237k deaths
country population of 213,500,000
1.11 deaths per 1000 people. Better than Peru, functionally equivalent to Columbia and Argentina, and also better than the US and much of Western Europe. Not great, but by far not the worst country.
From that article:
Trump is currently facing his second impeachment trial over his role in inciting the mob. Ten Republican members of the House voted in favor of impeachment, making it the most bipartisan in history, though the vast majority of Republicans voted against it.
When the House impeached Clinton in 1998, 31 democrats voted in favor of it with the Republicans. An excellent start for the party of truth and reason, publishing blatant falsehoods in an article talking about your formation.
This. And, also, look at the actual data and don't just base everything off your agenda.
Actual data for my county (updated yesterday afternoon on the county govt website) as it pertains to the virus. Over the last 11 months now, there have been:
39.47 confirmed cases per 1000 residents 1.0009 deaths per 1000 residents
8.8% of the confirmed cases were among nursing home residents, 0.52% of confirmed cases were among assisted living residents, and the remaining 90.7% of confirmed cases were people living outside of those facilities.
Of the deaths, 68.75% of them were people who were living in nursing homes, 7.8% were people who lived in assisted living, and the remaining 23.4% lived outside the facilities.
So, if you're not living in a nursing home, only 2.3 people have died from the virus for every TEN THOUSAND residents over nearly a year. That's your actual data. That's your science. Try telling that to people, if you want them to actually trust you.
Fair point, but disagree. Lets start by taking away all the guns from the bodyguards and security for the politicians and celebrities who keep calling for more gun control.
As should be the case with all laws of any kind, apply it to yourself first rather than applying it to the plebs while you are (functionally) exempt.
Reverend in training.
And from his ex-Twitter bio in the article:
who is training to be a priest, described himself as an ‘activist’ who is “passionate about issues of justice, particularly in the areas of race and sexuality” and has “an interest in gender, desire and ethnicity in Late Antique Egypt”, as well as “liberation theology” and “queer theology”.
I think that says all that needs to be said about his beliefs
"What's that? You want to strike down my proposed laws as unconstitutional, courts? Well, I'll just keep adding new justices until you say what I want you to say" - Franklin Roosevelt (paraphrased, but accurate). And quite possibly President Harris as well.
the last 75 years in the US have been pretty good for the Jewish community. To us, 75 years is the blink of an eye in our long history.
I'm done hearing this argument. Yes, we should not forget our past to be sure. But, at the same time people who keep harping about and demanding special privileges because of things they never lived through is just ridiculous.
Here I am “saluting” at the arch of Titus.
Aaand, case in point.
The Arch of Titus was built in 71 AD (1949 years ago) to commemorate Rome putting down an armed Jewish rebellion. Do you see Romanians or Bulgarians flipping off Trajan's Column (which commemorates the Dacian wars)? Do you see Iraqis and Iranians flipping off the Arch of Septimius Severus (which commemorates Roman victories over the Parthians)? What about French flipping off the Arch of Augustus? The Romans built dozens if not hundreds of arches, columns, etc. commemorating military victories over pretty much everyone they ever met. And you're claiming historical anti-semitism because they made one when they put down a revolt that lasted half a decade, and trying to win pity points for it 2 millennia later? You're the one who needs to be flipped off Mr. Weinstein.
Think I've posted about this before, but had something like this happen when the Covington situation went down.
Guy I knew started going on about how the kids were awful, how they were white supremacists harassing an innocent native guy, etc. Told him he was wrong, that the kids were fine and the guy started it. He said prove it. I provided him a link to the raw video footage. He said it was too long. I provided him with timestamps. He said he didn't have time.
They don't care about reality so much as the narrative.
From my perspective, because DC is not a state. And I don't just mean in a sense of "it currently isn't a state". DC exists for one reason and one reason only - to be the seat of the Federal government. Everything about the city deals with housing and supporting the government and its employees - a full 25% of residents are directly employed by the federal government And how knows how many lobbyists, and more.
