#politics
1 messages ยท Page 46 of 1
Part time most likely
Maybe, but that's for December, so all the holiday BS is added to that.
I see
That's also why they posted it now. So all the numbers are blown up.
Conservative humor can be so dull.
You cheered on lawyers who said theyโd release the Kraken. But now youโve poked Leviathan.

that article is so good
i dont know what those idiots were expecting but if they thought the capitol police was the worst they would face as a consequence of this, theyre gonna get a rude awakening here pretty soon
๐ค
:woosh:
so is antifa agiast fa the note?
Not really
oh good cuz if u hate one note then whos gonna stop them from canceling music
anti antifa is against the groups who run around burning cities in the name of being anti-facist
I'm still not sure I've seen any evidence of antifa burning things down
If you make that claim, then I can claim anti-Republican is against sedition or against domestic terror.
yeah the amount of violence from the extreme right def is outpacing the amount on the left
antifa's a biiiiiiiiig group with lots of people in it. How many are actually burning things?
antifa fight the police but the main places that happens the police are openly friendly with or a part of various white supremacist militias
It's not a big group ๐
I'm clarifying what their general stance is on with how it's protrayed in right leaning media
It's a few dozen small groups all under the same name/flag
It's a lot of small groups with little to no organization
yeah theres some leftist that did shitty things in the previous riots. looting and destroying small businesses was stupid.
Anybody's antifa if they want, just declaring they're against fascists. Compare that to the number of people who have burned a building down and it's big. Obviously not millions and millions of people, sorry for misrepresenting that ๐
The person wearing that clothing has fallen victim to extremist propaganda, tying being against fascism to being pro-communist and whatnot. I don't think "rightleaning" is the right descriptor for the media this person takes in so much as far-right-leaning. Like, surely The Hill isn't linking antifa and communism or are those far right thoughts drifting leftward?
The original antifa was a communist group
I mean, I'm not too sure where I lie, but, I tend to prefer right leaning media as it seems to be less "emotional", being a pessemistic view on life, my general stance is that you vote for the person who's gonna make fucking you sound the nicest
but, general gist is that in right media, the protests which happened in the big cities where all generally attributed to antifa/blm activities
There where apparently some protests where people flogged down those tryna create a massive issue out of it and handed them over to the cops before anything "real" happened, but, it's sorta like herd mentality
one moron storms the capital, 50% chance people are gonna watch like "Hey, watch this fucker", or run along with them and storm the place
I believe that the protests where in general schemed and intended to be peaceful, but, ofc, every class has that one arse of a kid who showed up to class for the sole purpose of getting a kick out of it
that wasnt one moron, they all marched in a massive group together
and iirc from different entries too
I got no idea if it was organised or what, I've been too ill for this past while to really keep up to date with that stuff too well
They were definitely trying to organize online
well coming with handcuff zip ties was def a sense of organization
Apparently that guy got ID'd
Morons, the lot of em
Maybe that's the case across the pond, but holy cow in America the right media is the most emotional, fear-mongering mess of feelings. Constant scares about everything. Think wishing people happy holidays being a "war on Christmas" as a serious claim that regularly comes up. The constant pushing of fear of "the other" (democrats, immigrants, antifa, science) daily into their brains is what brought us to the capitol event.
My grandmother started watching those fox news "personalities" recently and has become incredibly angry, distrustful of facts, and anti- a lot of things she used to think were good or fine. It's scary how fast their constant fear pushing can act.
Yeah, an adversary starts off with any media they can to reach a wide audience, but the real damage is done by that "crazy aunt/uncle" who believes and spreads it far and wide
yeah the right here is emotional to the extreme
Not saying this is an adversary
see: the entire trump movement calling the left communist
I mean, by emotional I more mean that there is generally more there in terms of discussion which is tolerable, maybe I just hate you lefties ;P
But, I mean, the thing is that the repubs often see the small little things leading towards the big thing
the democrat party keeps moving right
e.g. merry christmas basically being some offensive thing that we gotta say happy holidays instead, etc
but what small things? the democrats are moving closer to the right, its not even going the direction they say it is
the upset people are progressives like me who want it to move left, who want MFA, were pissed at the dems for becoming too right
but the right sees some fairy tale land where the democrats are all super progressive
and us progressives are like "fuck i wish we were in that world"
Offensive? No. It's just more inclusive to say happy holidays. Phrasing it as "everything's getting so offensive" fits into the narrative their viewers have for "I can't call someone [insert list of terms banned at paper] anymore" though, so that's easier for them to process and makes it another issue to fight over.
Merry Christmas has always been somewhat offensive for businesses to use, offensive to Christians that is
They didn't like having their holiday used to sell coffee
Happy Holidays comes from Christians trying to figure out something they can say to a customer that doesn't belittle Christmas
merry christmas to happy holidays wasnt to say merry christmas was 'offensive', its just awkward if you say it to someone who isn't christian. the idea to say happy holidays is simply encouraging inclusivitity, recognizing not everyone has the same beliefs, and ensuring you can say the greeting in a neutral way where religion doesnt matter
I like how we're saying the complete opposite
i cant say ive ever heard your version amaranth
def not a thing in the south
here we have 'your taking the christ out of christmas'
I've somewhat heard amars version, but, heard aikars more
oh i guess back then, i wasnt born ๐
Then in the 80s they wanted Jesus in everything and in the 00s O'Reilly started the War on Christmas
The thing is that "offensive" is generally taken more to mean "shunned" these days I think
Saying that, I think that christmas is generally more celebrated over here, even my muslim bff kinda celebrates it, we went over to her house last year for a white peoples christmas dinner ๐
think that our sorta like christianity population % is kinda low, but, it's more generally taken as sorta like a generic holiday where we generally don't care about the religious aspect as much as presents and dinner
Happy Holidays also used to be what Christians said to each other to cover the whole period around Christmas because it's not just Christmas, you've got the Advent and such
You can dig in to this forever but the main thing to remember is the right is full of shit
At least on this issue, I'll let you decide how many others too
The inclusiveness is probably the only reason anyone says it today though, no one gives a shit about the Advent
And clearly Christians want you to monetize Jesus
oh man could you imagine if I got a card to give to family that had both Obama and FSM handing you a gift and gave that to my far right family
though not sure all of them know of FSM
Hilary Obama and Pelosi all together.
You forgot AOC
amar just reminded me of like, garfunkle and oates
Although if you put AOC in there they might use it for porn
I'd argue that pelosi and AOC is on the same sorta like level
Hillary and Obama is clear top tier list of hated
Varies by the day. As do most right media fears/hates.
Depends on which one of them most recently advocated for something reasonable.
AOC called for a living wage? It's AOC more hated. Pelosi called for basic safety in the house (masks)? It's her turn.
i didnt go to family for xmas over trump more than corona this year lol
I have certain family that loves to make it the conversation
Does somebody leaving high school and getting their first job need a living wage?
Yes?
Yeah. Everyone needs a living wage.
The biggest thing is that you price people out of the market
not everyone has a family to depend on
Unless you want to subsidize them with a UBI or such! ๐
Otherwise you are deliberately putting people into poverty in a first world country.
