Prometheus's profile page

Profile picture

Prometheus (user #71,127) Gold MedalSilver TrophySuper Star

Joined on April 13th, 2016 (1,284 days ago)

Last login was 89 days ago

Votes: 1,563

Questions: 38 view

Comments: 919

Profile views: 245

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

~ Martin Niemöller

Prometheus has submitted the following questions: voting view

Current science predicts that these two types of food will become a rare delicacy by 2050 due to current practises and climate trends. Which will you miss more? Chocolate or Seafood 2 years ago 141 votes 21 comments 0 likes
Do you support net neutrality? Yes or No 2 years ago 89 votes 16 comments 0 likes
Which crime is worse Embezzlement (employee stealing from employer) or Wage theft (employer stealing from employee) 2 years ago 158 votes 11 comments 0 likes
Was mathematics Invented or Discovered 2 years ago 154 votes 8 comments 0 likes
Who has a higher fan turnout Carolina Hurricanes or Trump's inauguration 2 years ago 91 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Which, in your opinion, should be of higher priority to the health care industry? Cost efficiency/Profit or Saving lives/Improving quality of life 2 years ago 135 votes 10 comments 0 likes
Which 21st century event is more disturbing Commercial seafood may be gone by 2048 or If the rising sea-level continues its current trend then Bangladesh, a country of 170 million people, may be completely underwater by the end of the century 2 years ago 132 votes 16 comments 0 likes
If we managed to intercept alien communications do we answer them? (i.e. should we initiate contact with aliens) Yes or No 2 years ago 106 votes 9 comments 0 likes
Do you support fear mongering for political gain? Yes or No 2 years ago 93 votes 15 comments 0 likes
Would you rather the government provide money, through benefits and tax cuts, to the Poor or Rich 2 years ago 153 votes 18 comments 0 likes
Why shouldn't John Bolton have been picked for US Secretary of State He is a huge warhawk (one main reason critics didn't want him chosen) or His bushy moustache (the reason Trump never chosen him) 2 years ago 63 votes 5 comments 0 likes
Should vote recounts be mandatory after every election Yes or No 2 years ago 152 votes 27 comments 0 likes
If a market becomes controlled by a monopoly power, thereby hurting the free market, is it the job of the government to intervene and make the market competitive again? Yes or No 2 years ago 92 votes 17 comments 0 likes
Repealing Obamacare could result in 36,000 more Americans dying each year. Is it the US government's job to protect those people by keeping Obamacare or replacing it with a better alternative or should they be apathetic to the lives of their citizens and repeal the legislation? Keep Obamacare or replace it with a better alternative or Repeal Obamacare 2 years ago 106 votes 15 comments 0 likes
Should the government be able to use eminent domain to secure land for use by a private company Yes or No 2 years ago 108 votes 7 comments 0 likes
A government employee discovers that the government is breaking the law and management refuses to do anything about it. Is it the duty of the employee to release that information to the public? Yes or No 2 years ago 108 votes 8 comments 0 likes
Do you support having the option of "None of the Above" on the ballot during elections? Yes or No 2 years ago 115 votes 8 comments 0 likes
Who would be a better chair of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean (establishment corporatist) or Keith Ellison (grassroots progressive) 2 years ago 69 votes 8 comments 0 likes
Would you rather live in a city where the enthnic breakdown of the population is composed of Only your ethnic composition or Equal distributions of a dozen ethnicities (including your own) with at least one from every continent. 2 years ago 96 votes 13 comments 0 likes
Since 9/11, in the United States a person more likely to be killed by a Right-Wing terrorist than a Muslim terrorist. Is the word terrorist and media coverage of terrorist acts disproportionately applied to Muslims in the US? Yes or No 2 years ago 64 votes 25 comments 0 likes
Does education impact the success of a society Yes or No 2 years ago 93 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Is empathy a Strength or Weakness 2 years ago 114 votes 7 comments 0 likes
If a company holds a monopoly on an industry, should the government intervene? Yes or No 3 years ago 80 votes 19 comments 0 likes
If monopolies form without government intervention, can a market system, as a whole, exist without any monopolies or government intervention? Yes or No 3 years ago 47 votes 5 comments 0 likes
Is healthcare a human right? Yes or No 3 years ago 81 votes 8 comments 0 likes
Do government regulations hurt the free market? Yes or No 3 years ago 52 votes 6 comments 0 likes
Which is the best reason to allow Gary Johnson into the presidential debates Because every candidate with a hypothetical chance of winning should be allowed to make their case to the American people regardless of ideology or Because he'll call Donald Trump a pussy 3 years ago 37 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Do you support your government providing amnesty to undocumented immigrants Yes or No 3 years ago 51 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Does the absence of government regulation allow for the formation of monopolies in an industry? Yes or No 3 years ago 45 votes 2 comments 0 likes
Do the formation of monopolies hurt free markets? Yes or No 3 years ago 34 votes 5 comments 0 likes
Do public schools in poor and affluent neighbourhoods deserve the same amount of funding? Yes or No 3 years ago 81 votes 20 comments 0 likes
Who would win in a dance off Arabian Prince or Prince of Persia 3 years ago 40 votes 1 comment 0 likes
Is it ever acceptable to refer to someone by a racial slur Yes or No 3 years ago 45 votes 10 comments 0 likes
Would you rather Drown a fish or Intensely stare at bubbles until they pop 3 years ago 115 votes 7 comments 0 likes
Which Trump nickname is better Crazy Bernie or Crooked Hillary 3 years ago 73 votes 4 comments 0 likes
Which fact about Donald Trump is more interesting He fathered all of Ivanka's children or His book has four chapter 11s 3 years ago 72 votes 4 comments 0 likes
Who was a more important 20th century figure Henry Kissinger or Martin Luther King Jr. 3 years ago 81 votes 8 comments 0 likes
Who was a more important 20th century figure Zodiac Killer or Adolf Hitler 3 years ago 66 votes 5 comments 0 likes

Prometheus has posted the following comments:

