Slashdot Mirror

The Backfire Effect has been grossly over-sold. Even the original evidence for it wasn't all that strong in the first place, and attempts at confirming it haven't been doing so well:

• https://slate.com/health-and-science/2018/01/weve-been-told-were-living-in-a-post-truth-age-dont-believe-it.html
• https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/8/1730754/-Has-the-Backfire-Effect-of-Debunkings-Been-Debunked

If you like cheap irony: the widespread conviction that the Backfire Effect is real is itself a sign of cognitive limitations-- people really like that story, and won't let go of it.

Not trolling here, I say this on every thread. I don't trust nuclear for the United States.

I've yet to see a reactor that's cheaper to run safe than unsafe and that's the bar America needs. Americans like to privatize thing. A lot. We also have a strong distrust in government regulation.

What I see happening is the same thing that happened in Fukushima: Reactor gets built, 20-30 years later it's time to decommission it. It's been handed off to a private company that wants to keep making money off it. Cost of building a new reactor is X. Cost of buying off politician to weaken oversight it Y. If X - Y is positive you go with the bribes. Sooner or later there's a disaster, but you're the CEO. You don't live in the area, can blame the engineers, will tie everything up in court and you've got a PR firm that'll make it stick.

Finally, I'll just leave this little gem right here.

Maybe nukes work in Europe where folks don't distrust their government as much and/or are better educated and thus more capable of resisting calls to privatize things that should not be privatized. But not in America. Fix out social & political situation first.

These smart guys already did the math: Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Say Berkeley, Stanford Studies (If you don't like this link, there are several other copies of this article floating around on the web.)

The available voting data from the 2016 democratic primary shows significant statistical abnormalities, in the last half of the data, that favor Hillary at the expense of Bernie. It appears that a voting machine exploit was in place in several districts, that only triggered in real time when someone or something detected that Hillary was about to lose to Bernie.

That's just the election itself. Stepping back in time to the pre-election Hillary vs. Bernie campaign trail, there's also the obvious issues of stealing campaign money from Bernie's campaign, and installing Imran Awan, a Pakistani spy as the IT manager of the DNC's computer network, subverting the DNC 'VAN' computer network that Bernie, a democratic candidate, was forced to use for official campaign business. Meaning that Hillary was secretly in control of the Bernie campaign's network, and even revoked access at one point during his campaign. (We discovered Hillary's DNC network subversion through a Wikileaks publication.) Then we have a secret joint fundraising agreement that DNC bosses signed with Hillary Clinton, giving her nearly full control of the DNC, BEFORE she was nominated. (alternate link.)

If that's too technical for you, then let me remind you that, defending against the DNC fraud lawsuit, a DNC lawyer Bruce Spiva said in court: "We could have voluntarily decided that, 'Look, we're gonna go into the back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way." This is in reference to the whole Hillary-biased democrat super-delegate debacle that was all over the news at the time. Hillary bribed those super-delegates with laundered money through one of her crooked 'charities' to secure her nomination over Bernie.

This is just the easily cited stuff Hillary's done to screw Bernie. I'm not saying that Hillary's crimes only include screwing Bernie, or that Bernie's a perfect candidate. And I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump.

These smart guys already did the math: Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Say Berkeley, Stanford Studies (If you don't like this link, there are several other copies of this article floating around on the web.)

The available voting data from the 2016 democratic primary shows significant statistical abnormalities, in the last half of the data, that favor Hillary at the expense of Bernie. It appears that a voting machine exploit was in place in several districts, that only triggered in real time when someone or something detected that Hillary was about to lose to Bernie.

That's just the election itself. Stepping back in time to the pre-election Hillary vs. Bernie campaign trail, there's also the obvious issues of stealing campaign money from Bernie's campaign, and installing Imran Awan, a Pakistani spy as the IT manager of the DNC's computer network, subverting the DNC 'VAN' computer network that Bernie, a democratic candidate, was forced to use for official campaign business. Meaning that Hillary was secretly in control of the Bernie campaign's network, and even revoked access at one point during his campaign. (We discovered Hillary's DNC network subversion through a Wikileaks publication.) Then we have a secret joint fundraising agreement that DNC bosses signed with Hillary Clinton, giving her nearly full control of the DNC, BEFORE she was nominated. (alternate link.)