Having schemes to protect people imho is a must, people pay taxes and such so to me it's fair to expect that the government would have your back when you're down, imho
As recently as the 70s you could support a family on a single income with just your high school diploma
You wouldn't be doing great but you could do it
Maybe you're not as right wing as you thought! ๐
Filthy liberal idea right there.
In the 80s you could sometimes do it but more likely both parents needed to work
Now both working isn't enough either
(seriously, what you just said would get you an attack piece on fox news if you were a politician in america)
Well, yea, that's why I said I generally sorta stand in the middle but lean to the right a bit
the issue is that the right, here, is way too far right. A good majority of democrats are fairly center
neolibs
The biggest issue i see with things like minimum wages is, who decides them?
You know, like Thatcher and Reagan
Why is the minimum wage for somewhere like NYC at the same level as little town fuckknowswhere, etc
It isn't, afaik NY or NYC have their own minimum wage that is higher than the federal one
federal minimum wage is across everywhere, but states and even cities decide local minimum wage
But I'm pretty sure the US government tracks what the poverty line is on a per-county level
Well, yea, but the call was for increasing the federal one to like $15 or there was even calls for like $20 last I recall
"tracks"
So they could write a law that says the minimum is that
Is federal minimum above poverty line anywhere?
Probably not, last I knew it hasn't really been looked after in general
Even just adjusting our terribly low (and low for its time) $7.25 that was set in 2009 for inflation it should be $9 now
GARFUNKEL & OATS LOOPHOLE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na3lw1PzbCw - because you's somehow reminded me of this
Even something simple like "Set minimum to current poverty line in worst-off places, and set it to increase matched to GDP" would be better than what we have now
People are idiots when it comes to security
They still think it was hacking too
Security experts are also sometimes idiots
Saw people complaining twitter wasn't taking down talk about it for the same reason they took down the Hunter Biden stuff
Because it actually happened and there's real, tangible proof that literally anyone can view
That's a good start
Also because, you know, it wasn't hacking
That, too
Someone on reddit made up a BS story about hacking via a backdoor twillo left open
Yeah, API abuse isn't hacking
In reality they just used the parler API and guessed asset IDs (because they were sequential)
And it was barely abuse
the information security director at the company my dad works for had a parler account. i wonder how hes feeling right about now
Eh, as a user your responsibility is limited
Set a good password, enable 2FA if you can
The rest is out of your hands
oh i know. im not saying he could have influenced it
i just think it's pretty ironic
y'know, that his information is anything but secure as it stands now
That kind of thing bites us all
I mean, your info's probs laying out in some private database somewhere, tbqh
I don't blame the users much
as devs, we care about security on our own platforms and such
We don't generally care to check that some large service isn't doing something moronic like predictable IDs, etc
Like, best I do when signing up to some site is do a "does this place smell sketchy", and, "is this https?!"
Basically, yeah
Bernie as budget committee chair. ๐
@elder portal Fixed the title.
nah, most of them are too inexperienced to know what EXIF is
Parler had a feature where you could be verified by uploading a copy of your drivers' license...
Either way, terrible opsec from the fascist coup participants 
thought they wanted SSN for verified
Now they are all sitting ducks for prosecutors
Become a Premium Member: https://jimmydorecomedy.com/join
Go to a Live Show: https://jimmydorecomedy.com/tour
Subscribe to Our Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/jimmydorecomedy/ytlivestreams
The Jimmy Dore Show Website: https://jimmydorecomedy.com/
LIVESTREAM & LIVE SHOW ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Join the Email list: https://mailchi.mp/jimmydorecomedy/y...
Not commenting on that particular story, but I wasn't sure who that was so I looked them up. What a wild ride in this section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Dore#Discussion_of_conspiracy_theories
Yeah would take that with a grain of salt. He's been openly criticizing the news groups that criticize him.
Prior to them criticizing him, that is.
To be honest those are pretty weak attacks even so.
My experience from watching him relatively frequently is he's fine being critical for anyone regardless of alignment. He's doesn't have a deep tribalism like many, which means your own ideas are challenged more often.
Breaking NYT: Mitch McConnell has told associates he believes Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the GOP.
https://t.co/kqagCZzx6f
154
415
yeah, I don't see how this hadn't been the GOPs position from the start. they dont have to worry about him running again. I would think the dems would WANT the possibility of him running again to just confuse the next GOP nomination race.
Also that article is basically an anonymous source hearing Addison saying this.
It would be a good political move if he said it publicly I think, realistically if the Democrats then decide not to impeach it makes them look super weak.
But if they do it they are just "doing what anyone would do".
man i hope it fucking happens
we need that peace of mind that he cant return in 2024
The potential downside to impeaching him is it's likely to take up a lot of time in the Senate that could otherwise be used to get things done.
We also dont know how much this would also impact politics going forth by impeaching trump
its a two way street
Also they need 2/3rds to convict, and a subsequent 2/3rds to prevent him from returning to office.
An impeachment conviction does not mean they can't hold office again on its own.
its just wasting time at this point,
Possibly, we don't know what the future holds.
no, and I dont think democrats have the best in mind for everyone for the next 2 years
well I think all politicians have whats best for them in mind
2/3 to convict, simple majority after that to prevent returning
I can't find anything that says it's only a simple majority but I heard a Senator say it on TV the other day
They're getting closer
This house vote is so confusing
It's a symbolic measure to officially call on Pence to invoke the 25th
Tomorrow they'll start on impeaching Trump instead
Which McConnell apparently supports
These idiots are fucking mumbling and are not understandable half the time
Oh, I'm not watching the actual vote
But I didnโt see any Democrats actually heeding those calls now, do you?
But the Dear Leader told his supporters to do it and they followed through.
Those aren't democrat leaders, those are news outlets
But here, Trumpโs words directly translated into action. He is as every bit complicit as any of the participants.
Likewise for the Democrats words. I tend to subscribe to the idea that people are responsible for their own actions. But, I'm happy for something consistent either way.
Did you see Democrats storming the Capitol building, trying to kill Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell?
If so, Iโd really like to know.
Do you see Republicans murdering 19 people and causing the death of 26 in their riots?
Iโd like to know if Democrats were wondering around the Capitol, masked and socially distanced, shouting profanities about Mitch McConnell.
Come on. You have zero evidence.
It's really inconsequential the target of the violent riot.
Youโre doing what-aboutism here. Your argument is literally not valid.
it's k, they burned small businesses instead
Your argument is a fallacy.
So is yours.
Feel free to name the fallacy.
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Uni...
I named it and you missed it.
Yet it wasn't my argument.
What is your argument, then? I didnโt see a valid argument.
I'm not arguing we shouldn't impeach him due hypocrisy. I'm arguing it should be consistent.
You're literally being illogical about calling something illogical.
Either A: we impeach people who incite violence. Or B: We don't.
Unless they directly say "you need to be violent" I opt for B.
I saw trump calling a peaceful protest for a process which had some questions about the process which woulda been nice to have been answered
You say they said fighting words, the problem with your argument is that you cited NOTHING to prove that their words lead to rioting directly. As far as I can guess, you are referring to BLM protests last year, of which some turned violent.
