It benefits a few corporations in the short term but not America in general. And if the oil prices rise and stay high, there will be demand destruction. US sits on top of the capital food chain and will be hurt.
When an officer has reasonable suspicion that a civilian poses a threat to his life, he can shoot them. Once police start shooting they are trained to continue shooting until the target is incapacitated. That's the law. Whether the recent shootings you saw meet that standard is up for debate.
Younger generations are probably more racist than their parents but not their grandparents. There are a lot of reasons this probably happened, and it wasn't something done to infants, but transpired over the last 10-15 years.
It wants Hyundai's investment and it wants to create American jobs and also have Hyundai follow the laws. The extremity of the right is fueled by an apparently prevalent reluctance to enforce any rules.
Humbly, I think this thinking is part of the problem. The incumbents were crushed because they mostly all copied each other and are seen as part of the same system. There are Western parties which have behaved differently and were not crushed. It wasn't just a meteorological event.
Many actually do not seem to know this, especially in the political/think tank class. There are highly placed Democratic officials who blame inflation and point to this research.
I think whatever the surveys said, the egg prices/inflation actually had little to do with Trump victory and the left shouldn't be misled by this. People vote now for emotional reasons, reasons of identity, and these rational reasons are mostly cover--something you tell a pollster but not the real truth. Take note of anyone you know who gave this reason and see what they say about 6 months of manufacturing decline, slowing job growth, or about the inevitable inflation from tariffs...I bet most defend it in some way.
The right is now split into a faction that rejects foreign interventions and wants to withdraw, if not total isolationist then something in that direction, and another faction. At the elite level this other faction is ascendant. The lesson they have drawn from US military failures from Vietnam to GWOT is different from the former faction. In their view the problem is that we were not aggressive enough, we were too constrained by overly legalistic and conservative rules of engagement and various ideological goals which polluted the prosecution of the wars and prevented us from "winning". They DO want a more cruel, more aggressive force posture. They admire and defend Israel in large part because they see it as a model of a force which really believes in "winning". A substantial portion of the voter base is attracted to this, enthused by the prospect of aggressive campaigns in Latin America with relaxed rules of engagement, and sees the renaming to Department of War as a "based" declaration of this doctrine. The country is moving more in this direction and the more isolationist (kind of "Buchananite") wing is getting purged again, but with some concessions made to them.
I am not sure the left has any answer to this right now because it has discredited itself with so many, especially losing a lot of younger men (those under 21 heavily favor Republicans), and generally the country may simply be moving in this direction. I think be clear eyed what you are facing.
This just isnt true about "statistical chance". The IQ distributions are very different and a huge amount of the top talent emigrates anyway. 130 iq is order 1/100 in america and more than 1/1000 in india. Population difference doesnt make up the gap.
> My comment about "people" actually wasn't the hyperbole part; The "nobody" statements were the hyperbole.
Yes that's clear. I was put off by the "people" comment, and separately by the "hyperbole" (which I still think are just wrong statements but it is fine if we disagree).
> I did a study when I was younger of "readers" of the Bible, and found that, although many people will say that they read it, very few had enough knowledge to make that statement believable (Even on simple questions like "Who baptised who when Jesus met with John the Baptist, and why?" or "Why was Jesus so down on the Pharisees?" - many couldn't even tell me how many gospels there are!). So I find readership statements suspect, and stick to my original assessment that people rarely read the iconic works of the world, but rather rely upon what "everyone knows" about them.
I thought your comment was elitist for a few reasons. The most important is the way you portray "people" (the common man or woman is my inference of what you are talking about). You say "People remember only simple things, and like simple reasoning and solutions, which is what made him popular in the first place." I also object to your comment because I don't think this is a valid way to use hyperbole, if that is what you want to call it, since you aren't so much exaggerating as just saying things without a basis in fact. The Bible is probably the most read book in the world, or at least close. In vast swathes of the US, a large percentage or even most people read it consistently and even structure their lives around discussing it. Worldwide, there are over 2 billion Christians (focusing on just one religion) and a lot of these people are reading the bible, not just using it as posturing, signaling or ornamentation as you seem to imply. Mein Kampf has been widely read, and was a bestseller as recently as 2017 (in Germany!). While some no doubt use this as a symbol or ornament, it would be striking to me if a lot of people weren't reading at least part of it in all parts of the world, including the US. Still, despite being completely confused by your first paragraph, I mostly agree with your conclusion that coming after this book will just have the opposite effect and that it would be better to focus on actual crimes/other problems. I would want the poster from Germany to know that millions of Americans read the Bible and probably Mein Kampf, that this mostly goes fine, and that while some Americans might like a more German approach, a very large number probably don't want hardly any books banned or even made difficult to get and that this concept of free speech is very deeply held. If you're American, I think free speech is especially important right now because we all need to be talking with each other. The first paragraph in your comment also gave me the impression you might be out of touch with a very large portion of Americans, but I may be overstepping there.
Lots of non-preachers read the Bible. Less people read mein Kampf but I know of some (some friends at school, some teachers at uni, some people on YouTube). I think Dr. Seuss was a bit of a symbol before, but now is definitely a symbol. I don't think your distinction here is very clean and your comment is elitist.
Thank you for the correction regarding the reduction goals. I wasn't aware the targets were new, or that Covid had changed the picture from articles I read last year. Still, I think my point stands that the numbers can be taken two ways. If you compare France which has a heavy reliance on nuclear---it has something like <10% contribution from fossil fuel sources. It could be that if Germany had increased its nuclear contribution, along with trying to increase the other renewables, the coal/gas numbers would be even lower.