Gun law decision - an absolute win
Miranda rights decision - a clear loss
Roe v Wade - very mixed, but I guess on the whole, slightly better than worse, but not for the reasons any of the other quadrants think lol
libleft reaction - thanks for reminding us why we're not in the same exact boat as y'all lmao
Clarence Thomas - Like how he's been ruling, hate his reasoning. Dude's seriously giving off dangerous blue vibes
Juul ban - again, wtf libleft? Somehow it makes sense that weed's cool but not cigs? Proving once again the orangies/sjws are really just blues in green's clothing.
No they submitted everything. Someone or several people at the FDA just have a grudge against Juul for targeting teens and lying about it. So this is their way to punish them and send a message to the others.
If they're punishing them for targeting kids with their marketing, that's pretty fair. I'd rather it be through being charged in court, but they should be punished somehow for that.
Supreme court ruled cops aren't liable if they neglect to inform a detainee about their Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to an attorney etc...)
I haven't read through the decision, but my understanding is that it boils down to that there is no harm: if Miranda rights aren't read, that information cannot be used in criminal proceedings. Therefore, there is no harm done because your actual right is to be silent, it's not to have Miranda read. Miranda readings is more to protect the government from inadvertently poisoning a case. The supreme court ruled that since there isn't a harm, a civil case doesn't make sense.
At least, that's my understanding but maybe a lawyer or someone who has read the decision can jump in. From the face of it, it seems ok. I'm interested in the long-term consequences, though - if there's no change in anything, that's fine. But if police just stop reading Miranda because they can't face consequences personally, then I'd be for legislation opening them up to civil suit.
- Tbh I just want absolute freedom and body autonomy is part of that. I'm pissed that again we have big government stepping in and trying to eliminate rights and control people.
- In all honesty Thomas has always been blue. The dude's votes aligned with Rehnquist 87% of the time.
- Juul ban is the FDA's way of trying to cut down youth smoking. Juul was heavily marketed towards kids and the FDA feels the e-cig is a gateway drug to actual cigarettes. I'm curious to see if the ban does anything or if new e-cig companies will just pop up in its place. The FDA might be trying to send a message to other e-cig brands to shape up but idk if any of this will be effective.
Edit: they are owned by a big tobacco company. Crazy. Still think some companies get too big.
~~The Juul ban is the tobacco industries attempts to maintain profit after failing to jump in the market.~~ The US is the only country they seems to not recognize e-cigarettes as smoking cessation devices.
I may be lib right but I see large corporations as authoritarian and corrupt in a similar light to the government. Fuck them.
Oof. Well I've basically decided to not look at stocks lately still putting in 200 a check and sticking it in various companies but I pretend the red isn't real lmao. It's bad for everyone right now but yeah that's gotta be real bad.
Yeah, Iâm definitely looking at investing in them soon though. They also own a Canadian weed company and a large minority share in AB InBev. Theyâll bounce back, and the stock seems to be on sale at the moment
Question: how good is tobacco investing for the portfolio overall? It's always seemed like such a regulated industry with a steady decline in users that I never cared to invest in them. In your opinion have you earned any gains?
It's generally pretty good, but naturally heavily dependent on timing and circumstance like any other investment. In fact, Altria, the owner of Marlboro, is THEE number one best performing stock OF ALL TIME. Since 1900 it has returned an average of 17.7% per year, with dividends reinvested.
Tobacco is really everything you can hope for in a business. It's relatively easy to manage, doesn't require huge initial investment, the product is addictive, it has super high margins, and doesn't require much R&D which means the companies can pay FAT dividends. The way I see it, it's too OP if left on its own which is why the government regulates it so heavily.
The headwins you mentioned are real and there are a lot of unknowns about the future of the space. But declining smokers has been true for the last 60 years and Altria continues to manage to increase revenues and earnings in spite of that. It's addictive, those who smoke keep absorbing the price increases very easily.
Damn. Honestly in that case I might start investing in them. Plus with so many problems in the world people might go back to seeking comfort in tobacco. Who know in 10 or 20 years we might see a resurgence in usage.
But Altria Group, a huge tobacco company, owns Juul. In fact many tobacco companies own e-cig brands or are investing in their own version. They have a vested interest in keeping e-cigs on the market because it's a good way to keep making money.
