[POLITICS] Police Officer says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 'should be shot'

[Saelune]

If more ?leaders? were willing to put their money where their mouth was, maybe things would actually improve. That?s basically what Trump started out as and why he gathered such a following. Retain that aspect but put a more pragmatic, well spoken and civil person were in the running and we might be onto something.

mwah?
I have the impression that where Trump's mouth is, is where the money isn't, and if it is it soon won't be. Can you enlighten us to these 'money adjacent to Trump's mouth' happenings?

Was alluding to Trump speaking bluntly even if it offended people vs the typical politician fashion of sugar coating everything and kissing voters? asses until they?re behind closed doors or better (worse) yet, elected.

 

[Saelune]

If high tax rates on the rich were the answer, it would have worked by now. Scott Hodge, the Tax Foundation?s president, says: ?Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.? [https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/sorry-mr-obama-heres-why-raising-taxes-the-rich-wont-work]

And here I thought we didn't want European style "socialism" because our taxes would go up, but now I hear our taxes on rich people are already higher? Which is it?

If trickle down economics worked, it'd've worked by now. Instead we have runaway income inequality.

The idea was to trickle down in the form of more jobs > more income. It?s not guaranteed though of course, and the working part especially requires a meet half way philosophy.

 

[Saelune]

Spoiler

Edit: It has been pointed out that much of the information I posted was inaccurate due to personal bias and lack of proper research. The original shall be left up for the sake of context

Ok, I doubt you too. Why is she a moron? We live in a world where Trump is president and people defend that, but he is just, a HUGE FUCKING IDIOT!

Great, Antifa aint doing shit. Antifa is a right-wing dog-whistle. How many people have they killed? Now how many people have the police killed? How many have right-wing terrorists killed? Name me ONE place shot up by Antifa, cause I got multiple cases of right-wing mass shooters.


A cop just said AOC should be shot, but lets shit on AOC, right?

I mean, I wasn't planning to turn this into a thread of me bashing AOC besides the one off comment, but if you want my full run down on that one.

Spoiler: AOC clown car

I can bring up the 20 min press Conference in which its stated that trumps alleged racist remarks are called "a distraction for the news media" while simultaneously holding a press Conference for a rebuttal(because that's logically consistent).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2A4KndU-g&t=

Here's one regarding the "concentration camps" in which an officer refutes a lie she told about immigrants being made to "drink out of toilets"

EDIT: As was pointed out by another user, It would appear that AOC later clarifies that the sink unit of the particular facility she visited was broken and detainies were told to drink from the toilet instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZNxesruXVM

She also thinks illegal immegrants shouldn't be targeted by ICE at all. Like, just give them free reign apparently. You can argue all day about their treatment, that's a seperate issue. Enforce the laws in some form or fashion.

https://www.facebook.com/mrctv/videos/aoc-ice-shouldnt-target-illegal-aliens/573376283185797/

She also doesn't understand that crossing a boarder illegally is, well, illegal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw

And I could go all day from there. Basic point is, I'd like for the Democrats to succeed in 2020. And part of their agenda should be to tell this woman to put a sock in it so she doesn't ruin it for the rest of them. Same goes for a number of other representatives in the party.

As far as Antifa goes, your criteria for allowing people to complain about something is that it has to reach an arbitrary number on a violence scale otherwise it's not worth talking about? That doesn't sound feasible.

The problem is the Democratic Party in general also doesn?t seem to understand that fact in the spoilered part. They also don?t have an answer as to how we?re supposed to taken care of hundreds of thousands of illegals when we?ve never been able to do so for our own citizens in the first place. A lot of opinions would also most likely change if these politicians stepped out of their gated communities and started experiencing the effects of mass-immigration and refugee intake more personally. Kinda like saying they?re so concerned for the environment and lament the lack of concern over climate change right before they?re whisked off in a deluxe package Suburban after giving their moving speeches.

If more ?leaders? were willing to put their money where their mouth was, maybe things would actually improve. That?s basically what Trump started out as and why he gathered such a following. Retain that aspect but put a more pragmatic, well spoken and civil person were in the running and we might be onto something.

Democrats, or people in reality don't understand the "spoilered part", because as pointed out above, the spoilered part was in fact false information and AOC was actually right. " the whole AOC clown car" was provably a lie, as shown already in this thread and corrected. As shown above, the ICE agent was avoiding the part of the law that AOC was addressing and was the one who was inaccurate. People seeking asylum do not need to do so at the port of entry according the the law itself, nor are they violating their ability to claim asylum in the US as falsely stated by the former ICE director. It is not a crime for them to cross into the US wherever they can and turn themselves in as they have been doing under US asylum law.

Trump, regardless of him thinking he can do whatever he wants, does not actually write the laws, nor can he change them at will by executive order, congress does. Trump and his administration have been in violation of numerous court orders on his handling of immigration and is actually breaking the law.

The US has no problem "being able" to take care of our own citizens, it is just Republicans prevent the US from doing so. There is more than enough to go around in the US, the US is no where near over populated, in fact many towns are shrinking to the point of not existing instead. Like Warren stated in the debates last night, Even a 2% wealth tax on those with over $50 million in wealth (approximately 75,000 families) assets would be enough to generate over $2.75 trillion to use on programs to "take care of the people" alone. Repuplicans instead take from the poor and middle class to allow the already wealthy to take even more. It is false that Republicans do not support welfare in the US, they actually do, they just only support welfare for the wealthy and allow them to pay less percentages of taxes than the middle class do. Republicans have no issue giving out dole to the corporations and wealthy businessmen who back them, just not to those who will die without help. Instead of your taxes being used to help you and others like you when life becomes difficult, they use your tax money to pay Corporations CEO Salaries instead.

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/24/corporate-welfare-state-gop-tax-plan-showers-millionaires-with-17-billion-tax-break/
https://prospect.org/article/how-corporate-welfare-hurts-you
https://fee.org/articles/how-scott-walker-and-the-gop-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-corporate-welfare/

I live in one of the highest immigration regions in North America and I am not seeing that the US actually has an "immigration problem". The only problem I really see the US having right now is they have people who don't know their head from their arse running things so they are making things worse, not better. It is a bit ironic though that a person whose tribe has been on this continent longer than most anyone is telling you that North America does not have an immigration problem and thinks you do not have a right to close off access to this land to others. Who gets to decide you get to come in and lock the door behind you? These families coming in have just as much right to be here as you do, as your ancestors did and should be welcomed just the same. They are just as important as you are, as I am, and there is no reason this should ever be viewed as an " us vs them" issue in the first place and I have no idea why you are attempting to make it out to be one.

You should also take a closer look at who you are saying has "never had to experience the effect of these things" because many of our representatives came from meager means themselves. Of course there are plenty of "come from wealth" people in congress, however, those that are the most outspoken on protecting immigrants are often the ones who come from immigrant families and have struggled themselves.

Immigrants and children of immigrants make up at least 13% of congress:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/in-116th-congress-at-least-13-of-lawmakers-are-immigrants-or-the-children-of-immigrants/

Studies: Democratic politicians represent middle-class voters. GOP politicians don't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/16226202/oligarchy-political-science-politician-congress-respond-citizens-public-opinion

It is also interesting how many Republicans who want to stop others from having the same rights that were afforded to their own families. Under's Trump's own Proposals, his wife would lose her citizenship since she violated her visa and lied on her citizenship
application. Mitch McConnell's wife arrived in the US on a cargo ship from China and did not speak any English. What is Trump doing to people in their same circumstance today? Are they getting the same chance afforded to their own families or are they just greedy hypocrites that are trying to hoard life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for themselves while denying it to everyone else?

They have no problem giving out opportunity to their own spouses and themselves, but will torture and punish other families for doing the same. It is sadist tbh and against everything the US is supposed to stand for in the first place. It isn't just "his mouth" that is the problem here, it is his policies.

The problem isn't as simple as assigning all blame to evil Republican forces. It also has to do with the fact that Democratic leadership can be deceiving [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/12/27/liberal-priorities-all-seem-to-hurt-the-poor/#24d402742db5] and has routinely failed [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-decades-of-democratic-rule-ruined-some-of-our-finest-cities/] the voters who've put faith in them.

Democratic leadership is more about empowering the government than it is empowering the people. The reason republicans have typically given tax breaks to the wealthy is simply because they are typically the ones driving economic growth. If high tax rates on the rich were the answer, it would have worked by now. Scott Hodge, the Tax Foundation?s president, says: ?Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.? [https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/sorry-mr-obama-heres-why-raising-taxes-the-rich-wont-work]

Ah yes, citing a Republican think-tank funded by billionaires and an economist who's literally arguing that improved labor standards will hurt the poor. Hell not only does he do that, but he also argues that concentrating all of the pollution and trash in poor areas is actually a good thing for them because it wouldn't be fair for the wealthy to have it in theirs. Fuck me dude do you even read the articles you post? Another one of them is literally a guy going "when a Democrat is in office, THINGS BAD. When a Republican is in office THINGS GOOD. Here are my examples completely void of context."

