Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Sort
Coming soon
65 points · 1 day ago

Where in his post did he say command economies were efficient? His point is that there are real winners and losers when the US and China trade, even if the result is a net “gain” in the aggregate for the US. If you’re a factory worker in the US, the government has quite literally not been working for you for the past 20 years. It’s little consolation that the overall economy is better off at your expense.

see more

There was nothing the government could have done to save factory jobs. It was the computer revolution that killed those jobs. Not trade with China. The government could have called in CEO's and executed any that modernized their plants. All that would have happened is those companies would have gone bankrupt and been replaced by companies building brand new plants and factories that were modernized from the get go.

A lot of the manufacturing jobs were going to go away no matter what the government did. They were not saveable. Period.

No, not savable. But what did the government do to support them making this transition?

This is what happens when you don’t support the people who’ve just lost their jobs, their community’s way of life! But instead focus on what those people see as frivolous (the bathroom debate), and on about how ‘privileged’ they are.... they’ll feel completely abandoned by their government.

Easy pickings for Trump. I think the left has to share some of the blame for Trump with the right.

see more
11 points · 1 day ago · edited 1 day ago

Except that there has been extensive programs for retraining offered to people for decades now. People just literally chose to ignore the offered benefits of being trained for new industries.

In the Coal mining regions of West Virginia, Southern Ohio, Kentucky, and South West Penn, the locals have been actively rejecting any effort to do anything other than be miners. Mining is going away. It now employs about 30,000 people total in the United States. It's never going to employ 1,000,000 people again. That's impossible because mining isn't done by people anymore, it's now done by giant mining machines. People who now working in mining are there largely to setup and maintain the giant mining mechanical apparatus that does 99.5% of the actual mining. Even if it saw a giant boom as an industry, it would only add 10-15K jobs. That's literally the best case scenario for it short of the United States losing a large nuclear war.

Guess what, fathers are still telling their sons to not go to college because they're sure Trump is going to reverse the last 100 years of change in the mining industry.

Awaiting Trump's coal comeback, miners reject retraining

I'm sorry, but there are whole swaths of people who could be retraining for other industries..... technical computer and programming jobs, trades like construction, plumbing or electricians, banking, accounting, real estate, getting management degrees, telecom industry, etc. All pay on par or more than mining. And they don't have the problems of black lung disease.

But nope, people refuse to take advantage of these possibilities because magic is going happen for the first time in the history of the human race and mining will come back to employing a million people any day now.

And we're supposed to feel sorry for these people? I would very much feel sorry for them if they were trying and failing. I would be happy to see them using the training so much that they needed the government to spend even more on it. They aren't even trying to help themselves.

I'm sorry, but since these people have actively refused to even try some retraining, at this point I'm down with a solution they won't like. They are not willing to even try to help themselves. As such society needs to just let them die. If they want to change their minds later, fine. But until then, I have given up caring about them. They have actively rebuffed 30+ years of help. They would rather complain then change. So yeah, let them die.

Load more comments

And I'm saying even if it did, it would still leave him in a weird spot.

How'd you know that Elon? What other active pedophiles do you currently know about that you haven't said anything about?

see more

The next question would not be about other possible Pedophiles, it would be "Elon Musk, are you, yourself, a pedophile?". And that's when the boards of all his companies demand that he resign. Because if that's even a logical question to ask, who wants to do business with them?

This is not actually going to happen, but what if Elon actually came up with evidence the dude is actually a pedophile.

I thought trump winning the election was the twist of the century, but that would be ridiculous. Hero cave diver sued deranged rocket billionaire for libel actually turns out to be a pedophile.

Then again, Bill Cosby is a rapist, so stranger things have happened.

see more

That would make Musk look worse. It would mean Elon Musk doesn't care if a pedophile is out there raping children as long as it doesn't effect him. If the only time he cares is when it starts to impinge upon Musk himself, then we all need to ask why. And the question "Is Musk a pedophile himself? Is that why he knew about this guy?" isn't that far away.

So, if Musk is lucky, he's going to loose big.

271 points · 2 days ago

As an European, I agree with this ban of cars in Paris.

In fact, I would completely support a total ban of cars in Paris.

see more

There are handicapped people who need cars. If you banned cars where my sister lives and she would never be able to leave her home.

Not everyone is able to live without them. Telling them to die is not an option.

12 points · 2 days ago

Here in the Netherlands handicapped people ride specially-equipped bicycles, mobility scooters, and micro-vehicles (like Canta and Biro) in the cycle paths. I think it's sad that you can't envision mobility for the handicapped without using 2000 kg of steel.

see more

I'm sure some handicapped people don't need cars. But some due. And those who due need cars much be allowed to live their lives as well.