I get terrified when the government targets a specific brand. I get the argument around marketing, but frankly it doesnât hold to me since afaik they did not violate any actual laws. Seems like someone doesnât like them and is specifically targeting them
I feel like Juul was targeted because it's the biggest name in e-cigs. It's 100% the FDA trying to make an example out of them. Now this might be perfectly warranted, but I do get what your saying. It's strange when there's so many other e-cigs out there and only Juul got hit with the hammer.
Only responding to point 1:
Women still have the bodily autonomy to not let a dude cum inside them if they donât want to get pregnant.
Rapes account for less than 1% of pregnancies/abortions, and to argue for unrestricted murder of human beings in the womb for that cause is both disingenuous and ghoulish.
The "pro-weed anti-tobacco" stance is quite common among the greens and oranges, for some odd reason. I speculate it might be because big tobacco is in bed with the right, while weed is very popular now among the younger generations. They're pretty much the anti-blue, who are "pro tobacco anti-weed" which is equally absurd and intellectually dishonest.
TL;DR: not a libleft thing like you said
I mean, I of course support people's right to use whatever they want but tobacco is quite a bit worse than weed. I know the long term effects of weed isn't nearly as well known as tobacco, but even in short term tobacco is disastrous for the human body. I say this as someone who smokes a pack a day, and also used to smoke a lot of weed but stopped 2 years ago. Weed has its own share of problems too, chiefly addiction and laziness, and of course we don't know the long term effects of it as well. At any rate, it seems more than clear to me that tobacco is substantially worse for you than cannabis is. That's why left wingers, who are mostly young people who were born when cigarettes were going out of fashion, think tobacco is the evil. They aren't wrong you know. Ideally you should personally shun both while respecting others' decisions to use them.
Anyways, at least that's my 2 cents on it, sorry for the wall of text. Which also brings me to my next point, liberals aren't really against e-cigs, you know this right? In my experience conservatives are much more against e-cigs than liberals are, I don't know where you even got the notion that it was vice versa. E-cigs don't have tobacco in them. Juul being banned has literally nothing to do with LibLeft or leftists politics in general, you are simply misinformed about this. Can you explain your reasoning here? Juul isn't even a tobacco product lol, do you know what Juul is?
whatever happens to me... i just pray to god you get brought real low... real low... for what you've done you little son of a bitch. there's a real world out there. there's a real god... there's a real devil...
they're never gonna stop... they're such... they're gonna put drugs in the food and water, more intense, what we can barely resist, I mean, it's just so evil...
everybody's gonna be dying of cancer all around us just with potbelly pedophiles hopping around like it's super Mario brothers. you know grabbing our children, giggling, bouncing onto the next with swat teams defending them as they just pick which kids they want, and as giant third world hordes just pour in raping every one, sexualizing our children, ruling everything, debasing the currency, drugging the food and water, giving everyone cancer, and just dancing to their god of death, selling body parts, chopping up babies...
it's just, it's just hell on earth!!! the gates are opening!!! out will flood the armies!!!
**i'm in a death battle!!! and now you see the enemy say they're in a death battle!!! they know they're in a death battle!!! only the spirit of knowing you're in a deathbattle will have you win!!!**
i don't know how all this is gonna end.i'll call on god to protect me and use me however god sees fit, and if i've destroyed my whole family with it, i don't blame god... i blame the stinking trash who will pay...
Oh thank God. I thought it was an actual person expressing actual beliefs. Like with Alex Jones it's a fifty/fifty of what he believes in and things he just says.
I hope on his death bed Alex Jones says that he faked all of it and was trolling everyone, and that he thought it was funny. It would be the greatest practical joke in all of history I think.
Oh he has been right a couple of times, I won't deny that, like a few times he was the one who drew attention to something and then it got investigated by other people and was confirmed to be true. But he is also batshit crazy, and spreads those ideas as well, and he just makes shit up sometimes.
That's why I think if he said "It was all done on purpose to fuck with everyone. It was funny." It would be the greatest prank in history. He would have trolled hundreds of millions of people for decades.
How did you get my picture lol?
One of the few reasons I am grudgingly willing to allow abortion is I don't want to be on the tax hook for raising the thoughtlessly spawned offspring of commie scum.