Environmental justice is a combination of environmentalism and social justice which means we should make sure that what pollution is left (landfills, dirty factories, etc.) are spread evenly throughout our communities rather than concentrated into poor neighborhoods. While this seems eminently fair and noble, land is cheaper in poorer areas, so when we move factories and landfills to higher-priced neighborhoods, we raise their costs, meaning we all must pay higher prices or higher taxes (or both).

It?s basic economics from a pragmatic standpoint. Would you want to pay a premium on a property that was sitting next to a landfill? Or should we just spread the crap around so there are simply be no desirable properties available?

 

[Saelune]

Democratic leadership is more about empowering the government than it is empowering the people. The reason republicans have typically given tax breaks to the wealthy is simply because they are typically the ones driving economic growth.

Republicans? No that's a lie that needs to die.

https://www.thebalance.com/democratic-presidents-impact-on-economy-4129132

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/history-shows-stocks-gdp-outperform-under-democrats

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/#16cc028fcb44

https://www.thebalance.com/democratic-presidents-impact-on-economy-4129132

https://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_charts_prove_that_the_economy_does_better_under_democratic_presidents/

Which angle are we looking at here though? It?s pretty self explanatory that regulations and increased taxes which the left is keen to promote stifle growth, both small and large businesses. I?ve never seen more cranes downtown putting up new buildings and road construction the last couple years.

 

[CritialGaming]

Threads like this are why I don't watch the news. The only time the news media is honest is during natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes. When it comes to politics, nobody is honest, nobody expresses how they truly feel, nobody reports facts. It's all cherry picked shit designed to support whatever argument needs supporting at the moment.

I remember Katrina and Puerto Rico being heavily politicised. It almost like politics is in everything. Trump also called the media liars then too.

Politicised only after the fact. During the events things are pretty clean.

Threads like this are why I don't watch the news. The only time the news media is honest is during natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes. When it comes to politics, nobody is honest, nobody expresses how they truly feel, nobody reports facts. It's all cherry picked shit designed to support whatever argument needs supporting at the moment.

Of course it is.

Now head on back to your hidey-hole enjoying your "superiority" by being above it all as the world continues to get worse. I'm sure that'll work out just dandy!

My "superiority"? How is my choice to live my own life "superiority"? I don't understand what you are trying to imply against me here, as if my choice to avoid listening to people bash the latest "politician of the day" is, or avoiding to listen to the media blame video games and rap music for the latest tragedy, all somehow is supposed to be a negative on who I am as a person.

 

[Nedoras]

Spoiler

Edit: It has been pointed out that much of the information I posted was inaccurate due to personal bias and lack of proper research. The original shall be left up for the sake of context

Ok, I doubt you too. Why is she a moron? We live in a world where Trump is president and people defend that, but he is just, a HUGE FUCKING IDIOT!

Great, Antifa aint doing shit. Antifa is a right-wing dog-whistle. How many people have they killed? Now how many people have the police killed? How many have right-wing terrorists killed? Name me ONE place shot up by Antifa, cause I got multiple cases of right-wing mass shooters.


A cop just said AOC should be shot, but lets shit on AOC, right?

I mean, I wasn't planning to turn this into a thread of me bashing AOC besides the one off comment, but if you want my full run down on that one.

Spoiler: AOC clown car

I can bring up the 20 min press Conference in which its stated that trumps alleged racist remarks are called "a distraction for the news media" while simultaneously holding a press Conference for a rebuttal(because that's logically consistent).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2A4KndU-g&t=

Here's one regarding the "concentration camps" in which an officer refutes a lie she told about immigrants being made to "drink out of toilets"

EDIT: As was pointed out by another user, It would appear that AOC later clarifies that the sink unit of the particular facility she visited was broken and detainies were told to drink from the toilet instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZNxesruXVM

She also thinks illegal immegrants shouldn't be targeted by ICE at all. Like, just give them free reign apparently. You can argue all day about their treatment, that's a seperate issue. Enforce the laws in some form or fashion.

https://www.facebook.com/mrctv/videos/aoc-ice-shouldnt-target-illegal-aliens/573376283185797/

She also doesn't understand that crossing a boarder illegally is, well, illegal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw

And I could go all day from there. Basic point is, I'd like for the Democrats to succeed in 2020. And part of their agenda should be to tell this woman to put a sock in it so she doesn't ruin it for the rest of them. Same goes for a number of other representatives in the party.

As far as Antifa goes, your criteria for allowing people to complain about something is that it has to reach an arbitrary number on a violence scale otherwise it's not worth talking about? That doesn't sound feasible.

The problem is the Democratic Party in general also doesn?t seem to understand that fact in the spoilered part. They also don?t have an answer as to how we?re supposed to taken care of hundreds of thousands of illegals when we?ve never been able to do so for our own citizens in the first place. A lot of opinions would also most likely change if these politicians stepped out of their gated communities and started experiencing the effects of mass-immigration and refugee intake more personally. Kinda like saying they?re so concerned for the environment and lament the lack of concern over climate change right before they?re whisked off in a deluxe package Suburban after giving their moving speeches.

If more ?leaders? were willing to put their money where their mouth was, maybe things would actually improve. That?s basically what Trump started out as and why he gathered such a following. Retain that aspect but put a more pragmatic, well spoken and civil person were in the running and we might be onto something.

Democrats, or people in reality don't understand the "spoilered part", because as pointed out above, the spoilered part was in fact false information and AOC was actually right. " the whole AOC clown car" was provably a lie, as shown already in this thread and corrected. As shown above, the ICE agent was avoiding the part of the law that AOC was addressing and was the one who was inaccurate. People seeking asylum do not need to do so at the port of entry according the the law itself, nor are they violating their ability to claim asylum in the US as falsely stated by the former ICE director. It is not a crime for them to cross into the US wherever they can and turn themselves in as they have been doing under US asylum law.

Trump, regardless of him thinking he can do whatever he wants, does not actually write the laws, nor can he change them at will by executive order, congress does. Trump and his administration have been in violation of numerous court orders on his handling of immigration and is actually breaking the law.

The US has no problem "being able" to take care of our own citizens, it is just Republicans prevent the US from doing so. There is more than enough to go around in the US, the US is no where near over populated, in fact many towns are shrinking to the point of not existing instead. Like Warren stated in the debates last night, Even a 2% wealth tax on those with over $50 million in wealth (approximately 75,000 families) assets would be enough to generate over $2.75 trillion to use on programs to "take care of the people" alone. Repuplicans instead take from the poor and middle class to allow the already wealthy to take even more. It is false that Republicans do not support welfare in the US, they actually do, they just only support welfare for the wealthy and allow them to pay less percentages of taxes than the middle class do. Republicans have no issue giving out dole to the corporations and wealthy businessmen who back them, just not to those who will die without help. Instead of your taxes being used to help you and others like you when life becomes difficult, they use your tax money to pay Corporations CEO Salaries instead.

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/24/corporate-welfare-state-gop-tax-plan-showers-millionaires-with-17-billion-tax-break/
https://prospect.org/article/how-corporate-welfare-hurts-you
https://fee.org/articles/how-scott-walker-and-the-gop-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-corporate-welfare/

I live in one of the highest immigration regions in North America and I am not seeing that the US actually has an "immigration problem". The only problem I really see the US having right now is they have people who don't know their head from their arse running things so they are making things worse, not better. It is a bit ironic though that a person whose tribe has been on this continent longer than most anyone is telling you that North America does not have an immigration problem and thinks you do not have a right to close off access to this land to others. Who gets to decide you get to come in and lock the door behind you? These families coming in have just as much right to be here as you do, as your ancestors did and should be welcomed just the same. They are just as important as you are, as I am, and there is no reason this should ever be viewed as an " us vs them" issue in the first place and I have no idea why you are attempting to make it out to be one.

You should also take a closer look at who you are saying has "never had to experience the effect of these things" because many of our representatives came from meager means themselves. Of course there are plenty of "come from wealth" people in congress, however, those that are the most outspoken on protecting immigrants are often the ones who come from immigrant families and have struggled themselves.

Immigrants and children of immigrants make up at least 13% of congress:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/in-116th-congress-at-least-13-of-lawmakers-are-immigrants-or-the-children-of-immigrants/

Studies: Democratic politicians represent middle-class voters. GOP politicians don't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/16226202/oligarchy-political-science-politician-congress-respond-citizens-public-opinion

It is also interesting how many Republicans who want to stop others from having the same rights that were afforded to their own families. Under's Trump's own Proposals, his wife would lose her citizenship since she violated her visa and lied on her citizenship
application. Mitch McConnell's wife arrived in the US on a cargo ship from China and did not speak any English. What is Trump doing to people in their same circumstance today? Are they getting the same chance afforded to their own families or are they just greedy hypocrites that are trying to hoard life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for themselves while denying it to everyone else?

They have no problem giving out opportunity to their own spouses and themselves, but will torture and punish other families for doing the same. It is sadist tbh and against everything the US is supposed to stand for in the first place. It isn't just "his mouth" that is the problem here, it is his policies.

