Social liberalism is what is igniting most of the backlash. My company flying the rainbow flag last month doesn't affect me personally. I don't give a shit, but it amounts to a battle-flag to the religious right. Is it really accomplishing what you want? Is flying it over our embassies anything more than a 'fuck you' to them? Seriously people, religion is a powder-keg that should be left alone. It sucks that religion doesn't always keep up with the times, but targeting them and shoving your morals in their face might just backfire. Today's religion isn't anywhere close to what it was centuries ago. Conservative religion changes over time despite itself, Forcing it is very dangerous in my scientific opinion. Religion is not scientific by any means...
In other words, the "snowflakes" are actually the conservatives who want their precious status quo, which is slowly but inexorably (or maybe not so slowly) pushing us further and further towards economic and ecological disaster that humanity and the world itself can't recover from.
In a world where people are literally willing to DIE and KILL for their religion, how do you rationalize with that?
Re: Slavery. Because of my class I am going to be writing a presentation on him, but let me remind/show some of you that even in the 1500s, people thought enslaving entire ethnic groups was a BAD IDEA. Enter Bartholome de las Casas.
You know, I wonder how the right would react if the Democratic party started running an advertising campaign painting Lincoln and Washington as liberal presidents. One broke away from an ancient monarchy system, and the otehr one ended a deep seated system of slavery. They both broke away from the norms with new and liberal ideas.
You know, I wonder how the right would react if the Democratic party started running an advertising campaign painting Lincoln and Washington as liberal presidents. One broke away from an ancient monarchy system, and the otehr one ended a deep seated system of slavery. They both broke away from the norms with new and liberal ideas.
But are now being labeled as not liberal enough in retrospect.
@Quickblade
That de las Casas guy appears to have led a very interesting life. Any books about him that you'd recommend?
Essentially no one from that time period would even qualify as socially conservative by 2019 standards. History moves far too quickly for anyone to be more than 100 years ahead of their time.
Essentially no one from that time period would even qualify as socially conservative by 2019 standards. History moves far too quickly for anyone to be more than 100 years ahead of their time.
I agree - but as a historian, it is very important to remember the context of the time in which they lived. The GOP in 1860 was the liberal party in American politics. The Democrats were conservative. They weren't as neatly self-sorted as the parties are today, but broadly this is the case.
Washington was far more of a mixed bag, and really didn't have a super strong political ideology other than that a central government wasn't the devil (as opposed to Jefferson - who wanted as little as possible).
100 years is too much to ask, but even 40 years is too much. The Nixon library unearthed the transcript of s phone call between then governor of California Ronald Reagan, and Nixion. Reagan referred to a delegation from an African country in the UN as "Monkeys".
Last night Claire McCaskill, who got routed in Missouri partially because of her centrist nonsense, said "people in the midwest don't like free stuff from the government". This is a bunch of crap. Hardly ANYONE objects to themselves getting help from the government (Social Security, Medicare, the farm bailout because of the tariffs etc etc). What they object to is people other than them getting anything (see the famous sign from the Obamacare fight which read "keep your government hands off my Medicare"). They've been told their whole lives why they deserve things by default and certain other people (emphasis on "other", meaning minorities or the poor as being specifically worthy of this contempt) don't and are leeching off their hard work. It's a refusal to look in the mirror.
As to @Balrog99 asking why he likes Bernie.....you'd have to tell me. He is by far the most left-wing candidate in the race, and maybe any race ever. And he is totally indistinguishable from Elizabeth Warren on 95% of the issues. It sounds to me like you (and millions of others) don't vote on policy at all but on personality, which I view as a problem in the overall scheme of things.
There were people on Twitter last night who were actually falling for Marianne Williamson, and OF COURSE she's interesting to listen to, she has made millions of dollars as a motivational speaker. That's no reason to vote for her. Her position on vaccinations alone is a disqualifier.
In regards to Reagan, I've never been less shocked by a revelation in my life.
100 years is too much to ask, but even 40 years is too much. The Nixon library unearthed the transcript of s phone call between then governor of California Ronald Reagan, and Nixion. Reagan referred to a delegation from an African country in the UN as "Monkeys".
