Slashdot Mirror

The people that organized and planned the Women's March that started the whole "movement" (if you can call it that) accepted and lied about bigotry and hatred. The entire movement was complicit with that bigotry since the beginning and anyone that called it out was called a racist. Even Vox didn't care. This is not the only example of "the left is blind to leftist bigotry" the reporting on antifa is another example. I am not saying everyone on the left is a bigot but that the left is blind to leftist bigotry.

You're giving Pewdiepie a lot of benefit of the doubt, exactly as he wants,

I have no idea what he wants because I am not a mind reader. Are you? Is Vox? I have seen enough lies about him to make me doubt it. Including, a video where he mocks media lies that take him out of context only to be used by media to take him out of context to say "he is nazi". Being edgy does not make you a nazi.

arguments to stop has to be seen as intentional.

You are assuming intent. What if he makes a lot of money because of the media hype? I don't know but from what I have seen of him he isn't a racist/nazi/alt-right w/e. He is an edgy youtuber comedian that memes.

off-color jokes should

Jokes are not secret nazi recruitment methods... Good gravy.

Jordan Peterson isn't a right-wing personality and alt-right hero (who associates with the right wing and is heavily promoted by the alt-right) then what is he

I said that calling him those things was very disingenuous. You have demonstrated why. It goes from " a personality watched by alt right or hero of alt right" to being alt right. In one instance you have control over your intent, belief and ideas. The other is guilt by 2nd hand association or being watched by people we don't like. I don't know what he is but he isn't alt-right. He doesn't have control over who watches him. What ideas does he have that is alt-right?

The people that organized and planned the Women's March that started the whole "movement" (if you can call it that) accepted and lied about bigotry and hatred. The entire movement was complicit with that bigotry since the beginning and anyone that called it out was called a racist. Even Vox didn't care. This is not the only example of "the left is blind to leftist bigotry" the reporting on antifa is another example. I am not saying everyone on the left is a bigot but that the left is blind to leftist bigotry.

You're giving Pewdiepie a lot of benefit of the doubt, exactly as he wants,

I have no idea what he wants because I am not a mind reader. Are you? Is Vox? I have seen enough lies about him to make me doubt it. Including, a video where he mocks media lies that take him out of context only to be used by media to take him out of context to say "he is nazi". Being edgy does not make you a nazi.

arguments to stop has to be seen as intentional.

You are assuming intent. What if he makes a lot of money because of the media hype? I don't know but from what I have seen of him he isn't a racist/nazi/alt-right w/e. He is an edgy youtuber comedian that memes.

off-color jokes should

Jokes are not secret nazi recruitment methods... Good gravy.

Jordan Peterson isn't a right-wing personality and alt-right hero (who associates with the right wing and is heavily promoted by the alt-right) then what is he

I said that calling him those things was very disingenuous. You have demonstrated why. It goes from " a personality watched by alt right or hero of alt right" to being alt right. In one instance you have control over your intent, belief and ideas. The other is guilt by 2nd hand association or being watched by people we don't like. I don't know what he is but he isn't alt-right. He doesn't have control over who watches him. What ideas does he have that is alt-right?

Pewdiepie really is a centipede working carefully and methodically year after year to introduce his audience to alt-right ideology without getting banned from YouTube. Or at least he's indistinguishable from one to an outside observer:

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13...

Logan Paul on the other hand just does stupid trashy shit like showcasing people's corpses in his videos so I don't know why you're defending him.

The problem with bulk solar production in Florida is night time demand. Due to the hot and humid climate, you don't see a major demand drop as you do in other parts of the country.
TECO in Tampa is converting their Big Bend power plant from coal to natural gas. They are also building solar farms.

https://www.powermag.com/tampa...
Florida power companies are no saints though. Look what they tried to pull over on the state's residents back in 2016
https://www.vox.com/science-an...

Isn't that more or less what Clinton did, and she was pilloried for it?

• 1. Medicare for All
• 2. New New Deal (federal jobs guarantee + investment in Green energy)
• 3. Living Minimum Wage
• 4. End the 8 illegal wars, end the Military Industrial Complex
• 5. End money in politics and corruption in general (see here

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Listen to Bernie. Watch his Youtube Channel. He's all about policy that helps working class Americans and levels the playing field.