The problem isn't as simple as assigning all blame to evil Republican forces. It also has to do with the fact that Democratic leadership can be deceiving [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/12/27/liberal-priorities-all-seem-to-hurt-the-poor/#24d402742db5] and has routinely failed [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-decades-of-democratic-rule-ruined-some-of-our-finest-cities/] the voters who've put faith in them.

Democratic leadership is more about empowering the government than it is empowering the people. The reason republicans have typically given tax breaks to the wealthy is simply because they are typically the ones driving economic growth. If high tax rates on the rich were the answer, it would have worked by now. Scott Hodge, the Tax Foundation?s president, says: ?Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.? [https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/sorry-mr-obama-heres-why-raising-taxes-the-rich-wont-work]

Ah yes, citing a Republican think-tank funded by billionaires and an economist who's literally arguing that improved labor standards will hurt the poor. Hell not only does he do that, but he also argues that concentrating all of the pollution and trash in poor areas is actually a good thing for them because it wouldn't be fair for the wealthy to have it in theirs. Fuck me dude do you even read the articles you post? Another one of them is literally a guy going "when a Democrat is in office, THINGS BAD. When a Republican is in office THINGS GOOD. Here are my examples completely void of context."

Environmental justice is a combination of environmentalism and social justice which means we should make sure that what pollution is left (landfills, dirty factories, etc.) are spread evenly throughout our communities rather than concentrated into poor neighborhoods. While this seems eminently fair and noble, land is cheaper in poorer areas, so when we move factories and landfills to higher-priced neighborhoods, we raise their costs, meaning we all must pay higher prices or higher taxes (or both).

It?s basic economics from a pragmatic standpoint. Would you want to pay a premium on a property that was sitting next to a landfill? Or should we just spread the crap around so there are simply be no desirable properties available?

The guy is literally saying it's better for the poor to live in heavily polluted areas. My point in bringing that up isn't that I want landfills to be evenly spread across the country. It was to show how fucking absurd he was being. That entire article was laughable. The entire premise was arguing that the poor have it bad, but they have to have it bad, because that's the way it is and we can't change things. The end of the article was fucking sickening too. "I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount." What a fucking worm. He doesn't give a single fuck about the environment or poor people, and said so over and over throughout the damn piece. It was anti-intellectual dogshit.

 

[Silvanus]

Politicised only after the fact. During the events things are pretty clean.

How much relief a disaster-affected area receives, and how it is spent, are political questions. What the government should do to alleviate the damage is a political question. Where displaced people should go and what they should receive are political questions. These are decisions made immediately by necessity.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

Democratic leadership is more about empowering the government than it is empowering the people. The reason republicans have typically given tax breaks to the wealthy is simply because they are typically the ones driving economic growth.

Republicans? No that's a lie that needs to die.

https://www.thebalance.com/democratic-presidents-impact-on-economy-4129132

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/history-shows-stocks-gdp-outperform-under-democrats

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/#16cc028fcb44

https://www.thebalance.com/democratic-presidents-impact-on-economy-4129132

https://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_charts_prove_that_the_economy_does_better_under_democratic_presidents/

Which angle are we looking at here though? It?s pretty self explanatory that regulations and increased taxes which the left is keen to promote stifle growth, both small and large businesses. I?ve never seen more cranes downtown putting up new buildings and road construction the last couple years.

Well it depends what you mean by growth. I'm Ireland our gdp is higher than ever and the average salary is incredibly high right. Median salary is shit and there's and entire generation that won't own a house until they inherit their parents' one. Growth means nothing when the only people seeing any benefit from it are the people who already have everything. Regulations and taxes are what stop income inequality spiralling out of control. LAX regulations is why the majority of the developed world considers American produce basically poison and working conditions disgraceful. And guess what? The rest of the world with it's regulations and progressive taxes is doing fine. We're also not mowing each other down at an alarming rate or descending into full blown communism just because getting a degree and surgery won't financially ruin you. But congrats, you'll get a lot more poorly paid jobs created by tax avoiding companies trickling nothing but piss down your leg and telling you it's raining.

 

[Saelune]

Spoiler

Edit: It has been pointed out that much of the information I posted was inaccurate due to personal bias and lack of proper research. The original shall be left up for the sake of context

Ok, I doubt you too. Why is she a moron? We live in a world where Trump is president and people defend that, but he is just, a HUGE FUCKING IDIOT!

Great, Antifa aint doing shit. Antifa is a right-wing dog-whistle. How many people have they killed? Now how many people have the police killed? How many have right-wing terrorists killed? Name me ONE place shot up by Antifa, cause I got multiple cases of right-wing mass shooters.


A cop just said AOC should be shot, but lets shit on AOC, right?

I mean, I wasn't planning to turn this into a thread of me bashing AOC besides the one off comment, but if you want my full run down on that one.

Spoiler: AOC clown car

I can bring up the 20 min press Conference in which its stated that trumps alleged racist remarks are called "a distraction for the news media" while simultaneously holding a press Conference for a rebuttal(because that's logically consistent).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2A4KndU-g&t=

Here's one regarding the "concentration camps" in which an officer refutes a lie she told about immigrants being made to "drink out of toilets"

EDIT: As was pointed out by another user, It would appear that AOC later clarifies that the sink unit of the particular facility she visited was broken and detainies were told to drink from the toilet instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZNxesruXVM

She also thinks illegal immegrants shouldn't be targeted by ICE at all. Like, just give them free reign apparently. You can argue all day about their treatment, that's a seperate issue. Enforce the laws in some form or fashion.

https://www.facebook.com/mrctv/videos/aoc-ice-shouldnt-target-illegal-aliens/573376283185797/

She also doesn't understand that crossing a boarder illegally is, well, illegal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw

And I could go all day from there. Basic point is, I'd like for the Democrats to succeed in 2020. And part of their agenda should be to tell this woman to put a sock in it so she doesn't ruin it for the rest of them. Same goes for a number of other representatives in the party.

As far as Antifa goes, your criteria for allowing people to complain about something is that it has to reach an arbitrary number on a violence scale otherwise it's not worth talking about? That doesn't sound feasible.

The problem is the Democratic Party in general also doesn?t seem to understand that fact in the spoilered part. They also don?t have an answer as to how we?re supposed to taken care of hundreds of thousands of illegals when we?ve never been able to do so for our own citizens in the first place. A lot of opinions would also most likely change if these politicians stepped out of their gated communities and started experiencing the effects of mass-immigration and refugee intake more personally. Kinda like saying they?re so concerned for the environment and lament the lack of concern over climate change right before they?re whisked off in a deluxe package Suburban after giving their moving speeches.

If more ?leaders? were willing to put their money where their mouth was, maybe things would actually improve. That?s basically what Trump started out as and why he gathered such a following. Retain that aspect but put a more pragmatic, well spoken and civil person were in the running and we might be onto something.

Democrats, or people in reality don't understand the "spoilered part", because as pointed out above, the spoilered part was in fact false information and AOC was actually right. " the whole AOC clown car" was provably a lie, as shown already in this thread and corrected. As shown above, the ICE agent was avoiding the part of the law that AOC was addressing and was the one who was inaccurate. People seeking asylum do not need to do so at the port of entry according the the law itself, nor are they violating their ability to claim asylum in the US as falsely stated by the former ICE director. It is not a crime for them to cross into the US wherever they can and turn themselves in as they have been doing under US asylum law.

Trump, regardless of him thinking he can do whatever he wants, does not actually write the laws, nor can he change them at will by executive order, congress does. Trump and his administration have been in violation of numerous court orders on his handling of immigration and is actually breaking the law.

The US has no problem "being able" to take care of our own citizens, it is just Republicans prevent the US from doing so. There is more than enough to go around in the US, the US is no where near over populated, in fact many towns are shrinking to the point of not existing instead. Like Warren stated in the debates last night, Even a 2% wealth tax on those with over $50 million in wealth (approximately 75,000 families) assets would be enough to generate over $2.75 trillion to use on programs to "take care of the people" alone. Repuplicans instead take from the poor and middle class to allow the already wealthy to take even more. It is false that Republicans do not support welfare in the US, they actually do, they just only support welfare for the wealthy and allow them to pay less percentages of taxes than the middle class do. Republicans have no issue giving out dole to the corporations and wealthy businessmen who back them, just not to those who will die without help. Instead of your taxes being used to help you and others like you when life becomes difficult, they use your tax money to pay Corporations CEO Salaries instead.

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/24/corporate-welfare-state-gop-tax-plan-showers-millionaires-with-17-billion-tax-break/
https://prospect.org/article/how-corporate-welfare-hurts-you
https://fee.org/articles/how-scott-walker-and-the-gop-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-corporate-welfare/

I live in one of the highest immigration regions in North America and I am not seeing that the US actually has an "immigration problem". The only problem I really see the US having right now is they have people who don't know their head from their arse running things so they are making things worse, not better. It is a bit ironic though that a person whose tribe has been on this continent longer than most anyone is telling you that North America does not have an immigration problem and thinks you do not have a right to close off access to this land to others. Who gets to decide you get to come in and lock the door behind you? These families coming in have just as much right to be here as you do, as your ancestors did and should be welcomed just the same. They are just as important as you are, as I am, and there is no reason this should ever be viewed as an " us vs them" issue in the first place and I have no idea why you are attempting to make it out to be one.