If that's too technical for you, then let me remind you that, defending against the DNC fraud lawsuit, a DNC lawyer Bruce Spiva said in court: "We could have voluntarily decided that, 'Look, we're gonna go into the back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way." This is in reference to the whole Hillary-biased democrat super-delegate debacle that was all over the news at the time. Hillary bribed those super-delegates with laundered money through one of her crooked 'charities' to secure her nomination over Bernie.

This is just the easily cited stuff Hillary's done to screw Bernie. I'm not saying that Hillary's crimes only include screwing Bernie, or that Bernie's a perfect candidate. And I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump.

You missed out https://www.dailykos.com/ from your list. A left-wing site. Don't you care about transparency?

right up until this month.

That makes sense. There's only 2 outcomes for them and The Wall, neither of them good:

1. Wall works, they're out of the job. And yes, the various private security Unions think about this. One of the big reasons we can't get marijuana decriminalized is the prison guard union campaigns heavily against it (which as a pro-Union lefty kinda breaks my mind, but such is reality).
2. Wall doesn't work, we just wasted $25-$50 billion dollars and they look like idiots.

So yeah, Wall is bad juju if you make your living catching illegals.

What's interesting is the change. It's not like the two points above have gone away. If I had to guess the GOP promised their leadership something.

There is also a "coup" taking place in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Republicans Are Threatening a Legislative Coup

'This Is a Coup': Protests Engulf Wisconsin Capitol as Outgoing Scott Walker and GOP Move to Cripple Democratic Power

Assorted Zaniness and Silliness, Plus Oh Yeah, the GOP Attempts a Coup in Wisconsin

A coup in Madison? Let them hear you

... to hate democracy and welcome communism ... If you don't believe it, you're a moron.

Like these ones: https://www.dailykos.com/stori...

Yeah, edit this out of your memory, good luck.

I'd imagine you could do that, too; although most of the time people just find ballot boxes (Note: Daily Kos is very liberal and kind of crazy, hurls accusations of malice without hesitation), additional ballots, or whatnot.

It's a really damned old problem.

Or here: https://www.dailykos.com/user/...

Unfortunately it's as bad from both sides. You have the people who want Tesla to fail for whatever reason, and the fanboys who can't accept that any other EV might not be a steaming pile of shit.

Wanting Tesla to fail is an old game.

https://www.dailykos.com/stori...

Daily Kos-- which you can hardly call a pro-billionaire publicity rag-- had an article discussing exactly these points:

  https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/29/1767826/-The-War-on-Tesla-Musk-and-the-Fight-for-the-Future

in 15 years with the money we'd save switching to single payer.

If you're a fiscal conservative single payer just makes sense. The only reasons to oppose it are bad ones.

Or not..

I read this interesting piece yesterday "The War on Tesla, Musk, and the Fight for the Future".
Quote: "people with 10,7 billion dollars bet against Tesla stand to utterly lose their shirt".

Musk doesn't seem too bothered because, quote: "Musk can create contracts at will from SpaceX (and, to a lesser extent, Boring Company). SpaceX is on a roll and flush with cash." and this "Musk can sell off a portion of his SpaceX stake to personally bail out Tesla. There’s a massive demand for buying into SpaceX that hasn’t been able to be filled because it’s privately held. And Musk has shown repeatedly throughout his history that he isn’t, if anything, afraid to go personally “all in”."

I wonder how much Musk is relying on US Government contracts to keep his cash cow nice and fat if it needs to be slaughtered for Tesla?

Of course the other reason for this will be to allow Boeing to catch up but who'd pass up the chance to kill two birds with one stone.
I'd expect more to follow this If I'm right. I hope not.

and fix the problems instead of the blame, as liberals (note lack of quotes, which weren't for scare, you ad hominem jerk

What ad hom. The only sort of person who could claim to be insulted would be sex and/or race baiters like this piece of shit who finds the most pathetic excuse to call Bernie Sanders a racist, while himself being a big supporter of Hillary "Superpredators" Clinton.

And it goes on and on. I'm sick of it and sick of the utterly false idea that if one politician is wrong, the other one must be right

Who's saying they are?

