• This Saturday, November 16, you have the chance to ask Tinnitus Quest anything.

    The entire Executive Board, including Dr. Dirk de Ridder and Dr. Hamid Djalilian are taking part.

    The event takes place 7 AM Pacific, 9 AM Central, 10 AM Eastern, 3 PM UK (GMT).

    ➡️ Read More & Register!

2020 US Presidential Election

I did not learn that the US was selling arms to both sides in WW1.

In WW2, I did learn the Russians were much more involved and had heavy casualties and the US played a "late in the game but instrumental" role. I was not at all taught that the US was the "savior of the world" but I didn't have a mandated patriotic education either and it was much more balanced.
I might be mistaken about the selling of arms to both sides (my memory is hazy from old age on that one lol), but as far as I know American companies were selling goods to both sides, which maybe you know:

"In the early days of the war, as Britain and France struggled against Germany, American leaders decided it was in the national interest to continue trade with all sides as before. A neutral nation cannot impose an embargo on one side and continue trade with the other and retain its neutral status. In addition, United States merchants and manufacturers feared that a boycott would cripple the American economy. Great Britain, with its powerful navy, had different ideas"
 
In K-12 I was taught the standard shit. Germany was acting like assholes because they were pissed about the treaty of Versailles, Hitler rose to power as a result of scapegoating Jews and economic populism, the British and French were pussies and didn't do shit until what happened in Poland and then they went to war. At first Germany was allied with Russia, then they attacked them. Germany was doing pretty well until that winter and then they got their asses kicked. Meanwhile America joined after Pearl Harbor, kicked their asses some more and Hitler killed himself. That's about it for the war itself. Then we went a bit into how Hitler killed the Jews and shit. I never questioned the narrative until college. In high school, we learned that America were the saviors but in college we learned that America made a lot of mistakes during the war and that Russia was just as, if not more to blame, for taking out Germany.
Here, in Russia, they hardly ever mention WW2, and only mention their own personal war (simply the Eastern Front in Europe) The Great Patriotic War that started in 1941 when the Germans attacked. They want to take as much credit as possible and don't want people knowing about the the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the fact that the Soviet Union was supplying Germany with masses of materials to fuel its war machine against the British Empire and others and then used those very materials to attack the Soviet Union.

Russians have no idea about WW1 and that they were getting their asses kicked, which is partly/largely what kick started the revolution. They don't know that they lost loads of territory and that they all but in name surrendered to the Germans.

You would never think the Russians have lost war if you to talk to people here.

Good for building patriotism for sure.
 
This happened to my friend who moved to the US from Croatia at 13. She was made to say the pledge and she told me that she tried to argue and tell them things like "My parents moved here for a job and I don't know anything about this place yet. And besides I just got here weeks ago and you want me to pledge my allegiance?"

They made her do it anyway and she was extremely put off by it.
That's actually illegal of them to do. There was a Supreme Court case about this and I'm always quick to cite it.

I don't stand because I don't believe in nationalism, it's nothing against America at all. I think the hyper-nationalism and jingoism in America actually hurts it because it makes it harder to improve. So I refuse to take part in stuff like the pledge or the anthem.
 
Here, in Russia, they hardly ever mention WW2, and only mention their own personal war (simply the Eastern Front in Europe) The Great Patriotic War that started in 1941 when the Germans attacked. They want to take as much credit as possible and don't want people knowing about the the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the fact that the Soviet Union was supplying Germany with masses of materials to fuel its war machine against the British Empire and others and then used those very materials to attack the Soviet Union.

Russians have no idea about WW1 and that they were getting their asses kicked, which is partly/largely what kick started the revolution. They don't know that they lost loads of territory and that they all but in name surrendered to the Germans.

You would never think the Russians have lost war if you to talk to people here.

Good for building patriotism for sure.
Wow, Russia's schools sucks even worse than America's on this subject. How the hell can you leave so much out? In America we learned most of what you just said you guys don't.

Like for real, how do you start WW2 when Germany attacked the USSR? I feel like that leaves so many obvious questions. Same for WW1. Like, I'm not trying to shit on Russia, I just find that amazing.
 
LOL. You are kidding, right?

The USA was already bankrupt well before the PTB decided to get Trump elected.

You have a 26.7* trillion dollar debt for crying out loud.

*officially accepted debt figure
And now it's even worse, more debt, the US dollar is worth less etc etc

There is more unemployment. There will be more bankruptcies.
 