You should also take a closer look at who you are saying has "never had to experience the effect of these things" because many of our representatives came from meager means themselves. Of course there are plenty of "come from wealth" people in congress, however, those that are the most outspoken on protecting immigrants are often the ones who come from immigrant families and have struggled themselves.

Immigrants and children of immigrants make up at least 13% of congress:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/in-116th-congress-at-least-13-of-lawmakers-are-immigrants-or-the-children-of-immigrants/

Studies: Democratic politicians represent middle-class voters. GOP politicians don't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/16226202/oligarchy-political-science-politician-congress-respond-citizens-public-opinion

It is also interesting how many Republicans who want to stop others from having the same rights that were afforded to their own families. Under's Trump's own Proposals, his wife would lose her citizenship since she violated her visa and lied on her citizenship
application. Mitch McConnell's wife arrived in the US on a cargo ship from China and did not speak any English. What is Trump doing to people in their same circumstance today? Are they getting the same chance afforded to their own families or are they just greedy hypocrites that are trying to hoard life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for themselves while denying it to everyone else?

They have no problem giving out opportunity to their own spouses and themselves, but will torture and punish other families for doing the same. It is sadist tbh and against everything the US is supposed to stand for in the first place. It isn't just "his mouth" that is the problem here, it is his policies.

The problem isn't as simple as assigning all blame to evil Republican forces. It also has to do with the fact that Democratic leadership can be deceiving [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/12/27/liberal-priorities-all-seem-to-hurt-the-poor/#24d402742db5] and has routinely failed [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-decades-of-democratic-rule-ruined-some-of-our-finest-cities/] the voters who've put faith in them.

Democratic leadership is more about empowering the government than it is empowering the people. The reason republicans have typically given tax breaks to the wealthy is simply because they are typically the ones driving economic growth. If high tax rates on the rich were the answer, it would have worked by now. Scott Hodge, the Tax Foundation?s president, says: ?Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.? [https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/sorry-mr-obama-heres-why-raising-taxes-the-rich-wont-work]

Ah yes, citing a Republican think-tank funded by billionaires and an economist who's literally arguing that improved labor standards will hurt the poor. Hell not only does he do that, but he also argues that concentrating all of the pollution and trash in poor areas is actually a good thing for them because it wouldn't be fair for the wealthy to have it in theirs. Fuck me dude do you even read the articles you post? Another one of them is literally a guy going "when a Democrat is in office, THINGS BAD. When a Republican is in office THINGS GOOD. Here are my examples completely void of context."

Environmental justice is a combination of environmentalism and social justice which means we should make sure that what pollution is left (landfills, dirty factories, etc.) are spread evenly throughout our communities rather than concentrated into poor neighborhoods. While this seems eminently fair and noble, land is cheaper in poorer areas, so when we move factories and landfills to higher-priced neighborhoods, we raise their costs, meaning we all must pay higher prices or higher taxes (or both).

It?s basic economics from a pragmatic standpoint. Would you want to pay a premium on a property that was sitting next to a landfill? Or should we just spread the crap around so there are simply be no desirable properties available?

The guy is literally saying it's better for the poor to live in heavily polluted areas. My point in bringing that up isn't that I want landfills to be evenly spread across the country. It was to show how fucking absurd he was being. That entire article was laughable. The entire premise was arguing that the poor have it bad, but they have to have it bad, because that's the way it is and we can't change things. The end of the article was fucking sickening too. "I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount." What a fucking worm. He doesn't give a single fuck about the environment or poor people, and said so over and over throughout the damn piece. It was anti-intellectual dogshit.

He ?literally? just made a fact-of-the-matter statement based on economic realities. Should he have said, ?Instead of dumping more trash and building more landfills in poor neighborhoods, we should really start redistributing it to wealthy neighborhoods, because god knows they can afford it more.?? That doesn?t really sound any less absurd. You seem to be wanting an ideal solution, but the problem is we don?t live in an ideal world by any means.

If we are aiming for there to be less pollution and garbage-filled landfills and oceans, then people need to start coming to grips with the elephant in the room and acknowledge the need for population awareness and control. The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources [http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet] that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

 

[Saelune]

Reminder that Republicans made death threats to a sitting politician and are facing no consequences for it.

 

[Silvanus]

The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources [http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet] that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

Don't imagine for a second that these problems are unfixable. We are not lacking the technology, or the capability, or the resources to combat pollution, waste, climate change and habitat destruction.

We are lacking the political will, and the awareness.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources [http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet] that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

Don't imagine for a second that these problems are unfixable. We are not lacking the technology, or the capability, or the resources to combat pollution, waste, climate change and habitat destruction.

We are lacking the political will, and the awareness.

TBH, I think even those who deny it is a problem are fully aware, they are just liars or are so self centered they simply do not care how it will affect others because they think they have enough wealth to move and survive whatever so they choose their greed over doing anything about it.

Sadly, at this point I think they are just too greedy to care is a bigger part of the problem.

 

[Thaluikhain]

TBH, I think even those who deny it is a problem are fully aware, they are just liars or are so self centered they simply do not care how it will affect others because they think they have enough wealth to move and survive whatever so they choose their greed over doing anything about it.

Yes and no, I tend to believe that a lot of them don't know it's a problem, in the same way as the prominent Nazi technocrat Albert Speer didn't know about the Holocaust, because he made sure not to know. They aren't lying when they tell people that they don't think it's a problem, they do lie to themselves first.

Not all of them, of course, a lot just don't care, but how many are which, and how many are in-between I can't say.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

TBH, I think even those who deny it is a problem are fully aware, they are just liars or are so self centered they simply do not care how it will affect others because they think they have enough wealth to move and survive whatever so they choose their greed over doing anything about it.

Yes and no, I tend to believe that a lot of them don't know it's a problem, in the same way as the prominent Nazi technocrat Albert Speer didn't know about the Holocaust, because he made sure not to know. They aren't lying when they tell people that they don't think it's a problem, they do lie to themselves first.

Not all of them, of course, a lot just don't care, but how many are which, and how many are in-between I can't say.

How could they not know it is a problem? Not in In the US at least. It is part of mandatory education even in Republican States such as Texas we are taught from Kindergarten all the way up every single year about the effects of humankind on the environment, the mass extinction we are experiencing, How all the large animals may disappear within our lifetime, the great Pacific Garbage Patch and all the plastic in our oceans and the animals within, the incredible amount of pollution and how the poles are melting faster than ever due to all the chemicals and gasses we are pumping into our atmosphere. We did projects on the effects of our chemicals on our Ozone layer. In elementary school, they took us on field trips to plant trees and wildflowers and teach us about which plants filter which chemicals out of the air. We participated in fundraisers to save animals from extinction and clean up and reduce pollution as part of our school projects. These things are part of our mandatory education and have been for a very long time now. You cannot even pass elementary school, graduate middle school or high school without being able to answer these questions accurately, so how can they claim not to know about it? That doesn't even make sense to me.

I know for a fact this has been a serious topic of concern at the indigenous people's conferences and the tribes all over the world are very aware and concerned and have been making efforts to work towards solutions so even in the most remote areas, this is well known.

Even in Ethiopia they just planted 350 Million trees in a day to try to combat climate change, so they seem to know about it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49266983
and Kenya is to plant a million trees this year:
https://www.africa.com/kenyan-scouts-to-plant-1-million-trees-in-2019/
India planted 220 Million Trees in a day:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-india-plants-220-million-trees-in-a-single-day-to-save-the-planet/

I honestly cannot fathom how the remote regions of the earth know about this, but the wealthy and educated in developed nations could be oblivious to it. Do you know of any schools anywhere on the planet that haven't been teaching about this for decades now? Where this isn't seen on the news non stop? At this point they really have to be choosing to ignore it to feed their own greed.

 

[Nedoras]

Spoiler

Edit: It has been pointed out that much of the information I posted was inaccurate due to personal bias and lack of proper research. The original shall be left up for the sake of context

Ok, I doubt you too. Why is she a moron? We live in a world where Trump is president and people defend that, but he is just, a HUGE FUCKING IDIOT!

Great, Antifa aint doing shit. Antifa is a right-wing dog-whistle. How many people have they killed? Now how many people have the police killed? How many have right-wing terrorists killed? Name me ONE place shot up by Antifa, cause I got multiple cases of right-wing mass shooters.


A cop just said AOC should be shot, but lets shit on AOC, right?

I mean, I wasn't planning to turn this into a thread of me bashing AOC besides the one off comment, but if you want my full run down on that one.

