We can't arrest all of you absolute neanderthals. So it will literally work. Or since our system is broken it'll just fucking work anyways???

Fucking stop arguing this shit and win every election? Their all so stupid.

So it's like some easy own to make fun of the US for how much we spend on healthcare, and I get it, we spend a lot. We've been spending a lot for the last 70 years.

The world... You are welcome....

I know, that is a super elitist arrogant statement, and I don't actually mean it, but you all need to educate yourself on how healthcare works in the era of global trade. I work for one of these large medical companies and do analytics for a lot of their spend YoY... so let me explain why the system of the US paying a premium has benefitted everyone.

First, lets hit the obvious points. The USA is responsible for roughly 68% of global healthcare profits(Some estimates have this as high as 78%).

That's right, 4.3% of the worlds population is the global profit center for every medtech company in the world. These are profits that then get reinvested into things like R&D. They also allow for smaller countries to negotiate better terms in their own healthcare deals because these companies aren't relying on them to help meet quarterly quotas.

Americans use newer medication 82% more often than Europeans. These medications cost more... because they're newer. They are developed because they can be pushed and sold in a market that then turns a profit on them.

This is just how a global market works. The richer spend more so the poorer can benefit. That is the story of the USA in the global healthcare market, and I am a little tired of everyone thinking this is some massive own.

France for instance has negotiated healthcare price controls. They have less than 1% of the global world population. I am gong to use a common company, Johnson and Johnson. They have about 12%-13% market share in both the US and France. Yearly they make about 14B in revenue from sales in France. They make 16.8B in revenue PER QUARTER from sales in the US.

The US is subsidizing these global medical companies with the cost of our healthcare. It's also a massive leg of our economy where insurance makes up about 5% of our economy. Even assuming you don't lose all of those jobs, some percentage is undoubtably bloat and waste and removing that will have a massive impact.

None of this was to throw shots at Europeans, it was just some context. I love the French system and think it's structured in a really cool way, but you guy's aren't on the same scale as the US. You aren't supporting the R&D or subsidizing the remainder of the world. Sweden, I love you guys, you allocate 4.8B yearly to medical R&D, J&J spends 17B yearly, Medtronic spends 19.2B, Abbot spends 4.9B.

Yes the US is going to need to do something about their healthcare spend as our market starts adjusting to a different global economy... but that may not be good for the remainder of the world. The first thing these companies will cut is charitable outreach, then their R&D, then they will abandon less profitable markets as time goes on. Its ok that the US spends too much, it's probably been good for the world.

I see people sometimes use Fetterman as an attack vector against progressives/leftists who originally endorsed him, citing his support of republicans as an example of what happens when progressive/leftist endorsed candidates are elected. Unless I’m misunderstanding the argument, I find this to be a bit unfair.

He ran for senate as a *very* bog-standard progressive and came from humble beginnings as mayor of a poor small town outside Pittsburgh. His flip to defending MAGA and sabotaging the Democratic Party just seems like a rare unexpected turn that I don’t see many other progressive politicians do. In fact, this type of straying from party lines is something that feels much more common with centrist Democrats (for obvious reasons) such as Manchin, Sinema, or Lieberman.

Sure, some leftists online were smug about Fetterman getting elected at one point in time, but they were probably smug about AOC too who’s now a shining star Democrat. They were also smug about Mamdani who seems like the absolute best politician that the DSA could possibly offer.

I guess I just don’t understand using Fetterman as some shining example of progressive/leftist endorsed candidates when he’s clearly the exception.

Common talking point I'm hearing in the trenches is that the vice president kicked Steven and dgg members out because they had enough reason to independently believe that they were going to harass Hasan. I find this uncompelling, but I'm curious if there is concrete evidence I can link people to in order to dismiss this silly talking point.

To the people saying it's just "wasting time" going after tankies and the far left right now, that every ounce of energy needs to be pointed at Trump and MAGA and nothing else. I want to push back on that as someone from the other side of the fence, because in my opinion this is a mistake you CANNOT afford to be making right now.

First, I'm a right-wing conservative, the older kind, the kind that actually holds the core American fundamental liberal beliefs. Free speech, rule of law, individual liberty, checks and balances. That's my foundation and it hasn't moved.

