Hatfort

This is quite a black or white set out. One thing or the other. Things are more complicated. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, there is a cultural clash. in Western culture, it's normal and accepted those kinds of satire comics where everything can be made fun of. For religious people, particularly the ones that are not that familiar with the western culture, it's an offense to their identity. Should this mockes be ilegal? I don't think so, it is a freedom of speech matter, and the context of a satire comic magazine should be understood as what it is. The prohibition to depict their prophet is for Muslims, the rest of the world that aren't, don't need to follow that rule, but the problem is that the most closeminded believers there's only one truth, theirs, so they can't accept that this prohibition isn't universal. They can't even mentally process this. There are also security reasons to consider, we live in a global world now and there's been militar hostility towards the Middle East from the West and terrorist attacks the other way around. So what do we do? It's complicated. We are in this world together, yes, the Middle East is more undeveloped and they can act with stage red violence easily. The West has been making warzones on these areas for decades and those radicals have received training, technology and weapons from the West. The more developed part should accept a bigger burden and try to put some consciousness into these matters. Putting a fine to this old woman is not right. Yeah, calling savages to other cultures is good old fashioned racism or xenophobia, but she doesn't know better and there are other ways to confront what she did.

Republicans, depending on who's leading. Lovely!

@7thLetter I agree the crisis is huge whoever becomes president. But, again, benefiting the elites even more is not what is going to get us out from it, it's basically the opposite. To reactivate the economy, inequality must be addressed. That doesn't mean everyone must be rich, but it means that poverty has to be minimized. The rich has to be taxed more, that's just a must if you want to make the economy grow. The biggest corporations may be so powerful that they can even threaten and blackmail by playing with prizes to some extent like you say, but that's why citizens are supposed to have an institituion elected by them, the government, to mediate bettwen them and those extremelly powerfull entities. To tell them when they are violating the basic rights of people with their practices, when the society cannot afford those levels of inequality or that on a medical crisis like this we can't squeeze average people more, because they barely make it to pay their basic needs, so we can only turn for money to those who have most. A government should have that role, but that is not the case, what they do is approve laws dictated by corporations, no surprise the rich are getting richer, and more people face poverty or its edge. Lobbying the government by corporations should stop, men and women voted to be in charge are there to serve the citizens. Corporations must not pay polititians, they just gotta pay their fair share of taxes. There is a place for big corporations and there's nothing ilegal about making money and wanting to make more, after they pay their taxes first and their practices are accounted as legal. Biden will concede less than Trump to corporations. But this election wasn't about that at all, I don't think Biden would have won for being slightly fairer. That couldn't move so many greens to vote, not after they've tasted a bit of what Sanders was proposing. But after they've seen the real face of Trump and perhaps regretting not having voted against him in 2016. The vote for Biden was a vote against Trump.

If you allow him, set some rules, like always homework first or time limits. You can be flexible sometimes. Outdoor activities and interactions should be encouraged as well. Also, check how it affects him, any positive result, as his social life is richer, or negative, like being more aggressive or addiction patterns. Based on that, you act. And be part of it, ask him about his avatar or character, how he feels when he plays, how his game went, who is he playing with. Check yourself how the videogame is, observe him playing and ask him, what's this, what's that, who's that, what a nice creature, what an ugly creature, whatever.

@7thLetter First of all, right now we are seeing how Trump is not willing to count votes, making baseless claims about fraud. Consider if that behavior, from him or any polititian running, is beneficial for peace in a country, and its economy as a result, as that seems your main focus. Second, what you learned today is wrong. Raising taxes to the richest does not produce those apocaliptic results you listed, this is the narrative that sometimes direclty and sometimes more subtly the media funded or owned by those rich elites tell everyone, so we believe them keeping more money is good for the economy, bullshit. If that's so, let's the average people fundraise and give the money to the rich. The contrary is true, taxing the richest, who can afford it because they are still going to continue living very well, will permit the government to create a better welfare for all, even create jobs directly, which will create more jobs indirectly, because those with jobs and their families will have the purchasing power to make the businesses around them work, which will create even more families with higher purchasing power. We would have to address how basic needs as medical treatments or having a roof over your head can be facilitated because make no mistake, there are already heavy regulations marking how these matters work, lobbied by corporate interests to remain as they are, which are extremely costly for the average people, sometimes impossible to afford. This could be totally addressed by taxing the richest reasonably and making better regulations. Or maybe we can tax the homeless, taking their coins from their hats, then we give it to the rich people so they make the economy run right. Edit: I wish Biden would address the economy better, but he's not going to be that far from Trump, he'll still be devoted to corporate interests mostly, probably slightly less. The one with a decent list of policies was Sanders, like taking the student debt away, another measure directly benefiting the purchasing power of average people. But the election was between Trump and Biden now, so Biden is the right choice by a huge margin, Trump is an incendiary, crazy and authoritarian narcissist, that doesn't even respect the most basic democratic principle. If you are voted, you rule, if not, you get out.