$20 billion per year in DIRECT subsidies for fossil fuels, not including cleanup, military spending, health care costs and similar. https://www.vox.com/energy-and... As long as you remove the $20B fossil fuel subsidy, you can level the playing field and remove the ~$7B from renewables. There's no question where the investments will be going forward.

they got us to back down on tariffs.

Nope. The 10% in place stays in place. China agreed (finally) to talk about IP theft, trade balance, and drug controls. And for that they get a 90 day stay against an INCREASE from 10% to 25%.

OTOH Trump probably couldn't have done those tariffs anyway. Not without wrecking the economy.

No sign that the tariffs in place since September have done much to the economy or country, so what makes you think you'd have bigger impacts from the additional tariffs on $200 billion in trade? We're talking about tariffs going from $20 billion to $50 billion.

Meanwhile the outsourcing continues, with GM moving 14,000 jobs to Mexico (and rather cleverly blaming it on declining demand for cars vs SUVs while ignoring the new SUV & Truck factories in Mexico).

Yep! And thanks to the President, when GM does move those jobs, they have to pay at least $16/hour for the labor in Mexico, meaning there is a LOT less incentive to move the jobs in the first place - and it will rapidly build up the Mexican economy too.

Nothing change. Everything continues apace. Well, except we borrowed another $1 trillion as a giveaway to Trump's wealthy friends in the top 1%.

Yeah, he's got another $9 trillion to go before he equals his predecessor, who also gave away 17% of the economy to his friends in Big Pharma and Big Healthcare...

One site says 1/4 of Americans use drugs that increase suicide risk. HELLO, could it be the fucking big pharma bastards killing people off?!

"Hey are you depressed and want some medicine to feel better? Here take this, it makes you care about nothing, including your own life."

Pretty sure some illegal drugs do the same damn thing. People need to stop taking shit and go outside more, hang with your family more, be a normal human more.

https://www.vox.com/science-an...

https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri...

My instant reply to you is that the fucking President doesn't have the authority to implement a tariff. That is purely the job of Congress... but

"Raising taxes and tariffs is usually Congress’s job. But on Thursday, President Donald Trump officially raised tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread opposition from Republicans in Congress — and it was completely in his right to do so.

Trump signed an executive order calling on the Commerce Department to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. His reason: Foreign countries’ current trade practices with the United States are a threat to national security.

By law, that’s enough of a reason to bypass Congress altogether."

Taken from: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/1...

And now I am fucked up. Where is the fucking Constitution? Why is it being abrogated and derogated constantly? Is the Rule of Law a quaint notion from a simpler time? WTF is going on?

that you Trump-lovers adore

Ummm.... why are you calling me a Trump lover? Congress is responsible for tariffs. I was not aware that the Constitution had been subverted in that way. I place the blame where it belongs, not where I wish it would be.

Can you explain something to me please? Why do so many people, apparently including you, make assumptions where there is no reason to do so? What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection. We are supposed to be dealing with reality, not rewriting reality to satisfy our inner desires. I mean, if you twist words, you could say I was defending Trump, but what I was really doing is impeaching Congress... and yet you still chose to see that as defending Trump and assuming I am a Trump lover. WTF? Where is the logic in that?

President Donald Trump said he doesn’t buy his own government’s National Climate Assessment detailing the devastating impact climate change will have on the American economy during a Q&A session with reporters on Monday. ... “I don’t believe it,” Trump said. “No, no, I don’t believe it.

But Trump has taken a very different attitude when it comes to the business he owns.

As Politico detailed during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump International Golf Links sought to build a seawall to protect a golf course he owns in Ireland from “global warming and its effects.”

In a permit application for the wall, Trump International Golf Links cited scientific studies indicating that a rise in sea level could result in damaging erosion in a bay near the golf course.

“If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct ... it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland,” the application says. “In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”

Having six years of drought not that long ago doesn't help:

* https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/1...

Also building next to wild forest also raises risks. The opinion of an actual (former) fire fighter:

* https://www.vox.com/science-an...

None of which invalidates the hypocrisy noted in the GP's NYT citation.

Having six years of drought not that long ago doesn't help:

* https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/1...

Also building next to wild forest also raises risks. The opinion of an actual (former) fire fighter:

* https://www.vox.com/science-an...

None of which invalidates the hypocrisy noted in the GP's NYT citation.

