Ah yes, law and order. Breaking laws to avoid legal inspections so they can continue breaking the law.

Dude is blaming the wrong people. Yeah, they can't stay open and he can't pay his staff. He shouldn't need to in a fucked up, once-in-a-century situation like this. The governments in other supposedly civilized countries are paying citizens so they don't NEED to work. So they can stay home and help prevent the spread of this disease. Are they handling it perfectly? Fuck no! But you can't look at the per capita death rate in this country compared to other countries and think our approach is working.

Keeping people home as much as possible and limiting opportunities for viral spread: these are are what's needed in order to get us back to some semblance of normalcy as soon as possible, with as few unnecessary deaths as possible. The federal government could make this happen, but segments of it have chosen not to. THAT is who he should be blaming, and complaining to. Mitch McConnell and his cronies in the Senate are literally killing American citizens, and businesses like this guy's, by refusing to actually help.

I figure you have all the answers, can you explain why, when covid vaccines are in ridiculously short supply and billions of taxpayer's dollars were handed over to help speed up production of vaccines in America, why are those vaccines being sold to Europe in numbers that may dwarf the amount available to America and at 3/4 the price?
America is by far the worst per capita at controlling the virus, why are we giving away our one shot at stopping it? Why didn't we insist on every American getting the vaccine before it could be sent elsewhere? So much for America First I guess.


Secondly, are you enjoying the #walk away movement that is gaining speed with more republican politicians coming out daily to denounce their party and joining Democrats? It's just like that totally fake movement you talked about in 2018, but this time it's republicans walking away, and this time it's real people from the top down, not stock photos and faked profiles. "Destroy the gop" isn't just a white supremacists rant, it's what happened when they got in bed with Trump 4 years ago.

Stop posting this unscientific propaganda, pedophilia supporter.

Notice not one reference on any of his "data" because he likely made it up like he usually does.

His data doesn't match any verified data either, and his graphs are intentionally confusing, including individual states and countries in a completely unscientific propaganda graph, some countries with populations in the 70-80000 range. My guess is it's improperly presented this way to hide how bad America has done, with well over half the slots being US states and many of the remaining countries having tiny populations and third world conditions. This is the superstition side of the argument, not science based or scientific at all.

We have >200000 deaths with just over 2% infected. Herd immunity takes 70-80% being infected and a stable virus that won't mutate enough to erase immunity. That's a minimum of 7-8 MILLION Americans dead and p to 21-24 million permanently disabled if we have 1.6 million ICU beds....hint, we don't, so multiply the deaths by 4-7 but lower the disabled numbers, they'll die instead. So far, there's no study that shows herd immunity is even possible, since this virus mutates every few months it's unlikely. I think sacrificing millions - 60 million or more to find out is outrageously insane.

Use real, verified data, we are at best 8th worst (only 7 countries have more deaths per 100000 and 8th highest death rate per infection too). Just look at India, with 4 times the US population, just over 1 million fewer cases than the US, and way less than half the deaths....IN FUCKING INDIA.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/05/899365887/charts-how-the-u-s-ranks-on-covid-19-deaths-per-capita-and-by-case-count

Because our population is so large, that puts us at number one in total deaths with 4% of the population but 25% of deaths....so > 6 times the global average per capita and the most reported deaths by far.

Fail Bobski. Only the most uneducated rubes fall for this ridiculous nonsense.

This shitshow is Trump's America, and a result of his lack of leadership. You and he seem to think he's only the president of Republican led areas.
Cities were run by the same party under Obama, did we have this slow burn civil war simmering then? No, we did not.
Q) What changed? A) Trump's in charge.

Cities are almost exclusively led by Democratic mayors. Cities have high crime rates because they have high population density. Per capita crime rates aren't that different from rural areas.

Republican led areas have much higher poverty rates and way fewer services. By your logic, republican leadership leads to high poverty and an MIA government except at tax time (actually, it does historically and by design).

Edit: Downvote for the blatant lies in the description. Democrats have not promoted violence they've constantly denounced it, and are blaming Trump for the dissolving union, the division, hatred, and violence he promotes including the murder of protesters and unarmed black men.

People can misuse statistics to prove anything. Forfty percent of all people know that.

I'm afraid you're misrepresenting the statistics.
Those are based on overall US population, not racially divided populations.