"Unearthed" is a bit of a mis-characterization. The contents of this tape were known long before Reagan's death.
I am curious about one thing re: reparations. How, exactly, are we going to determine which people are eligible to receive reparation payments? (presuming the program gets enacted into law, of course)
I am curious about one thing re: reparations. How, exactly, are we going to determine which people are eligible to receive reparation payments? (presuming the program gets enacted into law, of course)
Ironically, there was an Afro Bazilian who was an Baron and owned more than 1000 slaves. If one of his descendants are a US citizen, they would be eligible to get reparations? Note that despite he being an Baron, he was far richer than 99,9% of white Anglo Americans during slavery period.
I'm opposed to slavery reparations, but if we were going to implement segregation reparations, which I do support, it would apply to everyone who was (1) listed as colored in some official documentation and (2) had a birth certificate dating back to 1964 or earlier. The passage of the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts, outlawing segregation and mandating integration, gives us a convenient and logical cutoff point. There are probably multiple ways to satisfy the first criterion, but the second one would be awfully hard to fake.
There are other ways to determine if someone experienced segregation (a black immigrant with no birth certificate could have experienced it, while a black native who could pass as white might not), but those two criteria are (1) pretty darn simple, (2) easy to satisfy if you do qualify, and (3) about as accurate as you can hope to get without some expensive background check process.
That would minimize false positives, false negatives, and spending on overhead.
In other words, the "snowflakes" are actually the conservatives who want their precious status quo, which is slowly but inexorably (or maybe not so slowly) pushing us further and further towards economic and ecological disaster that humanity and the world itself can't recover from.
You use this word, snowflakes. I don't think it means what you think it does
Re: Slavery. Because of my class I am going to be writing a presentation on him, but let me remind/show some of you that even in the 1500s, people thought enslaving entire ethnic groups was a BAD IDEA. Enter Bartholome de las Casas.
Well, I suppose for Americans the "slavery" would indeed be associated with exploitation of Africans, which is probably more about racism than slavery per se.
Me, I judge it based more on the antique period, where a slave was closer to second or third class citizen. Which, let's face it, isn't all that different from an ordinary laborer under totalitarian regime.
Andrew Yang's solution to the climate crisis is remarkably straightforward and (probably) correct. We're ten years too late, we're fucked, so it's time to give every American $1000 a month to help them move to higher ground. I can't even say I disagree with the sentiment. I mean, he is basically advocating mass migration from coastal areas, which is a.) probably the correct strategy given what is coming and b.) absolutely impossible to sell or implement.
Booker looked really good tonight. Gabbard also looked good.
Gillibrand and Castro were pretty good, if not great.
Biden was okay, and that's probably good enough that it goes down as a solid win for him.,
Harris got absolutely destroyed. She was fine when she wasnt being attacked, but didnt really stand up very well when Gabbard and Biden teamed up on her.
Are you European? If so you might be able to answer this question.
How much of the current political climate in Europe has been shaped by two World Wars being fought on that continent? I'm asking because if we'd suffered millions upon millions of needless casualties due to war in this country, we might be more like Europe ourselves. Also, what was the weapon ownership climate in Europe like before the World Wars? I could Google it but I'd rather hear from an actual European...
Not Euro. I'm American, grew up in Ohio. I actually wasn't ever even seriously pro-gun control growing up. But I've since done some professional work involving analyzing crime and violence statistics across the world, and I just don't buy any of these cultural explanations. Your hypothesis for example, wouldn't account for cases like Canada and Australia, which were spared even more than the US from WW2's violence.
Moreover it wouldn't account for the relatively high levels of violence in poor countries like in Latin America, but in the relatively lower levels of criminal violence in other poor countries like in parts of Asia, or even surprisingly, parts of Africa.
The thing is we have both data between countries as well as longitudinal data within individual countries (countries that implemented stricter controls after a massacre) that shows, easy access to guns is one factor that strongly correlates with homicides. On any given year, approximately two-thirds of homicides in the US are committed with firearms.
It's not about creating a perfect solution. It's about gradually progressing towards a slightly better future. But having gun control similar to Canada, the UK, or Australia could potentially cut the homicide rate in half or in one third. Which would be thousands of lives saved every year.