I don't see where he was standing saying that we should take any actions which leaded directly to morons storming the capitol
I saw that too. I could see his speech inciting radicals, but they are not what I'd consider the norm.
It's a bit intellectually dishonest to attribute radicals to anyone specific though even if their words could potentially incite them accidentally.
Equally no one has shown his words did the same.
So you're against impeaching him.
Or you're intellectually dishonest.
๐ค
Yeah, so he wanted a protest.
That's a false equivalency to PROOF his words lead to the violence and not the radicals that attended already likely to be committing those crimes.
Then there was that bizarre video he made telling the insurrectionists "we love you" which got him banned from Twitter.
I'm not sure where he directly mentioned be there and storm the capitol either,
He never said he loved the insurrectionists. False claim.
Maybe I should take the context of what you just said, and make that claim about you. ๐
Now, go read the NYT article I linked, you can see the president egged these people on.
yes read my link c:
I read it about 3 days ago.
https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22217630/trump-capitol-riots-mob-violence-love-you-stolen-election-lies
The evidence included in the actual article supports my current position. The opinion parts do not.
@loud pelican So am I only allowed to use far-right sources? In that case, then I am very mistaken, there was never a riot at the capitol, only a very peaceful protest to resist the stolen election by Democrats who bizarrely only changed things so that only Biden won and didn't prevent Democratic losses in Congress. We love the God-Emperor!
Nobody is saying that there wasn't a riot...
Correct. I agree there was an element in the protest that turned to rioting.
There was also terrorism.
But it would be false to claim the whole thing was a coordinated insurrection.
once you stepped onto the capitol property you weren't protesting anymore, you were rioting
The security failings in the protest allowed it to turn into an insurrection, albeit a poorly coordinated one.
I'm not too sure how exactly Trump directly mentioned or stated to directly enter the Capitol and fuck shit up
All of those who were a) violent b) trespassing c) breaking other laws, should be found and feel the full force of law.
BLM was dealt with far more harshly than this.
Like with EVERY protester who does those things.
Definitely would agree that the lax security led to the escalation.
It could've remained a protest/light riot otherwise.
They are NOT a part of Democracy, and they are NOT people I want representing my view.
It's easy for stuff like this to escalate if given the opportunity. A few jackasses taking the initiative, a few others get excited/emboldened, suddenly you have an insurrection.
Those are people who show intolerance to the point we MUST use force to prevent. Does not matter the reason they do it.
Like, these are the people who lost their shit over a BLM protest in Minneapolis leading to the looting of a Target store, but were perfectly chill with breaking into the Capitol and taking a shit over democracy.
I agree, I am against anyone who riots.
and, now you're in a channel where there are people who disagree with both actions
I am of the belief there was inside help.
Any inside help should carry a conspiracy charge.
Perhaps Trump didn't come out and say it aloud, but there was inside help.
Is that a conspiracy ๐ ?
biggest question is where the fuck where the police
Automatically makes it felony murder since people died.
Like, this was a known threat
We'll probably not know for a while, but there were clearly failings within the capitol police.
It's not like crazy people hadn't been posting on social media
If it's that easy for people to break into the capitol building, someone fucked up bad somewhere.
I don't think there's an argument there.
If Trump conspired to allow them in to commit that crime, and that can be proven, he should be charged with felony murder.
And at the very least, there were severe security failings in the Capitol Police.
Yeah, Capitol police underestimated the security needs substantially
Imagine if more serious terrorist element manage to slip in with the crowds.
If not gross incompetence then willful neglect.
This situation could've been a whole lot worse.
Apparently there was some laptop or something stolen
Well basically someone manged to sneak a bomb in didn't they?
Yes but fortunately it was dealt with, now imagine if it was more coordinated.
Security is one of the weird weaknesses
That building and surrounding area could've probably been leveled.
the pipe bombs were believed to be a distraction to take even more police officers away form the capitol
Were those Pipebombs even real?
Imagine a foreign terrorist element with access to materials to build "real" bombs snuck in with the crowd.
You have a point; although it's pointless to plant bombs unless your goal is to initiate terror.
Intelligence plays a huge part
Sort of like how the RV Bombing guy.
if your goal was to just take resources away from the capitol then it's still a success
FBI knew about the RV bombing guy, apparently
the articles said the bombs were detonated safely
30 minutes ahead of time to evacuate.
so i assume they were real
Yea, the FBI did; a years time.
We could've had an actual "Designated Survivor" moment (not sure if people have seen at least the first season of that TV show)
If not covertly coordinated most bombs can identified well in advance these days
wonder who that would have been
Well in that case it would still be Trump lol
But I just meant the scale of attack could've killed so many congressmembers
You know, reminds me of my bro whos shooter don't work
Anyway, the point I was making is that the video @shy gulch posted was misleading. I have seen it on social media under false pretenses. The American left, unlike the American right, does not have a consistent pattern of trying to incite violence to enforce their beliefs onto others. Extreme left-wing violence is rare (though it was big in the 60s and 70s), the real problem is right-wing violence (which has been a major problem since the 90s). https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/01/06/experts-capitol-riot-product-of-years-of-hateful-rhetoric/
i thought he was joking with that video honestly
yea lol
most of those people were not democrat leaders
Domestic terrorism seems to be more often than not, right-aligned.
they were just celebrities
Correct me if I'm wrong though.
who are heavily left aligned
still not democrat leaders ๐
Yeah, I think most of them were left-leaning celebrities, not Democratic leaders.
They're individuals with high influence capability of the left-side.
Not "leaders" who control politics, but influence.
I still regard them at the same level of concern as people with high influence on the right calling for action in the streets
They're influential, but I'd rank them among more of a casual remark. That being said they should probably pick their words more wisely.
I'd argue the same for Trump.
The choice of words is indeed picked extremely wisely, and carefuly; attracted to their side yes.
their words stand to prop up the left and stir action from the right at the same time
Regarding picking words more wisely.
Apparently not.
However I don't think that's going to be an eventuality.
well yea i guess not now lol
Sorta like antifa showing up at any proud boy protest armed and such
It's not gonna end well
frankly, it doesn't matter whose side its on, once you start tolerating even a little political violence, which is most of the destruction that happened over the summer, its just gonna get more frequent and common.
But, alas, the extreme left isn't listening to these people. They hate Democrats about as much as they hate fascists.
tru
Which is why you have to oppose all political violence, even if its only destroying "property that can be replaced"
Both extremes hate the establishment.
Anyone should hate the establishment, or at least highly dislike it.
only 7% of the BLM protests over the summer were "violent"
But, the rhetoric falls in line with riling up the right extremists as it "validates" their assertions
and the media seems to have given that 7% a pass
nah
Yeah, what we're saying is zero tolerance for violence and rioting.
lots of them just get swept under
you have to call it out everywhere
Tolerance of ideas is fine, tolerance of criminal behavior not so much.
๐คฃ
The "93% of BLM protests were non-violent" was a study done by some scholar I think, I don't know who.