You need plenty of experience fighting the Sharingan to even stand a chance never mind MS. That's why Itachi could dummy people like Oro, Naruto, Kakashi, and Kuranai, but not someone like Guy. 2 months ago  
Political cleansing is totally the type of political ideology I aspire to have 2 months ago  
Not really. Communism is a type of socialism, but not the other way around. 2 months ago  
Freedom of speech has restrictions. This goes back to the classic case of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Freedom of speech does not cover dangerous speech. 2 months ago  
Declaring independence with the support of a democratically backed referendum should grant independence. The Confederate states did no such thing. I can say that slavery was he basis because that's what the Confederate states said when they attempted to leave the Union. They were quite explicit in their declarations. It doesn't really matter what Lincoln said. It matters what the South thought. He was an abolitionist when he was a Whig. The North was gradually restricting slavery laws and they wanted to enforce those new laws in the western territories. It was only a matter of time before the federal government started doing that in the South. Of course the vast majority never held slaves. I'm sure there were many reasons for them to fight for the Confederate forces. This isn't the 1860s anymore so those excuses don't work anymore. By the outbreak of the war a large majority of states in the Union had already banned slavery. The Union also had a much smaller population of slaves 2 years ago  
Overfishing, pollution, and rising ocean temperatures are hoaxes? 2 years ago +1
Declaring independence doesn't grant independence. And the whole base of the independence movement was to keep the slave industry alive. So there's no legitimate way to support the country without the slavery since that's what it stood for. Yes a lot of countries had slaves, but the US was not ahead of it's time. The British Empire had prohibited slavery in 1833, 30 years before the US finally did. 2 years ago  
Ok, but that's not relevant. The confederate states were a part of the US. They weren't a separate country. Either way you're still supporting a state where only two thirds enjoyed some degree of freedom of action and choice. 2 years ago  
The upper class can function just fine as they had for centuries prior. A vast majority of institutions do not need highly skilled workers. Economic inequality would skyrocket. There would be some incentive for a portion of the market to provide scholarships, but they would also be looking to fill their positions with foreigners. Plus, providing scholarships for children entering grade school is a very risky position. At that age it would be hard to gauge their academic future. There are many in the upper class that see ignorance as more important to pushing their agenda, such as the Koch brothers. There's already a shortage of skilled workers in the STEM fields. 2 years ago  
This isn't just another institution. Slaves represented a third of the population at the beginning of the war. So go ahead and support them, but what your supporting is the antithesis of freedom. 2 years ago  
The main reason the confederate states attempted to leave the Union was over slavery, as stated explicitly in many of their succession declarations. Slavery by definition is the absence of freedom. One could not possible support both the CSA and liberty. 2 years ago  
And the US war machine keeps on humming... 2 years ago +1
This would be completely against my morals. I find the "eye for an eye" mentality is archaic and hypocritical. Murder is wrong. Period. 2 years ago +1
They don't have that choice. Many don't have enough funds to purchase an education on their own. They want to use their property to buy it, but they don't have enough of it. Having a choice between no education and no education is not a choice. The education system isn't a business. It is fundamental to a strong economy to have a high quality and easily accessible education system. The economic losses from the massive depletion of highly trained workers entering the market would be detrimental and far outweigh the taxes paid in order to run the institutions. The public education system is a cornerstone to not just the economy, but also the rights and freedoms of the people. An ignorant population would make it easier to abuse and disregard freedoms. So if you're advocating against public schools for the sake of finances and freedom then you're doing the reality of the situation injustice. The common citizen would be poorer and have less control over their lives. This would only provide more wealth and power to the upper class. 2 years ago  
It's not a choice if you don't have the money either, so then neither side can claim theirs is freedom of choice. If you had voluntary taxation then the schools would be drastically underfunded as many already are. 2 years ago  
I'm not assuming anything. We don't have imagine a world without public schools, because we've already lived through it and many continue to today. Maybe there will be some charity-driven schools. They'd only be able to help a fraction of the children. We can look at universities presently. Many people are unable to go because they cant afford it. Many who do go will have such massive debt they become indentured servants once they graduate. Universal healthcare and education aren't just about acquiring the money to pay for everything. A huge part of it is building the infrastructure and setting regulations so everyone has equal access. It's about cutting through the middle man, which lowers prices. If you leave to the rich to test their compassion then you will be disappointed. Yeah many will donate, but then you have people like the Walton and the Koch families that couldn't care less. The economic gains from the institutions also pay society back for whatever taxes they spent. It is a fact that the only way to guarantee equal opportunity to access healthcare ad education is by establishing a public system. Otherwise, you are takin away that choice from the poorest of the people. If freedom is having choice then privatizing the system is not freedom. 2 years ago  
No there are millions of Americans that wont. Do you know how much it costs to get healthcare and education as well as save for retirement among other things? Before public education most people could not afford an education and many still won't if you privatized it. Millions of Americans still can afford health insurance even with Obamacare. The only people that are free to spend their money how they want under a completely privatized system is the upper class. That's not freedom. That's privilege. 2 years ago  
How are you supposed to do B yourself if you can't afford the services? 2 years ago +1
Does the EU even have any warfare motives? I think it's more of an economic union. 2 years ago  
One-party state is just a fancy word for dictatorship, which means no democratic right. And an ethnostate no less, so it will definitely result in disproportionate rights and freedoms. 2 years ago  
Considering I got terrible grades on authoritarianism that charge wouldn't make sense 2 years ago  
Human genetic engineering is a very dangerous road to go down. 2 years ago  
Close enough. Not 100% on any of the funding aspects. 2 years ago  
Totes mcgoats. I've long past obese. I'm almost large enough to be dictated by the theory of relativity. My father figure is wonderful. George Soros is a saint that sends me cheque in the mail every month along with a list of the real facts that I should believe. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go to my safe space, because I was challenged on something. 2 years ago  
Race-mixing is the best type of mixing 2 years ago  
Too a certain point I guess, but once you're around upper-middle class it has very little impact. It's not money itself that makes you happy though. It's generally the fact that you're able to purchase your own house, car, food, etc. and not having to worry about not getting by. Personally, I'm not motivated by economic gains, so as long as I have enough to live a modestly comfortable lifestyle then I'm fine. 2 years ago +2
#BuildTheFirewall 2 years ago  
Investigations are based off of reason. If we know that one of the two people is a serial killer then there is more than enough reason to keep tabs on them. Giving people their fundamental freedoms shouldn't mean putting society in danger. The killer hasn't been let loose. What makes you think it's immoral? 2 years ago  
If I have no one of figuring out which is which then I clearly have no way of proving either is the perpetrator in court. Plus, I refuse to knowingly convict an innocent person. That is unconstitutional. Of course we I've narrowed it down to two people then I would continue the investigation well keeping a close eye on both of them. 2 years ago +1
Considering Bush crashed the US economy, started a mass surveillance program, committed war crimes by invading a sovereign nation, tortured POWs, etc.; and did a terrible job protecting the US from 9/11 following with a terrible job brining justice to the victims yeah he was pretty bad. 2 years ago  
Russell's teapot. I can never be certain deities don't exist, but like any other scientific hypothesis, until it passes the rigorous process of scientific method I cannot support the idea. 2 years ago  
If you think transgenderism and transsexualism are cosplaying and LARPing then you clearly don't understand what they are. 2 years ago  
So if you had a sex change and have a penis then you have to use the woman's room? I don't know what you think cosplay is, but that definitely isn't it. It's fine if you don't think that protecting freedom is important. 2 years ago  
You just finished telling me you have no problem with he government getting into your personal business. This isn't about political correctness. This is about giving the people the freedom to live their own lives. This is about not letting the government tell you how you should think. Freedom of conscience is arguably the most important freedom. 2 years ago  
Limiting freedom is a distraction issue? I hope you realize no one does that. You are talking about an issue that has be fabricated. There is absolutely no statistics to back that assertion up. Plus, the government getting into people's lives doesn't even solve this non-existent issue. No one is going to check these people's birth certificates. Now some creepy bastard doesn't need to dress up. He can just walk into the woman's room. There are many trans men that look like men, so who's to say he was not born with female genitalia and just transitioned? If you think limiting freedom is a distraction issue then you must really not like freedom. 2 years ago  
Totes, that's why they're still poor. 2 years ago +1
The government getting into your personal life doesn't bother you? You must really love big government. 2 years ago  
Depends on the origins of the meat 2 years ago  
Depends on the origins of the fur 2 years ago +1
Theft is a crime plain and simple. 2 years ago  
It's a pretty safe bet to say most people would prefer to stay in their own country or travel to a safer country with more freedom and better quality of life. Not everyone wants to be rules by an orange ape. 2 years ago +2
There are multiple libertarian ideologies. They range from "limited" to no government. Democracy is not a crutch for my ideology. It is my ideology. Democracy is the ultimate protecter of freedom and is the only system that keeps the power in the hands of the people. Yes, democracy in many instances has given way to authoritarianism. That is why it is important to not take democratic rights for granted. Democracy is freedom. Sometimes democracy fails to support freedom. That is where the constitution and the courts come into play. They are failsafes. If the government crosses the line the courts should have the power to stop them. The media plays a large role too. It is he job of the media to speak truth to power. Freedom, peace, and improved quality of life should be the goals of the government. Democracy is the best system at achieving those goals. The government should also maintain a certain amount of power in order to maintain freedom. If the government is too powerful it may extend its reach. If the government is too weak it is can not fight larger corporations and special interest groups. It may also be important to decentralize power, so one government body does not hold too much power over another. The government should always be accountable to the people. Once the government ceases to be of, for, and by the people then you have lost democracy. The libertarian ideology hands power over to he corporations. It is an ideology that is at best oligarchical. 2 years ago  
So nothing really changes for me 2 years ago  
Humans are the only species to have ever asked a question. The ability to formulate a question is, in my opinion, what makes a species "intelligent." Well over 99% of humans are able to ask questions, so yes they are an intelligent species as a whole. 2 years ago +3
I don't wanna force people to live under a system they don't want either. The problem is there will always be someone that doesn't support a system. Private healthcare is a system not the lack of. In a private system many people lose their right to healthcare. The choice is not universal. In fact, it's a minority that gets a choice, so to frame the private system as a system of choice is incredibly misleading and just plain incorrect. The system that has the most support should be the system that exists. It is the politician's job to persuade the public, not force them to live under a system they don't want. The majority of people support universal healthcare. Democracy is the choice and should be the ultimate decider. At the voter poles is where you get your right to choose. I am a huge supporter of democracy. Any democratic ideology is superior to authoritarian ideologies. 2 years ago  
Canada is one of the least corrupt countries in the world 2 years ago  
I find hunting to be a wonderful pastime. 2 years ago  
I prefer to just own guns that I actually use to hunt. Plus, I am a staunch supporter of regulating the ownership of military style weapons, so if I were to own one that would make me a hypocrite. 2 years ago +1
Far less unhealthy. One hit from a hookah is the equivalent to smoking one whole cigarette. That means one hookah session is equivalent to smoking a whole pack of cigarettes. 2 years ago +1
And maybe I drive perfectly and don't need car insurance. The issue is eventually you will get sick and you won't know when. People go through life like that all the time. Do you know what happens when they do get sick? They go to the ER. They also ignore symptoms and wait until they get really sick before going. The economic impacts of that are far greater. They could get cancer and get billed tens of thousands of dollars. This has nothing to do with having faith in the government. The government doesn't run off of trust. It runs off of legislation. The legislation tells the government what to do. Under a truly democratic system the people are in control of that legislation not the government. I don't understand how saving money is theft. You may want to try a different word. Also, forcing people to live under a system that most do not want is undemocratic. 2 years ago  
Lol how does this violate people's rights? This takes a huge burden off of the healthcare system and actually works. Yes, there are many ways to reduce obesity. This way is easy and quite effective. The money gained from the tax can be used subsidize better food production practices. 2 years ago  
Considering the taxes would be less than the premiums you'd pay under a private system you'd be saving money. 2 years ago  
No one is forced to get insurance. The individual mandate only serves to incentivize people to get coverage. Plus, a vast majority of uninsured people are exempt from it anyways. It actually didn't cause premiums to skyrocket. Premiums were skyrocketing prior to the ACA and their increase started to slow down with the ACA. If you wanna talk about premiums, the ACA actually made healthcare more affordable. Obamacare itself isn't insurance. Under the ACA, private insurance companies are still tasked with providing insurance to the public. That's a pretty large assumption that no one has read it. I happen to believe that the goal of healthcare should be to reduce costs and provide a higher quality of life for everyone. When I say "everyone" I am not exaggerating. The data shows that a universal healthcare system is the best at doing that. This isn't about more or less government, because at the end of the day the "control" of the government doesn't really matter if everyone is suffering. 2 years ago  
What makes Obamacare so awful? I have a feeling we have far different criticisms of it. 2 years ago +1
It's better by every metric. Trump care will cause around 25 million Americans to be uninsured over the next 10 years. It will also greatly increase premiums. Obamacare was successful in slowing the growth of premiums. They were growing at a much faster rate before the ACA took effect. Basically, with Trumpcare those that need healthcare the most would get it the least. 2 years ago +2
In a lot of cases, morals and political ideology go hand and hand. I wouldn't be able to be with someone whose morals are too different from mine. I don't care about religion. 2 years ago +2
I'm not sure if you asking if the wage gap exists or if there's good reasoning for the wage gap existing. Either way the wage gap exists and it's not for any good reasoning. There is plenty of data and information on the subject. Look it up. Seriously, you don't even have to take my word for it. The only requirements are that you're literate and have internet access, which you met by reading this. 2 years ago  
I'm sure there are some instances where women are making as much as men. I'm talking about on a general basis. If you average out women's pay for the same work they make less. And actually the pay gap is even larger in the US than Canada. I know things by looking at the data that is compiled by the government and private firms. I don't know how exactly you are seeing the "truth" consistently, since this is an international trend that is far larger and more extensive than any of your personal experience. Personal experience in these types of situations actually tends to poorly represent the true trends since people aren't wearing their income on their sleeves and trends vary from place to place. 2 years ago  
And what do American college campuses have to do with this? 2 years ago +5
It depends on the industry, but generally it's harder for women. Because of this, women generally have to settle for worse jobs. That's why 2/3 of people making minimum wage in the US are women. 2 years ago +4
Lol where'd you read that? I can assure you it is most definitely not a myth. 2 years ago  
That makes absolutely no sense 2 years ago +1
You definitely aren't very critical of him. 2 years ago  
What I find hilarious is that Trump will clearly bully CNN at press conferences and they respond by signing contracts with more Trump surrogates to appear on their programs. Such cowards. 2 years ago  
I don't know why you still like Trump. He wastes so much money. For example, did you know it costs US taxpayers half a million dollars a year for Melania Trump to live in NYC, because she doesn't want to live in the White House? 2 years ago +1
I don't agree with all of those points, but that's irrelevant. There is no time in the near future in which the US would stop being considered a developed country. 2 years ago +2
lolwut? As much as I love to rant I'm going to cut this one short. There's this magical land called the world wide web. It's full of easy to access information and facts. Judging by this question I know you haven't read any of it. If you think they are hate groups then you should also try looking in a dictionary too. Or better yet just go straight to BLM's website or many of the various feminist websites. 2 years ago +6
I find people who refuse to distinguish between the two terms have nothing valuable to add to the conversation. I don't know if they are blind as much as they just don't care. For some people ideology and pushing an agenda comes before facts and information. If equal rights goes against your ideology then it's politically advantageous to equate it with a more radical position. Then you get a bunch of gullible people on the internet reading it and regurgitating it without thinking. This tactic has been used against every single civil rights movement that has every existed. I'm not a fan of the word "feminazi". It's only use to to try and undermine a legitimate civil rights movement and equate it to a small radical group of people. It's like equating all conservatives to fascists or all liberals to communists. I've met many many feminists in my life and I've never met a single "feminazi". 2 years ago +10
Not sure why fascist and racist are in quotation marks. Only reason I chose B was because I refuse to condone violence. I would prefer all speakers are allowed to speak. Those that go against the predominant beliefs of the university council too. It's never publicized, but many speakers are rejected not by the students but by the staff in charge. I am a huge fan of safe spaces however. Bigotry should not be tolerated in an educational institution. 2 years ago +1
Oh God they're both such morons 2 years ago +1
Generally, industrialization and economic growth causes a decrease in population growth. 2 years ago +1
MLB doesn't seem to care when guys cheat by using performance enhancing drugs, yet Pete Rose will never make the HOF even though he has the most hits in MLB history, because he bet against his own team. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he should make it either. The HOF should exist to honour those that represented the league and the sport in the highest regard with both their exceptional ability to play and the way they conducted their activities both on and off the field. 2 years ago  
His policies have drastically reduced worker wages. Wages have stagnated since Reaganomics took effect even though productivity has not. That means workers are making less money for the same amount of work. If you wanna talk about supporting families then you should be against his administration. He created an economy of crony capitalism, which has been shown to stunt economic growth. If you wanna talk about a strong economy then you should be against his administration. This isn't about being politically correct. This is about opposing corruption, which is the number one threat to freedom. If you wanna talk about loving freedom then you should be against his administration. 2 years ago  