30 per million blacks killed even though they are only 13% of the population vs 12 per million whites even though they are 76%. That's 30 dead blacks for every 12 dead whites.
Whites don't get off Scott free, but per capita it's close.
1/6 as many blacks as whites but 2.5 times more dead...making it 15 times more dead blacks per capita when divided by race...not over twice as many whites like you said.

The numbers aren't as lopsided as expected because you made a massive statistical error. Try again please.

All these issues you list are demonstrably used more often against non whites. This doesn't mean exclusively, but if your base stats are right, it should be 3-1 whites getting shafted if it wasn't racist, but it's more like 15-1 blacks/browns being shafted.

I looked up some stats just to see.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

30 per million blacks fatally shot by police.
12 per million whites fatally shot by police.

So cops are roughly twice as likely to kill a black person, per racial group.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219gg

US being 76% white and 13% black, that works out to an aggregate ratio of roughly 9 whites killed per 4 blacks, per capita. In the end the death toll is high all around, white people aren't getting away scott free.

We should also consider poverty. Poverty and crime tend to track one another. It's safe to assume that areas with more crime will be more likely to experience police encounters, and hence more police shootings on average.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%
22%7D

White poverty rate (9%) is roughly half of black poverty (22%), which implies that crime is also half as frequent among whites, which is roughly similar to the per capita difference in police shooting rate.

30/12 is 2.5
22/9 is 2.44
2.5 > 2.44, so it implies bias against blacks, but not as big as I expected.

As far as total people killed, cops kill plenty people of all races. The numbers don't look as lopsided as I expected, which surprises me.

I appreciate the solidarity among black people. They at least try to hold authorities to account.

White people couldn't care less when cops kill whites. They just shrug it off as 'well the guy must have done something to piss off the cop, so it was probably their own fault anyways'. You can sit on liveleak watching cops kill white people all day, but other white people never get worked up about it. It's a shame they don't have the same sense of unity as black people do.

I wish the protests were about police abuse in general. Or even goverment abuse. There are so many issues that need fixing (e.g. civil forfeiture, repeatedly trying people for the same event by tweaking charges until a conviction sticks, government budget being infinitely larger than a defendant's budget, government freezing a defendant's funds so they can't afford lawyers, etc).

-scheherazade

Potential.
Historically; freedoms, rights, and opportunities, both economic and social.
Until recently, governmental system.
Wealth (per capita).
Military might (although I accept the argument that this is more often a net loss, not a net gain).

Yes, it swings both ways, as you also have the freedom to be as terrible as you like, to hate as irrationally as you like, to be as ignorant and dumb as you like, to be as spiteful and self serving as you like. Before we allowed our system to be purchased by the deepest pockets for purely personal gains of the powerful few with Citizens United, our system was well designed to serve the people, which while imperfect was still better than almost all others. There is still the possibility, however slight, that that democracy killing decision can be remedied with an amendment and we can get back on the right track. Most other systems are lacking in such self correction.

I'm not claiming perfection, far from it, but our overall potential outweighs any other nation's (at least it used to). Yes, we have bigots, but less than many nations by far. Some countries still allow murder of improper worshippers or don't allow certain races to become citizens.
Yes, we have more than our share of loudmouth ignorant morons, but there are other nations that beat us there too. We (as a whole) don't believe aids comes from homosexuals eating each other's poop, for instance, or that women's brains are 1/2 the size of men's. The opportunities for educational advancements are better here than most countries, but not all I admit, and far too many don't avail themselves of said opportunities, granted.
Yes, we have poor people, but fewer per capita than many if not most others, and the opportunity for ethical advancement both financial and social are still good, but admittedly that's changing.
Equality under the law, while far from perfection in that respect, we are (or were) still moving in the right direction.

We have a long hard Sisyphusian slog towards perfection, but overall, historically, we have been crawling towards justice more than away.

That said, New Zealand has been nipping at our heels for a while, and arguments could be made that they presently are ahead in all meaningful ways besides size and weather.

Sorry, you lost me at "greatest country in the world", or at the very least your list of "despite it being..." is way, way too short. Greatest at or greatest for what? Bigots per capita? Most frequent demonstrations of unsubstantiated entitlement and negative IQ's?

Interesting suggestion.

