My post was actually about religion and I only used gun control as a theoretical comparison.
However, it seems funny to me that you start by stating that 'gun control is ineffective', and then proceed to describe gun control in great detail and praise it.
Gun control =/= banning all guns.
I don't know which TV have you been watching, but you seriously have zero fucking clue about who Kamala Harris is. She specifically just vowed to do everything to reach piece in Gaza: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-election-2024-donald-trump-rhetoric-darkens-kamala-harris-vows-gaza-peace-in-final-hours-6938437
It's enough to whatch a few interviews with both Trump and Kamala to know about their character and where their heart is. None of them are particularly good liars, actually their both pretty bad at it. The difference is: Trump voters don't care at all how many lies he's telling them, so he does it constantly. Kamala's voters immediately start turning away from her when she's caught/seems to be lying, so she can't really afford to do it. It's the classic double standard between D and R candidates on all levels.___
His point about Nazi's attacking the Church is also blatantly false BTW. Nazi's had a bit of a conflict with the Catholic church at the beginning, but they quickly reconciled and pretty much enabled them. Nazi's also created their own version of Christianity, the biggest difference to other branches being that they claimed Jesus wasn't actually jew, but of Aryan descent, and Hitler was the new Messiah:
Religious morality keeps changing as well. A few hundred years ago according to Christianity it was morally right to use black people as slaves, because they had no souls. Luckily, society has progressed and gradually it became immoral to enslave people all over the world. In the end, Christianity had no choice but to accept this - although it took some wars to convince them everywhere about it.
She most certainly isn't OK with it. She said she wants to end the war and have peace several times. She is not a sociopath, unlike Trump, so if she had the means, she would gladly stop supporting Israel with guns. Unfortunately, she does not - at the moment. Why does she not?
Because Israel and Bibi is supporting both Democrats and Republicans in the US elections, and has been for decades (although Bibi naturally leans towards Trump recently, as a fellow autocrat and dictator-wannabe). But Israel is actually lobbying for both sides and partially financing them, as well as having a lot of media under their control that can campaign for or attack any or both of them. They arguably can influence 1-2-3% of voters to swing one way or the other. And that is enough to keep both D and R parties/candidates on their sides, as the gap between the two parties are so small, that those few percents could easily decide the election.
So what would be a solution? If both D and R are dependent on Israel to win elections, what could be done? Well, if one side would win by a huge margin, bigger than those few percents, than they would no longer need the political support from Israel. Of, course, if this was Trump, he would still support them, because he likes other dictators and wannabe dictators, like Bibi, Putin, Orbán or Kim. They all help each other out against democratic countries.
But if Kamala would have a commanding win, that would actually enable her to not care about Israel's political support anymore and do the right thing: end military support for Israel and thus stop the genocide. Let's hope that she will have this power.
Organized religion is a really effective way and tool for brainwashing. Of course there are many other tools as well, but religion is probably the best one. That's why it's so popular.
Just like with guns. If you control and ban firerarms, there are still going to be some murders. But much-much less, because you take away the easiest way of commiting one.
The usual way to fix these things is civil war. Don't worry, you won't have to start it, the racists and fascists will do it for you. And then they'll get annihilated, like always.
This is because they may be loud, aggressive, greedy, hateful and boastful which all help them start and ramp up wars. But they are also stupid, cowardly, irrational, week minded and a minority, which make them loose these wars.
Literally everybody here gets this. It's in the fucking title of the post... And it is also exactly why everybody is hating on JB now and downvoting your comments. JB should have stood by his lifelong friend and creative partner, and care fuck all about the corporatist PR image after one bad joke. Especially because Kyle's joke wasn't a career endingly bad one. But JB made it out to be one. He has effectively killed KG's career now, by blowing the thing way out of proportion, completely unnecessarily. All because he thought that HIS career was in danger too. That is why everybody is angry at him now. He has acted 100% selfishly.