But semen are human cells in the process of becoming babies. What makes a zygote so special and not a semen cell? 2 years ago  
Sure 2 years ago  
Reagan's economic policies have robbed hardworking Americans of trillions of dollars of productivity. He also ran one of the most corrupt administrations in a long time. He also employed disgusting human beings like Roger Stone and Roger Ailes. 2 years ago +1
Who said there wasn't a demand for education? What I'm saying is in the US the education system is dropping in quality after decades of GOP cuts and political tampering. Education is not a commodity. It is a necessity. You don't understand the "free market" if you think that everyone would have the opportunity at a quality education if the whole system was privatized. This isn't theoretical. We know what happens. What part of the public schools system is indoctrination? 2 years ago  
Yeah penicillin was discovered by accident, but it wasn't mass produced until the 40s by the US government. Yeah, maybe they would have been created without taxpayer money. It would have involved first the discovery of much of the scientific knowledge that they derive their functions from. That would have taken decades longer at least. That's decades of lost economic growth.. I definitely didn't assume companies wouldn't invest in creating useful technology. What I'm saying is companies are generally disinterested in investing in science and technology that they don't see a return on investment with. There's plenty of examples of useful science and mathematics that were once thought to be useless in the real world and now form the basis for multi-billion dollar industries. 2 years ago  
So do you believe that masturbation should be illegal? 2 years ago  
A fetus in the first stages of pregnancy doesn't even have a form. It's just a lump of cells. If that deserves rights then why shouldn't those rights extend to a semen or egg cell? Shouldn't male masturbation be illegal too? I happen to believe it isn't my right or the state's right to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body. 2 years ago  
So you don't think the government should have funded the research that brought the public penicillin, internet, microwave, freeze drying, LEDs, fire retardant material, along with many other priceless advances in science and technology that form the basis of many multi-billion dollars industries. People do have the right to decide where there money goes. There is a small fee that people must pay in order to keep civilization running. That's called democracy. Most people want the benefits of society. 2 years ago  
Getting the power back to the people means strengthening democratic rights and providing the population with a quality education. Ignorant voters are just as detrimental to democracy as autocratic leaders. 2 years ago  
Abortion rights aren't a partisanship issue in a lot of countries 2 years ago  
Once China overtakes the US as the innovation and discovery capital of the world don't go complaining. The public school system is the whole reason the US was number one in the first place. It was the "wasteful" government spending that built the infrastructure for every single major industry in the US. It was "wasteful" government spending that created countless industries. It was "wasteful" government spending that invented the Internet. There is wasteful spending, but in many cases the government is much better at spending money then the private corporations do. 2 years ago  
In that case it wouldn't take long for monopolies to take control and the market won't be free anymore. At that point who will fight for the people? 2 years ago  
The government trying to cut money at every turn is what resulted in the lead poisoning of thousands of children in Flint and many many more cases across the country. I happen to get made when the government's ignorant budget cuts destroy people's lives. The irony is the state government's attempt to save a couple million dollars resulted in the federal government having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try and clean up the mess. Ignorant budget cuts just lead to more spending down the line. 2 years ago  
What bugs me is that the cuts always impact the poorer communities. This is a typical Republican move. They cut the budget. Then in a decade or two, once the schools have gone to shít because of the underfunding, they turn around and go "See the public system is garbage. We should privatize it". No, you jackass. It's garbage because you decided to defund it. 2 years ago  
Putting women in charge of powerful positions doesn't excuse him from much. Even with that it's still a vast majority men. Either way there is still the issue with the many sexual assault allegations he's faced along with his "grab them by the pussy" incident. Him and his administration have taken strong stances against abortion and homosexuality too. The latter would impact the rights of gay women. Trump also nominated Andy Puzder as his Labor Secretary. The only reason he withdrew was because of the mounting opposition due to his terrible labour record. Leaving the TPP was just a smart, strategical move in a growing anti-free trade climate. (Although, I would argue the TPP isn't even a free trade deal, but that's a conversation for another day). 2 years ago  
Don't really care about A and B doesn't make sense. Fourteen defining characteristics of Fascism: Trump and his administration do all 14 of these. "Support for more government" means absolutely nothing. The Trump administration supports many policies that involve more government whether it's their strong anti-immigration, anti-abortion stance, border wall, or other stances. Also, the Hitler Regime loosened gun control regulations in Germany. 2 years ago +2
Doesn't matter to me as long as they are secular 2 years ago  
It involves the government protecting the people's right to internet access. Do you not believe that people should have the right to access the internet? It also protects against service providers from exploiting the little guy or pushing their political agenda on the public. It essential protects the digital free market. Without it the service providers get to choose which websites prosper and which die, not the consumer. 2 years ago  
It's essentially the position that internet service providers should not be allowed to slow down or block access to certain websites. Without it providers could block sites that don't pay an extra service fee to them or they could block sites that are critical of the providers and/or hold opposing political positions. Without it they may also slow down internet access to certain neighbourhoods based on wealth. Net neutrality is the position that everyone should have equal access to the internet and every legal website should have equal access to consumers. 2 years ago  
You mean the dark web? Net neutrality has nothing to do with that. That content is still blocked and illegal. 2 years ago  
So then you don't support net neutrality. 2 years ago  
It depends on which test you take, but you should fall somewhere in the green square like this: 2 years ago  
Damn authoritarians 2 years ago  
Because I have morals. Plus, I wouldn't have a problem getting research funding for the rest of my career and I'd have a secure job. 2 years ago +1
"More people would die" You seriously don't consider that a downside? 2 years ago  
After all of the sexism, racism, islamophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry that he spewed on a daily basis conservatives never cared. It took his explicit support for pedophilia that finally opened the eyes for many of his supporters to how messed up this guy really is. Good riddance to his career. He will not be missed. 2 years ago +1
Ok that makes sense. And yeah I wouldn't want to let down my buddy either 2 years ago  
So pretty much Goku in Dragon Ball since he spent that whole show exploring for the dragon balls. 2 years ago  
I don't like being hyped. I prefer not to be the centre of attention. But that sad little insert in your story "None of the girls added me tho". If you just unleashed some comedic genius and they still don't want seconds then they be crazy. 2 years ago +1
From a scientific and historical standpoint A is extremely important. B would suck. Part of what watching sports, for example, so great is that anything can happen and anyone can win. Victory wouldn't be sweet if you already knew you were gonna win. 2 years ago  
None of the users deserve to die... 2 years ago  
um...... 2 years ago  
You like it because it results in plea bargains? That's an odd reason. What makes plea bargains so great in your mind? Besides the fact that it generally doesn't make them feel good, just because it could the victim's family feel good doesn't make it right. Handing out multiple life sentences is just as effective in keeping society safe from the perpetrator. I'm not from Guelph but ok. Not being from a low crime area doesn't make someone less understanding of the judicial system. A large reason Canada has less crime than the US is because our system is geared towards rehabilitation and not revenge and punishment. Statistics show that trying to rehabilitate criminals is the best way to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending. It also sets good examples for society and tells the public that everyone is worth trying to save and life should not be taken lightly. 2 years ago  
All are finite. The observable universe has a finite radius of 13.8 billion lightyears. We are unaware of how large the actual universe is. It may be expanding, but that does not mean it won't contract at one point in the future. Time has a finite length of 13.8 billion years, since time began at the big bang. Matter is also limited to the amount that formed during the big bang. 2 years ago  
Easily yet Donovan Bailey has posted a faster time? 2 years ago  
Protesting is using your freedom of speech. Rioting is a different matter and I'd never condone that. I do believe that everyone should have the opportunity to speak on university campuses, since that is where you should have the most diversity of opinion. People who tend to make hard political stances get rejected by the university. That applies to both right and left-wing speakers. Generally, the right-wing speakers are rejected by the students and the left-wing speakers are rejected by the council. 2 years ago +1
Justice is based off of what is morally right and just, not what is convenient and makes you feel better. If murder is wrong then it is wrong. If you're going to create loopholes then you clearly don't think murder is that wrong. No one should have the power to take the life of another. Period. If you call killing someone "justice" then you to take a serious look at your moral. 2 years ago  
Much easier to get to Lithuania and watch some solid NKL and LKL action 2 years ago  
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Political ideology has nothing to do with caring about race. There is an infinite amount of examples from all corners of the political spectrum of people playing identity politics. 2 years ago +1
Racism began because society and the media spread the notion that one race or ethnicity is better than another. The best way to reduce racism is to spread the truth, which is that no one is better than another person due to differences in race and ethnicity. Also, a lot of the racism spread through the media is implicit. Having certain races or ethnicities appear in entertainment in only very specific stereotypical roles teaches and reinforces certain bigoted mindsets. 2 years ago +2
Looks more like something I'd find where I live 2 years ago  
I feel like everyone that picked A is probably over sensative 2 years ago  
The extreme radical right isn't compatible with democracy just as the extreme radical left isn't either. If you put that kind of ideology in charge democracy wouldn't last long. Democracy is very much possible under a monarchy as is the case in Canada, UK, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands, Bhutan, etc. 2 years ago +1
We can't see water either. It's completely clear 2 years ago +1
I think family and friends are the greatest wealth a person can have. Not in terms of numbers though but rather in terms of quality of the relationships. 2 years ago  
I wouldn't go that far. We aren't even the only conscious organism on our planet. I'm being a smart ass though. To be fair, I get what you're saying. We are the only species on this planet that is able to ask questions, which I think is the defining factor that makes us "intelligent" lifeforms. I do agree that without an intelligent being to look up at the sky and wonder the universe is very dull and one can question whether it even exists. It's the old tree falling in the woods idea. However, I highly doubt we are the only being able to ponder the universe. And I personally believe that the universe does still exist. I think life is what gives it meaning not form. Meaning is important to me, but I do not believe it's important to the universe. That's how I look at the question, but the beauty of philosophy is that we are both correct. 2 years ago +1
We orbit a lonely star in a galaxy of over a 100 billion stars in the centre of the observable universe that spans 27.6 billion light years from end to end. In the grand scheme of things we're just a clump of cells created from the ashes of dead stars that managed to gain some degree of dominance over a tiny blue pixel. We don't contribute anything towards the formation or destruction of even the most insignificant celestial bodies. The only things important to the universe are the basic laws of physics that govern our existence. None of that really matters in the end though, because we're still here. We've managed to achieve incredible scientific feats such as creating synthetic life, creating our own elements, harnessing the power of nuclear fission and some degree of fusion, and discovering subatomic particles like the Higgs Boson. We definitely have the potential to become one of the most dominant species in the galaxy. 2 years ago  
More important matters? There is nothing more important than education. An educated pubic improves every other aspect of society. Education is the ultimate defender of democracy. We know what happens when public education doesn't exist, since it hadn't existed for most of human history. In fact, it still doesn't exist in many areas of the planet. 2 years ago +1
#NevaFoget 2 years ago  
I find capital punishment to be a very unethical, archaic, and short sighted punishment and refuse to support it's use. Period. 2 years ago +1
You gotta look deeper then. George Lucas hasn't been shy about the relationship and has even referred to soldiers as Nazis. JJ Abrams also said that the Nazis inspired the villains in the sequel trilogy as well. Not everything is explicit. That's what differentiates a general movie from a classic. 2 years ago  
They aren't synonymous at all. They have two completely different definitions. Sex deals with your biological makeup while gender deals with your psychological makeup and takes into account social constructs like masculinity and femininity. Binary deals with the division between masculinity and femininity. They are social constructs meaning they don't exist in nature. They are made up. So yes intersex is just as existent in nature as cisgender. You don't refer to animals in nature as cisgender either. We don't even consider animals in nature to have gender identities. Dogs aren't masculine or feminine. They are just dogs. Yes, many documents still follow a binary system. What is that supposed to mean? The documents are just a reflection of the people that make them, so if the people believe in a binary system then that's how they write it. The reason you never saw a variation of genders before is not because they never existed. It was because society was not very accepting of people who didn't fit social norms. It's the same reason homosexuality was "rare." And so what if you have to use another pronoun? I have to use "She" and "her" when referring to you. Why can't I just use "it"? 2 years ago  
\o 2 years ago  
It represents the Confederacy. The Confederacy represents slavery. They fought a war against the US, so to the US it also represents treachery. Of course it supports racism, racism towards black people. And of course it supports hatred, hatred towards the US. It doesn't enrage me. It's your right just likes it your right to fly a Nazi flag. But I find it completely unethical when a public institution flies the flag. 2 years ago +3
Alright then I'll take the GDP growth easy. 2 years ago  
I don't know who either of them are 2 years ago  
They represent the Nazi party. That's not even a joke. You can look it up. 2 years ago  
All proponents of the archaic binary system seem to all believe they have an incredibly high understanding of the human mind. If you think you understand how it works then you probably don't. It's called the Dunning–Kruger effect. Tradition, which by itself has no factual backing, seems to be the only thing supporting the idea that only two genders exist. By definition an unlimited number of definitions exist since they are humans concepts to begin with and don't exist outside of society. 2 years ago +5
Cuck is shorter. Plus, it provides a great insight into the fears of the national socialist alt-right. They seem to have a fear of black men taking their wives. They are weak. 2 years ago  
He has definitely been called a misogynist... 2 years ago  
The whole point of the Order of the Sith is to represent fascism. Based on my moral code, fascism is evil. 2 years ago  
More progressive 2 years ago  
It's just a probability. In many senses knowing how to use probability to your advantage. Counting cards would be an example of shifting probability in your direction. So it's not necessarily the probability itself, but more how you use it that would be the skill. 2 years ago  
Besides a very select few notable one's, my knowledge of the American politicians only goes back roughly 85 years. Now if you wanna talk about Canadian politicians I'm all game. 2 years ago  
I'm not quite sure how to measure that. I learned all of my math and pretty much all of my scientific knowledge from school. I don't understand why anyone would think school is obsolete. Statistics show that the more math and science courses students take the more successful they tend to be later in life. All of that information that people complain isn't useful irl is literally my whole major and will be the basis of my future career. Schools, especially at younger ages, need to teach you a broad range of things for multiple reasons. Having a better understanding in science will give you a better understanding of the world in general and shapes you political and moral bases. As well as science, having a better understanding in math and language allows you to better understand and solve problems in life. It makes it easier for you to learn and adapt to more situations. They also need to teach a variety of content, because they don't get to choose what your future career is, you do. If you have a good understanding in more fields then you can better choose what you want to do in the future. You can then further specialize your knowledge through college or apprenticeship. The belief that school and much of its curriculum is obsolete is just incredibly narrow sighted and ignorant. 2 years ago +1
Is this 10% a quarter, year, over the whole 10 years or what? 2 years ago  
Milo is a pseudo-intellectual cuck, but he doesn't use violence to push his agenda. He always whines about everything. Every time he gets confronted with any actual information contradictory to his points he just brings up his sexual orientation and makes unfounded claims about the other person's character and intentions. Antifa actually uses violence. 2 years ago +1
98% of people don't exercise enough to need to replenish electrolytes with a sports drink. Especially after only 4 miles all you're really doing is drinking a sugary drink. 2 years ago  
Considering climate change is the most serious issue every to face humans in the history of our species, I would begin to establish a realistic approach of converting the worlds energy supply off of fossil fuels. I would also establish a world constitution which guarantees various fundamental freedoms to every person, such as freedom of religion and reproductive freedom. 2 years ago  
I think you are misunderstanding the problem. What she's referring to is that both practises involve killing, so if your logic behind being pro-life is that killing is wrong then that logic must also be applied to capital punishment. Plus, in the case of capital punishment the perpetrator can also just stay in prison. It's not like they are getting set free or executed. And I'd also like to point out not everyone on death row actually broke the law. Many are innocent, so along with fetuses, there are also people on death row that haven't murdered or raped. 2 years ago +2
They can be depending on your justification for supporting, or not supporting, their practise. For example, if you believe that abortion is wrong, because all life is sacred then to be logically consistent you must also oppose the death penalty. 2 years ago +1
Actually I believe the product of someone's labour belongs to them. That's why I want wages to be fixed to productivity. Under the current system, pretty much all new revenue from increased productivity goes right into the pockets of the companies. Statistical data shows that out of the two major economic systems, only the Keynesian system is effective at returning the money to the workers. That is a statistical fact. 2 years ago +1
My favourite thing about Trump using the executive orders is when Obama was president they were whining that executive orders were unconstitutional. Obama was just another neoliberal that posed as a progressive. He was an amazing orator, but when it came down to business he was a huge pussy. I agree, I hated when liberals would ignore that stuff too. Then they went on to ignore the clear issues with Clinton and nominated her. 2 years ago +1
Last person I voted for federally was John Rafferty. 2 years ago  