Moderator of r/history, speaking officially1 point · 3 days ago

Hello, /u/MysteriousHistorian0. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

  • It breaks rule 7: Post in the right subreddit.
    Your submission is not suitable for /r/history. Instead, try /r/HomeworkHelp.

  • We have no idea if you know what you are talking about here. As such, sorry.... but we can't allow the submission.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

Moderator of r/history, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 3 days ago · Stickied comment

Hello, /u/Dzivik. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

We've decided to limit submissions about certain historical subjects which closely relate to current political developments and events. As always, submissions on this subreddit are limited to events greater than 20 years ago. While your submission can be historical in nature, the comments it will attract will be veering too much into current events at the moment. These submissions make for a disproportionate drain on our limited, volunteer mod resources, which could be better allocated elsewhere. Thank you for your understanding.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

Moderator of r/history, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 3 days ago · Stickied comment

Hello, /u/AshenUrsa. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

  • /r/history is not a place to crowdsource your research efforts. We apply our "no homework" rule to not only students, but to authors, journalists, and anyone else seeking to use the subreddit as their research team. The goal here is to generate discussions about history, and the original post should be geared in that effort.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

davidreiss666 commented on
Moderator of r/history, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 3 days ago · Stickied comment

Hello, /u/Ignitedbonnie. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

  • Your submission title doesn't say much of anything. Also, you really need to expand the self-post part as well.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

Moderator of r/history, speaking officially1 point · 3 days ago

Hello, /u/RKovev. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

  • It breaks rule 6: When submitting link posts, leave a description, in a comment, following your submission.
    We kindly request that you lead off the discussion with a small blurb about the submission. We strongly feel that if you find something interesting enough to share on /r/history it should be no problem to leave a short comment (50 or more words) about what you submitted. This may be anything from why you thought this is relevant for /r/history to what you found interesting about what you have submitted. This comment left by the OP can best be seen as a kickstarter for discussion. If there is already a comment present people will be more inclined to respond about the subject resulting in more and on-topic discussion.

When you've added in some personal contribution to the thread, message the moderators. and we'll see about getting your post back online. Thanks.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

By this logic all public votes should be ended until 70% of the population can prove they know what elections and referendums are for.

see more

Nobody who voted for Leave knew what Leave meant when they voted for it. Millions thought it meant the Norway model. That's not on the table. Those who voted for the Norway model have a right to say "wait, you lied to me you stupid fucks". If Brexit is truly "the will of the people" then a new vote will confirm that easy enough. But if it can't be confirmed, then yes..... the initial vote should be ignored.

You, me and a bunch of our Reddit friends go out to a restaurant. You say "I don't like this restaurant, let's leave". All your Reddit friends then hold a vote to leave the Restaurant. Then later, I somehow am hailed as our leader and I announce "some people who voted to leave the restaurant wanted to commit suicide, so now we have all entered into a fully binding suicide pact".

Don't you think the people who just wanted to go to a new restaurant have a right to complain about forced suicide not being involved in the discussion when we were debating what do back when you said you didn't like that restaurant.

2 points · 3 days ago

That's the same with anything the general public vote on in the UK, as a result of only ever being partially informed.

see more

Except they can and do vote people out of office based on past performance. They should be afforded that same right with regard to Brexit.

Load more comments

Well DNA testing is done on the worlds populations. See Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup.

Going with your example though, who is somebody who we have DNA from who we know for sure was an Illyrian? And assuming we have it, how do we know they were your average Illyrian? Remember, every population has outliers who don't follow the general rules the rest hold in common.

A lot of the people we think of as Illyrians's from Ancient Rome were really Romans who were born in the region. But in most of those cases, they were Romans (Italians) whose families in the recent past moved to the region. Those people would clearly not meet the standard you are looking for.

The issue here is also going to be centered on the conservative nature of genetics itself. For example, Cheddar Man are the remains of a person who died in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England about 9500 years ago. When they did DNA testing on him, they found that about 10% of the local residents there today were distant relatives of him.

Yes, the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans and others had come to Britain since Cheddar Mans. Yet we can be more than sure than several other groups invaded or migrated through the region since Cheddar Man was a breathing person. And a good amount of the DNA from Cheddar Mans time period was still hanging around.

So, what does it tell you? Other than that maybe Humans like to mate with other humans, regardless of other factors. We know that the Albanian language is an Indo-European language. So ever if we assume that they share some long term DNA relationship in the region, what does that mean if culturally they changed sever times over?