I believe that with 1/10 the population, near today's per capita resource usage would be sustainable....although there would be a necessary time period with net zero or better emissions required to return the atmosphere to "normal" before runaway greenhouse effects and feedbacks turn earth into Venus 2.0. After that, there is an amount of emission the planet can absorb, so resource usage need not be curtailed excessively, but it wouldn't hurt.

I'm all for the lottery system if everyone draws straws, no exceptions except those willing to just move to the reservation voluntarily.
Even a lottery system simply for procreation would do wonders, but remembering the outrage at China for just allowing one child per couple, I doubt that would fly either. Also, it does leave the possibility that the lucky procreators might all be imbecilic morons incapable of following/continuing the plan...we don't want to become a species that is dumber than our pets....or do we?

I think the priorities should be reversed too, what's best for life on earth first, humanity second.

@newtboy that is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of.

As for the kid (whose real name is Will Connolly) the defence fund is now around $30000, and part of the fund is earmarked for "buying more eggs". Will has stated he intends to donate most of the money to victim support*, once again being an absolutely top bloke. He's already been jokingly nominated for "Honorary New Zealander of the year".

Also to put his attack into context... in terms of victims per capita, if this had happened in the US, it would be the statistical equivalent of 9/11.

*there has already been nearly NZ$5m raised for the victims. https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/christchurch-shooting-victims-fund

Perhaps you are ignorant of the fact that the vast majority cross where walls already exist. To answer your question, nearly all of them would still try. Do you really think a fence is deterrence when the alternative is go home and see your family raped to death before you're decapitated? Would you just say "oops, sorry, didn't mean to trigger you....let me just take my daughter back to the narcos for a life of sex slavery and just die then, so sorry."?

A better immigration policy that makes it easier to get a work visa or asylum at ports of entry instead of making illegal entry easier, simpler, cheaper, and faster would discourage people from taking the easier, but illegal path. We are moving the other direction, which is why illegal immigration is on the rise under Trump after falling steadily for decades.

This doesn't cost America except for fighting it, they make us money with cheap labor, taxation without representation or access to government assistance, and by lowering the per capita crime rates by being far less criminal on average than Americans. You want to deport a group that's well above average in criminality, that would be Republican politicians and or Trump associates...no one will miss a single one.

A $50 billion wall (Trump's never built anything that wasn't at least 100% over budget) that can be evaded with a ladder, shovel, car, truck, saw, torch, boat, plane, and in many many places, absolutely nothing (it's no longer a single solid wall from coast to gulf, it's now a fence in a few more places for your $50 billion.) is not just vastly more expensive, it's also uselessly wasting that money for almost zero return, the few places it might help will just see the migrant paths move a few miles over.

If we had a 40+ ft high, 20 ft deep, 4+ft thick reinforced concrete wall coast to coast that was somehow ladder proof, it still wouldn't stop most illegal immigration or drug trafficking, because the vast majority of both come through ports of entry. The wall is a useless solution to a non existent problem that's been solving itself for decades....side note: what do you think it was like in the good old days when America was "great"? Contrary to Chump's claims, operation wetback (that he wants to reimplement) was a failure....
https://www.cato.org/blog/enforcement-didnt-end-unlawful-immigration-1950s-more-visas-did

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

This attitude is prevalent in Nordic countries. As the article states, there has been some slight movement away from Janteloven, but not very much. It is precisely this attitude that allows for people to accept drastically higher taxes, not just for the 1%, but across the board. The social culture is dramatically different in the USA, possibly to our detriment.

Per capita means nothing. All NATO states are supposed to be spending at least 2% of their GDP towards defense. As I said, Norway spends around 1.2% of their GDP, if the USA did the same, we would have a massive amount of money for social programs. Again, I must stress that I am not slamming Norway or other Nordic countries for not reaching the 2%, I am simply pointing out additional reasons why they have more money available for social programs than we do.

I don't see what developmental aid has to do with anything. I am sure Norway spends money in other places as well. I am pointing out why socialism works in Nordic countries and why it would be a hard sell in the USA.

I understand that you are happy with your situation. In a perfect world, we could all follow a similar rule. Unfortunately to fit into that type of situation you need a population that is of relatively the same mind. In most larger nations that is impossible, there are too many different groups that have competing ideals.

Not wanting to get rich in Norway? Not wanting toys? Meh.
Military spending in Norway per capita? We're in 7th place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita

In Scandinavia anyone can get wealthy. Anyone can get a proper college education.