And I hate MAGA. I want to be clear on that. I hate everything they stand for, the weak spines, the pathetic lies, the cognitive dissonance. Watching people that preached principles at me for a decade throw every single one of them away for one man has been one of the most disgusting things I've ever watched in politics. I'm never voting for that party again in my life time at this rate.

So where do people like me go? That's the question, and there are A LOT more of us then you think. Politically homeless conservative-libs, independents, normal people that got burned by MAGA and want nothing to do with it anymore. Over these next few years this group is going to be looking for a home, and its probably the biggest group of completely disenfranchised voters in the country right now.

Here's the problem though. We will not find that home in the Democratic party if its infested with commie far left tankies running the spaces. I'm sorry but that's just reality. You can't ask a patriotic conservative-liberal to walk into a room where the loudest voices hate the country itself and think some flavor of communism is the answer. It's the same broken thinking as MAGA just pointed in the other direction, and people like me smell it instantly.

I'll vote blue no matter who with the current administration in power I'll do it in almost any case, nose held or not. But that's only gets you so far. It gets you me. It doesn't get you the millions still sitting on the fence deciding if either party even wants them.

If you want to actually capture that group going forward you NEED to get back to traditional liberalism that has a love for country, that's patriotic and respectable, that a normal working conservative can look at and go "ok, I don't agree with everything here but these are serious people." That's what will work. Not whatever the tankies are selling.

"But, Trump is the actual threat, focus there"... yes, agreed, 100%. He is the priority and I'm not saying take the foot off that gas even a little. But cleaning your own house is part of fighting him, not a distraction from it. Every space the far left runs unchallenged is another pile of fence sitters that stay home or drift right back to the thing you're fighting. This IS how you combat Trump right now, it's a key element of it. It needs to be a balance, but ignoring it completely because "only MAGA matters" is a strategic mistake.

Anyway, that's my perspective from someone with no home right now. Take it or leave it.

TL;DR: Never-Trump conservative here. There are millions of us politically homeless right now and we're up for grabs, but we won't move to a party run by tankies. Fighting the far left cancer isn't a distraction from fighting Trump, it's part of how you beat him. Balance both.

EDIT: This is not supposed to come off as a lecture, it's supposed to come off as a highlight to the insane opportunity the Democrats have to capture a massive amount of new voters from someone on the other side of things politically and to not let the far-left poison that chance. I hope it happens and I hope I can find a home in the Democrat party as such.

So, im referring to this YouGov poll from January 2017

And one of the questions here is ''Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President'', where 22% of Democrats said definitely true, and 36% saying probably true. (also there was a follow up poll in like 2018 and the number had sank, but only by like 6% IIRC)

Now the explanation that i came to when i was debating someone about this particular poll was something of the lines of:

We had all those Russian interference stories be blasted 24/7, people hearing ''Hacked election'' (referring to the DNC hacks) and other stories involving anything to do with ''Russians hacked the election'', its possible that at the height of all of these stories, that just normal ass Democrats heard this and assumed ''Oh wow, Russians actually hacked our voting machines'', along with it being a bad question, (even 20% of Republicans answering that they believed they hacked it)

And i think thats a pretty okay explanation, but im just thinking about it again, and im pretty politically active, and i have been since like 2014, and i dont think i've ever seen a Democrat, even at the height of the russian stories, ever claim that that election was actually hacked into and vote tallies were flipped?

I know its anecdotal, but like, does anyone else understand what im getting at here? The fact that the number in that poll is 58% of Democrats thinking it was literally hacked into and vote tallies were flipped is just insane to me, the number being that high is so shocking to me, because i genuinely have never met anyone personally that shared this opinion, i've never seen anyone in any sort of political debate say this, i've never even seen some random dipshit reddit comment recite an opinion like this.

Is there an explanation about how this number might just be incorrect? Because, not to be a data-denier or whatever, i just feel like this number fucking has to be incorrect, because its so crazy to me that over half of Democrats apparently believed this?

