Stupid shit in Medellin

[Huacho]

Clearly no capitalist governments, it would be against their manifesto to help the people. But now your defence is "sorry sir, I know I did bad but they did it too!

I'm not defending anything. I just don't think someone who's never been to a country can have a legitimate point of view about it. But you're not limited to capitalist governments if you care to list accomplishments of other forms of government.

[JustTK]

I guess now would be a good time to start naming all the good, altruistic governments out there. Here's my list:

Clearly no capitalist governments, it would be against their manifesto to help the people. But now your defence is "sorry sir, I know I did bad but they did it too!

[Huacho]

What has the USA Govt done of significance for altruistic purposes?

I guess now would be a good time to start naming all the good, altruistic governments out there. Here's my list:

[JustTK]

Besides the bad things, can you provide some information on the good things that the country has done if there is any?

Many of the best independent journalists are USAn, for example Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibi, Kim Iverson, Max Blumenthal. They often start their own news channels bcos they are forced out of mainstream news bcos they refuse to conform to the corrupted mainstream.

USAns have done many great things in science and technology. BUt too often these have been co-opted for financial gain for the establishment, especially since WW2. Also many great contributions in also entertainment and sport.

What has the USA Govt done of significance for altruistic purposes? - I struggle to think of anything. It most often involves itself only for personal gain / security.

[JustTK]

Fact checking. Any clown can make and post a You Tube video. I can verify controls are in place due to things like Snope. Also Reuters, BBC, and other sources have developed reputations over the years. Not perfect, but better than random trolls.

Seems any clown can make a TV news channel too. Look at all the lies that come from the mainstream USA News Channels. Over and over again, the lies to support the establishment narrative. It never stops. No fact checking at all. Or if there is fact checking then its by fact chekers that they appoint themselves. No independence at all.

In the case of BBC. What good is fact checking if they are just going to ignore the story if the facts don't align with their narrative? This happens all the time too. Stories are simply buried if they don't like them. On the rae occassion that they have been critical of the establishment, this has lead to the firing of the BBC Head and managment team. In what way is this 'better'?

Random trolls. Who suggested randon trolls? I suggest you seek out proven YT channels for independent news.

[Nounce]

Huacho, What control do you believe are lacking from Youtube and how can you verify that these controls are in place and effective in the media platforms you prefer?

I read and aware of the things that the government have done. For example, CIA and Iran. There is actually a PBS documentary about it.

Besides the bad things, can you provide some information on the good things that the country has done if there is any?

[Huacho]

Huacho, What control do you believe are lacking from Youtube and how can you verify that these controls are in place and effective in the media platforms you prefer?

Fact checking. Any clown can make and post a You Tube video. I can verify controls are in place due to things like Snope. Also Reuters, BBC, and other sources have developed reputations over the years. Not perfect, but better than random trolls. If that economist you posted about the other day is Mohammed El-Erian, he is a good economist but has been preaching gloom and doom (like a lot.

Of bond guys; he used to run PIMCO) for the entirety of the thirty years I've been watching him. Occasionally he is right, kind of like Elvis or a stopped clock.

[JustTK]

I don't get my information from You Tube videos..

Huacho, What control do you believe are lacking from Youtube and how can you verify that these controls are in place and effective in the media platforms you prefer?

[SubCmdr]

Really? So you get your info from where? Your propagandised mainstream media? Youtube, and more so Rumble, are far more independent as sources of legitimate news (if you weed out the mainstream outlets).

And I don't visit countries about which I have to talk shlt. I would never spend any time in a police terror state in the stage of a fading empire. The leaders simply murder people who have different opinions. Far too dangerous for me.

USA, a Police state?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl_fgvH1BDA

Refute the video if u can.

It is perfectly ok for him not to watch it. He is not interested in an intellectual discussion where information is shared. I see his posts as just putting on a short skirt and grabbing his pom moms to cheer for his country of origin. No real interest acknowledging the real problems. If his country of origin was so great, why is he in Colombia paying to get his fuck on?

I receive life changing information that is spot on from YouTube all the time. It is like a video store of informational value. I once needed to learn how to tie a bow tie. 15 minutes watching a YouTube video and 15 minutes of practice and I was Mr. Bow Tie. You know what they say:

Every girl crazy about a sharp dressed man - ZZ Top.

[JustTK]

I'm not going to watch it. I don't get my information from You Tube videos. I also don't talk shit about countries I haven't even been to.

Really? So you get your info from where? Your propagandised mainstream media? Youtube, and more so Rumble, are far more independent as sources of legitimate news (if you weed out the mainstream outlets).

And I don't visit countries about which I have to talk shlt. I would never spend any time in a police terror state in the stage of a fading empire. The leaders simply murder people who have different opinions. Far too dangerous for me.

USA, a Police state?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl_fgvH1BDA

Refute the video if u can.

[SubCmdr]

Amendment Twelve to the Constitution was ratified on June 15,1804. It revises and outlines the procedure of how Presidents and Vice Presidents are elected, specifically so that they are elected together.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The 43 president of the United States of America was inappropriately granted the presidency by the United States Supreme Court. They should have stayed out of it. Instead they decided to to pick the next head of the branch of the executive for the United States Government.