The Democratic candidates in tonight's debate were ganging up on Joe Biden, especially Cory Booker. Biden fired back at Booker with a valid retort about Booker's own record, but Booker just smiled and chuckled and dodged the question completely. Booker's debating style is a bit too sneaky for my tastes.
Biden himself is responding better overall. He didn't look like his feelings are hurt this time. He also effectively shut down a demand from Bill de Blasio. I'm a little more confident that he could do well in a debate with Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard, who criticized Kamala Harris' attack on Joe Biden, launched a new string of attacks on Harris for her criminal justice record. Harris deflected it entirely, and when Gabbard had another moment to attack her, Harris appeared shaken before returning to the previous deflection.
I'm upset that Andrew Yang has once again tried to play strictly by the rules and not call attention himself by trying to provoke arguments with other candidates. He just focuses on answering the question in the time he's given. He did, however, give an spectacular and unique closing statement condemning shallow political showmanship and pointing out that his policies were neither left nor right. It was definitely very different from the others' closing comments.
Andrew Yang's solution to the climate crisis is remarkably straightforward and (probably) correct. We're ten years too late, we're fucked, so it's time to give every American $1000 a month to help them move to higher ground. I can't even say I disagree with the sentiment. I mean, he is basically advocating mass migration from coastal areas, which is a.) probably the correct strategy given what is coming and b.) absolutely impossible to sell or implement.
Ben Shapiro says if your house is going to be flooded due to global warming then the free market means you sell your house and move. Sell it to whom freaking Aquaman?
<...>Your hypothesis for example, wouldn't account for cases like Canada and Australia, which were spared even more than the US from WW2's violence..
US have different demographics, culture, etc. And before the NFA(1932), EUA had an total of ZERO mass shootings. Why? Instead of blame the tool, why not see why the US is producing so much mass shooters?
Moreover it wouldn't account for the relatively high levels of violence in poor countries like in Latin America, but in the relatively lower levels of criminal violence in other poor countries like in parts of Asia, or even surprisingly, parts of Africa.
Not only you see Europe as an homogeneous group, but you also see latin america as an homogenous group. The difference between Mexico, Argentina and Haiti in culture, demographics, ethnic, climate, etc are far greater than the difference between Sweden and Italy and is not fair to put both countries in the same group.
That being said, the most violent countries in Latin America are Brazil and Mexico. Both countries with draconinan gun laws. Bolsonaro tried to make less draconian, but the "senate" and congress took his decree away and guess what. During the first months of Bolsonaro government, the homicide rates decreased by almost 1/4. In the most violent country of the region is a lot of lives saved.
Now look to Argentina and Uruguay, both countries with an strong hunting and cowboy culture, with the most guns per citizen and .... They are extremely safer than other countries.
The thing is we have both data between countries as well as longitudinal data within individual countries (countries that implemented stricter controls after a massacre) that shows, easy access to guns is one factor that strongly correlates with homicides. On any given year, approximately two-thirds of homicides in the US are committed with firearms.
Show the data, please. About 2/3 committed by firearms, 2/3 handguns kills much more than """"assault"""" rifles(assault in quotes because no fully auto fire = no assault rifle, they are sporting rifles)
It's not about creating a perfect solution. It's about gradually progressing towards a slightly better future. But having gun control similar to Canada, the UK, or Australia could potentially cut the homicide rate in half or in one third. Which would be thousands of lives saved every year.
Wrong, the cities that implemented gun control are the most violent ones.
Do you know who is the most armed state in guns / hab in US? Alaska. And is the safest State by far.
California strict gun control din't prevented Elliot Rodger from commiting an mass shooting.
French strict gun control din't prevented the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.
Andrew Yang's solution to the climate crisis is remarkably straightforward and (probably) correct. We're ten years too late, we're fucked, so it's time to give every American $1000 a month to help them move to higher ground. I can't even say I disagree with the sentiment. I mean, he is basically advocating mass migration from coastal areas, which is a.) probably the correct strategy given what is coming and b.) absolutely impossible to sell or implement.
Ben Shapiro says if your house is going to be flooded due to global warming then the free market means you sell your house and move. Sell it to whom freaking Aquaman?