Then count, count!

Stop counting, counting is fraud!

Can I go to the church on Sunday and start shouting my own speepch with a megaphone while the priest says his prayers and Bible stuff? It's more important my freedom of speech, of course, so the feelings of the priest and his believers don't matter and I am entitled to make my show. Can I take a megaphon and start shouting my speech in the middle of the night in the street? If you oppose these, you are against freedom of speech.

So it seems we are getting there, Biden can win this, by a small margin, but enough to send the clown away from power. I'm not declaring victory, but seems that the final count, considering what's left and from where, should favour Biden. Republicans being so nervous and declaring fraud is very significant as well, they expect to lose once those votes are counted, so they are messing around. As Leo said, Trump made a huge mistake by declaring victory and fraud so soon, how can a democratic candidate explain he wanted to stop counting the votes? How can his supporters defend this? I understand you want your candidate to win, but he's talking directly about not counting votes, wtf! In my country it's not uncommon one or two seats of the parlament changing once they count the mail votes, which can happen some hours later or even next day. Every political party and citizens accept this as part of the election game. How could we not? Trump is crazy and so are most Trumpists.

@7thLetter A bit about spiral dynamics, as I see it on this election: Republicans: Red - Blue - Orange Democrats: Blue - Orange - Green Trump is red himself and there is a significant part of the US population red too, all of them are going to vote for him. There was a woman recently elected for congress, I think, I don't recall the name, but on her ad she was literally holding a rifle and shooting and that's the lunatic Republicans chose as their representative. There is a video of Leo about content vs structure. Well, the content may be different, but the structure of this video is like an ISIS or Alcaeda terrorist one, totally crazy. People rallying with firearms like it's normal in front of the police. Well, mostly whites, I don't think the police would allow other ethnic groups to behave like that. Trump and Biden both can appeal to blues as a patriarchal patriotic figure. Blues don't care about the environment at all, unless the waste touches their door, in that case, they may go for Biden for his green touches. They are also triggered by all kinds of gender issues, which are usually addressed by greens, so they get defensive with those, and may vote for someone like Trump, who is perceived as the antithesis of feminism. Fox news just has to put those issues in front of their noses to trigger them, why speak about poverty and inequality when you can about trans toilets instead. Trump has also some kind of businessman reputation that appeals to oranges, but as fast as you scratch this surface, you can see the vacuum behind or the corruption in the worst case. Oranges leaning to green will vote for Biden. The thing is, Democrats need solid greens voting and maybe campaigning for them, it's also a significant part of the population of the US. Those won't vote for Trump, but it's not sure they will vote for Biden either, that's the problem of the Democrats. Some will understand Biden is the best we can reach right now, those are leaning to yellow. Others want all or nothing and they often get nothing, like perhaps now, we'll see.

Bernie Sanders called for the possibility and he nailed it, at least the first part for now.

No worries, be open to learn and you will. For the economy to work it needs the money to be flowing, so as many people as possible with a decent purchasing power making businesses work by their purchasings, literally. If you have a huge part of the population working for a wage that doesn't even cover their basic needs or that go bankrupt because they get a disease and can't face the medical bills, then the economy can't grow and if it does only for the elites, not to the economy of people in general. So why are not we doing this? A bigger living wage or a medicare for all go against the short term interest of the elites, they want as much money as they can and as fast as it's possible. What else happens? Who has the power to influence and control what's on the media that reaches all houses? The corporations that pay their publicity and the elites. The Internet is big, but there's still a huge amount of boomers that still get fed by the traditional TV. I'm sorry, but, as you, they think elites making even more money is good for the economy, bullshit. The internet is not free of the influence of corporations and elites, they are all over it, but there are at least some chances to get some independent information here and there. Green only focusing on the environment is a very superficial view of them. But, again, the environment is not that disconnected from the economy and society. At the very begining of the economic chain, we take our energy, fuel and resources from nature and we impact it. If a corporation is making huge amounts of gains by using the water of a river and polluting it, to make a simple example, who has to pay for a treatment system so local people can still enjoy the river or at the very least not be intoxicated by it? The taxpayers or the corporation itself with part of their gains? If the corporations take care of it, that's bad for them, so how does hold up the notion of elites doing well is good for the economy here? It does not.