He's the first pro-gay-marriage President

LMAO take a look at Trump's "pro-gay-marriage" record:

https://www.vox.com/identities...

Why should he be frustrated? He's the one who facilitated the Trumpification of the Republican party. He didn't have to, he could've stopped it instead, although at the cost of the overall power of the right. He's the Trump era's Paul von Hindenburg.

After two years of the crap, maybe just the tiniest shred of evidence?

Why don't you just ask the president's underlings what evidence made them decide to plead guilty, or worse, go to court and be found guilty. The evidence is so substantial and compelling that some of Trump's associates have already agreed to years of jail time and millions of dollars in fines and seizures, but you think they all keep folding for no reason at all, huh?

And I guess it was just "fake news" when the president admitted on "Fox and Friends" that he deliberately attempted to obstruct justice, with premeditated criminal intent. But I understand, you don't believe what the president says (who would?) so therefore, as long as the president is totally lying about the crimes he says he committed, he must be innocent.

BTW, I agree with you, that the president didn't know about his son's and son-in-law's and campaign manager's meeting at the president's own hotel with the now-proven colluders. No way he knew. The times that he said he knew about it, he was lying. Because there's just no evidence that the president was telling the truth when he said that he set up the meeting with the intent to collude with the Russians. The president totally made it up, because he was trying to start a "witch hunt" and he has been laughing hysterically every time it convicts yet another witch. When the president's lies about conspiring to commit a crime end up framing his own son, that is going to be the best prank ever! "Gotcha, Junior!" he'll say, they'll all laugh, and then the president will recant his own already-given testimony that he conspired with his son. "For the last two years, every time I admitted (in public, on TV!) my part in these crimes, I was kidding! Fake news!"

Spamalope posited:

Individuals own and pay for their own phones. That's their podium/forum. 3rd parties have no first amendment rights to their/our phones only their own.

So, if politicians were interested in fixing it you could require all 'legal' robocalls to have a standard identifier as a robocall, and a further category one for the type. Then mandate a method for choosing whether to get those calls controlled by the recipient. I'd like both a do not call list and a user controlled filter, possibly based on a new secure caller ID. (could be normal caller ID on the user end, so long as the telco verifies accuracy)

So you can filter 'RoboPol' from ringing your phone, but allow 'RoboDR' or 'RoboAppointment' so you can get appointment reminders or pharmacy notices that your prescription is ready. i.e. keep the things useful to you

You can require that political calls of any kind must identify the source in an accurate way without any misleading naming or obfuscation of the source. The groups involved must be identified, and name shell games are probibited. i.e. a new shell group every week so they seem to be from a different source, or calls designed to annoy you by groups naming themselves in a way designed to mislead to smear their opposition should be prohibited.

I like the idea. Unfortunately, implementing it is nowhere near as straightforward as you might like. Among other problems, your proposed restrictions - which, again, I think are perfectly reasonable, and would probably garner widespread public support - impinge on existing laws (and regulations, which are actually a different thing than laws) that fall outside of the scope of telecommunications legislation. As a for-instance, IRS regulations regarding 501(c)(4) organizations.

Perhaps more importantly, there is quite obviously no will among the political class to reform laws against robocalls to institute a requirement for flags of the sort you propose.

It might, however, be worth contacting the offices of senators Markey and Thune to put your idea on record. (Should you decide to do so, I strongly suggest it be via snailmail. Pols pay significantly more attention to physical letters than they do to email, both because it leaves an actual paper trail, and because it is an indicator of how seriously the writer takes the issue. Writing and printing out a letter, addressing an envelope, and spending money - albeit mere pocket change - on a stamp requires a lot more effort and determination than just firing off an email.

Were you to do so, I'd advise explaining the technical issues in language pitched at a sixth-grade reading level, because senatorial staffers rarely are tech-saavy enough to be able to determine whether tech-based legislative proposals from constituents are worth passing along to more senior staffmembers or, indeed, to the senator for whom they work. The simpler and more straightforward the language, the less likely the response is to consist merely of a form letter of thanks, assuring you of the senator's interest in the topic, and his (or her - but, in this instance, we're specifically talking about two male senators) commitment to serving his constituents. The key is to get whoever is responsible for drafting telecom legislation (which will definitely not be the senator himself) to look at your idea, instead of it being just another entry in the slush pile that some hapless intern relegates to the "file and forget" stack ...

