I can only confidently guarantee that the prostitute you end up making tender love to (lol) will shower longer than she usually does after your 5 shameful minutes of disappointing her
Preventive health care tends to be neglected so people die at higher rates from stacking health issues. So if and when they finally go in for some of that "free emergency care", the bill is so astronomically high that it must be passed onto those can just barely afford to pay for their own treatments
Even after Obamacare where people were required to purchase insurance which includes preventative healthcare people still didn’t use it. Whole system has been fucked for so many years before and after Obamacare and I really don’t think anyone knows how to fix it.
Its almost if poor people dont have as good of a quality of life as a rich person. Literally anybody can get health insurance if you dont your fucking retarded and derserve to die.
Yeah, that's not all that scary from an Australian perspective, the face-level web spinners are harmless. The ones that get you are either the ones that spin their webs in the dark spots like inside your shoes or under the toilet seat (redback, technically lethal but won't kill you), or the ones that run at you (funnelweb, mouse spider, both super lethal, and huntsman, no poison but likes to hide behind the sun visor of your car, which is lethal).
The really scary shit is when you go up to the north half near the coast. There's shells that have spring loaded neurotoxin darts, box jellyfish with oh, neurotoxin, sea snakes with some more neurotoxin (much more potent than most land snakes and with rarer antivenom) and also crocodiles, who don't have neurotoxin.
Surprisingly few, but that's mostly because the vast majority of us don't live on the north half where (most of) the neurotoxin animals live. Or the trees that cause you intense skin pains for decades. Or the animals large enough to eat you.
We still get the funnelwebs and mouse spiders down south, and land snakes, and neurotoxin octopus, but for those it's just a case of teaching your kids not to poke their fingers in dark places, bang your shoes together upside down before you put them on if they've been outside, and not playing with strange animals unless an adult says it's ok. Which is pretty good advice no matter where you live.
We've got the deadliest spider, snake, fish, octopus, giant sharks, our crocodiles are basically the average size of the largest alligator recorded in America. Even our snails will kill you dead
A retard with a rifle manged to frighten you all and get you clutching pearls so tightly that a whole nation was effectively disarmed and gets pale and sweaty at the idea of scary shooty things, ensuring only those who should not have firearms do have firearms. Who says the retarded can't make an impact!
Looks a lot like fear for political gain to me, no matter how you might want to convince yourself it was 'practical'. How many people are killed as a direct product of alcohol there? How many have died in the last 24 months from mass homicides committed with cars? Where's the practical argument for the banning of those?
A bunch of pollies lost their job for it. Do you know how much we tax alcohol? We're doing a good job on cigarettes. You can argue about banning cars once the driverless ones come out. You are allowed guns with a strict license for purpose use. They're just hard to get.
The UK has banned petrol cars after 2040. How's that for a car ban?
Well I mean despite the fact you have their flag on yours, you guys aren't the UK so I don't know what their talk of banning petrol cars has to do with anything. But I digress, yeah I have some idea how you tax alcohol, it was like fucking Disney land for me when I visited - your alcohol is stunningly cheap by comparison with what I pay where I live... Gasoline too.
Yes but you can't ban our primary means of transport. You are talking about redesigning whole cities to be based around busses or some shit, from door to door.
I don't care if you do ban alcohol. You're playing my practical game now, so we're on the right page anyway.
You were afraid like the Americans were afraid of violent Muslims on planes after 9/11 and your unpleasant little bald leader at the time took advantage of that. And from what I've seen, you've been convincing yourselves it was 'just a good idea'. A retard startled you and as a nation you lost your nerve, you can admit it because nobody but other Australias believes it was pure practicality.
Yes but you can't ban our primary means of transport
You're playing my practical game now
Sure, I completely agree... but nobody really needs a car that can travel faster than the speed limit, so those should be banned, and any vehicle over the weight of an ultra light smart should be banned as well because most drivers just don't need a big heavy car or truck, ditto manual transmissions and any engine over a certain low horsepower. Then all remaining cars that fit the criteria of being 'appropriate' must of course require a very strict license for purpose use, demonstrating need, and then only if the driver can demonstrate that they are able to store their vehicle in an expensive vehicle safe when not in use because that's just common sense (wouldn't want a child or a disgruntled Muslim getting access to your 4 wheeled pedestrian crusher). And naturally nobody really needs high capacity fuel tanks either, to be honest, just ones large enough to get you from one gas station to the next! And then on that note, the sale of gasoline (a highly toxic, highly combustible substance that does enormous environmental damage) should be sold only under strict licencing conditions, at the very highest possible tax rate, and only to individuals who hold the correct permits and can prove they need more gasoline, and of course only in the smallest possible quantities.
Let's just cut to the chase - you were afraid like the Americans were afraid of violent Muslims on planes after 9/11 and your unpleasant little bald leader at the time took advantage of that. And from what I've seen, you've been convincing yourselves it was 'just a good idea' ever since to try and feel like you've mastered your fear. A retard startled you and as a nation you lost your nerve - you can admit it because nobody but other Australians actually believes it was pure practicality, just as nobody but Americans believes it's just practical good sense to have to partially undress and in many cases, be virtually strip searched by wave millimeter scanners operated by glorified mall cops before boarding a flight anywhere.
All of those things already happen.
Speed limit is regulated by camera & fine.
Weight is regulated via cost in the design & manufacturing of cars.
Auto vs manual is regulated by driving tests.
Horsepower is regulated by cost and insurance in Aus.
The driving license progam exists to license drivers based on vehicle class and ability.
Idk what the regs around high capacity fuel tanks are, but the car registration place will when you go to get your car registered.
Gas is already super taxed and the price regulates the quantities people buy as long as you're filling up cars and not oil drums straight from the gas station.
There are regs for guns too in both countries. What's your problem with tightening up the regs to the point where you dont have to be polite to every single person on the street because they might shoot you? What a nightmare. Maybe ur cops will chill the fuck out too.
Everything you wrote was a strawnan false equivalency. Stop projecting ur fear onto aus. The gun ban happened in 96, well before 911.
So there was no firearm control and regulation in Australia pre port Arthur? And I'm not American so trying to turn this around on me won't work, I live in a Nordic nanny state, but we retain the right to own scary bang bangs in some of the highest rates in the western world, and no, nobody has any fear of being shot walking down the street.
You did not act of of practicality, you acted out of reflexive fear, be honest with yourself.
There is little to no hypocrisy. Cars and guns are different things. John Oliver started the smugness. Before his daily show article, nobody cared.
I know the Finnish driving test is more involved than the Aus one. I don't think many countries match Finland's standards. We don't live in a frozen terrain. We did 120hrs supervised driving, plus 2 theory, an eye test and practical driving tedt. That seems sufficient.
Our "auto culture" drives or gdp. Cars are needed. Guns have limited economic use.
Quit blowing regulation to the extreme just because you don't like it.
Yes but you can't ban our primary means of transport. You are talking about redesigning whole cities to be based around busses or some shit, from door to door.
I don't care if you do ban alcohol. You're playing my practical game now, so we're on the right page anyway.
Yes but you can't ban our primary means of transport. You are talking about redesigning whole cities to be based around busses or some shit, from door to door.
I don't care if you do ban alcohol. You're playing my practical game now, so we're on the right page anyway.
Bitter is what I was when I realized the luggage Id' brought was nowhere near big enough for all the 2 liter boxes of wine I managed to get for less money than single bottles of the cheapest wine here. I ended up buying another suitcase, which it turns out, was also cheaper over there than here.
You dont understand aussie culture. We cut down tall poppies socially. If you think you're above others you get dragged down. See gina reinhart. It functions well at keeping narcissistic blowhards humble.
I dont even care if America changes it's mind. It can be beneficial that the western bodyguard is near impossible to invade. I was just making the point.
Well yeah, I mean that's another great example of fear driving policy. Americans felt a deep fear, it was exploited for political gain, and now everybody in the world needs to partially undress before they can board a plane.
He's not hated in Aus. He's hilarious. Even turnbull and co made a joke out of him. Aus has been pretty lefty when it comes to Amerucan politics publicly, but I don't think that represents the ground truth.
The healthcare thing is too broad but as an European I haven’t seen much critique for the dems in EU media, while there is for the reps, especially Donny.
Exactly. Only with the donny drumpftards would you hear Hillary and the Dems being brought up so much (purely to reflect justified criticism might I add). Why on earth would news media, especially foreign news media, give a shit about the opposition party
If you’re not a socialist, there is loads to criticize, but that’s beside the point. The fact that the left gets zero criticism is what I’m pointing to and that’s a fact whether you are left leaning or not. Plus, you can’t just discard the dems as just the opposition party as they have a big chance of ruining the rep control over govt. this election.
the only reason the republicans get so much criticism internationally is because this century they developed a habit of making asses of themselves in public way more frequently, while simultaneously politically pushing in the opposite direction of most of europe. whereas the democrats just appear to them as regular politicians from another country.
if they weren’t so utterly laughable and out of step with any anglophone outside our borders, american politicians would just get the odd, easily forgotten about story
For example, if you are not a socialist, higher corporate tax rates are not something you think is good, but that particular viewpoint is not expressed a lot in European media. Maybe since English is not my native tongue, criticize is not the right word but what I'm saying is that European media is more politically aligned with dems. This comes to your next point - that they are out of step. The fact that they are not aligned with the general EU politics doesn't necessarily equate to them being wrong.
