Hatfort

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.

I don't think what you say is accurate. If vegans have different ways to deal with problems caused by animals that interfere negatively in their lives other than killing them, that's the route they will take. That's a huge consensus, I don't think you will find a single one opposing that. You may not kill flies, but if you eat a steak or a chicken leg, someone else has done that job for you. Perhaps it could be considered other different way to deal with problems in this case as well. Well, it's got to be considered a problem killing that cow or chicken in the first place, right?

There are more progressive Catholics as well, they will welcome these new perspectives. But, I agree, some factions will oppose him as much as they can and even plot for the next Pope to be more conservative. Though part of their doctrine is to obbey the Pope, Bishops and Priests have to do it, and it's also their job to translate his word in their Sunday masses.

What a great analysis of Jordan Peterson in 4 minutes. This man sees what's beyond the surface, which not everyone can do. There's anger in Jordan Peterson. There's also a lack of consistency, probably unconscious, on how he bashes communism for its bloody past but does not for Christianity for the exact same reasons. I'll add capitalism has a lot of blood in its hands as well and not in the past precisely.

It's second-hand protein and that makes it less efficient and much more resource consuming. Think about how much a cow needs to eat, drink and how much space needs, think about how much what he eats needs, water, space and transport expenses as well. Think about how much a cow shits every single day. Think about how many cows and pigs there are for meat and milk, and the tones of shit they produce. The biggest environmental problem is not transport or factory caused any more, it's meat consumption. We've never eaten that much meat by so many people, on a daily basis, it's just not sustainable for the planet. Rainforests are being cut to grow food for cows, they fucking eat a lot so we have our daily steak, burger, sausage or milk in our plate. How we treat animals it's beyond cruel and they feel pain and similar emotions to us. Yeah, I'm vegan and I'm not going to change that for anything. My health is fine, even better than before. I like the food I eat.

Cool Pope! There's already some backclash among the most close-minded Catholic community, very powerful, by the way. Well, they are supposed to obbey the highest authority of their church on Earth, which is Francis. He is 83, he can be there for some years yet.

@Enlightenment Wow, Leo looks so handsome in that screenshot!

Six points addressed by Sanders in his speech to defend democracy and prevent a chaos scenario that Trump could use in his favour, which is willing to do, according to his own words. People have to vote and as early as possible. A landslide victory for Biden will make it more difficult for Trump to deny the results. With the pandemic and a massive increase in mailing vote, state legislations should allow counting those even before the election date. The faster the ballots are counted, the less space there is for chaos and conspiracy theories. The news media should prepare people to understand they won't have the results on the same election day. Social media companies should stop people from using their tools to spread disinformation, to threaten, or to harass election officials. In the congress and state legislations, hearings must be held to explain how the election day process and the following will be handled. Everything possible must be done to prevent intimidation, chaos, misinformation, and violence. American people, no matter what their political view, must make it clear that American democracy will not be destroyed.

Sanders about Trump: "This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy." https://www.axios.com/sanders-donald-trump-democracy-369291c0-51e6-4827-815c-b57dc5cb9b7c.html His full speech about it: Trump is showing his authoritarian foot too much for his good. He said, "The only way Democrats can win is by rigging the election", so in this scenario he describes, if he wins, fine, but if he loses, he has won as well. WTF? Now he says he may not concede. What did he think democracy and elections meant? For conspiracy theories on both sides, in the 2016 election, there wasn't found any evidence of widespread fraud, at most very isolated incidents. Trump himself as the president feeding these theories, in his favour, of course, it's inconceivable. Biden may not be awesome, but Trump is just too bad. Even Biden approves this message, 10 seconds ad:

She should travel to a peaceful poor country, but not as a tourist sight viewing and stuff, just to live there. She'll be fine in a month.

What a beautiful comment!

Your particular example and the way you set the debate afterwards is totally one-directional. You didn't say anything about excessive use of force, but you described greens very negatively instead and not only on the example. Come on, this is not to speak about a particular case.

In the title, which you make the matter seem binary black or white, and in the sentences you marked with bold letters.

To your title question, both. Greens sometimes may have a naive take that police are not necessary. But police brutality exists, excessive use of force exists, and injustice exists and police do not always defend it, they do what they are told. They are more likely to defend a bank than to defend a homeless person. Greens protests and manifest against social injustice that exists. Who do you think is more likely to be beaten up? Mistrust in police by greens is not totally unfounded, don't be naive yourself.

I hope you wear a special hat or something for the big event, congrats! Two questions: - Where did you live in Russia? Your thoughts about that place. - Do you like animals? Do you have or have you had pets? If yes, their names and thoughts about them?

He spent three days on the racist tree story. lol He is good at turning the narrative in the direction he wants in his safe space, his own news. It happens that this direction is the same that big corporations and their media want, he will never speak against them, their tax cuts, or the huge benefits of medical and insurance companies while people die for not having access to doctors, but focus on the real problems of the people, racist trees. Unless Democrats elect a candidate that can disarm him in those tricks, he has good chances. Also, Republicans may not be able to feed on silly culture wars forever, or that's at least what I hope, they seem to be burning that fuel fast.