The real story is GA has a law stating there has to be an exact match of a voter's registration to the voter's ID including name and address.

You're missing the point. That law was enacted as part of a plan to suppress votes. The online database was designed with almost (?) criminally negligent security- it was possible to access any record, and change it, without any logging of the change. This level of 'security' would have been considered atrocious in the 1990s, there are multiple news stories about it. So a person could have entered all of their information accurately, and someone else could have changed it later- with no notification and no record of the change. This article seems to cover the issues well.

It's in full swing:

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

https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

https://www.americanbar.org/pu...

Hell, even wikipedia has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/...

we can't raise wages because then prices go up. It's obvious bullshit since if it were true then we'd still be living in the gilded age. Obviously there is a way for wages to go up faster than prices.

The answer is productivity. As productivity rises one of two things happen. Wages go up and we're all better off, or wages stagnant and decline and only the folks at the top are better off.

Productivity has more or less doubled since the 70s with wages staying the same, so anyone want to guess which of the above happened?

Oh, and be careful when measuring productivity. Right now "productivity" is technically down because there are fewer start ups producing less money in the economy, but raw manufacturing and farm outputs are way, way up, which is the type of productivity that most effects wages.

What's bizzare is watching all these economists try to come up with theories about why wages aren't going up during full employment. A few are finally saying "Unions are dead so workers have no bargaining power" but _very_ few. The right wing figured out some time ago they need to control the media narrative so they just bought everything. You can do that when you're the last man standing after an economic crash you caused and got bailed out of.

when you're objectively wrong it's important to keep pushing an opposing narrative. The American right wing figured this out in the 80s.

At the end of the day strip away the nonsense about "Culture War" this and "PC that" and you're left with what really matters: economics. And when it comes to economics the media is united on the side of the right. Low taxes (for capital, labor can still pay taxes, I mean, somebody's gotta pay 'em, amiright?), minimal or no regulation, free trade when it's good for profits (but not for pharmaceuticals, that would be a job killing regulation). The right own Sinclair who own just about every TV station in the country. They own Fox news. Hell, they own CNN and MSNBC if you pay attention to economics instead of social issues.

I guess it bothers me to see the right wing playing the victim card when they've got all 3 branches of gov't, billionaire elites and virtually all the media that matters on their side. What bother's me is that they can peddle this nonsensical persecution complex and get away with it. It's Orwellian Double think, exactly the kind of thing they're supposed to be against...

You're new here, right?

Workers at Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are demanding input on the impact of the technology they build.

What difference does it make if some particular bit of bullshit propaganda comes from Russia or Enron or the CIA or the DNC/RNC or whoever? The message is what's important, not the messenger. You say they want to "destabilize" the system? Well so do I. That's why I voted for Trump, because the system fucking sucks. And now that they're out of power, the left wants to destabilize things too. After exhausting every lega possibility for removing Trump they've resorted to open violence and calls for dismantling the government itself. Did Russia get us to that place, or did CNN and the Kochs/Soros and all the other rich, american sociopaths behind 99.999% of the political so-called information people are exposed to?

You're holding up the trivial fact that someone lied about their country of origin in the standard course of lying about a hundred other things to push a political agenda as the big, bright dividing line. The nationality of the person who created a meme or article or whatever else is the absolute last part of the equation I give a fuck about. If some Russians in a basement somewhere on a shoestring budget can out-persuade billions of dollars worth of the best professional advertising people America has to offer, then more power to them. If that's the case, maybe they deserve to run the world after all.

Or maybe you're just desperate for a scapegoat to explain away your failure and are far, far less immune to paranoid bigotry than you like to think.

Why not something more pragmatic, which would -in effect- result in the desired outcome? The goal is ostensibly greater representation and prominence of disadvantaged classes of persons. This implementation of a solution is arbitrary and largely naive.

However, one should look at "codetermination" as a much more practical solution. Defined thus:

"A concept that involves the right of workers to participate in management of the companies they work for. The law allows workers to elect representatives (usually trade union representatives) for almost half of the supervisory board of directors. It applies to public and private companies."