For example, if you are not a socialist, higher corporate tax rates are not something you think is good, but that particular viewpoint is not expressed a lot in European media.
Boi Europe doesn't have high corporate taxes compared to the US. The "commie" countries Denmark and Sweden have a flat tax rate of 22% wheras the US tax rate is between 21% and 33% depending on state laws. Hungary even has a corporate tax of just 9%.
We hate republicans because they are a threat to world peace (just look at Daddy quarreling with Rocket Man), not because we are "socialist".
Yeah I guess this was a bad point on my part. Second part still stands though. But it's not only the reps threatening world peace, look at Obama and Libya.
Obama literally continued all of the policies that Bush was hated by liberals for. In many cases he expanded them.
But, of course, Obama never received anywhere close to the same criticism. And when things his administration did were criticized, it was always "the US government" and not "the Obama administration."
When you're a Democrat, arming terrorists, invading soveriegn nations, bombing civilians, torture, spying on American citizens, corruption and incompetence is fine, ignored by the media or spun to your benefit.
The media at the time and Tony Blair focused on the "Iraq has WMDs and they could wipe out London within an hour!" narrative to justify our involvement in the wars.
There are traditionally three main parties in the UK: the Conservatives (also know as the Tories) who are right-wing (or are at least presumed to be), Labour. which is left wing and the Liberal Democrats who are further left than Labour.
Though UKIP (a right wing party) and the Scottish National Party (far left) are the two new prominent parties.
Just wait until this problem gets even worse. Conservatives are a shrinking demographic in the US and they're going to keep losing the popular vote by larger and larger margins.
The entire electoral system in the US is completely fucked and needs a massive overhaul.
Please explain how it is fucked and what you'd do to fix it. Because the way I see it is that this way all states get some representation. If it was the popular vote, states that didn't have dense population wouldn't get much campaign action. The states are supposed to act as semi-separate entities so it's only logical to tally up their votes and not popular vote. Say for example, 90% of the US population lived in CA. Should then CA get 90% of the electoral power even though it's one in fifty states? That doesn't look like a republic to me but to a mob rule.
Because the way I see it is that this way all states get some representation.
No, the electoral college was designed with the belief congress would keep expanding the house. The house was meant to give the majority of the population a majority of the say, and the senate was meant to protect smaller states.
But we capped the size of the house in the early 1900s. This means the larger, more populus states have signicantly less political power than they should have.
The way the electoral college is set up, states get a vote for every rep they have. See why capping the house fucked up larger states?
So it isn't that all states get representation, it's that small states get seriously disproportionate representation and have seriously disproportionate political power.
And if you had read the article, you would have seen why this causes other problems.
But even when you control for policy need, Dr. Lee’s research has found that a significant rural bias in resources persists. You can see it in Homeland Security funding that gave Wyoming, for example, seven times as much money per capita as New York after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. You can see it in Alaska’s proposed “bridge to nowhere.”
“In that case,” Dr. Ansolabehere said, “Alaska has so much disproportionate power in the negotiation over funds that in order for California to get some, Alaska gets a lot — to the point of not knowing what to spend the money on.”
These calculations also mean that populous states subsidize less populous ones, which receive more resources than the tax dollars they send to Washington.
Does this seem reasonable to you?
If it was the popular vote, states that didn't have dense population wouldn't get much campaign action.
This is the go to argument for people that aren't edecuated on the subject.
A) Those states already get no campaign action, and the big states don't either. Why? Because the electoral college makes every single national election about 4-5 swing states, and the vast majority of campaign action takes place in those states. You can see it in this gif of campaign stops from last election: https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/campaign.gif?strip=info&w=575
Say for example, 90% of the US population lived in CA. Should then CA get 90% of the electoral power even though it's one in fifty states? That doesn't look like a republic to me but to a mob rule.
If 90% of the country lived in CA, then CA should have 90% of the say. How is this a hard concept for you guys? Why is it you think a citizen in california is not a full American, and their vote doesn't matter as much as someones vote in Montana?
These are actually some good points. Didn't have time to read the article you first posted, sorry. A few things though:
No, the electoral college was designed
I wasn't arguing about what it was designed to do but what the outcome of it is.
Does this seem reasonable to you?
Not really, funds could and should be distributed better but we aren't talking about funds. Alaska has a low population and it has only 3 electoral votes.
Those states already get no campaign action, and the big states don't either.
They don't indeed but if they show changed polls from a previous election before the next one, they become a swing state and get campaign action. If the USA had popular vote, the change in their voting patterns won't matter and no matter what they do and who they vote for, they won't get on anyone's campaign trail. In the current system, they could but on popular vote, they wouldn't stand a chance.
The electoral college suppresses voter turn out and makes it so voices aren't even heard in primarily red states or primarily blue states.
A minority in this state doesn't get a lot to say about the state in general, right? You say that this is bad but you completely switch when we scale it up from states to the entire country. You say that it is okay that all other 49 states should not have a lot of say in the CA example. Why is it bad for minority voter groups to be repressed in their state but okay in the entire country?
If 90% of the country lived in CA, then CA should have 90% of the say. How is this a hard concept for you guys? Why is it you think a citizen in California is not a full American, and their vote doesn't matter as much as someones vote in Montana?
1. I'm sorry that you misunderstood me and I'm sorry if your from Cali and I offended you. I didn't mean it in the alt-right "California isn't really USA" type of way. I just picked CA because it's the first thing that popped in my head when I thought about a state with a lot of electoral votes.
2. It's a "hard concept" because Cali is not 90% of the USA even if 90% live there.
3. Who are we? I mean you said "you guys". Who am I being grouped with just out of curiosity?
P.S.: Sorry for the badly structured sentences, I'm not a real good English speaker.
Pizzashill, you won't be getting another response from me. I've read your post history and determined you have a severe cognitive problem and aren't worth talking to.
This article cites two things:
1. The Fifth Amendment, which is about due-process of law and has nothing to do with voting.
2. Two court cases which ruled that "one person should be equal to one vote". Fun fact, one person is equal to one vote as they meant votes on state level that contribute to the electoral voting as a whole. And even if they ruled that one person should be one electoral vote for president, that does not make the Constitution unconstitutional simply because the Supreme Court is not the Constitution. They can rule whatever they want but it is not a part of the constitution until a 2/3 congress majority or 2/3 state legislative majority amends it into the constitution.
Firstly, not 'our' `cus I'm not even from the USA, yet I know more about the Constitution than you. Secondly and more importantly, ad hominems aren't going to get you far. I've never claimed to be a great scholar or to really have an in-depth understanding of the constitution. I just did my research and it's a thing you should do instead of just linking articles you didn't think through and parroting lefty talking points.
Hillary knew that she had to win the electoral college, and she willingly chose to spend her time in California and New York instead of Michigan and Wisconsin. The rules were known ahead of time.
Invading Libya and cajoling NATO to join. Arming the "moderate" Syrian rebels. Then two things happen: ISIS grows in that vacuum which casues a huge humanitarian crisis and refugee problem, then Libya, who had previously kept refugee Mediterannean crossings at bay, becomes a hub for all of the world's poor who want to cross into Greece and Italy.
After all this, there's a million migrants a year coming into Europe without even so much as a check of ID, leading to rising crime in various countries that have released their figures, and perhaps directly leading to the UK leaving the EU, perhaps also leading directly to the election of Donald Trump. This is to say nothing of the effects of this migration 2 generations out.
Even retard George Bush didn't fuck things up this badly for Europe.
not really. the situation currently is if you have a job you are covered and if you don’t make enough money you have ACA. if you’re poor and old you get medicaid and medicare...literally this is the most robust coverage we’ve ever had.
Well after 2003, don't expect most French to like America. Since apparently not following a warmonger in a pointless war is considered treason and we got a lot of shit for being cautious
what does this have to do with france? i stated more people than ever have health insurance in the usa...
also i agree the war after 9/11 is bull shit. but also france wasn’t very useful in ww2 and rolled over like a domesticated dog so i don’t have much respect for you guys.
how brave. bend the knee. let your population keep raped and abused. and get a huge second wind when america is finally engaged. france was playing 4d chess
2d chess. Sometimes you just have to surrender. You can ditch ur american glory. Russia did most of the work stopping germany in ww2. You americans are glory theives. You didnt even need to nuke japan and your moon landing was built on the back of Von Braun. Go start another failed war.
who funded the western theatre? america and swiss.
was russia on the western front? who attacked from the pacific, russia? russia definitely was huge as was the US. russia provided the body count, britain the brains, and US was the cash.
the war following 9/11 is not failed. we have made so much money from it. and that’s sick but it’s the truth. there’s no glory from war just money.
do you think germany would have lost if america didn’t supply money, supplies, troops, and nukes? that’s hilarious.