What he should have done, if anything, was to say sthing like, "Kyle made a mistake, it was a joke in bad taste. But I've known him forever, I know he's a good man with a good heart. He will reflect on this and learn from it and do better in the future. An assassination attempt, and the death of an innocent bystander can never be a joke. We will dedicate the oncoming stages of the tour and all proceeds from it to the family of the victim. Blah blah blah". That's all JB had to do and say.
Instead he threw KG totally under the bus, ended his career, and by making the morally wrong choice, probably damaged his own as well.
there's no abundance of it, especially not enough for everyone to switch to EV.
That's not true at all. There are 1.4 billion cars in the world now, while the lithium ores that are readily available for mining (22 million tons) were estimated to be enough for 2.8 billion cars a year ago. Twice the amount of cars existing today.
But since then, there was already another massive stockpile discovered in the US, that alone is bigger than that (20-40 million tons), so enough for another 3-5 billion cars. But there will surely be discovered new sites, now that we are actually, intensely looking for it. We have been looking for oil for more than a century now and are still discovering new reserves. Lithium will be the same.
Nokia was way more dominant in the phone market than Toyota in the automotive industry. Yet, when it was time to jump on the new technology that everyone else was jumping on (android), they fell into the sunk cost fallacy and stood by their own, outdated tech (symbian). That promptly got them bankrupt. Toyota may still change its course, but if they wait too long, they are going to end up just like Nokia did.
Who would have thunk?
That is still overpriced i think. Although, much less egregious than what Nv is doing. Launch msrp for a HD7850, which was the same category as the 6700XT today (upper middle tier) was 250 usd. A few years prior the 4850 started at 200 usd. Even the Rx 480 started at only 230 usd. And those were all very decent cards in their time.
The EU expanding to the Eastern countries was an extremely beneficial thing for Western countries to do. Since Eastern Europe became part of the single market and westerners don't have to pay tariffs for stuff produced there, EEu has become the China of Europe. They have become the cheap, efficient factories for Europe, without which the Eu would be incomparably less competitive globally against Asia and the US. European industry and economy is having difficulties, as it is. Without EEu, it would be dead.
But is it causing immobilism in turn, like you stated? No. The real cause of immobilism is the archaic laws and systems of the EU itself. It is impossible to control/gouvern such a large and diverse society, with hundreds of millions of people and dozens of countries, while needing UNANIMUOUS decisionmaking. By giving every country veto power, the EU is begging for itself to be immobilised on any major issue. Yes, a few EEuropean leaders are baught and paid for by Putin or just straight up fascists (the previous Polish gouvernment, now Fico in SK, Orban in Hungary), and they have the power to block EU actions. But among this many people, nations and countries, there are always going to be renitents going against the tide. The point is: the EU needs to reform its structures and decision making processes if it wants to keep functioning and being able to hold its own against the competition and straight up attacks (economical, military or otherwise) from Asia or even the US.
What do you think would happen if the US would stop supporting Ukraine? Putin would just peacefully stop trying to conquer Ukraine? Or do you think ukrainians would just give up? They wouldn't. I live in a neighbouring country, i know many of them. They all know 100% that if Ukraine looses the war in any way, then Putin will completely exterminate every last one of them, that he can get his hand on. Just like he's been doing over the last two years.
So by arguing that the US should stop it's support, you're directly and inseparably arguing for Putin to be able to genocide tens of millions of ukrainans, as well as for the complete destruction of Ukraine.
This is why people are calling you a russian agent. Of course, it's unknowable for us, whether you are really are, but you are certainly doing their bidding for them.
Democrats do have all the votes locked in even without Pelosi. Practically all the dems are smart, intelligent, reasonable people who are capable of compromise. Even the most conservative or progressive ones. They don't need someone to stand there with a whip in order to get things done. Maybe a few decades ago they have still behaved like a herd of cattle (as the republicans still do), with a whole bunch of idiots among them who wandered off at every chance against their own good. But those times are gone. Pelosi however got stuck in that loop and can't realize the world and democratic party has changed.