Hitler's nationalism agenda had racist elements which is not present in Trump's "Patriotic Education." Hitler only cared about the blond Aryan super-race Germans, not other Germans such as German Jews. Not all nationalism results in Nazi Germany. There are some very diverse countries with sizeable racial and religious minorities, such as Singapore, but they are very proud and nationalistic. They also have "patriotic education" such as singing the national anthem before class everyday.

Trump and conservatives are not racists, and believe that all people have equal opportunity (through merit, hard work, etc.).

Trump and conservatives believe that all people are born with the same intelligence and can overcome humble backgrounds through hard work. I do believe this is true; it is very easy in the U.S. to go from poverty to solid middle class and even upper middle class in the same generation or one generation without the help of benefits.

The Democrats' view of equal opportunity is racist because they believe certain people need extra help because they are incapable (as seen through Biden's racist remarks); many African-Americans have remained poor for generations despite voting for Democrats and living in Democratic-held cities.

Democrats have done a successful job at painting conservatives as racists but this view will only last so long; I'm glad the Trump administration is reaching out to minorities.

Trump's patriotic education basically consists of showing some respect for the founding fathers and "American heros." Of course bad aspects of our history should be covered but they should not be the primary aspect of U.S history, which is what the Left has done.
We don't know at the moment what the ''Patriotic Education '' exactly entails. So it's pretty difficult to make statements that it's less or more racist than the Nazification of the German/Austrian school program in the era of Adolf Hitler.

There are a few things that we can say, if we look at AOT's source, namely this: what are Trump's intentions with the Patriotic Education program? For instance, we know that Trump has only proposed to install a commission to look into the matter in hopes of formulating a new school program that basically put more emphasis on patriotism. Here's the quote:

''President Trump on Thursday said he would create a commission to promote "patriotic education" and announced the creation of a grant to develop a "pro-American curriculum.''

But what can we say more about the program, aside from this? Well, let's take a look at the next quote:

''Trump blamed "the left," aided by the media and unnamed corporations, for "a vicious and violent assault on law enforcement" and said violent protests in recent months "are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools."

The Education Program is basically the repudiation of ''left wing indoctrination'' & an attempt to redraw history. So, how does this indoctrination entail, according to Trump? Let's take a look at his statement of ''left wing indoctrination'' in US schools.

For Trump and his ilk, children are apparently taught left-wing indoctrination in schools. They are taught that America also has a dark history, that the country was partly built on the blood, sweat and tears of slaves, and that this history of exploitation also partly explains why systemic racism is still a reality for many American POC. For Trump, this ''left-wing indoctrination'' is an attack on ''traditional faith, culture and values in the public square"

Trump doesn't make it explicit what he means with traditional faith and the values that are apparently under attack. Perhaps he means that recognition of exploitation of POC and systemic racism is in conflict with Christian morality? There are many references in the bible that refutes racism. One example is Paul's statement that each and every person is equally valuable:

''There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).''

If it's not Christian morality Trump is talking about, what else ? He might be talking about the ''American''culture & its values. What does it entail? Trump does not clarify it. But he does say this:

''For many years now, the radicals have mistaken Americans' silence for weakness. They're wrong. There is no more powerful force than a parent's love for their children''

The bold phrase actually implicitly says that ''radicals'' act unpatriotic (= not American) and tells us basically that the ''Americans' silence'' is the silent majority that does not share the views of these ''radicals'', which is a faux populist statement without any statistical back-up. If we assume that Trump means that the ''radicals'' are the BLM protestors, progressive / liberal politicians and other activists who think that America has exploited POC in the past, that the judicial/police system doesn't give equal value to POC, then it could be said that most Americans do not agree with their views. However, the Monmouth polls actually tells a different story: More than 65 percent of the public says racial and ethnic discrimination is a big problem in the United States & needs to be addressed, not denied (https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ns-say-race-discrimination-is-big-problem-us/). So given the polls, there's actually politically legitimacy to overhaul the judicial / police system & other systemic shortcomings that devalue the lives of POC.

Another note about American culture: freedom of speech. It's a highly valued principle in most Western democracies, especially in the United States. It allows people, politicians, basically everyone to voice their opinions and exchange ideas in an intellectually honest debate without the threat of penalty if they do not go all the way to the edge of what we might consider ''indecent'', like hate speech. It's sad to see that the Republicans have a fair share in exploiting this principle at the expense of people who are not born here or have a ethnic background, but who try to built a decent living for themselves & their children, just like the very first colonists from Europe who settled in the thirteen colonies. For instance, Trump has called Mexicans rapists, Somali refugees criminals and think that most welfare recipients are black (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump#Mexican_immigrants). Other GOP politicians like Tom Cotton and Matt Gaetz also made such statements in a similar spirit.