(This is a repost because i didnt feel like i got a good answer a few weeks back)

Nicely I see many of the same posters here from the SH sub. The reason Sam fearmongering about Mamdani is funny to answer the questions lots of you raised, away from the civil war atmosphere in the SH sub I'm not looking to get dragged into:

Mamdani is seen as a Kaffir by the Muslim community. Kufr (disbelief) is unanimously agreed upon across all schools of thought within normative Islam. A quick primer for those not raised Muslim

1. A man goes out every night and has gay sex with his lover is not committing kufr, he's vomitting a major sin. He's a Muslim and he is to be regarded as such, buried amongst the Muslims given a janazah etc.

2. A man prays 5 times a day, has never had sex outside his marriage, is extremely dedicated to his religious obligations but he says homosexuality isn't immoral. He instantly becomes a non Muslim for denying something known by necessity in the religion, he commits kufr Akbar and he is to be regarded as an apostate not to be buried with the Muslims and not to be prayed over or given a funeral.

Ok so Mamdani in the US, Hamza yousaf the Scottish ex PM, Saddiq khan, Maajid nawaz. All the people I see fear mongering over online are regarded as kuffar. They are deemed open apostates, they are reviled by the Muslim community. They are supported by a bunch of leftists and "cultural Muslims" who see Islam as some brown identity but are not believers in the same way Richard Dawkins is a Christian.

It's genuinely very very funny for people raised religiously Muslim who became Sam fans and then heard him speak about these kinds of situations and realised he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

For an example of how far away from Islamism Mamdani is, the most well known liberal sufi islamic scholars in the UK came out and called him a zindiq. That's like a female Anglican priest calling you way too progressive to be considered a Christian.

I get everyone has blind spots and it's hard to really understand a religious movement from outside it unless you autistic ally read fiqh and aqeedah books for fun which no one in Sam's audience is doing, but it's do ridiculous it would actually make you laugh if you understood how silly it is.

It's the equivalent of calling Obama a communist. Lots of moronic republicans genuinely believed it. Anyone here would obviously find that hillarious but know how delusional it is, for a clear frame of reference.

This dude was always such a chill and respectful guy. I wish he was still around making content and providing a nice guy chilled out perspective. He's probably out there saving lives or whatever and good for him.

I was thinking of a scenario where Republicans manage to nominate a moderate New England kind of Republican (Romney, Susan Collins, Charlie Baker etc). Would the Republican Party do far better in elections? And how will Democrats respond to that challenge? Collins do far better than median republican relative to partisanship of the state, can this theory work nationally?

I personally think it would be very good for the country if Republican Party goes this route, but how national politics might change? According to Polls, Republican in Minnesota are on track to nominate Mike Lindell, so this might be a dream for Republicans to get moderate.

The 2016 polls of a John Kasich-Hillary Clinton race? He would have crushed her.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2016/kasich-vs-clinton

Title^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^

(I can't figure out Kick's timestamp shit, but most of this happens around 09h 08m 40s minutes in the vod)

And thank allah for that, you guys are so brain broken that when Hasan muddies the water and brings up social democracy, all of you go "looooool socdems are based capitalists!!!!!!" you're just playing into his hands. It's not that simple, and you should stop using the term if you're not willing to do 5 minutes of reading into the ideology. Even the social democratic party is slowly moving away from their own ideology (which is a good thing).

I have no clue what "social housing" Hasan is refering to since he likes to make shit up, there's something called "allmännyttan" which boils down to construction companies owned by local governments building shit, often for students that require you to be enrolled in uni to live there. These are all rent controlled out the ass, but they are not remotely close to being free. It shouldn't need to be stated, but rent control is and always has been a disaster, not only is there a black market where people will rent out their rent controlled unit, in certain places there are 3rd hand contracts, meaning the rent controlled unit gets rented out (often illegally btw) to a second person at DOUBLE the rent controlled price, who then rents it out to a third person at an even higher price.

Making sure there's housing for studens and shit? Cool, but that has nothing to do with social democracy. Rent controlling everything and fearmongering about how "market rents" would make half the country homeless, and the only reason people would want to loosen up rent control for new construction is because they're paid off? Not cool.