When DC was created initially, it was intentionally separated out from states - written in the constitution, it says that there will be a "District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States"
And, the federal government can directly control the day-to-day stuff in DC. DC's mayor office only exists because federal laws said "OK, you can have a mayor".
DC is a literal organ or appendage off of the federal government. The federal government does not need representatives to argue at the federal government for the benefit of the federal government.
I really don't see much in the way of issues here. Sure, the "we must preferentially buy from and then flag products from non-white-male farms" is cringy, but for the most part the idea here is good.
First, I will commend these two for putting their money where their mouths are (assuming this is actually going to be in a poorer neighborhood) - they're actually doing something with their own time and money and effort instead of just demanding other people make all the changes themselves.
Second, it is a fact that a lot of poorer neighborhoods are sorely lacking in places to buy healthy, high-qualify food, I'm generally a fan of supporting smaller, more locally owned businesses than just shoveling money to larger companies, and most people (regardless of race or financial status) do not know how to cook healthy meals these days (though, admittedly, there's better ways to do that than just saying "add an onion to your ramen").
On top of that, opening new businesses in poorer neighborhoods does give more people there jobs, and thus more income, and thus less poverty. (Though if this is a 700-square-foot store, I'm not sure how many people they will be hiring)
Of course, there is a larger problem with what they are trying to do, and that is failure to understand why poorer neighborhoods are often lacking in decent grocery stores. It is because the people are poorer, less educated (or care less) about food choices and that poorer neighborhoods also have a lot more crime. The article flat out says prices are higher than other grocery stores (at least for the meat), and someone struggling to make ends meet is not going to care if the beef they're getting is from an organic, grass-fed, free-range cow. They want cheap meat. Same goes for the type of products - while picking up and making rice and beans is cheaper and healthier, most people are probably going to go for the pasta and cookies instead I imagine. And lets hope they have lots of plywood to put up in the windows before the next BLM "rally" comes through.
I do hope they succeed, because people putting money into and setting up businesses in poorer neighborhoods is the only realistic way to improve those neighborhoods. That said, while I'd like to be wrong I really only foresee two likely outcomes given how they describe it. Outcome 1, it just goes under due to not attracting a large enough customer base to stay profitable. Outcome 2, it becomes a hipster grocery store where a bunch of (upper) middle class white people go so they can get locally sourced foods and break their arms patting themselves on the back for helping support an under-served population which never actually comes into the store.
Talks about using South Africa as a model
Talks about "harmony or friendly relations"
When it comes to sheer ignorance, this guy is just ridiculous. Even ignoring what is happening to the Afrikaners (which I know guys like this don't care about) South Africa has some of the highest crime rates in the world. Even their beloved CNN ran a story a few months back on violence and sexual assault issues in SA.
And then there are the ridiculous economic issues SA has. But, hey, I'm sure it is perfectly normal to have an employment rate around 9-10% in the early 80 to over 20% by the mid-90s. And this century, the unemployment rate has ranged from 22.5% (2008) to 27.5% (2017) and 27.8% (2002).
I have no idea how bad Apartheid actually was - I was <10 when it ended, and I don't live in South Africa, and frankly every modern source on it is probably heavily biased. But, the African National Congress has had complete control of SA's government for almost 3 decades now. And by every single metric, life in SA is worse now than it was in the 80s.
Only 2 types of people can possibly defend what's happening there. First type person just doesn't care about reality, second type of person knows SA has become a complete trainwreck but imagines himself to be one of the politicians on top and thus doesn't care about anyone else. Either way, stupidity or greed are not things that should be making decisions.
In 2017, there were 143 million taxpayers in the US.
If just 10% of them got their bribe money on a card, banks made about $43 million
If 25% got it on a card, $107 million
If 50%, $215 million
And that's just on this one round of stimulus.
That one about a guy turning in his brother is absolutely infuriating to me, because it reminds me of the idiocy that came out after the Parkland school shooting. I can't recall specifics, but I recall several of the other students saying the shooter was a weird kid, nobody talked to him, nobody liked him, etc. My immediate reaction was "and what did you do about it? Oh, wait, you all just kept ignoring him at best and bullying him at worst I bet."