Yeah i've taken an undefendable positiin just for the sake of riling you up. I could argue getmany moved the majority of her troops to the east and hitler's failure to retreat causing 50k unnessecary deaths made it eady for you guys. But aftet the brits botched their third if market garden and you guys carried most if the western front i can't really back what I said enough. The proportionality of russia's scarifices is still a strong argument, but really napeloen failed, and hitler shoulda known better dont go deep on russia.
i agree completely. russia lost a fuck ton of people. why did hitler attack russia? why did he try invading russia in the winter? if he never attacked russia the world power split would be insanely different.
Hitler always wanted Lebensraum in Russia though. He thought the Communists couldn't run a war and he'd go through them like out-of-date sauerkraut through a sick grandmother. The first few months after Barbarossa must have tended to convince him he was right.
there are not ten of millions of people without insurance. the ONLY people who are not covered are the ones who didn’t apply for the ACA. if you make under 20k you have medicaid. if you make over that but don’t have insurance through your company the ACA covers you on a sliding scale but you have to apply. if you don’t apply and you fall in that gap yes you are fucked. it takes 10 minutes on the website to apply. libraries offer free internet and every state also has grant programs in place to assist people in registering.
Why are you so full of shit? Is it because you’re insecure about the rest of the developed world laughing at how much of a failure your health system is?
tens of millions is 20M to 100M so you are right. 90% of people in a country with privatized and public insurance are covered. 26 million aren’t.
those 26 could be covered by medicaid medicare or the ACA. no one is allowed to be excluded. they did not take the 15 minutes to get healthcare. you can lead a horse to water.
if you can’t make a phone call or fill out an online application to get free healthcare i don’t know what to tell you.
90% (300 million) of people in a country with privatized and public insurance are covered.
You say it like this is meant to be some impressive level. It’s an embarrassment...
also where do people go when they need healthcare? the states
I don’t know a single person who’s gone to the US for healthcare. The only people I’ve heard of doing so in the media are a few people who needed very specialist treatment or something that wasn’t allowed in their home country. But that’s god both ways, plenty of Americans travel to Europe and the rest of the world for the same reasons. The US isn’t even a leading destination for health tourism.
where do doctors migrate to work? the states.
Doctors moving to your country to work says nothing about the quality of your healthcare system. Countless health professionals move to Europe every year to work, it’s nothing to do with the quality of care, it’s just because they know they can get more money.
so your country has 100% for 7 million people or something right? congrats. if your country went from portugal to russia and had a diverse culture with 330 million people that would be more impressive.
we are at 90% now and it will get closer to 100% bc once you introduce a safety net it only grows. canadians come here. mexicans come here. euros come here. when you need topnof the line care or experimental trials you come to the states. more HCP come to the us then europe (which isn’t a country btw).
but i’m sure your little country is significant on the world scale at some level buddy, don’t worry!
No? Providing healthcare for 100 million ppl isn't harder than providing healthcare for 10 million ppl. Same for "more diverse" populations. You fuck face probably think that more black ppl = more diversity.
why are other countries so obsessed with the us? go to your own little shithole and stay put please.
b/c you tards always repeat the same stupid talking points. lemme guess, you also think that the US pays for the world's drug R&D, right?
you think it’s the same scale of difficulty to provide healthcare for 7 million people vs 330 million? are you retarded. google economies of scale jesus christ what bubble do you live in?
and deciding on issues in a republic with 330 million people with 280 being able to vote is much different than 7 million homogenous people voting.
you think it’s the same scale of difficulty to provide healthcare for 7 million people vs 330 million? are you retarded. google economies of scale jesus christ what bubble do you live in?
>economy of scale
This isn't the semiconductor industry. With 100 million people you need X hip replacements, with 10 million ppl you need 0.1 × X hip replacements. Cost per capita is constant.
and deciding on issues in a republic with 330 million people with 280 being able to vote is much different than 7 million homogenous people voting.
Sure, but it's not 'losing .5% of our population every year' bad, as would be true if we were literally losing hundreds of thousands of people a month.
I tried searching for things like "USA 100000 healthcare" and "the US health insurance deaths" in French on Google and there were 0 results claiming that 100,000 die monthly. I could however find several claims that 45,000 Americans die yearly due to a lack of healthcare. OP is obviously exaggerating.
Healthcare is expensive in America. In terms of health outcomes like cancer survival rates, waiting times and specialization, the United States is consistently among the top countries on Earth.
It's the old adage: "Quick, cheap, good. Choose 2"
If you believe this Forbes article, the accident-adjusted life expectancy of America is the highest on Earth.
The BBC are pretty blatant with their distaste for Donald. I'd say theyve taken to sensationalising their reporting in the last decade though so I don't really rate them anyway. They do praise the dems a fair bit.
Of course and they certainly seem to be. My point was more on the beebs very slanted reporting on things for the last while. Maybe I'm mis-remembering but they used to take a much less biased stance on their reporting.
Obviously I'm not just referring to American shit and Donaldos daily tweets.
OK why not, I watched an analysis on the tax cuts recently where it was discussed if they would be good for business and the economy. It was suggested that the cuts were made to deliberately punish poor people.
That's pretty ridiculous. They don't even pull that shit with the Tories. Haha also they had a good bit on the other night about Trump supporters one year on which prominently featured a redneck, a dumb socialite and a jew who sells hoverboards. Unless these are actually a good representation of who voted for him.
It was suggested that the cuts were made to deliberately punish poor people.
Deliberately? I don't know. But that is the outcome. Republicans push tax cuts to justify cutting social safety nets, it's a strategy they've been using for years.
Also, I'm going to need to see some citation showing the BBC saying the tax cuts were pushed to "deliberately punish" anyone.
But it wouldn't even be out of the norm considering American culture. This country has hated the poor forever. The idea that poverty is deserved is a common meme.
It's like that republican official that said: "people who lead good lives don't have to worry about dealing with pre-existing conditions."
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.
The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States Federal Government, which funds numerous programs and government agencies using mainly American taxpayer dollars. These programs include: education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense.
On July 14, 1978, economist Alan Greenspan testified to the U.S. Finance Committee: "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes.
“In 2009, that was the first time I went to a tea party, and I will tell you that the vast majority of people that I interacted with at tea parties at that time were older,” Ben Howe, a frequent contributor to the conservative blog Redstate.com, said. “They were, you know, ‘I just want to take my country back.’”
While the tea party was greeted by some as a sign of a reinvigorated party, it didn’t help to bring the GOP more in line with the country at large. Most Americans didn’t see eye-to-eye with the movement; at the height of its strength in 2010, only 32 percent of the country supported it and that number had dropped to 17 percent by 2015. Moreover, elements of the racially motivated politics that have characterized the Trump presidential campaign were evident at these gatherings, according to Howe.
“Every once in a while, somebody would come with a Confederate flag and people would stand there and point at it and call them ‘liberal plants’ and things like that,” he said.
In that way, the tea party wasn’t new. Something real has been percolating over the past decade in the Republican base when it comes to race and identity. When looking at the change in the county-by-county vote from 2000 to 2012, one of the most predictive variables for a place becoming more Republican has been the number of people ethnically identifying as “American,” not whether or not a person believes in smaller government or lower taxes. States such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia, where a plurality of people identified in the 2000 Census as “American,” are among those that have trended the most Republican since 2000.
Howe’s theory for the racial animus of Trump supporters boils down to simple attrition: “Everybody who was reasonable seems to have gone home in 2012,” he said. Romney’s loss in 2012 discouraged many of the once-energized fiscal conservative activists.
“This isn’t the most artful way to say it, but it’s like, where do you go when the only people who seem to agree with you on taxes hate black people?” Howe laughed ruefully. “I think what you do is you say, ‘Well, I may lose but I can’t align myself with them.’”
But instead, Howe said, he made moral compromises he regrets.
“There are some things that I don’t have core values about, that I can be negotiable on, compromise on. But then there are other things that I can’t budge on,” he said. “I think I thought I had to budge on some things: ‘Yeah, this guy talking to me right now just said he agrees with my taxes and also we need to get that Kenyan out of office.’ Why did I stand there and say, ‘Yeah’? You know? I shouldn’t have done that. I should’ve said, ‘Wait, what? No, that’s stupid. You’re stupid. Don’t be stupid.’”
