food around from a climate perspective.
Forests
You quote a source stating:
"The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land..." and "In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period."
You don't, however, make a larger argument on this point and by your own admission "400 years ago, the land mass that is now USA had 1B acres of forest" and that has declined by hundreds of millions of acres despite recent reversals. In addition, the total amount of deforestation is relevant on a GLOBAL level in terms of how the climate is affected and you make no argument about how that the loss of hundreds of million acres of US trees over the last 400 years is supposed to reverse the massive increase in carbon emissions.
The Scientific Consensus
You claim 'The "scientific community" is as diverse as is "Congress.' This is incorrect in terms of the consensus agreement of climate scientists on climate change.
In fact an overwhelming majority of experts state that humans are causing global warming. Different studies find different amounts (even up to 100% for some) but it tends to be around 97% of experts [4].
Vulcanism
"Sure, but is it reasonable to assume that the age of massive vulcanism is passed? I live within the sure kill zone of the Yellowstone caldera, and it is overdue. So says the science."
The volcano isn't overdue [5] and even if it was, it wouldn't be a case for the effects of all volcanos suddenly changing by orders of magnitude for the foreseeable future. You are the one that says that nature follows cycles. Why would these natural cycles suddenly change for no reason simply to suit your beliefs?
Created: