I hope you're packing $2.7 bil there, Bob.

This is a "Thuggish morons vs thug" kind of situation though. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that the thug would open fire in multiple directions THEN ram away out of the scene.

That would be the easiest/laziest response though. I was honestly being unfair to the cop with the above statement if I left it at that.

It seems the cop was just honestly looking into a reported illegal racing/gathering situation. Situation quickly got out of hand and got ganged up by those cop-hating (or not cop-fearing at least) kids. Legitimately panicked, the cop wanted to extricate him/herself out of the situation. What to do? Ram out a bloody path, putting people's body or even life in danger be damned, of course.

You've got to understand that the cop simply WOULD NOT be thinking any of those people are "innocents" and act discriminately, feeling they "deserve protection."

Cops feel so empowered these days they can do anything and feel justified to do anything without risk of consequences for themselves. The whole Law Enforcement and Justice Department "brotherhood" is behind every cops. With that mentality, why would this particular cop NOT do what he/she did? Why would this cop care what happened to the people that got rammed through? I can imagine they would do all these things.

Besides, the cop have to assume some of them came packing guns. It WAS a legitimately dicey situation he/she got into...

The lawsuits.... anyone want to bet what portion of the blame the cop will get? I bet the verdict when the gavel drops is a big fat ZERO.

Want to blame the cop? Why not blame the System first? Since it's all too easy under America's law enforcement system to train even an honest-to-goodness, idealistic person to go from "I want to Protect & Serve" to "I can kill/main anyone for looking at me funny and call it police work."

This is just not "Shocking!" anymore. In fact, I don't expect any less these days of police encounters. Cynical? Of course, But how can I NOT be?

Notoriously unqualified. Barely a lawyer.
Notoriously a pure political appointment, not a real judge, never heard a case before her appointment.
Notoriously dishonest.
Notorious political stooge.
Notorious religious zealot.
Notorious for insisting Catholics recuse themselves from death penalty cases because their religion wouldn't allow them to make any decision that was pro death but shouldn't recuse themselves from abortion cases for exactly the same reason....so if you disagree with her you should always recuse, but if you agree with her, don't recuse no matter what.

Notoriously awful.
Notoriously incapable of holding a candle to RBG.
Notoriously unqualified.

Time to make the supreme court have 13 justices to negate Trump's court packing.
Deal with it.

Action Pack, Dance, Fear, Skillful
probably add to these channels too

Your video, Detergent packs are kinda wishy-washy: Dishwashers Explained, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What? Are you replying to another post? What do bad acts not excusing bad acts have to do with court packing? You are arguing that republican court packing isn't a bad act, so what are you talking about?

Republican court packing, the unprecedented denying dozens of a sitting presidents nominees a hearing despite the constitution stating they shall hold one in order to steal court seats was arguably unconstitutional but worked because they had the power and democrats had no recourse to remedy the crime since they didn't have the votes to force them to adhere to the constitution.

Adding seats is not unconstitutional nor is it unprecedented, the founding fathers did it themselves repeatedly. Not holding hearings for a nominee is unconstitutional, congress SHALL, not can or may.

No, they ignored a clear constitutional obligation knowing they couldn't be forced to follow it. Senate rules did not allow that, but a majority allowed the laws and rules to be ignored.

Lol. "Trashing them" by asking them to answer questions and accusations pertinent to the job is the same to you as denying a hearing in your opinion?!? I suppose you feel the same about republicans trashing democratic appointments, even outright denying them hearings required by the constitution....nominees who have NEVER had a problem clearly describing the rights codified in the constitution, which is the job they're nominated for...right...because certainly you aren't just a hypocrite.

🤦‍♂️

So, republicans played hardball by ignoring their constitutional obligation to hear nominees to steal seats, now you're whining that Democrats shouldn't play constitutionally allowed hard ball too by increasing the number of seats?!? Oh shit...you done fucked up.

I refer you to this page to see the list of Obama nominees trashed, refused, stalled, and or filibustered by Republicans....dozens of empty seats stolen by McConnell and handed to Trump to fill.

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

Also, turnabout IS fair play. Bad acts by one group do excuse similar bad acts against them.

Edit: I see it this way....Republicans have set the bar for governing at "you can't stop us"...Democrats need at least 4 years in the same position to reverse the damage, probably 8 since they're so wishy washy and don't often play hardball....Biden is still talking about bipartisan committees to figure out how to get back to working civil governance, starting with balancing the supreme court...but what's needed is pure partisanship like Republicans display. Nasty, ruthless, unethical, even illegal partisanship at every turn on every issue.

A few judicial assassinations aren't off the table either. Anything goes is the rule of the day, thanks Trump.

you are free to guess, and will certainly be wrong...

Bad acts by members of one group don't justify worse acts by the opposing group. That road leads to genocide...

And the Republicans didn't "pack" the supreme court - they exercised the authority that the Constitution and Senate rules afforded them - no less so than the Democrats used their authority and rights to trash every supreme court nominee that has been put forth by Republican administrations. If you want to play hardball, you won't get much sympathy from me when you complain that the opposition elects to play hardball too...

Happy to see this clip disappear...

Since it's exactly what the right promised to do, and the reason they broke all norms and precedents to pack the supreme court with anti choice judges, I don't understand your misplaced dismissiveness.
Shall I guess which side of the issue you stand on?

The first five seconds of that are all you need!

I seriously hope there's "court packing" next year. It's the only way to bring things back to any semblance of normalcy if Judge Amy McCultPants is installed.

Lack of flexibility, perhaps, but exceeding your sales projections by so much you can't keep up and have to outsource from competitors could be a genius (or moronic if it backfires) marketing move....if Tesla power packs outperform ones purchased from competitors in an apples to apples comparison (but one designed to favor Tesla from the start because they are in Tesla cars, optimized for Tesla batteries), they end up selling exponentially more when the new factories catch up and make a surplus. Worth it if in 5 years competitors all start buying from him.

The fact that a President can get 3 partisan judges in one term to the SCOTUS is madness. No matter the leaning.

Take the selection power away from the President. Why should a SCOTUS judge be a Presidential pick in the first place? It should belong to the people.

I think a fair minded party SHOULD pack the court to fix the system. However, the method need to be different than the President nominate/Senate approve process currently in place. Use a lottery type of system is an option. House/Senate Republicans and Democrats each gets to choose the same amount of nominations (vetted by both sides) and then the selection is done by lottery. That'll ensure some form of randomized fairness, and the judges aren't so overly partisan.

Lets be frank.
Lyndsey Graham is a POS. He a political tool and goes with political wind.

The nicest thing I can say about him is that I hope he joins his friend ( also a POS) John McCain .


WRT of supreme court nomination. My first thought was no, not till after election. Then Democrats ranted and screamed that would pack the court and a few other things.

POTUS job is to nominate, as did Obama. Dems did not control the senate. Mitch McConnell was / is the Senate Majority Leader. It is his decision to or not to advise and consent.

AS to now the court will be conservative if Trumps pick goes through, that implies that it was had a liberal slant.

Sounds like liberals don't want that to happen

This is America it swings to the left for a while then to the right.

Yeah, it's about double, for 2018 US data vs 2020 AU comparing driving fatalities deaths per population 0.005% for Australia vs 0.01% for the USA. I live in the southern US, I know people that just buy a 12 pack of beer and ride around visiting people...the amount of dumb here is exceptionally high, unfortunately.

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?