Yeah, well you have some sense. I understand why a president would use executive orders when they don't control Congress, but Trump can get whatever he wants so it baffles me that'd he'd do this. Either way I can't see the Trump administration lowering the deficit. The administration has already prevented accountants from taking into account the economic impact repealing Obamacare would have, so I don't even know if we'll have an accurate picture. 2 years ago  
GOP are such a joke. When Obama was president executive actions were "unconstitutional," but now that they sit on the throne it's completely fine. Don't forget he's opened an investigation into voter fraud where he claimed without any evidence that at least 3 million people illegally voted. Sounds like a complete waste of taxpayer money. 2 years ago +4
His administration is using the horrific terrorist attack in Quebec where 6 innocent people were killed as justification for his Muslim ban. Just disgusts me to see someone use such a tragic event to push their political agenda. None of the major political parties in Canada are doing that. Instead they are all coming together as we all should during times of tragedy and trying to work together to help those impacted and ensure everyone else remains safe. 2 years ago +6
Although Federer has been better historically at the Australian Open, he hasn't won a Grand Slam since 2012 and age is getting to him. Nadal has had some injury trouble over the last couple years, so I don't really know how well he'll perform. He caught a break when Raonic's thigh injury started flaring up during their match. Should be a pretty epic final regardless. Too bad its at 3:30am so I cant really watch it. 2 years ago  
I can't take the desert climate. It dries my eyes out so quickly. 2 years ago +1
This is a hard one, but Mulan is the best Disney Princess movie, so had to pick my boi Mushu 2 years ago  
Small ball is where basketball is heading. The quick run-and-gun offence revolutionized in 2004 with Mike D'Antoni and Steve Nash in Phoenix is where the NBA is now. There's less of an emphasis on defence and more on outshooting your opponents, with a larger role given to 3-point shooting. 2 years ago  
Drug use should be decriminalized across the board. In the case of cannabis, there is no question it should be legalized. 2 years ago +1
Because that's your sh*t 2 years ago  
Oooh nice. Why am I not surprised? 2 years ago  
It used to tell you how many people were in the chatroom, but now it doesn't and since then it died very quickly 2 years ago  
Except Trump supporters are on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum. Besides the fact they are completely different, yes they are very similar. 2 years ago  
I'm not gonna physically assault someone just because that person is a racist dick. The Alt-Right had been trying to pay people to cause violence and disrupt the peaceful protests during Trump's inauguration, so being violent just plays into their hands. Richard Spencer, although being a white supremacist, hasn't done anything legally wrong as far as I know. Freedom of speech applies both ways. 2 years ago  
Junior pride 2 years ago  
what major? 2 years ago  
There's women that are Republican? 2 years ago  
My boi Peritwinkle although Otakumon was pretty sad too 2 years ago  
Some of them do yes, because I don't believe government spending is an accurate metric of government and societal quality. Actually my positions takes a lot power away from the government and corporations and returns it to the people. These include many independent, non-partisan watchdogs, legislation improving and ensuring democratic rights, tougher laws in regards to campaign donations and fundraising, more transparency in government spending and operations, etc. I demand these things across the board in every country. Canada is much different than the US and I talk different things for my country. For example, senators in Canada are appointed by the government, not elected like in the US. I am a strong supporter of a democratically elected senate. I believe the government should be an extension of the people and exist only to serve the people. Everything the government does should be to promote equal opportunity and improve the quality of life of every citizen. That's the metric I use to judge a government. 2 years ago  
I wouldn't say capitalism is, but crony capitalism is. Prior to Reagan, workers wagers were tied to productivity; as workers produced more they made more. Since Reagan and his libertarian economic agenda, also known as Reaganomics, workers wages have flatlined and productivity continues to increase. The workers are being exploited under this system and any further productivity is just profit in the companies' pockets. Essentially, under this system the companies are stealing from the workers. The idea that taxation is theft is just baloney. Taxation is a payment you owe to society to keep it running. Do you know what happens when you don't have a tax system in place? There was once something called the "Alberta Advantage." They never paid taxes there. Instead the government and its services were paid by royalties from fossil fuel production. The government never saved any of that money in a "rainy day" fund. It's also a very unstable revenue stream since markets go up and down. Taxation is stable. So when oil prices plummeted not long ago Alberta had no money and they had no "rainy day" money to stimulate the economy while it recovered. Theft is using society's services and not paying back. The lack of taxation in Alberta meant money owed to future generations was stolen from them. 2 years ago +1
Clearly you do need more work done since there are thousands of places around the country with lead levels in drinking water far above standards. What the country really needs is tougher regulations on drinking water and far more spending on infrastructure. The whole water system is falling apart and needs to be replaced. 2 years ago  
If a massive government means keeping my drinking water and food safe to consume then what's wrong with massive? Judging a government for spending money doesn't make sense. You should be judging it on what it's spending on. You know high levels of lead increases crime. It makes people more aggressive. It was regulations on drinking water, food, petroleum, paint, and other products that reduced its levels in the environment and the people. So you'd rather increase the crime rate and reduce quality of life then force companies to comply with a some regulations? 2 years ago  
Technologically yes, but environmentally no. We are currently facing the most important event in the history of our species. The one silver lining is China has decided to take a lead role in righting climate change and has invested hundreds of billions of dollars into renewable energy projects. Meanwhile, the current US administration believes climate change is a hoax creates by the Chinese -_- 2 years ago  
A freeze on regulations and federal jobs is working against the people. The Flint water crisis was an example of what happens with poor regulations and a government looking to cut spending whenever and wherever possible. 2 years ago  
Lol the moron can't even speak French. Plus, he has terribly unpopular positions like selling Senate seats, which is the definition of corruption. He thinks because he's a reality tv star/ businessman he can repeat what Trump managed. The thing he's missing is Canada is experiencing a completely different political atmosphere. 2 years ago +1
The previous administration had a very tough vetting process and no one during the election was calling for unvetted refugees to be allowed in, so that's like being excited for the president speaking English. Also, Trump has helped move many of those manufacturing jobs overseas prior to his life in politics. His attacks on NAFTA are also useless since the damage is already done. 2 years ago +1
Sniping is great for the desert maps. Although I hate Fao Fortress the most. 2 years ago  
Dragon Ball is leagues better than DBZ. DBZ is great, but it's all about the fighting. Dragon Ball is funnier and has a better plot. 2 years ago  
I just say this because France derived it's name from the Frankish Empire which was ruled by the Franks (a group of German tribes). 2 years ago  
My goal is to reduce murder rates, period. Gun control is a very simple way to do that. I'm not advocating for the prohibition of gun ownership. I support a set of reasonable regulations. Considering the past was full of privatization and the lack of regulations, there's a good argument to be made that the libertarian position is quite regressive. 2 years ago  
Right. Actually none of my gun control positions strip and healthy law-abiding citizen from purchasing firearms. I do believe that suspected terrorists and people with certain types of mental illness should not be allowed to purchase firearms. I also support things such as background checks, limits set on cartridge sizes, and restrictions on weapons that due not serve any legitimate purpose in society (e.g. assault rifles, rocket launchers, light machine guns, handguns, etc). That's what it takes to reduce murder rates. If you are actually committed to that position you wouldn't waste your tie on immigrants, since they decrease the murder rate, overall. Technically, if you want to use the word "regressive" properly then getting rid of gun control is regressive. 2 years ago  
#BuildTheNorthernWall 2 years ago +3
You aren't being ravaged by them though. They commit less crime than the general population. Illegal immigration isn't correlated with higher crime. If you want to reduce murder rates then you need to enforce some level of stronger gun control. You also need to provide better education and outlets for men if you want to reduce rape numbers. There are people that believe educating students about BDSM during sexual education in schools may do just that. It's easy to use a powerless minority as a scape goat, but that doesn't actually solve anything. 2 years ago  
Neither are very good groups. Any group that think it's alright to use violence to push their agenda is bad. Many groups contain violent elements; however, it's due to some insubordinate members against the position of the group. These two groups explicitly call for violence. Neo-Nazi groups tend to be more successful politically. Anti-fascists are loosely held together by one position, anti-fascism, while national socialism covers a wide range of policies. 2 years ago +2
In what way? 2 years ago  
I was very disappointed that Obama never gave a shoutout to the Biden memes during his leaving speech 2 years ago  
Considering they are committing crimes at a lower rate than the native population, that's a good sign a lot of the driving forces to commit crime are found within the country. Using illegal immigrants as a scape goat doesn't reduce crime in any way. All it does is cost the taxpayers more money.Yeah, you actually have a very good idea of who these people are. They are impoverished people looking for a good income and a safe neighbourhood. 2 years ago  
If you think the Democratic Party is crypto-communist then either you don't know the party's policies or what crypto-communism is. They aren't even that left-wing. A large faction is fairly centrist. The GOP is incredibly corrupt. I don't see that as a benefit to any political system. And if only women could vote the GOP would either have to change their positions or a different major party would rise and challenge the Democrats. It wouldn't stay as a single party state. Plus, it's not like the Democrats are getting that many more women voters than the GOP. The GOP would remain a major party without men. 2 years ago  
Net immigration is zero and that includes illegal immigration. I have read up on statistics of crime regarding immigrant populations. Illegal immigrants have low rates of crime too. They have an incentive too as well, because they would get deported if they were caught. 2 years ago  
Women are voting for their own interests. And they aren't voting for crypto-communist groups. They are just voting more liberal, because liberal parties have actually reached out and supported women. 2 years ago  
But there's no threat since net immigration is zero and statistically immigrants commit less crime than native born residents. So yeah, it's just big government. 2 years ago  
Technically men are also hormonal monsters, but ok. What makes you prefer an autocracy over a system ruled by women? 2 years ago +1
So most men here would rather get rid of democracy altogether then have women vote. 2 years ago  
Alleged drug dealers and users. None of these people have seen a single day in court and are being denied their fundamental freedoms. In fact, he's gone out and killed people himself. Duterte is a sick son-of-a-bítch that has even compared himself to Hitler. He's a fascist end of story. 2 years ago  
Except every country within the Schengen Area, which is most of Europe. But yeah deport everyone and build a wall, because I know how much you love big government ;) 2 years ago  
Once they started getting futuristic the games sucked 2 years ago  
I don't speak spanish 2 years ago +1
oh wait I get it now lol 2 years ago  
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That part means separation of church and state. No one is saying the US is a theocracy. What I'm saying is, according to the US constitution, the government is not allowed to establish a religion. Jefferson was very clear in that when he said "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." He interpreted it, so we don't even have to argue what was meant by that. 2 years ago  
Yes current and recent data shows the sea-level rise is accelerating, so this prediction may be far too conservative and the country may be gone far before then. 2 years ago  
They already are happening, so what makes you think neither will happen? 2 years ago  
I'm biased though since I'm studying to be an engineer 2 years ago  
An outright ban on vaping doesn't really make sense to me; however, there should be heavy regulations similar to the level cigarettes are at. 2 years ago  
Not quite sure what "acting black" is supposed to mean. Rachel Dolezal pretended to be black while Shaun King is biracial. Shaun King as an amazing journalist that has written some great work and has covered the election cycle and BLM very nicely. 2 years ago  
It's more influential. However, I do think Buzzfeed publishing the Trump #Goldengate document was shortsighted and completely unethical. They were very explicit that the allegations were not verified and possiblely unverifiable. Most people tend to miss that part, because they probably never read it. Since they were explicit in it's invariability, it's not actually fake news. They never said it was true. 2 years ago  
Totes mcgoats 2 years ago  
Yeah they totes just added separation of church and state to the 1st Amendment for the lols. The US founding fathers were strong secularists. 2 years ago +1
There's a difference between theoretical and philosophical thought and the actual implementation of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I love the man. 2 years ago  
The UN does so much it's really hard to cover it with one paragraph. WHO is a great example of an arm of the UN that has done some magnificent work around the globe. They've gone so far as to eradicate illnesses like smallpox. The UN has been a huge force of peace around the globe. There hasn't been a single world war since it's inception. It provides a great podium for smaller nations to have a voice as well has a place where opposing nations may civilly engage in discussions. It does have some issues, such as with the security council, but even it gets more criticism than it deserves. 2 years ago  
#BuildTheNorthernWall 2 years ago  
I'm aware of his contribution towards communism, but there's a lot of misinformation and exaggerations surrounding him and I haven't put enough research into him to come to a conclusion. One day I'll read the Communist Manifesto and decide. 2 years ago +1
lol k 2 years ago  
Just a bunch of fúckbois headed by a man who loves to be urinated on and has sexual fantasies about his daughter 2 years ago  
The Democratic Party from 1992-2016 is terrible; however, the party is going to change fast with Bernie as the de facto head and Ellison soon to be the chair. 2 years ago  
I don't know enough about him to make a judgement call. 2 years ago +2
Although I have to admit that Jill Stein is just plain weird. It's the same with Elizabeth May in Canada. 2 years ago  
That man is a hero and a patriot to his country. He should be fully pardoned and placed in the next administration. I want people governing that are actually committed to doing what's best for the people. 2 years ago +3
Considering I'm Keynesian, this should come as no surprise. 2 years ago +2
The GOP set it up with the intention of creating that result. The Democrats have been very vocal about their opposition to the wall, so if the GOP wants to fund the government then they shouldn't include it in the appropriations bill. Also, if you're talking about security it's easier for security threats to enter through Canada than Mexico. 2 years ago  
Except they tied it to the appropriations bill so the Democrats will oppose it and shut down the government. They are just baiting the Democrats to get into the same trouble they did when they shut down the government. The problem is that they forgot that they never got into any trouble. 2 years ago  
No, the US Congress. 2 years ago  
Who cares about the Clintons anymore? Let's do all of ourselves a favour and just forget about them 2 years ago +1
Buzzfeed is a great website. I don't generally read their news, but I have seen them cover stories the MSM refuses to cover. Plus, Trump loves getting peed on lol 2 years ago  
The US was founded on the basis of secularism 2 years ago +1
January 25th, 2014 2 years ago  
It appears I was incorrect on various parts of my argument. I still disagree with many aspects of what you said; however, I lost the legitimacy of my argument. I'll be more specific. My original understanding of the US's involvement the Ukrainian Crisis had underestimated their role. I had realized this earlier and my ego got in the way. I believe that the role of an argument is to determine the truth and I have failed. I apologize for the inconvenience. 2 years ago 2 years ago  
I never said Russia started the conflicts in Ukraine or Syria. Ukrainians and Syrians started each respective conflict. Once again the "mob" wasn't fascist. It was pro-EU. Of course the US has said things and made relations with pro-EU Ukrainians. If the US is involved with starting the conflict then by that logic Russia is just as guilty for getting involved with the pro-Russia group. The US was involved. That's not that surprising. The crisis started with the Euromaiden protests, which occurred before Yanukovych was ousted. I'm talking about how, as far as I can tell, the US played no direct role in starting the protests themselves, which were in response to Yanukovych's flip-flop on his intention to sign a pact with the EU. Are you suggesting no one should face punishment for killing protesters? Technically, under your premise it would be a US puppet government, not NATO. Yeah of course relations with Ukraine is strategically important for Russia. They weren't losing Ukraine to NATO. They were losing them to the EU. Going to war with Ukraine would guarantee they ally themselves with NATO. Yes, it does hurt the interests of the country. None of that justifies Russia breaking international law and committing a war crime. If you're gonna keep pushing the argument that I'm spewing Western propaganda then you're spewing Russian propaganda, so we're both just as biased. 2 years ago  
It was logical to break international law and invade a sovereign nation and occupy its land? The Russia economy is in the tank due to sanctions now. It's not propaganda to suggest Putin is very observant of opinion polls. That's not even an insult nor an attack on Russia. Have you paid attention to public polls dealing with their view on the direction of Russia? Before the annexation of Crimea around 40% of Russians believed the country was headed in the right direction. And no Western media isn't an arm of the government. The US has poor media compared to the rest of the West, but even their media has been critical of the government at times. Fox News won't stop spreading GOP propaganda and anti-Democrat bs. I've never heard of any media blaming Brexit on Russia and only the establishment media blamed the election on Russian hacking. After 1991? So under the USSR the Russians would have believed BBC or CNN? Do you think the invasions of Russia by Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany along with the Iron Curtain never played any roles in the mindset? Russians have always been suspicious of the West. The attempt of post-Soviet Russia at Westernising their society never worked and that would have played a role of course. The government at the time was heavily corrupt and their changes were done very poorly. With that being said, if you're only going to pay attention to one decade of the centuries of relations you're going to miss the big picture. 2 years ago  
People that actually believe ZOG are just plain stupid 2 years ago  
Also you should make an account so I can pester you more with my liberal rants. 2 years ago  
So you say science defines sex and gender the same and then you go onto to say science also dictates that you can't change your gender and therefore can't change your sex. Gender reassignment surgery exists. You can change your sex. And if you still think that's not changing your sex, it is theoretically possible to transfer one person's head onto another person's body. Hell, theoretically it's even possible to directly change someone's DNA. In fact, a Russian man will soon undergo the first human body transplant surgery. Also, biologically, sex is determined by the 23rd chromosomes. XY is male and XX is female. In very rare cases, you can have three 23rd chromosomes and be XXY. Biologically that constitutes it's own sex: intersex. To say there are only 2 sexes is also technically wrong. 2 years ago  
Actually it's a conservative immigration policy. That's why Reagan was the first to get an amnesty bill. Both major parties have moved so far to the right people now consider it liberal when it's not. 2 years ago  
Looks like Trump asked Congress to pay for the wall, so if he does manage to build it it will be on the American taxpayers dime. The GOP are tying it to the appropriations bill, so that the Democrats opposition will also shut down the government. 2 years ago  