Separation of Powers Doctrine

Over the course of our history, the Supreme Court has elaborated on the separation-of-powers doctrine in several cases addressing the three branches of government. At times, the Court has determined that one branchs actions have infringed upon the core functions of another.

https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00000031/

There is noting more core than the selection of the President of the United States of America. It is matter that is delegated exclusively to the States that make up the United Union. The States rights were usurped by the Supreme Court Ruling. The Supreme Court also violated the Separation of Powers Doctrine when they awarded the presidency to #43. The election was stolen from the American People.

I believe at if the same situation would happen again the court would realize that is it legitimacy as a independent branch of the United Staes Government is a risk and they would fail to hear the case and stay in their lane.

[Villainy]

This assumes that that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is never wrong.

Not even close. What it means is that 7 of the 9 justices believed it was appropriate to hear this case. Obviously you know better. I am surprised they didn't consult you.

There is no room for interpretation of this section.

That might be one of the silliest things you have ever written. There is always room for interpretation. No document, constitution, series of laws etc covers every potential disagreement for all eternity. The world evolves, which, of course, is why we have courts. To interpret and apply laws to situations that are not specifically defined. In time, legislatures write or rewrite laws to remain current with contemporary life. But until that happens, we have courts.

FUCK! read your mother fucking constitution!

Article II Section 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

There is no room in this document for the Supreme Court of the United States to make a ruling like they did. They did not have the right to make the decision. That is a fact. You have never pointed out where in the Constitution of the United States allows the Supreme Court to decide who the next President of the United States should be. Especially on a split decision. The mere fact that 7 of the 9 justices decided to hear the case means only that 2 knew and understood the role of the court in this pivotal moment in history. Congress should have impeached the 5 judges who were in the majority.

You want say my "opinions are uninformed and wrong". But your opinions are not based on what the Constitution of the United States says.

Where does it say this? Make the logical argument using the text of the constitution or rulings of the court to support your "opinion". Otherwise it carries no more weigh than mine does.

Article III.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States,between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This section of Article III makes it abundantly clear that the Supreme Court had the authority to grant "certiorari" and hear the case.

[Huacho]

A video about the decline of USA empire by a USAn economist. Espec for Huacho.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyw6vD2kiew

If you watch this and feel anger, or reject it bcos you don't believe it, then you have a strong case of cognitative dissonance. Unsubstantiated bias.

I have a simple solution; I'm not going to watch it. I don't get my information from You Tube videos. I also don't talk shit about countries I haven't even been to.

[SubCmdr]

Maybe so, but are they factual?

No they are only your opinions.

That is your opinion and is simply not true. You can clothe your argument however you like, the constitution did indeed (and still does) allow the Court to hear state cases that have a federal nexus. It goes without saying that an election to determine the President of the United States indeed has a federal nexus. Another fact that you like to overlook is that 7 of the 9 justices agreed to hear the case.

This assumes that that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is never wrong.

Have you ever actually read the text of the Constitution of the United States of America?

Article 1; Section. 4. of the Constitution of the United States of America says the following:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof

The Supreme Court held no jurisdiction in this matter and as such should have declined to rule on the case of the 2000 election. It was a matter strictly for the Florida court system. The Supreme Court of the United States of America effectively decided who would be the next head of the the executive branch of government. The judges stole the election from the people of the United States of America. (opinion).

There is no room for interpretation of this section.

FUCK! read your mother fucking constitution!

Article II Section 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

There is no room in this document for the Supreme Court of the United States to make a ruling like they did. They did not have the right to make the decision. That is a fact. You have never pointed out where in the Constitution of the United States allows the Supreme Court to decide who the next President of the United States should be. Especially on a split decision. The mere fact that 7 of the 9 justices decided to hear the case means only that 2 knew and understood the role of the court in this pivotal moment in history. Congress should have impeached the 5 judges who were in the majority.

You want say my "opinions are uninformed and wrong". But your opinions are not based on what the Constitution of the United States says.

the constitution did indeed (and still does) allow the Court to hear state cases that have a federal nexus.

Where does it say this? Make the logical argument using the text of the constitution or rulings of the court to support your "opinion". Otherwise it carries no more weigh than mine does.

I attended high-school in a small town, and did not attend a highly touted prepatory school. We were required to take two years of Civics and one of those classes was devoted exclusively to the Constitution. So yes, like most people my age, our secondary school education required taking a class (or 2 at my school) in Civics and the Constitution was a central topic of study. Oddly enough, in my university classes (both bachelor's and master's) no Civics classes were required.

Even with this excellent public education (similar to mine) you still refuse to read the source document and make a decision for yourself if the Supreme Court was out of line or not.

The court has often recognized it's own errors. This not the forum for this but take a look at this decision: Brown v. Board of Education. How can this happen if the court is never wrong?

[SubCmdr]

The historic actions of all those countries pale in to insignificance when compared to the actions of the USA. Both domestic and international. None of those countries had the empirical reach to be able to commit the same atrocities. Look USA now has 2 genocides under its name. Thats one more than Hitler. Not to mention the horror of being the only country to use nuclear bombs.

Where I am from is not relevant. I would not feel compelled to defend the bad part of its history just bcos I am from there; I would criticise it just the same. I am not biased, like you seem to claim would be justified behaviour.

You are keep it 100 JustTK. Read a few the latest posts here. The rah rah USA mother fuckers with there pom poms and short skirts on don't even know what the founding document (The Constitution of the United States) of their own country says. LOL!.

I would have guessed Great Britain, he has that air of unwarranted superiority about him.

This guy calls me sub human and then comments on his perceived superiority of someone else. GTF!

How you like me now?