Health care? In the US you spend more per capita than in Scandinavia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-spending/u-s-health-spending-twice-other-countries-with-worse-results-idUSKCN1GP2YN

I quite prefer the model here, and wouldn't switch for the world.
Sure I pay a lot of taxes - half my salary goes to taxes, and I pay 25% VAT on the rest - but I do get value for my money; education, health care, pension and a good infrastructure.

And hey - to help other countries - how about we add up the military spending we use with with how much we spend on development aid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

Pretty good video. Specific things:

Too many prostitutes: Most of the non-Thai people that complain about this went to the wrong places in Thailand. Pattaya was a tiny fishing village before the Vietnam war. Then, soldiers started getting shipped into the country for R&R. The Thai government didn't really know what to do with them, so they sorta passed the buck and decided to send them to Pattaya to relax. Bunch of stressed out dudes there, nothing to do, high demand for alternate activities ... the market answered.

Fast forward to today, and Pattaya knows exactly what put it on the map. I hate that place -- it is like what would happen if you took the worst/sleaziest elements of Vegas and Tijuana, and then built a "city" around it. Shittiest beach in Thailand, chock full of sleaze, disgusting. However, it is one of the most major tourist destinations. Gee, why could that be? Is it in spite of the nature of the place, or because of it? No false advertising here, you know what you're getting when you book a trip there. And if that is your thing, more power to ya.

Now, I don't want to act like prostitution exists in Pattaya and Soi Cowboy / Patpong in Bangkok, and is absent elsewhere. Far from it. Every town, down on to tiny ones, likely has a red-light district and brothels. The ones you hear about are sex tourism pits like those major ones, but the trade is alive and well pretty much everywhere -- and mostly caters to local Thais.

I've honestly never been to such an establishment or sought those services (in 11 years of being here), but I don't care that they are available. The most significant negative is that they are NOT well-regulated like, say, what I've heard about Amsterdam. Prostitution is technically illegal in Thailand. So the de-facto situation is that brothels have to pay protection money to police in order to avoid getting shut down or "inspected", etc.

Corruption is a major problem -- much worse than prostitution, in my opinion.


Too many ladyboys: It is certainly true that there are more trans people per capita here than pretty much anywhere else that I know of. It took me a while, being a country kid from Kansas, but I see that in pretty much the same light as the German narrator in the video at this point. Acceptance is good. You do you, man.

As a stereotype on the flip side of the coin, I think the ladyboys tend to be great in custom interaction kinds of jobs. Cashiers at 7-11, waitpeople at restaurants, etc. Polite, attentive, helpful. And often the most willing to attempt to use English. A lot of the best students that I've taught English to have been ladyboy leaning.


Freedom: I'm with @Mordhaus here. When your personal liberty is mainly due to the apathy / incompetence of the governing authority, and they may choose to get off their asses and revoke that at any time ... perhaps it isn't something to brag about. Very basic stuff like dissenting speech and protesting is met with being carted off for little re-education chats, etc. Pretty scary shit, actually.


Basically I tend to think that just like anywhere on Earth, there's a lot of good here and plenty of bad too. There's plenty of legitimate gripes with cultural elements and stuff in Thailand, but the most common ones (that the video pretty accurately listed) are pretty insignificant in my opinion.

So then you DON'T think people trying to stop murder are OK if it means making someone brown your neighbor, only when it means you get to force your quite suspect, legally and scientifically invalid 'values' on someone else with no consequences for yourself.

Many of those countries have taken in more asylum seekers than America, and most have more refugees per capita. Even evil Iran took in more total.....and 4 times as many per capita.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/largest-refugee-populations-country-destination

Often America doesn't make the top ten list....
https://www.immigroup.com/news/refugees-where-do-they-go-top-refugee-destinations

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

We are incredibly far from the world's asylum when even China takes in more refugees. We won't even save our international neighbors from certain death.

https://thinkprogress.org/juan-coronilla-guerrero-deportation-92742bd26e01/
Even if they're police.....
https://thinkprogress.org/constantino-morales-warned-he-could-be-killed-if-he-was-deported-then-he-was-edd8ba590298/

Yet you still believe (with zero attempt to verify) we take in more than any other nation, and far more than our share, enough so that we should deny any more even if death is certain, let someone else save them (or not).
You're listening to too much Alex Jones again and believing the insane raving bullshit without question.