The correct therm is IMO climate changes. But some models over exaggerate the impact of climate changes. According to some predictions made in 1950, Falklands should be submerged since 2010...
Ben Shapiro says if your house is going to be flooded due to global warming then the free market means you sell your house and move. Sell it to whom freaking Aquaman?
The correct therm is IMO climate changes. But some models over exaggerate the impact of climate changes. According to some predictions made in 1950, Falklands should be submerged since 2010...
Ah you're right that's the better term. In the 1950s there weren't computers yet, and while 'some' predictions were wrong apparently the consensus is that man made climate change is fact. I think I saw like 99.8% climate scientists agree withr the other .2% being paid schills for the fossil fuel industry presumably.
I'm upset that Andrew Yang has once again tried to play strictly by the rules and not call attention himself by trying to provoke arguments with other candidates. He just focuses on answering the question in the time he's given. He did, however, give an spectacular and unique closing statement condemning shallow political showmanship and pointing out that his policies were neither left nor right. It was definitely very different from the others' closing comments.
Yang is a good person, and too nice for politics, really. He's young though, and has a lot of innovative ideas, so I am confident that we will be seeing more of him even if he isn't the winner this time around. He also has a very enthusiastic fanbase, much like Sanders fans.
Yang also seems to be picking up the most steam, the recognition will help him next time around. Yang is picking up the most followers across all social media after the debates.
It's not about creating a perfect solution. It's about gradually progressing towards a slightly better future. But having gun control similar to Canada, the UK, or Australia could potentially cut the homicide rate in half or in one third. Which would be thousands of lives saved every year.
Probably a stretch. The three most effective gun control laws in reducing homicide rates are universal background checks, bans on violent offenders purchasing guns, and “may-issue” laws which, according to the highest estimates, bring it down by about a third. Many if not most U.S cities have all or most of these policies already. There's no evidence to suggest that even stricter laws like in Canada would bring it down by just as much. There is certainly some diminishing returns effect that will happen here. I would also add that some US cities tried some harsher gun laws but were struck down around 2005-ish by the Supreme Court, so this is all moot for the foreseeable future anyway.
That being said, the most violent countries in Latin America are Brazil and Mexico. Both countries with draconinan gun laws. Bolsonaro tried to make less draconian, but the "senate" and congress took his decree away and guess what. During the first months of Bolsonaro government, the homicide rates decreased by almost 1/4. In the most violent country of the region is a lot of lives saved.
So this is factually not true.
El Salvador, Honduras and Venzuela all have higher per capita homicide rates than Brazil or Mexico. Mexico is a huge and diverse country and actually has a lot of, relatively, safe regions. The same is true of Brazil. Work I've done on this issue specifically focused on Latin America.
We can put Venezuela to this side for a moment because in past years they were not a homicide leader. However the three big homicide rate leaders are Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, they are consistently among the top three large countries in the region with the highest homicide rates.
The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) has partnered with law enforcement in these countries to track the origin of firearms. At least 40% of firearms in Honduras, for one example, were definitely traced to a US origin. Weak central governments in the region simply aren't able to combat well-organized criminal cartels that smuggle in weapons, regardless of what the laws are. But the availability of firearms STILL explains the high homicide rates. And this number can get as high as 60-70% in some years. And that's only CONFIRMED origin. Just as narcotics are smuggled wholesale from Latin America into the US, so too are firearms smuggled, wholesale, from the US into Latin America.
And even if Latin America and the Caribbean are diverse when it comes to criminal violence, they are still disproportionately where homicides takes place -- when compared to countries of similar income levels. This is even true of relatively safe countries like Costa Rica or Argentina.
Please pause, and before writing fact check some of the things you say in the future before attempting to correct me. It is literally false to say that Brazil and Mexico lead Latin America in homicide rates.
The interesting note here is that libertine gun laws in the US are not only responsible for a disproportionate amount of homicides in the US, but actually have a spillover effect in other countries in the region. It is very easy for criminal organization to do "straw purchases" of weapons in the US and then send them south.