Universal health care better? Obviously you need to get out more.

It's a simple, empirical fact that single payer provides better care for less money. Otherwise, opponents would be hailing the for-profit American system for its superior results instead of stupid BS like "lines" in socialisticy countries. As if you don't have to wait in line in an American emergency room or wait for an appointment to see a specialist. With socialized medicine, you don't have an insurance industry employing tens of thousands of people looking for new ways to deny or limit what care they will cover, you don't have insurance companies making billions per quarter, and (thanks to free-to-use universities) you don't have doctors demanding high six figure salaries because they don't have $200,000+ in student loans to pay off.

if we switched to Medicare for all. We could pay off the national _debt_ with that money. If you're a fiscal conservative you pretty much have to support Medicare for All.

but honestly, who wants to pay for single payer healthcare? I mean, the cost alone is -$17 trillion

But this is COMMUNISM! Dying sick and broke somewhere under the bridge is a God given and constitutionally protected right! Freedom! America, F--k Yeah!

but honestly, who wants to pay for single payer healthcare? I mean, the cost alone is -$17 trillion

We’re already paying for it, in the form of health insurance.

but honestly, who wants to pay for single payer healthcare? I mean, the cost alone is -$17 trillion

The left oppose the notion of originalism. E.g. Roe v Wade decided people had always had a right to abortion because of an invented 'right to privacy'.

Nope, the right to privacy was not invented, it's natural.

The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage was based on the notion that it was an inevitable consequence of Due Process under the 14th Amendment.

The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage was actually based on the pattern of discrimination that had been demonstrated by the opponents of same-sex marriage.

Even though the people who wrote the original documents didn't believe in a right to abortion or a right to gay marriage.

They're dead. How exactly do you know what they'd believe, and why should we care anyway? Did I miss some declaration where we subsumed ourselves to their eternal dictatorship from beyond the grave?

Judicial activism is always about allowing your political views to alter the way you read the law. It's a sort of 'ends justifies the means' approach to law. If you agree with the ends, then the means
- twisting or inverting the meaning of the actual words in the law or inventing new rights that aren't actually there - doesn't matter.

That's actually original-ism, as found in numerous instances.

This is in of itself a good reason to distrust the US left. E.g. look at the gay marriage case. Both Obama and Clinton run on a platform of opposing it, but Obama set up a case which would legalise it and then celebrated. Even if left wing politicians say they won't do something, they may appoint judges who will twist the law to do it and then celebrate the result.

Both Clinton and Obama were wrong to take the cowardly position they did on same-sex marriage, and were roundly condemned for it, they set back civil rights for over a decade.

Now I'm not all that fussed about gay marriage. However even there you can see that the left will use it as a cudgel to beat the right - e.g. Christian bakers will be asked to bake a "I support gay marriage cake" and sued if they refuse.

Actually, it's the right that's upset that they can't get Confederate Cakes.

By the way if Gorsuch ruled in a way that you didn't like would you say "Well he's just interpreting the law. You can't say he's allowing his political beliefs to get in the way"? I'm guessing not, because he's an originalist and not a believer that the role of a judge is to invent new rights. if someone's political views explicitly include a different method of how to interpret law - e.g. 'Improving rights' vs 'Originalism' then those political views obviously alter how they'd rule when they were a judge.

That's because Gorsuch would allow his political beliefs to get in the way.

Look at the SC

Go look up how many people in Democratic presidential administrations have been convicted or indicted for a crime in modern history. Then go look up the same figure for the Republicans. Okay, that's giving you too much credit. Here's a link. tl;dr: 120 (R) vs 3 (D)

Apparently you don't know what corruption looks like. Which would be why you're a Trump voter.

That is an insult to the proud Alfred E. Neuman. I present you with this.

https://www.dailykos.com/stori...

Islam is no less a religion than christianity. What you really should do is replace "islam" with "chritianity" in what you wrote, and then go learn a little history with that viewpoint.... i'm absolutely certain you will be a little more than surprised... although it doesn't take much effort to actually learn history, so it seems you're not interested in reality, just on being ignorant.