We are already familiar with the concept ''alternative facts'', but have we heard of ''alternative history''? Yep, nothing is sacred anymore with this current administration. With the implementation of the Patriotic Education program, Trump actually aims to redraw history as it should have been, not what actually happened. The Republicans want ''to tell a more evenhanded version of the nation's history, including its early foundational reliance on slave labor and the longtime disenfranchisement of and systemic racism against racial minorities''.

So how do the Republicans want to put history of slavery and systemic racism into a more balanced perspective? Trump basically says that recognition of slave exploitation, in other words the Critical Race Theory/Project 1619, undermines the fabric of society & should therefore be erased from the school curriculum. In short, just ignore that it happened, that systemic abuse of people of color in the past explains why so many of their descendants did not enjoy the same rate in wealth accumulation, access to higher education & civil rights as ''European Americans'' & that the systemic abuse of ethnic minorities is different nowadays, yet somehow intact. What we ought to do, according to Trump, is just skip this part of history and just focus on the positive parts, like "the legacy of 1776," when American Colonies declared independence from Great Britain.

This Trumpian denialism of historic facts and events will not help us in understanding and addressing the structure of systemic abuse of non-white ethnic groups. This sweeping under the rug strategy will only maintain the system in which POC are treated as secondary citizens, just for the sake of ''traditional faith, culture and values in the public square''. In fact, the GOP has actually done the most unpatriotic thing you could think of: ignoring the 2nd paragraph of the declaration of independence, namely that ''all men are created equal''
 
That's actually illegal of them to do. There was a Supreme Court case about this and I'm always quick to cite it.

I don't stand because I don't believe in nationalism, it's nothing against America at all. I think the hyper-nationalism and jingoism in America actually hurts it because it makes it harder to improve. So I refuse to take part in stuff like the pledge or the anthem.
This was around 1991. When was the supreme court case?
 
And now it's even worse, more debt, the US dollar is worth less etc etc

There is more unemployment. There will be more bankruptcies.
The economy was initially improving under Trump except for the demands for a lockdown then there were riots destroying businesses. But, you know this, right?

You just choose to BS.

But, Trump et al., each of the Republicans and Democrats are the same sh** anyway.
 
The world is changing and population growth with development of towns becoming large cities are taking place in much of the USA and elsewhere. Population growth and it's effects is reality like never before. What will the world be like in short and longer future years? This reality will affect mankind in every way possible.

To mention just a few elements with limited thoughts: Control of wealth that includes real estate, commodities, stock investment, futures and options. Large growth companies like Costco are investing in China. China is investing in the USA. Real Estate growth investment and new electric battery technology are not inverse to each other. Medical innovation and discovery is breaking new ground in some areas, but medical practicing is already years behind the curve.

The rich will get richer, the US dollar will take a hit, but the question is will the US dollar still be king to the currency of China. There's a growing number of people who have decided to trade investments at home or from an app instead of an employed career. In the last year, some who weren't rich are on their way, as they can day trade both long and short around the clock if they wish.

I just wish that that there was more life support for those with a true disability.
That's pretty vague. Do you have something specific to say?

The Clinton administration sold secrets to China. Biden is in league to China. Did you watch the video I posted on here.

But, libs here keep rehashing the Trump/Russia connection like it's just one sided.

Do you really think one party will significantly help people with disabilities? The Democrats and all left wing parties and organizations are phoney self-centered hypocrites and their agendas don't include you. Honestly. It's an undeniable fact.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/03/new-film-sheds-light-on-hunter-bidens-deals-with-china/

https://nypost.com/2019/05/11/the-troubling-reason-why-biden-is-so-soft-on-china/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-bidens-controversies-explained
 
Wow, Russia's schools sucks even worse than America's on this subject. How the hell can you leave so much out? In America we learned most of what you just said you guys don't.

Like for real, how do you start WW2 when Germany attacked the USSR? I feel like that leaves so many obvious questions. Same for WW1. Like, I'm not trying to shit on Russia, I just find that amazing.
No, both countries' schools just spew propaganda and lies.

If you would research objectively instead of official indoctrination, you might conclude it was a preemptive attack.

USSR proved they were looking at future dominance via much of Europe with attempted attacks on Finland, former Czechoslovakia, into Poland and the Baltic countries.

