Where do you think that I think that slavery started?
The 'occupation' of slave might be older than the 'occupation' of prostitute.
I don't think that where it started is an argument for anything.
I just see the end as a huge step in the development of humanity.
The ones who gain from distorting the truth, are very likely disagreeing with me.

Communism means centralized government ownership.
Socialism means publicly controlled and publicly owned.
Capitalism means owned by a small minority of wealthy people.

Ownership means power. Why do you want to give all the power away to wealthy people?

The last remaining systems that are any good in your country are publicly funded.
Almost everything that has been privatized has turned to shit for the users and a
tool to extract money from the pockets of the users into the pockets of the owners.

"before it gets out of control." OMG you crazy person, there is hardly any communism
or socialism left. Almost everything has been capitalized.
You are lucky that you don't have to pay some company for the air you are breathing YET.

Have you considered how capitalism could get out of control?
Tell me what that would look like. Show me that you have the mental exploration power.

Integration does involve change, but change is not the same as cultural loss. Throughout history, immigrant communities have often preserved their language, traditions, food, religion, and values while also participating fully in the societies they joined. Integration is about learning to function within a shared civic framework, not erasing one's identity.
In many countries, cultures have evolved and become richer through the exchange
of ideas, customs, and traditions. The real challenge is balancing social cohesion with cultural diversity, not choosing one at the expense of the other.

One passage is doing more than talking about "culture", it is primarily arguing for representation, familiarity, and a sense of belonging. Notice the examples the author gives:
- Reading books by Black authors.
- Watching films made by or about Black people.
- Attending a historically Black church.
- Making Blackness feel like "home" rather than something encountered once a year.

Their culture from Africa was already taken from them, by the slave owners. What is considered black culture, has only developed during that period and what came after. The black church is Christian, a religion that was forced upon them. Gospel music comes from slaves who were singing while doing backbreaking work, to make it more bearable. Their food traditions ("soul food") comes from the skill of making animal feed edible.

The article says: "Please, for the love of all things holy, don’t let your child’s exposure to Black culture begin and end with Black History Month.". I agree with that. They should be represented every day of the year.
Meanwhile, your administration is trying to erase not just Black History Month, but every book by a black author or with a black character in it. You are trying to erase their history in your country. Your administration is kicking out black people from all leadership positions and trying to make it impossible for them to elect black representation.
You want to completely erase their own identity, while you simultaneously expect them to accept that they don't have the same value as you. You want them to accept that American history is WHITE history. That's what you mean with "the loss of their culture".

I beg to differ with that. Why should a company waste it's time investing in you with raises and promotions if they know you are going to leave in 3 years? it would be a bad investment for them to do so.That is why a contract would be a good thing. For the company to invest in you, you have to invest in the company with your time. Want raises and promotions ,sign a contract that you will give them 15 years service and etc. I can't blame companies for not doing the same any more. people quit and change jobs at the drop of a hat nowadays. and when they get old, they won't have shit for retirement and will be looking for the government to bail them out

Well I agree with him on this issue, but at the same time why are adults playing "games" anyway? the world has really sunk to a new low when adults are playing the part of a cartoon. Put that energy into something good,mow the lawn, wash the car,learn new things, playing a digital video game is mind numbing,and sadly to many peoples minds are numb already

Here's a fact check of your hit piece:

Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verdict
NYC's grid faces serious challenges --------------------------- Supported
Heat waves expose reliability issues --------------------------- Supported
New York needs major infrastructure investment ---------- Supported
Mamdani alone "helped cause" the grid's problems -------- Poorly supported / overstated
Mamdani is responsible for decades of underinvestment -- Not supported
Mamdani is against investing in the grid ----------------------- Not supported

The article argues that because Mamdani supported New York's 2019 climate law and other progressive energy policies, he bears responsibility for today's grid problems.

There are several problems with your article:

1. The timing doesn't fit.
The grid is old because much of it was built decades ago.
New York has underinvested in transmission and modernization for many years under governors, legislatures, regulators, utilities, and market operators from both parties.
That cannot reasonably be attributed to one assembly member who entered office in 2021.

