Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Evander Kane files for Bankruptcy

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I am not sure what you mean by this exactly but if it means how engaged NBA players are politically. Let's put it this way a lot of NBA stars stepped up in speaking out against racism and supported the BLM movement. And they also helped with the infrastructure in making more people go out and vote. This resulted in one of the highest voting turn outs in US election history. Regardless what side of the political side you are, having more people engaged in the election process is a good thing and the influence of NBA players was instrumental in this. 

 

Now there are things I am not a fan of in the NBA. Like players having too much leverage over the teams, but I don't think it should be like the NFL either where it's the other way around. I think there should be more balance. And I was also disappointed how the NBA (players, execs, team, and the league) responded to the whole Hong Kong / China situation and it made them look hypocritical. 

 

But there's no denying the positive impact they have within the community especially for disenfranchised minorities in the United States.

 

so a multi-millionaire who lives in a gate community but emulates a "gangsta" persona is a good role model for kids of ANY colour living in what are often quite desperate situations?   Like everything, there was a sincerity to BLM but at the core all of these things become divisive.    If some of these NBA players could instead talk about balance and the realities facing the very people who idolize them, in particular disadvantaged youth of ANY colour, then some positive steps can be taken.   You see the present trend as positive - I don't.    I will be able to deal with that.    Cheers.    :)

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I am not sure what you mean by this exactly but if it means how engaged NBA players are politically. Let's put it this way a lot of NBA stars stepped up in speaking out against racism and supported the BLM movement. And they also helped with the infrastructure in making more people go out and vote. This resulted in one of the highest voting turn outs in US election history. Regardless what side of the political side you are, having more people engaged in the election process is a good thing and the influence of NBA players was instrumental in this. 

 

Now there are things I am not a fan of in the NBA. Like players having too much leverage over the teams, but I don't think it should be like the NFL either where it's the other way around. I think there should be more balance. And I was also disappointed how the NBA (players, execs, team, and the league) responded to the whole Hong Kong / China situation and it made them look hypocritical. 

 

But there's no denying the positive impact they have within the community especially for disenfranchised minorities in the United States.

The thing is, a person can do good things while also doing bad things. The question has to then be asked, does what the person does for the greater good outweigh that person's faults? At the very least, I would argue that it brings a person being deemed "good" down to more of a grey area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 5:38 PM, Phil_314 said:

Yikes... not to mention how state and Federal tax in California amounts to around 50% of his gross salary... so each year he brings home around $3.4 million... then he's got this albatross in his personal life to deal with...

Not related to Kane but woah. 

50%?! 

Yet their homeless problem gets worse and worse every day and people are fleeing California. 

How is that state even operating? Pretty ridiculous. :picard:

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, PetterssonOrPeterson said:

and people are fleeing California. 

https://www.macrotrends.net/states/california/population#:~:text=California - Historical Population Data , 0.48% 81 more rows

 

  • The population of California in 2020 was 39,368,078, a 0.18% decline from 2019.
  • The population of California in 2019 was 39,437,610, a 0% increase from 2018.
  • The population of California in 2018 was 39,437,463, a 0.25% increase from 2017.
  • The population of California in 2017 was 39,337,785, a 0.48% increase from 2016.

.18% decline " people fleeing"??

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 8:22 PM, I.Am.Ironman said:

If I could be president Ironman with a billion dollars, sure. But let's be real here, being the POTUS is a $&!#e job with $&!#e hours, $&!#e autonomy and $&!#e coworkers but a good pension. I suppose I'd also know the truth about aliens, which would be cool.

 

But would I want to be president trump right now? An untrustworthy, self serving, narcissistic billionaire in legal trouble who has failed 330 million of his countrymen and women amidst a global pandemic, while also having the most time to plan, in his last year of a disastrous single term tenure that will likely go down as the worst presidential administration in history and I am only liked by uneducated hill billies? Nah I'm good.

Most entertaining president ever. I've loved every second of it. Sad to see him go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, gurn said:

https://www.macrotrends.net/states/california/population#:~:text=California - Historical Population Data , 0.48% 81 more rows

 

  • The population of California in 2020 was 39,368,078, a 0.18% decline from 2019.
  • The population of California in 2019 was 39,437,610, a 0% increase from 2018.
  • The population of California in 2018 was 39,437,463, a 0.25% increase from 2017.
  • The population of California in 2017 was 39,337,785, a 0.48% increase from 2016.

.18% decline " people fleeing"??

Sure, when you consider births are still happening, any decline is significant.  This is the first time there was any decline in CA since 1900, where the tracking starts on this site.  California is already looking at losing a House seat and an electoral college vote.  If they can't find a way to keep people here, it's only going to get worse.

 

And, it's important to look at who is leaving (and taking their money/jobs with them).  As the fine people representing us in Sacramento keep chasing out businesses, what's that going to do for the state?  Tesla, Oracle, Chevron, HP, Charles Schwab, Toyota, Spectrum, Nestle... going or already gone.  And that's barely the tip of the iceberg.  And, with all the WFH experience, techies in Silicon Valley can keep their jobs but work elsewhere, further reducing future tax revenue.

 

I've been here over 20 years, and can hardly wait to leave for a more friendly state.

 

"Fleeing" may be putting it strongly, but for such an important state, and compared to who is gaining (TX is looking to gain 3 house seats/EC votes), the powers-that-be have some issues to deal with.  But they don't care, really.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...