Their planned conquest of Germany was foiled by the attack. Ultimately, they had to be content with a section of Germany (East Berlin/East Germany) since the West took the other parts.

There were tank and armament build-up at the border that appeared to be a sign of an impending attack before WW2 concluded - which you don't learn in your high school history class.

Some honest historians have confirmed this. Actually, YouTube did have an audio recording of Hitler and a Finnish government official discussing the possibility/situation. It has been verified as authentic.
 
Wow, Russia's schools sucks even worse than America's on this subject. How the hell can you leave so much out? In America we learned most of what you just said you guys don't.
I'm not Russian, but English. Just happen to live here.

It's all a narrative to not admit defeat. It's like the Cold War, if you ask Putin he will just say it is still going on and that ultimate victory will go to Russia. It's the mentality here.

They know WW2 started in 1939, but don't consider the first years to have been anything to do with them. They just start their narrative from 1941 with their own war which they see as separate from WW2 pretty much.

You won't hear anything much about lend lease etc. They'll tell you loads about how they defeated Germany though almost single handedly.
 
I like Obama, but "when they go low, we go high" makes him a shmuck. The major flaw of Republicans is hypocrisy, while the major flaw of Democrats is weakness.
 
That's actually illegal of them to do. There was a Supreme Court case about this and I'm always quick to cite it.

I don't stand because I don't believe in nationalism, it's nothing against America at all. I think the hyper-nationalism and jingoism in America actually hurts it because it makes it harder to improve. So I refuse to take part in stuff like the pledge or the anthem.
What makes nationalism harder to improve? Integration?
 
I like Obama, but "when they go low, we go high" makes him a shmuck. The major flaw of Republicans is hypocrisy, while the major flaw of Democrats is weakness.

Totally agree with it. Hillary Clinton said the same bloody thing in 2016. And did it help? Nop.

Some democrats, especially the moderate ones, often act defensively when attacked by republicans. They are afraid to be called out for 'socialists' for instance and often try to go in the defensive by saying they actually share some values with moderate Republicans (use of keywords and phrases like 'no fundamental change', 'consensus' , 'compromise', 'willing to work across the aisle" vis à vis republicans).

It doesn't always work being the only adult in the room. Appeasement to the moderate GOP voter doesn't convince people you're the real deal, that you're genuine and that you fully belief in what you stand for. It's often a deal-breaker for other kind of voters as well, especially Progressives and left of center independents . They want to see fundamental change & a viable political alternative but don't think it matters to vote as long as moderate Dems are more focused on appeasing and caving in to GOP voters instead on them, as Dems belief that most voters identify themselves as moderate and so more political gains could be made. Chuck Schumer is a firm believer of that theoretical assumption and said the following in 2016 about adapting a more opportunistic, moderate stance to attract republicans at the expense of the working class (and boy how that turned out):

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...ill-lose-blue-collar-whites-gain-suburbs/amp/


We're already seeing the same thing in local elections like McConnell vs. McGrath in Kentucky. It's just incredible naïve
 
Those are the typical double standards used by Donald Trump.

Now an expert on bankruptcies (Trump, whose businesses have gone bankrupt several times) is ruling the country. However, the beauty of going bankrupt is using all sort of tricks for not paying creditors and employees. How do you do that with a country?
When you play, you sometimes lose. If Trump owns 100 companies and a couple go bankrupt, the same would happen to anybody. It's gamble. To win, you have to lose. He is obviously not broke. and far from it. He uses the law to his advantage, and why shouldn't he? Nobody in big business is in it to lose. He's a smart cookie. And a tough one. Our leaders usually let much of the world fleece us, bit he tries to not let that happen.
 
The economy was initially improving under Trump except for the demands for a lockdown then there were riots destroying businesses. But, you know this, right?

You just choose to BS.

But, Trump et al., each of the Republicans and Democrats are the same sh** anyway.
Trump has done nothing for the economy except creating a giant stock market bubble with the money printed by the Federal Reserve.

It's all gonna collapse; don't you understand that yet?
 
Totally agree with it. Hillary Clinton said the same bloody thing in 2016. And did it help? Nop.

Some democrats, especially the moderate ones, often act defensively when attacked by republicans. They are afraid to be called out for 'socialists' for instance and often try to go in the defensive by saying they actually share some values with moderate Republicans (use of keywords and phrases like 'no fundamental change', 'consensus' , 'compromise', 'willing to work across the aisle" vis à vis republicans).