Fascism, on the other hand, isn't limited to any single religion, although the examples we have seen have used christianity, not islam, as a focus. Fascism is a conservative nationalist movement, led by an autocrat or dictator, that typically espouses a strong military worship, abuse of a religion to control people, including forceful suppression of opposition, protectionism, anti-socialist, and persecution of racial and religious minorities.

I don't think the words in Thessalonians 3:10 mean what you think they mean

Of course climate science is falsifiable.

Is it? Not according to this climate-scientist from Australia, nor according to this professor concurring with this blogger (both of them hilariously repeating in earnest this earlier satire).

It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.

No, I don't. As I explained to you before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those, who want to compel me — on pain of higher taxes, loss of freedoms, and even actual criminal prosecutions — to change my way of life.

You put in a link that made it looked like you had a citation for how they admit that

It is quite obvious, I simply screwed up the link. This is, what I meant to include, separately from the link explaining, what falsifiability is, and why it is a requirement for real science:

1. Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable

Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.

Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable. [emphasis mine]

And she is not alone in admitting, there is no — and there can not be — any proof. Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore the other link, which I did cite correctly, where a a DailyKos article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier).

Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.

If for example the IPCC's pridictions of what was to happen in the future did not come to pass, that would be some falsifying evidence

Our whole argument in this thread is that, by the purported scientists' own admission — now properly cited — their very discipline is not falsifiable. Your babbling about IPCC is not much different from the Bible-thumpers' predictions about His wrath.

Global warming was proven, you ignorant toad.

"Proven"? Talk about false or misleading claims! Not only has it not been proven, its adherents admit that their theories are unfalsifiable — which means, the entire "climate science" is not, actually, science .

Indeed, we are asked to treat the supposed threat as Blaise Pascal proposed to treat the existence of God.

You, ignorant toad, may believe it, but it certainly has not been proven...

I did read the links. O'Keefe does hidden camera investigations. The fact he did one into AntiFa isn't the only evidence against them. And the charges against O'Keefe are politically motivated bullshit - his sin was exposing the lies and bias of leftist media organisations and NGOs.

Nope. His sin was being a lying bullshit spewer, which lead to him becoming a criminal, your sin, of course, was to believe him. Repetitively.

Any prosecutor dumb enough to allow such a taint into a trial, well, no wonder incompetence is rampant.

But hey, keep relying on them, it's a big sign that you've got less than nothing.

What amazes me is how long we are already fighting this. And once it is gone, we will never be able to get it back.

Here an article about it : https://www.dailykos.com/story...
Not so much the content is interesting, but the date. December 26th, 2010. twothousand-fucking-ten. And even if it won't happen now and the next two precidency terms are Dems, the one after that will be Rep again and they will go for it again. They only need to succeed once. We can never fail.

So I am actually a bit happy to see those articles. It means there is still a bit of hope.

Except that where it's allowed to work, it usually works really well. The only thing pushing back against it are entrenched lefty entities like teachers union bosses and the city/county councils with which they have an ugly little symbiotic relationship at the expense of students and their families.

Except for the religious agenda being promulgated that seems to be all too common. Not to mention the profiteering.

Sorry ScentCone, I get it, your dogma requires you to recite the shibboleth. Same as the testing agenda and your exhortations against Common Core.

Maybe if you tell more absurd lies, you'll get a prize too.

After Windows 10 turned out to be one OS-sized piece of spyware, why would any sane person use it for anything?

Time to kick that shit to the curb.

Anyways Linux and BSD both have much better SSH support, without the malware coming bundled with win10.

How about 'home grown" internet sites that actually manufacture fake news?

That would mean the Fox tabloid and the white supremacist web site Breitbart wouldn't get listings. Won't someone think of the children!

Right now we as a country don't particularly value investigative reporting, hence news is becoming more about splash than substance. My best guess for a solution is something like this:

1. Taxes pay for local news services in some fashion.

2. Every local news service is assigned at random to fact check and investigate the stories other services create. Give monetary bonuses for pointing out major problems and such.

3. Do the same thing at different levels.

In short we need to invest in accurate reporting. It would certainly be a hell of a lot better investment than this tax cut insanity. Each news service should be independent, other than fact checking each other. There should be some checks and balances in place so bad reporters or managers can be fired. In fact you would need to pay for enough redundancy that it is very difficult for lies to flourish.