The interesting note here is that libertine gun laws in the US are not only responsible for a disproportionate amount of homicides in the US, but actually have a spillover effect in other countries in the region. It is very easy for criminal organization to do "straw purchases" of weapons in the US and then send them south.
Obviously I'm not saying the US deserves 100% of the blame for crime in Latin America, but it does play a role.
Again assuming that all latin america is and spoiler > Is not. The distance between Mexico city and Ushuaia is near four times greater than the distance of Istanbul and London... Anyway You as an Tourist can hunt Boar on Patagonia with an fully powered cartidge rifle, while on Mexico anything stronger than a .380 is illegal... And Argentina isn't even the most firearms friendly country in the region. Falkalands(British territory) has the highest gun per capita and they are generations without an single crime. Sure, an low population living in a cold isolated near Antarctica isle helps a lot
And on Brazil, they get a lot of firearms from Argentina, Paraguay. Uruguay and other countries that has less draconian gun laws and even on Argentina, who is relative liberal(compared to Brazil/Mexico), there was much more illegal firearms than legal ones. I suggest this articlehttps://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Argentina-like
And even if Latin America and the Caribbean are diverse when it comes to criminal violence, they are still disproportionately where homicides takes place -- when compared to countries of similar income levels. This is even true of relatively safe countries like Costa Rica or Argentina.
None of then are violent countries.
But one question. There are near 400 million firearms on US. How do "strict gun control" supporters suggest to take all of this guns? The government can't prevent
Comments
In other words, the "snowflakes" are actually the conservatives who want their precious status quo, which is slowly but inexorably (or maybe not so slowly) pushing us further and further towards economic and ecological disaster that humanity and the world itself can't recover from.
In a world where people are literally willing to DIE and KILL for their religion, how do you rationalize with that?
Re: Slavery. Because of my class I am going to be writing a presentation on him, but let me remind/show some of you that even in the 1500s, people thought enslaving entire ethnic groups was a BAD IDEA. Enter Bartholome de las Casas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas
But are now being labeled as not liberal enough in retrospect.
@Quickblade
That de las Casas guy appears to have led a very interesting life. Any books about him that you'd recommend?
But not by conservatives.
I agree - but as a historian, it is very important to remember the context of the time in which they lived. The GOP in 1860 was the liberal party in American politics. The Democrats were conservative. They weren't as neatly self-sorted as the parties are today, but broadly this is the case.
Washington was far more of a mixed bag, and really didn't have a super strong political ideology other than that a central government wasn't the devil (as opposed to Jefferson - who wanted as little as possible).
100 years is too much to ask, but even 40 years is too much. The Nixon library unearthed the transcript of s phone call between then governor of California Ronald Reagan, and Nixion. Reagan referred to a delegation from an African country in the UN as "Monkeys".
As to @Balrog99 asking why he likes Bernie.....you'd have to tell me. He is by far the most left-wing candidate in the race, and maybe any race ever. And he is totally indistinguishable from Elizabeth Warren on 95% of the issues. It sounds to me like you (and millions of others) don't vote on policy at all but on personality, which I view as a problem in the overall scheme of things.
There were people on Twitter last night who were actually falling for Marianne Williamson, and OF COURSE she's interesting to listen to, she has made millions of dollars as a motivational speaker. That's no reason to vote for her. Her position on vaccinations alone is a disqualifier.
In regards to Reagan, I've never been less shocked by a revelation in my life.
"Unearthed" is a bit of a mis-characterization. The contents of this tape were known long before Reagan's death.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-baltimore-disaster-20161109-story.html
A 'Tyrantarian'?
Ironically, there was an Afro Bazilian who was an Baron and owned more than 1000 slaves. If one of his descendants are a US citizen, they would be eligible to get reparations? Note that despite he being an Baron, he was far richer than 99,9% of white Anglo Americans during slavery period.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-44792271
Note : Only because one of an long list of Barons was of African descent, i an not saying that racism din't existed.
There are other ways to determine if someone experienced segregation (a black immigrant with no birth certificate could have experienced it, while a black native who could pass as white might not), but those two criteria are (1) pretty darn simple, (2) easy to satisfy if you do qualify, and (3) about as accurate as you can hope to get without some expensive background check process.
That would minimize false positives, false negatives, and spending on overhead.