It's not a media statistic.
like one that happened around my hometown
The only good thing about that protest was all the insurance companies paying out.
Also people often forget Baton Rouge
Also, a digression on antifa. Antifa is, broadly speaking, "anyone who opposes fascism" - and I'd hope pretty much everyone here does, in fact, oppose fascism. There are many different shades of it. Lots of people oppose it but have normal lives. Some people oppose it enough to rally for it and dox fascists. Others are willing to go violent.
And the events of that year in Dallas.
ah yes, it's an idea
There is no organized antifa organization to my knowledge. It's as you say, people who are anti-fascist.
you can call yourself "anti-facist" all you want. The KKK considers themselves a civil rights organization, just cause you call yourself something, doesn't mean you are that
Any rag tag group of people could get together and call themselves antifa.
it's essentially small charters
well, there def are coordinated ragtag groups then
at least from what I've generally seen from my bubble of media
Like, there's facebook and whatsapp type groups and such
Any anti-fascist protestors could be easily labeled "antifa"
its like the whole "BLM" thing, I think black lives matter, but I don't support the Black Lives Matter organization
Yea I agree.
Antifa is not an organization, it's more of a unifying idea, and some antifa people are so fervent that they will be more than happy to be violent.
Proud Boys and such groups are clearly a lot more organized. Antifa seems to rely on small local chapters or like-minded groups of people.
it certainly took the mayor of portland a long ass time to denounce "violent antifa". took him until new years day
an idea which sees people organising in groups under the same name and flag
mental gymnastics
Well, just so happened that that was when the deputisation order expired
I do believe there is an organized group inside Antifa. I do agree it's not public facing though.
I haven't seen any evidence of a centralized antifa.
But that's not evidence based, more of a speculation.
are you doing a george soros type thing here...?
Now, it's largely the same for the far-right, the difference is that they're differently organized. Antifa is mostly small cells, the far-right has much larger organizations and is much more centralized.
wait, was it portand that was deputised? Too much crap going on for my ill brain
Jerry Nadler called anitfa violence in Portland "myth"
But we know Proud Boys, KKK etc are centralized to an extent.
PB seems more proud to call to the public on social media
antifa seems to just be more sorta like walled off facebook groups and such
And I can say this with confidence, the far-right is behind most modern domestic terrorist attacks in the US today.
pretty hard to guage the measure of stuff from the outside unless we wanna go digging
what qualifies as domestic terrorism
I'd agree with KKK, not sure I know enough about PB.
The loons who tried to kidnap the Governor of Michigan and trial her in a kangaroo court? Far-right domestic terrorism, cut and dry.
Why does it actually matter which side of the political spectrum the violence comes from? Does it change the response?
@brisk cradle And it's not necessarily because the right is ideologically wrong, you can have sane conservatism, but their leaders/influencers peddle an extreme version of it.
Why does terrorism have to be defined with "politics" behind, why can't terrorism being defined as the act of inisghting terror to another entity?
It doesn't change the response, if there was genuine far-left terrorism I'd condemn it just the same.
ya it does machine maker, unfortunately
Well terrorism has a very specific definition. What domestic terrorism events have there been lately that can be attributed to extremist right elements?
I mean, seems to me that if it's anything on the extreme right, fuck anybody with right leaning views, amirite
well if it doesn't change the response, why does it matter? All it does is stir up crazies on the other side to response in kind
@shy gulch Terrorism too comes in multiple flavors. It just so happens that the domestic terrorism in the US tends to be politically-motivated by right-wing grievances.
Yeah, that's specifically what I don't like about right v left.
I think when you think of modern day left-wing extremism, you might think "kill the rich" ๐
I think it has to do with tribalism, and your side is right, and if anyone even remotely related to the other side does something bad... you gotta use the opportunity to say "Look, my side is better"
Yea tribalism is stupid.
like, look at the crazy guy who shot up the gov baseball game. was a bernie supporter and people on the right tried to say... look, a bernie supporter committed an act of violence
when it was really, just a crazy guy
But with the way right wing messaging gets amplified, you end up in situations where people are attacking Muslims, for example.
Examples of far-right domestic terrorism: the Oklahoma City bombing, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, the Charleston church shooting, Charlottesville, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, and of course, the people who have rammed their vehicles into protesters at BLM protests.
Just looked it up myself, this chart is interesting:
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/TNT_Graphics_Web-01.jpg
Doesn't mean right leaning people hate muslims or jews, but it's easy for certain rhetoric to be amplified that way, they know who their audience is and they rile up hate.
I mean... can I say Stalin as an example of left wing domestic terrorism? or Mao?
kinda on a different level, so prob not
Examples of far-left domestic terrorism are much fewer - the only modern example would be the Unabomber attacks (Ted Kaczynski was anarcho-primitivist)
Based on the statistics, it looks like an ebb and flow
"Right" and "left" are going to be different depending on where you are. If we look at it in our context, you could probably say Mao is right-wing by our standards.
Well, maybe not Mao
But modern China certainly is
It's definitely not communist.
Generally if you go far enough left you end up right and vice versa in my opinion.
uh, china is what?
Sure, we can talk about horseshoe theory here. But that's irrelevant.
China is not a communist state.
China is nominally communist, but in practice is dubiously market socialist state capitalist with heavy authoritarian control.
It's like saying North Korea is an actual Democratic Republic lol
China may have once adhered to more communist ideals in its past, but certainly today it does not.
or like people who call themselves antifa while trying to forcibly shutdown speech on a public campus
(I just realized I used the wrong term. Market socialism is something else entirely.)
America also isn't a democracy. Surprise!
America is nominally a democracy but in practice is an corporatocracy/oligarchy that tolerates political dissidents because not doing so is bad for business.
Yeah, it's a Democratic Republic.
To be fair I'm pretty sure internally China doesn't even consider itself communist either.
They are "on the path to communism"
Doubt they consider themselves authoritarian either.
True lol
well I don't think we are nominally one either. the word doesn't make an appearance in the constitution
Oh allegedly there was a leak of CCP information too about all of the foreign spies in businesses and politics.
Occasionally, they'll even throw a bone to the dissidents to keep them happy for a bit.
That or they get their family to commit them to "science".
I believe that's what is understood to be the Chinese system of government at least within China.
That's the case for the US and China. They'll throw a bone to try and shut up the bad PR.
China is very fascist in many ways.
Well, last I saw, some journalist over there was reporting on covid was jailed
and then there's that rich billionare who apparently called out the people who deal with financial regulation who's been missing for months
Of the net 9.8 million jobs lost since February, women accounted for 55% of them.
Dissidents in China have been known to be subjected to live organ harvesting.
True. They've also been known to be shoved into "re-education camps" too.
Yeah.
Yeah I wouldn't want to live in China for sure. I'm sure it's a great place to live if you don't wrongthink or wrongspeak, but I do enjoy the freedoms I have in America.
In the US, that would be a bad look, so the corporatocracy tolerates them.
If China teams up hard with Russia it would be pretty bad.
But I don't look at China and think to myself, "See this is why communism is bad!" lol
oh yay, twitter deleted that china tweet
โStudy shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent.โ
Well, that tweet not only whitewashes what China is doing to the Uighurs but it's also quite sexist.
