Jump to content

Strootman

Member
  • Content Count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Information

  • Location
    Italy
  1. That's two different situations: on one side the big pharma that lobbied (and possibly corrupted) to increase their profits, but could not dare to invest billions, because in case the bill would not pass, they would have big unjustified losses and no gain. On the other side we would have a situation were you either lobby and corrupt or you take huge losses or, in the worst scenario, your very survival is at stake. Lets say 'only' 50 billions of losses (turnover) as a realistic scenario (remember those companies have turnovers in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars). If
  2. Well good luck with that: FB, Google and Co. could spend tens of billions on lobbying and corruption to stop such a process because strict regulations on the use of personal data would destroy their business. Good luck with resisting to such offers. The only real counterbalance (on lobbying and corruption) would be the drive to create similar companies that would use the the internal European market to operate, similarly to what China does. But China is a single country with a centralized administration, EU is a bunch of divided countries with often conflicting interests and no
  3. The real scary point in all of this story, is not whether Cambridge Analytica supported Trump election and Brexit Referendum in particular, but the sheer fact that they are capable of using data extracted from social networks to possibly change the result of democratic (?) elections in advanced countries. This simple fact has terrible implications that should be addressed yesterday. I work for one of those very evil Big Pharma companies, and yet the handling of personal data is taken extremely seriously, so much that the policies on personal data are the most important of ALL, includ
  4. I have always been here, at least now and then, although without posting
  5. All very true. Don't underestimate, though, the revisions that the Church made on the following centuries. A Church holding most of the power and money, and thus with A LOT of time and resources to spend on the 'improvements' of that text for its on satanic purposes. The christian religious texts have been modified multiple times since their origin. This said, in general it's quite evident even now, despite all the updates, how most parts of the Bible are completely idiotic and easily falsifiable when analysed with the the support of logic, reason and science, three instruments that
  6. Not only the past was not perfect, but it was usually far from it. Racial problems are just one small side: the past brings with it a great number of human faults derived from the Dark Ages. There is a reason why they call them DARK. Through my life I've learned that if anything is made in a certain way because of tradition, then it's safe to assume that particular thing is wrong and there are a hundred of ways to do it better. US is one of the countries with less spending in social welfare (link). You spend, on average, 5% more of its GDP in health care compared to the other western c
  7. And again, more bubbling of the same slogans. You have no arguments, and like any typical conservative with no argument, you keep shouting the same mantras, usually learned from some specialized propaganda site. You're a conservative, there is nothing necessarily bad in this until you keep your ideas away from extremism. Just deal with it.
  8. You know what, I am tired of this. I tried to reason with you by logic, numbers and reason. The only response was the repetition of your illogical and idiotic mantra. I am pretty sure you're a conservative masking himself as a liberal, seeing that your trolling behavior overlaps almost perfectly with that of many right wingers in NHB. Just like them your only line of discussion is shouting the same false slogans and calling names. When confronted with facts and logic you carefully avoid the topic and go back to your beloved (as well as absurd) slogan. Actually I hope that you're a
  9. Actually my logic holds up fine, because primaries are one thing, presidential quite another. Just look at the numbers: people voting in democratic primaries, roughly 30 millions, people voting in the presidential, roughly 130 millions. Thus the primaries are not at all representative of the electors that show up in November. It's also a known fact that the presidential elections are determined by votes from undecided and independents, which are not a factor during the primaries. And Bernie Sanders was way stronger than Hillary Clinton among these categories (link). So I stand my position, HC
  10. And I guess most of them are pro death penalty. Which, on the other hand, is perfectly consistent with their religion. The same religion that did not mention anything about abortion as an informed personal choice in its scriptures, simply because, being extremely ignorant, they were completely unaware of such a possibility.
  11. And you keep ignoring the much more important fact that HC lost to the worst candidate in American history. Which makes DJT the second worst, and her the first. So instead of blaming those who voted for Sanders in the primaries, maybe you should blame those who voted for such a faulty candidate and did not let the best one get his chance to run for presidency with a very good chance of succeeding, or at least better than HC. I almost enjoy your fiction about Sanders damaging HC, while it's very probably the opposite, seeing how strongly he supported her presidential campaign after concedin
  12. I am sorry, are you blaming me for Trump victory? I have already wrote TWICE that I would have rushed to vote for HC on November 8. But again, this said, after all that's happened, if the only political approach of the democratic party is blaming those that did now want to vote for HC is politically insane and a idiotic suicide. It's like if Nike blames the people for not buying their new shoes and just keeps producing the same models and shapes hoping that their competitors will present even worse models. I guess Nike administrators wouldn't last 30 minutes with such choices. Demo
  13. I am not arguing Hillary Clinton here, I am arguing the democratic party as a whole. The President is tied hands and feet to his party... Whatever the intentions of HC as president, she would still respond to the congress. Let's assume for a moment that the dems had the majority in the congress, and let's assume Clinton would have pursued a very aggressive liberal and progressive agenda... how many Democrats would have followed her? Not many I guess, and she would compromise a lot without obtaining much, just like Obama, even in the first two years of his mandate, when he had the majority on h
×
×
  • Create New...