I find conservatives have trouble differentiating between words. Sex and gender are not the same things. Sex is biological and deals with your physical makeup and gender is social and deals with your psychological makeup. Technically, gender doesn't even exist outside of society. It doesn't actually have a place in reality. It's just a social construct and like all social constructs if you want to call them facts then you're just being silly. 2 years ago +3
He's the best SG in the Eastern conference. 2 years ago  
I never said Russia started the Ukrainian or Syrian conflicts. Ukraine had a pro-Russian regime yes. That wasn't the issue. The issue was when the president assured the people or his intentions to increase ties with the EU, but in the last second backed away from that promise. The US has nothing to do with this. The people were angry with the move so the Euromaiden protests began. They demanded the restoration of the previous constitution. The government responded with terrible force. They murdered dozens of protesters in the process. Yanukovych fled the capital. Because he was not present anymore to fulfil his presidential duties he was replaced as president. He was later charged with the involvement in the murder of those protesters. The Russian government was the one referring to the protesters are fascists and the ousting of Yanukovych as a coup. As with every massive protest radical elements get involved; however, the vast majority were pro-EU Ukrainians. That's actually the more left-wing position. In fact, the annexation of Crimea was completely illegal. Russian involvement had nothing to do with NATO or missiles. It had to do with Russian fears of losing a regional ally. Putin responded with force as to not seem weak. Russia also joined the war in Syria to support its ally for fear of losing another. Russia's sphere of influence is shrinking and that hurts Putin. Putin needs to look strong to keep his numbers high. 2 years ago  
Putin's popularity numbers were at their lowest point in over a decade. Did you know the annexation of Crimea boosted his popularity numbers by around 20%? People were growing tired of the direction of the country. That breeds the mindset for change. When you represent the status quo you don't want change. Of course the economy was doing better prior to Western sanctions, but that doesn't mean it was doing great. People wanted more. War is a great way to distract against that. During wartime people are less interested in change. They generally feel the current government would keep them safer. Bush used the same tactic to get reelected. Of course democratic leaders could have numbers like that. I never said they couldn't. I was saying Putin wouldn't have those numbers if Russia was a true democracy and not an oligarchy. The role of the media is to keep the government in check. When the media in Russia, which is pretty much all controlled by the government, is blasting nonstop pro-Putin propaganda then people tend to believe it. Yes, they do have access to foreign, Western news. For around 70 years the Soviet Union had been creating a anti-West and anti-foreign atmosphere in Russia. The people don't trust BBC or CNN or other foreign, Western media organizations, because the Soviet era mindset hasn't completely left yet. Actually last fall the Russia government even referred to a domestic polling agency as a "foreign agent," because it had reported Putin's numbers went down. 2 years ago  
Although, I am by no means a fan of the Trudeau government. 2 years ago  
I was giving the Ukraine Crisis as a reason for shifts in public opinion. Opinion polls show Putin's numbers rose during that timeframe. I wasn't using it as an explanation for his popularity overall. Putin is also very smart and knows how to keep his numbers high. War boosts popularity. Wars in Ukraine and Syria distract the people from the struggling economy and they fall in line behind the power they know. In Russia there is little variations in opinion on the airwaves since the Kremlin controls most messaging. When the media runs nonstop positive messaging of Putin the result isn't that hard to imagine. And yes there is plenty of corruption in many countries. Many countries are also not democracies. No one is suggesting most world leaders were fairly elected, so that's not really relevant. My point is if Russia was truly democratic with open airwaves the numbers would not be where they are now. 2 years ago  
Communists would fall in the top left corner 2 years ago +1
Policy wise they are the exact same. The difference is Obama is an amazing orator. 2 years ago +1
Economic Left/Right: -7.5 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21 2 years ago  
I very much prefer pure point guards 2 years ago  
Towns is going to be an amazing players. Plus, he can actually shoot. 2 years ago  
The Greek Freak can play any position on the floor 2 years ago  
Easy, my boy Peritwinkle 2 years ago  
None of those networks made any of those claims. You'll have to provide some evidence for that one, because I've never seen anything published by them that says any of that. Also, MSNBC hasn't been progressive for a long time. You're living in the past with that one. CNN isn't progressive either. Both of those networks are definitely establishment and moving fairly right. I happen to listen to and read stuff from all of those medias companies and many right wing one's too. I'm talking about the fear mongering of the politicians and media along with influential people not random people on your campus. 2 years ago  
There is plenty of corruption in the Russian system. There's reasons for the shifts in opinions in Russia. Lately trust in Putin has increased due to the conflict in Ukraine. War is a great way to increase your support. Even then I don't know everyone's reasons for supporting Putin. There's plenty of people I do not like in Russia, but I'm not ignorant enough to blanket every citizen with Putin's ideology. I find generalizing can weaken your argument. If you wanna call that PC go for it. 2 years ago  
Yeah because violating the constitution is such a compelling argument. 2 years ago  
Nobody said he would deport the Hispanics. They said he would deport the illegal immigrants. And that's not fear mongering if that's actually his platform. No one said he'd enslave anyone or run any concentration camps so that's just weird to say. And yes many people were upset. It's not fear mongering to state observations. Fear mongering involves exaggeration. When et immigration across the Mexican border is zero saying there's an immigration problem is fear mongering. When the US has a very in depth vetting process saying the US will let in a bunch of terrorists is fear mongering. When there's only a few dozen cases of voter fraud every billion votes casted and you say there's a voter fraud problem that's fear mongering. When you say the government wants to take your guns away that's fear mongering. There is nothing in the Democratic Party platform supporting the position of stripping all Americans of their firearms. When you say people are pretending to be trans to enter bathrooms and rape your wife or children that's fear mongering. 2 years ago  
Personally, I happen to notice conservatives fear mongering the most whether it's social security running out of money, immigration crisis, ISIS invading the country, or even the weird conspiracy theories like lizard people, FEMA camps, hobbit homes, pizzagate, black helicopters, war on Christmas, ZOG, or NWO. 2 years ago +2
The government not the people 2 years ago  
Oh I forgot about that one. That was so embarrassing 2 years ago  
"They're kicking me out the door" 2 years ago  
lol you get triggered so easily. Typical authoritarian 2 years ago  
Besides Sharia Law and the authoritarian government, Qatar also has heavy restrictions on foreigners. 2 years ago  
Then they aren't left. The very essence of left-wing politics is equalitarianism. If you don't support that then you're just a poser. 2 years ago  
Democracy is a liberty itself in regards to democratic rights. 2 years ago  
The privilege that white people have isn't that they have lower incarceration rates. That doesn't really make sense. The privilege is that black and Latino people are profiled as being more likely to commit crime and they are targeted by the police. Asian and Jewish people have lower incarceration rates because of their lower crime rates. That does not imply any favour, however. Especially regarding Asians, you still see them getting harsher sentences for the same crimes as white people. Education level isn't the privilege. That doesn't make sense since education level is attained not provided. It's access to good quality education that is the privilege. And Asian and Jewish people share that privilege with non-Jewish people. Actually in states that have affirmative action, white students have more privilege than Asian students since affirmative action only negatively impacts Asian enrolment and actually increases white enrolment. Asian and Jewish people do have high incomes on average. That doesn't mean that they won't be excluded from job opportunities because of their ethnicity. A major reason Asian people have such a high average income is because most new immigrants are from Asia. They immigrants tend to be wealthier and have higher education levels (which also drives up the average education level). It's easier for wealthier migrants to afford the trip. Also, grouping Asian people together can be problematic. Asian people from countries like Japan and Korea tend to be well off as compared to people from Cambodia and Laos who tend to be more modest in wealth. Especially politically, Asian people and Jews still face a lot of opposition. This isn't even getting into the opposition that Asian people from Muslim countries face. Asian people have virtually no representation in government. 2 years ago  
Freedom of conscience states you have the right to your own thoughts,which includes emotion. Are you advocating for thought police? 2 years ago  
If your emotional level is dependant on your wealth then you have issues. 2 years ago  
In what realm does equality equal hate? And in what realm is that regressive? Historically inequality was huge, so if you're actually being regressive you'd be pushing for further inequality. 2 years ago  
Then what's the ultimate goal in your mind? 2 years ago  
And how is that? 2 years ago  
The POTUS elect is a member of the alt-right. Who in this fabled "regressive left" has all of this power and control. 2 years ago  
Since the regressive left doesn't even exist... 2 years ago  
I refuse to fake anything. I believe in democracy and the more the people know about the actual positions of the candidates and parties the more democratic the process is. If I faked my positions then I would be doing a huge disservice to the country and clearly I would have no regard for democracy. 2 years ago  
That sounds very democratic of you 2 years ago  
And who would beat her in the general? 2 years ago  
The whole basis of privilege is the people with it are generally blind to it, because it's normalized to them and there's no higher privilege to compare to. 2 years ago  
Freedom of conscience. How the hell do you earn happiness? 2 years ago  
I'm tired of the Clintons 2 years ago  
I have nothing against Jimmy Carter, though. He helped bring peace between Israel and Egypt. There's many presidents that love to claim they are pro-Israel and how many of them have brought peace between Israel and a sworn enemy? He also helped WHO eradicate smallpox. His administration created the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He started the Carter Center after leaving office which helped win him a Nobel Peace Prize. 2 years ago  
libertarian was the deal breaker for me 2 years ago +2
This is like running a pre-crime program. If they've done nothing wrong then they shouldn't be punished for it 2 years ago  
Most people outside of the US aren't generally well versed in American politics, so I don't think you'll get very good numbers there 2 years ago  
Agnosticism deals with knowledge. It's the position that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude whether a deity exists or not. Atheism deals with the lack of belief. It's the lack of belief in the existence of deities. I bring up gnosticism, because a gnostic atheist believes that deities do not exist and believes there is evidence to prove that. (When I say gnostic I'm referring to the antonym of agnostic, not the heresy, Gnosticism). Most atheists don't support that position. A vast majority of atheists, just like a vast majority of theists, are agnostic. They just don't believe in deities. They don't have faith that deities don't exist just like you don't have faith unicorns don't exist. The lack of belief doesn't involve faith. Currently, there is no evidence that supports or opposes the idea of deities. So if you want to say that gnosticism involves faith I wouldn't be opposed to that idea. And of course atheism isn't irreligion. Many atheists support religion. 2 years ago  
I've never been in an argument about religion in real life, but I've been in plenty about politics. 2 years ago  
Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Most atheists don't believe that a God doesn't exist. Most atheists are agnostic, which means they believe that there isn't sufficient evidence to know whether a deity exists or not. How on earth does that involve faith? 2 years ago  
Right, I recommend you review the definitions of spirituality and religion. 2 years ago  
Religion and spirituality are two different things, so if you think that stating a fact is a "gay cop out" then I don't know what to tell you 2 years ago  
I hope you're aware religion and spirituality aren't the same thing 2 years ago  
Considering I already am an atheist 2 years ago  
Alex Jones has some serious mental issues. He literally believes that the world is run by the New World Order and that it wants to kill people, chop them up, and send them on literal conveyer belts to the leaders to be eaten. He hasn't broadcasted a shred of news in his life. 2 years ago  
Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive 2 years ago  
Curry has won a 3-point contest and has one of the best 3-point shooting percentages and free throw percentages in NBA history. He's also a member of the 50-40-90 club. Michael Jordan is better in a lot of other ways, but when it comes to shooting really only a few guys like Larry Bird and Steve Nash could compete with Curry. 2 years ago +1
You're right that was poor wording on my part. I implied that this violent state of transphobia existed uniformly across Russia which is incorrect. A better phrasing would be to say someone in Actual's position may believe that they could face true danger if they came out. 2 years ago  
Of course I have absolutely no idea what you could be going through, but I cant promise you that of course communities do exist that would accept you for who you are. Reaching those communities is of course hard. You owe yourself a chance at being happy. If you're going to toss it all away then why not try and find one of those communities? At this point what do you have to lose? There are plenty of organizations out there that would be more than willing to help you. You could use the internet and get in touch with various LGBT organizations. Depending on your situation you may even be able to get asylum in another country. I've read about Moscow having a large LGBT community. You could try getting in touch with people there and see what kind of support you receive. In the meantime rrrather has a decent LGBT community and supporters and I'm sure many would be more than willing to talk to you. I don't come on as often as I used to, but you can always PM me 2 years ago +1
I don't think you understand the state of some areas. There are many people that hurl more than just insults. You could get badly assaulted or even killed for being LGBT 2 years ago +1
If you're gonna be racist at least be funny. This is just dumb 2 years ago +8
First, only half of all illegal immigrants from Mexico cross the border illegally. The other half overstay their visas. So right off, the bat the best you can do is prevent half of them from crossing. Second, there are still a million ways to get through. Cartel groups have been known to dig tunnels, which they will most definitely do to funnel drugs and people across the border. Third, the net immigration between Mexico and the US is zero. That means the amount of people immigrating from Mexico to the US is equal to the amount emigrating. There's no immigration problem. Fourth, many of these immigrants are seasonal workers, so building a wall would just force them to stay in the US, which increases illegal immigration. Fifth, many of these immigrants perform important jobs in the manufacturing and agricultural industries that native born Americans wouldn't do at much higher wages. Sixth, the wall would severely disrupt natural ecosystems. They would cut through waterways and separate animals from their breeding and eating grounds. Seventh, it would cost massive amounts of money that there's no way in Hell Mexico will pay for and there's no way in Hell the US can force them to. It's just a completely moronic idea that is supported by absolutely no evidence. It's also a statistical fact that immigration provides a boost to the economy, so it's more economically advantageous to ease immigration policy and provide amnesty to these immigrants. I always find it funny when people rail against "lazy millennials" that expect everything spoon fed to them, but when these people come along that are willing to break the law and enter the US illegally just to work sh*t job well all of a sudden they are the problem. Do you want people to work hard for what they have or no? You gotta make up your mind. 2 years ago +2
It's been warmer than normal. Only reached 0F today. Also, pretty much no snow which is very unusual. Climate change is hitting hard this year. It's supposed to reach -40s later in January, so that will be fun. 2 years ago  
Good, that's what I was trying for 2 years ago  
I can't speak for other people, but I can tell you that I've always been in favour of mandatory recounts and strongly opposed to any voter suppression tactic. I think it is the job of the state to do the best it can to protect democracy and the people's democratic rights. I very, highly doubt a recount will change anything in regards to the 2016 POTUS election. In 2000, a recount found Gore won Florida, and thus the presidency, but Democrats still let Bush take the throne. Even if recounts found Hillary won, Democrats are too cowardice to actually fight for it, so Trump would end up president regardless. Honestly, I wasn't even thinking of US elections when I asked this question. I was looking at results from my federal and provincial ridings and there were times when tallies got very close to each other which triggered an automatic recount. And yes, of course voter freud is negligible. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either ignorant or has ulterior motives. 2 years ago  
No, it's not the subject. In the US election vote recounting was a big topic just 16 years ago. If it was the subject I would have been sure to make it obvious whether through the pictures or a comment in the author's description. 2 years ago  
Not that I'm aware of. Why makes you ask that? 2 years ago  
This isn't about the 2016 US presidential election. This isn't even about specifically federal elections. This is about elections in general. The question just asks whether you think recounts should be mandatory for election. As a supporter of democracy I believe that they should be. I don't care who won. Now, if you want to talk about this recent US presidential election I'd be happy to, but that was never the subject of this question. 2 years ago  
So why didn't you just say economics migrants and refugees or say refugees and put a side note explaining that this does not include economic migrants? 2 years ago  
What the hell are "refugees"? 2 years ago  
Rape is still illegal for refugees... 2 years ago  
Yes, in a crony capitalism that is exactly the case. The government doesn't get rid of monopolies when they are being bribed by them. That's why companies like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo still exist after they already helped crash the world economy. That's why I also support getting money out of politics. Yeah, price gouging is great for the poor. Do you know how they can still make a profit with such low prices? They do it by paying their staff sh*t wages and forcing them to go on welfare and food stamps just to make it by. They do it by selling cheap quality sh*t. They move their plants overseas and get rid of good domestic jobs. They do it by closing down the small businesses so the money isn't kept in the community anymore. You know what also helps the poor afford goods? Not shipping their jobs overseas. Paying them fair wages. Not giving them poor quality goods that they will have to replace all the time. Not raising the prices of products tenfold overnight. 2 years ago  
The problem exists when the company wants to start price gouging. Another problem exists where the monopoly comes into a community and puts small businesses out of business, because they can't compete at such low prices. Anther problem exists where these monopolies gather so much influence and power that they start corrupting the politicians to support their positions, which undermines democracy. 2 years ago  
Technically both. If guns didn't kill things then why purchase them? You're being killed by the bullet. If you wanna be smart ass then the trigger only trips a hammer, which hits a primer and ignited the gun powder in the bullet casing which sends the bullet hurdling at the target. So if someone was killed by gun fire there are many things you could say killed the person: the bullet, the combustion of gun powder, oxygen, the gun powder, the primer, the hammer, the trigger, the gun, the finger, the hand, the arm, the body, the brain, the neurons, electricity, energy, or even existence itself. Or you could just be a normal rational person and realize that it's the gun and the person. 2 years ago +3
That's not totally true. There are plenty of cases where guns set off without a person to pull the trigger. This could be due to the environment and/or malfunctions in the gun. I know Remington had a recall not long ago, because there was a malfunction in the trigger of some of their models that allowed the guns to set off on their own. 2 years ago  