The Illuminati really did slap the Eye of Providence on the American greenback. The Knights Templar survived, and fled to the New World with their holy relics. The Hashshashin have had a hand in the assassinations of Martin Luther King, JFK, Indira Ghandi, and Benazir Bhutto. The Green Dragon has infiltrated a dozen East Asian governments. A hacker collective known as the Network has infiltrated into your computer, and has access to your entire digital life. The Inquisition continues to hunt down witches and heretics. The Bilderbergers control the wealth of entire nations, available at a single phone call.
Aliens really did crash land as Roswell, and their remains were taken to Area 51 by Majestic-12. The government really is experimenting with chemtrails, but not for the reasons you'd expect. Project MK Ultra was a success, as was the Philadelphia Experiment. Tesla had a secret lab, but it was hidden by the government because of the terrible inventions created there. The FBI has verified that miracles are continuing to occur. Subliminal messages were actually placed into vinyl albums.
Hidden cities lie beneath the ice of Antarctica. Atlantis sank beneath the waves. A dead god sleeps beneath the South Pacific. Crop circles are a message from alien visitors. Vampires control over half the nightclubs in the continental United States. Mummies run the Egyptian antiquities trade. Guardian angels protect blessed children. Dragons control Wall Street. The Nazis built a city on the Moon. The Bermuda Triangle hides a hole in space and time. Deja Vu is a sign of the Thirty-First House's interference. Your memories are stored in the Akashic Records. Yggdrasil connects the worlds. The Ring of Power remains in family of Brunhild. Pandora's box is opening again. Muramasa's blade still hungers for blood. The Tower of Babel never fell.
The Once and Future King sleeps in Avalon. Nicholas Flamel discovered the secret to eternal life. The Mad Arab is gathering new followers, who dedicate themselves to the Black Pharaoh. The Numbers Stations were protecting us. The real purpose of the Mars rovers is to discover why the canals dried up 100 years ago. The Pyramids of Giza hide even greater secrets. The crystal skulls of the Aztec and Maya hold the keys to unlocking human potential. The bees are leaving. Eleven days are missing. Deja Vu is a sign of the Thirty-First House's interference. Lilith continues to torment the sons and daughters of Eve. Jack the Ripper will kill again. Loki lies chained beneath the World Tree. Dracula sleeps in London. Orochi stirs in his grave. Elvis lives. Rasputin never died. Sasquatches walk through the wilds of Canada. The number 23 has been placed everywhere as a warning. Reptilians have infiltrated our governments, businesses, and religions.
The Men in Black investigate incidents on behalf of the world government. Werewolves bred their way into European noble families. Demons control cults throughout society, and trade souls in return for fame, fortune, and power. The fairy kingdoms are girding for war. The gates to the City of Brass are opening. Victor Frankenstein actually created life. Solomon's ring can bind jinn to your service. That house is haunted. Magic exists. There really is a monster in your closet.
As a Fleming, our media really sucks when either there is a US presidential election or a Republican president. It's almost REEEEEE everyday on Republicans. They mostly just copy sentiment from MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc.
I miss Obama since they wasn't as much news on America other than some PR pieces on the first black president with him portrayed as Mother Mary. It's no coincidence Europe gave him the Nobel Peace Prize because he said "Hey man, peace y'all".
Reading retarded hit pieces like the drama about Romney's "binders full of women" just gets old really fast.
I’m from Slovenia. America is viewed either as ‘a land of opportunity’ (we lived under communism until 1991) or is criticized for it’s healthcare, which is funny, because our ‘free’ healthcare sucks ass, the lines are so long you might as well give up and die; for example they found out I was producing too little of the thyroid gland in September last year, my first appointment in endocrinological hospital is in June. Some old dude was fed up with the waiting lines few years ago so he shot up a hospital.
In Britain, you aren't allowed to start a television channel if it's about politics (it's literally illegal) and all the channels that currently exist are all leftist. So, essentially, all television news is leftist.
202 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-01-27
I can only confidently guarantee that the prostitute you end up making tender love to (lol) will shower longer than she usually does after your 5 shameful minutes of disappointing her
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Honk4Tits 2018-01-27
That's a bunch of bullshit, plus people without health insurance still get treated in emergency rooms and the poor get free health care (Medicare).
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
you know what else is bullshit? the part about european media
1 Honk4Tits 2018-01-27
In what way?
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
that boy never saw a “french news story”
1 OnSnowWhiteWings 2018-01-27
Preventive health care tends to be neglected so people die at higher rates from stacking health issues. So if and when they finally go in for some of that "free emergency care", the bill is so astronomically high that it must be passed onto those can just barely afford to pay for their own treatments
1 Mr_Americas 2018-01-27
Even after Obamacare where people were required to purchase insurance which includes preventative healthcare people still didn’t use it. Whole system has been fucked for so many years before and after Obamacare and I really don’t think anyone knows how to fix it.
1 Honk4Tits 2018-01-27
Its almost if poor people dont have as good of a quality of life as a rich person. Literally anybody can get health insurance if you dont your fucking retarded and derserve to die.
1 mayo_and_poison 2018-01-27
Don't know how you're supposed to get treatment for cancer or some other disease in the emergency room but OK
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
you just gotta wait till it’s REALLY bad, then not leave
1 Honk4Tits 2018-01-27
Then don't get cancer duh,
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2018-01-27
I know Trump is pretty hated in Australia tbhon, and everyone thinks your gun policies are retarded, and that you're all fat and stupid (republican)
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2018-01-27
But Aussies live with sharks and spiders and shit.
1 Deal6 2018-01-27
And kangaroos
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-01-27
And abos
1 im-a-koala 2018-01-27
And me
1 aqouta 2018-01-27
Truly the worst thing the aussies have to deal with.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
we have spiders in the US. deadly spiders
no drop bears tho
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2018-01-27
Yeah we've got black widows and some others I think but those Aussie spiders are real shit. Look at this motherfucker
Disclaimer: from Google images. May not live in Australia.
1 Vakieh 2018-01-27
Yeah, that's not all that scary from an Australian perspective, the face-level web spinners are harmless. The ones that get you are either the ones that spin their webs in the dark spots like inside your shoes or under the toilet seat (redback, technically lethal but won't kill you), or the ones that run at you (funnelweb, mouse spider, both super lethal, and huntsman, no poison but likes to hide behind the sun visor of your car, which is lethal).
The really scary shit is when you go up to the north half near the coast. There's shells that have spring loaded neurotoxin darts, box jellyfish with oh, neurotoxin, sea snakes with some more neurotoxin (much more potent than most land snakes and with rarer antivenom) and also crocodiles, who don't have neurotoxin.
1 ihavecorrectopinions 2018-01-27
get out of my fucking country
1 Vakieh 2018-01-27
Why are you quoting bad when I didn't say bad?
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
there it is
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-01-27
Kinda sounds like a high-level MMORPG zone.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
eh, mid-high, but fewer safe areas. safari zone basically
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2018-01-27
I don't know how you people survive day to day life down there. How often are people killed by one of your devil creatures with neurotoxins?
1 Vakieh 2018-01-27
Surprisingly few, but that's mostly because the vast majority of us don't live on the north half where (most of) the neurotoxin animals live. Or the trees that cause you intense skin pains for decades. Or the animals large enough to eat you.
We still get the funnelwebs and mouse spiders down south, and land snakes, and neurotoxin octopus, but for those it's just a case of teaching your kids not to poke their fingers in dark places, bang your shoes together upside down before you put them on if they've been outside, and not playing with strange animals unless an adult says it's ok. Which is pretty good advice no matter where you live.
1 StingAuer 2018-01-27
Black widows are rarely deadly, you'll just feel like shit if you get bit, but won't die or have many lasting effects.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-01-27
KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2018-01-27
We've got the deadliest spider, snake, fish, octopus, giant sharks, our crocodiles are basically the average size of the largest alligator recorded in America. Even our snails will kill you dead
1 MG87 2018-01-27
And they're retarded enough to lose a war to flightless birds
1 TheCodexx 2018-01-27
No, everyone thinks your gun policies are retarded.
Australia can have fun- oh wait, no they can't, that's banned too.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2018-01-27
Oh I agree, giving darkies the right to bear arms is a wonderf-
gets shot
1 Talonek 2018-01-27
Ever notice how most of those are black on black.;)
1 shaftofbread 2018-01-27
No, he's right. everyone here thinks America's gun policies are regarded, and now we all think you are regarded, too. Well done!
(and needing guns to have 'fun' says a great deal more about you than it does about us, too!) 😂
1 Delkseypoo 2018-01-27
You don't speak for everyone
1 Talonek 2018-01-27
We don't need guns for fun, our mommy just let's us play with more toys.
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
A retard with a rifle manged to frighten you all and get you clutching pearls so tightly that a whole nation was effectively disarmed and gets pale and sweaty at the idea of scary shooty things, ensuring only those who should not have firearms do have firearms. Who says the retarded can't make an impact!
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
It was a practical argument to ban guns. We don't run on pure fear to the extent the american news cycle does.