/shrug
I had never heard of it before. The article said it was recently unearthed.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/31/politics/ronald-reagan-richard-nixon-monkeys-african-countries/index.html
https://store.kydemocrats.org/moscow-mitch/
Well, I suppose for Americans the "slavery" would indeed be associated with exploitation of Africans, which is probably more about racism than slavery per se.
Me, I judge it based more on the antique period, where a slave was closer to second or third class citizen. Which, let's face it, isn't all that different from an ordinary laborer under totalitarian regime.
I am no great fan of Democrats but this is hilarious.
Booker looked really good tonight. Gabbard also looked good.
Gillibrand and Castro were pretty good, if not great.
Biden was okay, and that's probably good enough that it goes down as a solid win for him.,
Harris got absolutely destroyed. She was fine when she wasnt being attacked, but didnt really stand up very well when Gabbard and Biden teamed up on her.
Not Euro. I'm American, grew up in Ohio. I actually wasn't ever even seriously pro-gun control growing up. But I've since done some professional work involving analyzing crime and violence statistics across the world, and I just don't buy any of these cultural explanations. Your hypothesis for example, wouldn't account for cases like Canada and Australia, which were spared even more than the US from WW2's violence.
Moreover it wouldn't account for the relatively high levels of violence in poor countries like in Latin America, but in the relatively lower levels of criminal violence in other poor countries like in parts of Asia, or even surprisingly, parts of Africa.
The thing is we have both data between countries as well as longitudinal data within individual countries (countries that implemented stricter controls after a massacre) that shows, easy access to guns is one factor that strongly correlates with homicides. On any given year, approximately two-thirds of homicides in the US are committed with firearms.
It's not about creating a perfect solution. It's about gradually progressing towards a slightly better future. But having gun control similar to Canada, the UK, or Australia could potentially cut the homicide rate in half or in one third. Which would be thousands of lives saved every year.
Biden himself is responding better overall. He didn't look like his feelings are hurt this time. He also effectively shut down a demand from Bill de Blasio. I'm a little more confident that he could do well in a debate with Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard, who criticized Kamala Harris' attack on Joe Biden, launched a new string of attacks on Harris for her criminal justice record. Harris deflected it entirely, and when Gabbard had another moment to attack her, Harris appeared shaken before returning to the previous deflection.
I'm upset that Andrew Yang has once again tried to play strictly by the rules and not call attention himself by trying to provoke arguments with other candidates. He just focuses on answering the question in the time he's given. He did, however, give an spectacular and unique closing statement condemning shallow political showmanship and pointing out that his policies were neither left nor right. It was definitely very different from the others' closing comments.
Ben Shapiro says if your house is going to be flooded due to global warming then the free market means you sell your house and move. Sell it to whom freaking Aquaman?
US have different demographics, culture, etc. And before the NFA(1932), EUA had an total of ZERO mass shootings. Why? Instead of blame the tool, why not see why the US is producing so much mass shooters?
Not only you see Europe as an homogeneous group, but you also see latin america as an homogenous group. The difference between Mexico, Argentina and Haiti in culture, demographics, ethnic, climate, etc are far greater than the difference between Sweden and Italy and is not fair to put both countries in the same group.
That being said, the most violent countries in Latin America are Brazil and Mexico. Both countries with draconinan gun laws. Bolsonaro tried to make less draconian, but the "senate" and congress took his decree away and guess what. During the first months of Bolsonaro government, the homicide rates decreased by almost 1/4. In the most violent country of the region is a lot of lives saved.
Now look to Argentina and Uruguay, both countries with an strong hunting and cowboy culture, with the most guns per citizen and .... They are extremely safer than other countries.
In Fact, Haiti has 2.6 guns / 100 hab. Using that logic, should be the safest country in Americas > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
Show the data, please. About 2/3 committed by firearms, 2/3 handguns kills much more than """"assault"""" rifles(assault in quotes because no fully auto fire = no assault rifle, they are sporting rifles)
Wrong, the cities that implemented gun control are the most violent ones.
Do you know who is the most armed state in guns / hab in US? Alaska. And is the safest State by far.
California strict gun control din't prevented Elliot Rodger from commiting an mass shooting.