Spoiler: AOC clown car

I can bring up the 20 min press Conference in which its stated that trumps alleged racist remarks are called "a distraction for the news media" while simultaneously holding a press Conference for a rebuttal(because that's logically consistent).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2A4KndU-g&t=

Here's one regarding the "concentration camps" in which an officer refutes a lie she told about immigrants being made to "drink out of toilets"

EDIT: As was pointed out by another user, It would appear that AOC later clarifies that the sink unit of the particular facility she visited was broken and detainies were told to drink from the toilet instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZNxesruXVM

She also thinks illegal immegrants shouldn't be targeted by ICE at all. Like, just give them free reign apparently. You can argue all day about their treatment, that's a seperate issue. Enforce the laws in some form or fashion.

https://www.facebook.com/mrctv/videos/aoc-ice-shouldnt-target-illegal-aliens/573376283185797/

She also doesn't understand that crossing a boarder illegally is, well, illegal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw

And I could go all day from there. Basic point is, I'd like for the Democrats to succeed in 2020. And part of their agenda should be to tell this woman to put a sock in it so she doesn't ruin it for the rest of them. Same goes for a number of other representatives in the party.

As far as Antifa goes, your criteria for allowing people to complain about something is that it has to reach an arbitrary number on a violence scale otherwise it's not worth talking about? That doesn't sound feasible.

The problem is the Democratic Party in general also doesn?t seem to understand that fact in the spoilered part. They also don?t have an answer as to how we?re supposed to taken care of hundreds of thousands of illegals when we?ve never been able to do so for our own citizens in the first place. A lot of opinions would also most likely change if these politicians stepped out of their gated communities and started experiencing the effects of mass-immigration and refugee intake more personally. Kinda like saying they?re so concerned for the environment and lament the lack of concern over climate change right before they?re whisked off in a deluxe package Suburban after giving their moving speeches.

If more ?leaders? were willing to put their money where their mouth was, maybe things would actually improve. That?s basically what Trump started out as and why he gathered such a following. Retain that aspect but put a more pragmatic, well spoken and civil person were in the running and we might be onto something.

Democrats, or people in reality don't understand the "spoilered part", because as pointed out above, the spoilered part was in fact false information and AOC was actually right. " the whole AOC clown car" was provably a lie, as shown already in this thread and corrected. As shown above, the ICE agent was avoiding the part of the law that AOC was addressing and was the one who was inaccurate. People seeking asylum do not need to do so at the port of entry according the the law itself, nor are they violating their ability to claim asylum in the US as falsely stated by the former ICE director. It is not a crime for them to cross into the US wherever they can and turn themselves in as they have been doing under US asylum law.

Trump, regardless of him thinking he can do whatever he wants, does not actually write the laws, nor can he change them at will by executive order, congress does. Trump and his administration have been in violation of numerous court orders on his handling of immigration and is actually breaking the law.

The US has no problem "being able" to take care of our own citizens, it is just Republicans prevent the US from doing so. There is more than enough to go around in the US, the US is no where near over populated, in fact many towns are shrinking to the point of not existing instead. Like Warren stated in the debates last night, Even a 2% wealth tax on those with over $50 million in wealth (approximately 75,000 families) assets would be enough to generate over $2.75 trillion to use on programs to "take care of the people" alone. Repuplicans instead take from the poor and middle class to allow the already wealthy to take even more. It is false that Republicans do not support welfare in the US, they actually do, they just only support welfare for the wealthy and allow them to pay less percentages of taxes than the middle class do. Republicans have no issue giving out dole to the corporations and wealthy businessmen who back them, just not to those who will die without help. Instead of your taxes being used to help you and others like you when life becomes difficult, they use your tax money to pay Corporations CEO Salaries instead.

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/24/corporate-welfare-state-gop-tax-plan-showers-millionaires-with-17-billion-tax-break/
https://prospect.org/article/how-corporate-welfare-hurts-you
https://fee.org/articles/how-scott-walker-and-the-gop-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-corporate-welfare/

I live in one of the highest immigration regions in North America and I am not seeing that the US actually has an "immigration problem". The only problem I really see the US having right now is they have people who don't know their head from their arse running things so they are making things worse, not better. It is a bit ironic though that a person whose tribe has been on this continent longer than most anyone is telling you that North America does not have an immigration problem and thinks you do not have a right to close off access to this land to others. Who gets to decide you get to come in and lock the door behind you? These families coming in have just as much right to be here as you do, as your ancestors did and should be welcomed just the same. They are just as important as you are, as I am, and there is no reason this should ever be viewed as an " us vs them" issue in the first place and I have no idea why you are attempting to make it out to be one.

You should also take a closer look at who you are saying has "never had to experience the effect of these things" because many of our representatives came from meager means themselves. Of course there are plenty of "come from wealth" people in congress, however, those that are the most outspoken on protecting immigrants are often the ones who come from immigrant families and have struggled themselves.

Immigrants and children of immigrants make up at least 13% of congress:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/in-116th-congress-at-least-13-of-lawmakers-are-immigrants-or-the-children-of-immigrants/

Studies: Democratic politicians represent middle-class voters. GOP politicians don't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/16226202/oligarchy-political-science-politician-congress-respond-citizens-public-opinion

It is also interesting how many Republicans who want to stop others from having the same rights that were afforded to their own families. Under's Trump's own Proposals, his wife would lose her citizenship since she violated her visa and lied on her citizenship
application. Mitch McConnell's wife arrived in the US on a cargo ship from China and did not speak any English. What is Trump doing to people in their same circumstance today? Are they getting the same chance afforded to their own families or are they just greedy hypocrites that are trying to hoard life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for themselves while denying it to everyone else?

They have no problem giving out opportunity to their own spouses and themselves, but will torture and punish other families for doing the same. It is sadist tbh and against everything the US is supposed to stand for in the first place. It isn't just "his mouth" that is the problem here, it is his policies.

The problem isn't as simple as assigning all blame to evil Republican forces. It also has to do with the fact that Democratic leadership can be deceiving [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/12/27/liberal-priorities-all-seem-to-hurt-the-poor/#24d402742db5] and has routinely failed [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-decades-of-democratic-rule-ruined-some-of-our-finest-cities/] the voters who've put faith in them.

Democratic leadership is more about empowering the government than it is empowering the people. The reason republicans have typically given tax breaks to the wealthy is simply because they are typically the ones driving economic growth. If high tax rates on the rich were the answer, it would have worked by now. Scott Hodge, the Tax Foundation?s president, says: ?Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.? [https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/sorry-mr-obama-heres-why-raising-taxes-the-rich-wont-work]

Ah yes, citing a Republican think-tank funded by billionaires and an economist who's literally arguing that improved labor standards will hurt the poor. Hell not only does he do that, but he also argues that concentrating all of the pollution and trash in poor areas is actually a good thing for them because it wouldn't be fair for the wealthy to have it in theirs. Fuck me dude do you even read the articles you post? Another one of them is literally a guy going "when a Democrat is in office, THINGS BAD. When a Republican is in office THINGS GOOD. Here are my examples completely void of context."

Environmental justice is a combination of environmentalism and social justice which means we should make sure that what pollution is left (landfills, dirty factories, etc.) are spread evenly throughout our communities rather than concentrated into poor neighborhoods. While this seems eminently fair and noble, land is cheaper in poorer areas, so when we move factories and landfills to higher-priced neighborhoods, we raise their costs, meaning we all must pay higher prices or higher taxes (or both).

It?s basic economics from a pragmatic standpoint. Would you want to pay a premium on a property that was sitting next to a landfill? Or should we just spread the crap around so there are simply be no desirable properties available?

The guy is literally saying it's better for the poor to live in heavily polluted areas. My point in bringing that up isn't that I want landfills to be evenly spread across the country. It was to show how fucking absurd he was being. That entire article was laughable. The entire premise was arguing that the poor have it bad, but they have to have it bad, because that's the way it is and we can't change things. The end of the article was fucking sickening too. "I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount." What a fucking worm. He doesn't give a single fuck about the environment or poor people, and said so over and over throughout the damn piece. It was anti-intellectual dogshit.

He ?literally? just made a fact-of-the-matter statement based on economic realities. Should he have said, ?Instead of dumping more trash and building more landfills in poor neighborhoods, we should really start redistributing it to wealthy neighborhoods, because god knows they can afford it more.?? That doesn?t really sound any less absurd. You seem to be wanting an ideal solution, but the problem is we don?t live in an ideal world by any means.

If we are aiming for there to be less pollution and garbage-filled landfills and oceans, then people need to start coming to grips with the elephant in the room and acknowledge the need for population awareness and control. The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources [http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet] that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

What economic reality? He said that people's taxes would be raised, but that isn't a fact. You pointed out that wealthy people wouldn't pay a premium on a nice house next to a landfill, which I think is the actual reason. He didn't make a point, he made a shitty argument that it's okay for poor people to breathe in pollution because taxes might go up maybe. Then at the end of the article he laughed off the notion of climate change, as if he even gave a shit about any of this at all. No, he shouldn't have made the argument period, as it was incredibly ridiculous.

I know that truly ideal solutions are almost impossible at this point. But I want better solutions than what's being proposed by a lot of lawmakers now, which are just bandaids being put on a gunshot wound. Better solutions are possible, it's just going to be met with a stupid amount of pushback in the same way that a single payer system currently is here in the States. Doesn't mean that we can't try though, considering the consequences.