I realize that creating competition creates competition, but how will you get the competitors? What says the monopoly can't just buy out the competitor? Or reduce the price of goods to a level that the competitor can't profit off of it? Or continually take them to court over patent infringement? Or open up stores directly beside the competitor thereby taking away their sales so they can't function? There's a reason monopolies stay monopolies. BP, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil own a monopoly on the petroleum industry in the US. Do you really think they'd let a new competitor into the market? Maybe in a free market the company will be replaced, but this isn't a free market. This is a market controlled by a monopoly. 2 years ago  
Not 100% sure what you're trying to say. When I say 36,000 it has nothing to do with ethnicity or place or origin. That number deals with people that have pre-existing conditions, so without the ACA they will lose their coverage or be denied coverage. 2 years ago  
That's not really relevant but ok. How do you expect competition to be brought back to the market then? 2 years ago +1
The crazy stuff you could do with a couple sacks of Senzu Beans. You could literally just be on the brink of death, pop one of those suckers, and you're as good as new. 2 years ago +3
Generally, that would involve being invaded first. If a fascist or communist government were to take charge in Canada then I prefer more civil and diplomatic means of deposing the government. However, if my country did fall into a civil war I may have to do my part to restore democracy. 2 years ago  
So you think you deserve the right to live over them and your genes deserve to be passed down unlike theirs, but they are the entitled ones? 2 years ago  
Supporting democracy is the worst thing on Earth? Authoritarian much 2 years ago +1
Are you suggesting Obama was never born? 2 years ago +1
What's the worst that could happen? 2 years ago  
I'd rather get a degree in my field of interest than a diploma 2 years ago +1
So you don't think they should have gone to war with Japan after they were directly attacked in 1941? 2 years ago  
I don't believe in assassination. It would just make Trump a martyr. Plus, I'd rather have Trump in control than Pence. 2 years ago  
And hopefully his political ideology too 2 years ago  
As a supporter of freedom this is an easy choice 2 years ago  
Yeah the Jews totally have a huge intricate scheme of covering what really happened during the American Civil War. Have you read the various states' declarations of secession? I'll give you a few direct quotes. South Caroline: they talk about " increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery..." Georgia: talks about how "Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end." Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." There's more referenced to slavery then that in their declarations. Feel free to look the rest up. Yes, slavery was legal. If you read the declarations you see they left, because they felt the federal government was moving in the direction of prohibiting slavery. The Confederacy went to war against the US. They were opposed to the US. They were the enemy. I don't know what you think it means to be a patriot, but to me being a patriots are people who supports their country not the enemy of their country. Yes, the American federal government has a dark history of genocide, but they don't stand for genocide. They never establishment themselves so they can protect their "right" to genocide. The Confederacy did stand for slavery and it did establish itself to protect their "right" to slavery. 2 years ago +1
Yes, they did have concentration camps. They are generally called plantations, but they were concentration camps. Not completely sure what you're saying in your last sentence. The right to revolution is in regards to an oppressive government. They were revolting because they wanted to sell and own people like cattle. They wanted to deny the slaves the rights that should have been granted to them through the constitution. It was their constitutional right to not be slaves. If the Confederacy actually cared about the constitution they would have been against slavery. 2 years ago  
Of course the flags didn't do anything, but they symbolize those actions. Racial slurs never killed anymore either, but they are still offensive and shouldn't be used. 2 years ago  
Well technically they could be considered traitors to the British crown from the British point of view, but that war was different. The British were a foreign power for one. Second, the people were fighting for their rights. No one should have a right to take part in human trafficking or running a concentration camp. The Confederate states tried to break off and fight against America. Therefore, an American patriot would hate the Confederacy. It's why you're fighting for independence that makes you brave, not necessarily the act of fighting itself. You can support the confederacy if you like. That's your right. But you cannot be an American patriot at the same time. 2 years ago  
I really just don't want to leave Earth, so I picked the one that keeps me on Mars for less time. 2 years ago +1
It's just as offensive as the Nazi flag. I don't personally get offended, but you'd be hard pressed to offend me. However, I do understand the racist and unpatriotic nature that surrounds the Confederate Flag and how others may be offended. It represents a group of traitors that went to war against America, because they feared the government would take away their human trafficking rings and concentration camps. 2 years ago  
1. Not many black people in my city. Pretty much just white people and Aboriginals. 2 years ago  
Depends on the specifics of the war. If Canada is being invaded then yes of course. 2 years ago +2
My woman > anything else 2 years ago  
Sometimes I like to top my beaker up with water after pouring in the hydrochloric acid. 2 years ago  
Like I said it never used to be common. Wearing a suit was exclusively male. My point is wearing clothes has nothing to do with mental illness. There's nothing in the human genome that says whether people should wear tight jeans or skirts or jean jackets or anything. Yeah maybe it's weird. It's also weird to be left handed. Does that make left-handedness a mental illness? Cross-dressing is more along the lines of deviant behaviour. Deviant behaviour is not a mental disorder. Cross-dressing doesn't cause dysfunction. It's not a mental illness. 2 years ago  
I recognize that there is no more intolerance with people that ascribe to left-leaning ideologies than those that ascribe to right ones. And some of the best people I've met are conservative. My maternal grandfather was a staunch conservative and he was a great man. He was by no measure intolerant. My personal ideology specifically opposes any sort of intolerance or bigotry towards others because of their race. There are many left-wing ideologies I strongly oppose such as communism or neoliberalism. That's why I generally refer to myself as a progressive or social democrat as to not associate myself with those groups. If a progressive or social democrat is using intolerant rhetoric then I'm right with you that that person is wrong. Yes, you can support the message. From what I can tell his messages seemed to be that white people are clearly at a disadvantage in the United States and they need to organize and take back their rights. I disagree that. The only thing I actually agreed with him on was his remark about the Iran nuclear deal, which was more of a side note in his speech. I believe that rhetoric is as important as the message itself. I think being divisive and intolerant sends the wrong message to people and can empower and provide confidence to people with bad intentions. I refuse to support any politician using intolerant rhetoric regardless of their ideology. Although I disagree strongly with libertarianism, I respected Gary Johnson's rhetoric during the election cycle. Elections should be about the policies not cheap attacks and racist remarks. Johnson and Sanders understand that. 2 years ago  
I'm trying to push it? Alrighty. So do you or do you not believe a woman wearing a suit is mentally ill? 2 years ago  
Saying that all races are equal is much different than saying USA belongs to white people and that they are the superior race. I don't agree with any form of race-baiting. And yes I see many instances of people on the left and right using race-baiting and I never think that's acceptable. I've never been on tumblr, so I have no idea what goes on there. My college campus does have issues of racism, but that's a citywide issue. The racism experienced here is generally towards Aboriginal Canadians more than any other race. The ideology I support very openly supports the notion that everyone is born equal and race does not matter. If someone believes white, black, Latino, or any other race is superior then they are wrong. Of course racism exists on the left. I'm not trying to pick on him or anything, but we've both seen Anon make racist remarks and I think we'd both consider him liberal. I don't have any white guilt myself, nor have I experienced anyone trying to force it on me. No civil rights advancements have ever occurred without the dominant race taking the side of the disadvantaged race. So I think in that respect white people in the West hold a special position in being able to advance peoples rights. It's your choice whether you want to do that or not and I will do my best to try and persuade people to join my cause. If you don't want to that doesnt make you a bad person at all. And that's not saying white people in general are bad by any measure, but instead that because of the way our society is built they hold the power. They were born into it so of course it's not their fault and I'm not blaming anyone. There are plenty of white people that are worse of than other races. As whole, not as individuals, they hold the power. If someone wants to claim that because Hitler or Stalin were white then I'm a bad person because I'm also white then they are racist and of course wrong. 2 years ago  
No its not normal but that doesnt make it wrong. 50 years ago it would be considered cross dressing for a woman to wear a suit to work. Nowadays thats common place. Were women who wore suits just living out their fetishes? Did they have mental illnesses? Just because its not common now doesnt mean it wont be common in the future and it definitely doesnt make it a mental illness or a fetish. 2 years ago  
No it wasn't just used by some "unsavory people." Nobody uses the German translation of "lying press" unless they are specifically referencing the Nazi party. If he was just criticizing the press he wouldn't have said that. Majority of it was not good nor accurate. Most of it was bullshít and white nationalistic rhetoric. No there's nothing wrong with calling people strivers, crusaders, explorers and conquerors. When he said that he was specifically contrasting white people with other races. That's white nationalism. What he said was the literal definition of white nationalism. And no the left isn't driven by "anti-white hatred." If you honestly believe that you'll have to provide evidence. I never really saw much coverage of the crowd other than the few Nazi solutes. The coverage I listen to is more focused of Richard Spencer's speech. 2 years ago  
How does it sound like a symptom of a mental illness? And cross-dressing isn't a fetish. If they are wearing formal attire I don't see how that's inappropriate. 2 years ago  
Gender reassignment surgery is irrelevant to this conversation. So how is cross-dressing a mental illness? 2 years ago  
I watched the video. I'm not even talking about the nazi solutes, lugenpresse, or the sieg heils by the crowd. All of those things were displayed at the conference. I'm talking about, Richard Spencer himself giving a sieg heil and referring to the media as lugenpresse. I'm referring to the actual speech. Where he talked about the US being a "white nation" and how they need to take it back. I'm referring to his intense anti-immigration speech. He talks about the government trying to break apart "functioning white communities." He talks about how the US is the white man's creation and their inheritance and how it belongs to them. That is the literal definition of white nationalist and that was well received by the crowd. He paints a picture of a government and society that hates White Americans. He claims the left is driven by "anti-white hatred." He talks about how white people are strivers, crusaders, explorers, and conquerers. He claims how White Americans don't benefit from Minority Americans, but Minority Americans benefit from White Americans. He talks about how the US is in this race war and white people are the victims. And yes there were some that gave Nazi solutes. And how did the rest of the crowd respond? I know for a fact if someone gave a Nazi solute at a progressive rally no one would accept that. That person would immediately be criticized for that disgusting pose. 2 years ago  
How is cross-dressing a mental illness? And even it it was not all mental illnesses are the same, so how does cross-dressing relate at all to being a poor leader? If someone is willing to come out and cross-dress that takes a lot of courage and I think displays great leadership. A leader is someone who is able to stand up and do what's right in the face of adversity. If you have the courage to cross-dress in public then you probably have the courage to stand up for what is right and face the critics. 2 years ago  
You want to go to a white nationalist conference? Those guys are just a bunch of fascists. 2 years ago  
Freedom from an American puppet government, but not freedom from the government. They still live under an authoritarian government and hold no democratic rights. 2 years ago  
lol "The friend of Che Guevara." I would hope they were friends. I don't know how much influence he had over the day to day operations of the Cuban government over the last few years. Considering Raul Castro is still alive and in charge I don't know how much this will change things there either. There are very rare situations in which I welcome death to someone. That is if they're life only serves to create pain and suffering for others. I wouldn't say I celebrate his death, but I don't mourn it. 2 years ago  
They had all of those things already... 2 years ago +3
And what would abolishing the state accomplish? 2 years ago  
Importation of Sub-Saharans? They aren't goods. They don't get imported. If you're talking about human trafficking then of course I'm against that, but I doubt you are. 2 years ago  
Yeah, because abolishing a democracy so a strongman can rise up and establish a totalitarian regime is so intelligent -_- 2 years ago  
Primary psychopathy: 1/5 (higher than 0% of people who have taken this test) Secondary psychopathy: 1.3/5 (higher than 2.78% of people who have taken this test) 2 years ago  
Yeah, it's hard to tell what the voters will accept. The Democratic and Republican parties are just coalitions of different ideologies after all. 2 years ago  
At the end of the day libertarians are for small government and the Alt-Right is for big regime. Especially on social issues they are polar opposites. I think libertarians movements associating themselves with the Alt-Right would be a mistake. One of the biggest appeals for young voters especially to libertarian politics are those social policies that the Alt-Right opposes. 2 years ago +1
Actually I change my vote. Today's technology is far more advanced and efficient. This may actually help us curb the effects climate change earlier. 2 years ago  
I'm talking broadly. Of course there are exceptions. Legalizing all drugs would of course allow for more research in drugs that previously had heavy restrictions. 2 years ago  
To increase quality of life 2 years ago  
Obviously. Legalize, regulate, and tax. Only sure way to reduce consumption. 2 years ago  
Congrats bromacho 2 years ago +1
Of course George Soros would hate Trump 2 years ago  
Warren 2020 2 years ago  
No, that's 100% incorrect. The only industries that should be monopolized by the government are those that cannot be trusted in the free market. It is a fact that privatized education, healthcare, and emergency services are worse off. They all favour the wealthy and exclude the poor from taking part. Public opinion supports a public monopoly on all of those markets, so I support the will of the people. I actually support lowering taxes on small businesses. There are some aspects of socialism in my positions, but they are quite consistent with what the people want. I support a government that is controlled by the people, so any power that is given to the government is given to the people. If the people actually got what they want you'd see a quite progressive nation. 2 years ago  
Howard Dean was alright back in the day. Since that awkward scream he's become a lobbyist for big pharma and he's just as corrupt as the rest of the establishment. And no that's not what progressive means. Progressives try to limit government and corporate power and give it to the people. Progressives are fighting for publicly funded elections and open primaries with same day registration in every state in the primaries. They also want automatic registration in the general election. They want to open more polling stations, designate election day a national holiday, and hire more staff, so that everyone has the opportunity to cast their vote. Democracy rights are very important. That's how you restore power to the individual. Progressive want to get rid of the electoral college, so the citizens are directly electing their heads of state. Progressive policy runs counter to policies of the past. I don't see how doing the opposite of the corrupt authoritarian policies of the past is somehow supporting those terrible positions. 2 years ago  
Actually my type of liberal politician does exist. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nina Turner, Keith Ellison, and Sherrod Brown just to name a few. Yeah precious metals have been used as currency a lot in the past, but this isn't 500 BCE. It's 2016 and no one wants to hall around a bunch of metal to go shopping. The gold standard was abolished last century, but all it was was a standard. People still paid in paper currency last century during and after the gold standard was in use. Paper money is forced by the government I already agreed on that point. The government says to the people that they're only allowed to pay their taxes with paper money, hence what legal tender is for. Legal tender means that you can only pay off you're debts with that currency. If you owe a debt to the government through taxes then that's the currency you must use. If the government prints too much money then hyperinflation occurs and yes the money becomes useless as in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe printing far more money then it needed. People lost confidence in the integrity of the currency and it lost value. Hyperdeflation is just as bad as hyperinflation. In fact, economically speaking a slight bit of inflation is the best stimulus for economic growth. The gold standard is the same as the US dollar standard. Both gold and the US dollar have no intrinsic value. Their values are based off of faith and confidence. The constitution is the law of the land and it's technically the only law above the government. So it's not a law that gives them the power, but the lack of law. So unless there is a constitutional law forbidding it they can do it. In fact, even constitutional laws don't always matter to the government. The Bush administration's use of torture goes against cruel and unusual punishment. The Bush and Obama administrations ignored habeas corpus. Various GOP governments are constantly using voter suppression tactics that take away people's right to vote. 2 years ago  
Unfortunately, in the US there's a difference sometimes between a constitutional right and a human right. I agree that every has a right to an education and employment. That is what these people are protesting for. They believe that what Trump and the GOP stand for is an unfair advantage to the wealthy. An advantage that gives them easier access to those rights. Where schools in poor black neighbourhoods are closed and people are denied employment because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. I agree that those rights need to be defended. Now, I haven't heard of any evidence of these protesters assaulting Trump supporters. Maybe there is cases, but it's definitely not happening on a large scale. I have read articles and seen tonnes of footage of Trump supporters assaulting protesters at Trump rallies. I imagine you must be very upset about that too. 2 years ago  
Well I don't see any evidence to suggest that, so I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. 2 years ago  
Do you think MLK was a bigot or a bully? He's essentially what it means to be politically correct while fighting for social justice. Social justice is the position that everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities in society and to be treated fairly under the law. I don't understand how anyone could oppose that. 2 years ago  
What's wrong with social justice? 2 years ago  
Which rights do you think are being violated? I'm not saying any are being violated. I'm just wondering what you think. 2 years ago  
Those are not my liberal politicians. My liberal politicians vehemently oppose the rulings by the Supreme Court and oppose all of the corporation and corruption that exists in Congress. Good luck running a business that only allows payment in valuable metals. No one would go there. What gives currency value is the fact you can pay your taxes with it. Paper money is forced by the government that's true. You're not going to find much opposition to that though. Yes, they pay taxes and that's why they can use the services too. The businesses taxes aren't the only taxes that go towards establishing the infrastructure though. They pay to use it, not to exclude others. Technically speaking, the government can can tell a business to do anything as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. I'm obviously not saying they should, but in this instance I believe it is justified. 2 years ago  