French strict gun control din't prevented the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.
The correct therm is IMO climate changes. But some models over exaggerate the impact of climate changes. According to some predictions made in 1950, Falklands should be submerged since 2010...
Ah you're right that's the better term. In the 1950s there weren't computers yet, and while 'some' predictions were wrong apparently the consensus is that man made climate change is fact. I think I saw like 99.8% climate scientists agree withr the other .2% being paid schills for the fossil fuel industry presumably.
Yang is a good person, and too nice for politics, really. He's young though, and has a lot of innovative ideas, so I am confident that we will be seeing more of him even if he isn't the winner this time around. He also has a very enthusiastic fanbase, much like Sanders fans.
Yang also seems to be picking up the most steam, the recognition will help him next time around. Yang is picking up the most followers across all social media after the debates.
Probably a stretch. The three most effective gun control laws in reducing homicide rates are universal background checks, bans on violent offenders purchasing guns, and “may-issue” laws which, according to the highest estimates, bring it down by about a third. Many if not most U.S cities have all or most of these policies already. There's no evidence to suggest that even stricter laws like in Canada would bring it down by just as much. There is certainly some diminishing returns effect that will happen here. I would also add that some US cities tried some harsher gun laws but were struck down around 2005-ish by the Supreme Court, so this is all moot for the foreseeable future anyway.
So this is factually not true.
El Salvador, Honduras and Venzuela all have higher per capita homicide rates than Brazil or Mexico. Mexico is a huge and diverse country and actually has a lot of, relatively, safe regions. The same is true of Brazil. Work I've done on this issue specifically focused on Latin America.
We can put Venezuela to this side for a moment because in past years they were not a homicide leader. However the three big homicide rate leaders are Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, they are consistently among the top three large countries in the region with the highest homicide rates.
The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) has partnered with law enforcement in these countries to track the origin of firearms. At least 40% of firearms in Honduras, for one example, were definitely traced to a US origin. Weak central governments in the region simply aren't able to combat well-organized criminal cartels that smuggle in weapons, regardless of what the laws are. But the availability of firearms STILL explains the high homicide rates. And this number can get as high as 60-70% in some years. And that's only CONFIRMED origin. Just as narcotics are smuggled wholesale from Latin America into the US, so too are firearms smuggled, wholesale, from the US into Latin America.
https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/trafficking-firearms-into-honduras/
And even if Latin America and the Caribbean are diverse when it comes to criminal violence, they are still disproportionately where homicides takes place -- when compared to countries of similar income levels. This is even true of relatively safe countries like Costa Rica or Argentina.
Please pause, and before writing fact check some of the things you say in the future before attempting to correct me. It is literally false to say that Brazil and Mexico lead Latin America in homicide rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kinosian-weigend-guns-mexico-20170302-story.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s
Obviously I'm not saying the US deserves 100% of the blame for crime in Latin America, but it does play a role.
Again assuming that all latin america is and spoiler > Is not. The distance between Mexico city and Ushuaia is near four times greater than the distance of Istanbul and London... Anyway You as an Tourist can hunt Boar on Patagonia with an fully powered cartidge rifle, while on Mexico anything stronger than a .380 is illegal... And Argentina isn't even the most firearms friendly country in the region. Falkalands(British territory) has the highest gun per capita and they are generations without an single crime. Sure, an low population living in a cold isolated near Antarctica isle helps a lot
And on Brazil, they get a lot of firearms from Argentina, Paraguay. Uruguay and other countries that has less draconian gun laws and even on Argentina, who is relative liberal(compared to Brazil/Mexico), there was much more illegal firearms than legal ones. I suggest this articlehttps://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Argentina-like
Not true. Using your own list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Chile murder / 100k hab - 4.30
Argentina murder / 100k hab - 5.10
Greenland murder / 100k hab - 5.31
United states murder / 100k hab - 5.30
And if you look to the top 5 most armed countries in Americas > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
1 - USA
2 - Falklands
3 - Canada
4 - Uruguay
None of then are violent countries.
But one question. There are near 400 million firearms on US. How do "strict gun control" supporters suggest to take all of this guns? The government can't prevent