It was about 2015 when the Internet died. Before that, the news articles were still often BS, but you could skip to the comments to get the real scoop. In the comments for a 2013 Forbes opinion piece (http://archive.is/dP0g5), people were up in arms (almost literally) about the US government buying massive quantities of ammunition for domestic use. I don't think that kind of dissent would be tolerated today on any mainstream news site. Scary.
After 2015, skipping to the comments was no longer an effective strategy, because the comment sections had been taken over by shills and bots funded by socialist governments and organizations plus corporations. Reddit and other social media sites would soon to fall to communist forces.
Prior to 2015, Russia had been having great success with RT, especially on YouTube, and Hillary was livid about it. A campaign of legislation and counter-propaganda ensued. Then senators wrote a report bragging about how many upvotes and views CNN was getting on YouTube compared to RT. Riiiight.
One thing I personally noticed was that if you ever posted a negative (but factual) comment about former NSA Director Keith Alexander, someone would comment to defend him, usually lying in the process. I also noticed the same if I posted even a neutral comment about Monsanto. (That campaign was later publicly exposed.)
Despite all this, Biden's videos aren't getting many upvotes, which is an indicator that has no support from bots and so he isn't going to be the final candidate (though he may get the nomination).
We need to figure a way out of this Internet manipulation, because governments like China will always have billions of dollars to spend doing it. The basic problem is that Internet anonymity has made it profitable for governments and others to create fake accounts and bots to spread propaganda and manipulate upvotes.
r/badwomensanatomy
The article has a link to an interview of Elon Musk by Joe Rogan. I should have watched it before, but now I finally did. Elon sounds naive, or maybe I'm just jaded. Elon spoke of trying to warn President Obama of the dangers of AI, whereas I think Obama would have been thinking, "Okedoky, but that's really up to the CIA". Elon spoke of pushing (in vain) for Congressional panels to study the dangers of AI and propose regulations, whereas I think Congressional panels would only be looking for ways to use AI to put money into their pockets, regardless of the risks to others.
However, that was 2 years ago and speaking about events maybe 10 years ago, and it seems that he has changed his tone.
If you disagree with him - even if you offer proof that Antifa is evil - he will only become more entrenched in his viewpoints.
He might respond to mathematical reasoning. Research Bayesian reasoning so that you can talk to him competently about it. Bayesian mathematics encourages you to view the world in grayscale, not black and white. If you believe something 100%, Bayes doesn't let you change your mind on the basis of new evidence, so you need to retain some open-mindedness and usually be less than 99% confident. Basically, teach him how to think logically, not what to think.
The father/senator issued statements defending Biden:
Note the bad writing/spin in that article, which says the girl said Biden was not creepy but then quotes the father as the sole support for that assertion. However, the article goes on to bring up other questionable behavior by Biden.
This reminds me of:
KIRK: Scotty, I need warp speed in three minutes or we're all dead.
That and the Communist flavor of Star Trek make "Operation Warp Speed" an unfortunate naming choice.
You have the choice of many candidates in the Republican primary. The Democrats instituted superdelegates after the election of a populist outsider (Jimmy Carter) to ensure that never would happen again on their side. Donald Trump's only path to the presidency was on the Republican side.
Lifelong Libertarian here. I'm starting to believe the Libertarian Party was created and supported only to split the Republican Party and throw elections to the Democrats.
NBC News: "Will Republicans Find Solace in the Libertarian Party?" (2016)
http://archive.is/THGpW
The split in the Republican Party over Trump’s candidacy has opened up a wide range of possibilities if a deep divide among Republicans continues to grow. A third party candidacy by a well-known establishment figure is one of those possibilities, and the Libertarian Party, which shares some philosophical ground with the GOP, would seem to be a natural fit.
Breitbart: "Billionaire Kochs to Financially Back Democrats Pushing Amnesty, Free Trade" (2019)
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/09/billionaire-kochs-to-financially-back-democrats-pushing-amnesty-free-trade/
The pro-mass immigration Koch brothers’ network of billionaire, donor-class organizations is readying to financially back Democrats, so long as they promise to support amnesty for illegal aliens and vote to advance free trade at all costs.
"REEEEE, free speech is fascist!"
Also, both OP and Dr. Erickson are making a mathematical error. The people tested are mostly those suspected of having the Wuhan Virus. To extrapolate figures to the whole population you need a random sample instead.
Thanks. I tried to find that out by clicking the original link you posted, but YouTube shows no information at all about the banned video or channel. (Is that normal for YouTube?)
Copyright is one of the possible reasons for removal due to Community Guidelines. This is an hour long broadcast from a local NBC station.
The BCG vaccine is administered to the very young. China started much later. The article below compares Wuhan Virus deaths in Japan relative to Iran. Both countries have BCG innoculations, but Iran started decades later.
Archive.is does not work for videos.
Text goes by too fast.
Google partially bent the knee a few weeks ago.
BCG, yes. Countries that require that vaccine have had very low rates of the Wuhan Virus. It's something to look into, at least.
The Japanese had BGD vaccines as children.
edit: BCG
Come on, post a link to an archive when it's a shit source that does not deserve clicks.. It was even already archived:
He said that in the part II video he won't talk about the people who filed the privacy complaint against him. I would wager he won't talk about James Alefantis. That guy and his lawyers were somehow able to gag the entire world previously, so one little YouTuber was hardly a challenge for them.
Wait, what? They have to change the Constitution if they want to go with the popular vote. Do you really think they're going to pass an Amendment in the next few months? How?