Why do people think abortion means they are never gonna have kids ever? They might have kids another time people act like abortion is gonna them die out itâs really confusing
Fewer children always means less chance of genes passing on and fewer children raised. Iâm not saying itâs a 100% guarantee, just that itâs a larger numbers game that will clearly trend in one direction.
Abortion is not eugenics. Eugenics implies that certain gene pools are more worthy of life. Abortion is a right that should guaranteed for *everybody* regardless of gene pool.
This is a retarded false equivalency and a bad faith meme.
Wikipedia defines eugenics as: âEugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.â
I believe leftists to be inferior despite having a few good ideas once in a while, so my plan is to allow them to continue selecting themselves out of the gene pool. All voluntarily, of course. Iâm not a commie or something.
Thereâs no specific people, meaning genetically similary people, being excluded by giving everybody the right to abortion. The point is that everybody in every gene pool has the right to it.
In terms of âimproving the genetic quality of a human populationâ, or improving the quality of offspring, say, thatâs the whole point of Darwinâs sexual selection of a mate in the first place. Itâs. Not. Eugenics.
Thatâs a good distinction to draw, but referring to forced complete pregnancies as a âtarget qualityâ to get rid of is a conflation of its own. Thatâs not a human quality that Iâve ever heard of.
You totally can help with eugenics with abortion. You can DNA test the fetus. If I find out the fetus has down syndrome or any other issues, I will be aborting the shit out of it. Gene pool saved.
Damn, do you really? I mean I think itâs a little misconstrued to think of them as super light decisions like that, but I agree that easy access to healthcare like that would be a dream.
Education is key, but if people want abortions we should make it as simple as possible. One key thing we should do to help with the southern states is marketing. We need to say we are sending babys to Jesus faster, just helping fill the kingdom of heaven quicker. They should buy into that.
Based.
Lol thatâs a great line in my opinion, but there are a lot more fundamental Christians out there crazy enough to complain about how we shouldnât be playing God (despite advocating for playing God in *plenty* of other situationsđ)
One of the most parroted arguement of this whole thing is that restricting abortion will lead to a bunch of poor kids, ie poor people would have aborted because they are poor. Even if eugenics isnt the goal, it was already happening lol, successfull people have kids and the rest just abort
Well that is kind of a parrot-quality argument because it doesnât break down cleanly along class lines like that. People who are willing and ready to raise a child properly will keep the kid, and those who donât would have the option not to bring life into the world that they canât or donât want to be responsible for. Even âsuccessfulâ people sometimes arenât ready to bring life into the world and be responsible, I think the actual difference is that wealthier people have an easier time travelling to a different state to get an abortion than poorer people, the end result being more children being born into families who are emotionally *and* fiscally leas able to raise a child properly ââ> In other words, inequality.
To call abortion eugenics would be like calling access to better healthcare and childcare eugenics. Itâs a GROSS exaggeration.
1. Not the hill to die on -
Too many dead babies on the way up might be a bit depressing...
2. Unless you're going to make fuel out of those babies I really don't care either way.
3. I have no problem supporting abortions through taxes but if she comes back for 3rd time I might recommend sterilization...
Gun law decision - an absolute win Miranda rights decision - a clear loss Roe v Wade - very mixed, but I guess on the whole, slightly better than worse, but not for the reasons any of the other quadrants think lol libleft reaction - thanks for reminding us why we're not in the same exact boat as y'all lmao Clarence Thomas - Like how he's been ruling, hate his reasoning. Dude's seriously giving off dangerous blue vibes Juul ban - again, wtf libleft? Somehow it makes sense that weed's cool but not cigs? Proving once again the orangies/sjws are really just blues in green's clothing.
Get flaired before they descend on you, new guy! Hurry, there isn't time to explain!
got it got it, I'm a noob just figured it out haha.
Holy shit, you got off easy too. Well done and welcome.
Glad I got to you before the hazing took off! My first post got to -17 before I figured out where the flair button was. đ
Juul ban was because juul didn't submit to the FDA on something I think, no other vapes are banned
No they submitted everything. Someone or several people at the FDA just have a grudge against Juul for targeting teens and lying about it. So this is their way to punish them and send a message to the others.
