http://archive.is/4CVqH

10 year plan. Twice as effective as the USSR's 5 year plans

...Fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems (needed), dramatically expanding renewable power generation (needed, but it also doesn't mean we should be throwing money away on stupid shit like solar roadways), overhauling our entire transportation system (regional flights, which sort of make up around 70% of total flights, would be targeted for elimination and massively expensive (slower) electrical trains would be put in their place), upgrading all our buildings (most businesses are already moving to green solutions) , jumpstarting US clean manufacturing (see highly expensive and non-competitive with cheaper overseas mfg), transforming US agriculture (forcing a move from cows/pigs/chickens to plant based proteins)...

While we are at it, might as well do the following:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security (Nice, but you can't just make these jobs available. They are supply and demand.)

High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools (Needed)

High-quality health care (Needed)

Clean air and water (Needed)

Healthy food (Subjective, is meat considered healthy?)

Safe, affordable, adequate housing (because this works, ie Projects...)

An economic environment free of monopolies (Technically this exists already, except in countries outside of the USA and EU)

Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work (SWEET! SIGN ME UP FOR THAT CHECK!!!)

I get that his spiel is comedy based, but the GND is about half reality and half looney tunes.

Excuse me?
It probably sounds like I'm angry because of the subject matter I'm dealing with, but we wouldn't watch the film's of we didn't enjoy them overall. I bring it up because of is something I don't like, but I think you're wrong about this and your idea more generally.

It's not always the hero being tortured. As I point out with wreck it Ralph and Finding Nemo. So am I to believe that they want kids to identify with (in those cases) killing another character as an acceptable possibility to get one's way?

LOVE his style of humor! All this other videos on this subject are also so hilariously clever and informative.

All good points.

And.

What happens in a court of law is subject to the law. Which is not the same as justice.

I stand by my original question -- what did the university know that we don't know?

There are a lot of suppositions in your well reasoned response to my comment.

I have no suppositions. I have questions.

What did the university know that we don't?

Maybe it is nothing, as you suppose here. And maybe those roommates saw or heard something that scared the bejeebers out of them.

Here is a supposition that you did not put forth -- did the roommates only report the encounter as rape because this guy has dark skin? There could be a racist component to this.

Supposition. What are the facts? What information did the university use to justify expelling this dude?

I don't know.

I have no passion for any hyper biased sources, which is only one reason I won't watch Fox, the other being every time I do it seems it takes less than one minute for them to stray from the truth and go off on some hypothetical pathway based on nonsense, and I just won't intentionally give professional liars and Trump cheerleaders any of my attention or views.
Fool me once, shame on..shame on you....Fool me....you can't get fooled again.

Also, I'm not looking for a debate about CNN's lawsuit over security clearances/press credentials being used as political cudgels by immature "leaders" with unstroked egos, I'm not a lawyer and even they likely don't have much more than opinion on this subject, it's so unique....but I do think it sets a dangerous precedent, one that would have sent the right into violent fits had Obama banned Fox hosts after directly calling them the enemy of America for years, and one that may come back to haunt them in 2 years. Please recall how Fox treated Obama who still gave them one on one interviews where they were even ruder to the delight of the right, before casting aspersions at a political rival's character. Those in glass houses....

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

You claimed he was portrayed unfairly because it was reported when he repeatedly dehumanized migrants, Arabs, and Muslims as pretext to treat them poorly, Obama didn't dehumanize and demonize them, nor did he just let them all in, so only Fox reports that he did....in opinion pieces dressed as news. You can try to hide from that claim by attempting to change the subject to Trump's poor performance but you won't be successful.

Obama did a better and more humane job on immigration, Trump did a worse, but undeniably more racist job.

Trump calls migrants rapists, murderers, and gang members. He gave up any pretext for middle eastern people and just calls them middle eastern with a derisive tone, because all middle eastern people and Muslims are terrorists we don't want here.
You claim reporting that is an unfair portrayal, painting him as a meanie, I say it's honest reporting of his unedited words and positions.

You need them, they could help you learn English so you would look less like a Russian troll.
You could also use help with American history, a subject 100% of immigrant citizens know better than you, they had to pass a civics test as part of citizenship, a test you would fail miserably....almost like you aren't even from America, comrade.

Don't ever....EVER...use "we" to describe American sentiment, you do not reflect us. Plenty of Americans do want to help desperate refugees, just not the party that drapes themselves in the flag and cross while denouncing all that those symbols stand for.