I mean, it's propaganda meant for foreign consumption, duh.
Any time I see a government say "the minds of ... were emancipated" big red flag
I'm surprised they have not banned Twitter.
Yeah, meant to appeal to the western audience "Look, we love independent women!"
wait twitter isn't banned in china?
I mean, them posting that suggests not?
Also, I think its pretty precious that china just got added to the UN Human Rights council (to the extend that the UN isn't a joke anyways)
Pretty sure it is
Yea, pretty sure it is
Of course the Chinese government is exempt.
I'm pretty sure Twitter is banned in mainland China for the average Joe. Perhaps only people who have to deal with the outside world or very high-up officials are allowed access with strict stipulations.
You gotta be pretty high up or up to no good afaik
China has its own internal massive social network
Twitter is blocked in China; however, many Chinese people circumvent the block to use it.[35] Even major Chinese companies and national medias, such as Huawei and CCTV, use Twitter through a government approved VPN
weibo?
Which is state owned/managed and promoted
Ah figures
Yeah Chinese twitter is weibo
That makes sense, so they can make sure they aren't exposed to "politically inconvenient" content.
It's listed on NASDAQ
Isn't Jack Ma been lowkey / missing for the past few months 
I'm surprised how China still manages to keep the population from asking too many questions still with how easy it is to bypass the Great Firewall
Also privileged Chinese travel a lot, too.
They understand the world outside
Think people see what happens if you ask too much
As long as the living standards keep going up, any discontent will remain below the surface. And of course, if you say bad things about the government, they will more than happily "convince" you to think otherwise.
There's a lot of nationalism in China, to my understanding. As long as life at home is good, then their pro-China nationalism just gets reinforced.
Also it's multi-generational, they're being conditioned to accept it.
That's the core issue with China: the CCP is obsessed with stability. They need it to stay in power. That being said, they are facing some headwinds. The Chinese population keeps getting older, sex-selectiveness has resulted in too many men for not enough women (all of these are part of why they went from a one-child policy to a two-child policy). The living standards cannot keep rising forever and be compatible with China being the world's low cost factory. This is why China is branching out and planting its flag elsewhere and doubling down on anti-imperialism (haha, funny, considering that Communist China has effectively turned into a neo-colonial power itself) and Chinese nationalist rhetoric.
eyyy, well who woulda thought, disney is looking to move more of its business to florida from california... I wonder why they want to leave California...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/disney-california-florida-resorts-orlando
Yeah China is just engaging in a different kind of colonialism ๐
Probably because floridans could care less if they die from covid
Can't really be the sole reason, neither do Californians based on the numbers ๐
yeah, florida, at the top of the list for cases... oh wait, not at the top? #25 you say?
way behind California, which is #3?
Is that per-capita numbers?
That's per capita.
Uh, per capita California isn't doing that bad.
its 3rd for highest case number
California is doing really bad
yeah... behind only arizona and rhode island
I mean number of cases doesn't necessarily represent the states willingness to comply with CDC guidelines
Or the people I guess
Unless I'm looking at bad stats. Someone link the stats lol
Well, Florida's political leadership (Republicans BTW) have decided they don't give a shit about coronavirus and would rather die to prop up an even-more unequal economy.
Find national and local rates for COVID cases and deaths in the United States.
Yeah California is doing pretty bad lol, didn't think it was that bad though
DeSantis is simply lucky the situation is yet to deteriorate in Florida again.
I assume California is also a lot more dense
There's a new strain of the virus, it has already landed in New York and it won't be long before Florida gets it too.
Florida is mostly old people who don't leave the house anyway ๐
On the coast line it is dense, not so much inner cali though, (as far as I've been told)
Yeah California cities appear to be more dense
arizona is mostly that... and look where they are
Georgia is #9 on that list. I wonder why.
I wish my state had california pay
Get a tech job, work remotely.
Oh yeah, our political leadership doesn't care about the virus killing people either.
A California-based remote job, I mean ๐
Probably a good chance you'll get close-to-California pay
LA is 8,564 per square mile, Miami is 13,143
I don't know why California is doing so much worse than Florida
What? Hm
Is it a good idea to follow the CDC guidelines regarding all covid stuff or not?
Miami as a city is so small though
Cause oregon doesn't look to be doing that
Yes it's a good idea
Obviously the county is large, but the city is small o.o
Fair, the "city" stretch along half of the eastern coast line of the whole state
oregon wants to decolonize its vaccine distribution, and not use the CDC's anyone over 65 guidelines
Though it does appear that Florida's coronavirus situation is getting worse.
I watched the 3 hour oregon board meeting where they discussed this
just posting this again for state wide resident per sq mile.
An hour once you hit the freeway, assuming the traffic isn't bad
I think it's more useful to look at it per city and not state, just because if you look at it per state it would probably be too diluted
cali also has like 18 million more people
Yeah makes sense.
California is mostly farms and mountains but Florida is mostly swamps
I usually compare Miami-Daide county to LA County.
this is per 100k population Yooogle, it accounts for that
but even Miami-Dade county is pretty large and stretched wide
Yea, but there is 18 million more people crammed into a smaller mass of land
He doesn't do math, only feelings.
House Minority Leader McCarthy is asking Republicans if he should ask Trump to resign, according to the NYT
Saw that Mitch wants to ditch Trump ๐
163,696 miยฒ > 65,758 miยฒ
Good point, I mis read
Well he allegedly wants to.
Tbh anyone who still supports trump is a traitor to the country at this point
There have been no direct quotes. Just third hand information.
Allegedly, yeah. I wouldn't be surprised though.
Mitch wants to ditch him for the wrong reasons, though.
yeah!!! Unity!!
My guess? Trump will resign, on the condition that Mike Pence pardons him.
Realistically, for Republicans it would be a good strategic move to say publicly that they want to.
Handball the choice to Democrats.
If they don't impeach him they then look weak as hell.
If they do, they're just doing what everyone would do.
He'll be impeached by this time tomorrow
Unity? These people attacked our country. They should be in jail.
Does Trump even still have any kind of meaningful voice to reach to his "audience?"
all trump supporters attacked the capital?
Yes
Yeah the unity message lasted a day.
I didnt realize there were 80 million people there
The unity message lasted until their was an attempted coup
Now you disavow Trump or you're a part of the problem
biden is still talking about unity
My guess is that the House is going to impeach him, and since McConnell has turned on Trump, he will probably ask Trump to resign, with the threat of Republican votes to remove him if he doesn't.
Okay, all germans didnt kill the Jews. But those who supported hitler are just as guilty
Once this all blows over and Trump is out of office, I wonder how many people will give a shit about him. I kind of doubt Fox News will allow themselves to be used as a megaphone for his antics.
Alleging Trump attempted a coup is purely conjecture.
Trump did?
Yes, he incited a riot to attack the capital building.
I mean you could argue he dogwhistled the more extreme elements of his base, but even such an argument would lead nowhere.
its not even 100% clear if the language Trump used the day of qualifies for incitement
He called them to the city and got up and talked to them before they marched on the Capitol
He was for a protest, always said not to be violent.