One of the first things they could do is open divisions to fact check existing news services and elected officials. Publish everything. Hell source control everything.

Automation and such may eliminate many jobs but this is one we _have_ to get right for if we fail then there is not much hope for society here as a whole. Garbage in. Garbage out. If things like the presidents constant lying/projecting become even more common then I don't know if we can ever recover from that.

How about 'home grown" internet sites that actually manufacture fake news?

That would mean the Fox tabloid and the white supremacist web site Breitbart wouldn't get listings. Won't someone think of the children!

The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than almost any other nation. Yes, the US government, excluding the private sector.

Per capita what? Per population? Per taxpayer? But what about in terms of healthcare received, or in terms of assessing the costs of healthcare?

Think about the difference. Then cite your sources. I'm sure you realize that hand-waved declarations of vague assertions are not especially persuasive when we know how easy it is to lie with statistics.

The problem with the US healthcare system isn't excessive stinginess by the government, it is excessive costs and excessive prices.

Indeed, among other things, it's lack of coverage. And bankruptcies.

Which isn't caused by the government being stingy, it's because the government isn't being thrifty enough by operating its own healthcare facilities. Oh wait, that's because the government is being made to be stingy under the false pretense of not providing its own healthcare facilities!

And the ACA did nothing to address excessive costs and prices (because drug companies, lawyers, and doctors tend to be big donors), instead it simply tried to force Americans to pay those excessive prices in perpetuity, which ensures that this will never get fixed.

Yes, it didn't have a public health insurance provision, let alone a healthcare provision, but we knew this at the time.

Do you not have any actual recall of the situation?

However, you forget the specific subsidies that did reduce the costs for the poor.

That some of us would have preferred hiring more doctors and providing better medical care directly, well, we didn't get a vote on that, now did we?

So if the money allocated to the border wall is unused, it does not go to healthcare

And by "healthcare", you mean the yachts and estates of wealthy doctors, insurance company executives, and pharmaceutical companies.

Now now, we're told "trickledown> " is essential by the GOP. It's their tax-plan now.

Sorry man, you've got less than you think.

But hey, at least you can get your pills.

Look, you know what's happening is due to the GOP, they're the party that's responsible now. And they're going to do their best job...of filling their own pockets. And baking

The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than almost any other nation. Yes, the US government, excluding the private sector.

Per capita what? Per population? Per taxpayer? But what about in terms of healthcare received, or in terms of assessing the costs of healthcare?

Think about the difference. Then cite your sources. I'm sure you realize that hand-waved declarations of vague assertions are not especially persuasive when we know how easy it is to lie with statistics.

The problem with the US healthcare system isn't excessive stinginess by the government, it is excessive costs and excessive prices.

Indeed, among other things, it's lack of coverage. And bankruptcies.

Which isn't caused by the government being stingy, it's because the government isn't being thrifty enough by operating its own healthcare facilities. Oh wait, that's because the government is being made to be stingy under the false pretense of not providing its own healthcare facilities!

And the ACA did nothing to address excessive costs and prices (because drug companies, lawyers, and doctors tend to be big donors), instead it simply tried to force Americans to pay those excessive prices in perpetuity, which ensures that this will never get fixed.

Yes, it didn't have a public health insurance provision, let alone a healthcare provision, but we knew this at the time.

Do you not have any actual recall of the situation?

However, you forget the specific subsidies that did reduce the costs for the poor.

That some of us would have preferred hiring more doctors and providing better medical care directly, well, we didn't get a vote on that, now did we?

So if the money allocated to the border wall is unused, it does not go to healthcare

And by "healthcare", you mean the yachts and estates of wealthy doctors, insurance company executives, and pharmaceutical companies.

Now now, we're told "trickledown> " is essential by the GOP. It's their tax-plan now.

Sorry man, you've got less than you think.

But hey, at least you can get your pills.

Look, you know what's happening is due to the GOP, they're the party that's responsible now. And they're going to do their best job...of filling their own pockets. And baking

The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than almost any other nation. Yes, the US government, excluding the private sector.

Per capita what? Per population? Per taxpayer? But what about in terms of healthcare received, or in terms of assessing the costs of healthcare?