Trump is the one wasting our government dollars on photo opps at the border with no legitimate use....by which I mean the blatant ploy to "deploy" thousands of troops at the border a week before the election to intercept the rampaging brown invasion that he's convinced morons is coming.....maybe.....in a few months. What do you think it costs to deploy thousands of troops for nothing for 8+ weeks? Probably more than fully supporting every person in the caravan for years.
One single Trump trip to Maralago or another of his golf courses costs taxpayers at least as much (some costs are classified, so not included in the >$3 million average cost) as yearly resettlement costs for >2000 refugees, including their background checks, housing assistance, etc. He's taken 159 golf trips so far, you do the math and gasp.

*facepalm

Side note: it did not go unnoticed that your reply had nothing whatsoever to do with my comments, and didn't address a single point contained therein.

Derp?
Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

Something I thought I read? Lol. I still can read it, can't you? I quoted it in full, twice.

My position is as strong and clear as my first post, yours changes every turn.

Try
To
Read
Carefully....

Blanket racial statements are wrong and racist.

Same position I held the entire conversation, one you continue to fail to comprehend.

Your attempts to change the subject to try to argue your statement's partial validity is just that, an attempt to change the subject to a completely different argument. I'm not interested, you aren't that interesting or even entertaining.

My point that you continue to miss, intentionally or not, is that blanket statements are wrong (with one exception for the blanket statement that blanket statements are wrong), racial blanket statements are wrong and racist. Sad you won't comprehend, I wonder if you can't.

I withdraw because you aren't debating, you're flailing at changing the subject, which was never racial disparity or possibilities, it's painting any grouping of one race as "X". Again, sad you don't comprehend, but I'm exhausted trying to explain to someone who clearly only wants to argue.

Good day, you may have the last word, replete with more ridiculous accusations I expect. Conversation with you has proven fruitless and utterly unenlightening, now turning to ridiculous insults and pure fantasy.

Cherry picked!? Lol.

"One white person is pleasant company; 50 white people are a lynch mob waiting to happen.".... (Blanket racial statement)
Drachen_Jager-
"Not entirely inaccurate, though." (Endorsement)

All the other tripe is attempting to change the subject.
You said the blanket statement about whites is not entirely wrong, in some places it's not entirely wrong, sometimes in some places it's not entirely wrong.....
I'm consistent in saying any blanket statement is wrong, and blanket statements about race are invariably wrong and racist.

There is no debate here. You just keep changing your position so you can argue.
Enjoy

My counter argument....that that's not what you said....and it's still inaccurate.

You said the blanket statement about any/every group of 50 whites being a violent racist gang is not entirely inaccurate. It is.

Now, had you said the blanket statement about every group of 50 whites being a lynch mob was true some of the time, that would still be a wildly inaccurate overstatement, but better. There has been no point in time when every group of 50 white men was a lynch mob.

Had you said what you now say, it's not entirely inaccurate because it's true some of the time in certain specific areas with certain groupings, it would be contradicting the original blanket statement which is inaccurate, so it's still technically incorrect, just like saying the statement about groups of black people isn't entirely inaccurate....it is, because the unwritten but undeniable subject of the statement is ANY group of 50 black/white people, not one specific group in a few specific places at some times.

If you understand that, you understand why it's entirely inaccurate no matter how you wish to interpret the rest.

Is it true that there have been groups of 50 white men that were a lynch mob, yes. That doesn't resemble what you said.

Soooo,

we believe women, unless they are accusing another even 'weaker' minority...

Ultimately it is fair to make the point that 'believe survivors' isn't meant by many people as a blanket belief of any and all accusations, but rather by the subjective standard of 'credible'. That this is thus remaining a subjective stance rather than an absolute isn't unfair to point out.

the real life example were the Nazi hypothermia experiments --the consensus, last I checked, was that the data was not used.

Of course, the truly pointless unethical American study was Tuskegee syphilis progression to dementia sample of African American subjects after there was already a cure for the disease...among other, wildly unethical studies...

Yeah, the bad thing about the entire situation is it seems the facts vary wildly depending on who you go with. I guess just like any statistic analysis with such a charged subject, people probably alter the methodology of getting the information to support their viewpoint. I found super low stats and higher ones, so I tried to go with the ones that seemed to have the least reason to alter the stats. Maybe they are wrong, I can't say.

Same for Dr. Ford, I can only go off my personal take on it. She seemed credible until I read the letter from her Ex, but maybe he lied or was a plant by the Republicans. I certainly can't go by her polygraph since I agree with everyone so far that they are pretty much junk science as you said. I'm torn, but like I mentioned, I am still leaning towards her account being false. I might be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

The worst thing is that no one here really won except Kavanaugh. The Republicans are going to take a hit in years of coming elections, the Democrats are stuck with a conservative majority court, Dr. Ford is going to be praised or vilified depending on individual opinion, and we as a nation look like we are ready to basically go to war with one another over our political split. We look dumber than ever to the rest of the world and I don't see a quick resolution in sight.

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.