Actually, this makes a new kind of sense. All of the old money that invested in Hillary don't want to throw more money at the Dems. They fucked up a 99% chance to win. So, where do they get the funds to push for a new election?
They're probably damned desperate to get those dollars. Who can possibly exploit politicians that are desperate for money that also make up approximately half of the positions of power within the United States?
Foreign powers, especially those that wish to dethrone the US or destroy it. Give a pittance of money, and the Democrats will promise to do anything to get that money or to secure more money. I'd assume China has a strong influence on the democratic party at this time, and China is pulling quite a few strings to either slip agents into our country or to get democratic political officials to turn a blind eye to shit they're starting in those officials' cities.
Internet access is the dominant drug of America. Phones, televisions, computers, and more all hook into the same infrastructure, and keeping all those things working keeps all those making use of those devices happy. They can get all their socialization and communication while still being isolated and powerless.
If all our modern forms of communication got disabled, the first thing Americans would do is go out and congregate with likeminded sorts, and many of them will be unified in re-establishing the status quo. Whatever source is causing would be protested or destroyed.
This i why they would never willfully disable services and state they're disabling their services for reason X. They'd be putting their head on the chopping board along with the heads of whichever group they claimed they were doing it for.
Now, if they wanted to escalate into a full war with China, they could definitely disable communications and say China did it. Americans would overwhelmingly want to turn the PRC into a smoking crater, especially if those niceties were permanently stolen.
Not enough spin.
Peaceful protesters are using cylinders that are launching fragements to express their freedom. Some officers are obstructing the path of these fragments. Clearly, it's terrible training on the officers' part.
It's the only way.
To regain equality, we'll just shift the women already in prison up to death sentences, then humanely dispatch them via police shootings so their death adds to the correct statistic. We can keep doing this every year until there's not enough women in prison to fulfill equality demands. At this point, we'll just have to upgrade women breaking any law whatsoever to death by police shooting. If this results in still not enough women to maintain our perfect version of a gender-equal society, we'll just have to pick women by lottery to be shot even though no crime has been committed.
We must be equal, after all.
It's similar to race or age being a protected class. Doesn't matter which race or what number.
Yes, it would protect people I strongly disagree with, and it would give just about everyone a way to make their firing a court battle. However, the idea is that the fired individual would need proof that it isn't what the company claims, and it is what they claim.
I believe a person should keep or lose their job based on their merit, their ability to fulfill what is requested of them, and the company's current needs. If a person constantly underperforms or is caught wasting company time while providing average/below-average results, it's reasonable to remove them. If a person is caught breaking rules of various importance (stop harassing Linda, don't steal company property, etc), it's reasonable to remove them. If a company decides to stop selling toasters and start selling televisions, it's reasonable to remove the toaster specialists.
I don't think it's cool if a company fired someone solely because they believe there are 2 genders, 32 genders, no genders, or infinite genders, especially if they're good at their job and follow policies/requests made of them.
Easy to say when the withering gaze isn't on you or your loved ones.
Can you really be sure that you wouldn't bend the knee if your choice is to obey or lose everything to the mob? What if your spouse, children, or extended family disown you if you don't obey? What if your hobby groups exile you if you don't obey? What if your economic income is cut if you don't obey? Are you willing to have your house, car, and so on all openly available for vandalism or destruction until you obey? What about the material goods of your family because of their relation to you? Are you willing to die for your car?
When faced directly by the mob, knowing the government will do nothing to save or compensate you, your neighbors will do nothing to save or compensate you, and there is no counter-mob to keep the current mob at bay, do you really choose the option of egging the mob on knowing that protecting what's yours will end with you in prison or dead? Or do you simply say "I'm sorry," take your beating for ever questioning the mob, and try to pick up the pieces?
Our government needs to do something to halt this madness and make sure it never happens again. So far, they've done nothing, and this conversation hasn't even been had. We've not had any discussion on how to fix this, and I'm concerned this is by design. Therefore, I'm going to give a possible solution that hopefully would fix this without infringing on the freedom of anyone. It's in two steps:
-
Make ideology a protected class.
-
Make conspiring to cause material injury to an individual for a protected class a crime.
The former gives those that are fired because their company is spineless and bent the knee to radical left ideology a way to combat the loss. If taken to court, it would be fairly easy to prove that victim said X online, company fired them immediately afterwards.