The only violence that I noticed being talked about in that article was against the protesters. I see what you're getting at with the rioting though. Understanding the nature of riots, I think it's a fair assumption that there was violence. No, rioting is of course terrible and I agree that rioting is pathetic. I haven't heard anything of riots occurring in major cities outside of Portland. And a lot of the rioting was done by anarchists. It would seem odd for Hillary supporters to be anarchists, and without any information to confirm or deny it's too early for claim they're Hillary supporters. Hillary has explicitly voiced her opposition to violence while Trump has explicitly voiced his support. Just seems odd to be happy the candidate that supports violence win, because you don't like violence. 2 years ago  
Yeah, traffic laws are acceptable. The whole point of the protest is to cause congestion. It's the police's job to try and peacefully disperse the crowd. They can't just arrest everyone. That could cause a riot. After reading the question fully I realize the confusion. To be honest I kinda skimmed over the question. I don't necessarily agree with blocking traffic. The safest route in this situation is to allow the protesters to protest within reason. If they are endangering drivers or other protesters then the protest must immediately be dispersed. Really, I only agree with their right to protest and I definitely don't agree with running them over with your vehicle. I'm sure first responders would love that extra work added to their plate. 2 years ago  
The one policy he has that I can agree with. Unfortunately it appears he may have just been pandering to voters when he made these promises, so I doubt he'll do either of these things. 2 years ago  
Actually it's not simply because they support a candidate. No intelligent person thinks every Trump supports is any of those things. And yeah a lot of liberals aren't that politically correct. And no one is politically correct 100% of the time either. 2 years ago  
You think I overlook it. I hate it. That's why I believe everyone that works for the DNC should be immediately fired and it should all be restaffed from the top down. I'm pissed about the disgusting things they did against the Bernie Sanders campaign. When I talk about corruption in Congress I'm talking about corrupt Democrats too. 2 years ago  
Because corporations shouldn't be treated as people either. The roads are public property. The laws that ensure the business gets paid fairly were created and upheld by the government. In fact, the money they use for the transactions is created by the government. If they don't want to use the government services then they can go operate their business in the middle of nowhere; otherwise, they need to treat everyone fairly. 2 years ago  
Of course criticism can be bullying. You may not think so, but the definition disagrees. And you are free to criticize liberalism if you want. Liberals think they're right and conservatives think they are right. And yeah liberals have this secret agenda to eradicate the world of conservatives. Do you really think being condescending to liberals by referring to them as "fragile heart liberals" is going to warrant praise from that side of the spectrum? You can't just insult someone and expect them to be happy about it. There's no plan to annihilate the conservative voice. How would you even do that? There's something called freedom of speech. I don't know where you're seeing this destruction of confidence. Who said liberals don't see race? Race is based on societies assumptions of the world and not biology, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist within the sphere of communication and social groups. And they aren't getting privileges. A privilege is when you have something that other people don't. It's a freedom when everyone has it. Liberals are trying to give minority groups more freedom. I've never claimed the liberal establishment or MSM are doing anything. I don't even support either of those groups. MSM is not politically correct. If someone is attacking you unprovoked then that is illegal. That person should be arrested. I don't see how that's relevant to your argument, because that's not political correctness. That's assault. You'll have to show me this violence at anti-Trump rallies, because I haven't seen much at all. I've seen plenty of violence at trump rallies though. In fact, Trump himself has supported the violence. That's a very interesting poll. Not that surprising though. Trump is a very divisive candidate while Hillary isn't. He's gonna garner more disdain because of that. 2 years ago  
A vast majority were protesting peacefully. There's been plenty of violence at Trump rallies, so basically you're glad he's president, because they both have violent supporters. 2 years ago  
Like I said, protests aren't supposed to be convenient. I don't always agree with it either, but it's effective. 2 years ago  
Liberal indoctrination? Anyway younger voters are the most Left-Wing voter block, so no. What caused this is corruption and lack of any progress in congress. There's tonnes of anger in the country, so a lot of people voted for the populist and the "outsider" over the establishment candidate. 2 years ago +4
The right to protest is a fundamental human right. As a supporter of freedom of course I support it. Protests are supposed to be inconvenient. 2 years ago  
If you're insulting a group for not agreeing with you that's not being politically correct. Being politically correct is refraining from insults. So if you see someone doing that they are not being politically correct. And no that is not common place within the "PC culture." I don't know what you're talking about. Of course people on the extreme left can be just as bad as people on the extreme right. Many people are hypocrites. I wouldn't doubt everyone holds at least one hypocritical position. 2 years ago  
You think I support establishment liberals? I don't support hate speech laws. A business is not a person and shouldn't be treated like one. If a business doesn't want to serve someone because of the colour of their skin or sexual orientation tough luck to them. The business is not a fully independent organization and relies on help from the state to function. This comes in the forms of roads, property laws, and contract laws among other things. This is funded by taxpayer money, so every taxpayer deserves to benefit from it. I don't think you fully understand the complexity of this issue. This isn't about someone getting their feelings hurt. Getting your feelings hurt isn't a legitimate argument in court either. 2 years ago  
So you think preventing political correctness will end bullying? Yeah, everyone criticizes everyone who doesn't share the same ideology as them. Criticism isn't necessarily bullying. Of course bullying exists within every ideology, but if you're going to suggest it's more prevalent among politically correct groups then I will have to strongly disagree with you. Politically correct societies have provided tonnes of confidence for many minority groups. It's helping create a more inclusive environment where people are free to truly express themselves. People learn from others and if they're taught that everyone should be given a chance to speak and prove themselves before being judged then that will overall reduce bullying. In fact, Donald Trump's rhetoric caused a sharp rise in bullying across the US in schools and an increase in people having to see their therapist. 2 years ago  
Then say "Merry Christmas." Use the term "radical Islamic terrorism." The right to criticize is also protect under freedom of speech. Everyone has the freedom to say what they want. If someone wants to censor themselves that's their right. The reason people don't like the term "radical Islamic terrorism" is because all it does is perpetuate a terrible stereotype that Islam is inherently evil. Do you also use the term "radical Christian terrorism" or "radical Jewish terrorism"?People don't like it because it isn't productive towards solving the problem. The Islam also isn't really relevant. People will find ways to radicalize regardless of their beliefs. No one is claiming that terrorist acts aren't terrorist acts. No one is claiming the perpetrators aren't terrorists within the "PC culture." No one is denying that ISIS and al Qaeda are Islamic. I don't see how "PC culture" is anti-freedom or anti-fact. But let's be clear. It's not "PC culture" you dislike. It's liberal political correctness. You seem fine with conservative political correctness. 2 years ago  
lolwut? Is this a serious question? 2 years ago +2
I believe in democracy and the peaceful transition of governments. With that being said I haven't heard of massive violence with the protests and I support their right to protest regardless of their motives. 2 years ago  
I still haven't heard a good argument for why being politically correct is bad. What's wrong with trying to be tolerant and accepting of others? Why is showing respect bad? Why is being divisive a good thing? 2 years ago  
I don't think any of the insulting from Hillary's side did much. Trump's rhetoric pulled some people in while pushed others away. But I agree that Trump knew his voter base and pandered to them while Hillary didn't. I don't think she would have won reaching to Trump's base. She would have needed to reach out to Bernie's base. 2 years ago  
The funny thing is the MSM is now in the frame of mind that Tim Kaine will be the nominee in 2020. Like are you stupid? Tim Kaine is probably the most boring man on the planet. 2 years ago  
Let's get this out of the way right off the bat; third parties never hurt her one bit. In fact, there's a good argument that Gary Johnson helped her. It's hard to say whether people not voting in the federal election hurt her, because we can't really know for certain who they would have voted for. I think people not voting in primaries helped them lose, though. Voter suppression tactics run by the GOP definitely played a role. There's an argument to be made that if the GOP weren't actively trying to purge people's votes then she may have won. Too be completely fair Hillary herself doesn't hold a tonne of blame. She kept on message. She had good positive messaging. Her campaign however didn't. Her campaign takes tonnes of this blame. All they did was run ads about Trump. The DNC holds a tonne of blame. I think Debbie Wasserman Shultz takes the lion's share of the blame that the DNC gets. People are angry with the system and the DNC tried running an establishment candidate against a populist. I think Obama also takes some blame. He's the one that put DWS in charge of the DNC. He's the one that refused to step up and show leadership when stuff was getting out of hand. Instead of trying to get money out of politics, he got cozy with his donors. 2 years ago +1
Thank you. You're sweet 2 years ago +1
The wing man skills. I don't even have to do anything to hook a brotha up 2 years ago  
Yeah there's crazies, radical, racists, and idiots in every ideology. If you were able to vote and didn't for a poor reason like "I didn't like the candidates" or "I didn't feel like it" then you don't really have a right to criticize who the voters choose. And yes the first Republican president is known for freeing slaves and the first Democratic president is known for being a huge racist and advocating racist policies. Neither of those things really matter anymore, though. The Democrats have since passed the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Republicans started using the racist Southern Strategy to get the white vote in the south since then. Of course there are tonnes of lazy ass close-minded voters from both sides. There is nothing racist about being conservative nor liberal. There are tonnes of intelligent people on both sides. Haters gonna hate. Don't waste your time on them. There's only one group of people to blame for Trump getting elected: the DNC. You can say what you want about conservatives, but you cannot deny they come out to vote. Honestly, I would hate to live in a world with just my political ideology. I think debates and discussion between different positions and ideologies is the healthiest thing for a democratic society. 2 years ago +3
I'm not an American nor a Californian so I don't have a dog in this fight. If California manages to get a clear majority in a referendum supporting leaving the union then they should have the right to leave. Keep in mind though that California is the largest state and if it leaves the union then you are pretty much guaranteeing the GOP control the US government for longer and more often. 2 years ago  
Then I'll change "7 times" to "more" since its really not important to the overall question 2 years ago  
Not enough information to determine. 2 years ago  
#SettleForHillary -_- 2 years ago +2
Some of those attacks aren't Islamic terrorist attacks. For example, it lists the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. It's hard to tell whether the perpetrator was actually Muslim and whether he did it, because of his religion is even harder. His actions were clearly antisemitic, but to call them radical Islamic is a stretch. Muzzammil Hassan's beheading of his wife was not a terrorist act nor motivated by Islam. Faleh Hassan Almaleki killing his daughter for being "too Westernized" wasn't a terrorist attack. I'm just picking them at random. That list isn't Islamic terrorist attacks. It's just murders by Muslims. In this question I'm referring to specifically terrorist attacks. However, since it is a more updated data than my own, it does include some terrorist attacks that occurred after 2012. 2 years ago  
Of course the debt will eventually need to be paid off. It's not growing and growing forever. If the trend Obama sets continues then it will level off soon and GDP will become larger than it. When that happens the debt will shrink. This is exactly what happened after WW2 when the US had to pay their debt off. There is eventually a tipping point when the debt becomes too much, as the debt to GDP ration accumulated during WW2 shows, the US is far from that tipping point. The US had just gone through a terrible recession and that adds debt. If you're going to suggest that the current US debt will cause an economic collapse well history and projected trends disagree. Also, don't know where you got past few dozen from. As the data shows the administrations from FDR to Carter didn't have a problem with debt. 2 years ago  
The US debt to GDP was higher during and directly after WW2 reaching an all time high of 121.70% and I as far as I know the economy never collapsed then. What makes time any different? In 2015 it reached to 104.17% and it appears it's beginning to level off as the economy is rebounding from the Great Recession. In fact, debt to GDP had been steadily decreasing under Keynesian economics until the early 80s once the US adopted Laissez Faire economics. It steadily increased under Reagan and Bush Sr. and levelled off and started decreasing under Clinton. It started slowly increasing under Bush Jr.'s first term and shot up during his second term once the housing bubble popped. 2 years ago  
Well if you have more accurate numbers I would gladly correct my question. The data is from post 9/11 to some time in 2012. Come to think of it I forgot to add that in the question. 2 years ago  
Yes, it was, but I'm referring to the data. The data used in the article is not an opinion. 2 years ago  
Some of those countries are fine, but ISIS and Russia are by no means left-wing and Saudi Arabia is by no means centrist. In fact, ISIS and Saudi Arabia are considered ultra-conservative. 2 years ago  
Referring to the New York Times as communist doesn't make sense at all. If you're going to complain about misattributed ideologies then you should probably practise what you preach. Well my argument is in regards to those that were killed. I don't have any numbers one people wounded by Right-Wing terrorist attacks. I have grouped Right-Wing ideologies together, yes. There are plenty of anti-government Right_Wing terrorists as well as neo-Nazi terrorists. There are also many forms of Islam. Once again I don't have numbers differentiating between the various Right-Wing extremist and Islamic extremist ideologies. Yes, the study does have some age to it. It excludes many Right-Wing and Islamic terrorist attacks in the US. Even when considering the recent attacks there are still more victims of Right-Wing extremist attacks than Muslims. 2 years ago  
Actually the ThinkProgress article is referring to a study by UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer which was covered by the New York Times. That was just the first reference I found. The data shows that since 9/11 Right-Wing extremists have killed more people total than Muslim extremists. I don't see why attacks only matter if death counts are really high. Not sure what you're referring to with the 102 people killed. Generally, Right-Wing terrorists strike smaller targets more frequently, but if you want a big target there was the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, which killed 168 people. 2 years ago  
So you rigged your own tournament and still lost 2 years ago +7
The government sure as hell isn't a for-profit corporation. It's job is to do what's best for the people. You're the one that wants to spend taxpayer money to deport 11 million people, so you may want to get off your high horse. We both support spending taxpayer money. And no one is getting anything for free. They are paying into the system. They are getting the exact same benefits as everyone else. I'm supporting the government ensuring everyone has the same rights. If it's regressive to support freedom then so be it. I'll gladly call myself regressive if that's the case, because I will not waver on my position that everyone deserves equal opportunities to succeed in society. I refuse to support a system where the gains are privatized and the losses are socialized. I refuse to support a system where the wealthy benefit and the poor suffer. 2 years ago  
They already pay into those benefits, so they should have the right to access them. I hope they make minimum wage. That's the point of it. They'll also be paying more into benefits if their wages were increased. If it increases government spending so be it. I don't care if the government is spending more money. I care what the government is spending it on. If you give 11 million people a chance at getting a better education it's impossible to tell how beneficial that will be. Those are future doctors, engineers, scientists, and professors. If they were given the opportunity to better themselves they would. Remove the roadblocks and they will use just as many government benefits as the rest of society. 2 years ago  
The natives were the first to occupy the land. Who would enforce immigration if no one is there? Zero respect? Do you honestly believe they want to be illegal immigrants? Immigration policy has a class bias. The poorest people have no choice. They have to stay in the US illegally if they want a better life. If you don't want them to break the law then you have to give them an actual choice between being legal or not. You can't think whatever you want about the jobs, but in reality no one wants to take them. We've already seen this trend happen. This isn't theoretical. Obama is deporting immigrants at record levels. You can't just stop immigration. They are already risking it all to provide a better life for themselves and their family. Strapping an extra fine or jail time to it won't help anybody. If they are willing to work for it, everyone should be afforded the right to a better life and good opportunities. I don't see what those in poverty should be stripped of that right. They never chose to be in poverty. 2 years ago  
two more year 2 years ago  
Saw Peritwinkle so I chose it 2 years ago  
Cancun 2 years ago  
Edmonton 2 years ago  
It's a metaphor. Were they literally illegal, no. The pilgrims did travel to the US without any documents or authorization from the native tribes that occupied the land. States that have enacted tougher immigration laws have already shown that they hurt various industries. No one wants to do the jobs. When they bring in legal workers many don't last long. They can't stand the work. These aren't your regular sh*t jobs. Most people would take unemployment over these jobs. Yeah bring in seasonal workers. Half of all illegal immigrants came into the US legally. They just overstayed their visas. So if you bring in seasonal workers then you're bring in more illegal immigrants. Are you going to deport them too? That sounds like you're wasting a lot of money on hard working, productive members of society. You're best off just giving them citizenship. It's far cheaper. 2 years ago  
I don't know what would make you think the positions are unrelated. I wish it was the religion of my country. Unfortunately the NDP which is the true Canadian progressive party has never formed federal government. I split with progressives on some issues too. In the US for example, many progressives don't support decriminalizing all drugs, reparations for slaves, nationalization of the whole school system, and my opposition of hate speech laws. Like I said, I formed my positions first. Those positions happened to be in line with progressive positions so I started identifying as a progressive. I really don't care if progressives agree with me. If I find an ideology I aline with more than I'll identify like that. 2 years ago  
I'd just call the police with a noise complaint. 2 years ago +1
What? I'm left wing because of my positions not the other way around. Do you refuse to think for yourself and do whatever the holy and divine libertarianism commands? 2 years ago  
The country was founded by illegal immigrants. The only criminals are the state and federal governments that are stripping these people of their human rights, because they happen to be born in the wrong side of the border. Yes, they can theoretically be filled with citizen, but in the real world no one else wants to do those jobs so they won't be filled. Do you seriously think taking away millions of workers won't cause negative effects on the economy? 2 years ago  