And the guy is doing that same thing about his brother. A sad, lonely guy with a substance abuse problem, for whom those so-called White Supremacists were "the only thing standing in the way of a life empty of people." So, what did you do, buddy? You knew your brother was having a miserable life, you felt he had fallen in with some bad people, AND WHAT DID YOU DO? Oh, that's right, apparently nothing. Even in your high-virtue humble-brag about how you're turning your brother over to the FBI, you can't even list one thing you did to help him.
Its always someone else's job with these people. They claim to care about other people, but do jack **** to help them themselves - someone else's money or time is needed. You riot in the streets for months, burn down stores, destroy people's homes, and then say "why is there so much poverty? We must steal more money from (I'm sorry, tax) rich people more!" You can't be bothered to hold down a stable job, so you demand other people give you free money. And, here, they're all insistent on selling out their own family for Good Boy Points on the internet.
Take some damn responsibility, and if you see a situation developing do something about it instead of demanding everyone else accommodate your wishes.
How would TNG Picard react to that?
"Well, it is regrettable but according to the prime directive we cannot interfere."
Kirk: "Which side has the hottest chicks? I'll help that side and see who I get to bang along the way"
Unless they update the ToS, the only ban-hammer worthy offenses are spamming, messing with their networks or them getting a court order to take down the account due to illegal activity.
And, Assuming they're not lying, they can't see what's in your e-mail to see if you've been saying naughty things.
Is it perfect? Probably not. If a deranged mob comes after them I can't 100% guarantee they won't fold. But, short of setting up your own e-mail server with its own encryption and DDOS protection you're not really going to get better.
We aren't dealing with idiots. We're dealing with scum.
Case in point, look at Dolal Idd's case from last week.
-
Guy with 3 prior convictions (theft, drugs, and illegal possession of a firearm), and is under investigation for illegal firearm possession yet again
-
Cops corner the guy at a gas station
-
Guy refuses to surrender, and, hits several cop cars with his car in an attempt to escape
-
Realizing he can't get away, he (according to both witnesses and body-cam footage) opens fire on cops. They return fire.
-
Guy's parents go full Dindu. Council on American-Islamic relations calls it a nonsense killing. A sitting congressional rep calls it "state sanctioned murder".
I agree that Dolal should still be alive. And I would bet thousands of dollars he would still be alive if he hadn't decided to play bumper cars with cops and then shot at them when that didn't work.
I am also for putting a cap on welfare for self-induced suffering.
And same for health costs. That's one big issue I have with the screams for nationalized health care. If you are a landwhale with diabetes, why should other people pay more because of your choices which will increase your medical costs dramatically? And its not just that - if you're a chain-smoker, why should other people pay more because of your choices? If you spend half your day stoned out of your mind on a variety of drugs, why should other people pay more because of that?
If you want to do X, as long as you're not hurting other people I may disagree personally but you do you. But the problem comes up when you insist on everyone else subsidizing your life choices.
The frank and shocking truth is that anyone wanting to save the republic is going to have to come face to face with "peace" officers that will be used as human shields to defend tyrants.
That's been the case for months now. Police will stand down for the BLM protestors who are actively calling for them to get fired, but will still go after people protesting the lockdowns. Insanity.
In 2019, more people in the US were bludgeoned to death by hammers and clubs than shot by rifles, and more people killed by being punched, kicked, pushed down the stairs, etc. than by rifles and shotguns combined. Even if your "common sense gun reform" got rid of all rifle deaths, and people who would murder with a rifle didn't switch to another weapon, it would barely get rid of 3% of murders.
And as you keep "mourning" the 17 dead and 17 wounded in Parkland, why don't you swing by Chicago for a couple minutes? In 2020, Chicago saw 719 people (80% of them black for the BLM crowd) shot to death, and 3455 wounded by gunfire. YTD in 2021, they're at 72 shot to death and 259 wounded - that's 4 Parkland's worth of dead, and 15 worth of wounded. And which part of your bill will address violent crime among young black men?