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
Looks a lot like fear for political gain to me, no matter how you might want to convince yourself it was 'practical'. How many people are killed as a direct product of alcohol there? How many have died in the last 24 months from mass homicides committed with cars? Where's the practical argument for the banning of those?
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
A bunch of pollies lost their job for it. Do you know how much we tax alcohol? We're doing a good job on cigarettes. You can argue about banning cars once the driverless ones come out. You are allowed guns with a strict license for purpose use. They're just hard to get.
The UK has banned petrol cars after 2040. How's that for a car ban?
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
Well I mean despite the fact you have their flag on yours, you guys aren't the UK so I don't know what their talk of banning petrol cars has to do with anything. But I digress, yeah I have some idea how you tax alcohol, it was like fucking Disney land for me when I visited - your alcohol is stunningly cheap by comparison with what I pay where I live... Gasoline too.
1 SPEZ_AKBAR 2018-01-27
You probably just got the weak fucking piss ya cunt.
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-01-27
You lost your right to the "tough belligerent outback" identity the moment your people banned guns.
1 XovNielkArze 2018-01-27
Guns = manhood, this is a fact
1 SPEZ_AKBAR 2018-01-27
They’re regulated not B&. My friends out bush still shoot roos for their dogs.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
I mean you cant compare banning guns to cars, so i was broadening out your point for the sake of conversation.
Tbh they tax the soda + alcohol mixers through the roof, not so much regular beer/wine/spirits.
What country makes our prices look like disneyland??
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
Basically anywhere in the Nordics.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
Yes but you can't ban our primary means of transport. You are talking about redesigning whole cities to be based around busses or some shit, from door to door.
I don't care if you do ban alcohol. You're playing my practical game now, so we're on the right page anyway.
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
You were afraid like the Americans were afraid of violent Muslims on planes after 9/11 and your unpleasant little bald leader at the time took advantage of that. And from what I've seen, you've been convincing yourselves it was 'just a good idea'. A retard startled you and as a nation you lost your nerve, you can admit it because nobody but other Australias believes it was pure practicality.
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
Sure, I completely agree... but nobody really needs a car that can travel faster than the speed limit, so those should be banned, and any vehicle over the weight of an ultra light smart should be banned as well because most drivers just don't need a big heavy car or truck, ditto manual transmissions and any engine over a certain low horsepower. Then all remaining cars that fit the criteria of being 'appropriate' must of course require a very strict license for purpose use, demonstrating need, and then only if the driver can demonstrate that they are able to store their vehicle in an expensive vehicle safe when not in use because that's just common sense (wouldn't want a child or a disgruntled Muslim getting access to your 4 wheeled pedestrian crusher). And naturally nobody really needs high capacity fuel tanks either, to be honest, just ones large enough to get you from one gas station to the next! And then on that note, the sale of gasoline (a highly toxic, highly combustible substance that does enormous environmental damage) should be sold only under strict licencing conditions, at the very highest possible tax rate, and only to individuals who hold the correct permits and can prove they need more gasoline, and of course only in the smallest possible quantities.
Let's just cut to the chase - you were afraid like the Americans were afraid of violent Muslims on planes after 9/11 and your unpleasant little bald leader at the time took advantage of that. And from what I've seen, you've been convincing yourselves it was 'just a good idea' ever since to try and feel like you've mastered your fear. A retard startled you and as a nation you lost your nerve - you can admit it because nobody but other Australians actually believes it was pure practicality, just as nobody but Americans believes it's just practical good sense to have to partially undress and in many cases, be virtually strip searched by wave millimeter scanners operated by glorified mall cops before boarding a flight anywhere.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
All of those things already happen. Speed limit is regulated by camera & fine. Weight is regulated via cost in the design & manufacturing of cars. Auto vs manual is regulated by driving tests. Horsepower is regulated by cost and insurance in Aus. The driving license progam exists to license drivers based on vehicle class and ability.
Idk what the regs around high capacity fuel tanks are, but the car registration place will when you go to get your car registered.
Gas is already super taxed and the price regulates the quantities people buy as long as you're filling up cars and not oil drums straight from the gas station.
There are regs for guns too in both countries. What's your problem with tightening up the regs to the point where you dont have to be polite to every single person on the street because they might shoot you? What a nightmare. Maybe ur cops will chill the fuck out too.
Everything you wrote was a strawnan false equivalency. Stop projecting ur fear onto aus. The gun ban happened in 96, well before 911.
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
So there was no firearm control and regulation in Australia pre port Arthur? And I'm not American so trying to turn this around on me won't work, I live in a Nordic nanny state, but we retain the right to own scary bang bangs in some of the highest rates in the western world, and no, nobody has any fear of being shot walking down the street.
You did not act of of practicality, you acted out of reflexive fear, be honest with yourself.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
There is little to no hypocrisy. Cars and guns are different things. John Oliver started the smugness. Before his daily show article, nobody cared.
I know the Finnish driving test is more involved than the Aus one. I don't think many countries match Finland's standards. We don't live in a frozen terrain. We did 120hrs supervised driving, plus 2 theory, an eye test and practical driving tedt. That seems sufficient.
Our "auto culture" drives or gdp. Cars are needed. Guns have limited economic use.
Quit blowing regulation to the extreme just because you don't like it.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
Yes but you can't ban our primary means of transport. You are talking about redesigning whole cities to be based around busses or some shit, from door to door.
I don't care if you do ban alcohol. You're playing my practical game now, so we're on the right page anyway.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
Yes but you can't ban our primary means of transport. You are talking about redesigning whole cities to be based around busses or some shit, from door to door.
I don't care if you do ban alcohol. You're playing my practical game now, so we're on the right page anyway.
1 Cycloptichorn 2018-01-27
I'd be a bitter ass too if I lived in a place where Australian alcohol seemed cheap by comparison
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
Bitter is what I was when I realized the luggage Id' brought was nowhere near big enough for all the 2 liter boxes of wine I managed to get for less money than single bottles of the cheapest wine here. I ended up buying another suitcase, which it turns out, was also cheaper over there than here.
1 Cycloptichorn 2018-01-27
Try America next time. You'd get about five times the volume of better quality product for the same price.
1 Talonek 2018-01-27
We need to ban assault trucks. Nobody needs a truck that big. what do you want it for, so you can plow through crowds on a whim?
1 Talonek 2018-01-27
Great job disarming your populace so that authoritarians can come in and start murdering unwanted members of society.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
You dont understand aussie culture. We cut down tall poppies socially. If you think you're above others you get dragged down. See gina reinhart. It functions well at keeping narcissistic blowhards humble.
1 XovNielkArze 2018-01-27
GL talking to Americans about guns, it’s like talking about drinking to a very defensive alcoholic who is in deep denial
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
I dont even care if America changes it's mind. It can be beneficial that the western bodyguard is near impossible to invade. I was just making the point.
1 SuperiorExcess 2018-01-27
Don't get a heart attack, you can't afford it :^)
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
I'm not American, and I have a socialized healthcare system to take care of my fatness, thank you very much.
1 shimmy_shimmy_ya 2018-01-27
I mean, the U.S. Congress created the Patriot Act because they were scared of some brown people with box-cutters.
1 meatpuppet79 2018-01-27
Well yeah, I mean that's another great example of fear driving policy. Americans felt a deep fear, it was exploited for political gain, and now everybody in the world needs to partially undress before they can board a plane.
1 aqouta 2018-01-27
I mean brown people with boxcuters took out thousands of people. It's not like we banned planes.
1 shimmy_shimmy_ya 2018-01-27
Guns kill far more people in the U.S. than brown people with box cutters do. Yet we only freaked out about one of those.
1 aqouta 2018-01-27
Only if you count suicides and really both are tiny amounts. The US didn't ban planes so the point is kind of moot.
1 LightUmbra 2018-01-27
Fists and feet kill more people than rifles.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
He's not hated in Aus. He's hilarious. Even turnbull and co made a joke out of him. Aus has been pretty lefty when it comes to Amerucan politics publicly, but I don't think that represents the ground truth.
1 AnalogDogg 2018-01-27
Isn't everyone in Australia racist?
1 Where_The_Sauce_At 2018-01-27
Uncomfortably so.
1 siskonaut 2018-01-27
Ask em about the Lebos or Wogs?
