300,000 infected. South Korea isn't a communist country, it's a democracy modeled after the United States.

They are also an ally of the USA and have done (based on a percentage of total population) more testing than us. Still, they were able to contain this virus with decisive action and clear guidelines.


That's called leadership.

It's an extreme solution certainly, but not without merit. I doubt there'd ever be a willing acceptance of such a plan though, so a slightly more realistic solution would need to be moderated some. How's this for dystopian-but-not-quite-genocidal:
Worldwide lottery, a small percentage (total of 500M - 1B maybe) wins the right to live in what will be the new model of the world: something like what we have now, but with drastically reduced usage of non-renewable resources (until they can be replaced completely) and a target of zero negative impact on the environment as a whole. Still some version of democratic (generally at least), freedom of whatnot and such, open travel to the degree that sustainable transportation options allow, all the (again, sustainable) mod cons. I suppose different countries / regions could still run things according to their preferences, as long as the net-zero goal remains.
The other lottery entrants, the non-winners, don't need to die, hooray! They will however live on something akin to reservations, as serfs, without the right to further reproduce. These poor bastards, in exchange for not being outright murdered to save civilization, are to be consolidated into agricultural communes to do whatever they can to regrow the world's flora and fauna until they all eventually die. Their goal is not net-zero, but as far into the positive as possible. It would all be overseen according to some grand scheme(s) to be as beneficial for the overall future of humanity and life on Earth in general as possible.

Probably also unworkable, but preferable to megamurder?

1) Because they didn't succeed in a vacuum, they benefit from civilization, so are obligated to support it to at least the same extent if not more because they are able while others aren't.

2) swap dumb with rich and Trump is the bazillionaire he claims to be. You can't just swap dissimilar unrelated concepts and say "see, proved it" without looking like a braying moron.

3) Yes it should without question, our best and brightest don't come from the privileged class as a higher percentage. Actually the opposite because they don't have to do their best to survive, poorer people do, and drive matters immensely. If we want to compete internationally, we must educate the uneducated and undereducated, even those who can't afford $500000 to fake a crew history or SAT score. That education needs to be better than the countries we compete with, and it is all too often simply not.
That is a conservative stance, not a liberal one.

4) equating wealth to gpa, like this moronic video does, means Trump, like everyone else, should start at 0 and not get a bonus from daddy. If that happened, he would be zero. He is not self made, he did not only get a small $14 million unrepaid interest free loan. He did squander the money, failing at venture after venture until only Russian gangsters will loan him money, loans he needs because he squandered the money....then he repeatedly lied about it immorally squandering billions from hundreds of duped investors too...THAT is evil, yes.

5) We make $30000 for two people and don't take a dime, even overpaid my taxes...not everyone has my opportunities, privileges, and abilities. You are just spouting nonsense straw man arguments. In a perfect world, we could all be self sustaining with equal opportunity to succeed, we don't live in that communist/socialist utopia.....no one ever has.
I believe we are better off when the least privileged don't have to resort to violent or immoral crime to survive. I believe we are better off as a nation when our best people have the opportunities to succeed that our worst but most privileged are afforded. I believe we are better off being protected from the irresponsibility of purely profit driven commerce that, by design, must walk the razors edge of acceptability to maximize profit and minimize obligations by any means necessary, usually leaving them for socialist programs to clean up/repair. I believe we do more good ensuring the starving among us are fed food humans would willingly eat before ensuring some unrepentant apocalyptic bankers get their multi million dollar bonuses and a free pass on their crimes, and before those making multi millions a year get to hoard more and pay even less of their share.

6) What you are spouting is bat shit insane, not even AOC advocates pure socialism....not even Russia had pure socialism. Your ilk, however, calls any government program that doesn't directly benefit them or their Trumpian masters "socialist"....education, infrastructure, all regulatory agencies, social security, even the fbi have been labeled socialist by Trumpists in the zeal to discredit the report they assumed would expose criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States (ps, it found exactly that dozens of times over), while military welfare programs for equipment we don't want and won't use, bailouts for banks and agribusiness, public funds for private ventures like golf courses and troll roads, (edit:Freudian slip?) and don't forget the unmentioned elephant, the military itself...all that socialism is fine, you think it's not even socialism. *facepalm

I'll say it again.