Oh you all are full of it.
incitement to riot has a high legal bar, and you can find lawyers who argue both sides of it
Correct, the bar is very high.
On an individual level I think a lot of us agree, that's what he did.
I think he inadvertently incited radicals. But you can hardly attribute their actions to his words reasonably.
But also, fortunately, impeachment and conviction isn't held to a legal standard, or doesn't need to be.
He was egging them on after they got through the doors
The insurrection was bitter to the GOP and it will cost them. Chances are, the GOP will try to forget he was ever president, but the base will remember.
So he could still be impeached and convicted for that.
And them told them he loved them
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/533469-swift-second-impeachment-would-damage-the-constitution
argues it was protected speech
argues the opposite https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2021/01/08/trump-incitement-us-capitol-attack/6589465002/
ofc you can impeach for whatever you want
the house decides what a "high crime of misdemeanor" is
Yeah advocacy for protest is protected speech.
tons of leaders have said "we have to show strength", "march over there and show them you are serious"
And the base loved Trump. Even in the aftermath, the people who left the GOP were probably soft Republicans, who could conveniently abandon the GOP at any time without concern.
might be able to get rudy on incitement with his "trial by combat" but probably not trump lol
so the legal case for incitement to riot @dreamy glacier is not as cut and dry as one may think.
Don't forget Mo Brooks
Yeah, let alone inciting a coup.
But again, impeachment doesn't need to be held to any legal standard.
He could be impeached for perceived incitement to riot.
Still think he was stupid to do anything more than a single statement about the election results, and intention to contest them.
frankly, biden should be impeached if he says "Malarkey" one more time.
Even after the aftermath of this riot, insurrection, coup attempt, domestic terrorist attack, ..., whatever you want to call it, the GOP base will remind you that the GOP is Trump's party and nothing more.
these two men in the house are not standing 6 ft apart. https://owo.whats-th.is/7nKhZYn.png
That's malarkey.
Biden cannot be impeached.
well not yet...
๐
but im waiting for him to say it...
The FBI is tossing around words like "sedition" and "domestic terrorism" for their investigations
gonna pounce real quick
I loved finding those debate drinking games
good times amirite?
Trump could easily be roped in on conspiracy charges with that
Biden can't be impeached, and Republicans can try, but it won't go anywhere thanks to Democratic control of the House and Senate.
Conspiracy also has a high burden of proof.
Go back to 2016 debates, drink every time Trump says "WRONG"
Agree
Im just waiting for Trump to get charged up the wall by the state attorneys when he gets out
I think my fav moment from 2016 was when clinton was talking, and trump just said into his mic "well you should be in jail"
a classic
I think you have a really warped view as to what a president should act like
Was a good burn, I mean don't agree with the statement but the comeback was good.
Personally, I consider the Capitol storming to be a coup attempt that had shades of a domestic terrorist attack, but I digress.
Im talking from an entertainment point of view here
not from what I want in a president
Yeah same
the debates last time had some serious entertainment gold
I'm going to guess he wont be charged in a single state matter, the politicians will stop caring once he's out, but we shall see.
I highly doubt they will stop caring once he is out.
NY is definitely on his ass
They might. People tend to have short memories.
He'll get charged with something
But yeah I could see NY going after him hard
The GOP is going to try and bury Trump as much as possible, the Capitol storming was a serious PR problem for them.
I would agree the capitol hill event was a terrorist attack.
the news cycle pretty quickly moves on...
its ok tux, just blame it on antifa
its kinda crazy
over and over again and then it's not a problem for the gop anymore!
Not the protest itself, but those who entered, and those who created/delivered the bombs.
If there are issues with the way Trump has been running his businesses in New York, I do hope he gets what's coming to him. He won't be charged for anything he did as president, though.
yes yes and BLM too!
oh man, we need another 4 years so he can finish the wall and make sure this never happens again!
no way a hispanic person could vote for trump right?
oop
You know this chat isn't exempt from the rules right?
yeah, trump only got 1/3 of the hispanic/latino vote... yikes
I hope that was obviously sarcasm
Several of your statements fit zero tolerance items lol
Trump's share of the Latino vote was actually on the low end of the range for Republicans
I'll redact it tho
Republicans only need to change their messaging a bit and they could capture so much more of the latino/black vote.
Yeah idk how serious this chat takes the ZTI's
I mean, they can blame antifa all they want, but everyone aside from the seriously misguided or the base will see it as the lie it is.
It was just surprising because he got basically zero support in 2016
was it? he did better this time than 2016 or romney in 2012
It's disingenuous to blame Antifa for the Capitol Hill event without proof.
how much longer for these remaining 8 house votes?
I really hope Republicans spend this opportunity to actually reflect on the last 4, no 12 years and seriously evolve their messaging.
Messaging isn't the problem, the message is ๐
A right leaning reporter (who got on the no fly list, and was banned on all social media for attending the event), has debunked all claims of Antifa other than one.
and better than mccain in 2008 @foggy fern
Its disingenuous to claim that the election is rigged when there's no proof of that either
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55626148
Some of the misdemeanor charges filed so far are "just the beginning", he said, with officials looking at "significant felony cases" tied to sedition and conspiracy.```
i see what you mean amaranth
Messaging is the only reason they're at all relevant, Democrat policies are widely supported, just not the people who want to pass them
and the guy with the zip ties got caught the article said
The GOP is really good at getting people to vote against their class interests, it's why they have such high support especially in poorer, rural parts of the community.
Remember this? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rnc-completes-autopsy-2012-loss-calls-inclusion-policy/story?id=18755809
In what they called the 'most comprehensive post-election review' ever made of an electoral loss, the Republican National Committee and a group of project co-chairs unveiled a report today saying that they need to open their playbook and put their 'cards on the table face up' in order to win presidential elections in the future.
They instead completely ignored it and doubled down on Trumpism.
That's why Florida elected a bunch of Republicans but also passed a $15 minimum wage
cause who can say no to a decent wage
americans also really want merit based immigration... but that doesn't seem to happen
The core issue for Democrats is that they let Republicans do the messaging for them, therefore they lose.
Minimum wage increases can be directly tied to unemployment increases.
- in some studies
It's a statistical fact, the question is why not if it's true.
You can lie with statistics too.
federal minimum wages make no sense... $15 in kansas is so different from $15 in mahnattan
Just look at Dream.
The country will be a much better place when more hispanic/black people start voting Republican. Because when that happens, it means Republican messaging will have changed in a positive direction.
You're only disagreeing with me because it's only a correlation.
I'm not arguing causation.
Everyone here is talking like they actually know what they are talking about.
And its funny
The federal minimum wage definitely should not be $15 lol
That's absolutely batshit insane.
u right. 20$ is better
yikes...
If you earn $15 an hour flipping burgers you're being paid too much.
That's one way to price out the market
Also, I should mention that Medicaid expansion has passed in such strong Democratic strongholds like... Idaho, Utah, and Oklahoma
lol
The cost of living is just different in each state.
you cant mandate the price of labor for the whole country cause this country is HUGE
the cost of living in Oklahoma is vastly different from California, or New York
$15/hr in some states you could be living like you make $50/hr in California
It's an interesting causation that policies preferred by the most wealthy get action, whereas those supported by the general public usually don't. Hmm...