1 XovNielkArze 2018-01-27
It’s true, all of it
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
The healthcare thing is too broad but as an European I haven’t seen much critique for the dems in EU media, while there is for the reps, especially Donny.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
what would they critique the dems for, besides losing to reps?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2018-01-27
Exactly. Only with the donny drumpftards would you hear Hillary and the Dems being brought up so much (purely to reflect justified criticism might I add). Why on earth would news media, especially foreign news media, give a shit about the opposition party
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
If you’re not a socialist, there is loads to criticize, but that’s beside the point. The fact that the left gets zero criticism is what I’m pointing to and that’s a fact whether you are left leaning or not. Plus, you can’t just discard the dems as just the opposition party as they have a big chance of ruining the rep control over govt. this election.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
criticism for what? it’s an honest question dude
the only reason the republicans get so much criticism internationally is because this century they developed a habit of making asses of themselves in public way more frequently, while simultaneously politically pushing in the opposite direction of most of europe. whereas the democrats just appear to them as regular politicians from another country.
if they weren’t so utterly laughable and out of step with any anglophone outside our borders, american politicians would just get the odd, easily forgotten about story
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
For example, if you are not a socialist, higher corporate tax rates are not something you think is good, but that particular viewpoint is not expressed a lot in European media. Maybe since English is not my native tongue, criticize is not the right word but what I'm saying is that European media is more politically aligned with dems. This comes to your next point - that they are out of step. The fact that they are not aligned with the general EU politics doesn't necessarily equate to them being wrong.
1 queerjihad 2018-01-27
Boi Europe doesn't have high corporate taxes compared to the US. The "commie" countries Denmark and Sweden have a flat tax rate of 22% wheras the US tax rate is between 21% and 33% depending on state laws. Hungary even has a corporate tax of just 9%.
We hate republicans because they are a threat to world peace (just look at Daddy quarreling with Rocket Man), not because we are "socialist".
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
Yeah I guess this was a bad point on my part. Second part still stands though. But it's not only the reps threatening world peace, look at Obama and Libya.
1 LemonScore 2018-01-27
Obama literally continued all of the policies that Bush was hated by liberals for. In many cases he expanded them.
But, of course, Obama never received anywhere close to the same criticism. And when things his administration did were criticized, it was always "the US government" and not "the Obama administration."
When you're a Democrat, arming terrorists, invading soveriegn nations, bombing civilians, torture, spying on American citizens, corruption and incompetence is fine, ignored by the media or spun to your benefit.
I wonder why: https://i.imgur.com/bv0LGq9.png
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
didn’t they criticize Bush mainly for the two things Obama didn’t do? namely, talk like a retard and abstain from climate agreements
I guess maybe linking Iraq to 9/11 was frowned upon?
1 LemonScore 2018-01-27
The media at the time and Tony Blair focused on the "Iraq has WMDs and they could wipe out London within an hour!" narrative to justify our involvement in the wars.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
well apparently the Brit-left latched onto that too then, from a different angle
1 LemonScore 2018-01-27
Labour (Blair's party) is technically left.
There are traditionally three main parties in the UK: the Conservatives (also know as the Tories) who are right-wing (or are at least presumed to be), Labour. which is left wing and the Liberal Democrats who are further left than Labour.
Though UKIP (a right wing party) and the Scottish National Party (far left) are the two new prominent parties.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
wait, blair was labour? learn somn new every day
1 Jazzeki 2018-01-27
from europes perspective you guys have no left to do this to.
there's the right and the even further right.
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
You sure? Sounds like DNC heaven to me.
1 Jazzeki 2018-01-27
that's cool.
a democrat running in my country would be considered on the far right.
just barely left of the extremists.
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
What is cool? Where are you from lol?
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-01-27
Except Hillary actually won the election. Trump is only in the White House on a technicality.
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
Hilary lost. I’m not a fan of Trump but this denial won’t get you anywhere. The USA doesn’t elect its winner on popular vote and never has.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
Just wait until this problem gets even worse. Conservatives are a shrinking demographic in the US and they're going to keep losing the popular vote by larger and larger margins.
The entire electoral system in the US is completely fucked and needs a massive overhaul.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
Please explain how it is fucked and what you'd do to fix it. Because the way I see it is that this way all states get some representation. If it was the popular vote, states that didn't have dense population wouldn't get much campaign action. The states are supposed to act as semi-separate entities so it's only logical to tally up their votes and not popular vote. Say for example, 90% of the US population lived in CA. Should then CA get 90% of the electoral power even though it's one in fifty states? That doesn't look like a republic to me but to a mob rule.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
Oh boy.
No, the electoral college was designed with the belief congress would keep expanding the house. The house was meant to give the majority of the population a majority of the say, and the senate was meant to protect smaller states.
But we capped the size of the house in the early 1900s. This means the larger, more populus states have signicantly less political power than they should have.
http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/
The way the electoral college is set up, states get a vote for every rep they have. See why capping the house fucked up larger states?
So it isn't that all states get representation, it's that small states get seriously disproportionate representation and have seriously disproportionate political power.
And if you had read the article, you would have seen why this causes other problems.
Does this seem reasonable to you?
This is the go to argument for people that aren't edecuated on the subject.
A) Those states already get no campaign action, and the big states don't either. Why? Because the electoral college makes every single national election about 4-5 swing states, and the vast majority of campaign action takes place in those states. You can see it in this gif of campaign stops from last election: https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/campaign.gif?strip=info&w=575
B) The electoral college suppresses voter turn out and makes it so voices aren't even heard in primarily red states or primarily blue states, why vote when your vote doesn't matter? https://nypost.com/2016/11/25/electoral-college-significantly-impacts-voter-turnout-study/
1
If 90% of the country lived in CA, then CA should have 90% of the say. How is this a hard concept for you guys? Why is it you think a citizen in california is not a full American, and their vote doesn't matter as much as someones vote in Montana?
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
These are actually some good points. Didn't have time to read the article you first posted, sorry. A few things though:
P.S.: Sorry for the badly structured sentences, I'm not a real good English speaker.
1 TheInfoWarNeedsYOU 2018-01-27
When states like california are bringing in millions of illegal immigrants, I'm thankful that the electoral college exists.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
Yeah, if only the "DER ILLEGALS ARE VOTING MEME" hadn't been soundly refuted over, and over, and over, and over again.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-01-27
Pizzashill, you won't be getting another response from me. I've read your post history and determined you have a severe cognitive problem and aren't worth talking to.
1 ItsSugar 2018-01-27
See 2 people talking to each other
Approach them and stand in front of one of them
"I'M NEVER TALKING TO YOU AGAIN!11!"
Go back to sniffing glue
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
but that’s a good thing and a bad thing respectively
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-01-27
Elections are won by the most votes. Trump only won because some voters are worth more than others. That’s unconstitutional.
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-01-27
Except the Constitution is literally unconstitutional.
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
This article cites two things: 1. The Fifth Amendment, which is about due-process of law and has nothing to do with voting. 2. Two court cases which ruled that "one person should be equal to one vote". Fun fact, one person is equal to one vote as they meant votes on state level that contribute to the electoral voting as a whole. And even if they ruled that one person should be one electoral vote for president, that does not make the Constitution unconstitutional simply because the Supreme Court is not the Constitution. They can rule whatever they want but it is not a part of the constitution until a 2/3 congress majority or 2/3 state legislative majority amends it into the constitution.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-01-27
By our nation’s greatest constitutional scholar.
1 BobbyRaduloff 2018-01-27
Firstly, not 'our' `cus I'm not even from the USA, yet I know more about the Constitution than you. Secondly and more importantly, ad hominems aren't going to get you far. I've never claimed to be a great scholar or to really have an in-depth understanding of the constitution. I just did my research and it's a thing you should do instead of just linking articles you didn't think through and parroting lefty talking points.
1 purposeful-hubris 2018-01-27
Chemerinksky is brilliant, but he’s not infallible.
1 WTFusesdonpls 2018-01-27
You BTFO
1 cultish_alibi 2018-01-27
10/10 for the comment, 3/10 for the username.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-01-27
What does the username have to do with anything?
1 ItsSugar 2018-01-27
If in basket, a team scores 40 2-pt baskets and another scores 30 3-pointers, the one that got the most points wins.
That's not a technicality, that's how the game is played.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-01-27
Hillary got the most "points" nationwide and yet she "lost." Explain that.
1 NasenSpray 2018-01-27
FPTP. What do I win?
1 ItsSugar 2018-01-27
Are you trying to become a Republican or do you enjoy being retarded just for fun?
1 UmmahSultan 2018-01-27
Hillary knew that she had to win the electoral college, and she willingly chose to spend her time in California and New York instead of Michigan and Wisconsin. The rules were known ahead of time.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
well no, she got more votes, the American people voted for her, but she def lost the election.
1 Jazzeki 2018-01-27
being too rightwing.
but then why bother complaing about them being insanely rightwing when they aren't relevantly rightwing in context?
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
there we go
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-01-27
Invading Libya and cajoling NATO to join. Arming the "moderate" Syrian rebels. Then two things happen: ISIS grows in that vacuum which casues a huge humanitarian crisis and refugee problem, then Libya, who had previously kept refugee Mediterannean crossings at bay, becomes a hub for all of the world's poor who want to cross into Greece and Italy.
After all this, there's a million migrants a year coming into Europe without even so much as a check of ID, leading to rising crime in various countries that have released their figures, and perhaps directly leading to the UK leaving the EU, perhaps also leading directly to the election of Donald Trump. This is to say nothing of the effects of this migration 2 generations out.