On its practical efficacy:

"Economists in the past four decades have produced a large literature trying to determine the effects that codetermination has had on the German economy, and while the results are mixed, more often than not, studies find that codetermination and “works councils” lead to higher wages, less short-termism, greater productivity, even higher levels of income equality (see here for a good overview of recent research). They may, however, reduce profitability and lower returns for shareholders, suggesting they lead to a shift in both power and corporate earnings away from shareholders and toward workers."

Dylan Matthews. (2018) Workers don’t have much say in corporations. Why not give them seats on the board? - Vox. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/1...

I don't know if he's concern trolling or if he has a point. I'm too lazy to find out, so I'm going to use this an excuse to mention another idea Modern Monetary Theory. Planet Money did a recent episode on it as a good primer. It may not amount to much but MMT sounds better than UBI. Of course they both point to a post scarcity society that we are heading to which in David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs it is an undercurrent of his thesis.

Yes, Republicans suppress people who might vote Democrat, and Democrats also suppress people who might vote Democrat.

See also, A Nobel Prize-winning physicist sold his medal for $765,000 to pay medical bills

Only in America.

Talk about hyperbole. But you sound pretty serious about your feelings, so let me address each of your points one at a time.

1) We've been evolving into omnivores for at least a million years.

Not quite. Homo sapiens has been evolving for about 250,000 years, give or take. And we evolved into omnivores mostly because gathering plants and fruits was easier, safer, more reliable, and a more dependable source of food. Meat from hunting was a high-risk-high-reward method of feeding oneself; while more caloric-dense, hunting took days, risks, and many people to do, and many times the hunters came back empty-handed. Evolving into omnivores allowed us to diversify our diets, giving us a greater chance of survival.

2) You can't just decide you're going to be strict vegetarian and not expect to have health problems related to that.

Says who? There's plenty of research supporting the benefits of vegan diets. As long as people watch what they eat to make sure they're consuming appropriate amounts of vitamins, proteins, and lipids, it really doesn't matter what diet they consume.

3) How about instead of screwing with people's diets, we create a timeline to eliminate fossil fuel use entirely, and stick to it?

No complaints. Maybe eliminating fossil fuel use entirely is a bit of a stretch, especially given our dependence on plastics and petro-chemicals, but a significant reduction needs to start now. But when thirty-six percent of the food we grow is fed to livestock, you're fooling yourself if you think that you can do that while advocating for meat consumption.

4) Also how about we stop destroying existing forests and start re-planting them?

Great idea. But then, where will we get the farmland for animal feed?

5) And start controlling our population growth, seeing as how the planet can clearly and objectively only support so many humans at once?

Well, good luck convincing everyone on the planet to stop procreating. Though, in a pure sense of supply-and-demand economics, it's our ability to improve agriculture production that allows us to sustain our population. After all, humans can't live if we can't grow food to feed them. Probably the most important man that nobody's ever heard of is Fritz Haber. It's his invention of the industrial production of nitrogen fertilizer that allowed the population of the planet to quadruple in one hundred years.

6) Why do we need 10 BILLION people alive at the same time? Can we get the nutjob 'quiverfull' religious types to knock it the hell off?

While -some- religious groups have population growth greater than average, most do not. The most influential variables in the United States are youth, fertility, and immigration. So, feel free to complain about the Mexicans, but the religious nutjobs, not so much.

Now that I've addressed your points, I'll take just a moment to make a few of my own. We eat far more than we need to. Given how many resources it consumes, as the parent article references, reducing our meat intake is not a bad t

I'm not going to read all that. Who's even the head of the FAA these days, anyway? I remember when Trump wanted to appoint the pilot of his private jet, but I don't remember if he actually did after everyone stopped laughing.

Did the "adults" ever step in? And if they did, why did they do something as stupid as treating drones and planes equally?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

Let's take a moment to remember that Cristobal Colon was a murderous moron who racked up a 6-digit death toll with his various crimes against humanity.

Progressive Social Media Complex

LOL

https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

Walmart is paying $20 billion to shareholders. With that money, it could boost hourly wages to over $15.

If the company hadn't also planned to deliver $20 billion to shareholders via stock buybacks over the next two years, a decision announced before the tax bill was passed, it could have done a lot more.

If Walmart wanted to spend that $20 billion on workers instead, according to a report released by the left-leaning think tank the Roosevelt Institute this week, it could increase their wages by $5.66 an hour to a $16.66 base wage. Or it could buy its employees Walmart stock and turn them all into shareholders, doling out about 113 Walmart shares - currently valued at about $83 apiece - to each.