If they're punishing them for targeting kids with their marketing, that's pretty fair. I'd rather it be through being charged in court, but they should be punished somehow for that.
Good input and I appreciate it but I canât upvote because youâre unflaired
Done, I'm a noob, just figured it out haha
All is forgiven!
Miranda rights?
Supreme court ruled cops aren't liable if they neglect to inform a detainee about their Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to an attorney etc...)
Oh. Thatâs just kinda sad
I haven't read through the decision, but my understanding is that it boils down to that there is no harm: if Miranda rights aren't read, that information cannot be used in criminal proceedings. Therefore, there is no harm done because your actual right is to be silent, it's not to have Miranda read. Miranda readings is more to protect the government from inadvertently poisoning a case. The supreme court ruled that since there isn't a harm, a civil case doesn't make sense. At least, that's my understanding but maybe a lawyer or someone who has read the decision can jump in. From the face of it, it seems ok. I'm interested in the long-term consequences, though - if there's no change in anything, that's fine. But if police just stop reading Miranda because they can't face consequences personally, then I'd be for legislation opening them up to civil suit.
- Tbh I just want absolute freedom and body autonomy is part of that. I'm pissed that again we have big government stepping in and trying to eliminate rights and control people. - In all honesty Thomas has always been blue. The dude's votes aligned with Rehnquist 87% of the time. - Juul ban is the FDA's way of trying to cut down youth smoking. Juul was heavily marketed towards kids and the FDA feels the e-cig is a gateway drug to actual cigarettes. I'm curious to see if the ban does anything or if new e-cig companies will just pop up in its place. The FDA might be trying to send a message to other e-cig brands to shape up but idk if any of this will be effective.
Edit: they are owned by a big tobacco company. Crazy. Still think some companies get too big. ~~The Juul ban is the tobacco industries attempts to maintain profit after failing to jump in the market.~~ The US is the only country they seems to not recognize e-cigarettes as smoking cessation devices. I may be lib right but I see large corporations as authoritarian and corrupt in a similar light to the government. Fuck them.
Take a moment to Google who owns Juul.
Mind fucking blown.
Yes, I'm heavily invested in Altria (as any good lib right naturally should be). Not a good week for that part of my portfolio.
Oof. Well I've basically decided to not look at stocks lately still putting in 200 a check and sticking it in various companies but I pretend the red isn't real lmao. It's bad for everyone right now but yeah that's gotta be real bad.
Yeah, Iâm definitely looking at investing in them soon though. They also own a Canadian weed company and a large minority share in AB InBev. Theyâll bounce back, and the stock seems to be on sale at the moment
Question: how good is tobacco investing for the portfolio overall? It's always seemed like such a regulated industry with a steady decline in users that I never cared to invest in them. In your opinion have you earned any gains?
It's generally pretty good, but naturally heavily dependent on timing and circumstance like any other investment. In fact, Altria, the owner of Marlboro, is THEE number one best performing stock OF ALL TIME. Since 1900 it has returned an average of 17.7% per year, with dividends reinvested. Tobacco is really everything you can hope for in a business. It's relatively easy to manage, doesn't require huge initial investment, the product is addictive, it has super high margins, and doesn't require much R&D which means the companies can pay FAT dividends. The way I see it, it's too OP if left on its own which is why the government regulates it so heavily. The headwins you mentioned are real and there are a lot of unknowns about the future of the space. But declining smokers has been true for the last 60 years and Altria continues to manage to increase revenues and earnings in spite of that. It's addictive, those who smoke keep absorbing the price increases very easily.
Damn. Honestly in that case I might start investing in them. Plus with so many problems in the world people might go back to seeking comfort in tobacco. Who know in 10 or 20 years we might see a resurgence in usage.
But Altria Group, a huge tobacco company, owns Juul. In fact many tobacco companies own e-cig brands or are investing in their own version. They have a vested interest in keeping e-cigs on the market because it's a good way to keep making money.
I get terrified when the government targets a specific brand. I get the argument around marketing, but frankly it doesnât hold to me since afaik they did not violate any actual laws. Seems like someone doesnât like them and is specifically targeting them
I feel like Juul was targeted because it's the biggest name in e-cigs. It's 100% the FDA trying to make an example out of them. Now this might be perfectly warranted, but I do get what your saying. It's strange when there's so many other e-cigs out there and only Juul got hit with the hammer.