2. The 2019 climate law was passed before Mamdani took office.
The article says he "defended" the law. That's true.
But he did not write or pass it as a legislator, it became law BEFORE he was sworn into the Assembly.
Supporting an existing law is different from being responsible for creating today's infrastructure.

3. Grid reliability is influenced by many actors.
These include:
- the state legislature
- the governor
- the New York State Public Service Commission
- Con Edison
- New York Independent System Operator
- federal regulators
- local permitting
- utilities' capital investment decisions
Assigning primary blame to a single state legislator is an oversimplification.

Question: "Is Mamdani investing in the power grid?"
As mayor, Mamdani does not directly control New York's electric grid.
Most major grid investment decisions are made by:
- Con Edison
- NYISO
- the Public Service Commission
- the governor
- the state legislature
- federal agencies
The mayor has only indirect influence through:
- permitting
- city-owned buildings
- climate planning
- advocacy
- zoning
So asking whether Mamdani himself is "investing in the grid" is a bit like asking whether a mayor is personally expanding the interstate highway system. He can support projects, but he doesn't control the primary investment decisions.

Question: Is he advocating for grid investment?
Generally, yes, but not in the way the article implies.
Mamdani has consistently argued for:
- expanded renewable energy,
- building electrification,
- public investment,
- cleaner electricity,
- public ownership of some energy infrastructure.
Critics argue these policies increase demand before enough supply is built.
Supporters argue they require more grid investment, not less, and that public investment should accelerate transmission and clean generation.
So it's inaccurate to say he opposes investment in the grid. The disagreement is over what kind of grid should be built and how quickly the transition should occur.

The article is an opinion piece, not a news report, and its central rhetorical move is to connect a real infrastructure problem to Mamdani's broader political agenda. There are reasonable criticisms one can make of his energy policies, for example, that aggressive electrification should be paired with faster additions of reliable generation and transmission, but saying that he "helped cause" New York's longstanding grid problems overstates both his role and his authority.

By the way, they grid problems in Houston and Dallas–Fort Worth are worse.

Across much of the U.S., one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity demand, and a major source of new grid stress, is the rapid expansion of AI and cloud data centers.

In Northern Virginia, Dallas–Fort Worth, and parts of Ohio, data centers are indeed among the biggest drivers of new electricity demand.
In New York City, Phoenix, and Los Angeles, peak air-conditioning demand during heat waves remains a larger source of grid stress today, although data centers are adding to overall demand.
Nationally, grid operators point to a combination of data center growth, electrification (EVs and heat pumps), population growth, industrial expansion, aging infrastructure, and increasingly frequent extreme weather as the main pressures.

I remember you saying once: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", related to your third world electricity grid.

When Joe Biden campaigned for president and originally introduced his legislative proposal in early 2021, the comprehensive program was called "The American Jobs Plan". The original program proposed a massive overall investment of $2.3 trillion. It was designed to be a sweeping transformation of the U.S. economy, heavily focused on climate change, green energy, and the electrical grid. This included $100 billion specifically to modernize the power grid to allow the transition to clean energy.
Because of a split Senate and pushback from Republicans, who objected to the high cost, the bill had to be heavily watered down to gain bipartisan support.
The compromise law was named the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It provided $1.2 trillion in total spending ($550 billion of which was brand-new federal spending).
The Power Grid ($65 billion): This survived as the single largest investment in clean energy transmission and electric grid reliability in U.S. history, designed to build thousands of miles of new high-voltage power lines to connect wind and solar farms to cities.

Immediately upon taking office, President Donald Trump aggressively pivoted away from Joe Biden’s green energy policies to favor fossil fuels and nuclear power. He issued the "Unleashing American Energy" Executive Order, which froze billions in undisbursed funds from both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Following this, his administration passed his signature tax legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which effectively dismantled or accelerated the expiration of most Biden-era clean energy tax incentives.