Good luck with the apologia for a feudal club you'll never be admitted to.

I've not seen any evidence that the right wing is for low wages.

The right is rabidly anti-union. Unions raise wages for both union members and non-union workers.

They're are also against immigration, which if actually implemented would push wages up.

Only if the economy is zero sum. But a bedrock principle of conservative economics is that healthy economies are not zero sum. Also there has only been one study to find that immigration lowered wages for any class of workers - it found that only those who dropped out of high-school were harmed, everybody else's wages went up. And even that study turned out to be nothing more than cherry-picking from a larger trend-line that was independent from immigration.

Income tax cuts are also effectively increasing wages

Only in isolation. Cutting income taxes also cuts social services that then must be paid for out of pocket on an individual basis in which negotiating leverage is reduced to one person at a time so total costs go up.

And lets not forget the moronic fallacy of trickle-down & supply-side economics.

Here's the thing - you might argue that any one policy plank of the right supports higher wages if you look at it from a certain perspective. But when you aggregate all of their policies together a very clear pattern emerges of fucking the working man. It should be no surprise that the majority of trump voters were affluent, not working-class they know which side their bread is buttered on.

this.

If you're wondering why this feels like entrapment even though legally it's not; it's because Amazon treats their workers badly enough (and keeps them financially desperate enough) that temping them with something so minor is enough to push them over the edge. Want people to stop risking their jobs and jail time for what's maybe a $20 package? Pay them enough to live.

Poverty does not cause crime. That's an excuse you use for people whose morals are lacking. I saw your linked article (from a website founded by a noted liar, Matthew Yglesias). What's so hard about not stealing from a truck? There's a truck there? It's not yours? Keep walking! Feel bad about police bait? Well.... don't take it. They're not selling Nikes for food.

When you make excuses for the degenerate and criminal, you spit on all the people who have been poor and harmed no one. You can do your own internet search for 'Does Poverty Cause Crime?' and see if there's anything there that strikes your interest.

this.

If you're wondering why this feels like entrapment even though legally it's not; it's because Amazon treats their workers badly enough (and keeps them financially desperate enough) that temping them with something so minor is enough to push them over the edge. Want people to stop risking their jobs and jail time for what's maybe a $20 package? Pay them enough to live.

I guarantee they wouldnâ(TM)t do that today. They would face too much criticism from their donors.

The ACLU still defends the rights of Nazis and white supremacists. And they're donations have been way up.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

more important question is whether government agencies (local, state, federal, ...), and taxpayer supported (tax credit, subsidies, etc) entities, should have information

What good is the government having information if the #1 guy in charge doesn't believe it?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

So you are telling me the leftist agenda does not promote (sources below are from left-leaning sites, and one centrist site):

Socialized/single payer medicine
Open borders
Controlling "Big Pharma"
Progressive taxation, especially on the rich

Because this is what the far left is pushing right now.

Whoops, bad pick! My US geography and knowledge of where the big gun murder places are is not so great. I figured if I just went down the state list and picked something a few down the list it would show that absent the top eight cities the US still had a pretty high gun murder rate.

So lets get extreme. You said "Remove small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities and the US homicide rate drops to one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world."

Yet, the linked Wikipedia statistics show Canada has a gun homicide rate of 0.61 deaths per 100,000 (with overall gun deaths of 2.05 per 100,000) while the UK has a gun homicide rate of 0.06 deaths per 100,000 (with overall gun deaths of 0.23 per 100,000), and Canada is pretty high on the list, there are a lot that have lower rates (the UK does seem to have among the lowest rates).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Out of all the sates, only four (and Florida has no data listed) seem to have gun homicide rates lower than Canada, and none are lower than the UK. How would omitting the 8 worst cities manage to drop the statistics in more than forty states? It doesn't seem like omitting these areas would drop the country average to "one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world."

When I do some simple web searched to look for data supporting your statements, I mostly come up with articles that seems to broadly counter it - for example this seems to indicate the gangs make up somewhere between 10 and 25% of gun deaths https://www.huffingtonpost.com... according to data from the federal National Gang Center and this https://www.vox.com/policy-and... has similar information.