It doesn't always work being the only adult in the room. Appeasement to the moderate GOP voter doesn't convince people you're the real deal, that you're genuine and that you fully belief in what you stand for. It's often a deal-breaker for other kind of voters as well, especially Progressives and left of center independents . They want to see fundamental change & a viable political alternative but don't think it matters to vote as long as moderate Dems are more focused on appeasing and caving in to GOP voters instead on them, as Dems belief that most voters identify themselves as moderate and so more political gains could be made. Chuck Schumer is a firm believer of that theoretical assumption and said the following in 2016 about adapting a more opportunistic, moderate stance to attract republicans at the expense of the working class (and boy how that turned out):

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...ill-lose-blue-collar-whites-gain-suburbs/amp/


We're already seeing the same thing in local elections like McConnell vs. McGrath in Kentucky. It's just incredible naïve
I both agree and disagree with you. The biggest area I agree with you is that Democrats are in denial about the GOP being the unapologetic party of Trump. I consider myself, at times, one of those. Even in this thread, it's like the fact that I have clearly offered pro police viewpoints (which are genuine) is meaningless.

Where I disagree with you though is that I do think a lot of moderate Democrats really do hold moderate viewpoints and they aren't just capitulating as a sign of weakness to "impress" Republicans with their objectivity. For example, I honestly believe that Obama, if given the choice, would govern like a very moderate Republican. I think he believes the AOC/Bernie wing is too extreme, even privately.

I will say that the third party voters (I'm 99% referring to swing states where the consequences matter) don't have a good standing to call Obama or Clinton weak. After all, they can't even vote to stop these clowns. I struggle to understand the hard lefties like Kyle Kulinski. They love to claim to be the fresh outsider and call the Democrats weak, but then they don't even vote. I'm sorry, but the third party voters have to own some of the RBG fallout, if Trump does sneak a judge through. It can't just be Clinton and Obama's fault.

Where I get turned off to the progressives is when they hypocritically decide to be pals with the Joe Rogan types that like to laugh at Democrats and treat them like a punching bag. It's one of the reasons why I left the Bernie base; I saw too much of this. If you want to be the "purity test" type, you have to totally own it. Own not voting. Own the losing of the court. If you then see Joe Rogan fans as people to flip, you can't really criticize Democrats for trying to pull over Republican voters either.

I keep saying this, but I really wish the progressives and moderates would see the best of both worlds. Progressives are 100% correct about playing tough and to stop apologizing; I respect their backbone. However, I actually agree with moderates more on the issues. I wish there were moderates (as in moderate viewpoints on immigration, law and order, education reform, military budget) that had a strong backbone politically.
 
When you play, you sometimes lose. If Trump owns 100 companies and a couple go bankrupt, the same would happen to anybody. It's gamble. To win, you have to lose. He is obviously not broke. and far from it. He uses the law to his advantage, and why shouldn't he? Nobody in big business is in it to lose. He's a smart cookie. And a tough one. Our leaders usually let much of the world fleece us, bit he tries to not let that happen.
Running a business has nothing to do with "gambling".
 
Now Trump wants to appoint a new Supreme Court judge, just less than 2 months short of a general election. It is just nonsense and anti-democratic, as this is an appointment for life.

A bit of recent history:

Sen. Harris asks Kavanaugh if he discussed the Mueller investigation with law firm tied to Trump



The other Trump appointment to the Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh

On July 9, 2018, President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. When nominated, Kavanaugh was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a position he was appointed to in 2006 by President George W. Bush.

The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Judge Kavanaugh and heard witness testimonies concerning his nomination to the Supreme Court over the course of a four-day hearing, September 4–7, 2018. Several days later, it was revealed that Christine Blasey Ford had written a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein in July accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault while they were both in high school in 1982. The Committee postponed its vote and invited both Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford to appear at public hearing. In the interim, two other women, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, accused Kavanaugh of separate past instances of sexual assault.
 
Now Trump wants to appoint a new Supreme Court judge, just less than 2 months short of a general election. It is just nonsense and anti-democratic, as this is an appointment for life.

A bit of recent history:

Sen. Harris asks Kavanaugh if he discussed the Mueller investigation with law firm tied to Trump



The other Trump appointment to the Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh

On July 9, 2018, President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. When nominated, Kavanaugh was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a position he was appointed to in 2006 by President George W. Bush.

The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Judge Kavanaugh and heard witness testimonies concerning his nomination to the Supreme Court over the course of a four-day hearing, September 4–7, 2018. Several days later, it was revealed that Christine Blasey Ford had written a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein in July accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault while they were both in high school in 1982. The Committee postponed its vote and invited both Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford to appear at public hearing. In the interim, two other women, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, accused Kavanaugh of separate past instances of sexual assault.