Asinine.

Load of rubbish. If a crowd forms at the entry to an escalator typically people start standing on both sides. 30 percent of efectivity (percentage points fly around a lot in this video) are not worth the loss of personal freedom. Some people insist on forcing their social engineering on everyone for small apparent economic advantages for who? Escalator makers? Their own personal ego warming? Look ma, my escalator is 30 percent more efficient than Bobs! Yes but half of your escalated people are unhappy because they cant walk and the other half dont care either way! So lets all be nice to each other if possible and let walkers walk and standers stand, OK? Which is BTW the result of the mentioned experiments.

As a percentage of income, businesses and the rich pay nothing compared to the poor, who can least afford it.

I'm all for simplification, no loopholes or special deductions, including religion (wow, would that fill some coffers!), I could even go for one tax rate on all income (edit: including inheritance), with a huge standard deduction. I absolutely agree what we have is a convoluted mess that benefits the rich and penalizes the poor and unconnected....particularly business taxes. I also think they should be simplified and standardized, with no more special tax handouts to any businesses added as new law, and any bailouts should be pure stock transactions nationalizing any businesses that need bailouts, paid at current market rates.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, I think going to only national sales tax effects the poor in a way that's not equal or just, even if you include businesses, and puts excessive additional burden on those who already need help.

I think I just explained how that does nothing to address wealth inequality and leaves the poor paying the maximum percentage of income in taxes while letting the rich only pay a tiny portion, only the set sales tax percentage (on what they legally buy in the U.S. and report).
Your plan would probably have to set sales tax at near 50% (it's already over 10% with all the other tax revenues), meaning the poor, who spend all they make, pay >50% in taxes (and over 90% of all taxes with around 10% of all income), and the rich, who would spend <1% of their income taxably (I know that's not a real word) pay about 1/2%. Sounds like a great solution to wealth inequality, doesn't it?

It doesn't mention Vegan, but it does give you a link to a organization that is hardcore vegan and animal rights activists.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2002/02/14/physicians-committee-for-responsible-medicine-not-so-responsible

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/23-physicians-committee-for-responsible-medicine/

and so on.

Not to mention that while each meal can raise your percentage by 18%, it only will raise your lifetime average chance of getting colon cancer from 5% to 6%. As we discussed in my video https://videosift.com/video/BACON-CAUSES-CANCER-MCDONALDS-IS-GIVING-FREE-CANCER .

These same activists were officially censured by the American Medical Association by a unanimous vote.

I'm embarrassed to say that, at 36 years of age, I've only learned about this last year. I thought your entire income gets taxed by the top bracket percentage.

But this is Christian values. Watch Fox. Watch TBN. Watch CBN. The 700 Club. Jim Baker. Go to your local evangelical Christian church. This is Christianity today.

I say good. The more the show how biggited, evil and vile they are, the less people will believe, the more people will leave the faith. The vast majority of Christians who disagree with this segment don't care enough to vote against them, and don't raise their voices. The percentage of Christians who vote against them, and raise their voices are very very few. So the world just sees people like this, and says, Christianity == hatred and bigotry.

True enough about Maasai, 44+- sucks no matter what kills you.
I don't believe they have perfect dietary health, but do think they indicate genetics play a huge roll in how we process foods.

My short research indicated 1/2 serving of seafood per day on average....whatever percentage that comes out to doesn't bother me....plus occasional pork.

My grandmother ate meat almost daily and lived to days from 97, healthy the whole time except for lung issues the last years. Anecdotal evidence can be misleading.

Fewer animal foods isn't none. I agree, average Americans could probably benefit from cutting their meat consumption in half or more, but none at all wouldn't be healthier for most people.

I say the lack of top athletes who are vegan contradicts your last theory. Humans are omnivores and work best as such.

It doesn't work because there is an intrinsic group think personality in the Nordic region. Most people in that region that were born and raised there are very sensitive to profit making and ostentatious displays.

Which means that people are glad to simply 'get by'. There is not a mass drive to be better than your neighbor or own more toys than them. Of course there are outliers, but the bulk of Scandinavians are very used to the accepted norm. They are more willing to accept massive tax rates because they know they will be taken care of by the government. They aren't necessarily concerned about 'getting rich'.