The latter seeks to halt this current fad of people calling companies to inform them that a worker of theirs is not conforming to their ideology in the hopes of getting that employee fired. This law would make it possible for the company to respond with "thanks, you're being reported to local police with this message as evidence." Wording on it is far from perfect, but I'm still iterating on the idea.
Of course they're going to blame Trump no matter what. It's been their go-to excuse for every wrong in the world so far, so why not continue. However, there's a very good reason for not interceding.
They want Trump to intercede without states requesting it. If this occurs, they can now state that, since Trump ignored the rules, they can also ignore the rules. Every time a law is bypassed, it doesn't just weaken the purpose of the bypassed law. It weakens all laws within the system.
I guarantee you, if Trump intercedes without the law being on his side, democrats will use the event to justify some stupid bullshit they've been planning to do for a while. I honestly have no idea what it is they want to do, but whatever it is currently can't be done without making them clearly the bad guy by virtue of our existing laws. They want to say "but Trump ignored law X, so we should be allowed to ignore law Y" so they can pull off their plan while blaming Trump for it.
The problem there is, how do you enforce it or tell a line has been crossed? If a company lays off a person because they're facing economic hardship, if "individual" was a protected class, every person laid off could challenge the job loss as being done because of their status as an individual. Would the company need to prove for every employee that those employees were statistically the least-valuable among all employees they could have removed?
These specific words or exceptions makes it easy for both the person challenging and the company defending the challenge. The person needs to invoke the specific instance they believe they were wrongfully fired for and find evidence of that instance being true, and the company needs to prove that the individual had failed a request or lacked merit.
Oh, I know it'd protect a lot of people I would never want to work with, but that's the cost of making sure capitalism continues to work by merit. If a person is very vocal about their ideology and it rubs everyone the wrong way, their superior should tell them to stop talking about it at work. If they continue, they've failed to do as requested and thus firing is valid.
There hasn't been a single (NOT ONE) protest in the areas I've described
That's not entirely true. A few of them shipped out to those areas to pretend the protests truly weren't only in democratic locations, were summarily beaten by the locals, then they ran back to their cities and college campuses.
But my dude, he was totally asphyxiated even though Floyd died 2 hours after being interred at the hospital and asphyxiation takes no more than 7 minutes to kill a person. And the examiner that did the autopsy found no signs of asphyxiation or strangulation. And the toxicology report has Floyd at about 6 times the safe limit of Fentanyl (which is the threshold after which people start dying from Fentanyl). We should probably also ignore the high methamphetamine levels or two "serious" heart conditions, too.
The two private examiners Floyd's family hired say it's totally asphyxiation even though they only looked at recordings and photos from the original examiner, and they'd certainly have no reason to favor a side.
I'm sure the body cam footage of Floyd is entirely irrelevant and Chauvin just decided to kill the guy in first degree, capital, homicidal, premeditated, hate-crimified, murder. Floyd was an angel after all, as long as you ignore the six felonies and that one time he mugged a pregnant woman by pointing a gun at her unborn child. He didn't do nothing that would deserve being handcuffed and pinned, because as you know, handcuffs make people completely powerless and unable to resist.
Here's an intersting little addendum to it. His toxicology report has 11.8 ng/mL of Fentanyl in his system, and this sample was taken while he was still alive.
As little as 2 ng/mL is enough to cause a person to succumb to its effects, which is respiratory depression and coma, resulting in death, which is corroborated with this study that looked into Fentanyl and Norfentanyl efficacy, which requires subjects never surpass 2 ng/mL of Fentanyl. This study on postmortem Fentanyl deaths had 11.8 ng/mL as the mean for natural/accidental deaths by Fentanyl, as in the person wasn't intentionally trying to commit suicide by overdosing on Fentanyl.
George Floyd died from a Fentanyl overdose. The private examiner has specifically ignored the toxicology results and he is ignoring common factors in strangulation/asphyxiation, such as the hyoid bone. Breaks easily and often when strangled, but Floyd's was perfectly intact.
In case you want proof of this, look up Tony Timpa.
Like Floyd:
-
Called the cops on himself, resisted arrest
-
Was placed stomach-down with handcuffs and knee restraint for extended period of time (14 minutes versus Floyd's 8)
-
Begged for air.