I'll start by supporting a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. I'll get a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act. I'll provide an easy path to citizenship to illegal immigrants. I'll increase the quota for Syrian refugees. I'll nationalize the education system from kindergarten to graduate school. Create a national single-payer healthcare system. Give statehood to both D.C. and Puerto Rico. Tear up the TPP. Abolish the DEA. Decriminalize all drugs. Legalize and regulate marijuana. Fund further research into marijuana and other alternative medicines to decrease our dependancy on prescription pills. Negotiate drug prices. Make private prisons illegal. Increase taxes on the rich. Increase social security. Have the wealthy pay into social security. reform the justice system. Establish a council to look into fixing the plights that racial minorities face. Tell Ted Cruz to go f*ck himself. Break up the banks that are too big to fail. Take the bankers to court that were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. Cut military spending in half. Demilitarize the police. Stop fracking. Further subsidize clean energy. I could go on and on about all the things I would want to do. 2 years ago +1
Not to mention it would cripple the US economy and put them in a deep recession. The cheapest method is to provide them with an easy path to citizenship. 2 years ago  
Don't know why you care so much about gender. People can identify themselves however they want. Who gives f*ck? Rights and laws only exist within a state, since they are set by the government. No government means no rules. No rules means no property rights. Without government you don't own anything. Taxation funds governments, so they can survive. In a sense taxation provides you with property rights and thus property. It's the opposite of theft. 2 years ago  
You're tempting me but i will not give in 2 years ago  
I'm not a fan of election rigging regardless of who it benefits. Plus, as a Canadian, I can't do much to help the Donald. Any help I do provide won't change the result. 2 years ago  
Taxation isn't even across the board. Your point would only be true if 100% of wealth entered the economy, which is doesn't. People are reluctant to spend more during an economic downturn. This exacerbates the problem. The idea is to encourage spending. You're not taxing a country into prosperity. I'm not advocating for austerity measures. In fact, I'm against economic austerity. Under Keynesian economics you either lower taxes, increase government spending, or both. The end goal of progressivism is to create a society where everyone has equal economic opportunities and equal rights and freedoms. The goal is to create the highest quality of life possible for the most people possible. 2 years ago  
We have different views on property rights, but we both are against theft. I just don't believe theft is aggression. Aggression can be used when stealing, but I believe theft and aggression are two different things. 2 years ago  
Considering Comey's letter detailing that there may be emails relevant to the Hillary's email case, it's not that surprising. It will be interesting to see how far he rises though. His campaign already pulled out of Virginia and that means that he has to win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Since, Hillary had a strong lead in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire heading into the weekend I'd say she still has the best chance of winning. 2 years ago  
It's called stimulating the economy. The more money people have the more money they put into the economy. This in turn increases GDP. The government will make its investment back through various way including various types of taxation. It's spending overall will also go down, because less people will be on benefits. And the economy and an electrical circuit are two very completely different things. I have no interest in having the government stimulate the economy? That's a fundamental part of Keynesian economics. 2 years ago  
If you use force against someone while your are stealing from them then you are being aggressive, but if you do it without the person's knowledge then you're not being aggressive. If you aren't being hostile or threatening when you take their property then you aren't being aggressive. 2 years ago  
Had no idea so I guessed the third answer every time. Managed 20% 2 years ago  
I believe they need some foreign aid, but I don't believe they deserve it more than taxpayers. You could have just made the answers "yes" and "no." Don't understand why you added your two cents. 2 years ago +1
Why did you put quotation marks around crumbling infrastructure? It's not an opinion. The infrastructure is literally crumbling. Plus, rebuilding the infrastructure will help put more people to work, which puts more money into the economy, which eventually reduces the debt. As the phrase goes: you have to spend money to make money. 2 years ago  
lolwut? Personal property isn't a person. Personal property has nothing to do with aggression. Personal property doesn't have rights, with the exception of pets which have very limited rights. When I use the word aggression I'm referring to the dictionary definition. What I refer to when I'm talking about bullying is the dictionary definition. For example Marriam Webster simply defines "to bully" as "To frighten, hurt, or threaten (a smaller or weaker person) : to act like a bully toward (someone) or to cause (someone) to do something by making threats or insults or by using force" 2 years ago  
How does it cause destructive ideas to spread throughout society? If you're open-minded then you're more likely to figure out which ideas are "best" and you're not dependant on what you were taught. I'd say it impedes the spread of destructive ideas, because if you were taught those ideas then you are more likely to change your position on them. 2 years ago +7
I was just referencing how his government encouraged bullying. Theft isn't necessarily aggressive. You don't have to have sympathy if you don't want to, but "aggressive words" is part of the actual definition of aggression. So no you don't mean actual aggression. Out of curiosity have you ever been bullied? 2 years ago  
lol I don't know what exactly you consider actual aggression, but the definition of aggression doesn't discriminate against acts that occur over the Internet. I'm fairly certain people's "baby feelings" can be hurt in any environment. So you encourage bullying? I don't see how that's beneficial to anyone. You sound like Nicolae Ceaușescu. 2 years ago  
That could easily be considered aggression. Like I said: very broad. Those were rhetorical questions to show how broad his position on "do no harm" can be if he doesn't specify. You agreed with it so should aggression be illegal or not? 2 years ago  
Was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it better, but ok. So you think manslaughter should be legal, traffic laws shouldn't exist, and political bribery is fine? 2 years ago  
You'll have to define "harm." That is a very broad term. Is it considered harm when banking actions cause a crash in the market that leads to you losing your job? Is it harm to be verbally abused while you're on the internet? Is it harm to drive at twice the speed limit, run red lights, drive under the influence, or even drive alone on public roads without any training whatsoever? 2 years ago +1
He is a fascist piece of shít. He has no interest in the rule of law or human rights. He is disgusting human trash. 2 years ago +1
If someone is in danger and the only way to save them is to break the law then yes it is legal. Of course at face value is sounds like a contradiction. I'm referring to specific laws. For example, it is legal to break into a home if your life is in serious danger. Exceptions are written into the law, so yes technically you wouldn't be breaking the law. 2 years ago  
I like to think I get a new one each time 2 years ago  
lolwut Margaret Sanger never said that. She was a huge advocate for black rights in the US too, so painting her as a racist is completely wrong. You should do your proper research before you try a hit piece. Like who are you trying to be? Roger Stone? If you want to quote Hillary admiring someone who actually is terrible just get her quote on Henry Kissinger, the war criminal. 2 years ago +1
I'd rather be more informed than ignorant. Gender isn't the same as sex. Gender is a social construct. 2 years ago +1
Monsanto doesn't just own patents on lifeforms. They are also a major player in the pesticide business. Monsanto is patenting seeds that they genetically engineered. They aren't patenting animals nor naturally produced seeds. They created these seeds. Patenting is also the only way for us to know what is actually in these seeds, since they have to publicly disclose the ingredients. 2 years ago  
Imma just give them all 100 except Mormons. 2 years ago  
It is incredibly important that weed becomes legalized across the West. There is a huge opioid addiction epidemic and weed is currently the only thing that can curb it. Prescription pills are being handed out like candy for pain treatment that could easily be medicated with weed. 2 years ago  
It's patents may have helped create its market share, but it's money is what keep sit there. So you're not in support of patenting? If they didn't patent their products it would still be hard to cut into the market, because it would be very hard to replicate their work if you don't know it and even if you did they'd just squash you, because they're so powerful. 2 years ago  
If they hold a fair referendum and recieve a clear majority then yes of course. 2 years ago  
So you think they wouldn't be monopolies anymore if the government never involved itself at all? How do you figure that? 2 years ago  
Anderson is a good reporter when he wants to be. He was a huge pussy towards the GOP in the primary this year. 2 years ago +1
I don't care at all 2 years ago  
I don't know enough about Charles Darwin to even speculate 2 years ago  
So Obama said that when he was 5 and Clinton when she was 13? 2 years ago  
They should be able to hold a referendum and then they should be able split if they can achieve a clear majority. 2 years ago  
I always want a Democratic controlled Congress. The GOP has controlled the Senate for 2 years and the House for 6 and all they achieved was gridlock. They also wasted money on other things like investigating Hillary's role in Benghazi, and every single investigation concluded she did nothing wrong. Also, the nation already is more liberal than Clinton. Majority of Americans support universal healthcare, tougher banking regulations, and getting money out of politics. Opposition to fracking is also growing to the point where the country is now split. 2 years ago +1
Well anarchy can't exist for very long. The natural progression of civilization is to create government. Yes, anarchy has exists, but that was prior to civilization. We can look at examples of anarchy in areas where the government collapsed and political vacuum was created. Those areas generally are experiencing war and unrest and eventually a government takes over. This government is usually worse than the previous one. You would never get anarchy in a stable state. At least not in a democratic one. 2 years ago +1
lol the bias is real. I support a degree of statism like a vast majority of society. There is no evidence to suggest that an anarchist society is safer, freer, or provides a better quality of life at all. 2 years ago +1
There is a unique Canadian identity and within that theres many smaller distinct identities. Yes, we earned our secession through diplomatic means. That helped shape our view of war. As a result, our government doesn't often put troops on the group. If you think invading the second largest country in the world would be easy then you will definitely fail. You thought it's be easy in 1812. Didn't work so well for you then and it won't work today. 2 years ago  
Neither of them were countries, but they very much did exist. Canada was BNA and USA was the Thirteen Colonies. In fact, it was the War of 1812 that helped solidify the Canadian identity as separate from Britain. 2 years ago  
I'd feel bad having to embarrass the US again like we did in 1775 and 1812 2 years ago  
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 16-20 yes; 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13-15 yes (regulated); 9 no 2 years ago  
Tell that to Chuck Norris. That man hasn't aged a day in decades. 2 years ago  
ok Alex Jones 2 years ago  
They come off like that because that's how you perceive them. You just heard what you wanted to hear. I don't see how a man that has barely proposed any policy could possible come off as someone who will get something done. What is he gonna get done? 2 years ago +1
lolwut thanks 2 years ago  
She's more left-wing 2 years ago  
They are there in scripture, but not in practise. There's a huge difference. There are also plenty of archaic laws in the criminal code. Sometimes it's easier to just ignore the laws then to get rid of them. 2 years ago  
They never chose to be born on the wrong side of the border. It's easy to criticize when you were born in a middle-class family in Virginia. Plus, how am I on the high horse? I'm the one suggesting they should have just as much an opportunity as myself to achieve American citizenship. First of all, if you deported them to Canada that would be weird. Second of all, yeah sure send them here. If they're willing to work then they deserve a chance at being a Canadian citizen. I believe citizenship should be earned through hard work and not bought. My ancestors came to Canada as immigrants with no money. If they tried to come to Canada today they probably wouldn't have been allowed in. My family was given that right, so it would be unfair of me to deny that to others. Unlike apparently you, I believe everyone deserves the same rights. Mobility rights are fundamental to a just and fair society and I fully support them. 3 years ago  
Good for the Bible. The Bible is just a collection of stories. Stories don't kill people. If you're gonna judge people who adhere to a religion with a strictly scripture mindset then you don't understand religion at all. Religion is all about interpretation. The religious practice something called confirmation bias. There are plenty of examples of contradictory statements in the Bible. People choose what they want to believe. Fundamentalism isn't that popular. Hell, even fundamentalists ignore parts of the scripture. 3 years ago  
There has been many figures from various churches that have fought on the right side of freedom. MLK was a Baptist minister that fought for black rights in the US and achieved a lot of that through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Tommy Douglas was a Baptist minister that got homosexuality decriminalized in Canada and started the push for what would eventually become the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Pope Francis is also a huge advocate for human rights as well. 3 years ago  
Strong leadership? How is destroying your nations economy a strong leadership move? It's super easy to take the low road. Strong leadership is taking the high road. Strong leadership is recognizing that there are 11 million people in the United States that aren't afforded the same rights as the most powerless citizens, because they happen to be of the lowest socioeconomic status and not born in the US. Strong leadership isn't attacking the powerless. That's pussy leadership. These immigrants also play a very important role in the economy. They perform all of the jobs that no one else wants to do. 3 years ago +2
The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom ranks Austria 28th and Belgium 44th. Those are both low rankings for developed countries. 3 years ago  
You can if you want, but I doubt we'll agree on all of it. There's advantages too. Mexico takes advantage of the US and the US takes advantage of Mexico. That's world politics. I don't see how that's bullying. They came out with the pamphlets at least partly to reduce injury and death among these migrants. Maybe it wasn't the smartest approach, but that's how they decided to do it. They wouldn't be able to force Mexico to pay for the wall and the American people would have to foot the bill. 3 years ago  
"Tolerance leads to conflict" oxymoron of the day. If you only consider the facts and data than you'd be delighted to know that increased immigration leads to higher economic output. And especially in Europe they need more immigrants, because their citizens aren't having enough children. If the population starts decreasing then the economy will stagnate. Also, I'd like to point out that "many of whom" is a very small percentage of the population. And many of these migrants are refugees. Refugees by definition are in serious danger if they do not leave. Morality does belong in politics and that morality should be that we do not send people back to places where there is an ongoing war. We did that with Jewish refugees during WW2. 3 years ago +1
Crony-capitalism is terrible, but capitalism in general obviously isn't a failure. A completely nationalized economic system is just as bad as a completely privatized economic system. The key is to have an appropriate balance of both to achieve high levels of both personal and economic freedoms. Hong Kong and Singapore have very high economic freedom, but their personal freedom isn't as high.This is especially true for Singapore. On the other side, Austria and Belgium have very high personal freedom, but low economic freedom. This is specially true for Belgium. Switzerland, Canada, and New Zealand have high ratings in both categories. Switzerland, Canada, and New Zealand are also some of the most progressive/liberal countries in the world. 3 years ago  
That's US politics for you 3 years ago  
So they should be punished for being poor and wanting a better life? Do you think they want to be illegal immigrants? If they could go through the legal process they would. They don't give a sh*t about your message. They never gave a sh*t about it when they were threatened with deportation and the US built 700 miles of fencing. They're gonna get a better life for themselves and their family whether you like it or not. Also, trying to make your third largest trading partner pay for a stupid wall is totally a brilliant economic move. 3 years ago +2
lol who's rigging the polls? Even conservative polling stations have Hillary in a consistent lead. In fact, the Fox News poll that came out today has her beating Trump by 7% nationally and 6% when Johnson and Stein are included. 3 years ago +1
Misclicked. She has actually proposed an option. She has proposed new immigration reform that will help them get citizenship. What has Trump proposed? His wall will be $20 billion to build excluding the cost of transportation and maintenance. Besides that fact, only half of the illegal immigrants actually come into the US illegally. The other half outstay their visas. If you actually think a wall will keep out the immigrants that enter illegally you are way underestimating their ingenuity, potential, and resources. 3 years ago +5
So pretty much I'd be Rocky from Don't Breathe. Yeah I'm good 3 years ago +1
In many cases it's perfectly legal to break the law if doing so saves a life. 3 years ago +1
Since only the US can invade us by land... 3 years ago  
Yes the revolving door of government and industry has created a favourable atmosphere between government and Monsanto.That helps them gain profits, but that doesn't say anything about how Monsanto became a monopoly. They get this favourability because they are a monopoly. Are you suggesting Monsanto wouldn't be a monopoly without the government? 3 years ago  
There are government-granted monopolies, but that's absurd to claim most monopolies are due to the government. How is the government responsible for Monsanto, Google, or AB InBev? 3 years ago +1
Keynesian supports government stimulus during economic downturns, but little spending during economic booms. If that's supporting big government then sure. I've never heard of Keynes opposing Keynesian economics and my research doesn't show anything supporting that claim. I have no idea what you're talking about there. It was Keynesian economics that saved capitalism and ended the Great Depression. It was Laissez faire economics that put us in that depression just like it put us in the Great Recession of '08, so if you want to talk about failed economics we can, but it doesn't start with a 'K'. 3 years ago  
As a social democrat I understand economics just fine. Laissez faire economics benefits the upper class while Keynesian economics benefits the middle class. I happen to support Keynesian economics, because I believe when the middle class is empowered the economy does it's best. Under Keynesian economics everyone's wealth increased and everyone was doing better off. Under the current Laissez faire system only the wealth of the upper class is increasing. As a result economic inequality is growing. History shows that there should be some economic inequality, but if it gets too high democracy and basic rights erode. I happen to be a huge supporter of democracy and freedom. I also understand the constitutions of the US and Canada quite well. Nothing I purpose is against either constitutions. 3 years ago +1
Maybe private enterprises should install bigger seats 3 years ago  
Don't know what happens in other places, but where I'm from people always hold the door for each other. 3 years ago  
If I could prevent the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans and 20,000 innocent Afghani people this is a pretty easy choice for me. I don't care about changing history. This is some history I would gladly changed. 3 years ago  
Yes that is the definition of authoritarian. How does that prove your point that it is the antithesis of democracy? Yes there are plenty of parts in the Quran and Hadith that advocate for those positions. There is also plenty of parts in the Tanakh and Bible that advocate for those positions too. Are you suggesting that most Jews and Christians are violent and barbaric too? No of course not, because there is something called confirmation bias. You can't judge a whole religion based solely off of its religious text. People believe what they want to believe and in the case of religion a vast majority from every religion prefer to support the more peaceful and tolerant parts of their respective religions. Islam doesn't have one interpretation. Maybe you interpret it as some violent, barbaric religion, but to suggest that everyone else does is ignorant at best. In democratic Islamic countries none of those are in full force. You won't even find any of the religious cleansing in most of the authoritarian Islamic countries. At least not the ones with stable governments. 3 years ago  
That seems clear enough. That doesn't excuse their actions nor is that even relevant to the discussion. 3 years ago  
436 more comments hidden.

Prometheus has created the following lists:

  • This user doesn't have any lists.