What do you mean by population awareness and control? People buying and using things isn't the main problem. The individual impact on these things is nothing compared to the corporate and governmental impact on it. That reckless human "ambition" is just striving for stupid amounts of ever growing wealth with not a single care for the consequences. That CAN be solved. That same amount of ambition can be used to push for and fix these problems, it just isn't. Instead we're told it can't be done and these fucks are allowed to keep destroying the planet. Because, ya know, it's not immediately profitable or profitable at all to fix things. I understand none of this is easy to fix, and that it isn't just one thing either. A hell of a lot needs to be done and even though I fully believe it can be, plenty is already set so firmly in place that it's going to take way too long. Some of which is highlighted in the article you linked. But we still need to try and pretty much nothing is being done at the moment. Hell, the current administration is trying to actively make things worse.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Edit: It has been pointed out that much of the information I posted was inaccurate due to personal bias and lack of proper research. The original shall be left up for the sake of context

Ok, I doubt you too. Why is she a moron? We live in a world where Trump is president and people defend that, but he is just, a HUGE FUCKING IDIOT!

Great, Antifa aint doing shit. Antifa is a right-wing dog-whistle. How many people have they killed? Now how many people have the police killed? How many have right-wing terrorists killed? Name me ONE place shot up by Antifa, cause I got multiple cases of right-wing mass shooters.


A cop just said AOC should be shot, but lets shit on AOC, right?

I mean, I wasn't planning to turn this into a thread of me bashing AOC besides the one off comment, but if you want my full run down on that one.

Spoiler: AOC clown car

I can bring up the 20 min press Conference in which its stated that trumps alleged racist remarks are called "a distraction for the news media" while simultaneously holding a press Conference for a rebuttal(because that's logically consistent).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2A4KndU-g&t=

Here's one regarding the "concentration camps" in which an officer refutes a lie she told about immigrants being made to "drink out of toilets"

EDIT: As was pointed out by another user, It would appear that AOC later clarifies that the sink unit of the particular facility she visited was broken and detainies were told to drink from the toilet instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZNxesruXVM

She also thinks illegal immegrants shouldn't be targeted by ICE at all. Like, just give them free reign apparently. You can argue all day about their treatment, that's a seperate issue. Enforce the laws in some form or fashion.

https://www.facebook.com/mrctv/videos/aoc-ice-shouldnt-target-illegal-aliens/573376283185797/

She also doesn't understand that crossing a boarder illegally is, well, illegal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw

And I could go all day from there. Basic point is, I'd like for the Democrats to succeed in 2020. And part of their agenda should be to tell this woman to put a sock in it so she doesn't ruin it for the rest of them. Same goes for a number of other representatives in the party.

As far as Antifa goes, your criteria for allowing people to complain about something is that it has to reach an arbitrary number on a violence scale otherwise it's not worth talking about? That doesn't sound feasible.

The problem is the Democratic Party in general also doesn?t seem to understand that fact in the spoilered part. They also don?t have an answer as to how we?re supposed to taken care of hundreds of thousands of illegals when we?ve never been able to do so for our own citizens in the first place. A lot of opinions would also most likely change if these politicians stepped out of their gated communities and started experiencing the effects of mass-immigration and refugee intake more personally. Kinda like saying they?re so concerned for the environment and lament the lack of concern over climate change right before they?re whisked off in a deluxe package Suburban after giving their moving speeches.

If more ?leaders? were willing to put their money where their mouth was, maybe things would actually improve. That?s basically what Trump started out as and why he gathered such a following. Retain that aspect but put a more pragmatic, well spoken and civil person were in the running and we might be onto something.

Democrats, or people in reality don't understand the "spoilered part", because as pointed out above, the spoilered part was in fact false information and AOC was actually right. " the whole AOC clown car" was provably a lie, as shown already in this thread and corrected. As shown above, the ICE agent was avoiding the part of the law that AOC was addressing and was the one who was inaccurate. People seeking asylum do not need to do so at the port of entry according the the law itself, nor are they violating their ability to claim asylum in the US as falsely stated by the former ICE director. It is not a crime for them to cross into the US wherever they can and turn themselves in as they have been doing under US asylum law.

Trump, regardless of him thinking he can do whatever he wants, does not actually write the laws, nor can he change them at will by executive order, congress does. Trump and his administration have been in violation of numerous court orders on his handling of immigration and is actually breaking the law.

The US has no problem "being able" to take care of our own citizens, it is just Republicans prevent the US from doing so. There is more than enough to go around in the US, the US is no where near over populated, in fact many towns are shrinking to the point of not existing instead. Like Warren stated in the debates last night, Even a 2% wealth tax on those with over $50 million in wealth (approximately 75,000 families) assets would be enough to generate over $2.75 trillion to use on programs to "take care of the people" alone. Repuplicans instead take from the poor and middle class to allow the already wealthy to take even more. It is false that Republicans do not support welfare in the US, they actually do, they just only support welfare for the wealthy and allow them to pay less percentages of taxes than the middle class do. Republicans have no issue giving out dole to the corporations and wealthy businessmen who back them, just not to those who will die without help. Instead of your taxes being used to help you and others like you when life becomes difficult, they use your tax money to pay Corporations CEO Salaries instead.

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/24/corporate-welfare-state-gop-tax-plan-showers-millionaires-with-17-billion-tax-break/
https://prospect.org/article/how-corporate-welfare-hurts-you
https://fee.org/articles/how-scott-walker-and-the-gop-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-corporate-welfare/

I live in one of the highest immigration regions in North America and I am not seeing that the US actually has an "immigration problem". The only problem I really see the US having right now is they have people who don't know their head from their arse running things so they are making things worse, not better. It is a bit ironic though that a person whose tribe has been on this continent longer than most anyone is telling you that North America does not have an immigration problem and thinks you do not have a right to close off access to this land to others. Who gets to decide you get to come in and lock the door behind you? These families coming in have just as much right to be here as you do, as your ancestors did and should be welcomed just the same. They are just as important as you are, as I am, and there is no reason this should ever be viewed as an " us vs them" issue in the first place and I have no idea why you are attempting to make it out to be one.

You should also take a closer look at who you are saying has "never had to experience the effect of these things" because many of our representatives came from meager means themselves. Of course there are plenty of "come from wealth" people in congress, however, those that are the most outspoken on protecting immigrants are often the ones who come from immigrant families and have struggled themselves.

Immigrants and children of immigrants make up at least 13% of congress:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/in-116th-congress-at-least-13-of-lawmakers-are-immigrants-or-the-children-of-immigrants/

Studies: Democratic politicians represent middle-class voters. GOP politicians don't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/16226202/oligarchy-political-science-politician-congress-respond-citizens-public-opinion

It is also interesting how many Republicans who want to stop others from having the same rights that were afforded to their own families. Under's Trump's own Proposals, his wife would lose her citizenship since she violated her visa and lied on her citizenship
application. Mitch McConnell's wife arrived in the US on a cargo ship from China and did not speak any English. What is Trump doing to people in their same circumstance today? Are they getting the same chance afforded to their own families or are they just greedy hypocrites that are trying to hoard life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for themselves while denying it to everyone else?

They have no problem giving out opportunity to their own spouses and themselves, but will torture and punish other families for doing the same. It is sadist tbh and against everything the US is supposed to stand for in the first place. It isn't just "his mouth" that is the problem here, it is his policies.

The problem isn't as simple as assigning all blame to evil Republican forces. It also has to do with the fact that Democratic leadership can be deceiving [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/12/27/liberal-priorities-all-seem-to-hurt-the-poor/#24d402742db5] and has routinely failed [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-decades-of-democratic-rule-ruined-some-of-our-finest-cities/] the voters who've put faith in them.

Democratic leadership is more about empowering the government than it is empowering the people. The reason republicans have typically given tax breaks to the wealthy is simply because they are typically the ones driving economic growth. If high tax rates on the rich were the answer, it would have worked by now. Scott Hodge, the Tax Foundation?s president, says: ?Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.? [https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/sorry-mr-obama-heres-why-raising-taxes-the-rich-wont-work]

Ah yes, citing a Republican think-tank funded by billionaires and an economist who's literally arguing that improved labor standards will hurt the poor. Hell not only does he do that, but he also argues that concentrating all of the pollution and trash in poor areas is actually a good thing for them because it wouldn't be fair for the wealthy to have it in theirs. Fuck me dude do you even read the articles you post? Another one of them is literally a guy going "when a Democrat is in office, THINGS BAD. When a Republican is in office THINGS GOOD. Here are my examples completely void of context."

Environmental justice is a combination of environmentalism and social justice which means we should make sure that what pollution is left (landfills, dirty factories, etc.) are spread evenly throughout our communities rather than concentrated into poor neighborhoods. While this seems eminently fair and noble, land is cheaper in poorer areas, so when we move factories and landfills to higher-priced neighborhoods, we raise their costs, meaning we all must pay higher prices or higher taxes (or both).