The resolution to wage issues is a difficult balance.
be interesting to see what happens if post-covid exists
several large companies are already closing their huge offices
Don't need to have vast complexes if most of your workforce can work from home
apparently Biden has promised a $15 federal min wage
and, magically, all the companies saying that work from home was unviable managed to pull it off 
Offices downsizing and relocating to cheaper states is a direct effect of COVID-19 forcing work from home. If you don't need anyone in the office aside from critical tasks, then why invest in a giant office?
there was a study done that said by like 2024 we'd need a 15$ fed min wage for the entire country so you could at least support yourself
as a single adult
Live in Tennessee and work from home, earn California wages ๐
Would live like royalty ๐
I'm sure "business climate" plays a role too, but remote work is a much more plausible explanation than the fact Florida has no corporate tax.
a $15 federal min wage is crazy but it's definitely needed
Yea. but companies have been forced into into accepting that they can do work from home, and with everything else going on, I can see this carrying on
If companies have a higher cost to operate, their services and goods have to go up in cost to compensate
there are tons of jobs in middle america where the labor isn't worth 15/hr
They've already gone up have they not?
At the very least federal minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation
But beyond that, meh
The "company" can move to Florida, but the workers can stay in California, or move to some other state that suits their fancy.
Housing and the cost of living compared to the influx of wages are incomparable
here's a novel idea. Why don't states create their own minimum wages that better match their climate?
adjusted for inflation we should be at like 13$ an hour or something
I can agree with it being tied to inflation since that makes economic sense
adjusted for inflation and productivity we should be at like... 23$ i think it was?
based on some high point in the late 60s
50 years ago; it was by far easier to save up, and purchase a home then it is now a days.
ten fold.
It still doesn't solve the underlying issues though
Not at all.
I just found out about this wealth tax thing bernie wants to do for the wealth gained during covid... nuts.
If you force business to increase the wage they're paying, it just inflates the cost of goods/sevices
Tax extreme wealth, somehow.
just pick the start of the covid as the lowest point in the stock market. cause then you'll steal the most
You are literally suggesting we keep the current system. This isn't a real fix, in fact there would be a regression. For instance, my home state of Georgia has a $5.85/hour minimum wage. This is demonstrably worse than the already inadequate $7.25/hr federal minimum wage. You are essentially advocating for the minimum wage to be cut.
The cost inflation doesn't keep up with the wage inflation
It can't, past a certain point people will change behaviors instead
lets say you're making 7.25 right now
Have the cost / prices of goods and services not already increased all whilst minimum wage stayed?
and the min wage doubles
Realistically empowering people to start businesses and get a good education is the foundation of a economically sound society
If McDonalds starts charging $20 for a meal people will go somewhere else or cook at home
but people in georgia voted people in who chose that, you can vote them out if you don't like it.
the cost of goods isn't going to double as well
Nobody should have an individual net worth of over $5 billion dollars lol
the people will still have more purchasing power
Redistribute excess wealth, some how.
that is absurd. take mr. musk for example, his net worth gain, isn't from taking money from other people, its literal wealth creation that didn't exist at all before
Our state is very well known for its voter suppression carried out by the people who'd rather people toil away for almost nothing, if you haven't read anything about it. It's the reason why Republicans hate Stacey Abrams.
How exactly did he make 200b?
You don't need that much wealth.
its not even "redistrubuting" it wasn't anyone elses in the first place
He didn't sell 50 million Teslas? He got his wealth from Investments no?
Okay, call it what you want. Distribute it
The big question is how do you allow people to invest into large new companies like spacex and tesla?
its called stealing really
No, it's called living in a society.
For god's sake, a lot of American states are barely democracies - North Carolina provides a rather hilarious example of this.
musk didnt cause his stock to be worth as much as it is...
it literally is NOT up to him
Well not directly.
Not too familiar with economics, so my guess would be funds for the company, not for the person.
you'd force him to give up a majority of his share in Tesla to take his money away?
that would cause a huge upheaval
I'd be up for that, give it to me.
Not sure, but some how so it's not tied to individual wealth and isn't easily accessible as individual wealth.
Nobody in this society needs an individual net worth of over $5 billion.
Isn't the point of a healthy and strong economy to have the flucutation of wealth, not frozen-wealth?
Excess of such individual worth should be given back to society.
Call it theft, I don't care.
If you have excess billions lying around; that's frozen-wealth doing nothing?
When so many people live in poverty, you have a social obligation.
these people dont have 100 billion dollars in CASH lying around
I mean, his net worth in liquid cash is nowhere near 5 billion.
I understand that it's not cash.
What exactly is it then if it's not cash and why is it valued?
It's mostly stock options.
no body has billions doing nothing.
its stake in a company
^
I'm not entirely sure that the poverty is a cause of people being stupidly rich
they money bezos/musk have (again) wasn't taken from someone else
Company is worth $50 billion, you own half the stock, you're worth $25 billion
wealth isn't a finite pie that each person has a share of
Yea blaming poverty on wealth is like saying something is wet because something else is so dry.
Who says how much the company is worth? The board who decides how much stock to issue and the market who decides what that stock is worth
I'm a little confused on why somoene gets labelled a networth value when it's not liquid cash; I've never really been explained the "total part" of a stock.
If it's non redeemable; is it really worth?
well its theoretically redeemable, but essentially yes, its almost non-redeemable
wealth inequality has mostly been a useful indicator of economic health
Can you purchase property with it?
The worse the inequality is the worse things are
you can trade stock for other things sure
So it's an actual asset is it not?
and you can certainly sell some of it if you need some quick cash
But you may not get the exact valuation of the stock from those trading. Depends on what they'd accept.
yes, its an asset. that has value, and you do own it
You don't sell your stock, you take out loans using it as collateral and use your salary and dividends to pay down the loan
yeah, that sounds better ^
Anyway, https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/justice-department-capitol-hill-attack/index.html
Needless to say, I think we're going to get a very clear picture of what went down, and it will be very gnarly.
well, musk doesn't get a salary
That's because federal investigators are grappling with a domestic radicalization problem, that presents complications due to First Amendment protections of political speech, different from radicalization tied to foreign terrorist groups. the benefits and woes of having such a robust 1st amendment
Also if someone like Musk started selling lots of his stock in Tesla the price would probably take a huge hit.
Walmart generated $129.359b in profits in 2019. Does this not mean that $129b in actual cash and wealth are sitting around somewhere?
well they probably spent a bunch of it...
Apple famously has like $250 billion in literal cash
Revenue was 523b
Profits includes expenses. So that's take home money.
Is that not Revenue?
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/revenue
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/gross-profit
Walmart annual/quarterly revenue history and growth rate from 2006 to 2020. Revenue can be defined as the amount of money a company receives from its customers in exchange for the sales of goods or services. Revenue is the top line item on an income statement from which all costs and expenses are subtracted to arrive at net income.