Contrast that to other areas, especially the USA, and you will find out that it would never work here because we are an individualistic nation. Even the bluest liberal wants to be rich here. It's more cutthroat, more selfish, than you will find in a Scandi nation.

Another huge reason it would never work is that they do not spend anywhere near the percentage of their budget on defense that we do. Denmark spends about 20 billion per year on defense. Norway, an oil rich Scandi nation that is considered one of our most important NATO allies, spends about 6 billion. Less than 1.2% of their GDP. This is one thing that Trump was actually right about. We spend around 700 Billion, roughly 3.5% of our current GDP.

"Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said. In 2017, only the U.K., Greece, Poland and Estonia reached the 2 percent target.

Whether that level of spending is needed is another argument altogether. I personally think we overspend way too much on defense, but regardless it is a huge factor as to why we can't offer the same level of 'socialism' that the Nordic nations do. If we spent the same percentage as Norway, we would be saving close to 460 billion dollars a year that could be applied to other programs. Such as paying for college for qualified students or trade school for ones that are not college minded. Or providing benefits to new mothers that we currently don't.

"You give the woman a victim hood mentality ."

First, sexual assault happens to both men and women.
Second, yes, because I am specifically talking about VICTIMS of sexual assault.

"What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation. "

Yes, a false accusation of rape is awful. I've said so multiple times now. But it's still not as bad as being raped. I don't want to break my arm, but I'll take it over being shot in the chest. See how too things can be bad, but one is worse than the other?

Plus, at least, with a false accusation of rape, there's a chance you will get your name cleared.

"The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.
The woman carries internal pain. Which is hurt most?"

Easy. The rape victim.

"this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman."

Which is exactly why I never said that. What I said is that anyone who makes a claim of sexual assault is "entitled to be taken seriously", i.e. have said claim investigated. Due process still applies.

"Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed."

Can you please try using a spell checker? That is really hard to read. What the hell is "you grabbed he upper spots" supposed to mean?

Anyway, assuming you're talking about sexual harassment in the workplace, I would expect not to be fired until an investigation had proved I was in the wrong.

Again, false accusations are bad, and yeah, it would totally suck if it happened to you.

But it's just not that common. The numbers don't support your case at all. Rape far out numbers false accusations, and that's not even getting into other forms of sexual assault, like groping or catcalling, most of which isn't even reported.

Newsflash: most women don't WANT to be perceived as a victim of sexual assault.

"Trump has nothing to do with this."
Yeah, he does. He (and you) contributes to the culture that is more worried about a tiny percentage of false accusations than the NINETY FUCKING THOUSAND RAPES THAT OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN THE US.

I love that they are trying and have admirable goals.

I'm somewhat skeptical about the effectiveness. Presumably some of the data that they are going to collect will include retention rates -- if pieces of plastic of various sizes *enter* the C-shaped area, what percentage of them *stay* there until they can be intentionally removed? Also, how often will they become "full" to an extent requiring a tow to shore and offload operation?

The devices themselves seem like they'd actually be quite cheap to produce. Towing and offloading operations will be expensive, particularly in man-hours. Recycling the collected debris crap into plastic products for resale will be low-yield and unsustainable from a purely capitalistic pricing standpoint -- people will only buy that "merch" as a form of contributing to the project; not because the stuff they make will be competitively priced.

However, none of that makes their endeavor not worth doing/trying. Hopefully their retention rates are good enough (not much plastic or any particular size bracket escapes around / under the devices), and they can make enough through selling merch to fund the offload costs and deploy enough devices to meet their goals!

I hope you are wrong. A few countries have announce goals for increasing the percentage of electric cars on their roads. The reduction in sales for gas and diesel cars should lead to less demand for gas... maybe...

Seems about right.

I hate "achievements" in games, but one similar system that I actually loved was in Baldur's Gate (1 and 2). In those games, there was a window that tracked all kinds of stats for each of your party members. Stuff like percentage of total party kills, percentage of total damage output, strongest enemy killed, etc. A few games since have done things similar (Borderlands comes to mind), but most seem to opt for this sort of pointless achievement nonsense.