Nation wide there was "miljonprogrammet" which aimed to build a million homes over however many years. There's a ton of research about this that I cba to dig into, but surprise surprise, it was mishandled at every step, some had to be torn down, and to this day the vast majority of these units are in dire need of renovation while the people living there can't afford a rent increase. Again, these are not free, they were just mass produced slabs of concrete with corners being cut at every opportunity, and then rent controlled on top of that.

Hasan goes on to read some tweet about how social democratic parties were socialists and that's why these countries are based and commiepilled. THEY WERE (and some still are) SOCIALISTS, and they work with the actual socialist commie loser party. But as I said, they have been moving away from marxist slop, even though their official party program still has loads of it. Literally the first section says this, google translated because I'm lazy:

"The goal of democratic socialism is a society based on solidarity, in which all people participate and live free and equal lives. It is a society founded on duty and right, where everyone contributes according to ability and receives according to need."

There's way more, but as I said, this is in large part a larp or nostalgia baiting, and they've ran further and further away from those policies. My problem with you cucks is that you will rightfully make fun of Hasan and others who claim everything good that exists today is thanks to socialism / socialists, but then you will unironically do the same thing but you replace socialism with social democracy and pretend they're entirely seperate.

I'll leave yall with my favorite meme about the socialist experiment, this one wiki article doesn't do it justice but you'll get the general idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds

tldr: they wanted to forcefully take over every company of a certain size and above, regardless if they were publicly traded or not. Quite literally handing over the means of production to the workers. The final version that eventually got implemented was relatively toothless, but at that point, several big companies including Ikea, H&M, and Tetra Pak had all fucked off because of this shit.

tldrtldr: Liberal democracy >>>>>>>>>>>>> social democuckery

Get snarked ninjas.

just wondering if there’s an actual reason why the gaming and the stuff we are actively watching isn’t swapped

I came across an Aba and Preach video reacting to a 20v1 manosphere video, and it was annoying as hell.

I'm getting tired of this "positive masculinity" crap on the left.

Even Destiny falls into this trap sometimes.

Every conversation about men's issues somehow turns into fixing men for women. It rarely focuses on helping men for their own sake. The constant "men need better role models" talking point misses the point. It's usually just traditional masculinity repackaged with progressive language.

The goal is still to make men into better providers or even protectors. It's still about what society or women want from men. Not what actually benefits men themselves. Then they act like men's dating struggles mostly come down to attitude.

As if women are only attracted to men who are nice and like them. That's obviously not the whole story. Looks, status, assertiveness, and success matter too. Ignoring that reality just gaslights young men.

The "manosphere guys secretly hate women because they're gay" joke is just stupid too. It's a lazy stereotype that ends up being homophobic. I don't know why people on the left think that's progressive. It's no different than using "gay" as an insult. That shouldn't be acceptable.

The irony is that the left and the manosphere end up doing the same thing.

Both obsess over how men should change to get female approval.

They just package it differently.

One calls it becoming "high value."

The other calls it "positive masculinity."

I think boys need to be taught something completely different.Teach them that their self-worth isn't tied to female validation.Teach them to build confidence and purpose for themselves. Men don't exist to meet women's expectations.

That's why I think this approach to men's issues will never work.

Edit: Young boys*

So before the Star Wars sequel trilogy mark Hamill was old and kinda chubby, not like fat but definitely dad bod, his trainer got him into killer shape for that trash sequel trilogy. Kumail Nanjiani before that crappy forgettable marvel movie was similar, just a normal attainable body but they whipped him into shape so now he is like ripped.

Sure I could do the work myself but having a personal trainer helps. I know it’s expensive and I’m a brokie but just imagine how much bank I can make when I become moderately attractive and say stupid political shit.