Even retard George Bush didn't fuck things up this badly for Europe.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
that was like fuckin, 10 years ago dude
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-01-27
Not anyone I know slash care about
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
well there u go them
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
Yeah, because republicans are very different than the "norm" within the western context.
European conservatives, for the most part, are sane people. American conservatives are bat-shit crazy morons.
1 Deal6 2018-01-27
Yep it’s true. Europeans do nothing but circle jerk against America, and I am not talking about Trump. I’m talking about the last 20 years.
And I am not even american (Mexican to be exact)
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-27
that’s not what it says
1 Mr_Americas 2018-01-27
Healthcare is fucked in America and is a legitimate complaint. I think republicans and democrats both can agree on that.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
not really. the situation currently is if you have a job you are covered and if you don’t make enough money you have ACA. if you’re poor and old you get medicaid and medicare...literally this is the most robust coverage we’ve ever had.
1 shaftofbread 2018-01-27
"the most robust coverage we've ever had" is a pretty harsh indictment
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
lol
1 Ramol0ss 2018-01-27
Well after 2003, don't expect most French to like America. Since apparently not following a warmonger in a pointless war is considered treason and we got a lot of shit for being cautious
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
what does this have to do with france? i stated more people than ever have health insurance in the usa...
also i agree the war after 9/11 is bull shit. but also france wasn’t very useful in ww2 and rolled over like a domesticated dog so i don’t have much respect for you guys.
1 Ramol0ss 2018-01-27
Shit I might have misclicked. Anyway we don't see newspapers in France with the headlines shown by the post so...
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
You're dumb then. France had to surrender to save Paris from being levelled. They hadn't got the preparation to run a second world war.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
how brave. bend the knee. let your population keep raped and abused. and get a huge second wind when america is finally engaged. france was playing 4d chess
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
2d chess. Sometimes you just have to surrender. You can ditch ur american glory. Russia did most of the work stopping germany in ww2. You americans are glory theives. You didnt even need to nuke japan and your moon landing was built on the back of Von Braun. Go start another failed war.
1 Mr_Americas 2018-01-27
We will go start another way faggot, with blackjack. And hookers.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
who funded the western theatre? america and swiss.
was russia on the western front? who attacked from the pacific, russia? russia definitely was huge as was the US. russia provided the body count, britain the brains, and US was the cash.
the war following 9/11 is not failed. we have made so much money from it. and that’s sick but it’s the truth. there’s no glory from war just money.
do you think germany would have lost if america didn’t supply money, supplies, troops, and nukes? that’s hilarious.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
Yeah i've taken an undefendable positiin just for the sake of riling you up. I could argue getmany moved the majority of her troops to the east and hitler's failure to retreat causing 50k unnessecary deaths made it eady for you guys. But aftet the brits botched their third if market garden and you guys carried most if the western front i can't really back what I said enough. The proportionality of russia's scarifices is still a strong argument, but really napeloen failed, and hitler shoulda known better dont go deep on russia.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
i agree completely. russia lost a fuck ton of people. why did hitler attack russia? why did he try invading russia in the winter? if he never attacked russia the world power split would be insanely different.
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
Yeah idk if you can leave russia alone though. They might spill in anyway, just closer to home. For sure invading is dumb.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-01-27
Hitler always wanted Lebensraum in Russia though. He thought the Communists couldn't run a war and he'd go through them like out-of-date sauerkraut through a sick grandmother. The first few months after Barbarossa must have tended to convince him he was right.
1 realShitAtUsernames 2018-01-27
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
lol you’re from a shithole country bro. enjoy
1 Uniquestusername99 2018-01-27
What country am i from?
1 realShitAtUsernames 2018-01-27
You wish i was
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
you aren’t from austria?
1 realShitAtUsernames 2018-01-27
I am.
Im just too busy enjoying the lack of terrorism, shootings and racial violence too acknowledge your 'shithole' label
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
thanks for hitler. austria sounds great must be why it’s such a powerhouse and tourist attraction.
1 realShitAtUsernames 2018-01-27
You're welcome for Hitler. Quite the tourist attraction and a surprisingly strong economy relative to size. It really is great too.
1 Lesmothian 2018-01-27
That's ok, you made up for it with your retarded warmongering in Syria and Libya since then.
1 error404brain 2018-01-27
Don't worry, we hate the dwarf too.
1 -dEbAsEr 2018-01-27
And if you’re one of tens of millions, you don’t have coverage and have to pay massive amounts of money if you get a serious illness.
The best ever doesn’t mean it’s not still a national embarrassment.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
there are not ten of millions of people without insurance. the ONLY people who are not covered are the ones who didn’t apply for the ACA. if you make under 20k you have medicaid. if you make over that but don’t have insurance through your company the ACA covers you on a sliding scale but you have to apply. if you don’t apply and you fall in that gap yes you are fucked. it takes 10 minutes on the website to apply. libraries offer free internet and every state also has grant programs in place to assist people in registering.
1 -dEbAsEr 2018-01-27
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.htm
Why are you so full of shit? Is it because you’re insecure about the rest of the developed world laughing at how much of a failure your health system is?
1 -dEbAsEr 2018-01-27
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.html
10% of the US population without private or public heath insurance means multiple tens of millions.
Why are you so in denial? Are you insecure about the rest of the developed world laughing at how much of a failure the American healthcare system is?
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
tens of millions is 20M to 100M so you are right. 90% of people in a country with privatized and public insurance are covered. 26 million aren’t.
those 26 could be covered by medicaid medicare or the ACA. no one is allowed to be excluded. they did not take the 15 minutes to get healthcare. you can lead a horse to water.
if you can’t make a phone call or fill out an online application to get free healthcare i don’t know what to tell you.
1 -dEbAsEr 2018-01-27
You say it like this is meant to be some impressive level. It’s an embarrassment...
I don’t know a single person who’s gone to the US for healthcare. The only people I’ve heard of doing so in the media are a few people who needed very specialist treatment or something that wasn’t allowed in their home country. But that’s god both ways, plenty of Americans travel to Europe and the rest of the world for the same reasons. The US isn’t even a leading destination for health tourism.
Doctors moving to your country to work says nothing about the quality of your healthcare system. Countless health professionals move to Europe every year to work, it’s nothing to do with the quality of care, it’s just because they know they can get more money.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
so your country has 100% for 7 million people or something right? congrats. if your country went from portugal to russia and had a diverse culture with 330 million people that would be more impressive.
we are at 90% now and it will get closer to 100% bc once you introduce a safety net it only grows. canadians come here. mexicans come here. euros come here. when you need topnof the line care or experimental trials you come to the states. more HCP come to the us then europe (which isn’t a country btw).
but i’m sure your little country is significant on the world scale at some level buddy, don’t worry!
1 -dEbAsEr 2018-01-27
‘’muh diverse’
The US is one of the least diverse countries in the West buddy.
Americans also go to Mexico and Europe, and Asia. Like I said, the US isn’t even a leading destination for health tourism.
“Haha, you may have a healthier, happier populace, but we’re a big country and have clinics for rich foreigners to come to!”
lol
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
america is the diverse western country? yikes...norway, sweden? you are truly slow.
yes we go overseas for the cheap shit you guys offer and use our economic power to spend in a week what you guys make in a month.
where are you from? i bet it’s a utopia!
1 -dEbAsEr 2018-01-27
Those are two countries as similarly undiverse as he US. Read up bub: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level
My country has a higher GDP per capita than yours. Keep talking me about how rich you all are in Harlem and Alabama 😂
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
so where are you from?
1 -dEbAsEr 2018-01-27
Tell that to the Americans that job the tourist spots every year 😂
That’s not where I was referring to as where I live Rn though. Good guess either way.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/
1 NasenSpray 2018-01-27
>implying absolute numbers matter
>implying "diversity" matters
I swear, you amerifats are mentally retarded.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
both matter yes.
why are other countries so obsessed with the us? go to your own little shithole and stay put please.
1 NasenSpray 2018-01-27
No? Providing healthcare for 100 million ppl isn't harder than providing healthcare for 10 million ppl. Same for "more diverse" populations. You fuck face probably think that more black ppl = more diversity.
b/c you tards always repeat the same stupid talking points. lemme guess, you also think that the US pays for the world's drug R&D, right?
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
you think it’s the same scale of difficulty to provide healthcare for 7 million people vs 330 million? are you retarded. google economies of scale jesus christ what bubble do you live in?
and deciding on issues in a republic with 330 million people with 280 being able to vote is much different than 7 million homogenous people voting.
1 NasenSpray 2018-01-27
>economy of scale
This isn't the semiconductor industry. With 100 million people you need X hip replacements, with 10 million ppl you need 0.1 × X hip replacements. Cost per capita is constant.
Muh diversity!
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2018-01-27
The ACA is absolute shit, though. The insurance it makes you buy has out of pocket expenses that make it prohibitive to actually use the thing.
1 SDRresume90 2018-01-27
says you?
