Polls: Society & Politics

"Police Brutality" is judged in so many different ways by the "victim". Most of which are not considered warranted. I'm a ghetto street cop, and it's mind boggling as to how many people will disobey my orders, and claim police brutality when I have to get hands on with them. Simple order of keeping your hands out of your pockets, or turn around so I can cuff you up while I detain you and figure out what's going on. If you try and pull away or resist, then I'm going to take you to the ground and we're going to cuff you either way. You might as well just listen the first time. Everyone's got a huge egocentric bubble around them, and everyone is a sidewalk lawyer. Rodney King days are over. Almost all agencies have bodycams now, and the funny thing is that bodycams benefit officer's and deputies a lot more than civilians. Civilians lie almost every case to try and save their ass. I now have proof.

In the event in which you have a rude or overbearing officer, pull out your camera and film them. I honestly encourage this. Almost every time I stop someone to talk, even if it's a casual encounter, they pull out their phone and I tell them I'm filming them too. There are definitely some officers and deputies out there that are rude and overbearing, but this idea that you're just going to get your ass beat for no apparent reason is false on so many levels. The public is very difficult to deal with, and youtube clips of police having to take matters into physical force isn't police brutality.

Also, civilians are very sensitive for the most part. We don't have time to debate or coddle around your feelings. I'm personally very direct and loud, but I'm absolutely fair. I treat the public with respect. Just because I use my big boy voice, does not mean I'm disrespecting you. What you have to realize is that members of law enforcement will absolutely get trampled on if we don't carry a certain demeanor. Especially where I work where we got a lot of gang infestation.

Whites are projected to become a minority by 2046, but it will likely be a few years sooner since Middle Easterners and Indians are counted as white. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will also likely be majority-non-white by the 2050's. Although European countries along with Argentina and Uruguay will retain their white majorities some Western European nations are projected to be anywhere from 15-30% Muslim by 2100.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf
https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/
https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf

There was a recent Pew poll about public opinion a white minority. 35% of US adults said it would be a good thing, 23% said it would be a very bad thing, and 42% said neither a good or bad thing. 49% of US adults said it would lead to worsened racial relations, 26% less conflict, and 23% little to no affect. 30% said it would strengthen American values, 38% said weaken, and 31% said it wouldn't affect it. This data doesn't specific by race though, so we don't know what white people and non-whites think separately.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/21/looking-ahead-to-2050-americans-are-pessimistic-about-many-aspects-of-life-in-u-s/

I will give you a hint: This country had this status for 110 years.

Whaling is the process of hunting whales with harpoons and nets, for their meat and blubber. There are only a very small number of countries who support it today, notably; Norway, Iceland and Japan.

This is because of the social pressure that has been put on governments to stop this practice.


What do you think of whaling?

Have you ever tasted whale meat?


* Graphic images ahead

Which would you think if somebody had 10+ of would be very unheard of and surprising to you?

I would say heart surgeries. Anybody who has had 10 heart surgeries or brain surgeries, really would be something as they lived through at least the first 9.

I’m a snowboarder and people tend to raise their eyebrows a bit when they hear that. Especially as almost all engineers are nerdy types behind a computer.

There was a Freemason called Albert Pike who has been credited as the person behind a certain letter supposedly sent by him to a man called Mazzini dated August 15, 1871. The letter details a plan regarding the two world wars and the coming third world war, and the coming of Lucifer the light bringer to grace mankind with enlightenment. What do you think about this letter?

The letter says the first world war must be brought to overthrow the power of the Czars and then making a stronghold of Communism. The war must be started by manipulating the tensions between the British and the Germanic people. At the end of the War, Communism will then be used to destroy countries and weaken world religions

The second world war must be started by manipulating the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists, this war must destroy Nazism and the political Zionism be made strong enough to be able to make Israel in Palestine. Communism must be made strong enough to balance Christendom as well until the final social cataclysm

The third world war must be created by manipulating the differences between the political Zionists and leaders of the Islamic world, in order for them to mutually destroy each other. Than the Nihilists and the Atheists will be unleashed and the world will be shown the horrors of absolute Atheism. Than the world will be united in order to destroy Atheism and it's horrors. Afterwards, those disillusioned with Christianity, tired of war and conflict and desperately seeking an ideal will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time

Is it just me or is CNN's Don Lemon the most smug, condescending man to walk the face of the Earth? What do you think?

Therefore if society is immoral and corrupt, the common individual would be immoral and corrupt?

Is anti-male or anti-female rhetoric more accepted by today's society. By anti I mean actually anti. Talking casually about sex is not anti-male or anti-female. Saying either sex is trash would be an example of anti-male or anti-female rhetoric

https://youtu.be/Wa9Ftl6qnGE



i think its a dilemma if israel always bomb homes kill many families how should Palestinians resist without Causing violence , or is violence only solution

I see a lot of people like me who make far less than millions yet seem to defend the wealthy for some unknown reason.

I’d like to have a conversation on the premise of education surrounding the question of Taxes and general welfare of the common citizens that make up the majority of its population.

Now mind you, the rich already technically pay more then us on the premise that they make more EXCEPT they are afforded gratuitous tax breaks through law and loopholes afforded to people of their status. This is in regards to paying more than what they currently have been AND paying all of it.

So what do you think?

From Wikipedia:

Typical conditions facing second-class citizens include but are not limited to:
disenfranchisement (a lack or loss of voting rights)
limitations on civil or military service (not including conscription in every case)
restrictions on language, religion, education
lack of freedom of movement and association
limitations on weapons ownership
restrictions on marriage
restrictions on gender identity and expression
restrictions on housing
restrictions on property ownership

___

i think especially marriage and divorce is a discrimination fest for men. They get all the forced liabilities and labor.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/mar/20/donald-trump-latest-news-live-us-politics-ohio-mccain

The world needs anyone, anyone but Trump. I disliked Bush, but after Trump I would take anyone, I would suck Bush’s dick if it would make him president. That’s how much of a mockery Trump has been.

Assuming they're yours

Black Africans (Bantus and Niger-Kordofanians) are native to West Africa and in 1400 expanded out of modern day Cameroon into Eastern and Southern Africa displacing the distinct races of the Pygmies, Khoikhoi, and to a lesser degree the Kushitics and Austronesian people of Madagascar (on the west coast).

In the modern day cape of South Africa Europeans such as the Portuguese had arrived earlier than black Africans. Khoisans are interesting because along with the Hadza (Isolate, but may have had a distant ancestors with Khoes) are the only people on the planet to speak with click consonants in their language. Khoisans possess different morphological traits from Bantus as they have epicanthal folds (Slant over eye like in Asians), a different facial structure, Steatopygia, and are more genetically distinct from West Africans than some Asians are.

One of the justifications for blacks retaking power after apartheid is that they're native, but this is not true. So should the main source of power be redirected to the Khoisans?
Many Khoisans today "Want their land back," and with the land grabs against White South Africans do you think it's appropriate for blacks to surrender their own land to the Khoisans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan_languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion https://www.BBC.com/news/world-africa-36516241