Join the stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYXGzSYMMqQ

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

USEFUL LINKS

• THE VAULT: Check out past guest appearances, podcasts, and live events
• STREAM/VOD LINKS: Youtube | Kick | Spotify | Vyneer | Tiktok |
• LWOD: Become a loremaster
• DESTINY NOTES: Obsidian Repository
• OFFICIAL SCHEDULE: See what's coming up
• DGG VIDEO GAME: DGGWare
• DGG WIKI: Explore all things Destiny
• DESTINY MERCHANDISE: Official Store Link

DESTINY'S OFFICIAL PODCAST LINKS

• Destiny Debates and Discussions: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | RSS
• Anything Else: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | RSS

________________________________________________________

SOCIALS

• Twitter
• Twitter Community: The Daliban
• BlueSky
• Instagram
• Discord
• Threads
• Facebook

________________________________________________________

MINECRAFT SERVER AND EVENTS DISCORD

• [Server IP] - mc.destiny.gg
• DGG Minecraft Website
• Events Discord

________________________________________________________

Many thanks to:

• valdebich amazing Last Week on Destiny breakdowns

________________________________________________________

APPEALING A BAN

Disclaimer: Subreddit mods are not able to unban or influence ban status on any other platform.

• Subreddit bans: Message the Modmail - or simply respond to your ban message.
• Discord bans: Complete this form
• DGG Chat bans: Complete this form
• Kick bans: Complete this form
• YouTube bans: Complete this form

I think some people here are making a strategic mistake.

When Bill Maher spends years criticizing illiberalism on the left, that's useful.

If Laura Loomer is genuinely moving toward a more pro-Ukraine position, that's useful too.

Not because either of them is joining the DGG coalition. They're obviously not.

But politics isn't won because everyone joins the same team. It's won because different people influence different audiences.

Destiny isn't going to convince every MAGA voter.

Bill Maher isn't going to convince Hasan's audience.

Laura Loomer isn't going to convince progressives.

But each of them can move their own slice of the political map in ways we simply can't.

That's why I think the instinct to purity-test everyone is backwards.

If your long-term goal is pushing back against authoritarianism, antisemitism, or communist apologism, why would you reject people who are independently pulling parts of the electorate away from those ideas?

Military strategists have understood this forever. The easiest enemy to defeat is the one that's losing manpower. Every defector is one less person reinforcing the other side.

The goal isn't to get everyone into one giant coalition.

The goal is to create enough independent pressure from enough different directions that the Hasan communist DSA types start losing ground.

Highlighted the part that jumped out at me. did nick fuentes speech to text this article?

Important disclaimer: ghandi and the most influential and successful Indian independence groups were NOT pro-Nazi.

Hitler and the Nazis funded for ulterior motives some Indian independence groups to help destabilize India during WWII

But according to hasan there is no such thing as bad Allies so the Indians who allied with the Nazis are good

Edit: also the USA never trafficked babies in WWII so Hasan invoking bad U.S. actions doesn’t match with Houthi support

Edit 2: slavery was over by the time of WWII, damn I wish I was moderately attractive so I could be mediocre political streamer

Genuinely curious. I feel like that was the big fear right. And now like after a few months I feel like people slowly started backing off that.

Excited for this one. Did anyone catch Andrew’s Palestine vids so far? I’ve found them really insightful.

There was a post that I saw this morning called "Jessiah vs DGGers" and while it's a small snippet of a few twitter exchanges, I just wanted to share a few quick thoughts. First off I just want to say I don't think this community overall is acting like crazy unhinged, I don't even think those comments were like that crazy overall, and to be clear too, I'm not telling anybody to libcuck out, attack the extreme left, go hard. However, if we're trying to get more people to speak up and speak out about the crazy insurgent left, we need to have a bit more strategy, if we're just acting as sycophantic, which I don't think we are to be clear, but I'm just saying if we start acting like Hasan and brigading people then why would people want to side with us? I don't think calling Jessiah regarded on X is helpful.

Jessiah watches D's stream regularly, and yeah I agree, I think he should make a video talking about the CDA thing, when I saw how Whick responded to Jessiah in that exchange, vs some of the other people, it's obvious who's being more effective and persuasive. I went and left a comment on Pakman's video yesterday, and gave him praise for speaking up, but also gave him a bit of criticism for his response being a little bit meek IMO, but I didn't just call him regarded, I laid out what I felt like was a reasonable criticism.

If our goal is to get people on our side, and encourage them to speak up and call out Hasan those types of lefties, then our interactions with others, especially with other creators needs to reflect that goal. I'm really not worried about Jessiah to be clear, I think he can dish it and take it just fine, he's familiar with DGG. Overall though, I just think it's important to keep the goal in mind.