Private Sector Data Center Pressures: While federal funding for a "green" grid has vanished, the massive energy demand driven by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) boom has forced tech hyperscalers to continue heavily investing private capital into regional grid upgrades.

Basic Maintenance Appropriations: Under the power of the purse, Congress preserved bare-minimum funding for fundamental, non-partisan physical grid repairs and grid-hardening against extreme weather, though heavily divorced from any zero-carbon goals.

CONCLUSION:
You are blaming ONE mayor who you hate, for something that is a NATIONAL problem, which is mostly created by Republican's refusal to invest in your electricity grid.

📜 Barack Obama (2009–2017): Modernization & Green Energy
Obama focused on preparing the power grid for renewable energy integration.
• $4.5 billion in federal stimulus (via the 2009 Recovery Act), which was matched by private companies to create a total investment of over $8 billion.
• This funding went directly toward deploying digital "Smart Grid" technologies, including installing smart meters in millions of homes.
• He fast-tracked federal permitting to build massive, interstate transmission lines designed to carry wind and solar power.

🛠️ Donald Trump (2017–2021): Fossil Fuels & Grid Stability
Trump completely shifted the focus toward traditional energy sources and repealed Obama's climate regulations.
• He introduced no major new federal multi-billion-dollar funds specifically for green grid expansion.
• Instead, the administration focused on deregulation and financial support to keep aging coal and nuclear plants online to protect the grid's "baseload" (baseline capacity).
• Federal permitting processes were redirected to accelerate traditional fossil fuel infrastructure, such as oil and gas pipelines.

The administration views energy through the lens of policy, while the market views it through the lens of profit. The Trump administration uses federal policy to keep older, traditional power plants running because they provide steady, 24/7 power. However, private companies and utility providers are driven strictly by the bottom line. Because wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of new energy ever invented, the private sector keeps building them anyway, not for political reasons, but because they make the most financial sense.

This misalignment is precisely what causes severe, systemic stress on the power grid. It creates a structural mismatch between where electricity is being made (the market) and where the physical infrastructure is being built to move it (government policy).

The market is flooding the system with cheap solar and wind proposals, but because federal approvals for large interstate transmission lines have been slowed down, there are not enough physical wires to connect them. This has created a massive 2,600 gigawatt backlog of energy projects waiting in line just to plug into the grid.Clean energy developers are facing average wait times of five years (and up to 12 years in some regions) to get a connection. The market wants to supply cheap power, but the infrastructure is physically legally bottlenecked.

CONCLUSION:
Just like you once proposed, the market is solving climate change. The problem is that your shortsighted administration is trying to keep financially obsolete technology alive.

That's because he fires off 5-10 fallacies per minute
and it is impossible to address all of them in limited time.



[A fallacy is a mistaken belief, misconception, or a flaw in reasoning that undermines the logical validity of an argument. It is an error in logic that makes an argument unsound, even if the conclusion happens to be true. People may use fallacies intentionally or unintentionally, but they can mislead others by making flawed arguments seem valid.]

In most clips he is debating students, not skilled debaters like himself.
And he was known for cutting up his debates in clips where he thought he was winning
and leaving out all the bits where he is losing. He gave himself a 3/0 advantage, and then you comment how difficult is was to debate with him. Sure, professional grifters are indeed hard to beat in a debate, but their ideas are not. That's why he needed all those tricks.

Sometimes Charlie got crushed by students, but he never showed those parts in the clips. The real problems with his argumentation only show up in a careful analysis. Because his pace was always so high, he never showed any weakness, and most people are not trained in recognizing fallacies, he can still look good firing off completely faulty and dishonest arguments. If you get the time to think about it, or an analyst takes you through all the fallacies, Charlie completely unravels.
only registered users can see external links

I honestly had never heard of the man till he was shot. But there again, it seems only those that actually try to find common ground, or at least attempt to fix things, are the 1's that die. Look back at Kennedy, Reagon,Trump ,and others that go against the liberal narrative to upset the profitable apple cart . All shot at and or dead.