It?s basic economics from a pragmatic standpoint. Would you want to pay a premium on a property that was sitting next to a landfill? Or should we just spread the crap around so there are simply be no desirable properties available?

The guy is literally saying it's better for the poor to live in heavily polluted areas. My point in bringing that up isn't that I want landfills to be evenly spread across the country. It was to show how fucking absurd he was being. That entire article was laughable. The entire premise was arguing that the poor have it bad, but they have to have it bad, because that's the way it is and we can't change things. The end of the article was fucking sickening too. "I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount." What a fucking worm. He doesn't give a single fuck about the environment or poor people, and said so over and over throughout the damn piece. It was anti-intellectual dogshit.

He ?literally? just made a fact-of-the-matter statement based on economic realities. Should he have said, ?Instead of dumping more trash and building more landfills in poor neighborhoods, we should really start redistributing it to wealthy neighborhoods, because god knows they can afford it more.?? That doesn?t really sound any less absurd. You seem to be wanting an ideal solution, but the problem is we don?t live in an ideal world by any means.

If we are aiming for there to be less pollution and garbage-filled landfills and oceans, then people need to start coming to grips with the elephant in the room and acknowledge the need for population awareness and control. The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources [http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet] that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

What economic reality? He said that people's taxes would be raised, but that isn't a fact. You pointed out that wealthy people wouldn't pay a premium on a nice house next to a landfill, which I think is the actual reason. He didn't make a point, he made a shitty argument that it's okay for poor people to breathe in pollution because taxes might go up maybe. Then at the end of the article he laughed off the notion of climate change, as if he even gave a shit about any of this at all. No, he shouldn't have made the argument period, as it was incredibly ridiculous.

I know that truly ideal solutions are almost impossible at this point. But I want better solutions than what's being proposed by a lot of lawmakers now, which are just bandaids being put on a gunshot wound. Better solutions are possible, it's just going to be met with a stupid amount of pushback in the same way that a single payer system currently is here in the States. Doesn't mean that we can't try though, considering the consequences.


What do you mean by population awareness and control? People buying and using things isn't the main problem. The individual impact on these things is nothing compared to the corporate and governmental impact on it. That reckless human "ambition" is just striving for stupid amounts of ever growing wealth with not a single care for the consequences. That CAN be solved. That same amount of ambition can be used to push for and fix these problems, it just isn't. Instead we're told it can't be done and these fucks are allowed to keep destroying the planet. Because, ya know, it's not immediately profitable or profitable at all. I understand none of this is easy to fix, and that it isn't just one thing either. A hell of a lot needs to be done and even though I fully believe it can be, plenty is already set so firmly in place that it's going to take way too long. Some of which is highlighted in the article you linked. But we still need to try and pretty much nothing is being done at the moment. Hell, the current administration is trying to actively make things worse.

Yes the very premise that someone has to live next to a landfill and that someone has to live in a polluted environment in the first place is completely and utterly false. No one should be forced to live next to toxic chemicals, and a clean, safe environment should never be considered "just reserved for the wealthy" and I have no idea why anyone would think it would be. They need to clean that shit up and if that area is too badly damaged to do so in a timely manner, then they need to relocate the people there to a livable environment as part of "maintaining the general welfare of the people" as is the duty of the federal government at the tax payer's expense due to the government allowing the general welfare of the people to be violated in the first place with the pollutants. They need to solve the problems and if they fail to do so they are failing in their duties to protect the people.

I have never understood this mindset that it is somehow okay to force other people to suffer because "someone has to" . No, no they do not and there is no excuse for thinking they do or being willing to turn a blind eye to it in the first place. I am seriously trying to figure out why they think that it is okay to make anyone live in such an environment to begin with or that they think they do not have to figure disposal/ recycling into the cost to produce things in the first place. Why should they profit billions meanwhile leaving tax payers with the bill to clean up the mess from the products they made? The bill to clean the mess up needs to go to those who are profiting from the products that are making the mess. Under no circumstances should the wealthy be able to keep the profits and then go make others live in the filth from the products that brought them the profits in the first place.

 

[Saelune]

Spoiler

Edit: It has been pointed out that much of the information I posted was inaccurate due to personal bias and lack of proper research. The original shall be left up for the sake of context

Ok, I doubt you too. Why is she a moron? We live in a world where Trump is president and people defend that, but he is just, a HUGE FUCKING IDIOT!

Great, Antifa aint doing shit. Antifa is a right-wing dog-whistle. How many people have they killed? Now how many people have the police killed? How many have right-wing terrorists killed? Name me ONE place shot up by Antifa, cause I got multiple cases of right-wing mass shooters.


A cop just said AOC should be shot, but lets shit on AOC, right?

I mean, I wasn't planning to turn this into a thread of me bashing AOC besides the one off comment, but if you want my full run down on that one.

Spoiler: AOC clown car

I can bring up the 20 min press Conference in which its stated that trumps alleged racist remarks are called "a distraction for the news media" while simultaneously holding a press Conference for a rebuttal(because that's logically consistent).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2A4KndU-g&t=

Here's one regarding the "concentration camps" in which an officer refutes a lie she told about immigrants being made to "drink out of toilets"

EDIT: As was pointed out by another user, It would appear that AOC later clarifies that the sink unit of the particular facility she visited was broken and detainies were told to drink from the toilet instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZNxesruXVM

She also thinks illegal immegrants shouldn't be targeted by ICE at all. Like, just give them free reign apparently. You can argue all day about their treatment, that's a seperate issue. Enforce the laws in some form or fashion.

https://www.facebook.com/mrctv/videos/aoc-ice-shouldnt-target-illegal-aliens/573376283185797/

She also doesn't understand that crossing a boarder illegally is, well, illegal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw

And I could go all day from there. Basic point is, I'd like for the Democrats to succeed in 2020. And part of their agenda should be to tell this woman to put a sock in it so she doesn't ruin it for the rest of them. Same goes for a number of other representatives in the party.

As far as Antifa goes, your criteria for allowing people to complain about something is that it has to reach an arbitrary number on a violence scale otherwise it's not worth talking about? That doesn't sound feasible.

The problem is the Democratic Party in general also doesn?t seem to understand that fact in the spoilered part. They also don?t have an answer as to how we?re supposed to taken care of hundreds of thousands of illegals when we?ve never been able to do so for our own citizens in the first place. A lot of opinions would also most likely change if these politicians stepped out of their gated communities and started experiencing the effects of mass-immigration and refugee intake more personally. Kinda like saying they?re so concerned for the environment and lament the lack of concern over climate change right before they?re whisked off in a deluxe package Suburban after giving their moving speeches.

If more ?leaders? were willing to put their money where their mouth was, maybe things would actually improve. That?s basically what Trump started out as and why he gathered such a following. Retain that aspect but put a more pragmatic, well spoken and civil person were in the running and we might be onto something.

Democrats, or people in reality don't understand the "spoilered part", because as pointed out above, the spoilered part was in fact false information and AOC was actually right. " the whole AOC clown car" was provably a lie, as shown already in this thread and corrected. As shown above, the ICE agent was avoiding the part of the law that AOC was addressing and was the one who was inaccurate. People seeking asylum do not need to do so at the port of entry according the the law itself, nor are they violating their ability to claim asylum in the US as falsely stated by the former ICE director. It is not a crime for them to cross into the US wherever they can and turn themselves in as they have been doing under US asylum law.

Trump, regardless of him thinking he can do whatever he wants, does not actually write the laws, nor can he change them at will by executive order, congress does. Trump and his administration have been in violation of numerous court orders on his handling of immigration and is actually breaking the law.

The US has no problem "being able" to take care of our own citizens, it is just Republicans prevent the US from doing so. There is more than enough to go around in the US, the US is no where near over populated, in fact many towns are shrinking to the point of not existing instead. Like Warren stated in the debates last night, Even a 2% wealth tax on those with over $50 million in wealth (approximately 75,000 families) assets would be enough to generate over $2.75 trillion to use on programs to "take care of the people" alone. Repuplicans instead take from the poor and middle class to allow the already wealthy to take even more. It is false that Republicans do not support welfare in the US, they actually do, they just only support welfare for the wealthy and allow them to pay less percentages of taxes than the middle class do. Republicans have no issue giving out dole to the corporations and wealthy businessmen who back them, just not to those who will die without help. Instead of your taxes being used to help you and others like you when life becomes difficult, they use your tax money to pay Corporations CEO Salaries instead.

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/24/corporate-welfare-state-gop-tax-plan-showers-millionaires-with-17-billion-tax-break/
https://prospect.org/article/how-corporate-welfare-hurts-you
https://fee.org/articles/how-scott-walker-and-the-gop-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-corporate-welfare/

I live in one of the highest immigration regions in North America and I am not seeing that the US actually has an "immigration problem". The only problem I really see the US having right now is they have people who don't know their head from their arse running things so they are making things worse, not better. It is a bit ironic though that a person whose tribe has been on this continent longer than most anyone is telling you that North America does not have an immigration problem and thinks you do not have a right to close off access to this land to others. Who gets to decide you get to come in and lock the door behind you? These families coming in have just as much right to be here as you do, as your ancestors did and should be welcomed just the same. They are just as important as you are, as I am, and there is no reason this should ever be viewed as an " us vs them" issue in the first place and I have no idea why you are attempting to make it out to be one.