...
Walmart annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2006 to 2020. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
Walmart gross profit for the quarter ending October 31, 2020 was $34.36...
Revenue - Expenses = Profit
^^
So Walmart paid everyone their wages and all their other expenses and still made that much money in profit.
Walmart pays out dividends, no?
So basically Walmart could use that profit to increase wages
Who exactly has the rights to these funds?
Is it just sitting in a large walmart bank account?
wallmart does pay dividends. Are those included?
for some reason I don't think those are included in expenses
The most likely answer is the Board of Directors.
Those wouldn't be in expenses afaik
Walmart annual/quarterly net income history and growth rate from 2006 to 2020. Net income can be defined as company's net profit or loss after all revenues, income items, and expenses have been accounted for.
Walmart net income for the quarter ending October 31, 2020 was $5.135B, a 56.17% increase year-over-year.
Walmart ne...
I'm sure Walmart had a couple hundred billion cash on hand though
14.881b
They would approve budgets where the money would be moved from/to other accounts.
Amazon Net Income is 11.588b
How much is Walmart claiming in profits on their taxes/paying taxes on?
Huh, $9.465 billion cash on hand as of 2020
The ex-governor and several other former officials are expected to face imminent criminal charges for their role in the 2014 Flint water crisis.
well they pay 5,990,399,999.28 in dividends, so that some of it
Where is Walmart sending all that money? It has to be dividends then
it looks like $6 billion in dividends
This should've happened earlier.
Tesla Net Income was 862,000,000 in 2018
walmart only has ~8 billion cash on hand
How exactly does Elon Musk hold the title of the richest person? This part confuses me.
his company is worth like 800 billion
His net worth, which includes his stocks
has nothing to do with revenue
market value, is based on what value investors see in the company
and it changes all the time
So his wealth is determined on what other people invest in it?
He would never be able to claim his entire worth in liquid.
Oh
SpaceX is his other big holding, but that is a private company so they don't have to release any internal financial stuff
WTF, they actually are finally are doing something? Like that whole thing was disgusting, including what Obama did.
So lets say all of america decided to donate $500/e
How come he's not eligible to withdraw / cash out
people didn't donate the money
I know
they bought a stock, and the value of it went up
so it's worth more than it was before
that's the wealth creation part
If Musk starting selling off his Tesla stock there would be more in the market than the demand so the price would fall
Especially since demand would be deflated from seeing the creator selling off all their stock
Also would likely scare investors.
there is a fixed number of shares.
Scared investors dump stock.
Everyone failed, but the problem and fallout was precipitated by Rick Snyder and the "emergency manager" he appointed to run Flint. Snyder is the one whom most of the blame needs to go to.
Snyder caused the problem and he should be jailed.
Oh I agree. Was still disgusting how Obama treated them when he visited.
Just glad finally something is being done.
So the only reason Tesla skyrocketted no pun intended; was as a result of them having potential to return investments in the near future?
They thought Obama coming meant things were about to finally get fixed
It was Snyder's administration that decided to switch the water source for Flint. He is the one who is responsible for it.
Instead he drank some water and said it was fine
He didn't even drink it is the fun part
yes, investors saw tesla as being undervalued for what it does, so they bought stock assuming it would go up, and it did
He gaslit the fuck out of them.
There's video of an angle which shows that all he really did was placed it to his lips, licked them and was like, oooh, refreshing
Meaning Tesla has the potential to generate serious profits and revenues in the near future?
not really
He did that twice by the way, and said it was NOT a political stunt.
that is sometimes a part of investment strategy
but it takes big companies a long time to be consistently profitable
stocks are worth nothing until you try to leverage them, basically
If the price/earnings ratio is high that's supposed to mean investors think the company will be worth that much in the future
it took Amazon YEARS before they made a profit
the value of your stocks is generally more comparable to the hype behind them rather than the actual value of them
its all about future potential
Lets say I invest $2,000,0000 into Tesla, do they use this $2,000,000 into bettering there company? and in return my investments gets interest applied?
No, you gave $2m to me to sell my stock
Tesla only gets money when they issue new stock
well you aren't giving your 2mil directly to tesla, someone already did that when tesla released the shares
Trading afterward they don't get anything from
companies issue new stock, or sell stock the company holds when they want cash to do something
So how does my wealth impact Tesla in anyway if the funds aren't being applied to them
it doesn't
the price of the share only affects tesla when they sell stock themselves, or issue new stock
Starting to feel like I'm teaching my grade 10 economics class ๐
I know jack shit about economics or stocks, so when does class start?
I'd direct you to my teacher but I can't remember his name
companies sometimes buy back stock when they feel their own company is undervalued, so they can sell them at a later time to make a profit
and if they issue new shares, that can lower the price a bit because there is new supply, sometimes only temporarily tho
If the share price gets too high they might also do a stock split to get it back in to the day trader range
some companies don't like being in the day trader range
like amazon
their share price is like 3k right?
That's where they take your 1 stock at $100 and tell you now you have 2 stocks at $50 each
apple seems to like being there
Apple has done a lot of splits
maybe 27:1 split? I forget latest
I know of Stock Splitting but I just can't wrap my head around the fiatness of the money and so forth, if Elon's Networth is $200b and 95% of it's inaccessible is it really money I can't wrap around it.
Apple is a brand, they like it that their customers can also buy 1 share
its not inaccessible, it would just be unwise to "access" it
Keeps them invested (literally) in the brand
elon wants to have the control he has over the company
take tesla, maaaaannnnny people will argue that teslas stocks are over-priced
Is it possible to fuck over the company and just withdraw all $800b?
No
You'd be an idiot to buy tesla stock under that basis
Think of it like pokemon cards
But, at the same point, there is such a hype behind it, it may get even higher
I think what Nermin is saying is, is it really $200B if you can't just liquidate it all into that estimated worth ๐
He has a box full of first edition charizards (shares) that the market says are worth a lot of money
well I think people like to include stock holdings in net worth cause it makes the number higher, and everyone loves a new highest whatever
like movie box office numbers
no one every adjusts for inflation
They're keeping score
cause Gone with the Wind would destroy everything
So his $800b is solely-dependent on the amount of people whom have put money into the Stock itself then
well he doesnt have 800b
Yea
that's tesla's net worth, not his
I wouldn't put it like that
the amount of people who own stock isn't a factor
The amount the people put in?
also, Apple was the first company to get to 2 trillion market value, unadjusted for invlation.
yeah, I def was looking at worldwide then.
There is a gap but it's not in a different ballpark
adujsted for inflation, the Dutch East India Company, would've been worth 7.8 trillion
but they had an army so...
kinda a different sort of company
Apple was the first to 1 trillion, unless I'm looking at a different measure none are at 2 trillion yet
Considering over 2 trillion was dumped into the economy over the past year and a half; where has all this wealth gone? surely there's a large collector no?
apple is at 2.17 trillion right now
Oh, this page stopped in April
How much currency is in circulation right now?
Less than 1% of all wealth, surely
if you are talking about literal paper money, that question doesnt mean anything
Fed Reserve says $2T as of Dec 2020