Think about the difference. Then cite your sources. I'm sure you realize that hand-waved declarations of vague assertions are not especially persuasive when we know how easy it is to lie with statistics.

The problem with the US healthcare system isn't excessive stinginess by the government, it is excessive costs and excessive prices.

Indeed, among other things, it's lack of coverage. And bankruptcies.

Which isn't caused by the government being stingy, it's because the government isn't being thrifty enough by operating its own healthcare facilities. Oh wait, that's because the government is being made to be stingy under the false pretense of not providing its own healthcare facilities!

And the ACA did nothing to address excessive costs and prices (because drug companies, lawyers, and doctors tend to be big donors), instead it simply tried to force Americans to pay those excessive prices in perpetuity, which ensures that this will never get fixed.

Yes, it didn't have a public health insurance provision, let alone a healthcare provision, but we knew this at the time.

Do you not have any actual recall of the situation?

However, you forget the specific subsidies that did reduce the costs for the poor.

That some of us would have preferred hiring more doctors and providing better medical care directly, well, we didn't get a vote on that, now did we?

So if the money allocated to the border wall is unused, it does not go to healthcare

And by "healthcare", you mean the yachts and estates of wealthy doctors, insurance company executives, and pharmaceutical companies.

Now now, we're told "trickledown> " is essential by the GOP. It's their tax-plan now.

Sorry man, you've got less than you think.

But hey, at least you can get your pills.

Look, you know what's happening is due to the GOP, they're the party that's responsible now. And they're going to do their best job...of filling their own pockets. And baking

Meanwhile, here's what its actually like to have an EV in a natural disaster.

LOL u mad bro? Just because TEH ROOSHINS did something doesn't mean there weren't genuine feelings behind it. But that's apparently what you're saying. We were all set to vote for the most corrupt politician in a generation, but poof TEH ROOSHINS spent a mere $100k on facebook ads and we all decided to vote Trump instead. If only someone else had the idea to spend money like that...oh wait it happened.

The Daily Beast reports that Clinton SuperPac âoeCorrect the Recordâ is openly admitting to spending $1 million to hire fake online Hillary supporters to swarm social media sites like Reddit and counteract Sanders' [actually existent unpaid] enthusiastic supporters' points about Hillary in the interest of âoeunityâ. Barf.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/21/1518537/-Clinton-SuperPac-Admits-to-Paying-Internet-Trolls

Oh, and plenty of people still believe in Communism, most of them are at universities rotting the minds of our youth. Maybe the EU doesn't represent the people of Europe, it only represents the interests of the EU. It's hilarious that you bring up the "blame the dirty foreigners" accusation when it is you doing precisely this with the Russia thing. It is always psychological projection, that's why you always shout racism because you're racist as fuck yourselves and it makes you feel better to accuse others. Hey, wait, aren't you the ones that call America a white supremacist racist settler nation whose only fate is annihilation? When did you suddenly discover patriotism LOL? I thought the only use for the flag you had was to set it on fire and laugh at anyone who got hurt feelings. You don't feel proud to stand for America because you don't feel that America offers anything worth being proud of.

Americans killed by guns in recorded history: 0

Is that like that philosopher who insisted that nobody was killed by a sword, they died from not avoiding the sword?

Here's a shock for you, guns do kill people.

On a side note, concealed carry warning and brandishing probably stops that many robberies, rapes and murders in a week...

Because...you must think that attempted robberies, rapes, and murders are so common that there are thousands a week! What kind of crime-ridden world of fear do you live in?

Americans killed by medical mistakes each year: about 250,000

And we've got a whole group of people arguing about that problem too!

Americans killed by antibiotic resistant bacteria each year: 23,000

Also discussed.

Clearly guns are not that big a threat unless you are an alt left fascist progressive looking to dominate and subjugate the American people.

Nope, guns are a big threat to the American people, what with deaths from toddlers with guns, whereas imaginary fears of alt-left fascist progressives looking to dominate and subjugate the American people aren't a threat at all, except so insofar as they lead right-wing pseudo-conservative trolls to instigate feigned outrage in America.

Every dictator in the last 100 years from Stalin to Mao on down the line disarmed their people first and then murdered millions of them.

Nope. In fact, many dictators armed their people, then told them to go forth and kill "not their people" because well, that's a great way for dictators to keep power.

