[ Politics ] Open question: A liberal co-worker pulled my MAGA hat from my desk and pushed it through his bhole. That I have to do?

[ Politics ] Open question: A liberal co-worker pulled my MAGA hat from my desk and pushed it through his bhole. That I have to do? .

[ Politics ] Open question: When Europe falls to Islam, will it become a threat to America?

[ Politics ] Open question: When Europe falls to Islam, will it become a threat to America? .

[ Law Enforcement & Police ] Open question: Will I pass my drug test after 10 days?

I smoked wax 10 days ago and tomorrow I have my drug test in the urine. I'm not a daily smoker the last time I smoked before the beginning of May. Will it show positive? .

Do you prefer to sweat gas or vinegar?

I've seen so many war movies in the Gulf where the gas has turned into "liquid gold" in my brain.

Of course, in this hypothetical one one would have to stay away from many different things so that they do not ignite.

Vinegar probably smells better than my sweat, so maybe that's it.


[ Politics ] Open question: Why do liberals admire North Korea?

[ Politics ] Open question: Why do liberals admire North Korea? .

Why do so many people hate Donald Trump?


What is the reason why the United States is so divided?

Politics has always been divisive. Hell, some of our founders were killed in DUELS. There were fights on the floor of the congress.

However, I think we are seeing a period in which both parties AND THEIR VOTERS are moving further and further away from the center. I have three main causes.

1) Computer-assisted partisan gerrymandering. There is nothing new about partisan gerrymandering. What is different is that computers and demographic data mean that it is now possible for consultants to draw hyper-precise maps to achieve VERY specific electoral results. As a result, general elections are safer than ever. The holders who lose almost ALWAYS do so in their primaries. SCOTUS recently went on to address this, and I can not blame their legal logic for doing so. But this is a BIG problem, and both parties do it.

Safe general elections and threatening primaries mean that the average politician only receives threats from his extreme flank. They do not have to worry about a centrist threat. So they become more extreme to inoculate themselves from the main challengers.

2) McCain-Feingold and another reform of campaign funding. Every time someone talks to you about how to get money out of politics, you should punch them. Each financial reform of the campaign has resulted in making holders more secure, and the largest was McCain-Feingold (MF).

The main contribution of MF was to eliminate Soft Money, which was the people who donated to the parties instead of the candidates, and then the parties that disbursed that money. Because he was uncovered, unlike Hard Money (which went to the candidates), advocates of the campaign reform claimed it was a source of corruption. This was a lie.

The party almost always spent soft money in the name of the CHALLENGES, not the incumbents. Holders have an integrated advantage in money and fame and generally do not need help. So parties usually spent money on challengers. In other words, Soft Money was making the most COMPETITIVE choices. That's why the owners hated soft money.

3) Modern means. Let's not fool ourselves, the media in the United States has never been as good as people sometimes think. Yellow journalism and the use of newspapers for personal attacks of vendettas is as old as the very existence of the printing press. Maybe older

But what has changed is that somewhere on the line, people developed faith in journalists. A misplaced faith. And the industry has been fragmented and decayed since then. Now everyone chooses their news source to confirm their own biases. Liberals only listen to liberally skewed sources, conservatives only read conservatively biased sources.

And in all sources, the journalistic responsibility is gone. The days of each item that require two or more RELIABLE sources to go to print are gone. Now, even the slightest rumor goes straight to the air. Being FIRST is more important than being CORRECT. And retractions are rarely issued, and never prominently. It is not uncommon for opinion to be passed off as journalism, and many viewers can not tell where one ends and the other begins.

Because people choose their own sources to satisfy their prejudices, most people live in echo chambers where they never hear the opposite ideas presented in their original form … instead, at best they will hear opposing ideas presented in a slanted derogatory way that ensures no one can find common ground.


[ Politics ] Open question: Is it true that if you do not agree with a liberal, are you a racist?

[ Politics ] Open question: Is it true that if you do not agree with a liberal, are you a racist? .

Why is American life expectancy lower than in other first world countries?

Statistical manipulation and comparisons of apples with oranges.

First, most other OECD countries do not count every birth. They often exclude any child who has died in a critical period of time or who was born with a low birth weight. Since most child deaths are exactly that, this makes other countries seem that their infant mortality rate is much better than that of EE. UU., What counts each birth as expected. This also affects life expectancy. When comparisons of apples to apples are made (and many studies have) the infant mortality rate in the USA. UU It is really EXCELLENT.

However, in addition to that, the United States has a couple of problems. One is a bit of violence in our cities, and we drive many kilometers and we have more accidents, but the biggest one is unhealthy habits. Especially our diets. How to put this delicately? We are fatasses We eat unhealthy diets and obesity is strongly correlated with almost all important diseases, so despite having a high quality health system (again, there are studies of apples with apples that compare health outcomes of similar diagnoses and the US health system for them), the life expectancy in the United States. UU It's not that big because we have such a high initial incidence of everything from diabetes to heart disease and cancer, and much more … all this is related to bad diets and obesity.


Why do not the Republicans move and start their own country?

Conservatives tried it in 1861. If they had listened to Sherman in 1860, then they would not have needed to burn their cities on land when they led their troops on their famous march to the sea in 1864.

"You, people of the south, do not know what you are doing, this country will be soaked with blood, and only God knows how it will end … Everything is madness, madness, a crime against civilization! You speak so softly of war, You do not know what you're talking about, the war is a terrible thing, you also confuse the people of the North, they are peaceful people but serious people, and they will fight too, will not you let this country be destroyed without a great effort to save it? … Besides, where are your men and war equipment to fight against them? The North can make a steam engine, a locomotive or a railroad car, just a cloth yard, or you can wear a pair of shoes. You are launching into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on Earth, right at your doorstep.You are bound to fail.Only with your spirit and determination you are prepared for war.In everything else, you are not prepa with a bad cause to begin with. At first, you will advance, but as your limited resources begin to fail, excluding yourself from the markets of Europe, your cause will begin to diminish. If their people stop and think, they should see at the end that they will surely fail. "