Put another way, if you go back far enough, all humans are Africans. What does being Albanian (or Japanese, English, American, etc.) mean when compared to that common shared ancestry with all fellow humans?

Moderator of r/history, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 3 days ago · Stickied comment

Hello, /u/TimeVendor. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

  • It breaks rule 6: When submitting link posts, leave a description, in a comment, following your submission.
    We kindly request that you lead off the discussion with a small blurb about the submission. We strongly feel that if you find something interesting enough to share on /r/history it should be no problem to leave a short comment (50 or more words) about what you submitted. This may be anything from why you thought this is relevant for /r/history to what you found interesting about what you have submitted. This comment left by the OP can best be seen as a kickstarter for discussion. If there is already a comment present people will be more inclined to respond about the subject resulting in more and on-topic discussion.

When you've added in some personal contribution to the thread, message the moderators. and we'll see about getting your post back online. Thanks.

  • Please find an article source that includes the full article. We shouldn't have to subscribe to a pay-service to read the article.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

I mean you are throwing billions in to useless Aircraft Carriers while you have no healthcare or free universities, your country is already a trash can.

You need like 10 more Aircraft Carriers so Palestine can't destroy your towers /s

see more

You do understand that if the US voted in Medicare for all the US government would save $1.8 TRILLION each year. The total US military budget is about $600 billion. The US could provide better health care to all it's citizens and quadruple the Military budget without a tax increase in one feel swoop.

You think the 10 or 19 Aircraft carriers the US has now is a lot, think of what $1.8 trillion could buy? Oh boy, I'm thinking you don't like this plan. I don't either, but for the sake of this comment to rub a big handful of salt in to your open wound, I'm willing to make an exception.

Comment deleted3 days ago

Iran forever renounced any rights to nuclear weapons when they signed the NNPT. I might add, they are the only nation to have ever signed it twice. Once in you can never withdraw. Israel never signed on, and more so..... everyone knew Israel was never going to sign on. Iran knew that both times they signed it.

If they don't like their irrevocable decision, tough.

More so, I am not going to point out that this is not just the position of the United States government, but of Russia, China and the EU as well. Not liking these facts does not change these facts.

More so, while Israel does not acknowledge officially that they are a nuclear power, they have unofficially subjected themselves to inspections of their nuclear program by the United States, the UK, France, the EU itself, as well as from both Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Egypt has the right via secret parts of Camp David accords, and Saudi Arabia was given the opportunity a few times so they know for sure -- unmistakably -- that Israel is a nuclear power. MAD doesn't work if your potential enemies don't buy in on the root concept.

Egypt and the Saudis then pass around their proof to the rest of the Middle East.

Israel is under no obligation to denuclearize as they never signed the NNTP. Where as Iran irrevocably signed the NNTP. If Iran doesn't like this, tough.

Load more comments

Original Poster307 points · 3 days ago

Now the whole world can enjoy America's opioid epidemic.

see more

The article is from 2016. What next, you going to let us all know who won the election for President that year? How about who won the Super bowl in Feb, 2017. I mean, Wikipedia would tell me but I think you should do it because you love advertising old news as if it's new.

I don't disagree, but do you not feel that should have been openly advertised. A non binding referendum is little more than an opinion poll and should be described as such.

Ultimately it should never have taken place.

see more
Original Poster3 points · 3 days ago

Don't you think they should have asked a question would have lead to a real answer as to what people wanted?

A Leave vote was advertised as meaning about ten different things. Several million people voted to leave thinking they were going to get the Norway model of non-membership in the EU. If even 20% thought they were voting for a Hard Brexit, then that's a high number. Exactly how many of those people who voted Leave assumed that a Leave vote might kill their grandparents because Drugs might become scarce. Right now the May Government is recommending that Hospitals and Nursing Homes stockpile drugs just in case they can't get them after Brexit.

I doubt anyone thought they were actively voting to snuff out grandma or grandpa. Yet here we are.

-20 points · 3 days ago

Sorry but you shouldn’t get to redo a vote just because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted. It reminds me of the US Supreme Court. When republicans had control of the SC the democrats just added more seats and filled them with democrat judges. Then when the balance shifted the republicans tried to do the same thing.

see more
Original Poster14 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

Many of the people who voted Leave in the first referendum thought they were going to get the Norway model. That's entirely 100% off the table now. Those people get to scream "We was lied too" and back out of their votes.

