https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgmg2VFX058 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TviIuXPSE Yuri Bezemov

A bit dark😬

Ayyy MAGA 2020🍑

They forgot to put "No homo"

When cops are told to arrest people for walking their dog

@Psilovybin Do you have a source/story that says Jacob Blake raped 14 year old?

Why is it that conservatives say that there is no black or white, we're all Americans, but then 2 seconds later talk about black on black crime in inner cities and 13/50? Isn't that a contradiction? Either it would be American on American crime, or it'd be that we're race is a more important indicator

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181312.pdf U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs - National Institute of Justice. Study/Survey on Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority

😬

The M72 Law of Justice<:AmericanFlag:720120797837918288>

😬

@FrDashing In Claim #4, what causes it then?

@FrDashing The meme about black people and crime you posted

Fair enough

@mathgrant Remember it's a leftie meme. I think it was trying to say if a kid needs to go out to protect other people's property, then the police are useless and not going their job. If the police are good and doing their job then the kid wouldn't be needed and wouldn't have to be there

Don't you guys think standing linked arm in arm is better than kneeling for the anthem?

Don't you guys think standing linked arm in arm is better than kneeling for the anthem?

@Wardog NFL players were kneeling, which I agree was disrespectful, but recently at a game they stood linked arm in arm and were still booed/criticised by some conservatives

Never should've joined in the first place, it was only because the Labour Party destroyed the Empire, nationalised our economy to hell, gave the Unions unlimited power, raised taxes through the roof, made unaffordable public spending commitments that weren't reduced until Thatcher ending the so-called "post-war consensus", but they still have a legacy today. They made us the sick man of Europe an a second class nation. Attlee received $2.7 billion in Marshall Plan Aid and $4 billion more from America during his premiership, along with $1 billion from Canada and 4 million ounces of gold from South Africa, well over $130 billion in todays money. How much went to the colonies? How much went toward infrastructural or industrial modernisation? Next to none, the bulk only went to nationalisations and demagoguery. He implemented forced labour in Malaya, after they'd just been occupied for 4 years and the same in Africa, to the families of the heroes that had fought the Japanese for 4 years in Burma and driven the Italians out of East Africa. That caused the Malaya and Kenyan rebellions which destroyed Churchill's plans to entice foreign investment to the colonies for businesses to train and hire the natives there and raise the tax base of the colonies (along with the franchise which was tied to tax). As the tax bases grew then the governments would be able to pay for things like improving schooling which would make the next generation to be more skilled. Once each colony reached first world/dominion status, they'd get full responsible self government within the Empire/Commonwealth, with free trade, we'd share the burden of defence and also coordinate on foreign policy. Investor confidence was instead in the toilet as both rebellions took a decade to put down, every colony painted as a powder keg ready to explode at anytime - who would want to put their money in somewhere like that? Africa and the Middle East are a mess today and the Commonwealth is a fart-in-a-bottle

If abortion was banned in the US, it'd be increasing the overall birth rate by 25% (4 mil born, 1 mil aborted per year). Statistically if you have a child out of wedlock you're much more likely to be poorer, the child is also much more likely to turn out negatively (crime/drugs/suicide/dropping out etc) if they're raised by a single parent. As most children aborted would've been unplanned and likely out of wedlock, we'd generally recommend adoption/the foster system instead for them. How could we pay for nearly 1,000,000 extra children per year entering the foster/adoption system? It costs roughly $200k to raise a child until they're 18, and $200k*1 million = $200 billion, it'd be impossible to fund that through charity. I'd gladly take whatever tax increase if it meant stopping children being killed, but I'm not dumb enough to believe all of my extra taxes would go towards children alone, or that when a Democrat was elected that my taxes would magically go back down - they could even go towards funding things like more abortions since it'll be decided by states even if Roe is overturned.

How would all those kids be paid for? Would you risk socialism (high taxes/government control etc) in order to stop abortion?

Also most of the arguments applied to the unborn child e.g brain waves, heartbeat, unique DNA, pain sensation etc could also be applied to animals too, but I'm still a carnivore as are most people are, all for our own convenience. Animals can have relationships with each other and humans to some degree, they can show emotion to some degree also, certainly more than an unborn child would. Also the arguments for population control for hunting game is the same argument the left and greenies make for killing unborn children

You'll trust a politicians word on how your taxes will be spent? They have 1000 things to spend on already, it's impossible to guarantee it unless it's you in office. Also if a Democrat comes into power your taxes will either stay at the same rate or go even higher, they'll have the same revenue as the previous incumbent had and you'll get no say really where it goes then. It could also split the Republican party also because of the high taxes, which is traditionally antithetical to Conservatism. Today in the US there's 440k kids in the foster system altogether and it's already heavily burdened for things like funding already. Only around 135k are adopted every year. If banning abortion lead to even a 60% decrease in unplanned pregnancies due to more carefulness with contraceptives, it's still be doubling the burden of the system instantly, which would compound every year. I also do think more people should adopt, but I think the only way to make it feasible to have all of those kids looked after would be to force people to take them. Things like tax incentives or company benefits it'd be tough to get the amount of engagement needed as kids are a lot of work and take 18 years to raise. It'd have to be around a $11,000 tax break per year to be enough.