If you have a reference that supports your statement that removing "small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities" makes a huge difference in the US ranking in country homicide rates, I would be interested to see it, because it doesn't match up with how I interpret the data that I have seen.

Of course, my data might be total crap and maybe the US is unique among developed countries with all of the bad stuff able to be blamed on those inner city gang bangers. If other places also had similar percentages of their bad stuff being done by the gangs, then absent the gangs, their numbers would drop too.

If you enjoyed that joke, check this one out. The EPA quickly took it down as they found it quite embarrassing.

As reported by Vox:

“[The new fuel efficiency proposal] is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule,” the EPA wrote in a press release about the announcement. The EPA said the proposed changes would save 1,000 lives per year.

The Koch Brothers are also never-Trumpers. They are pro-open borders as well. Witness this conversation between Vox and Bernie Sanders:

Ezra Klein
You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...

Bernie Sanders
Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein
Really?

Bernie Sanders
Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...

Ezra Klein
But it would make ...

Bernie Sanders
Excuse me ...

Ezra Klein
It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?

Bernie Sanders
It would make everybody in America poorer - you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.

Ezra Klein
Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by, say, Malaysian standards, so if the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility?

We have a nation-state structure. I agree on that. But philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?

Bernie Sanders
I do weigh it. As a United States senator in Vermont, my first obligation is to make certain kids in my state and kids all over this country have the ability to go to college, which is why I am supporting tuition-free public colleges and universities.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation

The Koch Brothers are also never-Trumpers. They are pro-open borders as well. Witness this conversation between Vox and Bernie Sanders:

Ezra Klein
You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...

Bernie Sanders
Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein
Really?

Bernie Sanders
Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...

Ezra Klein
But it would make ...

Bernie Sanders
Excuse me ...

Ezra Klein
It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?

Bernie Sanders
It would make everybody in America poorer - you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.

Ezra Klein
Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by, say, Malaysian standards, so if the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility?

We have a nation-state structure. I agree on that. But philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?

Bernie Sanders
I do weigh it. As a United States senator in Vermont, my first obligation is to make certain kids in my state and kids all over this country have the ability to go to college, which is why I am supporting tuition-free public colleges and universities.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation

because that's what got Alex Jones banned. The final straw was when he mimed a gun shot talking about Mueller. The platforms are worked one of his listeners is going to go off and shoot somebody. This isn't idle speculation either.

I looked up a few of the ones you listed. Manveer Heir is walking the same fine line Jones did with what can only be described as a left wing dog whistle. You're right, he's hot garbage (just trying to make a name for himself stirring up controversy). But I couldn't find an implicit let alone explicit call to violence against white people. The rest are either opportunists or, in Sarah Jeong's case, a dumb kid saying angry things. Again though, couldn't find any calls to violence.

Banning Jones and the like isn't something these platforms want to do. Remember, they're corporations who sell advertising. All they care about is eyeballs. They could care less how they get them. Hell, the reason Trump's president is the media gave him $6 billion in free advertising so they could get eyeballs to do their own ads to. They're worried about getting sued if they don't act and one of Jone's listeners acts on his (pretty blatant and at times outright overt) suggestions of violence.

"Antifa" is blown out of proportion by media. They're the American equivalent of soccer hooligans. And the most the left does is "Punch Nazis". I've yet to see one of them mime a shooting or show up with guns.

TL;DR: The Left isn't getting banned because they don't lean on violence.

If you think that's what anyone cried about then you weren't paying attention to the animal speech

Trump was responding to a comment that explicitly mentioned MS13. That the libshits and you latched on to "animals" out of context is no surprise. Trump has been talking about MS13 for a long time. Maybe if you got out of your libshit media bubble you'd figure out you've been swimming in propaganda soup. Or maybe you like it that way.

But don't take my word for it. You can only hide the context for so long in the Internet age, so instead of just taking it out of context, the libshit media doubled down and then cried even after they acknowledged he was talking about MS13.

went full retard

It isn't the exact same policy, but separating families is not new. Obama initially detained families together. The courts ruled that the children couldn't be contained. So Obama just released "families" together (you know this policy just creates an incentive to traffic children, right?)

Obama also separated families, too, just not as much.

I'm asking for evidence on your claim "he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook."

Here and here.