You should also take a closer look at who you are saying has "never had to experience the effect of these things" because many of our representatives came from meager means themselves. Of course there are plenty of "come from wealth" people in congress, however, those that are the most outspoken on protecting immigrants are often the ones who come from immigrant families and have struggled themselves.

Immigrants and children of immigrants make up at least 13% of congress:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/in-116th-congress-at-least-13-of-lawmakers-are-immigrants-or-the-children-of-immigrants/

Studies: Democratic politicians represent middle-class voters. GOP politicians don't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/16226202/oligarchy-political-science-politician-congress-respond-citizens-public-opinion

It is also interesting how many Republicans who want to stop others from having the same rights that were afforded to their own families. Under's Trump's own Proposals, his wife would lose her citizenship since she violated her visa and lied on her citizenship
application. Mitch McConnell's wife arrived in the US on a cargo ship from China and did not speak any English. What is Trump doing to people in their same circumstance today? Are they getting the same chance afforded to their own families or are they just greedy hypocrites that are trying to hoard life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for themselves while denying it to everyone else?

They have no problem giving out opportunity to their own spouses and themselves, but will torture and punish other families for doing the same. It is sadist tbh and against everything the US is supposed to stand for in the first place. It isn't just "his mouth" that is the problem here, it is his policies.

The problem isn't as simple as assigning all blame to evil Republican forces. It also has to do with the fact that Democratic leadership can be deceiving [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/12/27/liberal-priorities-all-seem-to-hurt-the-poor/#24d402742db5] and has routinely failed [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-decades-of-democratic-rule-ruined-some-of-our-finest-cities/] the voters who've put faith in them.

Democratic leadership is more about empowering the government than it is empowering the people. The reason republicans have typically given tax breaks to the wealthy is simply because they are typically the ones driving economic growth. If high tax rates on the rich were the answer, it would have worked by now. Scott Hodge, the Tax Foundation?s president, says: ?Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.? [https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/sorry-mr-obama-heres-why-raising-taxes-the-rich-wont-work]

Ah yes, citing a Republican think-tank funded by billionaires and an economist who's literally arguing that improved labor standards will hurt the poor. Hell not only does he do that, but he also argues that concentrating all of the pollution and trash in poor areas is actually a good thing for them because it wouldn't be fair for the wealthy to have it in theirs. Fuck me dude do you even read the articles you post? Another one of them is literally a guy going "when a Democrat is in office, THINGS BAD. When a Republican is in office THINGS GOOD. Here are my examples completely void of context."

Environmental justice is a combination of environmentalism and social justice which means we should make sure that what pollution is left (landfills, dirty factories, etc.) are spread evenly throughout our communities rather than concentrated into poor neighborhoods. While this seems eminently fair and noble, land is cheaper in poorer areas, so when we move factories and landfills to higher-priced neighborhoods, we raise their costs, meaning we all must pay higher prices or higher taxes (or both).

It?s basic economics from a pragmatic standpoint. Would you want to pay a premium on a property that was sitting next to a landfill? Or should we just spread the crap around so there are simply be no desirable properties available?

The guy is literally saying it's better for the poor to live in heavily polluted areas. My point in bringing that up isn't that I want landfills to be evenly spread across the country. It was to show how fucking absurd he was being. That entire article was laughable. The entire premise was arguing that the poor have it bad, but they have to have it bad, because that's the way it is and we can't change things. The end of the article was fucking sickening too. "I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount." What a fucking worm. He doesn't give a single fuck about the environment or poor people, and said so over and over throughout the damn piece. It was anti-intellectual dogshit.

He ?literally? just made a fact-of-the-matter statement based on economic realities. Should he have said, ?Instead of dumping more trash and building more landfills in poor neighborhoods, we should really start redistributing it to wealthy neighborhoods, because god knows they can afford it more.?? That doesn?t really sound any less absurd. You seem to be wanting an ideal solution, but the problem is we don?t live in an ideal world by any means.

If we are aiming for there to be less pollution and garbage-filled landfills and oceans, then people need to start coming to grips with the elephant in the room and acknowledge the need for population awareness and control. The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources [http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet] that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

What economic reality? He said that people's taxes would be raised, but that isn't a fact. You pointed out that wealthy people wouldn't pay a premium on a nice house next to a landfill, which I think is the actual reason. He didn't make a point, he made a shitty argument that it's okay for poor people to breathe in pollution because taxes might go up maybe. Then at the end of the article he laughed off the notion of climate change, as if he even gave a shit about any of this at all. No, he shouldn't have made the argument period, as it was incredibly ridiculous.

I know that truly ideal solutions are almost impossible at this point. But I want better solutions than what's being proposed by a lot of lawmakers now, which are just bandaids being put on a gunshot wound. Better solutions are possible, it's just going to be met with a stupid amount of pushback in the same way that a single payer system currently is here in the States. Doesn't mean that we can't try though, considering the consequences.


What do you mean by population awareness and control? People buying and using things isn't the main problem. The individual impact on these things is nothing compared to the corporate and governmental impact on it. That reckless human "ambition" is just striving for stupid amounts of ever growing wealth with not a single care for the consequences. That CAN be solved. That same amount of ambition can be used to push for and fix these problems, it just isn't. Instead we're told it can't be done and these fucks are allowed to keep destroying the planet. Because, ya know, it's not immediately profitable or profitable at all to fix things. I understand none of this is easy to fix, and that it isn't just one thing either. A hell of a lot needs to be done and even though I fully believe it can be, plenty is already set so firmly in place that it's going to take way too long. Some of which is highlighted in the article you linked. But we still need to try and pretty much nothing is being done at the moment. Hell, the current administration is trying to actively make things worse.

It?s pretty much a never ending cycle, and makes me think humanity is cursed. It?s a flaw of human nature to want the shiny precious, and it typically takes a disaster or catastrophic downfall to realize our arrogance and careless failures. Opposite of paying it forward. ?Fucking it forward? mostly.

I?d like to think a lot is possible to correct, but it almost has to be done sans political anything. People have an innate tendency get too easily hung up on that because for some reason so much of their identity is wrapped up in it, and they don?t like it feeling threatened. Just look at the arguing that goes on on this one site of many.

Reworking education would be a good starting point, but it also starts with the family and we all know how increasingly messed up those seem to have gotten. Chicken>egg>scrambled. Everything happens incrementally, but how to get say, 90% on roughly the same page without all these split up ideologies is the big end game question. If we think of the how and why there are so many in the first place, it was an issue of geography and lack of common knowledge. We mostly don?t have that excuse anymore due to advances in communication and travel, but the legacy effect of what each pocket of civilization has learned will continue for possibly hundreds of years yet.

So we play the waiting game - and it will either be a very long one or back to the catastrophe comment above, a much shorter one - then hope/try to lead the largest amount of people to somewhat of a eutopia. Ideally we won?t have to start from scratch again. With the kinds of weapons we now have, let?s hope we?ve learned enough to avoid a global reboot of civilization.

 

[Thaluikhain]

How could they not know it is a problem?

A lot of heads in the sand and blind eyes, I guess. I tend to believe that Albert Speer and half the Third Reich didn't know about the Holocaust, because they chose not to. Something big and scary they'd have to face up to and weren't able to personally do anything about was going on, so they (consciously or not) avoiding looking at things they knew might lead to having to ask questions.

Nowdays, people might well acknowledge and admit that forests are going, species are dying out, the planet is getting warmer in a vague, general way, one of any number of problems that doesn't affect them in direct and immediate ways. Sure, lefties and greenies and the like make a big fuss, but then they do that. Squint your brain and it looks like a big over-reaction.

It requires some mental gymnastics, but it doesn't (IMHO) require consciously deciding to lie. Not to say that there aren't those doing that.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

How could they not know it is a problem?

A lot of heads in the sand and blind eyes, I guess. I tend to believe that Albert Speer and half the Third Reich didn't know about the Holocaust, because they chose not to. Something big and scary they'd have to face up to and weren't able to personally do anything about was going on, so they (consciously or not) avoiding looking at things they knew might lead to having to ask questions.

Nowdays, people might well acknowledge and admit that forests are going, species are dying out, the planet is getting warmer in a vague, general way, one of any number of problems that doesn't affect them in direct and immediate ways. Sure, lefties and greenies and the like make a big fuss, but then they do that. Squint your brain and it looks like a big over-reaction.

It requires some mental gymnastics, but it doesn't (IMHO) require consciously deciding to lie. Not to say that there aren't those doing that.

Isn't that just lying to themselves to see facts and try to tell themselves it isn't real though?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Isn't that just lying to themselves to see facts and try to tell themselves it isn't real though?

I would say there's a distinction, but it's a subtle one. The results are much the same, though.

OTOH, it's rather different to lying to everyone else because there's profit involved.