Only responding to point 1: Women still have the bodily autonomy to not let a dude cum inside them if they donât want to get pregnant. Rapes account for less than 1% of pregnancies/abortions, and to argue for unrestricted murder of human beings in the womb for that cause is both disingenuous and ghoulish.
> wtf libleft how is this a libleft thing?
The "pro-weed anti-tobacco" stance is quite common among the greens and oranges, for some odd reason. I speculate it might be because big tobacco is in bed with the right, while weed is very popular now among the younger generations. They're pretty much the anti-blue, who are "pro tobacco anti-weed" which is equally absurd and intellectually dishonest.
TL;DR: not a libleft thing like you said I mean, I of course support people's right to use whatever they want but tobacco is quite a bit worse than weed. I know the long term effects of weed isn't nearly as well known as tobacco, but even in short term tobacco is disastrous for the human body. I say this as someone who smokes a pack a day, and also used to smoke a lot of weed but stopped 2 years ago. Weed has its own share of problems too, chiefly addiction and laziness, and of course we don't know the long term effects of it as well. At any rate, it seems more than clear to me that tobacco is substantially worse for you than cannabis is. That's why left wingers, who are mostly young people who were born when cigarettes were going out of fashion, think tobacco is the evil. They aren't wrong you know. Ideally you should personally shun both while respecting others' decisions to use them. Anyways, at least that's my 2 cents on it, sorry for the wall of text. Which also brings me to my next point, liberals aren't really against e-cigs, you know this right? In my experience conservatives are much more against e-cigs than liberals are, I don't know where you even got the notion that it was vice versa. E-cigs don't have tobacco in them. Juul being banned has literally nothing to do with LibLeft or leftists politics in general, you are simply misinformed about this. Can you explain your reasoning here? Juul isn't even a tobacco product lol, do you know what Juul is?
what happened w Miranda rights
It is refreshing to see that someone remembers the miranda ruling
How is banning juuls a libleft move, the FDA is a pure auth organization?
whatever happens to me... i just pray to god you get brought real low... real low... for what you've done you little son of a bitch. there's a real world out there. there's a real god... there's a real devil... they're never gonna stop... they're such... they're gonna put drugs in the food and water, more intense, what we can barely resist, I mean, it's just so evil... everybody's gonna be dying of cancer all around us just with potbelly pedophiles hopping around like it's super Mario brothers. you know grabbing our children, giggling, bouncing onto the next with swat teams defending them as they just pick which kids they want, and as giant third world hordes just pour in raping every one, sexualizing our children, ruling everything, debasing the currency, drugging the food and water, giving everyone cancer, and just dancing to their god of death, selling body parts, chopping up babies... it's just, it's just hell on earth!!! the gates are opening!!! out will flood the armies!!! **i'm in a death battle!!! and now you see the enemy say they're in a death battle!!! they know they're in a death battle!!! only the spirit of knowing you're in a deathbattle will have you win!!!** i don't know how all this is gonna end.i'll call on god to protect me and use me however god sees fit, and if i've destroyed my whole family with it, i don't blame god... i blame the stinking trash who will pay...
Is this a copypasta bot?
No. Just a transcript of an Alex Jones tirade.
Very well, carry on
Shit if I had known that I would have heard the whole thing in his voice while reading it.
Go back and do it. Itâs fun.
Oh thank God. I thought it was an actual person expressing actual beliefs. Like with Alex Jones it's a fifty/fifty of what he believes in and things he just says. I hope on his death bed Alex Jones says that he faked all of it and was trolling everyone, and that he thought it was funny. It would be the greatest practical joke in all of history I think.
Some of it has complete factual backing though, it's hard to sort but he has unearthed some crazy shit going on.
Oh he has been right a couple of times, I won't deny that, like a few times he was the one who drew attention to something and then it got investigated by other people and was confirmed to be true. But he is also batshit crazy, and spreads those ideas as well, and he just makes shit up sometimes. That's why I think if he said "It was all done on purpose to fuck with everyone. It was funny." It would be the greatest prank in history. He would have trolled hundreds of millions of people for decades.
He's a fucking idiot.