Poverty is a tricky issue. Ask the government of literally any red state except for Texas. Their economies are all garbage and their state's packed full of poverty.

Using correlations between state level political choices and poverty to try to make arguments about causation is utterly silly. Try again.

Oh geez, this is embarrassing for you https://www.factcheck.org/2017... [factcheck.org] . We gained a lot of jobs under him. Maybe you are the type to just make things up.

No, you're simply the type not to understand statistics. Let's take the first number: "The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs." Sounds good, doesn't it? Except that the US population grew by about 20 million people during Obama's presidency, so this is below what was needed simply to keep the labor participation rate the same.

Yup, it's really looking like you're the type to make shit up. Medicare costs us less than $11,000 per user ( https://www.kff.org/medicare/s... [kff.org] , https://www.healthaffairs.org/... [healthaffairs.org] ) and currently covers about 15% of the population ( https://assets.aarp.org/rgcent... [aarp.org] ). Per American that comes out to 1,600 per person so no it does not cost more per American than any socialized system. In fact, it's not even close.

The Medicare budget is $1055 billion and the Medicaid budget is $579 billion. There are 326 million Americans. When you do the math, you get $5000/American.

Well I don't think being "fully privatized" would get us healthcare coverage for our poorest as we're already pretty privatized and can't do that but we can certainly agree Obama Care isn't great.

You're right: I was imprecise. We have a fully privatized system, albeit a corrupt one. What I meant was that our two realistic alternatives are a fully nationalized system (like the UK and France) or a minimally regulated free market system. And a minimally regulated free market system would lower costs so much that even the poorest Americans could afford it.

and your attempts to tie the Republican party to one guy they oppose

It's not "one guy". There are a host of white supremacists and neo-nazis running as Republicans. Would you like a list?

You've got John Fitzgerald in California's 11th district. You've got Seth Grossman in New Jersey. Of course, Arthur Jones in Illinois. Steve King in Iowa's 4th. Paul Nehlan, Corey Stewart. Russell Walker in North Carolina. Patrick Little. John Abarr in Montana. Sean Donahue. Augustus Invictus (born, Austin Gillespie) I could go on, if you'd like. If we start listing the GOP candidates who are "white supremacist-adjacent", we could be here all day.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/1...

https://www.rollingstone.com/p...

Well, mostly they're dismissed because the "proof" cited for them is none and easily debunked if you have at least a minimum of education and bother to actually dig past the surface.

On the other hand, you've got the libshit media calling the killing of white farmers and the seizing of their lands a "conspiracy theory" just because Trump dared tweet about it. You even get stuff like this:

Newsweek, March 2018: "A White Farmer Is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa and Authorities Do Nothing about It, Activists Say"

Newsweek, August 2018: "White Nationalists Praise Donald Trump For Spreading White South African Farmers Conspiracy Theory"

Vox: "It's hard to overstate how unprecedented that is: The president of the United States just directed the secretary of state to look into a racist conspiracy theory he saw on Fox News -- a conspiracy theory that is a major talking point for white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

Whether or not it's actually true is irrelevant." (bold mine)

Unfortunately for many of this this is not an option: the extra pollen due to AGW is just as bad for those of us with allergies... even after the 2-year course of weekly shots.

(And FWIW it may not be as toxic, but pollen accounts for some PM10 particulate matter, so it would be interesting to see this study enhanced to differentiate between pollen and more directly man-made pollution.)

I don't use Facebook. I agree with you about their strategy, though. However, your post starts off with a rather far-left set of claims about Infowars. I believe Alex is a complete fool/idiot, their "news" sucks, and it's full of boring conspiracy theories, but "trying to dehumanize transgender people" sounds like you have a far-left pet political agenda. What did he actually do, call them "trannies" or something? Do you have actual evidence for your claims? I only see some guy named French who works at the New York Times (an organization demonstrably hiring racist anti-white staff who the left has twisted into knots trying to crawfish an explanation as an "anti-troll") who makes that claim about Alex Jone's "language". I'd like to see what exactly the NYT author means because it sounds like typical left-wing over-sensitivity, to me unless I can see WTF the conspiracy nutjobs actually did to earn this claim. Compare Sarah Jeong's racist tweets to Alex Jone's (supposedly) "dehumanizing language" and I kinda gotta wonder who is the most deserving of the title "racist" or "dehumanizer".