Hamburg is a warzone thanks to far-left anarchists
-
What evidence do you have that "globalization is great". How has globalization made Europe a better place in any way shape or form?
I think the user was referring to free trade and open markets, which are part of globalization. Globalization is typically broken down into the: Free movement of people; Free movement of information; Free movement of goods and services.
Many European countries have benefited from globalization, for example Germany did after its reunification. However, there are winners and losers in globalization.
If your argument is that globalization is inherently bad and produces no benefit to people, then you would have to prove that.
-
If your argument is that globalization is inherently bad and produces no benefit to people, then you would have to prove that.
I did not argue whether globalization is bad or good. I'm simply asking for empircal evidence that globalization "is great". You named a few features of globalization such as free movement of people between countries. Has this been shown at all to benefit the countries taking in immigrants in any way? In terms of quality of life, happiness measurements, etc. I'm an empiricist, show me the data.
-
Pucci, liberals are far, far more violent than conservatives ever could be in the U.S. The numbers are not on your side.
No, the numbers aren't even close. The number of attacks by leftists far FAR outweigh the attacks by the right. The large majority of gun violence is committed by democrats:
Source: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/robert-farago/firearms-related-homicides-democratic-vs-republican-affiliation/
Source 2: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/01/ted-cruz/are-overwhelming-majority-violent-criminals-democr/And yes I see that Politifact rating, as it is biased. The thing is, even though they try to qualify the issue, they still have to report the numbers. Here are the numbers from the politifact article:
For instance, in New York, about one-third of felons released from prison registered to vote after their release. Of those, about 62 percent registered as Democrats and 9 percent registered as Republicans, with 26 percent registering as independents or with other parties.
In North Carolina, about a quarter of those who were released registered after their release. Of those, 52 percent registered as Democrats, 19 percent as Republicans and 22 percent as independents or with other parties.
And in New Mexico, 41 percent of those who were released registered to vote. Of those, 55 percent registered as Democrats, 10 percent as Republicans and 18 percent as independents or with other parties.
These things are true. Not mostly true, or mostly false, just true.
You need to stop denying that there is an issue with left wing violence. The numbers and statistics are not on your side. The anecdotes are not on your side. The video documentation is not on your side.
Here is a video of ultra-left wing black bloc rioters in Hamburg smashing windows and setting the city on fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRjonStJv0
Will you continue to argue there is no problem specifically with left wing violence?
Strange loop, the two articles you cite are statistically flawed. The most important statistic is left out, which is the prevalence of political parties in the US:
From Wikipedia:
Gallup polling in 2010 that found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents.
So most murders are committed by independents, if we are to use the logic of the first author. The fact that blacks commit violent crimes out of proportion to their population has little to do with their party affiliation. That article is not even a study. It is a methodologically flawed manipulation of statistics by a pro-gun site.
You politifact study purports to show that ex-felons vote Democratic. Even if it were true , it says nothing about politically inspired leftist violence. You might try refining your Google search. These studies are meant to discredit those calling for gun control.
Go ahead. Google liberal violence. You will find a lot of objectionable rhetoric, the shooting attack on the Republican baseball team (which was roundly condemned by liberal, including Bernie) and little else. Yet Buzz Feed counted 28 incidents of violence and racism in THE FIRST WEEK after the election. Why do you refuse to acknowledge all of these blatant incidents, including the ones I cited before? -
Strange loop, the two articles you cite are statistically flawed. The most important statistic is left out, which is the prevalence of political parties in the US:
From Wikipedia:
Gallup polling in 2010 that found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents.So most murders are committed by independents, if we are to use the logic of the first author. The fact that blacks commit violent crimes out of proportion to their population has little to do with their party affiliation. That article is not even a study. It is a methodologically flawed manipulation of statistics by a pro-gun site.
This is why I cited both a conservative source and a liberal source. Both sources are flawed, but post-analysis of both articles it is possible to determine the truth on the matter based on only the data, not the spin of the pundits. The second article was indeed based on a academic study. A 2% differential between democrats and republicans does little to distort the 30%+ delta e.g. in North Carolina recorded in the study. Read again the quote:
In North Carolina, about a quarter of those who were released registered after their release. Of those, 52 percent registered as Democrats, 19 percent as Republicans and 22 percent as independents or with other parties.