You must not be familiar with history.

Guns are in fact inanimate objects controlled by their wielder, which is why every LEO in the country carries one.

Guns, are in fact, tools that ought to be regulated like many other tools, such as lawnmowers, chainsaws, pressure washers, and nail guns, and no, not every LEO in the country carries one. For example. And some shouldn't.

Any group that uses "gun deaths" are political shills with no interest in truth.

I wonder if you realize that group includes yourself.

Gun deaths usually include suicides (who just use different methods in gun free countries), criminals shot by police or citizens, and other justified shootings that are actually a good thing for society and end up saving lives.

Nope, actually, they're not using different methods, the suicide rates are often lower, self-defense and other justified shootings are excluded from the counts though actually...the number of such shootings is a problem, not even counting the various incidents.

Sorry, I know you don't want there to be any problem except not having enough bullets for all those dirty leftists who you hate with all you

Meanwhile, here's what living through natural disasters is actually like with EVs.

I'm perfectly willing to believe, the authors of the Symantec software and the owners of the company want to have to provide a good anti-virus and do not want to cooperate with United States' spies. But the decision may not be up to them — US government has many more instruments at their disposal to convince businesses and individuals to "cooperate", than do the governments of free(er) countries.

Yes, Russian government has some such instruments as well — just pick, who you trust more...

https://www.reuters.com/articl...

https://www.muckrock.com/news/...

https://www.dailykos.com/stori...

Meanwhile, here's how emergencies actually play out for EV owners.

> 'If they will not work, they shall not eat'
> That new testament?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/9/21/1240473/-I-don-t-think-the-words-in-Thessalonians-3-10-mean-what-you-think-they-mean

Protecting "us" from "them" is the same argument the GOP makes for voter ID laws.

I found this fake antifa manual circulating among US civil war / confederate history buffs in the days before Charlottesville. They are livid and eating up the red meat of each new outrage.

http://imgur.com/gallery/BcZOg?

Someone went to a lot of work making that, and they fully understand right-wing paranoid fantasies. This is too much effort for so many pages of such poor satire. It's not designed to convert/convince but to incite latent fear and hate. If that isn't the Kremlin thumbing its nose at us, then it is someone who wants us to think it is Kremlin. The manual was posted to imgur about a week after Trump signed new sanctions.

We also see evidence of Russian incitement in the troll factory activity on twitter that is more easily linked to their networks.

https://www.dailykos.com/stori...

The most useful idiots are Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson and Mike Cernovich, who are all pushing the idea of a new civil war. We don't need help hating each other, but we are getting it. (Donald Trump is more than a useful idiot. Since he has the full briefings, we have to consider him overtly complicit in the campaign to incite political violence.)

We need to rewrite the rules for Poe's law. The Charlottesville corollary is that satire of fundamentalism provides cover for propaganda and false flag action. The most dangerous weapon in information warfare is one that we never see as a weapon.

Given that the antifa manual is a parody of leftist fundamentalism, it says something about the dangerous political divide that a segment of people can't tell the difference any more.

Fuck Duke, FP&L, et al. They already screwed us for millions of dollars and they want more. Levy County is just one example. Crystal River is another fine example of consumers getting bent over the barrel. https://www.dailykos.com/stori...
Don't forget their attempt to control the use of residential solar through an intentionally named and misleading constitutional amendment. http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
There's a reason residential solar isn't prolific in the Sunshine State, and it ain't because there is no sunshine.

I'll help you with your ignorance of political and historical reference points.
What do Hitler(Nazi/Hard Right) and Stalin(Communist/Hard Left) have in common?

They were both Authoritarians.
So whether you compare Trump to either one really doesn't matter...

Do yourself a favor and read Bob Altmeyers book on the subject.

BLM has a clearly defined goal: to draw attention to black deaths by policemen being higher than white deaths. You may say that there are reasons for this, and you did say that it's a "black power" movement, but look at the results:

As a result of BLM protests, municipalities across the country have gotten police cams, which have served to reduce police violence. Secondly, a lot of municipalities have gotten de-escalation training, with good results. These things are good for everyone, not just black people.

So you could say that as a result of BLM, Americans of all races have benefited.