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2018-01-27
Sure, but it's not 'losing .5% of our population every year' bad, as would be true if we were literally losing hundreds of thousands of people a month.
1 Mr_Americas 2018-01-27
Yeah I wasn’t commenting on the op just to the guy I responded to.
1 queerjihad 2018-01-27
I tried searching for things like "USA 100000 healthcare" and "the US health insurance deaths" in French on Google and there were 0 results claiming that 100,000 die monthly. I could however find several claims that 45,000 Americans die yearly due to a lack of healthcare. OP is obviously exaggerating.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-01-27
Healthcare is expensive in America. In terms of health outcomes like cancer survival rates, waiting times and specialization, the United States is consistently among the top countries on Earth.
It's the old adage: "Quick, cheap, good. Choose 2"
If you believe this Forbes article, the accident-adjusted life expectancy of America is the highest on Earth.
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2018-01-27
Probably.
1 NormanImmanuel 2018-01-27
I mean, I guess it's true that some people die due to no access to health insurance, but more people die due to easy access to opioids.
1 Standard12 2018-01-27
The BBC are pretty blatant with their distaste for Donald. I'd say theyve taken to sensationalising their reporting in the last decade though so I don't really rate them anyway. They do praise the dems a fair bit.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
Ever consider that's because republicans are just bat-shit crazy compared to the rest of the western world?
1 Standard12 2018-01-27
Of course and they certainly seem to be. My point was more on the beebs very slanted reporting on things for the last while. Maybe I'm mis-remembering but they used to take a much less biased stance on their reporting. Obviously I'm not just referring to American shit and Donaldos daily tweets.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
How in the hell are they biased against Trump? For reporting facts about him?
Define "bias."
1 Standard12 2018-01-27
OK why not, I watched an analysis on the tax cuts recently where it was discussed if they would be good for business and the economy. It was suggested that the cuts were made to deliberately punish poor people.
That's pretty ridiculous. They don't even pull that shit with the Tories. Haha also they had a good bit on the other night about Trump supporters one year on which prominently featured a redneck, a dumb socialite and a jew who sells hoverboards. Unless these are actually a good representation of who voted for him.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
Deliberately? I don't know. But that is the outcome. Republicans push tax cuts to justify cutting social safety nets, it's a strategy they've been using for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
This is well documented.
Also, I'm going to need to see some citation showing the BBC saying the tax cuts were pushed to "deliberately punish" anyone.
But it wouldn't even be out of the norm considering American culture. This country has hated the poor forever. The idea that poverty is deserved is a common meme.
It's like that republican official that said: "people who lead good lives don't have to worry about dealing with pre-existing conditions."
1 WikiTextBot 2018-01-27
Starve the beast
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.
The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States Federal Government, which funds numerous programs and government agencies using mainly American taxpayer dollars. These programs include: education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense.
On July 14, 1978, economist Alan Greenspan testified to the U.S. Finance Committee: "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 Standard12 2018-01-27
Lol you're not going to need to see any citation. Aye I'll just remember when I fucking sat and watched BBC news on my lunch.
Anyway I don't like your man Donald or the republicans so I'm not going to spend time arguing for them. Jesus you're an insufferable cunt.
1 Standard12 2018-01-27
Isn't it early as fuck where you are as well? How are you still up fighting the good fight against Donald?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
I'm not "fighting" against Donald. Trump is a symptom of the disease, a disease that's a much larger threat to this country.
1 Standard12 2018-01-27
Conservatism? Whit?
1 pizzashill 2018-01-27
No, conservatism isn't the problem. The Republican party is not a conservative party.
They're a white identity party. The entire party runs on white identity politics, white grievance.
The leaders of the party likely don't subscribe to this, but they're harnessing it to push tax cuts and sell the country off to the highest bidder.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-end-of-a-republican-party/
1 nanonan 2018-01-27
That's some impressive projection.
1 nanonan 2018-01-27
Please show the documentation for the current tax cut doing anything approaching that retarded catchphrase.
1 ZachasA 2018-01-27
It’s not true until some evidence is posted to back it up. I live in the UK and our media are not anti USA, pretty disingenuous to say that it is.
1 Stromburg 2018-01-27
It's true.
It's all true.
The Illuminati really did slap the Eye of Providence on the American greenback. The Knights Templar survived, and fled to the New World with their holy relics. The Hashshashin have had a hand in the assassinations of Martin Luther King, JFK, Indira Ghandi, and Benazir Bhutto. The Green Dragon has infiltrated a dozen East Asian governments. A hacker collective known as the Network has infiltrated into your computer, and has access to your entire digital life. The Inquisition continues to hunt down witches and heretics. The Bilderbergers control the wealth of entire nations, available at a single phone call.
Aliens really did crash land as Roswell, and their remains were taken to Area 51 by Majestic-12. The government really is experimenting with chemtrails, but not for the reasons you'd expect. Project MK Ultra was a success, as was the Philadelphia Experiment. Tesla had a secret lab, but it was hidden by the government because of the terrible inventions created there. The FBI has verified that miracles are continuing to occur. Subliminal messages were actually placed into vinyl albums.
Hidden cities lie beneath the ice of Antarctica. Atlantis sank beneath the waves. A dead god sleeps beneath the South Pacific. Crop circles are a message from alien visitors. Vampires control over half the nightclubs in the continental United States. Mummies run the Egyptian antiquities trade. Guardian angels protect blessed children. Dragons control Wall Street. The Nazis built a city on the Moon. The Bermuda Triangle hides a hole in space and time. Deja Vu is a sign of the Thirty-First House's interference. Your memories are stored in the Akashic Records. Yggdrasil connects the worlds. The Ring of Power remains in family of Brunhild. Pandora's box is opening again. Muramasa's blade still hungers for blood. The Tower of Babel never fell.
The Once and Future King sleeps in Avalon. Nicholas Flamel discovered the secret to eternal life. The Mad Arab is gathering new followers, who dedicate themselves to the Black Pharaoh. The Numbers Stations were protecting us. The real purpose of the Mars rovers is to discover why the canals dried up 100 years ago. The Pyramids of Giza hide even greater secrets. The crystal skulls of the Aztec and Maya hold the keys to unlocking human potential. The bees are leaving. Eleven days are missing. Deja Vu is a sign of the Thirty-First House's interference. Lilith continues to torment the sons and daughters of Eve. Jack the Ripper will kill again. Loki lies chained beneath the World Tree. Dracula sleeps in London. Orochi stirs in his grave. Elvis lives. Rasputin never died. Sasquatches walk through the wilds of Canada. The number 23 has been placed everywhere as a warning. Reptilians have infiltrated our governments, businesses, and religions.
The Men in Black investigate incidents on behalf of the world government. Werewolves bred their way into European noble families. Demons control cults throughout society, and trade souls in return for fame, fortune, and power. The fairy kingdoms are girding for war. The gates to the City of Brass are opening. Victor Frankenstein actually created life. Solomon's ring can bind jinn to your service. That house is haunted. Magic exists. There really is a monster in your closet.
You're not paranoid.
History is not as you know it.
All the myths are true.
Welcome to the real world.
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2018-01-27
ITT--serious effort posting that this sub pretends to hate when conservatives do it.
1 73696D756C6174696F6E 2018-01-27
As a Fleming, our media really sucks when either there is a US presidential election or a Republican president. It's almost REEEEEE everyday on Republicans. They mostly just copy sentiment from MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc.
I miss Obama since they wasn't as much news on America other than some PR pieces on the first black president with him portrayed as Mother Mary. It's no coincidence Europe gave him the Nobel Peace Prize because he said "Hey man, peace y'all".
Reading retarded hit pieces like the drama about Romney's "binders full of women" just gets old really fast.
1 iNebulaDragon 2018-01-27
I’m from Slovenia. America is viewed either as ‘a land of opportunity’ (we lived under communism until 1991) or is criticized for it’s healthcare, which is funny, because our ‘free’ healthcare sucks ass, the lines are so long you might as well give up and die; for example they found out I was producing too little of the thyroid gland in September last year, my first appointment in endocrinological hospital is in June. Some old dude was fed up with the waiting lines few years ago so he shot up a hospital.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-01-27
Ironically if he were an American, he probably wouldn't have committed a mass shooting.
1 SuperiorExcess 2018-01-27
ITT: triggered Americans seriousposting, turn back if you read this
1 LightUmbra 2018-01-27
For real tho, who are all these tourists?
1 LemonScore 2018-01-27
In Britain, you aren't allowed to start a television channel if it's about politics (it's literally illegal) and all the channels that currently exist are all leftist. So, essentially, all television news is leftist.
1 Travrar 2018-01-27
Who needs user pings when the sub is already full of lolcows anyways.
1 NasenSpray 2018-01-27
Google News in Germany: https://imgur.com/0ULqbWS
The last headline says "A Flawed Democracy" and deals with gerrymandering in 'murica.