Looks so tight. One of the candidates declaring victory without finishing the count and fraud without any evidence doesn't make him look lke a winner. Of course, it had to be Trump. I hope he loses, Biden must not concide to Trump, only to the numbers if it is the case that he loses, which is yet unknown.

You sound like a triggered snowflake.

Mind to share what have you seen so bad and which members didn't get banned for it? I'm curious.

Well, your understanding is not very deep and quite flawed. What is economy? Is it big corporations doing good but without this translating to the workers that work hard for them, but just to a minor elite? Well, this elite may buy yatches, it may be good for the business of yatches, but I can tell you that for the economy, in general, is awful. Going to social issues now, if people's purchasing power is low, it's bad for so many businesses they will stop getting service from. Those businesses are run by people with families too. Is it good for the economy that those elites don't pay taxes or legislations make it easy or even legal to evade them? For their economy it may be good, for the economy in general it's awful. Is it good for the economy to have people on the edge of poverty or directly homeless and struggling to have food? At some point, we gotta look the large numbers of the economy, see where the most amount of money is and where is not. The best way to reactivate the economy and the flow of money is to start redistributing again. The legal system now is being lobbied by corporation and elites for their benefit, this is not a neutral system that we are living in now, to think that the economy is not alrealy intervined is a delusion, it is, but for the favor of the ones that have the capacity of doing it, surprise, the rich ones, so they get richer. Republicans are not focused on economics, they are focused on elites. So are democrats, but they are obliged to implement some progressive policies here and there to maintain part of their base, which makes them a better option. Obama won with these promisses he didn't fulfill, Biden won't either if he wins, he's not promissing much either, it just happens that Trump is much worse than him from a progressive point of view. But this base is growing and they are going to demand more of those policies, which will be good for the economy for the reasons stated above. Environmental issues are not that disconnected from society and economy either, it's just fair to ask the ones that produce dirt and harm to take care of it. Yeah, they are gonna earn less, and less tax money will be used to clean their messes or the environment will suffer less in the first place. I can live with that.

Who is trying that? We don't need to believe taking this guest seriously is the right call. Jones is silly and crazy for believing the shit that he spits on his channel and so his followers. As far as I know, we have an amount of freedom of speech to say he is deluded and regressive and that Rogan could do better. Also, Trump is a shitty president, shame on voting for him. Sorry, one day for the elections, it has to be said. Freedom of speech.

Conscious politics: Biden looks with better chances, but this is not done and anything can happen. Biden is not a great candidate himself, but from a progressive point of view, step one is to beat Trump who is a danger for peace and democracy, step two would be to lobby Biden to put people first before corporations as much as possible. Unconscious politics: I want to see the clown's filthy ass kicked out from the White House. Americans, make it happen.

Well, sometimes it's fine to defend oneself. You made some generalizations about how vegans treat animals that I thought needed to be put into question, not to say you kind of said what I think personally about myself, which I don't.

You don't appreciate death in some particular cases though. You suggested different ways to deal with problems as a more valid alternative than killing. I'm not talking about food now, you do believe and practice the take of dealing with problems in a different manner, that's what I understand, because that's what you said. Look man, I don't think think my diet makes me superior, so don't say that, but I know where my food comes from and sometimes I state it, although not often, as I know people get very defensive when I do that. Maybe you are morally superior to those who think that are morally superior. Have you thought about that?

Good, then what was your point? I was being sarcastic, by the way. Sorry, I know some people don't like it.

That's not what I understood from your comment, to be honest. You state some vague ideas, I gotta make some assumptions as you don't say anything straight. So you lose something to gain something... Oh my godness, I'm leaving veganism right now, one hamburger, please!

I see some kind of trend online about the importance of taking Trump away from office above other considerations like Biden being a good candidate himself. Will that translate to votes on November 3rd? I'll believe it when I see it. Black voices for Trump, not a single black. lol

Wouldn't it be cool if this initial Q was originally from Russia?? Something orquestrated by the Russian intelligence to screw the American political outlook even more and spread radicalization? This could be in fact another cool conspiracy theory, haha!

Difference of what? What's your point? The world is not built on life and death, the world is not built on anything, life and death are part of it as many other things are. An important part, I'd say, from our perspective and the perspective of living beings. For stones and rocks, not that much. We need food to live and it doesn't need to be animal based, it can, but it doesn't need to, it's our choice.