"Owning the libs" is the only thing that matters.
 
The Education Program is basically the repudiation of ''left wing indoctrination'' & an attempt to redraw history. So, how does this indoctrination entail, according to Trump? Let's take a look at his statement of ''left wing indoctrination'' in US schools.
We should have a general civics program, but not one that whitewashes the past or demands that we bow to dear leader(TM).

The first student of such program should be Trump himself given how little he actually knows or cares about the constitution or the normal functioning of government and policy.
 
Trump has done nothing for the economy except creating a giant stock market bubble with the money printed by the Federal Reserve.

It's all gonna collapse; don't you understand that yet?
It was already gonna collapse which you STILL DON'T understand.
 
Damn, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away from complications of pancreatic cancer. As if our politics needed to get uglier. I hope she rests in peace.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead/index.html

Oh no, that's devastating! She was a warrior -- truly courageous, intelligent, empathic, tireless in pursuit of justice and ruthless in the best possible way. She would have absolutely destroyed some of the people in this thread.

May she continue to inspire people for the rest of time. Those who don't know her, please check out her documentary on Netflix. She is a rare powerhouse of a person.

'I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks' - RBG
 
With market indices, money can be made by movement in both directions. Options, futures or stocks - long or short.

@PeteJ Why is this pretty vague.

Population growth and it's effects is reality like never before. This reality will affect mankind in every way possible.

What can you afford, unless you are one of these:
There's a growing number of people who have decided to trade investments at home or from an app instead of an employed career. In the last year, some who weren't rich are on their way, as they can day trade both long and short around the clock if they wish.

These individuals trade on fast breaking news.

Try buying land or a home in the great Sierra Nevada Mountain Range - Lake Tahoe was once wilderness. The rich from San Francisco are buying land and homes in Lake Tahoe and prices are sky rocketing.

Why is it that places like Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, Boulder, New York, Boston, Miami, downtown Chicago are so expensive to live. Rich influence, but from whom - you know.

The democrats support population growth. They give the poor incentives to have more children. More votes for them, higher value for their real estate and land holdings and higher stock prices for liberal corporation investment like Apple, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Costco, Target and Walmart.

Both parties have rich greed, so no need to just pick on the democrats.
 
With market indices, money can be made by movement in both directions. Options, futures or stocks - long or short.

@PeteJ Why is this pretty vague.

What can you afford, unless you are one of these:

These individuals trade on fast breaking news.

Try buying land or a home in the great Sierra Nevada Mountain Range - Lake Tahoe was once wilderness. The rich from San Francisco are buying land and homes in Lake Tahoe and prices are sky rocketing.

Why is it that places like Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, Boulder, New York, Boston, Miami, downtown Chicago are so expensive to live. Rich influence, but from whom - you know.

The democrats support population growth. They give the poor incentives to have more children. More votes for them, higher value for their real estate and land holdings and higher stock prices for liberal corporation investment like Apple, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Costco, Target and Walmart.

Both parties have rich greed, so no need to just pick on the democrats.
Are you suggesting the poor have more children because of welfare? In many countries without a welfare system the poor have even more children.

Many years ago, Amnesty International published a report that concluded that lowering the birth rate internationally depended on educating women and giving them more opportunities. Women who had a better future were more interested in better family planning and birth control to ensure that the better future actually happens.

India is a good example of this. In the rural areas, where there is less female opportunities, there is a much higher birth rate.

A similar trend may be happening in the US (perhaps due to less career opportunities for women in rural areas). While fertility rates are declining everywhere, it is declining less so in rural areas. These are your Republican voters, not your Democratic ones.

https://www.usnews.com/news/healthi...s-gap-widens-between-rural-and-urban-counties
 
The democrats support population growth.
Let's face it. EVERYONE supports population growth. It's just that democrats don't support unwanted pregnancies, which really won't stop population growth that much. Only a small subset of democrats genuinely care about overpopulation. And those who express their concern open themselves up to being called bigoted. And of course Republicans hitch their wagon on the abortion issue and have no concern whatsoever about natural ecological limits. To Republicans, 19th century manifest destiny is still a thing. To democrats, no problem can't be solved through technology and holding onto the naive faith people will "do the right thing" through education. Neither vision is accurate. All you have to do is follow the daily drip of progressively bad news on the environment to realize that, but most people remain blissfully ignorant.
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now