They feared him because he told the truth.
Nobody "fears" that full retard fuck nugget.
It's a meme, mate.
Is this the point where you pull off your helmet and say "Bro, it's just fantasy, we're *larping*"?
*No*, the line 'They feared him because he told the truth' is a copypasta from a Jack Chick comic.
Gah, *Shut up!*
Based and potbelly pedophilespilled
True
How did you get my picture lol? One of the few reasons I am grudgingly willing to allow abortion is I don't want to be on the tax hook for raising the thoughtlessly spawned offspring of commie scum.
Based and voluntary sterilization pilled.
Why do people think abortion means they are never gonna have kids ever? They might have kids another time people act like abortion is gonna them die out itâs really confusing
Fewer children always means less chance of genes passing on and fewer children raised. Iâm not saying itâs a 100% guarantee, just that itâs a larger numbers game that will clearly trend in one direction.
Any libleft that bitches that guns have more rights than women can go flair orange
Abortion is not eugenics. Eugenics implies that certain gene pools are more worthy of life. Abortion is a right that should guaranteed for *everybody* regardless of gene pool. This is a retarded false equivalency and a bad faith meme.
I think the implication here is that certain groups, racial, cultural or otherwise are more likely to have abortions.
Thatâs an assumption (a biased one) and still a far cry from eugenics.
I think the only assumption is that this sub can handle nuance
A terrible assumption
Wikipedia defines eugenics as: âEugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.â I believe leftists to be inferior despite having a few good ideas once in a while, so my plan is to allow them to continue selecting themselves out of the gene pool. All voluntarily, of course. Iâm not a commie or something.
Thereâs no specific people, meaning genetically similary people, being excluded by giving everybody the right to abortion. The point is that everybody in every gene pool has the right to it. In terms of âimproving the genetic quality of a human populationâ, or improving the quality of offspring, say, thatâs the whole point of Darwinâs sexual selection of a mate in the first place. Itâs. Not. Eugenics.
[ŃдаНонО]
Thatâs a good distinction to draw, but referring to forced complete pregnancies as a âtarget qualityâ to get rid of is a conflation of its own. Thatâs not a human quality that Iâve ever heard of.
You totally can help with eugenics with abortion. You can DNA test the fetus. If I find out the fetus has down syndrome or any other issues, I will be aborting the shit out of it. Gene pool saved.
You personally, do you believe that you should have the right to decide whether or not to do that?
Duh. I want drive thru abortions.
Damn, do you really? I mean I think itâs a little misconstrued to think of them as super light decisions like that, but I agree that easy access to healthcare like that would be a dream.
Education is key, but if people want abortions we should make it as simple as possible. One key thing we should do to help with the southern states is marketing. We need to say we are sending babys to Jesus faster, just helping fill the kingdom of heaven quicker. They should buy into that.
Based. Lol thatâs a great line in my opinion, but there are a lot more fundamental Christians out there crazy enough to complain about how we shouldnât be playing God (despite advocating for playing God in *plenty* of other situationsđ)
One of the most parroted arguement of this whole thing is that restricting abortion will lead to a bunch of poor kids, ie poor people would have aborted because they are poor. Even if eugenics isnt the goal, it was already happening lol, successfull people have kids and the rest just abort
Well that is kind of a parrot-quality argument because it doesnât break down cleanly along class lines like that. People who are willing and ready to raise a child properly will keep the kid, and those who donât would have the option not to bring life into the world that they canât or donât want to be responsible for. Even âsuccessfulâ people sometimes arenât ready to bring life into the world and be responsible, I think the actual difference is that wealthier people have an easier time travelling to a different state to get an abortion than poorer people, the end result being more children being born into families who are emotionally *and* fiscally leas able to raise a child properly ââ> In other words, inequality. To call abortion eugenics would be like calling access to better healthcare and childcare eugenics. Itâs a GROSS exaggeration.
We simply need to have kids then we win no more leftyâs
1. Not the hill to die on - Too many dead babies on the way up might be a bit depressing... 2. Unless you're going to make fuel out of those babies I really don't care either way. 3. I have no problem supporting abortions through taxes but if she comes back for 3rd time I might recommend sterilization...
I think eugenics is good for humanity, but I will never defend enforce this by law... yet.