Do you have any ideas on how to make the cost of fostering/adoption cheaper @Stargatemaster96 ? It'd probably help, but I can't think of anything since things like price controls are a disaster and I stay away from it. If we outsourced more manufacturing to the sweatshops of Asia/Africa it'd probably make the cost of living a lot cheaper, but put millions out of work and destroy the economy

@Stargatemaster96 Do you think that would be enough on the scale of hundreds of thousands of kids each year? To incentivize hundreds of thousands of people to adopt/foster?

What do you guys think about no knock raids?

What do you think of the Breonna Taylor case then?

Fair enough

@gregoire It was the flag of the Kingdom of France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_France#Kingdom_of_France

Devil's advocate for 'white privelege/reparations': Black Americans fought in WW2/Korea just as white Americans did. As 'reparations'/a reward for the sacrifices of soldiers in WW2, the GI Bill was passed to give veterans access to low-cost mortgages (aiding home ownership)/low interest loans (aiding starting businesses)/vocational training, college and university admissions (increases skills/employability) etc, tens of millions of white Americans benefitted from it, whilst the overwhelming majority of black servicemen (80% of them lived in the South) got next to nothing. Could that not have contributed to the modern day financial disparities/disparities in criminality? Tangible, quantifiable things? Yes 15/20 years later segregation and discrimination was made illegal, but they didn't go back to all those ex-servicemen and re-offer them all those benefits that they missed out on. Also the Tulsa and Rosewood incidents destroying nascent black towns/businesses/enterprises - if the same thing happened to any other of the big cities/financial hubs of America, then they wouldn't exist either

Not some random check sent to all black people, that's stupid. I mean like just like another version of the GI bill with lower interest mortgages/lower interest business loans/vocational training etc. Or perhaps options to pay it back over a longer period of time. Not just randomly to anyone, but those who meet a certain minimum criteria for things such as grades (vocational training)/having a decent business plan (business loans)/having a job (mortgages). For the mortgages it wouldn't be like you'd get a mortgage for a mansion if you were just a schoolteacher or something - you'd still have to pay it back to own the house, the value would just be commensurate with your salary. It'd also be spread out over a longer time and a large deposit wouldn't be required either. The college admissions/vocational courses would also be based on grades/ability and you had to meet set requirements. For opening businesses, they had to research the area/supply chains/the place they wanted to buy or rent, competition etc. That's what happened in the 40's and 50's with the GI's, many of them were poor too

Black veterans earned it also, but they weren't allowed to receive any of it were they? You could track down the grandchildren of black servicemen to give them their GI benefits. Also would taking action to ameliorate problems of poverty not decrease the incidence of crime and also get people off of welfare? Would more businesses competing not increase innovation/gdp etc? @Wardog

They had the option to receive it if they wanted to, they weren't prevented from applying. As far as I know there was no anti-white discrimination with regards to the GI bill or in general society in the 40's/50's. Regardless, are black people not your fellow countrymen? Do you not want to see them do better? If it could be done with the GI's then the same thing could also be done with black people. Do you still want the crime statistics/economic disparities etc to be the same 100 years from now?

Also judge the argument by its merits, whataboutisms are pretty pointless in my opinion

Was the GI bill affirmative action? People still had to meet the standards given to them to get accepted to courses, they still had to pay back the mortgages/business loans didn't they? Affirmative action is lowering standards/criteria to things, not just extending the payment of it. I said that you used whataboutisms because my argument was that the GI bill worked and that if a similar thing is done with black people it could also work - I mentioned only giving it to black servicemen's grandchildren and you said "Well all white people didn't use the GI bill". If I'm mistaken then you can correct me. Also what is your solution to see all Americans doing well?

What do you think of Trump's platinum plan too?

Do you think it would've been a good thing if Black people were allowed to also benefit from the GI bill in the 40's/50's?

75 years isn't that long, it's within living memory for people's grandparents. If the GI bill could work back then, then why couldn't it work today? If it does work, then it mean that the grandchildren of black people today would be far less likely to be on welfare/committing crimes etc. The GI bill wasn't a handout, it was opportunity - you still had to be qualified to get the loans/mortgages/admissions/training and you still had to pay back all of that stuff at risk of foreclosure if you didn't. @DarkSkyKEC

Fair enoug, I agree with you @BioHazardJimmy The US is objectively the freest country in the world, with the most income mobility their is in the world. Objectively it is also the best place for a black person to live on the entire planet if we're going by macroeconomic indicators/salary/standard of living etc. It's just relative to the average American, they fall far behind. Of course their are individual black millionaires and there are white homeless people, it's just that statistically that you're much more likely to be poorer/go to prison/be on welfare and a bunch of other things if you're black. I just think trying to solve those problems is important, otherwise things could be exactly the same 100 years from now. Obviously there are other issues facing the country as a whole, that includes issues that also effect white people that should also be addressed, just focused on this one for my question

@DarkSkyKEC I'm not proposing using the same bill, but doing something similar to try to address the problem. As for investment in black communities, I think it's probably better if they're also doing it themselves, rather than some other people coming in and doing all the work and just hiring them. It's more about giving them the opportunity to pull themselves up by the bootstraps rather than giving them handouts as the Democrats do. Earning something that they can own for themselves instead of working for whatever big developer/franchise moved in. There'll be more competition also if it's new businesses cropping up compared to established businesses just moving in. A huge reason why Black people overwhelmingly vote Democrat is that the Republican party in recent decades has never made the effort to reach out to them or offer an alternative. How many Republican Campaigners go knocking door to door in the hood? Black people do tend to be more socially conservative also, so I think if we had something successful we could point to for them it could win their vote for decades

Fair enough