Go ahead. Google liberal violence. You will find a lot of objectionable rhetoric, the shooting attack on the Republican baseball team (which was roundly condemned by liberal, including Bernie) and little else. Yet Buzz Feed counted 28 incidents of violence and racism in THE FIRST WEEK after the election. Why do you refuse to acknowledge all of these blatant incidents, including the ones I cited before?
If all you can find is "little else" on liberal violence you are not even trying. There is copious video documentation of violence against conservatives and not so much against liberals. For every video you find of Trump supporters attacking liberals, I can probably find you 10 of vice versa. There have also been a huge number of hate crime hoaxes, some of them very high profile incidents, and to ignore this effect is disingenuous.
Meanwhile, you still cannot fake video documentation. Unless you're willing to argue that only conservatives carry around smart phones, there should be no bias in the ability of either side to record the violence of the other. And there is much more documentation of violence against conservatives, as I keep showing in threads like these.
It's time to stop being ignorant of the issue of liberal violence.
P.S.: I just went through the Buzzfeed article you mentioned, and actually ONLY TWO of those incidents contained any actual physical violence. So you are being disingenuous even by the dubious claims of Buzz Feed and their low standards. Think about how low you have to sink in order to be lower than Buzz Feed. Buzz Feed is not a reputable site. It is literally a clickbait site and doesn't even pretend to be anything else. And yet it doesn't even support the claim you've made by citing it.
-
I hate to say this but how the "western world" is exploiting rest of the planet and people - we actually don't have any rights over others to do that. As citizens we all must be equal, not just in the "first world", but the whole world. A lot of politics and programs aims to slowly but steadily move society to be coherent in every part of the globe.
-
When have I implied that extremism is acceptable? I have said that it is a problem on both the left and the right. The radical left causes the radical right to come out and vice-versa.
Wait, you said you didn't have to condemn the violence because you aren't the President.
Do I need to get out my mod tools and see if you were one of the 6 that downvoted RoyalCrown89 and the others who condemned the violence?
-
How can the number of videos you find on the web possibly tell you anything at all about the relative incidence of violence of right vs left? Do you have a web crawler embedded in your brain that diligently scours every website on earth? Even if you id, there would be a bias related to which videos were posted and published. Perhaps leftist violence seems on the rise since it was virtually non-existent for the past ten years.
Your North Carolina study does nothing for your argument. That study looked at how ex-felons registered (either democrat or Republican after they were released. They did not distinguish between violent and non-violent felons. They did not look at party affiliation at the time the crime was committed. Believe it or not, there are conservative democrats, and although they are a rare bird now, there are liberal republicans. Even the authors of your beloved study did their data did not support Senator Cruz's assertion.
Try again. -
How can the number of videos you find on the web possibly tell you anything at all about the relative incidence of violence of right vs left?
The internet is more than leftist media.
-
How can the number of videos you find on the web possibly tell you anything at all about the relative incidence of violence of right vs left?
The internet is more than leftist media.
But it is not a scientific sample
-
Comparing the internet to mainstream media, you get a much more honest view of the world from the internet.
Mainstream media has a leftist agenda.
-
We have a problem then. The internet does not have reporting or accuracy standards. Video can be edited, and like with any other medium, stories can be selectively covered. You cannot reliably depend on a balancing or opposing view being presented by another party. Of course, there is inherent "click selection.," where you preferably watch or read what appeals to you and your world view.
I actually think you are more prone to bias by relying on the internet than by seeking a range of outlets in MSM. -
Oh, do you mean like CNN edited that clip of the black girl saying not to riot in her area? The mainstream media claimed she called for peace and calm, when in reality she called for the blacks to destroy the suburbs. CNN only changed their story once they were caught in the lie. After they were forced to change the story, they still downplayed what she was saying.
Of course, you'll excuse this away too.
-
I am not going to explain it away. CNN made a mistake and corrected it. If the edited video had appeared on youtube, would it ever have ben corrected? See what I mean by reporting standards? You love when the media makes mistakes, but never give them credit when they issue a retraction. The mistake justifies your claim of biased "fake news."
-
If it was on YouTube, it would have been caught, just like they did with CNN.
CNN still downplayed her message, in the "corrected" reporting.
CNN had an agenda in the way they originally edited and reported the story.
They only "fixed" it because they got caught, not because it was the honest thing to do.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login