-
Died before reaching the hospital.
-
Had underlying health problems that heavily contributed to his death (nonlethal holds effectively became lethal)
Unlike Floyd:
-
The cops were recorded as openly mocking Timpa's requests for air, continuing to mock him after he went unresponsive.
-
The extent of Timpa's crimes was a DUI in 2013.
-
Timpa was white.
-
Not a single protest or riot.
-
Minimal media coverage.
-
Jury unanimously decided the cops were not at fault, all cops walked, received no punishment related to their work or the legal system.
Tony Timpa died in an extremely similar way to Floyd, and those officers received no charges. The reason being: the hold was legitimate and not lethal in normal circumstances, but the victim had extraordinary health complications that made nonlethal holding methods effectively lethal.
Chauvin performed a potentially lethal holding method, but the method by which it's lethal is by preventing the held from breathing, thus suffocating them. The autopsy revealed suffocation was not the cause of death.
He's going to get charged anyways, because certain groups riot when they don't get blood when the media tells them they should want blood.
Nah, you can fuck off. I'm saying Muhammad did something good in his life, then a death cult stole his name and put words in his mouth that reflected what the death cult wished. The original poster tried to claim that Muhammad was peddling religious icons, which is the one thing historians know for certain is false about Muhammad, because many people recorded Muhammad's actions prior to him being associated with the Islamic religion.
I mean, Muhammad's story is quite the opposite of that. He was alive during an era of religious corruption where priests and merchants were selling idols of various gods and claiming that the materials and price of the idol dictated how well the various depicted gods would hear your prayers. To not buy an icon was to doom yourself to be hated by that god.
The Islamic religion was a cult that was competing with the mainstream religion at the time, but Muhammad wasn't really related to them. He just thought the idols were bullshit, broke them in a public spectacle, then fled because he knew they'd kill him in a terrible way if he was caught.
Because the people were dead-sick of the religious system in place, Muhammad was labeled a hero of the people. Because the Islamic religion was struggling to get a foothold, they co-opted Muhammad's name. This, combined with the vacuum of power of many not wanting to be part of the established religion, allowed the Islamic religion to become the primary religion.
Then they ironically took the sacred icons that Muhammad destroyed and made them sacred icons of their religion, which really is a sign of how Muhammad definitely wasn't related to the Islamic religion. He hated icons in religion. It was his entire reason for making a stand against the established religion. He's used as an example for an iconoclast.
Absolutely. Both parties are fundamentally flawed and largely subjective to the point of zealotry, forcing issues to be black and white when there's a lot more to look at. While a Republican respects peoples' right to say whatever, many will still shut down or ignore what is being said outright if it conflicts with their tribe's view on the topic. Democrats take this one step further and refuse to allow people to have views that differ from the party.
For example, I think Republicans should be much more focused on fixing our education system at a federal level. There's college professors that are outright telling students they'll fail if they're found to hold conservative views (Cal State San Marcos, less than 5 years ago). High Schools have largely dropped US History or are glossing over/skipping any education related to the Constitution, with 36 states not requiring US history to graduate at this time. Many states have ceased to require meeting credit requirements to hand out a high school diploma. There's an elementary school in Florida that fires teachers if they ever give students less than a 50% score on anything, including work that was never turned in.
This is creating generation upon generation of person that isn't just completely unprepared for life, they have no motivation to do anything and expect to be handed success or at least "average" success while doing nothing. The democrats have crafted these generations in this way because this mindset is very susceptible to gibs, and gibs secure votes. Unfortunately, the establishment left failed to realize they created socialists/communists who have no understanding of how much socialism is too much, and now these uninformed drones are old enough to get into positions in politics and they know how to speak to their fellow drones better than their handlers.
We need schools to train kids for a life assuming they'd never go to school again after that year. Teach them the most important things for self-sufficiency, and branch into more complex topics (such as handling tax, recognizing fraud, and so forth) as they grow older. Unfortunately, Republicans seem to love jerking off to letters that waggle fingers at internet platforms that are clearly oppressing their party. Biden hides in a basement and does nothing, but so do most of our Republican lawmakers, for all the good they've done.
Regardless, I've distracted myself. The current climate causes left-leaning moderates to be heavily dissuaded from voting democrat, and right-leaning moderates are heavily motivated to vote for republicans.