Likewise, those people who thought they wanted out because the NHS would get an extra £350 million each week. They now have found out that pulling out the EU means NHS costs will increase. And that Hospitals and Nursing Homes are now being told to stockpile drugs by the government, because pulling out of the EU without a trade deal means the EU might not want to export them to Britain afterwards. How many people really thought they were voting leave to kill their grandmother?

I'm sorry if you don't like these things, but very few people were voting to get ass raped by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Sure, maybe some people are into that sort of thing, but before you force a naked Jacob Rees-Mogg on a country, it's only polite to ask at least twice. If only so people know that it's not a euphemism.

Also, if we only are supposed to hold elections once.... then why isn't the dead corpse of David Lloyd George still Prime Minster? Maybe that's actually because periodically new elections are held.

Moderator of r/history, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 3 days ago · Stickied comment

Hello, /u/mikeyp43. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

  • It breaks rule 2: No current politics or soapboxing.
    Submissions & comments that are overtly political or that attract too much political discussion will be removed; political topics are only acceptable if discussed in a historical context. Comments should discuss a historical topic, not advocate an agenda.

  • It breaks rule 5: Discussions are limited to events greater than 20 years ago

  • I'm sorry, but /r/History doesn't allow discussion of politics at all. We're a history subreddit, and as such we have to keep it focused on the history. When we have tried to allow politics, it quickly just becomes a political food fight and that's not what we want here.

As such, I'm sorry, but we can't allow your submission.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

Moderator of r/history, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 3 days ago · Stickied comment

Hello, /u/pranjalmehar. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

  • It breaks rule 6: When submitting link posts, leave a description, in a comment, following your submission.
    We kindly request that you lead off the discussion with a small blurb about the submission. We strongly feel that if you find something interesting enough to share on /r/history it should be no problem to leave a short comment (50 or more words) about what you submitted. This may be anything from why you thought this is relevant for /r/history to what you found interesting about what you have submitted. This comment left by the OP can best be seen as a kickstarter for discussion. If there is already a comment present people will be more inclined to respond about the subject resulting in more and on-topic discussion.

When you've added in some personal contribution to the thread, message the moderators. and we'll see about getting your post back online. Thanks.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

I would suggest watching In Defense of Columbus: An Exaggerated Evil. Any prosecution is going to be forced to come to grips with how Columbus doing something was wrong, but when Pizarro or Cortés do things much worse, they are hailed as heroes by the Spanish government.

Realistically, if you want hold Columbus responsible, you have to hold the Entire Spanish crown and even probably the Catholic Church just as responsible. As that evil was baked into Spanish society and the Spanish culture from the beginning. Everything Columbus did when he "discovered" the new world, is pretty much exactly what one would have predicted ahead of time regardless of who was in charge of the first voyages from Spain or Portugal.

And the problem with a prosecution is the minute you blame all of Spanish or European culture for what happened, it demonstrates that Columbus was probably powerless to stop any of it.

8 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

I would suggest that you are viewing Washington with rose colored glasses. And viewing other Presidents through the prism of future knowledge that they lacked. I don't think highly of Franklin Pierce but even if we want to claim he or others saw the Civil War coming, then maybe the problem is that they saw it all too clearly. 600,000 Unionists died, and 400,000 Confederates. That's a million dead in a country of 30 million. That's something a lot of realists would actively attempt to avoid, is it not?

Also, John Adams through his son just isn't a bad list of Presidents. That's a list of some of the best Presidents in American history.

Moderator of r/history, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 3 days ago · Stickied comment

Hello, /u/KarayaHartmann. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed:

  • You aren't even making an argument here. At least demonstrate that you have read the relevant Wikipedia articles on the subject and then ask the question. But that might actually answer your question and why would you want it answered, I guess.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

While I'll agree at the macro level states' rights was not a driving consideration for the south... That's still not an answer to the original question.

see more

Yes, it is the answer to the question. When all the song and dance is done, the Civil War was about ending slavery. The rest is a song and dance signifying nothing. One side was pro-slavery and the other ended it by force of arms. Those who wanted to keep it were and are pro-slavery. Actions speak louder than words.

Any assertion that the northern states accepted a war against the south with the intent to end slavery is revisionist in the extreme. While that was an outcome, it was not the motive to any degree at the outset.

see more

that was an outcome

Actions speak louder than words. The revisionist bs is to deny the outcome.

u/davidreiss666
Karma
2,742,620
Cake day
November 4, 2006
Moderator of these communities
r/LifeProTips

14,605,019 subscribers

r/food

13,959,202 subscribers

r/history

13,296,826 subscribers

Trophy Case (15)
11-Year Club

Gilding II

euphauric

Well-rounded

2015-03-31

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.